As appearing in the January 29, 2012 Sunday Los Angeles Times Business Section:

#1 in Six Kindle Categories

#1 best selling book from American Management Association (out of 3900+ books)

“Just Listen” – Chapter 1: Who’s Holding You Hostage? (click here for PDF)

I love America, but businessmen and executives from India (which I will have the pleasure of visiting in early October, 2011) are emerging as one of my favorite people.  What I like, admire and respect most about the Indian individuals I have spoken to is their respect for tradition and previous generations, their dedication to their families and their ongoing and I believe noble struggle between aspiration and ambition.

They aspire to become successful both in their region and on the world stage, but the ones I have spoken to eschew the ugly ambition that many countries, especially the United States, possess where “winning is the only game” and winning at all costs is perfectly fine and will even draw “high fives” in many American financial circles.

The Indians I have spoken to are incredibly hard working, smart, decent, humble and want to be successful, but don’t want to do it if it hurts or breaks other people.  They don’t approach life as a “zero sum game” and they are not interested in profiting at our expense nor gloating about the United States difficulties.

When I’ve asked several how they view United States they have given me some Indian metaphors which because Americans are so “self interested” will not make any sense.

Here is my best translation.  Our President and Congress are viewed as the Keystone Cops minus the humor.  They don’t know how to cooperate or collaborate, they start down one direction and then flip flop, they say one thing one day and then reverse it the next.

When it comes to how American business is viewed, the view is more dark and sinister.  The best metaphor would be William Golding’s Lord of the Flies.  Whereas the President and Congress are seen as ineffectual, our business practices are seen as more malevolent, malicious and devious.  To many in the global community, American business especially our financial institutions are seen as a bunch of thieves and as the saying goes, “There’s no honor among thieves.”

Honor is very important to cultures such as India and used to be important in the United States.

To show you how disconnected – even dyslexic — that concept has become, I recently asked a young American business person what he thought about honoring people from inside and outside his industry.  His response, “Guilt trips don’t work on me.”

What do Hewlett Packard, Yahoo, Bank of America, Sprint-Nextel, AMD, Moody’s, Best Buy, Cisco, Goldman Sachs, Sears and GE have in common?

24/7 Wall St. looked at the S&P 500 companies and chose those whose stock prices had fallen at least 33% over the last five years, but excluded those with revenues lower than $5 billion in 2010.

“Among the subjective guidelines 24/7 Wall St. editors used to further determine the effectiveness of a board was the length of service among board members. Boards with long-serving board members can be an impediment to change if companies run into troubles, such as in the case of GE. (NYSE: GS) Another factor we looked at was whether a company’s board supported a poor performing CEO for several years, as in the case of Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS). Ironically, the reverse — electing too many CEOs — may also indicate a dysfunctional board. This is a sign the board cannot effectively choose chief executives and strategies that will help its company return value to shareholders consistently, such as in the case of Hewlett-Packard. 24/7 Wall St. came up with eleven “American Companies With The Most Dysfunctional Boards” (they named Hewlett Packard, Yahoo and Bank of America whose Boards are flagrantly known to be dysfunctional but delved into eight others that met their criteria).”

What’s going on in these Boardrooms? Patrick Lencioni’s iconic book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, outline factors that are equally applicable to a Board.  These consist of:

1. Absence of trust—unwilling to be vulnerable within the group
2. Fear of conflict—seeking artificial harmony over constructive passionate debate
3. Lack of commitment—feigning buy-in for group decisions creates ambiguity throughout the organization
4. Avoidance of accountability—ducking the responsibility to call peers on counterproductive behavior sets low standards
5. Inattention to results—focusing on personal success, status and ego before team success

With Lencioni’s delineation of these dysfunctions we are reminded of the famous quote by US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart regarding his threshold for identifying pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) when he said, “I know it when I see it.”

As much as we agree with those negative attributes and recognizing them when we see them, they all beg the question, what do you do about it especially in a world that by all estimates is becoming even less trusting?  According to Erik Erikson the foundational stage of our psychosocial personalities is what he refers to as Basic Trust.  By that he means that if you leave that stage feeling basic trust towards the world it will subsequently appear to you differently and you will live your entire life differently than if you leave that stage feeling basic mistrust towards the world.

We think one of the things that most perpetuates dysfunction in a Board (a team, a marriage, a community) is that individuals have become too siloed in their view and interaction with everyone around them.  Just as the saying: “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” goes, “When you’re an analytic, everything looks like a number,” “when you’re a creative, everything looks like something new,” “when you’re a salesperson, everything looks like a sale,” “when you’re a COO everything looks like a process,” etc.

The problem is not that these silos stubbornly resist each other (which each person feels the others are doing), but that they are each locked in non-rational, nonfunctional self-preservation.  If we get back to the notion of Basic Trust vs. Basic Mistrust, an analytic trusts numbers and any attempts to pull him into some creative process threatens his core of expertise, competence and confidence.  The creative person may merely be trying to communicate their approach and solution to a problem as opposed to tearing the analytic down or vice versa.  However it is the internal non-rational fear by either the analytic or creative of being pulled six degrees of separation from their core of competence into an area of incompetence that causes each to dig their heels in and feel as if they are resisting to the other.

Once each of their heels are dug in, this process of self-preservation becomes non-functional. Instead of supporting the success of the enterprise, each makes it worse by resorting to both CYA and CYF (cover your front when being pulled away from your area of competence.)

So great, now we’ve introduced yet some more hidden in plain sight counterintuitive insights that also beg the question, “Okay, so what do we do now?”

Years ago a primitive from a tribe in South America came to Manhattan and was asked what he thought.  His response, “They don’t see the sky.”  By that he meant that everyone seemed so locked in doing transactions, that they didn’t see a shared opportunity that they could all work, enjoy and live towards.  We refer to that mind and behavioral set as transactional myopia, i.e. get the deal, do the deal, next deal.

As long as people are locked in transactional myopia and locked into the non-rational, nonfunctional, self-preserving silos that individual Board members are, there will be a continuation of all of Lencioni’s five dysfunctions.

For a solution to this we have discovered and built upon the work of former IBM Fellow, Allan Scherr which produced spectacular results in 20 engineering projects at IBM.

One of the things we have learned is how important it is to avoid the seven words that “rank and file” people tasked with doing the frontline tasks can’t stand.  And those are: Vision, Mission, Culture, Values, Strategies, Goals, Objectives.

We know that many leaders love and even speak passionately about these words, but the people who have to carry them out hate them.  Why?  Here are five reasons:

1. They are full of sound and fury signifying a lot of grunt work that doers will be tasked with and that leaders and managers who care mainly about results don’t take into consideration.
2. They are too conceptual and abstract and therefore invite misunderstanding big enough to drive a disengaged workforce through.
3. They have been already tried numerous times in the past with poor results.
4. They will require a lot of work and then will be abandoned in a year when the new powers that be do what politicians do so well and that is to: “flip flop.”
5. They cause a work force to disengage and swear some expletive to themselves as soon as they hear these words, triggering much more cynical “here they go again” than inspired excitement (except for rare companies like Apple and Zappos).

When it comes to Board members, even though they have been the espouser of those words at their own companies and organizations, they too have separate deeply embedded interpretations of what they mean.  If you don’t believe that just ask a group of Directors to individually define the difference between Vision and Mission, or what Culture and Values are.

What Scherr proposes to focus instead are Concerns and then Outcomes. Why are these much better than Vision, Mission, etc? First, Concerns if selected well are something that both leaders and front line doers have in common right out of the gate.  Concerns avoids the top down disconnect that Vision and Mission trigger where the majority of people can’t even tell the difference.  Also a Concern if chosen correctly is something that all can agree to.  You can select what those are, but three that are common to nearly all enterprises are:

1. Must make money.
2. Must delight and trigger “gotta’ buy it, have it, see it, do it” in customers and clients that spreads virally.
3. Must engage everyone that touches it, especially the people who work for it, invest in it, purchase or buy it.

Second, words like Goals and Objectives are often loved by those who set them but who can often wiggle away from being held accountable to them. They are often however the bane of those who will be held accountable for them.  Goals and objectives also require a forward cognitive bias which is the able to look clearly into the future.  That is something that less than five percent of people have (and all good CEO’s must have).

The vast (>90%) majority of people are not very good at looking into their future.  They more often know that they want to be happy and successful, but are not very good and identifying what to commit to that will result in their feeling that way.

Most people instead have a reverse cognitive bias which means, they wait for things happen and then they react to it.

A mundane example that affects most couples is not being able to decide where to eat, what movie to see or where to go on vacation, but after they have gone, there is no shortage of negative or positive critiquing (which is sadly attached to some finger pointing).

Outcome is a much better word (which BTW is why we have named our company Xtraordinary Outcomes), because built into it is the accepted fact that a good outcome is preceded by effective actions and a bad outcome is preceded by ineffective actions.  Also when the doers come up for performance reviews, they are not based less on goals and objectives the reached, than they are outcomes they achieved.

Outcomes when properly selected result in the fulfillment of the concerns above.  With regard to the Concern: Must make money, the Outcome that if achieved fulfills that Concern might be: Every potential (and targeted) customer and client when made aware of an urgent need for a product or service will automatically seek out and purchase your company’s service or product (a parallel can be drawn to a non-profit with regard to targeted donors).

Following identifying those Outcomes (and we think leaders, managers and doers are still aligned at this point), the next step is a Plan to achieve those Outcomes.  Plan is a non high falutin word for Strategy, which again has been overused and runs the risk of a top down disconnect.

From Plans next comes specific Actions required to execute that Plan, then Skills and Resources necessary to take those Actions, then identifying the people best suited to take those actions (with a plan for filling their skill set gaps and for getting them the resources they need to succeed).

If a Board uses the above approach they not only have a good chance of lessening dysfunction, but of “seeing the sky,” and hitting the ground running towards it instead of running into or away from each other.

On a separate note, Mark is traveling to Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi in October to speak with leaders and executives who are interested in becoming better at functioning within and among their companies and organizations.  We wish that were more the case in America.

After compounding the latest news on the $500k Solyndra loan debacle with the fact that China is already way ahead in the push for renewable energy, I’ve been speaking with a some executives I know in Europe, South America and India about their current view of America especially with regard to our politics and business practices.

I love America, but businessmen and executives from India (which I will have the pleasure of visiting in early October, 2011) are emerging as one of my favorite people.  What I like, admire and respect most about the Indian individuals I have spoken to is their respect for tradition and previous generations, their dedication to their families and their ongoing and I believe noble struggle between aspiration and ambition.

They aspire to become successful both in their region and on the world stage, but the ones I have spoken to eschew the ugly ambition that many countries, especially the United States, possess where “winning is the only game” and winning at all costs is perfectly fine and will even draw “high fives” in many American financial circles.

The Indians I have spoken to are incredibly hard working, smart, decent, humble and want to be successful, but don’t want to do it if it hurts or breaks other people.  They don’t approach life as a “zero sum game” and they are not interested in profiting at our expense nor gloating about the United States difficulties.

When I’ve asked several how they view United States they have given me some Indian metaphors which because Americans are so “self interested” will not make any sense.

Here is my best translation.  Our President and Congress are viewed as the Keystone Cops minus the humor.  They don’t know how to cooperate or collaborate, they start down one direction and then flip flop, they say one thing one day and then reverse it the next.

When it comes to how American business is viewed, the view is more dark and sinister.  The best metaphor would be William Golding’s Lord of the Flies.  Whereas the President and Congress are seen as ineffectual, our business practices are seen as more malevolent, malicious and devious.  To many in the global community, American business especially our financial institutions are seen as a bunch of thieves and as the saying goes, “There’s no honor among thieves.”

Honor is very important to cultures such as India and used to be important in the United States.

To show you how disconnected – even dyslexic — that concept has become, I recently asked a young American business person what he thought about honoring people from inside and outside his industry.  His response, “Guilt trips don’t work on me.”

A good leader makes you want to do a better job;
a great leader makes you want to be a better person

What are the qualities and characteristics that great leaders possess?

If you’re fortunate, you’ll meet people over the course of your career and life that exceed your expectations in every way. When you work or spend time with them, you find yourself wanting to not just do a better job, but to be a better person. You put a lid on your neuroses and on your sense of entitlement and selfishness.  You work hard and as Harry S Truman would say, you do it gladly.

Why do we try to be the best that we can be with such people? Given the choice between instant gratification and the lasting satisfaction of earning the esteem of someone you deeply respect and admire, all but the most myopic of us would choose the latter.

What would happen to your leadership effectiveness if you became more like the people from whom others actively seek respect? How productive would your people become if they all felt that having you as a leader represented the rare opportunity to work with or under someone that people everywhere admire? How much harder would people work if they were inspired and motivated by the privilege of your adamant faith in their skills?

If you answered anything less than an enthusiastically positive response to those questions, imagine the effect on people if you acted in a manner that was the polar opposite of this. How motivated would your people be if you attacked, blamed, demeaned, made excuses,  complained and embarrassed them and yourself? Perhaps they’d work hard in the short run because of fear or even resentment. Your organization might squeeze a winning quarter out of intimidation, but without inspiration you will never build a winning company.

What are the qualities that leaders should aspire to in order to earn, deserve, and command respect? Look no further than a mentor whose belief in you made you want to give your best shot in your professional and personal life. Chances are they possessed the following four attributes:

• The judgment* to know the smart, wise and right thing to do.
• The integrity to do it.
• The character to stand up to those who don’t.
• The courage to stop those who won’t.

If you think the above terms are too abstract or “full of sound and fury signifying nothing,” imagine the effect on people if leaders possess their polar opposites.  If instead of judgement a leader consistently makes bad decisions (that are neither smart, wise or right); if instead of having the integrity to execute on those decisions, they don’t follow through; if instead of character they turn a blind eye to people who are disruptive whose negative behavior is obvious to everyone else; and if instead of having the courage to stop and/or throw out the destructive and toxic people whose behavior is either exasperating or scary to everyone else, what do you think their people would think in terms of their respect, confidence and trust in that leader?

A final perk to if you consistently practice and develop these qualities in your professional and personal life. You will accrue an additional benefit beyond getting the best out of your people, as well as your family. You will live a life that was worth giving your life to.

Usable Insight: Command respect, and people will beat a path to your door. Lose it and they’ll want to head for the exits.

* Judgment which is the cornerstone of leadership, does not mean that a leader has to be a “know it all.” in actuality they will do better to send their smartest, most passionate and most curious people out as scouts to find out what are in the hearts and minds of their people, customers and clients, investors, vendors and strategic partners.  One of the most innovative companies I know is IDEO and part of their tag line is that they are an “Innovation Consulting Frim.”  It sends their people go out into the world as anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists to bring back where people are coming from, what they need and want out of services and products. One of the qualities that they have is that they are to quote Saul Bellow, “first class noticers.”One of the best resources for developing this rare quality is: Judgment: How Winning Leaders Make Great Calls by Noel Tichy and Warren Bennis (Portfolio Trade, $17.00)

-  Women executive who asked to remain unnamed
explaining how being in a room of testosterone driven men
is like watching a bunch of “egomaniacs at the trough”

I love my wife and I respect her opinion, but I don’t often want to hear it and I don’t ask her for it as much as I should.  When and if I ask for it, it will nearly always help me be more effective, waste less time and be more successful.

From more than thirty years as a clinical psychotherapist, marital therapist and for the past fifteen years as an executive coach to high performers who want to get even better, I am not alone in having a woman in my life (sisters and moms can do the same) whose input will make me even better.

If it will make me and all these male executives better, why don’t we ask for input from these women who care about us?  From my work with executives who have opened up to me, a few reasons come to mind:

1.     Don’t rain on my parade or testosterone rush. When men are in the middle of a testosterone rush, they feel superhuman and they don’t like it when that rush is derailed, or what  I refer to as “testosterone interruptus.”  As a result when men are on a roll (in their life or at least in their minds) and thinking they have discovered the answer to changing the world and the woman in their life says, “You’re not going to wear that shirt are you?” it can break their momentum and trigger an interruption in their feeling powerful.  In the boardroom it can come when an egomaniac is going on and on and he looks and sees the “lie and b.s. detector” expression on one of the women’s faces in the room broadcasting, “You’re so full of b.s. and you’re such a fool!”

2.     Fear of humiliation. If the lady doth protest too much, perhaps the man doth posture too much. The more bravado a man demonstrates on the outside, usually the more paranoia and fear of being exposed as not particularly smart, capable or caring about anyone else on the inside.  And the shame of those possibilities being exposed (which a knowing woman can say in one glance more than in a thousand words) can turn out not only to be devastating but lethal.  When men commit suicide it is frequently tied to either having been humiliated or anticipating humiliation (interestingly when women commit suicide it is frequently tied to just wanting out of unbearable pain that is usually not tied to feeling incompetent).

3.     Fear of metastatic incompetence. One of the awful burdens on most men is that their worth is too often and too strongly tied to their feeling of competence.  The more competent they feel, the more confident, the more powerful and the more worthwhile they feel.  The more incompetent they feel, the less confident, the less powerful and the less worthwhile they feel.  When women who are often – and thankfully – less power consumed (that said, many women want to be in control as much as their male counterparts) point out things that the men in their life are just flat out wrong about, men will often become very defensive and then counterattack.  At those points, it’s not so much that the man believes himself to be right, it’s that inwardly he may be defending against feeling that the woman is right and he has just made a fool out of himself.  Even more deeply he may be defending his bravado-on-the-outside-insecure-ego-on-the inside from thinking: “Wow, if as right as I thought I was is as wrong as I turned out to be about this, maybe I’m wrong about many things or even everything.”  And again, “feeling you are wrong” can cross over to “feeling you’re incompetent” and then “feeling worthless.”

Frequently many women in business fall into either one of two categories.

In the first case, their “Egomaniac Early Detection System” is operative and that is why when such women enter into a “good old boys” room, the conversation suddenly shifts from sexist, passive aggressive, silly and sometimes mean spirited jabs at women to a standstill.  And “good old boys” don’t like being caught with their pants down nor do they enjoy having their banter stopped.  One of the reasons for that is that these guys can’t stand to feel embarrassed.  Another reason is that the men are also engaging in “boys will be boys” juvenile humor as a way of letting off steam and relieving stress (even if it is at the expense of the respect for women).  I remember the gallows humor my fellow medical interns and residents engaged in to cut the stress of dealing with very sick patients.

In the second instance, women who aren’t attuned to or at least annoyed with the b.s. side of men are that way because they are drinking from the same egomaniac trough.  Sadly for women, coming off that way works against them and the painful truth is that an egotistical, a**hole male gets away with it more than a strident, bitchy woman (isn’t that part of what cost Hilary Clinton the election and what is making for the wide range of ambivalence toward Sarah Palin).

In thinking of women who don’t turn out to have feet of clay or to be egomaniacal like men I think of Frances Hesselbein, President and CEO of the Leader to Leader Institute (formerly The Peter Drucker Foundation) who has said, “The leader’s job is not to provide energy but to release it from others.”  I think of that when I see how rarely this seems to be happening from our leaders and think of how much we need it.

I am also reminded of Golda Meir, the former Prime Minister of Israel.  One of the most memorable quotes I heard from her (or from anyone) was what she said in response to the question: “How long will there be war?”

Meir’s reply: “War will end when they love their children more than they hate us.”

I think if she were alive today and asked the same about our economy, she might say: “Our economic woes will stop when greedy people love their fellow human beings more than they love money.”

That’s something that every boardroom would do well to hear and heed whether it comes from a woman or a man.

Taking Action:

If you are a woman who doesn’t suffer fools (or male foolishness) gladly, but don’t want to create discomfort in men that will only backfire on you, apply the “Feed Forward” Principle  that I learned from my colleague Marshall Goldsmith, the pre-eminent executive coach in the world and author of the #1 WSJ book, What Got You Here, Won’t Get You There (Hyperion, $24.99). Only bring up something that has already happened in a “matter of fact” reporting manner; otherwise you will invite an endless, winless debate.  Instead focus on the future that nobody has messed up and invite input on how to make it more productive.

So for example, if you are a woman and notice a lot of unproductive time wasting in meetings with your male colleagues, go up to the lead person and say, “I’ve noticed that some of our meetings can get off track and as a result we often don’t accomplish our stated objectives for the meeting.  Going forward, what do you suggest I do when I notice that happening in order to help us get back on track?  Also how would you suggest I do it diplomatically so I don’t ruffle any feathers?”  And then be quiet.

After he answers you, repeat back exactly what he said by saying, “Just to make sure I got what you said correctly, what you’re suggesting I do is ___________________. Is that correct?” Then wait for him to say, “Yes.” According to famed social psychologist and researcher  Robert Cialdini, author of Influence: Science and Practice (Prentice Hall, $24.80) this will deepen his commitment to being on your side if and when you do what he suggested.

• “Just Listen” Discover the Secret to Getting Through to Absolutely Anyone (Amacom, $24.95) “One of the best books to buy for everyone else, who will then tell you that you need to read it”- female senior vice president, IBM
  

Be more fascinated than fascinating
- Warren Bennis, author of Still Surprised: A Memoir of a Life in Leadership

• How often do you meet people at a conference and wish you had more productive conversations?
• How often do you think afterwards, “I wish I had spoken to more people?”
• How often do you find yourself in a long conversation that you would like to politely disengage from so that you can continue to meet other people?
• How often would you like to make a meaningful connection to one of the conference speakers?

Some of the best tips for addressing these come from Patrick Henry, Assistant Professor of Clinical Entrepreneurship at the USC Marshall School of Business and a Los Angeles based expert on networking at: http://fishingcoach.net and Keith Ferrazzi, author of the two mega best sellers, Never Eat Alone and Who’s Got Your Back?

To address “wishing you had more productive conversations” Patrick suggests that when you meet people, ask them three questions:

1. What does your organization or company do?
2. What do you do at or for your company?
3. What are you looking for at this conference or who would be a good person for you to meet that could help your company or you so that if I run into someone like that I could introduce them to you?

And then be of service to them by making those introductions or suggesting resources including books that might help them.

To address “wishing you had spoken to more people,” Patrick suggests that having more purposeful and focused conversations using the above questions will enable you to meet and talk to more people.

Keith offers another tip about meeting more people and triggering gratitude. He says: “Go up to the person standing alone, engage them and befriend them, because ‘No person goes to a conference wanting to be left alone, they’re alone because they’re shy.’  Realize that some of the most accomplished and successful people, especially in the high tech age are the most personally shy.  Befriend such a person and you can’t imagine the appreciation and good will it will generate.”

Learning how to “disengage from long conversations” will also help you meet more people.

To do that, Patrick suggests being honest and forthright and saying: “I can see that there is much more I would like to find out about you and your company, especially with regard to people I might be able to introduce to you as a source of business or who might be able to help you, but just like you, there are many other people I would like to meet at this conference.  So would you be kind enough to give me one of your cards so I can write down a few notes to remind me of what we spoke about and then could I follow up with you later?”

Regarding “connecting with one of the conference speakers” Patrick advises you to be the first person to ask a question after they finish speaking.  Why?  If there is a pause after someone speaks and there is a call for questions, it can be awkward for both the speaker and the audience.  And if you are the speaker (which I have been), you don’t believe that silence is because you’ve been profound; you believe it’s because you may have been off track.  When you ask a question that both the speaker would want to answer and that audience would want to hear, you provide a service to both.  One question, when appropriate to the talk, that I have found useful to ask is: “If you had it to do over again, what is something you would have done differently that would have save you a lot of hassles later on?” That almost always generates an answer that the speaker wants to answer and that the audience and I want to hear.

Focus on being of service and being more interested than interesting and there is a good chance people will return the favor by being the same with you.

And of course in never hurts to “Just Listen.”

- Warren Buffett, speaking at the University of Washington about achieving success

What did Buffett mean by saying “you get in your own way”? For one thing, I believe he meant that when you take things too personally you lose objectivity. Then, when you react or respond to a situation based on your having been too subjective, you compound the problem. Add to that your ego’s difficulty in acknowledging having made a mistake. Or even more challenging: admitting to others and yourself that as certain as you thought you were was as wrong as you turned out to be and you’ve really dug yourself into a hole.

If you’re a smart leader, why do you engage in such self-defeating, counterproductive behavior? It is because every now and then you react like other human beings to distress. Distress is different than stress. Stress is actually good for you. It pushes you to your limit to see what you’re made of and enables you to test your mettle against the challenges in the world. When you’re under stress you still remain focused on your near- and long-term goals.

When stress becomes excessive (i.e., too much coming at you too soon from too many directions), you become overwhelmed and cross over into distress. When you’re distressed, your focus becomes finding immediate relief and you lose your grip on the goals you’re targeting. It’s then, when you shoot from the hip instead of your head, that you do something hasty and end up shooting yourself in the foot.

If these patterns repeat themselves enough, they develop into self-defeating behaviors that can become “hard wired” as part of your personality.

What are some of the most common self-defeating behaviors that you as a leader might engage in that will sabotage your success?

1. Thinking you’re indispensable: If you own your business (and have not developed people to take your place, i.e., don’t have an exit strategy), you may be indispensable. However if you’re in a leadership position in a public company or someone else’s business and you think that a board or executive team won’t replace you because you’d be so hard to replace, you might want to think again. Nobody is irreplaceable.

2. Talking over or at others: When you do this, you trigger frustration and resentment. Instead of pumping people up, you run over or agitate them. In either case their motivation is replaced by a desire to resist or rebel. Why would they want to make you successful when you dehumanize them and treat them like a function instead of a person?

3. Not listening: You frustrate people by making them feel that whatever they have to say is unimportant. In this case, rather than being rebellious, they stop trying because they feel that if you don’t care about what’s important to them, why should they care about what’s important to you.

4. Not delegating: If after you tell people to do something you don’t get out of their way and let them do it, they will begin to second guess themselves (or, more accurately, not know what the heck you want from them), which will cause them to stall. When you see their hesitation (which you caused by micromanaging them), it will make it even more difficult for you to let them run with the ball.

5. Using jargon: If something is important enough for people to understand, it’s important enough to make it understandable. Using jargon with people who don’t understand it will make this difficult and rarely will they feel comfortable enough to tell you they don’t follow what you’re saying.

6. Being afraid to fire people: One of your greatest responsibilities as a leader is terminating people who are incompetent, unproductive and destructive to a company. There are few things that earn or lose the respect of people in your company more than living up to or shirking this responsibility. And don’t kid yourself. Everybody’s watching.

7. Fear and avoidance of giving performance reviews: Giving performance reviews can be daunting. They require being clear and specific about what people need to do to improve and then following through to make sure they’ve done it in their next review. Too often you know the results you want from your people as opposed to how your employees should go about getting those results. As a result you will too often do these reviews in a pro forma way rather than using them as they’re meant to be used — as vehicles for improving performance.

8. Fear of confrontation: The more focused you are on using your rational faculties and analytic skills to set goals and develop plans for reaching them, the more your ability to deal with emotional tumult can wane if not actually atrophy. Research by Drs. Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves at Talentsmart has demonstrated that emotional intelligence increases as you go up the chain of command to the senior V.P. level and then deteriorates in executives and leaders above that. That may be due to high-level executives needing to “execute” strategies and, in order to do that, regarding employees more as functions than as people. The resulting negative emotional reaction by your people to being treated this way can sometimes blindside you. You may react by adopting a bunker mentality and avoiding the necessary confrontations to keep your company on track.

9. Fear of failing: As you become older the fear of making a mistake can become greater than your desire to do something right. It can have a corrosive effect on your confidence and can allow doubt to metastasize through your decision-making ability. Over time it will cause you to become too tentative to takes the necessary risks in order to help your company flourish and grow.

10. Not getting buy-in: When what you say and do doesn’t make sense, feel right, or seem doable to your people, they will buy out instead of buying in to what you want them to do. They may nod in agreement to your face, but unless they truly buy in they are not going to follow through in the way you hoped they would.

What can you do if you are getting in your own way with these or other self-defeating (and success-defeating) behaviors? It is a matter of always recognizing and then dealing with reality as it actually is, rather than what you think it to be. To do this, seek out, hire, and follow the input of the most able and brightest people possible. Ronald Reagan said, “Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don’t interfere as long as the policy you’ve decided upon is being carried out.” We might add: Surround yourself with trusted people who are not hesitant about letting you know when you’re getting in your own way and then nudging/kicking you to get back on track.

Got something to say? Please add your comment.

* Source: Get Out of Your Own Way at Work… and Help Others Do the Same (Perigee, $14.95)