Leaders assume that good results are the consequence of good performance. When they are successful they don’t ask why. ~Rasmus Ankersen

In the nonprofit world, sustainability is frequently used as the “marker” for success. I, personally, don’t care for that word. To me, sustainable means something like “we’re still hanging in there,” and maybe not much more than that. In the for-profit world the mantra I hear frequently is “we’re either growing or we’re dying.” I don’t particularly care for that imagery either. Growth, without careful consideration of the consequences and the landscape, does not assure success.

So now you may be asking, what should leaders be striving for if not sustainability or growth? I think that Rasmus Ankersen’s answer hits the nail on the head for both nonprofit and for-profit organizations – relevancy.

Ankersen says, “Leaders need to treat success with the same skepticism as failure to stay relevant.”

Ankersen’s background is in athletics, primarily football (soccer for those of us in the U.S.). Using game stats, Ankersen outlines a very persuasive statistical analysis that supports an “outcome bias,” meaning, “success turns luck into genius.” Yes, that’s right. Sometimes, teams (and organizations) win simply because of luck.

One of the organizations that Ankersen uses as an example is Nokia. They captured 50% of the mobile phone market. That share dropped rapidly to 3% in three years. Nokia very quickly lost their relevancy. They didn’t treat their success with the same skepticism as failure.

How can leaders help keep their organizations relevant?

Rethink your potential. You can do this with a simple exercise—make the world bigger and make yourself smaller. You might be operating from a perspective that you are a big fish in a small pond. Jump into a bigger pond, change the landscape, force yourself to rethink your potential.

Examples.

LEGO for decades operated from the point of view of being in the toy industry. In recent years, they’ve altered that perspective to be in the children’s room industry. That means Apple is now a competitor. With that new mindset, they rethink their potential. They have a reinvigorated sense of urgency to be relevant in a new industry.

Borders operated as if they were in the brick and mortar bookstore industry. They stayed with that mindset as Amazon lived up to their name and quickly grabbed the e-book and online market ahead of one of the largest booksellers. Borders didn’t make the world bigger. They didn’t treat their success with the same skepticism as failure. They didn’t stay relevant. We all know how that story ended.

Leaders: Ask why when you fail and when you succeed. Rethink your potential. Make the world bigger and yourself smaller. Stay relevant.

The most common leadership failure stems from trying to apply technical solutions to adaptive challenges. ~Ronald A. Heifetz

The simplest definition of an adaptive leadership challenge is one that requires people to change their ways. We try to apply solutions that have worked in the past in similar situations. However, we don’t adequately account for the human complexity in the situation. The challenge itself cannot be separated from the people who are part of the challenge or scenario. Different people means different human complexity.

Human Complexity

Ronald Heifetz points out a few of the human dimensions that change requires: “pace of adjustment, tolerances for conflict, uncertainty, risks and losses, the resilience of the culture, the network of authority, and lateral relationships.”

I recently sat down with a CEO who wants to change his organization’s culture. He believes it’s lacking healthy accountability. When I asked how significant this change would be for his employees, he said very significant. That certainly sounds like an adaptive challenge because it will require people to change their ways. His hope was to instill a cultural shift to heightened accountability in a one-day inspirational off-site event. That sounds like a technical solution. After more conversation he concluded that this adaptive challenge is going to require much more time and effort than a one-day off site because of its human complexity.

How to Recognize an Adaptive Challenge

Heifetz says “one way you know that there is an adaptive challenge facing your organization is that the problem persists even after a series of attempted technical fixes.”

Another example, I recall a client who implemented an EMR (electronic medical records) system. The focus was on the technical implementation. But this technical solution created an adaptive challenge. When the first software solution wasn’t well-accepted by users, they scrapped it and moved to the second attempt. After they were well into the second attempt they began to realize the problem wasn’t technical, it was adaptive. More technical solutions weren’t going to solve their adaptive challenges. They were up against human complexity, not technical expertise.

Small Adaptive Moves

Here’s another way to think about this. Edgar Schein (organizational culture expert) would call this the difference between a diagnosis followed by a treatment plan versus a series of small adaptive moves. It’s very difficult to come up with a treatment plan that accurately assumes the outcome of each step. How people will emotionally respond is extremely difficult to predict. Hence, the need to make a small adaptive move, see where you are, and then continue to make small adaptive moves.

This idea of adaptive challenges and making adaptive moves is difficult for leaders who are used to creating technical strategic plans. In recent history, leadership has leaned more heavily (I think) toward the technical side of leading. I believe we are now in the midst of an era that requires a heavy dose of adaptive leadership. It’s not one or the other, it’s both/and, technical and adaptive.

Introverted leaders create a virtuous circle of proactivity. ~Susan Cain

My last two blog posts about introversion struck or chord, or maybe even a nerve. Hence, I’m going to continue with the introverted leader topic one more week. Susan Cain, an introvert, collaborates with management researcher, Adam Grant, I’m guessing an extrovert. Here’s what Grant’s research uncovered about introverted leaders as described by Cain.

“Introverted leaders are uniquely good at leading initiative-takers.”

“Because of their inclination to listen to others and lack of interest in dominating social situations, introverts are more likely to hear and implement suggestions. Having benefited from the talents of their followers, they are then likely to motivate them to be even more proactive. Introverted leaders create a virtuous circle of proactivity.  [In Grant’s research study] team members reported perceiving the introverted leaders as more open and receptive to their ideas, which motivated them to work harder.”

In Grant’s own words from an interview with David Brancaccio on NPR: “When you have proactive employees who take initiative to bring new ideas, to make suggestions, to come up with better ways of getting work done. Under those circumstances, we actually found that introverts brought in 14 percent higher profits. The logic is pretty simple, which is extroverts love to be in the center of attention. They like to command the room, and they often felt threatened when their proactive employees were bringing ideas to the table. And they tend to shut them down, which meant that those people were less motivated, and also they got fewer good ideas. Whereas the introverted leaders were very open; they were willing to listen. They took better suggestions, and they left their people feeling more valued. So there is such a thing as an introverted leadership advantage.”

Implications for a Fast-Paced Environment

Cain reports that “Grant is especially excited about the implications of these findings because proactive employees who take advantage of opportunities in a fast-moving 24/7 business environment, without waiting for a leader to tell them what to do, are increasingly vital to organizational success. To understand how to maximize these employees’ contributions is an important tool for all leaders.”

Interesting isn’t it, even paradoxical. In a fast-paced environment with proactive employees, introverts are the better leaders.

Listening, not dominating, and implementing suggestions are all effective motivators that come naturally to introverts.

I recall an example when I was a board chair. At the end of the year I asked the board members to evaluate the past year. At the next meeting I adjusted the agenda, meeting priorities, etc. based upon the collective board members’ input. I still remember what one board member said (an extrovert): “You actually implemented what we suggested.” He was both surprised and pleased. To me, it only seemed logical; why else would I have asked?

Introverts reading this: Do what you do best—create virtuous circles of proactivity!

The wise [leaders] adapt themselves to circumstances, as water molds itself to the pitcher. ~Chinese Proverb

Several years ago I worked with a leadership team to help them actually function as a team. We started with Team 101, learning about each other. After they completed a couple of different personality assessments I gave them an assignment. They were to find at least one situation where they could adapt their behavior to another person’s personality preference to work together more effectively. Understanding and then accepting this assignment was more of a struggle for them than I anticipated. Changing their behavior to adapt to someone else, as leaders, they believed was not only counterintuitive but counterproductive. Oy!

When I facilitate a training around any personality-type instrument, I’m nearly always asked, “What’s the best personality for a leader?” The answer is the same, regardless of tool or survey. The most effective leaders are those who are best at adapting their behavior to other styles or types.

I’ve also learned that I need to define adapting. Adapting is not conceding, giving in, or even compromising. Adapting is modifying your behavior to more closely reflect the person (or group) with whom you are communicating.

For example, some people make immediate decisions, and others process first and then make a decision. If you need an answer from someone who makes immediate decisions, you could call them, ask your question, and expect an immediate answer. If you need an answer from someone who processes first, you could email them your question and let them know you’ll stop by later to see what they think.

Why does adapting matter?

First, by adapting you create an environment for others to be most effective. You get the best out of people when you adapt to their style/preference.

Two, by adapting you surround people with an environment where they can thrive. Consequently, they may be more likely to hang around a little longer. Your employee retention could increase.

Three, by adapting your communication is clearer. Clearer communication could mean fewer mistakes.

Four, by adapting you increase trust. More trust allows you to increase your speed – speed of innovation, problem solving, etc.

Leaders who aren’t willing to adapt, I believe, prioritize feeding their own ego over effective leadership. Effective leaders don’t have a specific personality type. Effective leaders are both willing and able to adapt their behavior to others’ personality types.

Effective leaders adapt themselves to circumstances, as water molds itself to a pitcher.

Culturally, we tend to associate leadership with extroversion and attach less importance to judgment, vision, and resolve. We prize leaders who are eager talkers over those who have something to say. ~Susan Cain

While working on my doctorate, my cohort was split into two smaller cohorts of a dozen students. The split was simply alphabetical. You would think it would have been a somewhat random split of personality types. Not so. The first half of the alphabet was essentially all introverted and the second half was predominately extroverted. Note my last name—Scanland—I was the introvert in the predominately extroverted cohort.

This is one of many experiences I’ve had where as an introvert I was asked to step it up and be more extroverted. I’m going to assume it’s not intentional, but for the extroverts reading this, there’s something I’d like for you to note. When introverts are asked to be more extroverted, it feels like you’re being told that extroversion is superior to introversion.

It’s not just my own personal experiences. I’ve had clients flat out tell me that they were concerned about individuals’ ability to be effective leaders because they were introverted.

Here are just a few research conclusions about introverted leaders.

From Susan Cain…

Introverted leaders often possess an innate caution that may be more valuable than we realize.

The charisma of ideas matters more than a leader’s gregarious charms.

From research conducted by Adam M. Grant, Francesca Gino, and David A. Hofmann…

Extroverts and introverts are equally successful in leadership roles overall.

Introverts, in certain situations (i.e., complex and uncertain), actually make better leaders.

An introvert’s ability to hear others, plan, theorize, organize information, and think evidently has its own values!

From Jim Collins’ research…

The best-performing companies of the late 20^th century were all led by CEO’s described with words like “reserved” and “understated.”

From the 2012 U.S. Presidential race…

Two introverts ran against each other for U.S. President in 2012: Barak Obama and Mitt Romney.

Finally, from Ilya Pozin on Inc.com, here are some of the myriad leadership characteristics of introverts that are often overlooked.

• They’re motivated by productivity, not ambition.
• They build more meaningful connections.
• They don’t get easily distracted.
• They solve problems with thoroughness rather than in haste.

Introverts make great leaders! Maximize their assets instead of asking them to “blend in” with the extroverts.