In what may be the cruelest of ironies, overplayed strengths are often at the root of career failure. ~Robert E. Kaplan and Robert B. Kaiser

That’s right; your strengths may be moving you toward career failure.  I’ve seen this phenomenon occur especially when leaders are under stress or pressure.  Like most of us, when the pressure is on we default to what is most comfortable or natural and that is typically our strengths.  But too much of a good thing, really is, too much of a good thing.

Authors Kaplan and Kaiser co-authored Fear Your Strengths based upon years of experience and research.  Here are a few excerpts from their work.

We have learned that to stop overplaying a strength does not mean, as many leaders fear, to stop using it.  It means using the strength more selectively.

A devotion to consensus-seeking breeds chronic indecision.  An emphasis on being respectful of others degenerates into ineffectual niceness.  The desire to turn a profit and serve shareholders becomes a preoccupation with short-term thinking.  To the leader whose best tool is a hammer, everything is a nail.

Overusing a strength is underperformance.

There is no fixed setting on the dial for the proper use of a strength, a virtue.  The volume needs to go up or down according to what the situation requires.

The more versatile the leader, the more effective he or she is.  We have found an exceptionally strong association between versatility scores and ratings of overall effectiveness.

The versatile leader is someone who recognizes their strengths and has enough self-awareness to read a given situation and know what level of their strengths will be most effective and they adjust accordingly.  We all have something we need to watch out for and modulate to become a truly versatile leader.

I was working with a leadership team a couple of years ago and gave them an assignment.  Over the next week, find at least one situation where you need to adjust your strengths to better adapt to someone else’s strengths.  One of them came back and said he really tried, but couldn’t find a single scenario where he needed to adjust.  Today, things aren’t going so well for that leader.  Instead of adapting or adjusting, he’s turning up the dial on his strengths and with each increase on that dial, the situation only gets worse.

Overplayed strengths are often the root of career failure.  What could each of us dial-down or adjust this week?

At times, leaders can benefit greatly by stepping aside from the content of people’s work to facilitate the process.  ~Fran Rees

I’ve been forming an assumption about leaders for some time.  My assumption is that effective leaders are really good facilitators.  Or said another way, when a leader takes on the role of facilitator they are not giving up their leadership, they are demonstrating their leadership.

Another consultant put it this way, “The mission of a facilitator and of a leader is the same:  Get a group of people to form as a team, set goals, and work together to achieve those goals.  Both use the same skills.  Both require the ability to communicate, understand and embrace diversity, manage conflict, listen, empower the group, build trust, solve problems, and make the group successful.” (MGR Consulting)

Here are a few more perspectives on facilitation:

The process of facilitation is a way of providing leadership without taking the reins.

A facilitator’s job is to get others to assume responsibility and take the lead.

A facilitator contributes structure and process to interactions so groups are able to function effectively and make high-quality decisions.

When I think of leaders I’ve known or worked with who have struggled to “lead,” they all have at least one thing in common.  They were not effective facilitators.  In fact, one individual told me that he always had what he called a “process consultant” working with him.  I wasn’t familiar with the term process consultant, but now I believe he was referring to a facilitator who was there to manage the process.  Such as format, methods, procedures, tools, style of interaction, group dynamics, group norms, group climate, etc.

Needing help in this area from time to time is understandable; especially when the leader wants to be a participant, such as in strategic planning.  But someone who nearly always needs a facilitator with them because they lack the skills to create a format and tools to manage group dynamics and interactions; wow, I think it’s a real stretch to call them a leader.

Having content knowledge, alone, limits the effectiveness of a leader.  They need to have both content knowledge and facilitation skills.  I would even go so far as to suggest that if they have to lack one or the other, I think someone can lead with strong facilitation skills and minimal content knowledge.  That’s why you have content experts throughout the organization.

The new leader is a facilitator, not an order giver.  ~John Naisbitt

Effective leaders know that healthy communication requires the energy of connection—with inclusion, recognition, clear directions, meaningful interaction and feedback as the nerve center of the organization.  ~Lou Solomon (HBR, June 24, 2015)

A recent Interact/Harris Poll with 1,000 U.S. workers reported that 91% of employees say communication issues can drag executives down.  In rank order, the following were the top communication issues people said were preventing business leaders from being effective:

• Not recognizing employee achievements
• Not giving clear directions
• Not having time to meet with employees
• Refusing to talk to subordinates
• Taking credit for others’ ideas
• Not offering constructive criticism
• Not knowing employee’s names
• Refusing to talk to people on the phone/in person
• Not asking about employees’ lives outside of work

The article goes on to say, “The data shows that the vast majority of leaders are not engaging in crucial moments that could help employees see them as trustworthy.”

It seems that everywhere I turn these days organizations are struggling with trust between staff and leadership.  I think it’s both interesting and really important to note that this HBR article is emphasizing communication as a key component of trust.

The quote for today (also included in the HBR article) uses a phrase that is at the crux of this challenge: “requires the energy of connection.”  Making a real connection through communication requires energy.  More energy (I think) than a lot of leaders are willing to invest; consequently, they pay the price.  The price being lack of trust and what frequently follows lack of trust – low morale.

In real estate the mantra is: location, location, location.  In leadership the mantra should be: communication, communication, communication.

Followers have a very clear picture of what they want and need from the influential leaders in their lives: trust, compassion, stability, and hope.  ~Tom Rath & Barry Conchie

Many of the quotes I choose focus on leaders and leadership but few have focused on what it ultimately takes to lead – followers.  What do followers really need from their leaders?  The Gallup organization asked thousands of followers that question and the results were clear: trust, compassion, stability, and hope.

Rath and Conchie highlight a finding from their research that might be a little unexpected when we think about trust in organizations.  We tend to think of being honest, having integrity, etc. in order to establish trust.  But what they discovered is truly at the core of trust is relationship.  The word relationship implies a connection, rapport, a bond.  If you have a connection and rapport with someone you likely talk about trust very little, you don’t need to.  But if the relationship has never been established or is becoming strained, trust becomes more difficult.  The researchers discovered that successful teams talk about trust very little; while trust dominates the discussion of struggling teams.  Those struggling teams lack relationship.

It’s ironic, but great managers tend to really care about each of their employees.  That willingness to show genuine compassion for people gets lost from manager to leader.  When you’re leading a large number of people, of course it’s difficult, if not next to impossible to show every person, individually, that you care for them.  However, showing compassion can be accomplished even when leading many people.  Compassion can be reflected in how decisions are made and how people are valued.

People will follow someone who can provide a solid foundation or stability.  These leaders are people who can be counted on when circumstances become uncertain.  Followers want to know that your core values aren’t going to waiver in adversity.

Followers want it all – they want stability for the present and hope for the future.  Gallup made another interesting discovery about hope.  They learned that leaders tend to spend almost all of their time reacting to the needs of the day instead of initiating for the future.  When leaders are initiating they are creating hope for the future.  Solving problems is certainly a critical part of leadership, but identifying opportunities for the future plays a more important role in creating hope and optimism.

We’ve probably all heard the statement, “How do you know if you’re leading?  Look behind you and see if anyone is following.”  Building relationships, showing genuine care for people, remaining transparent, and initiating for the future all lead to trust, compassion, stability and hope –what we all want to follow.

If you don’t understand people, you don’t understand business.  ~Simon Sinek

I recently needed to find a new vet for my dog.  I decided to try a vet who opened an office down the street from my home a few years ago.  I was so impressed with his patience and bedside manner I actually thought about asking if he’d be willing to be my doctor as well.  As I thought about that, I wondered if most vets go into veterinary medicine not only because they enjoy science but also because they love animals.  Then I thought about some of the medical doctors I’ve encountered, and wondered if more of them go into medicine because they enjoy science but not necessarily because they love people.

Then there are the people who go into business.  I think most of them go into business because they enjoy business, not because they love (or even enjoy) people.  There are lots of people in business who believe they understand business, but Simon Sinek suggests that if they don’t understand people then they really don’t understand business.

There’s that old phrase we’ve all heard at some time or another: “it’s just business.”  Hmm…maybe it’s not “just business,” maybe the truth is: “it’s always about people.”

I know that I frustrate clients sometimes when they ask me to describe my process for strategic planning.  I always start with “it depends.”  It depends upon the leadership, their personalities and work styles.  I’ve learned, the hard way, that if I try to force a specific formula for strategic planning onto an organization’s leadership and it doesn’t fit with who they are, the process is painful and the plan goes nowhere.  I have to first understand the people who will be leading the strategic effort.

I’ve watched leaders who have a very commanding, analytical, logic-driven approach try to create change in their organization by instating policies.  Unfortunately, the employees they are trying to lead are highly relational-driven, people-focused, and empathetic.   The policies fall on deaf ears.  The forward-moving change the leader was hoping for actually becomes three steps backwards.  The leader believes they understand business, but they clearly don’t understand people.

Back to doctors, I recently had the privilege, and I really do mean privilege, of being cared for by a doctor who truly understands people.  While I wouldn’t want to wish ill health on any of my friends, I do hope that someday I will have the opportunity to provide this doctor with numerous referrals.

Understanding people really is understanding business.