Humility -- Does It Affect Leadership Effectiveness?

In August, Andrew J. DuBrin published a book entitled Leadership Humility: A Characteristic that Enhances Professional Effectiveness, which describes an opinion about the most relevant aspects of humility as it applies to leadership and professional effectiveness, yet the emphasis is on leadership. Humility as it relates to leadership and professional effectiveness is covered from many angles. Among these topics are the many meanings and components of humility and how leadership humility impacts group member performance and behavior.

When I spoke with Andrew this month, I asked him:  “How does humility actually increase leadership effectiveness?” Here is his complete answer:

An appropriate degree of humility is essential for leadership effectiveness because today’s effective leader is expected to demonstrate humility in addition to standard leadership attributes such as self-confidence, high-level cognitive skills, creativity, charisma, and the ability to articulate visions. Leadership effectiveness is enhanced when interspersed with other key leadership attributes including assertiveness, a sense of humor, and strategic thinking ability. Many brash, aggressive, and successful leaders would be even more successful if they sprinkled their leadership approach with humility.  

Another way in which humility increases leadership effectiveness is that being a little humble has an impact on performance. The performance, or results, could be at the individual, group, or organizational level. Leadership humility can improve a leader’s decision-making. Intellectually humble leaders are likely to gather multiple inputs before making a decision because they do not think they have all the answers. Leaders who express humility often enhance the creativity of group members because they set up a climate conducive to imaginative thinking. A humble leader will often create a psychologically safe environment, meaning that staff members feel safe to take the risk of making a mistake. The person who feels psychologically safe believes he or she will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.

A leader with humility helps establish a group climate in which people can learn and develop. A climate of this nature enables group members to invest more of themselves into their jobs, and therefore be engaged in their work. Leadership humility often has a big impact on team performance. The humble leader seeks the cooperation of all team members, shows openness toward their ideas, and encourages them to become actively involved in solving problems the team is tackling. One of the many ways in which leadership humility improves organizational performance stems from workers observing that their strengths are appreciated.

What do you think of Andrew's perspective on humility and leadership? What role does humility play in your company's leadership and management training?

Leadership Principles -- How Do They Build Motivation and Commitment?

Back in March, David Sharpley published a new book entitled Leadership Principles and Purpose: Developing Leadership Effectiveness and Future-Focused Capability, which provides a fresh perspective on leadership and the steps required to achieve high performance. It explores how we create purpose by moving from vision and values through principles to action. When I spoke with David this month, I asked him directly: "How do principles shape competencies and build motivation and commitment?" Here is his complete answer: 

We hear executives talk about "vision" and "values," but there’s less mention of the principles that define how activities are completed. These provide points of reference and set boundaries. They also underpin competencies linked to high performance. Higher-order principles influence people’s expectations of what is fair and reasonable. They help clarify how leaders create enabling conditions that enhance motivation, commitment, and shared purpose.  

Self Determination Theory (SDT) offers insight into why principles matter. The SDT Model reveals that everyone has an innate need for positive, trust-based Relationships. We also seek to develop the Competence that fuels meaningful activity and builds motivation. Autonomy adds to self-direction, responsibility, and purpose. Underlying needs are also reflected in people’s desire for social cohesion and stability. Significant principles therefore relate to Justice, Equality, Compassion, and Accountability. Principles are closely aligned with ethical values but expressed in the form of rules, protocols, and norms.  

Clearly stated principles ensure consistency of approach, support cascaded leadership, and define the work culture. Effective leaders build on principles that will develop capability and create shared purpose. They appreciate that discretionary effort is influenced by a range of factors, which include opportunities for self-directed, meaningful activity. Significant, Superordinate Principles strengthen trust-based relationships and motivation. They help build commitment, which is the emotional connection and identification people feel towards the organization. It is enhanced when people feel valued and there are opportunities for personal development (e.g. "my manager supports my development"). Commitment helps maintain motivation when we are faced with the inevitable setbacks that undermine progress.  

Over time, authentic leaders internalize important principles, including an emphasis on transparency, equality, and accountability. Clear principles increase personal conviction, but also our willingness to develop capability in others. Acting on the basis of higher-order principles conveys integrity and establishes a clear rationale for effective action, which adds to the leader's credibility. Principles have a significant role in building and maintaining people's motivation and commitment. They help leaders create shared purpose, develop effective systems, and achieve more meaningful connections with others.

What do you think of David's perspective? What is the state of leadership in your organization? Do the principles stated and practiced build motivation and commitment?

Performance-Measurement Systems -- What are the Common Design Mistakes?

In October, Dennis Sherwood published a book entitled Strategic Thinking Illustrated: Strategy Made Visual Using Systems Thinking -- His book is about the behavior of systems. Systems are important, for we interact with them all the time, and many of the actions we take are influenced by a system – for example, the system of performance measures in an organization influences, often very strongly, how individuals within that organization behave. Systems thinking, the main subject matter of this book, is the disciplined study of systems, and causal loop diagrams are a very insightful way to represent the connectedness of the entities from which any system is composed, so taming that system’s complexity.

When I spoke with Dennis this month, I asked him: “What are the most common mistakes made when designing performance-measurement systems?” Here is his complete answer:

Let me choose just one. The BIG ONE. Unintended consequences.

A (real) example. A number of years ago, the UK government was becoming increasingly concerned about how long people had to wait in the reception area of hospital Accident and Emergency Departments until they were seen by a nurse or a doctor. To address this, they introduced a performance measure that at least 98% of those arriving must be satisfactorily treated and discharged, or transferred elsewhere within the hospital, within 4 hours.

That all sounds eminently sensible, and the intention was to act as a spur to hospitals to speed things up. 

Not long after this performance measure was introduced, a story appeared in a national newspaper with this opening paragraph:

"Hospitals were last night accused of keeping thousands of seriously ill patients in ambulance 'holding patterns' outside accident and emergency units to meet a government pledge that all patients are treated within four hours of admission."

It turns out that the "4-hour clock’" only starts running when the patient arrives at the front desk of the hospital. So if the patient is still in the ambulance, that doesn’t count… 

The "holding pattern" enables the hospital to meet its performance measure, but with two "unintended consequences." From the patient’s point of view, nothing has changed, nor has the government’s objective been met. And as a by-product, whilst the ambulance is acting as an "external waiting room," it remains stranded, and can no longer fulfill its primary purpose.

Not only did the performance measure not drive the intended outcome, it made matters worse by reducing ambulance capacity. Oh, dear.

This is by no means uncommon. Performance measures are introduced to influence behaviors so as to achieve some intended result. The problem, however, is that those behaviors take place within a complex context, and unless that complexity is well-understood, it is very easy to fall into the trap that a well-intentioned intervention has an unintentional, and perverse, effect.

How can this trap be avoided?

"Systems thinking" can really help, for systems thinking is a very powerful, and pragmatic, way to tame the complexity of real systems, so ensuring that, for example, performance measures can be introduced that really work. That designs out "unintended consequences." Indeed, in my view, that term is just a mask to disguise the fact that whoever designed the performance measures that failed just didn’t understand the corresponding system. Don’t let that happen to you!

What do you think of Dennis Sherwood's answer? Has your organization ever instituted a measure or process designed for improvement that drove incorrect or "gaming" behavior? His book is available here.