Essential Leader

Under Pressure: Learning to be a "Clutch" Leader

By Sean Silverthorne

In the sports world, a “clutch” player performs best when the pressure is on, backs are to the wall, and all eyes turned their way. Think Michael Jordan, Joe Montana, Martina Navratilova. When it was all on the line, they not only didn’t wilt, they got better.

Is there such a thing as a clutch leader? Do you know managers or CEOs who rise above when everything is on the line? A bigger question: Can you learn to be clutch?

The latest issue of Harvard Business Review is spun around the topic of military leadership, and there is an interesting blog post on HBR.org about how military cadets learn what it takes to be clutch.

New York Times business writer Paul Sullivan, author of Clutch: Why Some People Excel Under Pressure and Others Don’t recounts a talk he gave at West Point on the subject.

All clutch leaders display five traits, he said: focus, discipline, adaptability, being present, and fear and desire. Read his post for more depth on each of these.

Sullivan’s good news for the rest of us is that organizations can train their performers to respond well to pressure. Sullivan says there are three things business leaders can learn from cadets:

1. Focused on a goal. “When they graduate they will be deployed to lead a platoon, probably in Afghanistan or Iraq. They know the responsibilities and the risks. And everything they are doing is preparing them for that moment. Do you know what your primary mission is at work?”
2. Continuous improvement. “They work in an organization that is continually striving to be better. When a mistake happens, the Army tries not to let it happen a second time. Are you aligned with the right organization? Or if you’re leading that organization, are you prepared to change things that aren’t working, even if change could be hard or even a reversal of something you implemented?”
3. Practice for success. “These cadets are given the physical and mental training that will help them do their jobs at the highest level. They know you have to be able to perform a task perfectly under normal conditions before you can expect to do it in a stressful situation. Can you say the same thing? Are you able to do your job at a high level every day? If not, then you should not be surprised when you make the wrong decisions under pressure.”

Will following this advice make you the Michael Jordan of your business? Well, maybe not–some people are just hard-coded for success in tough situations. But working at focusing on the objective, adaptability to the environment and improvement of skills sure puts whatever natural abilities you have in the best position to succeed when the going gets tough.

Looking through history, who were the greatest clutch leaders? Churchill? Lincoln? Alexander the Great? (Photo of Michael Jordan by Flickr user Cliff1066, CC 2.0)

Globalization and Poverty

Is there a positive correlation between globalization and poverty? One of the guiding premises of Global Envision, where I have the priviledge to be a Director, is a recognition that “The immense forces of globalization are changing the lives of hundreds of millions of people.” Our guiding underlying assumption is that “The growth of economic globalization and free markets holds great promise for poor communities around the world.” (Guyer)

Several recent studies point to the notion that there is indeed a positive relationship between economic growth as a result of globalization and poverty reduction. A study by Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion, “Absolute Poverty Measures for the Developing World, 1981-2004,” published in March 2007, suggested that the percentage of people in the world who are absolutely poor is generally declining. But wait! How can that be? Everyone knows the number of poor in the world is rising. That too, is true. In an intriguing study published in 2002, Satya Chakravarty, Ravi Kanbu, and Diganta Mukherjee document this rise in absolute numbers of poor people as the world’s population continues to increase. But because of more and better access to markets and sources of income, the relative number of the world’s people who live below the international poverty line ($1 - $1.25 a day) has actually declined.

There are some interesting exceptions to this general rise in world income. Urban areas generally have a lower-than-average pace of poverty reduction while rural areas, which are home to three-quarters of the developing world’s poor, have a higher-than-average pace of poverty reduction. Why? Largely because the rural poor are moving to the cities (Chen and Ravallion). According to the World Bank, Sub-Saharan Africa, which has experienced little economic growth, has had little change in the number of people living in abject poverty (Soubbotina, 2000).

Conclusion? While the percentage of absolute poor is dropping, there is spotty success in reducing the total number of the poor. In some regions, like Sub-Saharan Africa, poverty continues to rise. One of the reasons why some areas are more successful than others in reducing the percentage of people living in absolute poverty is that globalization has allowed the poor to access more lucrative markets and given them more options for developing income sources.

Losing Trust

President Obama’s recent firing of General McChrystal raises some interesting questions about the role of trust. Having been a part of several battle staffs during my military career, I would suggest that these scenarios engender at least two levels of dialog. At the “public” level there is the dialog that I’m sure McChrystal would have preferred to see in the Rolling Stone article: What’s going on? Where are we going? What do we need to do to get the mission accomplished? There is almost a dance-like quality to the activity that it takes to smoothly coordinate the innumerable pieces of a highly fluid battle situation.  At the center, like the conductor in an orchestra, McChrystal and his key advisors would be focused quite intently on the business of the moment and largely ignorant, by choice, of anything that did not directly contribute to the focus of his attention. At the public level, the atmosphere of a professional, highly trained, highly motivated battle team that is working smoothly to make sense of the “sh*t storm” of information flowing into and out of the room is one that almost crackles with radiant energy.  Imagine sitting in a pressure cooker trying to string beads in a windstorm and you get the idea.

People under that kind of pressure need an outlet and that leads to a second, “non-public” level of dialog. Just as one can find in any sports team locker room or any office break room, there is trash talk, jibs, jokes, and general banter that has little to do with the business at hand, but is vital in relieving the pressure of the situation. It builds and reinforces the bonds of the team and actually nurtures and facilitates the complex web of informal relationships that bind the team. A team without some form of non-public pressure-relief mechanism can implode and disintegrate or grind itself to a state of ineffectiveness. The general and his or her key advisors set the tone for what is acceptable in this non-public dialog. Like some famous basketball coaches, the tone can be mercurial, vulgar, and politically-incorrect or it can be “family friendly” and jovial.

Whatever form this non-public dialog takes, no one really expects to be held accountable until or unless it crosses some threshold. For the most part, this side dialog is background noise to the public conversation and the dance of the battle staff. In this particular case, the threshold was crossed when McChrystal, or more likely, one of his key advisors allowed the comments to be made public record.

No transcript of the conversation between President Obama and General McChrystal has been made public. But I would suspect, and hope, that when McChrystal was summoned to explain what happened, he pointed the finger of responsibility right where it belonged, at himself. Regardless of any personal animosity that existed between Obama and McChrystal, a public trust had been violated. As Hamish Taylor, Strategy Consultant & Coach put it, “the outcome was probably in both men’s interest the right one.”

Could trust be rebuilt through a process of reconciliation? Possibly. Given a different set of political circumstances and given different individual personalities, it might have been possible to take the time, and it would require time, to forge anew the bonds of trust. But McChrystal is who he is. He was famous for his brusque, rough-edged manners. Obama also is who he is, someone who tolerates, in private, a certain brashness and bravado in his advisors, but in public suffers no rogue players.

Today is Flag Day

Mythos is a Greek word meaning "story, legend, plot" and may refer to Myth or Mythology: the shared elements, characters, settings and themes in a set of works. Durkheim asked, “What holds a society together?” Marx wondered, “What changes society?” In both cases the answer is Mythos.

In its original form, mythos refers to the stories that were passed via oral tradition, having threads of religious, social, gender role, and contextual meanings. These stories give us, members of a society examples of appropriate behavior within our culture, for better or worse. This includes models for interpersonal interaction, as well as definitions of self. Myths are the cement that hold a society together through reinforcing community values, by making the mores highly visible and well known. In a modern context we get our stories from a much more diverse set of media: print, radio, television, and the internet.

Myths, like cultures, are not constant; rather, mythos are revamped and reinterpreted over time to fit with new information and peoples within an evolving culture. Shifts in cultural paradigms are reflected in the changes in the myths that each of us carries within ourselves. While this is a natural phenomena, shifts in cultural paradigms cause anxiety as  we struggle to assimilate and adapt to the new myths. If the changes come too quickly or are too jarring, we may reject them. In times of extreme duress, we may find ourselves reexamining our original myths as we struggle to make sense of the swirling currents of change. I liken it to resetting a locked up computer to an earlier “restore” point.

Flag Day is one of those “restore points.” It is a time when we look back in order to make sense of that which is coming. And so this morning I share with you one of my restore points. Red Skelton was one of my favorite shows as a kid. His gentle humor and slapstick antics on his live comedy show were often best when he threw out the script and improvised. I will never forget this special show that he broadcast in 1969: http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/2010/06/pledge-of-allegiance-red-skelton.html. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Integrative Thinking

The concept of integrative thinking can be boiled down into one phrase - “what should I think?” Roger Martin, The Opposable Mind; How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA:2007), argues for a different way of thinking – one in which uses the best of all minds and formulates a new model or way of thinking. It is a brain that can see different perspectives and value in each. Integrative thinking is a neither-nor concept. It is taking the best of both arguments and combining them to create a new order, or way of knowing. Good leaders don't take sides, but understand that there are elements to many different ways of looking at something and take what works.

This term has been a struggle of focus – or so I thought. Reading The Opposable Mind I realized it wasn't focus and much as needed synthesis, a connect-the-dots if you will. I have a highly creative and oft scattered mind. And in this very deductive world we live in, I have viewed it as handicap – something to overcome, not embrace. But even with this definable concept, temperance and discipline in order to synthesize. A good leader should see both sides; but she needs to discover the validity and merit of points within the argument.

Tylenol Recall, Revisited - Take Notes BP!

 

When I first read of the problems discovered in the Children's Tylenol and Motrin products, I was beyond angry. I give these products to my children and have noticed the strange flecks, but thinking them merely a concentration of dye, I dismissed it. After all, there is protocol and the FDA. I read the Tylenol debacle in Kolp & Rea and while impressed with the drastic steps they took in removing their products from the shelf, I was disappointed they had not done the same this time. But they had, I had just missed the story. (Or it wasn't as widely reported on, thinks this skeptical news reader of a completely biased industry.)

I happened to come across this video - http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/05/13/f_500_tylenol_motrin_recall.fortune/

in which Bill Weldon, CEO of Johnson & Johnson apologizes. Several times. I realize what a rarity in these litigious times to hear someone actually apologize. Lawyers implore that their clients not apologize – it assumes guilt. Insurance companies preach in case of an automobile accident to never say sorry. Training at a big retail store where I worked warns against apologies if someone trips and falls.

“We have to apologize; we have done a dis-service” emphatically states Bill Weldon. “First we do right by our patients. Then we figure out how to fix it.” I am completely dazzled by this accountability. And I think that is sorely lacking in today's world. The anger at BP might not be as intense if they hadn't started their PR campaign by pointing the finger at others. They have a responsibility to not only the Americans affected by this tragedy, but to the world as global ramifications are not yet known. Instead, they pointed the finger causing distrust and anger. James Carville ran into Tony Hayward, BP CEO, and when asked by Mr. Hayward, “what can we do to let you know we will take care of this?” Carville answered, “I don't trust you.” http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/carville-bumps-into-bp-ceo/

Accountability begets trust. Johnson & Johnson have once again proven to be virtuous leaders with their courage to do what is not safe and lawyer approved, but to do what is right.

Tylenol

                In line with our conversation about servant leadership and leading with integrity, the Tylenol Tragedies story showcased character-based leadership in action. While there were sections of the story that portrayed these leaders (Jim Burke included) as pragmatic damage control analysts, reading the story through revealed Johnson & Johnson’s true colors: what their business credo preached was genuine. The awareness these leaders displayed, the attention they paid to the safety of the public, and the actions they took set the bar of corporate responsibility where it belongs: a case-study benchmark worthy of presidential admiration.

            While reading the story, it occurred to me that the actions these leaders took, especially those of Jim Burke, seemed quite natural, instinctive. Sure, they were measured, calculated even; but the extent of their determination to do the right thing, while navigating a near-death business crisis, revealed the depth of their commitment to their own philosophy—their own definition of what is right.

Because of their commitment to their clear and concise business credo, they found themselves thrust into the role of leading well beyond the concerns of their own corporate survival. Jim Burke and his executive committee played a primary leadership role in the consolidated effort to address this new danger threatening the public. At the risk of proven media ridicule, Burke took the initiative and partnered with news media to improve their response. They also found themselves leading the way with government agencies to address the immediate safety of the public and the long-term safety of the industry. What impressed me the most, however, was their decision to abandon the capsule approach to over-the-counter products entirely, risking their market share based on their concern for public safety.    

Successful Leaders Employ Systems Thinking

A system is “a combination of related elements organized into a complex whole” (Encarta World English Dictionary). Systems exist at every level: our planet lives within a galactic system, every country and its natural resources live within planet earth’s system, all organizations live within their country’s political and social system, and all employees live within their organizations’ cultural system. What makes systems both fascinating and of significant consequence is that they are inherently interconnected.

More than ever before, managers who wish to lead with integrity must develop the ability to recognize and understand the systems in which they operate and how to affect change within them; ignoring these interdependencies can lead to immoral behavior, sometimes in the extreme, often without awareness or intent. 

To thrive in the 21^st century, Peter Senge, author of The Necessary Revolution, proposes that leaders must recognize the four factors that shape all situations: events, patterns, systemic structures and the mental models that shape those patterns and structures (2008, p. 174). Easiest to recognize are events, as they are visible to all; the key question at this level is “what just happened?” The next step is to consider the trends behind that event, or to ask “Have we been here before?”  From there, the leader must go yet further to determine what forces are at play that caused these patterns to occur. Finally, the leader must consider the assumptions behind the trends that allow this reality to persist  (Senge, 2008, p. 173-176). 

Recognizing systems and how they impact reality is a critical skill to develop. Equally importantly is prioritizing the time required for teams to assess the systems at play in their world. Doing these two things will lead to an increased level of leadership integrity, and undoubtedly a greater level of financial success.

The Tylenol Tragedies

After reading the case study on the Tylenol tragedies in the early and mid 1980’s I have to say that Johnson and Johnson made a believer out of me.  The company really stood up and made people their primary concern.  Not money, not market share, not blame, but people.  While reading this I continuously agreed and believed that the actions taken demonstrated multiple virtues which other companies would be wise to emulate.

At first glance Jim Burke did want McNeil to handle the situation without Johnson and Johnson because he was concerned about protecting the parent company’s brand. However it seems to me that he came to understand that the right thing to do was to stand up and accept responsibility (even before it was known that Johnson and Johnson was just as much a victim as those who lost their lives).  Johnson and Johnson was set to lose money because of the tragedies, however they were going to still maintain their global dominance over their competitors in the market. 

In essence they really didn’t have to step up and assist to the degree they did. They didn’t have to conduct such a large scale recall. Nor did they have to go against the advice of the FBI and FDA (even though it would have benefited them to do so). However they did and they showed that they weren’t willing to profit at the expense of others.

Throughout the entire incident Johnson and Johnson also maintained an open and honest relationship with the press and customers. This to me is what set them up for success.  The steps and systems they developed for communication to keep everyone informed was a masterstroke of humanity. They wanted to answer every concern they could, relieve as many fears as possible, and protect as many people as possible from a contaminated product.

In the end, through their actions Johnson and Johnson showed they not only meant every word of their credo, but they could live up to it as well. In today’s corporate environment, I think there are lessons to be learned from studying the Tylenol tragedies.

Grounded Visioning

In reading Jay Vogt’s “Recharge Your Team: The Grounded Visioning Approach” (2009), I found strategies for creating a vision with any size team, or an entire organization in as little as half of a day. Who wouldn’t want to know more about that? This seemed highly suspect to me and also peaked my interest since the premise of grounded visioning is based on appreciative inquiry. This is a popular theory being quoted for organizational change planning in my field of work.  Mohr and Watkins (2002) talked about the foundational principles of appreciative inquiry as the appreciation of people and the organizational system as well as the ability to communicate the strengths or best practices of an organization, to design a vision for the future. Vogt (2009) takes the tenets of appreciative inquiry and puts them into a user friendly guide with sample agendas for various forums for grounded visioning planning sessions.

 

Using the Appreciative Inquiry process, organizations examine and identify areas where their current systems are successful, and then determine ways to make those successes more constant. The process involves storytelling and interviewing to draw on the best of the past in order to effectively visualize a successful future. Questions used in these sessions invite participants to share what attracted them to and what keeps them with the team or organization. High points, success stories as well as dreams, hopes and aspirations are shared. The final question being, “What is the one reason for optimism that those dreams, hopes, and aspirations might actually come to pass? (p. 49). This process works according to Vogt (2009) because it is a low cost, easily implemented, collaborative and positive method.

 

I could see this method functioning with a small team, but it is quite a stretch for me to imagine this working effectively for large scale organizational change visioning. I have participated in a number of fast paced visioning sessions that were meant to accomplish much in a short amount of time. I have also seen a great deal of progress made in a short time, with an approach similar to grounded visioning. The issue that seems to derail the process is the work that needs to happen after the initial meeting. People leave with specific leaves tasks assigned for completion. Often there is no one who monitors and reports back to the group as a whole, about the progress being made. I would benefit more from a part two to this book. It would give user friendly tools for setting the vision in motion and the ongoing monitoring of progress.

 

~ TR