"From here to the President's Leadership" |
It all began last week. A group of colleagues and I got together for a mini-learning session. The topic was leadership and specifically, "How to move into the roll of corporate organizational leadership when a person does not have any official leadership authority or title giving authority". Essentially the question was, "How do you take that first step into leadership when the organization does not acknowledge that you have any official leadership role or authority?" As we discussed various personal situations it became clear that one of the participants had experience in, what might be labeled, a dysfunctional organization. Communication in the organization was sparse and information was being withheld by some members. The thought was that if the organization could be motivated to communicate more openly and effectively the business results would probably improve. The meeting participant wanted to help the organization but was not sure how to go about it since they lacked specific authority and the official title necessary to make suggestions directly and have them carried out. (This is not a particularly uncommon scenario.) We had a lively discussion for nearly two hours. As the facilitator of the meeting and the scribe (on his PC) began to bring the discussion to a close he asked us the following question, "If tomorrow you were to go into a dysfunctional organization as a consultant or even as an employee without direct authority, what would be the first thing you would do in order to establish yourself as a leader in the organization?" This seemed like a pretty good question and a reasonable way to close the meeting so we each took a turn at suggesting what we would do if we were the person who actually had to return to a dysfunctional organization tomorrow. We each gave our suggestions, felt pleased with the meeting and adjourned. The Next Day Throughout the next couple of days, the meeting floated through my mind and I realized I was not satisfied with how it ended. Although our facilitator had done a good job of bringing the meeting to a close there was something I now thought was missing. I thought of another question I might have asked instead of the one that closed the meeting. My thought was that even if each of us in that evening meeting were in that dysfunctional organization, would we all be successful or even successful to the same degree if we followed our suggested actions? Would our results be the same? I thought not. But why not? What was missing? What might have caused our different outcomes? Then it came to me. The answer goes back to my basic premise of how I think we accomplish things in life and how my view is different from the generally accepted view. Here is what I mean. DOING is not enough. We all understand that when we DO something we produce RESULTS. We DO in order to HAVE. DOING leads to HAVING. DOING leads to OUTCOMES. This is the way most organizations and people see things, at least here in the west. This is, for many, a very tight cause-and-effect relationship. We are "doers". Indeed, we ended the meeting with just that presupposition. We ended by saying what we would "DO" if we were the person in a dysfunctional organization. But I do not think life works that way. There is a step that is mostly invisible to people and yet is profoundly important. It is easy to miss. The step in front of DOING is BEING. Even though each step informs the previous step in a feedback loop, the general direction of "motion" in life is: BEING leads to DOING leads to HAVING. And BEING is... What is "Being"? What is this thing called BEING? How does it play into this process? BEING is who you think you are in the world. How do you perceive yourself in relation to the world, the universe, anything and everything that can be in relation to you? Another word for BEING is IDENTITY. However, IDENTITY is a much more "stationary" term. It does not imply dynamism. BEING is a better term because it implies what I perceive is closer to reality, which is an active, on-going, moment-to-moment adjustment in relation to your on-going interaction with the world. Why is BEING so important? Well just think about all the people who know they ought to be DOING something but they are not. Why not? Even in those situations where the person "wants" to be DOING a specific thing and they do not, what is the resistance? The resistance is that their BEING, who they think they are in relation to what they want to be DOING, is not aligned and therefore, their BEING does not provide the energy to take the action they would desire. This conflict is all around us. It is in each of us in some form, little and of small consequence; large and of major consequence. Just look closely at what people say and what they do. If there is a disconnect between what they say they want to do and what they actually do, and if they truly know what to be doing and how to do it but they are not, then there is probably an incongruity with respect to the BEING they are holding and the BEING that would give rise to their desired actions. The question for each of us The questions I would have asked each of the participants in our evening meeting, now that I have had some time to think about it (hindsight is wonderful, isn't it?) are these, "Is each person in this room capable of holding a state of BEING with respect to leadership that will allow them to act in a leadership role, and in fact, take the suggested actions forward in ways that would lead to positive outcomes? Or is anyone's state of BEING not that of a leader and therefore, taking the suggested actions would result in less than effective outcomes." These questions would have fueled a new perspective and new discussions and probably very different answers from each of us. So what about engineering management? What does this have to do with engineering and engineering management? Actually everything! What is the BEING or Identity of the usual engineer? It is of an "engineer", a "builder", a discoverer", an "explorer", or something along those lines. It usually is not that of a "manager" or "leader" or "someone who deals with people all day long". Therefore, often when an organization promotes an engineer to a leadership position, such as team lead, or promotes a team lead to project lead or to program manger, unless care is taken to ensure that the person has the state of BEING or Identity of a leader or manager, when difficulty arises, the new manager or leader will revert to their comfortable Identity or BEING...that of the engineer. And the remedy for this misalignment is not a "title". A title is a title. It does not automatically translate into a state of BEING. This is why we sometimes see people who are in certain positions or responsibility or authority and yet their behavior seems out-of-context with that title. Their BEING is not aligned with their given title. This is why new engineering leads or managers will sometimes revert to old engineering habits when difficulty arises. When their projects get in trouble and the new manager ought to be "managing the project out of programmatic difficulty", he or she may decide instead to personally work weekends in an effort to pull the project back on track themselves. They revert to being individual contributors. It is a very natural and understandable response from the state of being of an engineer. It is not however, the best action with respect to the new BEING they are asked to hold, that of a leader or manager, and it is not the best response for the project. A love of ambiguity One of the corollaries of leadership is the ability to make decisions without complete data. The ability to step into the arena of doubt and make a decision regardless of the discomfort brought about by uncertainty is what leaders are paid for. Uncertainty is not what engineers are paid for. Enter President Obama and his decision to order commandoes to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Recent revelations by CIA Director Leon Panetta indicate that there was little certainty that bin Laden was in the compound when the Seals landed. There was a probability but not a certainty. From what I have been able to gather so far, these are just some of the levels of certainty (or lack thereof) regarding the operation:
Now here is the $64,000 question (regardless of whether you are for or against... this is not a political discussion): "Who does a person have to BE in order to make the decision President Obama made?" We could probably line up all the presidents since World War II and place then in the situation President Obama was in and give them all the capability of DOING that the President had (i.e., intelligence, Seal Team 6, helicopters, radar jamming capabilities, surveillance satellites, etc.). It is also possible to imagine that each of them would have gone about reaching their final decision differently and we can also imagine that some would not have chosen the action taken by President Obama. In each case, their BEING would have set or established the boundaries for their actions. For each of us, our BEING, who we perceive ourselves to be, sets the boundaries for our actions. Action can only occur if the state of BEING is aligned to support it, and the "power" inherent or behind an action is directly related to the degree of alignment. The more alignment the more power, commitment, and real passion. This is why we can often tell when "someone's heart is just not in their actions"... it is because there BEING and DOING are not aligned. For those of us... For the rest of us, for those of us who are not heads of state, the same holds true; our state of BEING, our IDENTITY, determines the actions we are comfortable taking. BEING leads to DOING leads to HAVING. Therefore, when managers and executives think about who to promote to engineering lead, to manager and higher, it is important not only to understand what the candidate is capable of DOING but also whether the IDENTITY or BEING necessary to accomplish the tasks is in place. In some instances we may provide engineers and managers the training TO DO management or leadership only to see them struggle because they are still BEING the engineer or team lead or the individual contributor. To have a high probability of successfully transitioning and promoting people we must be certain that we prepare each of them to BE the person necessary to DO what needs to be done so he or she can HAVE the results they and the organization want. In a transition from individual contributor to manager, CAPABILITY and BEING must both transition. Now to be sure, dealing with BEING is more challenging than dealing with DOING. Understood. In fact, to me this is so important that in my Influence, Management, and Leadership workshops, and in the application of my performance questionnaire, I am always looking at and emphasizing the relationship between BEING and DOING. It is part-and-parcel of how we move through the world as human beings. Once people begin to understand this distinction it becomes clear that it has always been there, just unnoticed. It is like buying a new blue car. All of a sudden there are blue cars everywhere. Once the relationship between BEING, DOING, and HAVING is understood, it too is everywhere. To understand how this might manifest in your life, just try this exercise. Think back to a time or perhaps into the future when you have done or will do something that is truly representative of who you are. It is easy. You can perform the action not just because you know how to do it, but because it rings out who you are. You step into that action not just as an actor, but as the action's true representative. Doing the action is actually making you more YOU. Notice how it feels. Notice how you act. Notice what you understand to be true about you. That feeling of fulfillment, that feeling of "this is really easy", that is what it is like to have BEING and DOING truly aligned. You are accomplishing this act not only because you know what to be DOING but because you are just the BEING to be doing it! I find all this fascinating; hope you do to. Be well, Steven |
Dwika Sudrajat's experience appears to be concentrated in Information Technology / Network, with exposure to Sales / General. Dwika Sudrajat has 28 years of work experience, with 6 years of management experience, including a mid-level position. Global Worldwide office in Florida, Asia Pacific Office in Hong Kong, Sales Office in Jakarta. Email: vide.inc@gmail.com
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Transitioning and Promoting People
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment