Strategic Leadership: Evaluating the Leader

In the small unit he had commanded, everyone knew him, loved him, and trusted him, and he was a success at his work. But with a larger unit, his mistrustfulness, his air of gloom, and his silence prevented him from being successful. Events proved clearly that he was only another example that every leader has his limitations, which are fixed not only by his intelligence and his learning, but to a great extend by his personality.

General Aleksei A. Bursilov
Soldier’s Notebook

In both the private and public sector, organizational effectiveness is attained through the ability of an executive to adapt to strategic environments while integrating the functions and processes within the organization. This is a function of executive flexibility and emerges from the cognitive, behavioral, and dispositional characteristics of the executive. The integration of these characteristics is to provide a mosaic of strengths and weaknesses that are compared and contrasted with the performance requirements specified by various theoretical practices that an organization operates by in order to attain a clear picture of developmental growth.

In theory, the evaluation of cognitive, behavioral, and dispositional characteristics seems like a great way to address organizational change issues and dimensions. Measuring an individual’s developmental progress as it relates to their ability to effectively and efficiently function in their work life would seem like a great idea. Scientific studies have shown that tools such as BenchMarks, Strong’s, and other leadership and developmental tools are available on the market through companies such as HW Associates. These tools measure individual levels of success and challenges through the use of an extended network of raters. Each of these tools measures the level of perceived success or challenge that an executive faces based upon evaluations by internal and external raters. What happens when a program is developed and put into place to benefit the executives within the organization to measure their individual development and development as part of the team? Yet, what occurs when an executive faces the challenge of resistance within their realm of Strategic Leadership?

A measure of the leadership skills of executives at all levels can be seen based upon the level of resistance the executive faces when implementing programs to benefit employees. Many organizations forget one cardinal rule that must be attained prior to implementing any change program or a program that will challenge the level of job and personal security one feels within an organization. This simple rule is: Create Buy-in for the process. Many organizations make the mistake of basically telling employees that they WILL participate in this or that without ASKING the employee’s opinion. By locking the employee out of the initial process, management creates an impression that the employee lacks value to the organization (amongst other things). The process that will be attempted is often fraught with employees who attempt to derail the process because of their personal issues. They create chaos where chaos does not need to reside. Examples of this include employees who provide multiple objections to a particular aspect of a process by citing ‘personal reasons’ or other rationales that back a manager into the corner. This, as the manager begins to believe that the employee is correct and the employee’s points are valid all the while unconsciously participating in the derailment of the process. The process will become derailed as a result of the employee not buying into the process of change through developmental activities. The employee will create chaos and the manager will begin to buy into the chaos as part of the process of change; never quite understanding what actually happened.

There are several steps to counteract the behavior. First, do not simply ‘act’ through the seat of your pants to respond to the employee’s concern. Continue to support the initiative while addressing the employee’s concerns. Continue to be solution focused as you respond to the concern. Coordinate the issue with the facilitator involved. Do not become part of the problem become part of the solution. Each of the assessment tools mentioned require a level of personal information be provided to the facilitator in order to accurately assess the individual and organization. Support the process by supporting the facilitator’s decision and requests. As professionals, no request will be too outlandish to complete the process of evaluation. Acceptable loss should not equate to continued loss of opportunities for growth.

Sometimes, when a consultant or a manager continues to experience employee resistance to a process there may be another tactic that is implemented to counter the negative behavior. By this point there is most likely a tug of war going on that has nothing to do with the actual issue of completing the required assessment or complying with the request. The employee may be attempting to move the process into another realm or dimension in order to derail the process while the manager attempts to move in a different direction; thus the tug of war. To escape this impasse, the manager will ‘put down his end of the rope’ that acknowledges the rationale for the resistance to the process while aligning the manager’s goals with the employee’s goals. Thus, in most cases, taking the employee’s resistance for the process away through the process of validation or reframing.

Another method of taking away resistance is known in the psychology field as ‘spitting in…the soup’ (Dreikurs, 1967). In this metaphor, the manager does not take away the soup (the behavior or concern), rather the manager will make the soup distasteful for the employee by reframing its meaning (thus spitting). By spitting in the employee’s soup, the issue is reframed so that reason for the behavior is rendered distasteful. By spitting in the employee’s soup, the behavior or concern will become aligned with the organizational goal through the recognition that more is going on than the actual issue that has been brought out. This is also known as the paradoxical message.

Through the goal of derailment, the employee is able to attain a level of superiority over the process that others have not or choose not to attain. The goal of derailment is a paradoxical message that is counterproductive to the goals of the organization and the healthy functioning of the employee. By understanding the goals of the ‘misbehavior’, the facilitator directly points out the goals through direct questioning and challenges to the actual goal. To counter this negative behavior, often the facilitator will need to provide a series of direct questions that seem to agree or disagree with the individual’s belief theories. The facilitator may challenge the employee’s stance in a private or public forum that is actually a form of spitting in the employee’s soup. This challenge to one’s belief system is the process by which a facilitator creates an understanding of the goals of the ‘misbehavior’. By developing an understanding of the ‘misbehavior’; the true issues are developed and addressed through a one to one conversation. These coachable moments will exist where the employee’s goals become aligned with the organizational goals of development.

Evaluation of a leader involves more than a surface evaluation by a few managers. It involves looking at the global picture of who the leader is in his/her private and public life. Creating buy-in for the process is only the first step of many in the journey towards developmental change.
For more information on strategic leadership or other topics; please feel free to contact us at http://www.hwassociates.us.

The Art of Negotiations:
Walk Softly and Carry a Big Stick

Recently, as I negotiated a particularly difficult service contract with an organization, I was reminded of the issues that surround the art of negotiations. Some organizations believe that by ‘walking softly and carrying a big stick’ (West African proverb used by then President Roosevelt) that they are getting the best of both worlds in the realm of negotiating a deal that works for an organization and all factions involved in the negotiations. Some attempt to obtain a win-win situation while others settle for less ‘than the best’ in order to maintain status quo over the course of any contract.

The ‘Walk Softly…’ ideology is a form of political dominance in the field of negotiation. Each faction participates in various forms of control and actions that are designed to intimidate through the perception that the power practicing the ideology can enforce its political will upon the other organization. Yet, is this an accurate method of negotiating peacefully? How can an organization have forward movement when each side is mired in the conversations of the past? The big stick ideology is a behavior that occurred over the history of the organization and has become a negative pattern of interaction internally and externally. This affects the brand of both organizations causing damage in the court of public opinion.

Negotiation is not about crushing one’s opponent, the ‘winner take all mentality’. Rather it is about creating an opportunity to collaborate for the welfare and rights of the negotiating parties while keeping an eye on the fiscal bottom-line. Many organizations forget this one key factor: You will be working with the other party after the negotiations are completed. There is a relationship within most negotiations that must be maintained.

In reading recent events in the various professional athletic representation organizations, one particular organization has taken this ideology to an extreme in order to garner support for individual and organizational agendas. This ideology seems to be the method of attaining control over the masses involved in the final agreement or disagreement of new bargaining unit contracts. The negotiating organization is creating fear and angst in order to maintain the support of the individuals and groups associated with the organization. The big stick in this case is the running up to Capitol Hill for photo opportunities and meetings while clearly stating that there is a potential loss of benefits for the retired population by the major sports organizations to include disability and other benefits. The threat is to the actual beneficiaries not the representative organization (the representative organization will still be paid even if the members are not). Yet, is this a reality? Is the umbrella employing organization, a reported $6B industry, so daft as to believe that they will be able to retain public support for their sport if they harm the benefits of the retired and active athletes? I think not.

President Teddy Roosevelt described his style of foreign policy as “the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis.” During the times that Roosevelt was president there were years and years of chaotic actions that seemed to cycle back to the original issues. Very rarely did an issue get completely resolved; rather only shades of the issues were resolved while the more painful issues were put back in the closet never to be seen until chaos is needed to distract from the issue that was most pressing. In many organizations this is still the method used to hide from a final resolution.

Is it truly necessary to carry a big stick? Or could it be that it is time for the parties to take their big sticks and put them back in the closet. That by negotiating honestly while developing trust between all interested parties a final resolution may be attained? Yet, that would be too easy would it not? Sometimes the simplest solutions are right before us.

The Winning Edge: Overcoming the 'Divide and Conquers Strategy'

What is ‘Divide and Conquers’?

The Divide and Conquers Strategy, also known as “Divide and Rules Strategy” is used in the arenas of sociology and politics. Divide and Conquers Strategy was used widely by the Roman and British empires. Both super powers played small tribes and groups against one another in order to control their lands and territories. Divide and Conquers Strategy is a staple political and organizational tool used by one power to break down another power into smaller, more manageable pieces; all the while planning to take control of those pieces one by one. Organizationally, it takes a very strong, or perceived strong, power to implement the Divide and Conquers Strategy. In order to break up another power, the Conquerors must have access to strong political, military, and economic bases.

How can we unite?

As part of the divide and Conquers strategy, the larger organizations will often work to keep smaller powers from uniting. They will offer olive branches to keep smaller organizations in line or offer support in order to stop the unification of the smaller groups into a more powerful larger group. The use of this principle is common in business and organizations when an adversarial role has arisen and there are years of battles behind and ahead of the group. The larger, more powerful organizations have an easier time of managing the chaos of the dysfunctional relationships with the smaller groups when the larger group prevents small powers from linking forces than to break them apart once they have aligned. There is strength in numbers.

Within organizations attempting to unite, there are often feuds and back-biting situations that arise. When a leader of a smaller group perceives that they are not being heard or they feel threatened by the activities of another group chaos will be created. Chaos that is to the advantage of the larger, more powerful umbrella organization. Instead of uniting for the cause, the smaller groups spend a great deal of time in the back rooms creating chaos that works to the advantage of the larger, more powerful group. A seed planted with enough malice will grow to the point that it can destroy the potential change efforts by the smaller organizations thus giving power over to the larger organization.

Leaders who utilize Divide and Conquers Strategy may encourage or foster feuds between smaller powers. By fostering a feud and creating chaos, the larger organization does not need to work as hard to obtain buy-in. People are fickled when it comes to who they support and the history around the issues. This kind of political maneuvering requires a great understanding of the people who are being manipulated. In order to foster feuds, for example, one must understand the political and social histories of the parties intended to take part in the feuds. Remember, a whisper here, a poke there, will start a feud that will be hard to manage when the larger organization begins to manipulate.

It’s about CONTROL!

Have you ever stood in a room full of people and felt completely alone? Each individual in the room has an agenda or reason for being in the room; yet, the reasons do not seem to mesh and the group lost its effectiveness the moment they walked into the room. Standing alone in a room is part of the divide and Conquers algorithm. This is part of the divide and Conquers strategy. There is a lot of money at stake in the majority of power plays and the divide and Conquers strategy includes methods to control the funds and resources of the smaller, Conquered parties.

For example, a powerful leader may encourage a less powerful leader to make unwise financial decisions in order to drain the smaller power’s resources. This is often successful if the leaders of the smaller powers have inflated egos and delusions of grandeur. The smaller power loses face with the constituents, thus providing the power and resources back to the larger organization. It is important to note that this form of Divide and Conquers strategy is only effective if the smaller power allows itself to be influenced by the larger power. Many of the organizations involved in the change efforts do allow gossip and innuendo to influence them about the larger powers.

Everything you need to win as you step around the divide and Conquers strategy: Creating the Win-Win solution.

Often individuals within smaller groups attempt to unite to resolve issues not being addressed in the larger, more powerful group. Each person wants what is best for the organization, yet, there is not one clear picture of what is actually best nor has an agenda been created to unite the groups that are transparent and shared with all constituents. Instead, many individuals utilize hearsay as modus operands and believe whatever is being said. It becomes part of the organizational change climate that is utilized by the larger, more powerful groups to manipulate and continue controlling the less powerful groups. It blocks the creation of a win-win situation. When the smaller organizations continue to fight the larger organization can continue to ignore those painful issues in the smaller, less powerful groups.

The win-win solution is based upon the needs of the smaller organizations while considering the larger organization’s needs. It presents the larger organization the opportunity, once the smaller organizations unite, to hear one voice in the crowd of many. It provides to foundation of advocacy. Sometimes, the one voice needs to stay in the background and continue to marshal the troops as the change process continues while the louder voices of reason approach the larger organization pressing for change.

The win-win solution is a multi-step process that involved organizational change within the various groups to create a united organization. It does not matter WHO represents the group as a unit; rather, is there representation that is geared towards the needs of the organization. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. What is the track record of the organization that will represent me?
2. Who are the leaders of the group? What are their terms in office? Is there diversity in the group?
3. What is the level of education and experience within the group and the leaders?
4. Is the leadership constituent centric or personal-centric? Basically are their reasons for working with the group grounded in personal agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of the group?
5. Just because someone has work experience in a particular industry; does not mean that they are qualified to lead a group through the change process. It may take many instead of one to lead the change.

The key is to get the constituents on your side. The following segment discusses HOW to get support for your programs and issues.

Get Constituents on Your Side

In order for your organization to create the vehicle for change, you must get constituent buy-in outside of the chaos that will be created due to the ‘divide and Conquers’ of the larger, more powerful organization. IGNORE IT and move ON. Begin to create that win-win campaign for change through the development of a grassroots campaign that utilizes a combination of exceptional strategy, innovative tactics, and precision execution. Through the additional use of advocacy education, recruitment, and activation models your campaign will ensures that you have significant numbers of high-quality, committed grassroots supporters on your side. Through the grassroots supporters the tactics should include:

• Creation and Leveraging of the outreach team selected by the majority vote of the constituents to engage and educate advocates, turning them into issue champions;
• Creation of one state-of-the-art, interactive website that attract advocates and earn their ongoing support of active and retired organization members;
• Organizing and supervising advocate teams;
• Building online and on-the-ground communities that foster recruitment and forward movement towards organizational change.
• Create organizational transparency that includes open review of financial and organizational records and structure.

How this is accomplished:

Tree toppers: Those identified and highly active, influential advocates.

Grassroots outreach: Bring together a large audience of supporters presenting the same material at each meeting, in the same format.

Technology Infrastructure: Utilize sophisticated management and communication tools available within the smaller, independent organizations to leverage and effectuate change.

Online Campaigns: Leverage interactive technologies through a secure site to create the vehicle for change.

For more information about organization change and strategic change management visit us at www.hwassociates.us.

Chrysler and the NFL:

What do Chrysler and the NFL have in common? A defined benefits plan and participation in the global economy.

Definitions:
Defined benefit plans "promise(s) you a specified monthly benefit at retirement. The plan may state this promised benefit as an exact dollar amount, such as $100 per month at retirement. Or, more commonly, it may calculate a benefit through a plan formula that considers such factors as salary and service - for example, 1 percent of your average salary for the last 5 years of employment for every year of service with your employer." (Department of Labor - Employee Benefits Security Administration).

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) was created as a result of the passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

ERISA was designed to protects the assets of millions of Americans so that funds placed in retirement plans during their working lives will be there when they retire. ERISA does not require any employer to establish a pension plan. It only requires that those who establish plans must meet certain minimum standards. The law generally does not specify how much money a participant must be paid as a benefit. It is dependent upon the terms and conditions of the participant's defined benefits plan.

The Link:
As many of you know, Chrysler and GM are fiscally 'disabled' as a result of the economy and other factors. Both have defined benefits plans that are insured by PBGC under ERISA. The issues at GM and Chrysler may seem far removed from the active and retired player population. There may not seem to be a correlation and impact upon the active and retired players; yet, from an economic standpoint the pension plans of these two multinational corporations does impact the NFL active and retired player benefits.

How? It is dependent upon WHERE the retirement fund invested your retirement dollars. Public corporations that do business globally purchase parts and supplies from a variety of smaller corporations. There is an interdependence in the global enonomy for success. If the retirement fund took a hit based upon the current global economic landscape; then the pension and disability plan took a huge hit also. It is up to the plan administrators to resolve the plan underfunding. Remember, no longer is one national economy independent of another. We are a global economy and community.

In an effort to determine where the NFL's pension and disability plan is heading, the representative from the plan administration in Baltimore was asked at the Retiree Summit if there were plans in the works to resolve the plan underfunding? The plan representative, indicated to a room full of retirees 'no' it was in the "yellow".

Be concerned over the state of your retirement and disability plan. NFL annuitants and disability annuitants need to keep an eye on the state of their pension plan. Resolving the plan underfunding is critical to the health of the retired player's benefits. Attached is a list of various plans that are being monitored or have been taken over by PBGC. US Steel and Pan Am were taken over in the mid 1990's.

PBGC NEWS:
PBGC Seeks Recovery on Behalf of Tom's Foods Inc. Pension Plan (June 11, 2009)
PBGC Assumes Amsterdam Memorial Hospital Pension Plan (June 11, 2009)
Chrysler Pension Plans Continue Under New Company Sponsorship (June 10, 2009)
PBGC Protects Pensions at Milacron Inc. (June 10, 2009)
GM Pension Plans Remain Ongoing During Company Bankruptcy (June 01, 2009)
PBGC Assumes Circuit City Retirement Plan (May 27, 2009)
PBGC Moves to Protect Contech Pension Plan (May 26, 2009)

The NFL Retiree Change Requirements

Where will change most effectively impact the retiree population? How is change most effectively managed when the NFL Retirees do not have an authorized group to negotiate on their behalf?

My Take: Helen L. Horvath, MA, PsyD (Cand), Principal, Founder/CEO, HW Associates

I recently attended the NFL Retiree Summit in Las Vegas, NV. The purpose of the summit was to create the beginning of a grassroots movement for change. The issues surrounding the Summit and the retired players are many; yet, the bottom line is that change must take place or the retirees will be the ones to suffer the most.

The current retirement plan is underfunded in the 2007 and 2008 plan years. This does subject the plan to potential plan take over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (http://www.pbgc.gov/) which will pay pennies to the dollar for benefits. Retired and active players should be concerned over the plan underfunding as it does affect both classes of players.

Currently, the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement is set to be renegotiated beginning in 2009. The benefits of the retirees need to be protected by One Independent Organization that has no ties to the NFLPA or NFL other than the right to use the NFL brand as the logo.

Across the United States there are at least 20 retired players groups that do not have the power and ability that one united organization, without ties to the union, would have. There are too many cooks in the "kitchen" that want to represent the players; each has a separate agenda or product that will benefit the retired players. Each organization has great ideas to benefit the players; yet, there is no true independent representative of the NFL Retired Players groups. It is time to bring each retiree group under one "roof" so that active players who are going to retire will have representation at the table and the current retired population will finally have representation that has a vested interest in THEIR benefits and fiscal sustainability.

How can this be done? The first step is to check personal agendas at any door that you open pertaining to the retiree benefits issue. This is about everyone who is in the game or has retired from the game. If you are not retired from the game you will be or you will potentially leave the game with a disability. Either way you will be affected at some level - so will your team mates.

The second step is to bring the 20+ Retiree Groups together to create one organization and an agenda that has set goals created along with a timeline of completion. Timelines can be adjusted based upon what needs to be accomplished. This agenda is the smaller picture of what was created at the Retiree Summit on May 31, 2009. Remember that there is power in numbers and group cohesion is not easily attained when the kitchen is jam packed with cooks.

It is at this time that the change process can begin along with the lobbying for the change. Players, active and retired, need to unite to change how the NFLPA and NFL handles active and retiree player benefits. It is not enough that Congress has threatened a $6B a year industry with forced reform if change does not take place. Active and retired players need to unite to create the legal vehicle that demands change and allows the retired, and future retired, players a seat at the bargaining table. Even with the recent award by the courts; retired players need to remain active to protect their benefits current and future. They need a voice that is united and looks out for their interests.

For the full debate relating to change management visit us at http://www.hwassociates.us/. Our site will be up and operational June 26, 2009.