What We Heard From Our Clients This Week

Recently we met with a group of top leaders from a premier company.  These leaders are known for the incredible integrity they display in how they treat their customers, run their business, and how they treat their people.  Paradoxically, in reviewing an extensive series of assessments and surveys, what showed up was that the people “being led” would like the leaders to be more “more self aware.”  Hmmm…really?  One would think that a group of leaders so known for exercising incredible integrity MUST have a keen sense of themselves and their impact on employees.  As we explored these two issues (integrity and self awareness) it became clear that because of some strongly shared values and rigorous training, the leaders may have become too narrowly focused on keeping a very strong link between their “intentions” (including their values and goals) and the “behaviors” they chose to represent what they stood for.  They felt that keeping this link strong and true was fundamental to demonstrating “integrity.”  But others in the organization were apparently communicating that this singular focus made them appear “unaware” of their impact on others (including their teams, each other, other stakeholders).  Wow!  After chewing on this for awhile, they concluded that “real integrity” might actually mean making sure their leadership “intentions” were aligned with not only their “behavior” but also with their ultimate “impact” on those whom they lead.  They thought that this broadened focus (really one where they link carefully link intentions to their behavior AND maintain a keen awareness of the impact of their behavior on others) might represent BOTH “real integrity” and “real self-awareness.” 

What do you think about this hypothesis?  Is integrity linked to more than simply our behavior as leaders? Should integrity also take into account the impact of our behavior on others, or is that just situational ethics?  Is keen self-awareness an important part of displaying “real integrity?”

Frequently LWF gets requests to do Executive Assessments after clients’ internal selection processes have taken place.  The requests often come from clients who have executives who are concerned about why they didn’t get a highly coveted promotion!  Recently we had such a request.  During the assessment and subsequent feedback session we shared a story involving Olympic figure skater Peggy Fleming, and a competition that took place almost 50 fifty years ago during the Cold War.  In the competition, Peggy skated brilliantly!  But as her scores were being posted it became obvious that the politics of the time were resulting in shocking results --- she received high scores from the United States and other Western powers, and low scores from Eastern-block countries.  After a vociferous diatribe from a leading commentator of the time, a microphone was thrust into the famous skater’s face.  She was asked, “Peggy, what do think about these outrageous scores?”  Peggy, in her profound wisdom said, “Dick, the point is not being good enough to win.  The point is being good enough that they have to give it to you!” 

In the recent executive feedback session we similarly shared, “Mr. Executive, you ARE good enough that you could have won the position, and probably even succeeded.  But you aren’t good enough (yet), that the company had to give it to you.”  We went on to have a powerful and constructive coaching meeting where we identified what had to change for him to be a far more compelling candidate the next time around.  In reflecting on our interaction, I was reminded of another client, and a plaque displayed prominently above his desk.  It simply said, “Good enough…never is!”  Peggy Fleming’s words (shared in a competition where she won the coveted Gold Medal despite biased scoring) have burned brightly in my psyche for virtually my whole life.  You see, I’d like “good enough” to be “good enough.”  But in reality, I know it seldom is.  I have found that believing and living by that myth is at the root of many disappointments, and even resentments, in business, leadership, and life!

This week we met with a client who was deep in thought, trying to decide if a candidate under discussion was going to be “the one” to be offered the top leadership position of a division.  The outside candidate had a sterling track record, impeccable references from trusted sources, and handled the recruitment process with the class and grace of a top executive.  Yet, the client was hesitating to pull the trigger and offer the job.  Why?  Well, despite all the good stuff, he had “a couple concerns” about the candidate.  Despite the likelihood that he would never find a better candidate, there were “a couple things” he would want the person to change about how he carried himself.  As the client reflected on the candidate’s pluses and minuses, he rocked his head back and said, “So much of life comes down to the simple A-B-C’s, doesn’t it?  It comes down to estimating the likelihood of getting Adult-Behavior-Change.”  As the client thought about what it would take to get the desired changes, he thought he would have to create a powerful, emotionally-charged change experience.  He doubted anything else would work.  From where we sat, this sounded pretty risky, and unlikely to succeed.  What do you think?  Do you think “powerful, emotionally charged change experiences” get hoped-for outcomes? What would you do to get style changes you thought were critical to be successful?  How do you recommend trying to get “simple A-B-Cs?”