Tag Archives: Management

When Leaders Insulate: The Dangers of Corrosive Privilege

I recently read a fascinating article by Rebecca Solnit on how being born to privilege has had a corrosive effect on Donald Trump and his presidency. She discusses the ways an individual raised in a protected bubble of wealth and power becomes isolated from the rest of the world. After reading Solnit’s piece, it’s evident that the trappings she associates with Trump can become obstacles for all leaders. Here are three lessons that sound out:

Setbacks

We gain awareness of ourselves and others from setbacks and difficulties; we get used to a world that is not always about us.—Rebecca Solnit

There is a mentality amongst some leaders that acknowledging failure is a weakness. As a result, they shift responsibility (i.e. blame others) so they are no longer accountable, artificially reframe setbacks as new opportunities, and/or outright change the end-goal so the outcome can now be viewed as a win.

While “not failing” may feel good, it is a false sense of satisfaction. Leaders must build the thick skin necessary to accept and learn from disappointment without carrying the weight of feeling like a failure. Otherwise we risk becoming overly sensitive and brittle, unequipped to make the adjustments necessary to rebound and adapt.

As leaders, we must also allow others to fail. Solnit writes of rich college kids who are not allowed to fail because their parents “[keep] throwing out safety nets and buffers” that protect them from experiencing adversity. As nice as this may sound, when we live without consequences, our lives become inconsequential—we cannot feel the highs of achievement without also having faced the lows of failure.

Self-Reflection

Power corrupts, and absolute power often corrupts the awareness of those who possess it.—Rebecca Solnit

In Hannah Arendt’s book On the Origins of Totalitarianism, she promotes the need for an inner dialogue where we can cross-examine ourselves, where we can ask the difficult questions. If we can master this skill, we are better equipped to have these discussions with the people around us. If we lack the ability to self-interrogate, we are prone to suffer from, what Arendt calls, the banality of evil, i.e. “the inability to hear another voice, the inability to have a dialogue either with oneself, or the imagination to have a dialogue with the world, the moral world.”

Obliviousness

Equality keeps us honest. Our peers tell us who we are and how we are doing, providing that service in personal life that a free press does in a functioning society.—Rebecca Solnit

We need people in our lives who have the ability to provide unfiltered commentary. These individuals cannot be fearful of repercussions, nor can they hold back in the hopes of gaining some type of advantage. They must be willing to give it to us straight and we must be open to what they are saying. Otherwise, we risk becoming oblivious.

Obliviousness is not a sign of low intelligence, but an indication that the leader is sequestered from information that runs counter to their viewpoint. It tends to happen over time as we weed out those who are the bearers of bad news, those who are perceived as not being “on board,” and those who are damaging our precious self-esteem with their critique. Before we know it, we are surrounded by yes-men and sycophants who tell us what we want to hear versus what we need to hear. In the end, not only are we alone, but their biased feedback has infected us with delusional thinking, faulty decision making, and a general lack of insight into how our team and the population-at-large are feeling.

Being in a position of power can be lonely, but it doesn’t have to. Leaders must seek and foster relationships outside of their power structure. Our associates keep us honest. They ensure we remain grounded and in touch with reality. And they provide the feedback, criticism, and advice that, while not preferable, is essential to avoiding the impairments of corrosive privilege.

Did You Catch My Interview with Aidan McCullen?

I recently had the privilege of speaking with Aidan McCullen, host of the podcast The Innovation Show. We discussed the need for courage in innovation, leadership skills utilized in creativity, and the ways disruptors can utilize the five superpowers outlined in Cape, Spandex, Briefcase: Leadership Lessons from Superheroes.

Check it out!

The OODA Loop: Your “Lasso of Truth” for Enhanced Decision Making

What makes Wonder Woman such a fierce warrior? We can chalk it up to her royal lineage or her upbringing as the princess of the Amazons, but it really comes down to her mission-driven, strategic mindset. She is able to break down a problem, formulate a new plan, and flawless execute. Famed military strategist John Boyd believes we can do the same.

In the 1960s, Boyd developed a strategic tool called the OODA Loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act. This four-step decision-making process provides a systematic method for addressing uncertainty with a strategy for winning direct competitions. It does so by helping us categorize and organize the ways we think about our environment. And those who make it through all four stages the quickest, wins.

Wonder Woman is a fighter, better than most, but it’s what she fights for that is important. It’s her vision of a future of peace and acceptance that makes her the right ambassador for everyone.—Gal Gadot

Leaders are surrounded with ambiguity. When circumstances change, too often we fail to shift our outlook, instead continuing to see the world as it was. Then, when our old outlook doesn’t work, we keep trying to force it to work. To overcome this ineffective cycle, we need to adapt our outlook so we can deal with the actual reality. That is where the OODA Loop comes in.

The OODA Loop illustrates a process to help us learn, develop, and thrive in an ever-shifting environment. Let’s break down each step.

Observe

The first step in the OODA Loop is to observe. This involves absorbing new information about our environment, maintaining a strong sense of situational awareness, and remaining open to change. Intellectual curiosity is the key.

From an Amazonian warrior’s standpoint, observing is remaining in a state of relaxed alert where while there’s no specific threat, you are taking in your surroundings in both a relaxed and alert manner. For the rest of us, observation requires us to be diligently aware of internal and external opportunities and threats. To do so, we need to keep track of revenue, expenses, and profit but also industry trends, company culture, and the overall business environment.

It is not necessarily the one with more information who will come out victorious, it is the one with better judgment, the one who is better at discerning patterns.—Frans P.B. Osinga, Science, Strategy, and War

Orient

The second step is considered to be the focal point of the OODA Loop. Orientation shapes the ways we interact with, observe, react to, and behave towards our environment. Just as Wonder Woman cannot approach every adversary with the same tactical strategies, we cannot approach every situation as if they are constant. Effective orientation involves a process called destructive deduction where we shatter old paradigms so as to put them back together in a way that is more closely aligned to our current reality, i.e. creative induction.

To improve your orientation:

Start shattering and rebuilding your paradigms. The more you do it, the better you’ll be.

Never stop orienting. Deductive destruction and creative induction is not a one-time event; it is a continual process of updating outdated mindsets to fit the changing environment.

Validate new paradigms before enacting them. Utilize past experiences to determine what has worked in similar situations, study best practices, and brainstorm with the team. Then you are ready for the next two steps in the OODA Loop.

Decide

Once we’ve observed, deductively destroyed, and creatively induced, it is time to decide on the course of action. This involves moving forward with our best hypothesis about the paradigm we feel will be most beneficial. To avoid this step is to remain unfocused and aimless. To tackle it, we are indicating that we are ready for the next step.

Act

Action is how we learn whether our hypothesis is correct. If it is, Wonder Woman wins the battle and we overcome our obstacle; if it is not, we start the OODA Loop again using our newly observed knowledge.

Whether you are an Amazonian princess or a mild-mannered supervisor, we must have a clear, applicable process to cut through uncertainty so we can make quick decisions in an organized manner. The OODA Loop (or Lasso of Truth for you Wonder Woman fans) makes this typically implicit practice explicit through an easy to follow method. It’s a wonder you haven’t used it yet.

Presidential Hubris: How Narcissism Influences Leadership

Imagine a world were the President of the United States uses the office to do whatever he wants. Whether he’s sacrificing the truth, ignoring basic ethics, indulging in harmful measures of entitlement, or abusing underlings and colleagues, we are all treated as pawns on his ascent into power. Of course, I’m referring to Frank Underwood on Netflix’s House of Cards (why, who did you think I was talking about?).

In Frank Underwood’s time on television, he has been diagnosed with numerous psychological disorders. One that seems fitting for today’s political climate are his narcissistic tendencies.

Narcissism involves excessive self-aggrandizement, a grandiose view of one’s talents and achievements, and a preoccupation with fantasies of power. These predilections result in extreme selfishness and a shallowness of emotion where the individual maintains a strong distain towards criticism, is unwilling to compromise, and is over-reliant on the need for praise (as a note, we’re still discussing President Underwood).

The road to power is paved with hypocrisy, and casualties – never regret.—Frank Underwood

The indicators of narcissism are often confused with those of self-esteem. Jean Twenge, a professor of Psychology at San Diego State University, makes the distinction that while people high in self-esteem value individual achievement, they also value their relationships. Narcissists, on the other hand, are “missing that piece about valuing, caring and their relationships, so they tend to lack empathy, they have poor relationship skills.” They are likewise linked to materialism and a greater focus on money, fame, and image.

If narcissism sounds like a leadership style you would enjoy, the research is clear that it is ineffective. One study I read on Knowtro found that narcissism decreases task performance by almost 10%. According to the authors, these behaviors have a significantly negative impact on core job responsibilities, team performance, and promotions. Another study concluded that narcissism increases workplace deviance by up to 24%.

But, you may be thinking, aren’t most CEOs associated with being narcissistic? The short answer is, “No.” Sure, there have been articles written about particular individuals, but research does not support the argument that the majority of CEOs are any more self-centered then the rest of us. In fact, the Center for Executive Succession found that only 5% of leaders can be classified as narcissists. At the same time, 60% were described as being high in humility. For you math folks, this means CEOs were 12 times more likely to be humble than narcissistic.

The American people don’t know what’s best for them…I do.—Frank Underwood

Now that we’ve determined how narcissism is 1) not desirable and 2) not a component of success, it’s time for the difficult question: Are you a narcissist? As a hint, if you are offended by my merely asking the question, you are in danger. Those leaning towards narcissism are reluctant to admit they may have such a flaw, as doing so would conflict with their self-image of perfection.

To gain a more unbiased perspective of ourselves, psychiatrist and author Mark Goulston has a quick self-assessment. Called the Narcissist Inventory, answer the ten questions below using a 1-3 scale (1 = rarely; 2 = sometimes; 3 = frequently):

  1. How often does the person need to be right at all costs?
  2. How often does the person act impatient with you for no good reason?
  3. How often does the person interrupt you in the middle of what you’re saying, and yet take offense if you interrupt?
  4. How often does the person expect you to drop whatever you’re thinking about and listen to him or her — and does the person take offense when you expect the same in return?
  5. How often does the person talk more than he or she listens?
  6. How often does the person say “Yes, but,” “That’s not true,” “No,” “However,” or “Your problem is”?
  7. How often does the person resist and resent doing something that matters to you, just because it’s inconvenient?
  8. How often does the person expect you to cheerfully do something that’s inconvenient for you?
  9. How often does the person expect you to accept behavior that he or she would refuse to accept from you?
  10. How often does the person fail to say “Thank you,” “I’m sorry,” “Congratulations,” or “Excuse me” when it’s called for?

To score your inventory, add up the total:

10-16 = The person is cooperative

17-23 = The person is argumentative

24-30 = The person is a narcissist

The President (Underwood, obviously) is unable to feel sympathy, remorse, or a genuine connection to others. His thirst for power is too overwhelming to allow such interference. And I doubt he’s interested in or able to change. We don’t have to be stuck is such a caustic trap as the President (still Underwood). There may be instances where we demonstrate a few narcissist traits, but this does not make us narcissist. What matters more is that we remain vigilantly aware of these tendencies so we can identify them before they influence our decision making and wreak havoc on our reputation. It’s the difference between suffering the inevitably bleak fate of Frank Underwood and being a real life leader.