DDI’s Talent Management Intelligence

Executives Under the Microscope: What leaders CAN do is not always what they WILL do

By Matt Paese, Ph.D.

Excerpted from
Leadership Insights—How Executives React:  Behavior amid Challenges

When business leaders step into new assignments, or are suddenly presented with new challenges, what do they do, specifically? How do executives react? In Part 1 of our Leadership Insights series, we look into the data to answer the following question: 

“Which specific behaviors most frequently characterize the responses of executives as they take on new and challenging assignments?” 

With startling regularity, organizations give tremendous responsibility to leaders whose track records suggest that they can be successful making the jump to a more challenging assignment, only to learn (the hard way) that what a leader CAN do is often very different from what a leader actually WILL do on the job. 

If one thing characterizes the challenge of executive leadership, it is the ability to adapt.  Surprises occur almost constantly, requiring leaders to react instinctively without training or preparation.  The question so many organizations struggle to answer as they plan for the future is, “How will our leaders react when surprised by the business challenges we will soon face?” As we will see, that struggle may be due, in large part, to the fact that many aren’t looking closely enough at the specific behavior patterns that leaders display when responding to challenges.

The only true way of knowing what someone will do when presented with a new situation is of course to watch him or her do it.  But since we don’t have a low-risk way to watch leaders perform in jobs they haven’t yet assumed, we must find other ways of getting as close to what they will do as possible. Interviews that examine prior experiences and accomplishments are useful measures of what one did do in the past, and tests and inventories of personality, cognitive ability, or other stable internal attributes are helpful measures of one might or can do. But for complex assignments like executive leadership roles, these measures take us only part of the way to will do. 

Read all of Leadership Insights: Part One by visiting www.ddiworld.com/leadershipinsights, where you can also follow the series. Share your comments, questions and observations by posting a comment in this blog. 

Executive Derailment – It Doesn’t Have to Happen…

By Mike Hoban

 Maybe you’ve noticed too - it seems that not a week goes by without a story on the front page or in the business section about a prominent and respected leader who has flamed out, derailed, driven his own bus off the cliff. That is, a smart, capable and seasoned executive in the private or public sector does or says something which puts an end to his/her career and embarrasses the organization. Their choice “derails” what had been theretofore a successful and high profile career.

These situations are not usually about competence. Sure, executives get shown the door all of the time for failure to perform, whether that is rooted in a lack of the right skill sets or a job/role mismatch or just plain bad timing. This is something different. This is more about who they are rather than about what they know or what they can do.

The same personality characteristics and talents which work together to make us effective can also, under certain circumstances (like intense pressure) or when used in excess, lead to our downfall. For example, candor or plain talk can be a personal strength in our business organizations or in government, which seem to thrive on buzzspeak and purposeful ambiguity. But when dialed up too high, extreme candor can become unfiltered disrespect (sometimes public). I think we’ve seen those headlines recently.  Similarly, self-confidence, unquestionably a good thing, when taken to an extreme can become arrogance, which is also a vessel for that extreme candor and a condition that can color judgment.

We humans are complicated creatures and we are more like marble cakes than layer cakes and our motivations, talents, traits and behaviors swirl within us, creating the potential of misusing our strengths in ways that work against us. A healthy attention to detail (a strength) when dialed up too much can hijack a leader’s focus and lead to micromanagement and an emphasis on the tactical instead of the strategic.

Other examples of the overuse of strengths? Decisiveness (a good thing) can become impulsiveness (not such a good thing). Passion can become volatility. Caution and prudence can become risk aversion. Being a team player can morph into approval dependence.

The best leaders are those who know themselves very well and understand their internal “wiring,” both their strengths and their vulnerabilities. Self-knowledge is aided by widely available personality inventories and 360°s and an openness to feedback.  And if a situation arises in which one’s personality defaults might lead to an undesirable outcome, the self-aware will recognize that and employ a behavioral workaround to try to achieve the desirable outcome.

It’s not about trying to change who you are, it’s about choosing wisely what to do about who you are. And making those good choices can help leaders be successful. It’s not as easy as developing a readily learnable skill, such as a problem solving methodology or public speaking, but through self-monitoring and being intentional about our actions, self-aware leaders can mitigate or avoid altogether their potential derailers. That’s good for them and obviously good for their organizations. Hence, the best practice is for organizations to ensure they have an insightful read on their leaders and up-and-coming leaders, so coaching, development, assignments and roles are planned to at least take into account their personal “wiring.”    

Today - yes, this very day - as you read this blog there will be leaders in organizations who are taking actions that will derail their efforts and their careers, perhaps because of the unintended misuse of the very things that got them where they are. Make sure you know thyself and use that insight to choose wisely.

Mike Hoban is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI).    

Do Some Leaders “Look” More Competent Than Others? (A study says yes…)

By Mike Hoban

Do some leaders have faces which make them seem more competent? Apparently the answer is yes, at least according to the results of a recent study sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research and Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. But don’t recalibrate your senior leader recruitment processes quite yet.

The study, called “A Corporate Beauty Contest” (seriously) looked at several aspects of how a leader’s looks can influence others’ perceptions of their competence or likeability. The researchers found that the faces of CEOs were judged to appear more competent but less likeable then those of non-CEOs (subjects did not know who was who in the faces they observed). And CEOs with “baby faced” features (the researchers’ phrase) were seen as less competent but were seen as being more likeable than their colleagues who had more “mature” facial traits.

Interesting, but “So what?” you might ask. As it turns out, those CEOs judged to be more competent because of their facial features in fact had an average total compensation 7.5% higher than those who looked less competent. Yet, the study found no correlation between the looks-driven perceived competence of the CEOs and the performance of the firms they headed. They just looked more competent. A rather fascinating distribution of the mien…

So it appears there might be such a thing as having facial gravitas. And there is some historical evidence that one’s looks can indeed influence how leader-like they are regarded by others. In the first televised presidential debate for the 1960 election, John Kennedy, with his striking and tanned visage conveyed an energetic world leader look, while opponent Richard Nixon, with his heavy evening shadow and sometimes brooding appearance exuded an image that many viewers found to be far less presidential. Perhaps less “competent?”

The study of physical characteristics to explain or even to predict human behavior goes way back. Phrenology, which posited that personality can be understood as a result of the shape of the skull, was embraced by many in the scientific and medical communities in the 19th century and was used by some advocates for personnel selection decisions. So back then, getting a good job was apparently just a matter of using your head. (Pause here for effect)

And while phrenology was ultimately relegated to the pseudo-science dust bin, last year University of Cambridge researchers suggested a correlation between the success of financial traders and the proportion of length between their ring and index fingers. It looks like the exploration of physical characteristics to explain human behavior will continue to be of interest to researchers and to the general public alike.

What’s the HR lesson here? Perhaps that we need to be careful in making decisions about people based on some unspoken, amorphous and perhaps biased image of what success looks like. But, c’mon, everyone learned that in Personnel 101. Yet, the study found that a certain set of facial traits apparently have helped CEOs cultivate fatter wallets, so there is some sort of halo effect occurring even in high-level personnel decisions. Other research results in the 1990s also found a correlation between employees’ attractiveness and their pay.

And of course, Kennedy went on to win the presidency, aided in part no doubt by his countenance. But was he really more “competent” than Nixon even though he might have looked that way to voters? I’ll let the historians debate that, but the answer is probably no.

But there’s also some caution that needs to be exercised in reading too much into this limited study which used college students (of course) as subjects and which had all male pictures in the CEO/non-CEO image gallery. And with this next new generation of employees in the workforce, it is likely that a more important factor in career success will be Facebook rather than face look.

Mike Hoban is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI).    

The Market of One

By Ryan Heinl

IBM just released its Global CEO Study, a survey of more than 1,000 CEOs from around the world. I was particularly interested in this year’s results to find out what CEOs are thinking about the future of business, given our turbulent economic times. One of the leaders surveyed, the CEO of Cathay Pacific Airways, summed up the findings well—“Our customers want personalization of services and products. It is all about the market of one.”

Just consider the complexity that a market of one implies. All the services of an organization must be tailored to fit the individual preferences of millions of people around the world; preferences that change from day to day. It seems an impossible goal, and yet it’s a real one for many organizations.

This new height of customer customization also raises the requirements for organizational leadership and talent to heights yet unimagined. Most of the CEOs surveyed said that they didn’t think their organizations were even close to being ready, and that creative leadership in its broadest possible definition is the key. The report reveals glimmers of this leader’s necessary style and approach—influencing rather than commanding, encouraging experimentation, using an iterative strategy development processes, and the ability to make decisions in the face of paralyzing uncertainty.

These characteristics require significant changes in the way leaders traditionally operate. Leaders will have to fold a ribbon of creative thinking into their cultures (not just within R&D), and set direction based on a complex problem that needs to be solved rather than a clear destination.

If that wasn’t enough, the report also points out that few companies have the leaders and the management practices that can support the continuous leveling up of products, services, strategies and even business models that will be needed to compete in the market of one. This could not be more true. The companies who can quickly take stock of where their leaders stand on these types of capabilities and can close the gap will turn the corner on the recession like a rocket ship taking off.

So, how ready is your organization for taking on the market of one?

Ryan Heinl is a senior consultant for Development Dimensions International (DDI).

Making the Call

By Mark Busine

In 2002 I transitioned to a consulting role and one of my first assignments was working with a large Australia-based project engineering firm to profile the key attributes of successful leaders. As part of this process, I met with the CEO to gain his perspective on the key ingredients for leadership success in the organization.

In response to one question, he paused, looked inquisitively in to the air and said, “Mark, basically my role comes down to judgment; this is what I have to do everyday.” I remember the immediate impact that this comment had on me. I was acutely aware of the important role of decision making in leadership, but his use of the word “judgment” made an important distinction.

He was clear to point out that, in practice, managers and senior executives are often unable to apply rational models of decision-making because of the limitations and demands of a business environment, characterized by complexity, competition, rapid change and uncertainty. Further, our own personal predispositions and biases may influence the objectivity of our decisions and actions. This was where judgment came in.  

Over time, I have continued to explore this notion of judgment and the role it plays in leadership success. What have I concluded? That judgment is influenced by the interplay of four factors—experience, knowledge, competence and personal style, which shapes our interpretation of situations and influences our actions in new and unfamiliar environments. As a result, while it may be difficult to learn judgment, we can develop and enhance judgment by:

• Gaining a broad and considered range of experiences
• Acquiring knowledge relevant to the organisation, industry and discipline
• Developing an awareness of one’s own style and potential derailers
• Learning and applying more traditional models of decision making and more contemporary models of rapid decision making

How do your organization’s leaders practice judgment everyday? How do you prepare leaders to maximize the quality of their judgments?  Read more on the topic and share your thoughts.

Mark Busine is the Managing Director of Southeast Asia for Development Dimensions International (DDI).

An Accidental Leadership Crucible

By Bruce Watt, Ph.D.

In the last few weeks, I had three particularly exhausting coaching sessions. It wasn’t about the individuals or the process, but instead the intense and urgent issues that each leader brought to the table.

These leaders manage sizable operations in the Asia-Pacific region and are confronting serious threats to the viability of their businesses caused by the ongoing global financial crisis. They had the technical skills, experience and knowledge to do what was needed, but were seriously challenged by the inefficiencies and distractions that were impeding the success of their actions. In short, each were derailing in different ways (micromanaging, being indecisive, alienating others) but for the same reason—not successfully intervening in their own derailing tendencies.

As leaders, it’s a common experience for our reputations to be earned not necessarily by what we do day-to-day but rather by those critical things that might happen under pressure (I call this the one-day-in-a-hundred effect). This is because of the heightened visibility of our actions under stress and a tendency for “the darker side” of our characters to manifest. Today’s uncertainty is chronically stressful and is a Petri dish for leadership derailers.

So while I was exhausted at the end of these coaching sessions, it was intensely rewarding working through leadership development in the “heat-of-battle”. Successful leadership is not incidental; it must be practiced constantly under all conditions. Despite its savage and painful impact, I predict that history will document that the global financial crisis created a learning “crucible” that produced a generation of great leaders who will make the planet a much better place than it was before.

Bruce Watt is the Managing Director of DDI Australia.