People are people - accepting this as a leader makes all the difference. People think like people, talk like people, behave like people and yes, they can change as people, but only when they have decided to change and see personal merit in doing so. The same holds true for the leaders who lead the people. Regularly I hear leaders talk about "changing the organization" and "implementing change", without truly considering the people, who need to make it happen. I feel much of the misery in today's workforce, is unnecessary and is often related to the fact that leadership fails to consider people as people.

Although many organizations will publicly declare people to be the cornerstone of the organization, leadership's behavior is not necessarily people-focused. An organization is built upon its people. This is often quoted by leaders, yet what people working in the organization regularly experience, may leave them more with the impression that the organization is managed with the idea of engineering and mechanics in mind, i.e. with processes and procedures, Total Quality Management (TQM), Six Sigma, etc. I often hear people express a general 'absence' of people orientation in organizations.

When discussing this topic with leaders, they usually share that they "see no issue" with the way people are managed and approached within their organizations. However, after some conversation, they usually acknowledge there are times when they personally avoid to communicate, close their office doors, in stead of actively reaching out to the people. Leaders ought to welcome people interaction and certainly not to be afraid of it. At times when business results are frequently less than optimal and organizations and its people are stretched, leaders need to actively embrace every chance they have to be with their people and to communicate. Leaders who do this, who are not afraid and take action, actively build a much needed framework of trust in their organization and in the market. 

Leaders often mistakenly interpret providing 'messages' to people, as being in communication with people. From the many practical examples I have seen in my work, there is not such a thing as an effective 'one way communication'. Leaders need to be aware that so-called "one way communication" comes to abrupt endings. In your own experience, I am sure you have seen situations and leaders come to such abrupt endings, for no real 'apparent cause' at that particular time. However, it seems clear that if leaders stop treating people as people and loose perspective of the balance between advocacy and inquiry in communication, leaders loose perspective of the fact that they are indeed communicating with people.

Leaders must face the people challenge. What people most like about true leaders, is their relentless desire for people development and engaging every one in the process. Healthy leaders want to grow, they want to develop. This is equally true for the people they lead. Personal growth, recognition and rewards, are as important as having a fair pay. Attrition is not only driven by sub-optimal leadership, it becomes 'a given' in scenario's where people feel they can "no longer develop and grow".

Leaders can strengthen their ability to deal with their people, by developing and or improving their introspective ability. It is perhaps a challenging thought, but the sequence for most leaders is to start managing other people before they develop an introspective ability and have a level of self-awareness. This often results in situations where leaders question behavior of other people and do not understand how they have personally been at the basis of the unfolding scenario. Fortunately, leaders who have developed an introspective ability and have become self-aware, push themselves to objectively review a situation and their involvement in what happened. These leaders consider this part of their active personal development. I feel it is wise for leaders to want to improve their introspective ability and to learn about themselves and thereby becoming increasingly self-aware.

Leaders need to learn about and acknowledge what may be referred to as the inverted self-awareness iceberg theory. People usually know the tip of the iceberg about themselves, what they think, what they say, what they do and why etc., the '20%'. However, they present themselves in such a way, for you to believe, they know '80% and for the iceberg to be 'inverted'. It is my experience that evolved leaders, leaders with a high level of self-awareness, have indeed created an 'inverted iceberg', know '80%', are not pushing their presentation when dealing with other people and are eagerly discovering the remaining '20%' about themselves. Behavior equals results. Results change, when behavior changes. Leaders who seriously want to improve, target self-awareness and make it a part of their personal development plan, using a healthy response mechanism with their people. They avoid a journey with the potential for 'Titanic like' people collisions, all along having the illusion they're doing fine.

If you go about your business as a leader, observe and truly let people experience that you notice them. Listen to people and talk with them and in this order. People are people, deal with them as people. As a leader, a remarkable effect will occur in your environment. You will soon be seen as a connected person, not infallible, a person connected to its surroundings. Leaders who treat people as people create collaborative successes; they build successful teams; they act with integrity; they build innovative platforms in their organizations, and they are 'we' focused versus 'I' focused. Simply put, they value human contribution.

I hope that an increasing number of leaders will choose to develop their introspective ability and in the process become more self-aware. Also, for leaders to actively put business metrics valuation on the way people are being treated in their organizations. In my view these activities will have a positive and tangible return on investment. People (employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, etc.) are really smart and resourceful. They know when leadership is truly serious about the people in the organization. In those environments people take responsibility and like to be held accountable, they carry success. 

To me it is not just essential for leaders to treat people as people, it is the right and ethical thing to do. How much more productive and fun will it be for the leader and for the people to work in such a healthy people-led environment?

Best regards,

Johan

Not sharing in a team setting is destructive. 

I vividly remember an executive who 'managed up' and 'forgot' to share what was going on with his leadership and his extended team, all the while the organization was in a spin. Needless to state that it did not take long for the team to literally abandon the so called leader, drop the support to an ongoing re-organization and 'announce' the beginning of the end of that leadership era. The individual misinterpreted that making decisions as a senior leader, included being liked by superiors and telling people what to do, would create a cohesive and successful team.

Leaders need to be continuously aware of how much they communicate and share. My personal philosophy has always been, unless legally forbidden, i.e. for example company merger/sale plans, as required by SEC laws, there is no information you should withhold first of all from your leadership team. With your leadership team, you can then decide upon the best time and channel to disseminate the information to all team members. I have seen rare occasions where during a discussion about disseminating information, a leadership team member would decide against sharing the information with the team. However, at the end, in all cases the leadership team as a whole calculated the risk and took the decision to share the information with the extended team.

In my professional past I have never heard an employee complain: "I am over-communicated with and I receive too much information from leadership". Employees, team members, for that matter, are smart individuals. Remember, that was the reason you hired them in the first place. Team members will appreciate transparency and will share in kind. It will improve innovation capability development, inter-departmental cooperation, reduce and eliminate internal 'warfare' and will display error and incompetence near immediately and appropriately, thus avoiding a negative gossip and rumor mill.

The challenge many organizations and leaders face head on at this time, is how to move from a state of (mostly) distrust, to a state of trust, all the while innovation, productivity and profitability need to be guarded and improved. Leaders must make the decision that in their organization, starting at day one, the employee is hired into a trusting organization. The leader shows this to any one in the company by being genuine, using a "it is what it is" message and always setting the first step in communicating and enhancing the level of trust and transparency.

Often you hear leaders say that they are transparent, yet their actions speak loudly in opposition. They are often 'selective' in what they share and are often publicly embarrassed when, as it happens nearly always, it is later revealed that earlier presented data is not in line with the later presented time line and message shared. 

Leaders are wise to opt a personal and leadership team communication policy, which:

- Communicates the good and the bad

- Excludes blame at all cost

- Is continuous - a continuous flow of bi-directional information throughout the organization

- Includes double-loop learning - there is always leadership follow-up to shared communication

- Is measured through team members' continuous and direct response at all levels

- Acts upon comments in a transparent manner - even when this appears to be 'painful' and 'long overdue'

- Dispels surveys, unless all collected data is fully shared with the survey responders and not 'massaged' in any way or form

- Sets expectations at all levels (including leadership and governance board)

- Has the positive output effect necessary to propel the organization to the next level 

- Supports your leadership vision

- Voices you are on the team members' side - all the time

In addition to the above, as a leader you can set aside a half-hour (if possible an hour) per day blocked in your calendar, where your assistant will schedule time to allow for "walk ins" (for example 8AM-9AM, or 4PM-5PM). This time is much related to transparency and to 'human resources' and your organization's performance. From personal global experience in multiple organizations, the openness you create by doing this, will do wonders to building trust. 

Your request for active feedback will break with the often used traditional way of leadership thinking; leadership censures what the employees need to know and the employee knows exactly what leadership wants to hear and tells them accordingly. When something goes wrong, leadership has a hard time to understand why the employee did not speak up and channel the information through the 'appropriate channel'. Employees know that what is not wished for, either explicitly or implicitly stated, is not supposed to happen. After all, people adapt quickly to what they see "pays off" in an organization. Transparency and response mechanisms remain essential ingredients for a great organization (this includes human resources), like the one you're creating.

Leadership can make once again all the difference by setting the communication standard. You know when communication is free flowing, people will easily come up to you, to share, to comment, to provide ideas, etc. They are not afraid.

As an organization moving into, what in my view will turn out to be one of the most competitive markets since decades, you need an active communicating work force at all levels.

Remember, you can wait a long time before an employee will come up to you and tell you that he/she is receiving too much communication. It simply won't happen.

Communicate, communicate, communicate. In turn you will receive communication. Fair deal - people are people and they communicate as people.

Best regards,

Johan