What is the Future of Leadership Development After the Presidential Election?

by Ginny Telego

A few days ago, I had the opportunity to serve in an advisory role for a peer mediation training for 5^th grade students at a local elementary school.  The students in the training are members of the Student Council at the school.  The main facilitators for the training were two college students who have a passion for finding ways to resolve conflict that doesn’t involve violence. 

As I was assisting the lead facilitator in preparing an outline for the training (two 1 hour sessions), I found myself conflicted in what we were trying to accomplish.  Here’s why.

The current presidential election – on both sides and in all political discussions it seems – is riddled with candidates and their support teams doing and saying some pretty vicious things to stir up support for their campaigns.  As I watch this continue to escalate, I am struck by several thoughts:

1. Is this the new path for leadership development? 
2. Should we do away with all school programs and policies that have to do with teaching young people how to deal with conflict without using violence and bully behaviors?
3. How do we balance explaining to young people that the people who want to lead our country can behave that way but they cannot?

From a leadership development standpoint, I am wondering if leadership philosophies based on command and control will once again become the “norm” after decades of working to create leaders who are less narcissistic and more collaborative and self-aware.   Thousands of leadership development programs exist that have been built on developing the emotional intelligence of leaders, with the goal of making organizations better places to work.  When potential leaders of our country are espousing untruths, feeding fears, exchanging school-yard insults and creating division, it begs the question – where is the emotional intelligence and does it matter?  It’s coming from both sides of the political aisle, which makes it even more frustrating for those of us who have spent years working to create programs aimed at helping leaders grow their emotional intelligence, not leaders who spew vitriol at each other.  Is this how leaders are going to start talking to each other and their employees?  After all, if that type of leadership behavior is what gets rewarded in the presidential election, why not use it everywhere else?

I think these are questions we need to be thinking about as the political arena continues to heat up.

There has been a great deal of research done on leadership, with differing opinions on what makes great leaders.  Narcissism has come under fire as a negative but there is also research that shows it is a necessary trait of great leaders.  In a McKinsey & Company article titled “Getting beyond the BS of Leadership Literature” (Jeffrey Pfeffer) the author notes that leadership development based on morality is not realistic.  Pfeffer shared examples of well-known and respected leaders (Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Nelson Mandela) who sometimes had to “do what was necessary to achieve important objectives.”  He states that “moral framing of leadership substantially oversimplifies the real complexity of the dilemmas and choices leaders confront.”  There is no doubt that leaders are often in positions where, they have to “do” things that we may think are “bad” in order to get things done and possibly benefit the greater good.

So where does that leave us in developing leaders who have emotional intelligence but are also able to make difficult decisions that may not always be popular?  Spewing insults at others does not seem to be a characteristic that leaders should be rewarded for. But this year’s presidential primary races are filled with this tactic.  How will leadership development experts address this in their programs?  Our equine assisted action learning program, like many others, has been built on creating authenticity, trust, respect and collaboration and doesn’t incorporate this juvenile skill being used by these potential leaders.   As unpleasant as it is, it seems that the portrayal of what a “strong” leader looks like in this presidential race is something that leadership development professionals have to find a way to address.  At what point do we sacrifice our values for results? In their book The Leadership Challenge, authors Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner repeatedly talk about their research on leadership and the top traits that followers look for in a leader.  Trust is at the top of that list and they go on to offer extensive discussion on the role that values play in becoming a trusted leader.  Again, given the current atmosphere of vile conversations among people who are vying to lead the United States (as well as many who are running for state offices), how do those of us in the leadership development field address this in our programs?

At some point it would seem that we have to stop focusing on being angry and begin to look at how our view of a strong leader has moved from confident yet compassionate to mean and nasty.

My next blog will address the second point at the start of this article:

• Should we do away with all school programs and policies that have to do with teaching young people how to deal with conflict without using violence and bully behaviors?  How will the language and behaviors of our political leaders affect school suspensions for students who “act out” by using physical and emotional violence against their classmates?

The Role of Predatory Leadership in Workplace Bullying

I recently attended an insightful presentation given by Amy Shannon of Pinnacle Leadership Solutions at which she talked about “Workplace Bullying – The Silent Epidemic.”  The statistics that were presented were staggering:
·    35% (an estimated 53.5 million Americans) of the U.S. workforce report being bullied at work
·    72% of workplace bullying is done by people in positions of authority
·    43% of bullies have an “executive sponsor” who protects him/her from being disciplined for the behavior

So what is the definition of workplace bullying? According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, it’s defined as “repeated, health-harming mistreatment, verbal abuse, or conduct which is threatening, humiliating, intimidating, or sabotage that interferes with work or some combination of the three.”  Some people may dismiss these behaviors saying “Oh, that’s just how he is – he doesn’t mean anything by it.”  Or “She’s just having an off day.”  The truth is, people who use predatory leadership behaviors such as bullying to influence others are doing it with the intention of creating submission through fear.  Most likely they know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it.

Employees on the receiving end of bullying are often made to feel that they are “troublemakers” and may end up being re-victimized by managers and human resource staff who don't understand the nature of the problem or don’t enforce policies that are in place.  Not addressing an employee’s concerns about a co-worker or boss who is exhibiting bullying behaviors can be costly on several levels.   Employees who are being bullied are likely to be less productive, take more sick days and experience much higher levels of stress, which can lead to a multitude of health issues.

In addition to the above mentioned effects, employers who do not address bullying may be setting themselves up for legal issues.  If an employee reports bullying to the human resource department and nothing is done to address the employee who is doing the bullying, the employee who is being victimized may sue the entire organization for the damages caused by the bully (physical and emotional health issues, economic effects).  That seems like a large liability for an organization.  Yet, as mentioned earlier, “43% of bullies have an executive sponsor who protects him/her from being disciplined.”

All of this leads to the question we need to be asking “Why does this behavior happen in the first place?” Bullying is often tied to a perception that power is obtained through fear and intimidation.  People have subscribed to this theory of predatory leadership for thousands of years.  We perceive that the individual that acts aggressively toward others is the “leader” and the rest of the group follows out of “respect” so this has been the leadership style most widely practiced.  The reality however is that in most groups, the leader is actually the member who is calm, assertive and confident in managing the social structure of the group.  Horses are an excellent example of this kind of non-predatory leadership.  The “dominant” horse – the one seen biting, striking or chasing the other horses in order to secure resources -- is thought to be the herd leader.  This is completely the opposite of what is actually true.  The herd leader is the individual who acts in a calm assertive manner while accessing resources as well as in reacting to potential threats.  The leader is able to assess how much influence needs to be exerted to let others know what he/she expects of them.  The communication may be as subtle as the movement of an ear or as blatant as a bigger body movement.  This is non-predatory leadership at its best and creates a much healthier environment for all because the intention is not to influence through fear but through trust.

Non-predatory leadership is not about being passive.  It is about using social and emotional intelligence to show respect, create boundaries, set an example of healthy relationships and understand that everyone has an important role in the group.  Bullying has no place in the practice of non-predatory leadership and organizations that have issues with bullying should re-evaluate whether they are providing the right training opportunities for their managers and employees to prevent a culture that allows and possibly even encourages predatory leadership as the way to manage employees.

I’ll write more about the concepts of non-predatory leadership in future blogs.  To find out how you can gain the skills to lead with social and emotional intelligence, check out our website at www.wagersway.com.

Power - Influencing Through Intention

By Ginny Telego

At a conference I attended in 2013 for equine assisted learning, a well-known speaker presented on the many aspects of how we perceive and use power.  She started out by asking the audience how they defined power.  Of course, this was a group of people who partner with horses to provide professional development and coaching, so they probably did not have a typical response (power=dominance/control).  But there were people in the audience who quickly saw power as something negative.

 

In leadership development, one’s perception of power is a critical issue to be defined because how one perceives and portrays power will have a direct impact on how one leads.  As you are reading this, think about your own definition of power.  Does the mere thought of power make you sit up taller in your chair and think “Yeah, power is good.  It makes me feel in control.”  Or does the thought of power make you want to crawl under your desk and close your door for the day?  These are two extremes of how most people view power and why it has a bad rap.

You see, I don’t see power as good or bad.  It just is.  When exerted properly given the context of a situation, power can be something that enables one to accomplish things that they did not know they were capable of achieving – thus the concept of being empowered.  In learning from my horses, who are my co-facilitators in my experiential professional development program, I have come to realize that power is merely a way to communicate.  What makes power positive or negative is the intention behind it.  Horses exert power all of the time when they are interacting with each other as well as with people.  As prey animals, every interaction that a horse has is based on determining whether our intention is one of collaboration or a threat.  They prefer collaboration so will seek to find ways to create that opportunity.

While working with an executive coaching client, the idea of power being something other than dominance was a huge “A-ha” moment for this person.  The client was tasked with showing power while leading a horse through an obstacle course.  That was it.  The client was anxious to get to the task as she had been excited about all that she had learned during the first day of working with us.  I walked the horse through the course to give her an idea of what to do at each obstacle, then handed her the lead rope.  She stepped off at a good clip, with the horse hurrying to keep up with her.  She was standing tall and was very focused on getting the horse through the course, keeping a firm grip on the leadrope as she walked.  She completed the course and when she came back to us for discussion, I asked her if she noticed how the horse was reacting to her power in completing the task.  The client stated that the horse had seemed like she was in a hurry to get through the obstacles.  I suggested the client try the course again, and this time to allow the leadrope to be a bit longer and to pay close attention to her own breathing and intention.  It was clear that having the leadrope loose was a bit challenging for this very successful executive.  However, as she moved through each obstacle, it was clear that she was tuning in to her intention and what she was communicating to the horse - the horse was walking calmly beside her, waiting for direction.  By the time the client finished the course, she and the horse were relaxed.  Her first comment was “Wow – that was amazing.”  In discussing her use of power, she said she realized that “power is not dominance” and that “power changes.”  There was a realization that how she influenced the horse was not based on her controlling the horse through dominance – it was based on being clear in her intention and creating trust with the horse.

Power is something all of us have to learn to manage.  The adage “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is not a misnomer.  Power used for selfish purposes likely will be negative for those on the receiving end.  However, power that is used with the intent to build trust and collaboration will likely be seen as a positive and the person exerting that kind of power has the ability to be a more successful leader.