Preston Leadership Blog

Groupthink and the NFL

Roger Goodell, the tough Commissioner of the NFL, is his own sub-brand. He has made his mark by being a proactive leader, but now he's exposed a weakness that may sully his legacy. The replacement Ref debacle was a terrible embarrassment for the NFL; and Goodell could have gotten a deal done in time for the season, but he didn’t.

To be fair, Goodell has done a lot of good. I would even argue that his activist leadership style is important now, as he tries to bring the league into a modern era quite different from the one most owners remember fondly. I'm not a fan of organized labor in general, but there have been many examples of adept labor-management relations in history. It can be done to mutual benefit.

But it usually isn't. And it certainly wasn’t this time.

In the replacement Ref disaster, I suspect that Goodell's power is what got him into trouble and let the situation spin out of control, calling into question several games over 4 weeks. Did he and his advisors really think a band of misfits (to be fair, not all misfits), could run NFL games? Or was Goodell trying to flex his muscles after recently crushing the bounty culture that existed on some teams, especially the Saints. His ego must be on a roll.

Then there's the concept of "groupthink". A strong leader with momentum is harder to challenge, or at least, according to Irving Janis in his book by the same name, people are reluctant to do it. Examples abound wherein a highly visible, powerful leader like Goodell wills his way to whatever he wants with the full support of a team of yes men and women. 

My point is that Goodell could have gotten this deal done by the deadline had he been able to resist the temptation to play hard ball; something he's gotten good at. The strength of a super-assertive leadership style can often hinder the best possible decisions sometimes. 

When the boss has such a strong style, other people are often less likely to challenge him, or at least they will carefully pick their battles. Goodell wanted to hold the line on the NFLRA, and apparently no one could convince him otherwise. Viewership stayed strong, so there was no immediate financial incentive to end the lockout. 

An ego-driven leader like Roger Goodell needs to evaluate different points of view and weigh crucial decisions regardless of their compulsion to do things their way. Left to run amok, hard-charging leaders like Goodell can run a company into the ditch occasionally. At the NFL, maybe dissenting opinions are squashed. 

Articles on Goodell’s leadership:

Jessica Daniels: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/09/26/nfl-referees-bad-calls-roger-goodell

Fran Tarkenton: http://www.frantarkenton.com/component/content/article/54/381-leadership-lessons-from-roger-goodell

 

 

Manage Up or Be Disappointed

The very idea of managing one’s boss (“managing up”) is quickly coming back into the mainstream. Subordinates the world over raise their eyebrows when we suggest that it’s not only OK to manage your boss, it’s something you really must do.

The late Peter Drucker wrote about it in 1999, typically pushing the envelope in his time. Those who admire Drucker, including me, consider NOW to be his time – but that’s for another post.

Many good articles and books have been published on the topic since then.

As you might imagine, there are lots of similarities between managing a direct report and managing a boss. For example, setting expectations. Why do so many leaders fail to manage their boss’ expectations well? Surprises are usually not good. Avoiding conflict now often leads to unavoidable strife later.

My dad liked to say, “If you work for a man, work for him.” He was talking about loyalty. It’s never a good idea to be disloyal to your boss.

Finally, get to know your boss’s communication preferences. Drucker puts leaders into two categories in this regard: readers or listeners. Do you rush into your boss’ office with new information, expecting him to make a decision on the spot? It’s more likely that you’ll get the decision you want if you give him time to absorb the information in writing first. Obviously emergencies are emergencies, but readers strongly prefer a little time to ponder.

Or, do you send your boss volumes of information via e-mail (or paper), only to be disappointed when you learn that she didn’t even read it! Listeners prefer to evaluate facts on the spot, discuss options, and make the call. Volumes of data are not nearly as influential with this style of communication as an overview would be. Give ‘em the summaries.

Interacting with your boss in the most effective way will get you what you want more quickly. It’s really as simple as that. Why do so many people miss this? Send me an e-mail if you’d like to discuss.

Which Role Do You Play?

As we go about our busy lives, demands on our time and attention pull us in many different directions. We switch back and forth between various roles: executive, father, team member, coach, brother, colleague, etc. It happens continuously.

In the 90’s, my afternoon commute served as a transition period between my professional and personal lives. It wasn’t always easy, but listening to loud rock and roll in the car on the way to pick up my son from daycare seemed to help.

Imagine an actor in a play, switching costumes and characters several times during her performance. It’s difficult at first, but with practice she’s able to make the transitions quite smoothly. The audience marvels when she shows up on stage as a completely different character.

Our global, always-on business environment is teaching us to switch gears more quickly and eventually with less difficulty. But we shouldn’t leave behind the skills and perspectives we use in one role just because we switch to another.

For example, the negotiation skills we develop at work can be applied to other roles we play outside of work. But it doesn’t end there. We also have perspectives that can enhance a team’s ability to see situations from various angles they may not have considered. Relying on the team leader’s emotional intelligence to bring in outside perspectives is not enough.

Diversity in perspective is part of what makes a regular team a high-performance team. You may have a specific area of expertise but you also have valuable perspectives that others might not have. Bring them with you, but be ready to compromise.

The Feedback Generations

"Let me give you some feedback." That simple phrase often sets the stage for some degree of defensiveness. Most of us, without even realizing it, anticipate a need to defend ourselves when we hear those or similar words. The old fight or flight response kicks in - even when there is no physical threat.

But some of us handle feedback much better than others.  I've noticed that Generations X and Y (a.k.a "Millennials") are, in general, better at receiving feedback than Baby Boomers; and their future looks bright because of it. What can we learn from this?

They Start Young

We Baby Boomers take pride in our independence and self-sufficiency. Men in particular don't tend to ask for help until it's absolutely necessary.  Add to that your mother's advice: "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

Politeness aside, the idea of giving constructive feedback is something many leaders struggle with regardless of their age or position in an organization.

But a large percentage of post-Baby Boomers grow up with experience on some kind of team. They are more accustomed to feedback and have always had convenient communication technology at their disposal. Virtually chatting with several friends simultaneously hasn't been commonplace for all that long. Some would argue that the proliferation of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and even e-mail has led to social isolation, but I see it differently.

Requests for feedback and customer experience ratings have become ubiquitous. We are quickly learning about the power of perceptions and the value of viewpoints besides our own. Our always-on, Internet-connected society makes it incredibly easy to request, receive and provide feedback. Certainly there are issues as a result - such as the 'false courage' that plays out as nothing more than passive-aggressive disrespect, but thoughtful constructive feedback is a higher form of social interaction that ultimately serves the common good.

For Generations X and Y, giving feedback feels more like a social obligation. And receiving feedback is just the other side of the coin. We don't have to like it but we should certainly aim to get used to it.

By embracing an open channel of regular two-way feedback, leaders will be more accountable, more informed and more involved with their peers, subordinates and customers. Fortunately for future generations it will seem like old hat.
 
Social networking has connected and re-connected countless millions of people by methods not available only a short time ago. Many a formal and informal support group has been created, opening the floodgates of feedback and constructive criticism. But I hope that society as a whole learns how to give and receive feedback more appropriately (and consistently) in cyberspace. Chances are good that the leaders of tomorrow will have mastered it, and if so their own careers as well as those of the people who report to them will be well-served.

Got ROI?

We make investments every day, putting our time, our energy, or our attention to work with the purpose of getting some sort of return. If I do this, I'll get that. Or if I do this, someone else will get that.

Most of the time, these return calculations are instantaneous and even subconscious, but we still make them. Deliberate ROI calculations beg for quantifiable outcomes. If I sell 1,000 widgets at $10 each, and my profit margin is 30%, then I'll make $3,333 in gross profit.

But intangible, non-quantifiable components, unless perhaps you're a Physicist, inherently bring inexact returns. Let's use leadership development activities as an example.

If you pay one manager $100,000 per year and he's performing at about 80% effectiveness, you're wasting approximately $20,000, right? People are not robots; we're working with inexact calculations here. What would it take to get this manager up to 90% effectiveness? Should you spend $5,000 or $10,000 to get a positive return? Probably not and here's why: You lack the benefit of leverage.

One leader usually cannot, by himself, generate productivity increases that are ample enough to justify a substantial investment. The ROI is by nature limited by his scope of influence, control and responsibility. The solution is to leverage several leaders at the same time. First, you can gain efficiencies on the cost side, and second, you will realize exponential increases in productivity.

When just one manager improves, his staff becomes more productive. There's a modest gain there. But when you help three managers improve, their corresponding staffs become more productive, many of whom are likely to interact with one another. The cost to benefit ratio is accelerated by mutual dependencies, improved cooperation and better relationships. Your cost goes down and your ROI improves.

When you calculate the ROI of a leadership development initiative, don't forget to account for the increased intra-company leverage. Leadership never occurs in a vacuum and taking your organization forward will require a concerted effort among several leaders if you wish to gain efficiencies and maximize overall productivity.

Turns out there is a "me" in team

Coaching gives me an opportunity to meet lots of leaders, all of whom feel extra pressure these days. A reasonable amount of stress is good for us. but too much stress dampens the immune system - and getting sick is a great way to fall behind at work.

Staying healthy should be one of your highest priorities; after all, you owe it to yourself and to those who depend on you at home and at work.

What’s your strategy for staying healthy? Is it vague? There are countless fitness experts out there, and I’ll admit that I’m not one of them. I can, however, offer five practical tips to help you “be there” as Dan Reeves used to say:

1. Be realistic. Don’t fool yourself. You’ll just get frustrated if you set unrealistic goals and fail. Ask yourself, “What can I honestly expect to commit to over the next month?” You’ll be encouraged by the strong start, and you can build from there.

2. Build in some rest. Don’t underestimate the value of the extra horsepower you’ll get from rest. Pushing and pushing until your judgment is cloudy, your temper is short and your motivation wanes is a recipe for lousy performance - and a cold or the flu. Ample rest is not a “nice to have” like it was in college.

3. Eat (and eat right). Not eating breakfast and/or skipping lunch are bad habits that contribute to weight gain, high blood pressure and a litany of other ailments. This is nature’s way of telling us to feed our bodies if we expect to stay healthy and perform well.

4. Move. Sedentary jobs will lead to sedentary thinking if you let them. Get up and move around! Don’t rely on caffeine to get your blood pumping – that would be mistaking a higher heart rate for heart health. Incorporate a realistic amount of exercise into your strategy for staying healthy (see #1 above).

5. Try a flu shot. How can something so powerful be so easy? This season flu shots will be more widely available than ever before. They are often free from your doctor and lots of companies even bring them to the office! Also, you can’t get the flu from a flu shot – don’t use that lame excuse and pay dearly.