Too Much of a Good Thing

The gnawing anxiety in the pit of my stomach kept me awake. I had invested all my savings in this entrepreneurial venture, borrowed money from friends, and was near the limit of my credit cards. The nightmare of losing my home also thundered in my brain.

It took me a few years to crawl out of my self-imposed "dark night of the soul" twenty years ago. (Yes, I repaid my friends, paid off my credit cards, and saved my house.) One of the leadership lessons I gleaned from this experience is that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. You see, I had allowed my strong visionary leadership style to blind me from the pragmatic realities of the rational style. Like the mythic character Icarus, I flew too close to the sun.

How often are you strong to a fault? Are you ever disconnected from the fact-based rational style because your head is in the clouds, like mine was? How about the reverse? Do you ever find yourself overly-focused on facts, micro-managing others and forgetting about the big picture or long-term? Over-emphasizing a strength happens to most leaders, at least occasionally. But when does it happen to you? What can you do to avoid costly missteps, like mine?

The most effective leaders know themselves well enough to understand that when stressed, they may have a tendency to rely on their strengths too much. (Psychologists call it a dominant response pattern.) To avoid self-inflicted wounds from their own double-edged sword, successful leaders follow three powerful and practical strategies. Which of these should you to adapt to help you and your team?

I. Solicit feedback from those who tell you the truth, especially when the heat is on.
It's hard to invite those who disagree with us to give their perspective. Yet, my experience coaching and teaching thousands of leaders tells me that leaders who fail to ask others for input fail faster than you can say, "Bay of Pigs."

President John F. Kennedy authorized military assistance for the Bay of Pigs invasion in the spring of 1961. This was an attempt by 1,400 Cuban exiles to overthrow Castro with U.S. support. Within three days of landing, Castro's forces killed or captured most of them. By all accounts, the invasion was a complete military and political disaster.

In the wake of this catastrophe, Kennedy had the wisdom to ask how he and his best and brightest could have made such a terrible decision under pressure. One of his conclusions was that he had failed to invite diverse perspectives to the discussion? (Sound familiar?) Don't let that happen to you. Kennedy put his diversity lesson into practice when he led America successfully through its next challenge -- the Cuban missile crisis.

II. Spend most of your time leveraging your strengths at work and a little time every day shoring up a weak competency that has hurt you.
We do best what we enjoy most. That's why leaders should spend the majority of their time at work accessing their strengths. However, just as a bodybuilder who pumps iron but refuses to stretch becomes inflexible, so too leaders who overuse their strengths become strong to a fault under duress.

Invest 20 minutes every day working on a weaker competency. In my coaching, I have found that the executives who improve the most are those who select a competency that is important to their work, but is underdeveloped. For example, clarifying objectives and expectations was one of my lower-scoring competencies that contributed to my entrepreneurial difficulties, described in the opening story. (e.g., I didn't have a written roles and responsibilities for my partners). Knowing this, I've spent years taking little steps on a regular basis to make sure this weakness doesn't wreak havoc again (e.g., I now end meetings with action items). In addition, I ask those who are strong in my underdeveloped competency to provide input on my work.

Leaders who stretch by working outside their comfort zone build the agility muscles required to adapt in today's competitive, global environment. Darwin never wrote that the strongest survive; his theory infers that those most adaptable to their changing environment do.

III. Use a consistent decision-making process that maximizes thoughtful responses to your challenges, while minimizing your reactions to them.
I once asked 100 CEOs I was teaching if they liked this definition of leadership, "the process of unleashing the energy of others toward worthy goals." They quickly and enthusiastically endorsed it. So, I then asked them this question, What's your process? Like most leaders I coach they didn't have one.

Do you?

If not, I encourage you to use the eXpansive Leadership Model (XLM) to help you make better and more consistent decisions, especially when you're stressed. As a decision-making tool, the XLM invites you to access four interdependent leadership styles by answering four simple, yet powerful questions. The styles and questions are:

A. Rational – what are the relevant facts?
B. Visionary – what is the ideal outcome?
C. Empowering – who should be engaged as we brainstorm options?
D. Commanding – which option provides the greatest good for the greatest number?

When you ask these questions as you make decisions and solve problems, you draw upon the wisdom of the ages which are rooted in four branches of philosophy.

A. Rational – what are the relevant facts?
This is the branch of philosophy called epistemology. It investigates the study of knowledge -- how we know what we know. In decision-making, the first question we must ask ourselves is, "What are the relevant facts of this decision?"

This is a rational thinking question because it relates to monitoring our environment closely and being in touch with the facts.

For example, when confronted by poor-performing employees, do you gather all the facts related to their performance before beginning a counseling session?

B. Visionary – what is the ideal outcome?
This branch of philosophy, metaphysics, deals with universal truths and ultimate questions -- how it all relates to the big picture. In decision-making, the second question we ask is, "How does the challenge relate to the big picture and our ideal outcome?"

This is a visionary thinking question because it invites contemplation of a broad perspective, strategic implications, and long-term consequences.

For example, when you decide how to handle an employee's error, do you take the time to look at the mistake in the context of the employee's overall, long-term performance? Have you considered what the ideal outcome could be after your intervention?

C. Empowering – who should be engaged as we brainstorm options?
This branch of philosophy is called ethics, and is concerned with the moral code and values we use when interacting with others -- how decisions affect others. In decision-making, the third question we ask is, "Who should be engaged in brainstorming options?"

This is an empowering question because it focuses our attention on involving and serving those we lead.

For example, the president of an association, Michelle, was hiring a senior executive. She preferred to promote an internal candidate, named Bill. Unfortunately, Bill was weak in the core competency of communicating trust and empathy. Michelle had talked about this weakness with Bill a few times, but hadn't seen much improvement. I invited Michelle to engage Bill by asking him (Bill) to brainstorm ways to improve the competency. When they did this, they decided that Bill should create a detailed plan to improve and review it with Michelle. Michelle was amazed how much progress Bill made in a short period of time. She subsequently promoted Bill, who is performing well in his new position.

How might you engage key stakeholders when you make decisions?

D. Commanding – which option provides the greatest good for the greatest number?
The last major branch of our philosophical tree is existentialism, which reminds us that human beings have free will and therefore are responsible for their actions. It leads us to the final decision-making question based on utilitarianism: "What choice creates the greatest good for the greatest number?"

This commanding question compels us to refuse victim thinking and accept responsibility for our choices and their consequences.

How can you demonstrate that you believe human beings have the freedom to choose how they think about what happens? What do you need to do to show others that you are a meaning making machine during tough times?

Do you still believe that leaders should only leverage their strengths? Why? If not, what other ideas do you use to avoid being strong to a fault under pressure? Have you tried any of the approaches described here? What worked? What didn't?

Keep stretching when you're pulled,
Dave