One of the least spoken about features of leadership is pace. Some leaders engage at a fast pace, others prefer a slower pace. The truth is that when you are working by yourself on most projects pace introduces limited intrusions into your ability to perform. This is not true when working with others. Most of us have experienced the frustration with others that could not keep up, or could not slow down, to accommodate our preferred speed. Our biggest issue with pace is that we do not receive adequate feedback from others. It seems that there is a ‘value’ assumption added to pace which dictate that ‘fast’ is best and ‘slow’ is remedial. This means that the people you lead with are unlikely to tell you if you lead too quickly (it reflects poorly on them in their minds) or if you lead too slowly (as it reflects poorly on you in their minds).

As an example, I have coached multiple people who worked with the same leader on more than one occasion. Some of them experienced high levels of stress as a result of the leader’s pace but were not comfortable sharing that with the leader as they believed it would be seen as criticism stemming from their own weakness. A different person actually enjoyed the leader’s pace and were energised by the speed demonstrated. I have experienced the same phenomena in reverse as well. We would be better leaders if we left the value judgements behind, and had honest conversations about the differences, positive and negative, that pace can bring to any given situation.

It is worth considering why others might find our leadership pace fast or slow.

1.       Executing quickly. Some of us are wired to simply do things quickly. Once an idea occurs to us, or a need becomes obvious, we move rapidly into action mode and get things down. Such leaders have similar expectation of others around them.  In their mind their subordinates should be able to spot things to do and simply get on with the job, with little support and even less guidance. In Primal Leadership[i] this style of leadership is named ‘The Pace-Setting Leader’. The authors point out the gaps in emotional intelligence that this leadership style exposes, particularly in the realm of self-management.

2.       Thinking quickly. In his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman[ii] ably expands what organisational experts have know for many years. We all have the capacity to either draw on the slower thinking (logical) part of our brain or the faster (intuitive) side of our brain. Leaders who rely solely on fast, intuitive thinking have great advantage in many circumstances. Kahneman notes that this is particularly in situations which are consistent, and for which one is able to practise. In other circumstances slow thinking is required to achieve optimal results.

3.       Deciding quickly. It seems obviously related to the first two categories is the ability to decide quickly. However, it is true that sometimes fast thinking produces fast decisions, in other cases, a leader’s ability to survey multiple options quickly leaves them paralysed about making a decision. In his study on group decision making Paul Nutt[iii] observes that there is a type of leader, often the organisational founder, that produces a ‘rush to judgement’ decision process for the organisation. In these cases, as soon as an adequate option occurs to the key leader, he or she drives the organisation straight to implementation without considering other options or processes, normally with sub-optimal results. In most cases a slower process will help others to come along the decision journey with us.

If you are a fast-paced leader you might identify with one of the categories above, or all of them or a combination of them. Have you ever stopped to consider what pace you lead with, fast or slow? Have you considered what that might be doing to those around you? Considering your own leadership pace should be a healthy process where you analyse both the positives and negatives that your speed and style brings to any given situation. If we leave behind the value judgment of whether speed is (universally) good or bad and embrace the concept that we are going to be better suited to some situations than others, our leadership will be more highly valued, and we will be far less likely to damage the people around us.

How do we begin to grow our awareness and to master our use of pace in leadership?

The challenge of mastering leadership is a skill like any other … anyone who has the will and motivation can get better at leading, once he [or she] understands the steps.[iv]

For some of us those steps are learned from reading books, for others by listening to experts, and for many through leadership relationships and experience. In my estimation, most people learn fastest in a coaching relationship which centres on honest feedback or a team where these things are discussed robustly.

Steve provides coaching and support for leaders of all speeds. See what others say about his contribution. https://www.deepwellleadership.com.au/testimonials/

[i] Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal Leadership. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Review Press.

[ii] Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farra, Straus and Giroux.

[iii] Nutt, P. (1984). Types of Organisational Decision Process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 414-450.

[iv] (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2013) p.101

“Here’s a curious fact: for the better part of two decades the ADF (Australian Defence Force) has been led by quiet, at times understated leaders, who put a premium on calmness and seldom raise their voices in anger.”[i] This is not the stereotypical leader we expect in the army or even in business. Surely the best leaders are loud, outgoing, assertive people who seek attention and act dominant.

Apparently not. According to research conducted by Grant, Gino and Hofmann[ii] extroverted leaders can significantly decrease employee proactivity. In the research, they define extroverted leaders as having ‘a tendency to engage in behaviours that place oneself at the centre of attention, such as seeking status and acting dominant, assertive, outgoing and talkative.’  Their findings suggest that extraverted leaders are more likely to be viewed as ’less receptive to follower’s suggestions’. In the end result, group productivity under extroverted leaders was lower than under an introverted leader.

In separate research, the authors (Vergauwe, Wille, Hofmans, Kaiser, & Fruyt, 2017)[iii] connected the perception of too much charisma with a decrease in overall leadership effectiveness. They maintain that observers rate the peak effectiveness of a leader at around the 50th percentile on the charisma scale. In contrast the actual leader rates their effectiveness as continuing to rise the higher their charisma.

Does this mean that outgoing or dominant leaders are doomed? Not at all – it simply means that we all bring strengths and weaknesses to our leadership style. For instance, in the research mentioned earlier (Grant, Gino, & Hofmans, 2011), extroverted leaders improved productivity in groups that were already disengaged.

The first hurdle to overcome: to make sure that leaders are not invalidated for having quiet personalities or a lack of the conventional traits that we associate with leaders. The second hurdle is an extension of the first: leaders with conventional leadership traits will in fact have significant performance downsides and hence are not superior to quiet leaders.

We are currently obsessed with the mantra; ‘I am a Leader’, where it would be better to live by the understanding that sometimes ‘we lead’. Leadership is an activity not just a reflection of attributes or personality. [iv] Different leaders are needed for different challenges and simply put, a positive outcome is based on the ability of a leader to act in such a way that an organisation or group is helped in a particular situation. This means that a variety of skills, personality and experience can converge to create an opportunity to lead in the right circumstances. Although leaders come in all shapes and sizes, quiet leaders have the advantageous tendency to get on with leadership work rather than claiming leadership status.   

There is a growing contention among leadership advocates that the day of the dominant, aggressive, autocratic leader is finished. Even on this front it is hard to be definitive. There are remedial, and often dangerous, situations that converge with a demand for dominant people to provide help and safety.  During the evacuation of Gallipoli in 1915 the 'best known personality on Anzac Beach' was Charles Littler. He was the beach commandant responsible for getting troops off the beach and into the safety of the transport ships. He is noted to have been 'a brave, honourable and experienced leader whose slowness of promotion was due to an unfortunate outspokenness’.[v] He was well respected by his subordinates.

Rather than continually talking about the ‘attributes’ of leaders and comparing leaders with each other, we should develop an environment where people who lead are acknowledged and nurtured for the contribution they make rather than just their status or position.

Steve provides coaching and support for leaders of all shapes and sizes. See what others say about his contribution. https://www.deepwellleadership.com.au/testimonials/

 [i] Jennings, P. (2014, June 18). The ADF's quiet leaders. The Strategist. Retrieved December 31, 2017, from https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-adfs-quiet-leaders/

[ii]Grant, A., Gino, F., & Hofmans, D. (2011). Reversing the extroverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), pp. 528-550.

[iii] Vergauwe, J., Wille, B., Hofmans, J., Kaiser, R., & Fruyt, F. D. (2017, September 26). Too Much Charisma Can Make Leaders Look Less Effective. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review: https://hbr.org/2017/09/too-much-charisma-can-make-leaders-look-less-effective

[iv] see Heifetz, R. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. (Page 19f) and Harris, B. (2013) The Tortoise usually Wins. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press (Page 5f)

[v] Higgins, M. (n.d.). Littler, Charles Augustus Murray (1868–1916). Retrieved Jan 21, 2018, from Australian Dictionary of Biography: http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/littler-charles-augustus-murray-7210

Here’s how it works: intelligent people join organisations and end up turning off their ability to question, doubt and challenge things around them in the organisation. Why: because the organisation has employed stupidity management to elicit simple, clear direction that stifles the use of creativity, knowledge and intellect.

In 2012 Mats Alvesson and André Spicer wrote a journal article titled A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations[i]. We have known for some time that organisations are prone to making stupid decisions and have focused on things like group think, bias and decision-making processes. Alvesson and Spicer brought something new.

In their article they coin the phrase functional stupidity. Functional because it works and achieves outcomes. Stupidity part because it intentionally avoids using intellect. We are conditioned to think of stupidity as the lack of intellect or knowledge, whereas here they introduce the notion of stupidity as the presence of intellect that is deliberately not used.

Stupidity management thrives under the following dynamics:

Leaderism: This represents a reliance on leadership that produces an outcome where the decision making is entrusted to leaders, who then produce guiding brands, slogans, and direction statements that are intended to harness forward movement and the achievement of goals. They tend to build strong cultures, charismatic leaders and often have cultish features.

The assumption is that the strong leader sets the path, creates enthusiasm, builds a feeling of belonging to a team, provides employees with the right ideas, and orchestrates personal growth. A true follower relies heavily on the leader to do the thinking and decision making about key issues, such as visions, strategies, values, and identities. (p.1206)

Positivism: This is an approach which looks to maximise the positive future that decisions and strategies evoke with a dose of denial attached to any negative thoughts or even questions. Typically, this sort of leader or boss will have the mantra of ‘don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions’. Negative thoughts, questions, comments or doubts will be dealt with directly (through demotion, confrontation, redirection, or lack of future opportunities) or indirectly (others in the organisation pleading for the ‘negative’ person not to rock the boat).

Power that blocks communication: The organisation’s leadership encourages adherence to a set of beliefs and practices which discourage critical thinking and doubt.  Efficiency is often lauded; an example is meetings that are measured as successful if they are brief rather than containing meaningful discussion or dialogue. Outcomes, especially within a time frame, tend to be lauded above inclusion, creativity or breadth of inquiry. In the church and not-for-profit arenas, this is often built around certain beliefs or narrow purpose. Individuals who have a dissenting view are marginalised.

At this point, you may be feeling affronted that your leadership style and skill have been have ascribed a negative perspective here. But it is not all bad news. Under certain circumstances stupidity management has some significant upsides.

Firstly, in circumstances that are dealing with simple, non-complex issues, stupidity management tends to create efficient, harmonious and productive environments.  For many workers and group adherents the thought of simply following a strong leader is appealing and preferable especially when there is not much at stake or the leader is echoing the follower’s beliefs.

Secondly this approach works in the short term. It is especially effective for an organisation that has experienced deep turmoil or growing stagnation. The desire to see movement and growth quickly catalyse around simple answers and clear direction. In both cases, many employees and adherents are going to applaud the stream-lined efficiency of meetings, the lack of complex thinking required on their behalf and the sense of harmony and movement that functional stupidity fosters.

The downsides of building your organisational around functional stupidity are multiple. In broad strokes there are three major backlashes to stupidity management.

Firstly, the lack of critical review and feedback. Ironically stupidity management tends to survey, formally and informally, for morale and group thinking on a regular basis. The problem is that they only get the feedback they have created through their own management style (this is of course compounded when management is conducting their own survey rather than using an outside person). Organisations with deeply entrenched functional stupidity will always struggle with complex, multi-dimension decisions. Spicer[ii], one of the authors of the article, gave the example of Nokia in an interviewed with ABC radio. He notes Nokia were the first company to develop the smart phone and held significant market share. To stay ahead of their competitors around 2007 they developed a new operating system called ‘Symbian’. Technical staff and lower management knew almost immediately that it wasn’t up to scratch, but it took 12 months for the company to realise. Why? – no room for dissent, critical feedback or negativity. Nokia lost market share and was eventually sold to Microsoft cheaply. 

 The second broad backlash to stupidity management is the lack of creativity. Although creativity is called for by management it tends to dissipate in amongst the company mantras, strong strategic statements and vision rhetoric. One organisation I worked alongside for a season had almost zero creativity, even though there were extremely intelligent people working in the environment. Each year they would have a strategic ‘dreaming’ day and come up with the same answers as the last year. Why? – there was no room for individual thinking, critical analysis or dissenting ideas.

The third, and most devastating backlash, is that of disenfranchisement. This is inevitably created when the positivism and organisational push is contrasted with the negative reality that an individual is living. In amongst the positive evocations from the stupidity management, an individual will start to catalogue the gap between these organisational directives and their own personal negative experiences.

This can lead to a range of resistant responses including alienation, cynicism, activism or exiting from the organization. (p.1209)

The reason this can be classed as the most devastating response is the simple reality that new generations are leaving all kinds of organisations, not-for-profits and churches at high rates, often with the claim that the organisation’s rhetoric lacks substance or does not live up to its own hype[iii]. Talent is not retained.

So how do intelligent managers make sure that their organisation is not dependant on functional stupidly?

1.    Use functional stupidity intentionally. There are numerous good outcomes associated with functional stupidity which an intelligent manager could leverage for organisation health and harmony. To emphasise the fact that there are positives not just negatives in stupidity management, Alvesson and Spicer named their follow-up book The Stupidity Paradox[iv]. However, remember that it would be unwise to employ stupidity management long term or to have it as your only mode of operation. You certainly would not apply it for complex situations.

2.    Create room for discussion and dissent. To formalise a time for communication that allows open discussion, questioning and negative feedback. One organisation that I have worked with several times aims for this type of outcome but does not recognise that the ‘messaging’ of vision and positivity is so strong that participants still don’t enter the discussion with a sense of freedom. To make this work organisations may need to set up a ‘think tank’ environment which is quarantined from the rest of the ‘normal’ operation. Outside facilitation is inevitably essential so participants do not feel they will be penalised

3.    Create proper feedback loops. This will probably involve anonymity to begin with to allow for safety. A suggestion box (which is treated with dignity), anonymous surveys, and externally led reviews are some suggestions. The story is told of a church pastor who received an anonymous letter that he then burnt/binned on the stage the following Sunday with the comment, ‘this is what I do with unsigned letters’. Although I understand the sentiment and the frustration of uniformed or underserved criticism I go with the adage ‘all feedback tells you something’. The more interesting question might be why the author felt they needed to remain anonymous.

4.    Improve your decision making. Make a point of having a devil’s advocate in decision making processes. Encourage the decision-making group to talk about possible negative outcomes. Employ the concept of a pre-mortem – work out why the idea or decision died before, not after, it’s death. Engage outside opinions on major decisions. Find new ways to allow for difference of opinion when making decisions[v].

Steve facilitates team discussions that explores the five underlying causes of

Functional Stupidity and how to improve your team’s current practise.  

Steve’s Mobile: 0429 333 700

[i] Alvesson, M., and Spicer, A. (2012), A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations, Journal of Management Studies, 49:7, 1194-1220.

[ii] Spicer, A. (2016, July 30). Functional Stupidity. (R. Aedy, Interviewer) ABC National. Retrieved November 18, 2017, from http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bestpractice/stupid/7659452

[iii] See White, J.E. (2014), Rise of the Nones, Baker Publishing, Grand Rapids: Michigan

[iv] Alvesson, M. and Spicer, A. (2016). The Stupity Paradox. London: Profile Books

[v] Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2013), Decisive. NY: Crown Business

It is almost uniformly true that regardless of whether leadership is established through experience or learning, leaders rarely think about the foundation their leadership is actually built on. How we use power over others, how we self-justify our actions and how we compartmentalise our lives are sadly not topics that most leaders think about.

In his book Integrity Henry Cloud unpacks six essential qualities that determine success in business. He begins his discussion by pointing out that the word integrity finds its basis in the French and Latin concept of integration (completeness, wholeness). Leaders that display integrity are leaders that are integrated. Here-in lies the challenge for leaders. Most of us integrate the wrong stuff.

Cloud talks about integrating our values (the things that define who we are) not about enmeshing our functional roles. Think about the question: are you a leader or do you lead? Leadership is a function we perform. None of us should lead all the time. Good leaders, are on occasions, good followers as well, or at least have spaces in their lives where they don’t lead. So much of the rhetoric around leadership tries to convince us that we are leaders and not simply people who, in the appropriate circumstances, lead. If we get this wrong we are vulnerable to burnout, an overwhelming sense of failure on occasions and any criticism of our leadership becomes personal. The irony is that when we confuse who we are with what we do we tend to compartmentalise our values.

One of the questions I ask of clergy when they get caught out in misconduct is; ‘How did you stand up and preach each week when you were crossing so many ethical boundaries?’ The answer is always the same; ‘I learned how to compartmentalise’.

Integrity is about being the same person (integrated values) no matter what we are doing (our functional role). So why do we compartmentalise our being and enmesh our doing?

We all like to think we make good decisions but few of us think about what makes a decision ’good’.  Is a good decision one where we get the outcome we were hoping for? Think about how that might happen: If the outcome we are hoping for has a one-in-four chance of eventuating (based on the information we currently know), is achieving that outcome a product of good decision making or sheer luck? Many leaders, who tend towards aggressive decision making, rely on luck a great deal of the time. Smart leaders shorten the odds by using their experience or intuition to know when to disengage from the decision process but even so, they still rely on a degree of luck. (Obviously this modification process tends to be inaccurate when we are dealing with situations or circumstances that we haven’t experienced before).

If you don’t believe that you gamble in your decision making, think about the last time you were deciding which checkout queue in a shop to join. If you have a fifty per cent chance of choosing the fastest queue (i.e. there are two options), you will have gathered data from around you to convince yourself that one will be quicker than the other. If you choose the wrong line did you make a bad decision or were you just unlucky?

Surely there must be a better way to make decisions then simply gambling on favourable (or in some case, unfavourable) odds. An obvious answer would seem to be found in making sure we gather enough data to improve the odds. The reality is that, most of the time - like in the shopping queue, we can’t gather enough data in the necessary time frame to make the ‘perfect’ choice on every occasion. The simple shopping scenario is made far complex when the decisions we are making involve other people. Is it any wonder we struggle in our workplaces, churches, clubs and other organisations to make ‘good’ decisions.

Here is the first part of the answer: The simplest way to improve your decision making is to adopt a good process. A good process is the best measure of a good decision regardless of the amount of input you have or the outcome you achieve. A good process will inevitably take into account the inputs and possible outcomes but it is a truer measure than either input or outcomes in isolation. Although there is a great deal written on this issue in the world of academia, real life experience shows that it is rare for us as individuals or organisations to have adopted a ‘decision making process’. Today might be a good day to gamble a little less and process a little more.

To enquire about training with this or other leadership issues, or to sign up for these regular updates, contact Steve here

Josh was struggling at work. He is in the top position in his organisation, believes that he does his job well, but has received feedback from staff and volunteers (over a period of time) that they don’t really enjoy working with him and find him too controlling. He is confused by the feedback because he is very successful in terms of results and he truly believes he is at ‘good as it gets’ as a leader. He simply says that he is a ‘strong leader’ not a controlling leader. He feels misunderstood and underappreciated. Josh’s problem is that he doesn’t see what he doesn’t see.

Getting objective, constructive feedback is more difficult then it seems. We all need good feedback and help to develop new skills alongside insight that causes us to consider possibilities that we are blind too. 360 degree feedback provides some help (as for Josh above) but it does help make sense out of the feedback you receive. Coaching is one way of developing the ability to consider what we don’t naturally see or think about. In many industries it is now becoming compulsory to have coaching or supervision for this reason.

A major study of those involved in being coached found that the three broad areas of benefit were;

Learning about yourself and how you function

Improving relationships

Learning new skills

The clients rated the benefits, in terms of impact and frequency, as listed below;

Learning about myself

Ability to look in new ways at the issues and problems I am facing (73% of respondents say they were significantly helped in this area)

Awareness of my underlying personal issues (71%)

Look openly at personal strengths as well as challenges (69%)

Awareness of negative self-talk that stops me acting to my full potential (58%)

About my relationships

Ability to give personal and professional feedback (71%)

Ability to discuss heated issues constructively (63%)

New insights and understanding of colleagues' behaviour (63%)

About developing new skills

Development of an action plan that will enhance my work performance (58%)

Ability to establish, and work towards key performance priorities (53%)

Improved capacity to solve problems I come up against at work (51%)

58% of respondents said that they were ‘surprised or very surprised’ at how much help the coaching had provided.

In the last six months of coaching Josh has an affirmed sense of his strengths as well as engaging some significant problem solving skills. He has realised that he has a strong ‘self-talk’ tape playing in the background of his thinking. He identifies it as the voice of his disapproving father. He has also become aware that staff do not see his motivation when he directs them. What they perceive as ‘controlling’ is tempered in his mind as ‘caring’ because he is motivated by concern for them. He has recently learned how to elicit feedback from those around him and respond to their needs rather than just his agenda.

[Josh’s Story used by permission, named changed].

Study Data based on:  Executive Coaching Effectiveness: a pathway to self-efficacy, Armstrong, Melser, Tooth 2007

The recent moves by government to ensure that local not-for-profits, like churches, have adequate governance in place has been met with a reasonable level of dismissal by churches. I often hear sentiment along the lines of: ‘It’s just government compliance – we answer to a higher calling’. Have you stopped to think about what that calling is? A calling to diligent responsibility and accountability, openness and transparency, honesty and integrity – THE VERY THINGS THE GOVERNMENT IS CALLING FOR! 

Why do we resist? A lot of our resistance comes from a sense of being overwhelmed by the language people use and list of responsibilities if feels as though others want to be add to our already busy lives and agendas. The truth is that most not-for-profits and churches are already doing a reasonably good job with their leadership responsibilities. The best way to work out what you need and don’t need only requires a couple of steps.

Two simple things you can do:

Get some external help to review how you are going.
A simple benchmarking exercise can be as easy as a short online survey through to interviews with board members and someone sitting in on one of your meetings. It is not complicated, expensive or difficult.

Provide training for your board/elders/leaders about their responsibilities.
Governance is not that difficult but it does require having the right knowledge. You can even incorporate training into your regular meetings a couple of times a year. There are plenty of people/groups that can help with that including Deep Well Leadership, Vose Leadership, Baptist Ministry Centre, CMA and the list goes on.

Although December and January can be difficult times to get much of substance done in a church, they are a perfect time for board/leadership reviews. If you want some help with this feel free to call me (0429 333 700) or drop me an email (steve@deepwellleadrship.com.au) and we can chat about where you are up to.