Random Thoughts

It has been a while since I posted so I thought I'd come back to this and offer some more rambling ideas. I've given a lot of thought to what good leadership looks like and I've come to the same conclusion that a U.S. Senator did when asked what pornography was. He told the questioner something like: "I can't give you the definition of pornography, but I know it when I see it." How does one define a good leader? There are a lot of qualities we want to see in a leader: integrity, courage, moral conviction, and so on. But how many of those qualities really mean the person is a good leader? I know many good men and women who have strong moral convictions; who have high levels of personal integrity; who have shown great courage in personal and professional trials, yet I wouldn't want any of them to lead me into battle. On the other hand, I know men and women who have moral deficiencies and who would cheat on their spouse at the drop of a hat, yet I can tell you that I would follow those people into battle and fight side by side with them because I know they will lead me through with great courage.

What does all that mean? Is leadership really a situational thing? While I think that a person can exhibit leadership traits in specific situations, if the supervisor or formal leader doesn't demonstrate leadership on a regular basis in non-stress times how many will actually seek to follow them? I had the pleasure and privilege to meet and get to know one of the primary commanders in the military mission that occurred on Ocotober 13, 1993 in Somalia, Mogadishu. Most of us have either read the book "Black Hawk Down" or have seen the movie of the same name. Lt. Col. Danny McKnight led a convoy of Army Rangers and Delta operators into Somalia to pick up the prisoners captured and ultimately to rescue the injured and killed heroes. If you have never met Colonel McKnight and have a picture of what he must look like based on the actor who played him in the movie, you are so far from reality that you would easily miss him in a crowd.

I picked the colonel up from the airport when he came to Richmond to present his leadership thoughts in a seminar we had for supervisors and administrators. I too expected a tall and imposing figure to come out the terminal. What I got was a man who was slightly built and not nearly as tall in stature as I expected. But it took me about 15 minutes of listening to him talk that convinced me why his men would follow him. While he didn't have the big booming voice or "command speak" I expected, he had a way of communicating ideas that told me he only had to tell someone once what he expected and that he practiced what he preached. It was also obvious he cared deeply about the men in his command and never forgot the ones he lost in Somalia. In fact, the second time the colonel came to speak, he paid a visit to the graves of his fallen men in Arlington National Cemetery and visited the surviving family. What dedication to those for whom he was responsible! I could go on and on about the things that impressed me so much about him, but suffice it to say that if Colonel McKnight told me he was leading a mission to Hell to fight Satan himself, I would be in line to join the battle.

Does any of that mean that I think Danny McKnight is a perfect man and makes no mistakes in his personal life? Certainly not! In fact he spoke quite candidly about some of his past issues that led to failures he regrets. I can't say I would necessarily have wanted to be his son and live with him, though I can't say I wouldn't have either. Does the fact that his actions in his personal life that led to difficult times make him a bad leader? From what I can gather from comments from fellow soldiers and my own personal interactions with him, I can unequivocally say "no." In fact I would say, "heck no!"

So what am I trying to say in this rambling conglomeration of verbiage? Basically the thought I wanted to convey is that just because someone doesn't have a perfect life at home, doesn't mean he or she can't be a great supervisor at work or lead men into battle. I do think that not being perfect is not the same as being amoral though. Everyone has a responsibility to do the right thing and if they fail in that responsibility, they fail those who look up to them.

By the way, the picture above is me (on the left), Colonel McKnight (center) and my brother who is serving in the Army and getting ready to get deployed to Afghanistan.

Accountability: When Leaders Fail

Whenever one is in a leadership position, whether it is a formal position or one of informal leadership, there is an element of accountability that has to be considered. How is an informal leader accountable? Well, in the case of almost any organization, anyone to whom others look for direction and advice must be able to be accountable to the organization for what they tell others. If for instance, a senior police officer in my agency told a new rookie that it is permitted for him to do something that would violate a person's civil rights, who is at fault? Certainly the rookie is responsible for his own actions and is supposed to know what can and cannot be done, but if the senior officer told the rookie to do something he himself thought was permitted, the senior officer has failed the rookie, the organization, and the community by not knowing the law as he should. Unfortunately, many new employees of any organization don't know who is a good resource and who isn't. The learning curve in those circumstances can be very long and potentially career ending. Just because one has time in the agency doesn't make one a good leader.

When we think of leadership we think if the formal leaders: the CEO, the division manager, the store supervisor, anyone who has formal authority to make decisions and direct people in order to accomplish tasks. Those leaders can make or break those individuals with how they make decisions and deal with company and employee issues. Anyone can take care of the routine issues covered in policy and SOP; it is the unusual circumstance that shows the true colors of the leader. I know many supervisors who know policy and SOP yet can't relate to people and won't make a decision if it isn't specifically covered in some written directive. When those supervisors aren't willing to make the decision and stand by it, the rank and file lose respect and confidence in that supervisor. If that happens, the supervisor becomes impotent in many ways because the line people will find ways to circumvent the normal chain of command to get things done. That leader has failed the organization by not being able to make decisions and lead in his or her area of responsibility, and has failed those under him or her by not being able to instill confidence in their ability to lead.

So, what do we do with those who fail? Is this an automatic out the door situation with no regard to the energy and expense already invested in that person? I think it depends on the reasons for the failure. If the leader has demonstrated no concern for the organization and is obviously in it only for what they can get out of the position, I don't think they can be salvaged and should be sent packing for the good of the organization and those who do want what is best. If the leader has failed due to a lack of training, they may still be able to be an asset to the organization by giving them better tools to do their job and making sure they are adequately educated into the values and mission of the organization.

The employee who is promoted due to longevity alone is not necessarily going to be the best person to have in a formal leadership position. Their leadership skills are sometimes based on personality, charisma, and the ability to lead by example. They are the ones who "walk the walk, and talk the talk" but don't want anything to do with discipline and giving orders. Those are the very ones we want to keep in place as examples of good work and positive attitudes; we want new employees to see that they can be productive and still enjoy their work. However, when placed in formal supervisory positions those very same informal leaders can become bitter and resentful toward their supervision for forcing them to do things they aren't comfortable doing, and aren't equipped to do well. In these cases, the organization now has failed their employees and must make a decision on how to fix the mistake. There would be no shame in allowing the newly promoted supervisor to go back to being what he or she did best: doing good work and helping fellow employees work better too. It seems though that bosses don't want to admit they promoted the wrong person and instead of allowing a graceful return to the previous position, they will just transfer the new supervisor to another area of the company to "develop them." This will more than likely just compound the problem and frustrate the supervisor more. The line employees will also become disenchanted with the situation as they know there is one among them who could have done the job better, but now may not get the chance since the supervisory position has been filled.

Organizations and leaders within them fail for a number of reasons such as: failure to recognize good work, not keeping up with training opportunities, not compensating workers adequately, not giving them adequate work environments, etc. These are all ways failure can take place and have an impact on employee morale and work satisfaction. However, it seems that the way employees are impacted the hardest is when it is personal. If a leader is not providing competent and confident leadership, employees allow that to affect their view of the organization as a whole. If a supervisor is harsh and fails to do more than is required, or only does enough to get by, employees will resent them and productivity will fall because nothing is being done to remedy the situation. Top leadership will fail when they don't want to disrupt the status quo because doing the right thing is not the easy thing to do.

When Employees Can't Read English

Whenever the topic of non-English speaking employees comes up, my first reaction is to get my hackles up and start with the, "If they want to work in America, they should learn to talk like an American!" Then I start to think a little (imagine that!) and recognize that for the ones who are here legally, some allowances should be made to help them assimilate into our society. I still believe that if one wants to be here and work in our country, one should learn to speak with at least a minimal level of the English language in order to get along. There are a multitude of English as a Second Language classes offered by both private and public agencies, as well as non-profit organizations, and I believe it is incumbent on the immigrant to take the initiative to seek those opportunities that have been provided. The immigration issue has become such an integral part of our current culture that there is very little reason, with a minimal level of effort, any new immigrant couldn't get information they need to begin the process of assimilation.

One of the major issues that is created when non-English speaking individuals are hired to work in a predominately English speaking business, is how to make it possible for them to communicate with other employees. When multiple immigrants are hired they have a tendency to stay to themselves for the obvious reasons. What happens then is that the English speaking employees do not interact with them and divisions are created in the organization. There is already an element of distrust in our society with regard to the growing immigrant population and having segregated groups of employees does nothing to reduce that distrust. However, until something is done to bridge that gap, people of any nationality will naturally gravitate to what is familiar and comfortable. Another sticking point is that American industry has to spend many dollars in creating bi-lingual documents, signs, and placards to inform non-English speakers in such areas as labor law and safety concerns to name just two.

In addition to signs and placards, translators have to be on hand to help make sure directions are communicated properly between English and non-English speaking employees. If a company is lucky, there may be someone already employed who has the proper bi-lingual skills to facilitate this. However, now the incumbent bi-lingual employee may be looking at a possibility that his or her transfer or promotion options just became limited by their own skills. If there is no other person who can take the original translator's position, they will either have to train someone to take over, or lobby for someone to be hired. In either case, it will take time to accomplish either of those tasks and the incumbent may be stuck for a while.

From the HR director's point of view the issue is multi-faceted. If I can't refuse to hire non-English speakers because being able to speak English is not a BFOQ for the job, I now have to consider hiring someone who can at least take care of making sure company documents are properly translated and disseminated. They may also have to be trained to conduct any of the job related training required to get a new employee competent for their job. Now I have to either hire someone with experience in my industry, or provide that training which will take time and further reduce the ROI from having the skilled translator.

Now that I have hit on some of the "bad" stuff with regard to what happens when employees can't read English, what about the positive aspects of the immigration issue? Positive aspects you say? Why of course, there is always a silver lining when you want to look for it. If we have an influx of people who don't speak our language, and we need to get people out there who can speak the foreign language, what do we have to do? Train them! How do we train them? We hire people, or buy books, DVDs, CDs, etc., or send employees to school to get them trained to be able to facilitate the communication process. Why is that such a good thing? Because it has created a new niche for those who are able to take advantage of their language skills and in America we are all about free enterprise. Just in government service for example, people have to be hired to identify ways to reach out to residents in order to educate them on basic rules for living in a specific jurisdiction. Translators are hired by the courts to help defendants and witnesses understand the judicial process. And people are available to police officers via the telephone to translate at scenes of crimes, traffic stops, or other emergencies to deal with immediate language barriers.

The issue of how to deal with employees who can't read, much less speak, English is so complicated because it impacts every aspect of our society. Everything from social interaction, multi-cultural bias, language/communication issues and fiscal considerations are on the table to be addressed. We as a nation have long ago gotten past the point of being able to say, "If they can't speak English, it's their problem not mine." It is here and we have to recognize the need to educate ourselves on the issues. It is also a very precious opportunity we have as a people. How can we not do what we can to welcome those who are here to make a better life for themselves? Most of us in this country who consider ourselves American wouldn't be here if someone in our ancestry didn't get on a boat and stand in line at Ellis Island so they could provide a better life for their family. This is a two way street though; the immigrant cannot just come here and expect to be taken care of. Nor can government ignore the issue and force immigrants to live in isolation. Both sides of this have to be willing to work together for the benefit of the society at large.

Lessons Learned From Katrina

What was learned from the events occurring as a result of Hurricane Katrina? First of all, we can't win in a battle with nature. In our arrogance, we try to build walls to hold back water, we build structures to withstand wind, but sooner or later there will be something that will happen to make it all fall down. With that in mind, our leaders of today must be able to prepare themselves for the inevitable. As I recall, the local and state leadership was aware of the strength of Hurricane Katrina and knew people would need to be evacuated. Many people did leave on their own and some were taken to shelter in the Superdome. What about those who got left behind? Amazingly, many of them wanted to stay to ride out the storm and then the ones who survived had to be rescued from rooftops when their homes were under water. Probably some of the residents of New Orleans didn't have the resources to leave due to a lack of transportation or physical disability.

So what was the responsibility of the local and state government to get those people out? Should they have declared marshal law and forced people to leave? The problem with this storm that made it so much different than any other storm, was not the fact that people didn't leave when they were told it was not safe to stay, it was that there was a man-made wall that couldn't hold the water the storm dumped on New Orleans. Yes, there was devastation that took place all around Louisiana and her neighboring states. The storm was an awesomely powerful one, the likes of which hadn't been seen in years. And some people did die in homes that were destroyed by storm surge and wind. But most of the devastation and subsequent outcry was created by a situation that was more like awaking a sleeping giant than a direct causal factor of the storm. Of course, the sleeping giant was the levees that broke and allowed an entire section of the city to be completely flooded.

In every major incident there is a tendency to "Monday morning quarterback" the incident. It is easy to sit back and point out blame when all the facts are in and we find out things that may not have been possible to know for sure before the incident. However, if we don't look back and see what we missed before the event took place, or critique the response to the event itself, the we will doom ourselves to repeat the mistakes and we fail the ones who follow us. Leaders can't hide their heads in the sand and hope the issues will fade away. In the case of Katrina, there was such chaos and mass looting that the local governments couldn't contain it. There was too long a wait before the Louisiana governor asked for federal assistance to bring in the military. I wonder if there shouldn't be a way for the president to declare a national emergency when multiple states are involved in a mass disaster like that. If so, maybe he could have mobilized the military more quickly. But, as I understand it, the federal government can't just step in on its own until requested by the states.

Another problem was that the citizens of New Orleans and surrounding townships and parishes weren't the only ones looting. Local government officials, including police and fire personnel (hopefully the minority) were stealing left and right. Some were even caught on video and broadcast nationwide! Now, if you were a law abiding citizen of Louisiana and saw the local police stealing from Walmart, how safe would you feel? Even though there was a nationwide mutual aid effort underway where police and fire personnel went to the Gulf coast states to help restore order, it took a long time to get them mobilized and in place. Even once they were there, the ability to communicate was limited over a long distance, cell phone service was hit and miss for quite some time and two way radio communication was generally limited to short distances because the local infrastructure wasn't compatible with out of state equipment.

I could go on and on with what I believe to be many of the problems that existed after Katrina. The one thing that stands out though as the biggest reason the situation was so bad, was that there was no one who stood up and was the point man, or leader people could look to for direction. Mayor Nagy was there but not very strong. The Governor was on TV, but didn't seem to stand out as the one giving direction. Louisiana and New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and numerous towns needed to have someone get up and say to the people, "We know you are devastated by what happened, all of us are. However, we are going to come through this and this is how we are going to help you." That leader needed to outline a specific strategy for rescuing the stranded, bringing order to chaos, securing life sustaining supplies, as well as how the dead would be recovered and how rebuilding would take place. In my opinion, people floundered because there was no plan and it didn't seem anyone was really taking charge.

People are sheep, and sheep need a shepherd. There was no shepherd and the ones who were supposed to be watching over them, the sheepdogs (police), were as bad as the wolves (bad guys). People will respond to strong leadership and a plan. Give them something to have hope in and they will follow as far as the plan works. We saw this on 9/11 when Mayor Guilliani stepped out and went out to the citizens of New York and assured them he was going to make sure they were ok. No one went to the people of New Orleans or anywhere else and told them they were going to be ok. There was no strong leader for people to look to for hope. In the future, if we haven't learned anything else, there has to be a leader to lead the sheep or they will scatter.

Why HR Has Credibility Problem

For me, when I think of the Human Resource manager, I think of someone who is so intent on filling vacancies, they don't have time to address the quality of life issues for employees. Unfortunately, as a government agency we have more bosses than just the department head so it is not necessarily the HR manager's fault for all of the issues we face. Since we are currently in a hiring crisis the HR manager and recruiters are looking for almost anyone they can get in. Competition is fierce among the area agencies to get applicants and we are all using almost the same applicant pool. Consequently, there seems to be an attempt to get applicants to accept a position with our agency before they can be hired by anyone else. This has been problematic in that there have been reports by new hires that they were hired with the understanding they would receive certain benefits that were later taken away due to budget issues. That left a bad taste in the mouths of some of the new employees who now, in many cases, are looking for employment elsewhere.

Another aspect of how the HR management impacts the rest of the organization is the quality of personnel being hired. The perception has been that recruitment is being done more at colleges and universities than at military bases or local job fairs. We actively recruit and test at locations hundreds of miles away, primarily to the North and Northwest. As a result, we are hiring more young people who have just graduated from college and have little to no life experience. The new employees are still living with their parents in many cases, and have had very little job experience where they have much interaction with customers. This has created a situation that forces the training to concentrate on teaching interpersonal skills in order to help prevent negative interactions and reduce complaints.

In our organization, the HR manager is a civilian with no experience as an active member of the public safety field. This does not lend itself to bolstering the credibility of that manager as one who knows what kind of person is needed for our business. In fact, in the past 15 years or so, we have had a civilian in that position and there has been an overwhelming lack of belief among the rank and file that the HR manager is qualified to lead in that role. While reality may not bear that out, at least anecdotally there is support for that feeling when we look at the quality of some of the recruits being hired and trained.

On the larger scale within the government, HR has lost it's credibility when we look at some of the benefits issues. Yearly pay increases are not uniformly applied and methods of calculating pay increases have been looked at as suspect at best. Without going into great detail, a pay increase that was supposed to have been approved for all employees, when implemented many employees received only a small portion of the amount they were told they would get. When it looks like upper management gets large bonuses and perks that line people don't get, and then benefits get cut or taken away, it is a difficult thing to accept.

The Greatest Leader I Ever Knew

If leadership can be passed down from father to son, I believe that it may be evident in my father as it was passed on by his. My grandfather died when I was about 13 years old, but I remember him as hard working, God fearing, and well respected by those in my hometown of Plymouth, Indiana. Myron "Cap" Botset never graduated from high school, but he established himself as a businessman in a landscaping and heavy equipment company and treated people fairly, never taking more than the job was worth. Grandpa was an Elder in the Plymouth Church of Christ and I remember him standing at the communion table reading from the Bible as he led the congregation in that special part of the worship time. As an Elder, the congregation looked to him for spiritual guidance and direction.

My grandfather's strong work ethic was exemplified by the fact that he never stopped doing something to provide for his family. His business was probably the most consistent part of his work history while it lasted, but when that folded he didn't just sit back and do nothing. He worked more than one job many times in his life to make sure his family was taken care of. His example of hard work and providing for his family was passed down to my father. I don't know how much of it was a verbal lesson in hard work versus just living the example and showing how important it is to take care of one's family, but I know my father learned it well and I have tried to live it too.

My father did graduate from high school and then on to college where he majored in mathematics and taught in the high school in Plymouth. Dad went on to graduate school when I was about five, but when he came to the realization that he could not support a family of five on about $6000 a year, he began searching for jobs in other fields. He was offered a job by Allied Chemical Corporation in 1969 and moved his family here to begin a new career. As I learned later, this was a very difficult decision as Dad thoroughly enjoyed teaching. However, he also knew he had to support his family (which by 1970 had grown by another son for a total of 6 family members) and didn't want to have to work two or more jobs just to make ends meet. Dad never really liked working in the factory, but he was able to still teach in Sunday School quite regularly for many years. I guess in that way he was able to still do what he loved, yet do what he had to do to take care of us.

My grandfather didn't lead battalions of men into battle, or engage in a successful political career that brought him fame and fortune. He rarely left his hometown at all because he was working to put food on the table. I remember him coming home from working at Burger Chef (that's right, not King, it was Chef), taking a nap, then going out to work in his mini farm where he grew vegetables for my grandmother to can. He was also a fantastic wood craftsman; he would make frames for postage stamps. But people knew Cap Botset all over Plymouth, Indiana and his reputation was second to none.

I know my father learned many lessons from my grandfather about hard work, treating people right because it's the right thing to do, and taking care of your family. As time went on, my father agreed to take in two of my mother's minor cousins who were in foster care in Indiana. They weren't his relatives, yet they were also being neglected by they system and not afforded opportunities they needed. Since the kids were wards of the State of Indiana, Mom and Dad were eligible for state subsidy. However, Dad knew the state would put conditions on him for how to raise the kids, so he refused the payments. For several years we had six kids living in the house and Dad only worked one job to provide. We never went without food and we always had enough clothes and shoes to wear. But I know Mom and Dad went without a lot of nicer things so we could have what we needed.

So who is the greatest leader I ever knew? Leaders grow new leaders and I believe my grandfather gave my father the tools needed to grow into the leader he became. My father has taught me and my brothers a way of life that includes concepts of selflessness, sacrifice, but most of all a deep faith in God and a desire to live a in way that demonstrates that. At 45 I am still working to live up to the standards my grandfather lived by. I just hope my children will be able to say they learned something from me that helped them become the man or woman my grandfather would be proud to have carry on the name.

September 2, 2007

As I have considered what constitutes leadership, I don't believe position alone to be a good definition of a leader. I have known people in positions of authority who did not inspire others to action, they were just able to give orders. Conversely, the people I have known to be good leaders were committed to the organization and became the catalyst for others to want to do their best. Those leaders do not have to be in positions of formal authority; informal leaders are sometimes more effective than formal ones.

I have been a part of volunteer organizations as well as paid job positions. In each type of organization there have to be those who lead. A "chain of command" or hierarchy is a part of any group with more than one person involved, without which the group would flounder. When I was in the volunteer rescue squad, there were people in positions of authority. And, since there was no pay for the time I spent on duty, my motivation to do what needed to be done had to come from inside myself. The individuals I answered to were not, in my opinion, always the "cream of the crop," but rather were the ones who spent the most time at the squad. The leadership demonstrated by some of the people in charge was more ego driven than inspirational. As a result, I learned to do what needed to be done and did well in spite of the lack of respect for the formal leadership.

As I have grown as a person, and have taken on formal leadership roles, my own style of leadership has been shaped by many people. I have tried to learn good leadership techniques from those whom I respected, but equally important to me has been what I have learned from those I have not had the greatest of respect for. For whether it is in my church or at my job, one of the most important pieces of leadership is to be trusted. If those for whom I am responsible don't have trust in me, then all I am is an order giver and not an effective leader.

An aspect of leadership that I haven't previously given much thought to is this: just because someone has followers, are they truly a good leader? Even if the followers truly believe in what the leader is espousing, is leadership just the ability to get people to trust them and follow? Jim Jones had many people following him to Guyana and utopia, but was death a positive outcome for them? People trust the Rev. Sun Young Moon, but is he a "good" leader? Leaders of militia groups have many people under their influence, but do they represent "good" leadership? I could go on with many cult and radical group leaders and in most cases probably make an effective argument that they lack a moral center that keeps them from going astray. Then again, many will say something like, "whatever they want to believe is o.k as long as they don't hurt me."

In our society, should our leaders allow people to do whatever they want as long as no one is hurt? Are there absolute rights and wrongs that should be tightly adhered to by our government leaders? I believe leadership is as much about standing for what is right as it is influencing others to do the right thing. Politicians will take a stand against an issue like abortion or gay rights at one point in their career, but later, if it appears politically expedient, will change to attract more voters. Did the issue of abortion or gay rights become more right or less wrong than before? Again, standing for what one believes in and remaining firm in that belief is the hallmark of a good leader.