So January 20th was an exciting day. For some people, it was a moment of joy, for some a time of sadness, and for others, it represented a significant change. Regardless of how you saw the inauguration of President Trump, his speech indicated that there would be a new type of leadership in the White House and for the American people. Watching the speech gave me a chance to think about the leaders I've worked for in my life and what I thought was good and bad. My leadership view comes from three primary parts of my life: (1) working in a circus, (2) working at an academic SCUBA diving operation, and (3) serving in the military. Each of these unique experiences showed me different aspects of good and bad leadership. I'll keep the names out of the post to protect the innocent and the guilty alike. The people are less important than the overall concepts.
Let's start with what worked:
1. Leaders set clear expectations for execution. Leaders that set clear expectations dot the roadmap of my professional life, from the circus to diving to the military. When leaders set reasonable expectations, subordinates can develop appropriate ways to arrive at the intended outcome. When giving guidance, make sure your subordinates understand the "5Ws" of what you are asking for - when is it due? What is the intended use and audience? What do you want? How does this fit into the overall scheme of what the organization is doing? Armed with this information, those that work for you can turn out a better product.
2. Clear communications, common objective, and a drive to achieve. I'm stealing this from one of my favorite skippers in the Navy. We were a small crew, about 105 personnel to be exact and had to accomplish all the inspection items of any warship and deploy for a wartime scenario. Such an inspection is no small burden. To keep ourselves ahead of the power curve we relied on each member understanding what we were doing, why were doing it, and pushing when required to get things done. This philosophy showed me that when a team understands the requirements from top to bottom, there is no stopping that team.
3. Handle paper one time. I had the opportunity to work for an exceptional civilian leader during my military service. This particular leader embodied #1 above, and when your task was due, he would review it with you, and that was it. There wasn't this back and forth iterative nature of getting work done. When leadership can get to this point, workers can accomplish more work.
4. Strong organizational skills. This example goes back to my experience in the military and the diving world. Working for an organized leader makes, at least me anyhow, feel that the work will finish on time and things will not slip through the cracks.
5. Adaptable to changing situations. The leaders I've worked for that were fluid with the situation and could translate that down to those working for them were the best to work for. Nothing will stay the same forever. However, it's how you react to the change and how you influence those working for you that matters.
6. Develop an environment that allows subordinates to learn. Early in my time in the Navy, I used to work for a Department Head that realized I had not yet been to Division Officer's School but he saw that I wanted to learn. This particular Department Head challenged me and allowed me to try to figure things out on my own and then helped me learn the process which, in my opinion, made me a better officer.
7. Willing to bring in new practices. Leaders don't have all the answers themselves, and they will need advice from those around them. While in the Navy we had to prepare for a major inspection that, if failed, would keep us from doing anything else until we rectified the errors. As we developed our strategy to prepare for this critical examination, a younger Petty Officer made the suggestion that we change the work day into two shifts and staggered those shifts so there would be fewer people on the ship and work could get done that would impact the flow of ships company around the boat. The skipper implemented this plan, and we passed the inspection.
8. Leaders should be able to conduct an honest evaluation of self-performance. Leaders need to be able to evaluate those around them, but to me, it is more important that leaders can assess themselves. If a leader can honestly look in the mirror and examine the good and the bad, then the organization will benefit. Additionally, I think leaders that can have a frank conversation with their subordinates about how they handled situations gives subordinates insights into the leadership process.
9. Willing to dive in and do work. I've worked with leaders on both sides of the spectrum - those that will dive in and work and those that leave that for others. I prefer the former. Hands-off leaders quickly lose my respect - I comply with the position and the rank, but I don't think much of the person sitting in the seat.
10. Leaders develop subordinates to replace them. To me, the single most important thing that a leader does is develop those under him/her that will take over at some point. Some leaders do this better than others. Leaders need to allow subordinates to make mistakes and learn from those errors, develop a culture that rewards achievement, and perhaps most importantly show subordinates the leadership process within the organization.
What didn't work:
1. Micro-management. Pick up any leadership book, and there is likely some mention of micro-management and why it's a bad practice. I've worked for micro-managers, and they make the work environment horrible. Simply put, don't micro-manage your employees. I've found that leaders who state their expectations clearly, have defined a standard of quality, and hold employees accountable will get more out of their workforce.
2. Leaders provide unclear directions to staff. Perhaps a personal issue, but I dislike doing work twice. I think this is a pretty universally held feeling. I've worked for those that exist under the model of "I don't know it until I see it" and that's a tough way to lead an organization. To me, it's akin to walking into a restaurant and saying, "Bring me food" and then not liking what you get. This philosophy breeds wasted time and effort.
3. Leaders who take credit for the staff's work without acknowledgment. I used to work for a supervisor that had to submit his annual review, and I found it on the printer with some of my material. The leader took complete credit for my work without qualifying the statement that he supervised or oversaw the work.
4. Making arbitrary decisions without supporting logic. Let's face it, decisions are part art and part science but making decisions from an emotional point of view is a bad leadership practice. I worked for a time managing force requirements for a 4-star command and watched a senior leader reduce the number of flight hours for a particular program because he didn't agree with the number. He didn't want to hear how the number but he thought it was too high and would not allow it to go forward. Leaders have a responsibility to justify decisions.
5. Leaders value personality over substantive contributions. Most work environments have a social aspect, and there are some folks we work with that are nice people but lack the skills to handle the work assigned to them. Leaders need to take an aggressive stance to ensure that workers under their command are pulling their weight to avoid over-tasking a few individuals.
6. Leaders must manage their time effectively. You can make more money, but you can't make more time. With a finite number of hours in the work day, leaders need to maximize the output of the staff. I used to work for a gentleman who was a very nice guy and would give you the shirt off his back, but he had a habit of catching you on the way out the door and saying, "Hey can you come in and help me out with this?" Sadly, the thing that needed attention was not a quick task and arrived in the morning which could have been taken care of then. This practice resulted in paying overtime and impacted my family life.
7. Leaders provide unclear guidance which results in iterative work for the staff. If the direction isn't clear, workers will do their best and try to achieve the intended results. When subordinates bring forward work, it likely will not meet the expected outcome and will result in re-work, wasted time, and worker frustration.
8. Killing employee enthusiasm. Just as time is irreplaceable, enthusiasm is a close second. Employees take personal, professional, and interpersonal risks when bringing forward new ideas to management. If management dismisses these ideas out of hand without suggesting edits or alternatives, an employee could stop bringing new ideas forward which will ultimately weaken an organization.
9. Not protecting workers from the lack of management direction. When upper management does not provide clear guidance, it is up to middle management to protect those below from this uncertainty. Middle management should step in and help provide guidance.
10. Evading answering fundamental questions. Leadership, to me, has an essential requirement to answer the questions of subordinates clearly and ensure understanding across the staff. When leadership has a hard time answering simple questions, it erodes the confidence of the team.
