Mistakes or fear?

One of my favorite quotes goes as follows:

A few mistakes made by a person working productively cost far less than a person paralyzed by laziness or fear.

The quote originates from a place that one might not have imagined. Some would probably expect some management guru, but the originator is Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum, who as his job titles have ruler of Dubai and vice president and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.
I think it's an excellent quote - as laziness and fear are so powerful opponents, it's crucial to fight them with all possible means. And one of the essentials is that we are all being made aware that what the quote says.
With this background, it is completely irrelevant whether it's a manager, an emir or ourselves expressing a willingness to accept mistakes, rather than what we are able to come up with when we fear making them.
(Translated from Fejl eller frygt?, originally published May 15, 2017)

On the topic of higher aspirations

A very frequently asked question is: "What is good leadership?" It is a difficult question to answer. But you are in no doubt what good leadership is when you are face to face with a good leader - and that may actually be just getting a glimpse of the good leader.
To me the most obvious case I have been faced with in recent times was when I was part of an event where a CEO gave a presentation. He did not say it in words, but yet, with all the desirable clarity, he conveyed the message to me: that I was created for bigger things than those I did for him. But on the other hand, he did it in such a way that I did not doubt for a moment that I should not venture out to find the bigger things - because it was best for me to just keep doing the things I did for him.
I do not know how he did it, but I do not doubt that at that time I experienced good leadership. A person who is able to instill that feeling in people will be able to do anything with anyone. The difficulty is to figure out how to convey the message in a way that hits a broader audience - as it does not create a horde of enthusiastic followers just to touch something deep in this individual.
(Translated from Noget om lyst til større ting, originally published December 2, 2012)

In praise of good colleagues

In previous blog posts, I have written about how important elements like good leadership, good corporate culture and corporate values ​​are as means to retain people in a workplace - but when discussing with Janice Kobelsky in continuation of my post about the tower that did not lean, it dawned on me that to my experience, one factor is even more significant. Good colleagues. Well, it does not have to be much more than just a single good colleague.
Now I have never been cast in such a way (or rather, my eyesight is not sufficiently good) allow me to spend time on any kind of military service, so I can not comment on the relationships that are formed among brothers in arms - but on a slightly less serious level, among people who remain my very close friends, I count a handful of excellent people who are all former colleagues of a quite exceptional nature.
They are the kind of people that I have always been able to get along with, without any of us having any kind of hidden agendas; where we have never been in doubt that no matter how dire straits we would end up in, we could trust that we would always have each other's back - this even went so far that when some of these people became former colleagues, they told me about their considerations long before they left their position.
Such people are rare. But there is no doubt that when you meet them you should stick to them. Also long after you are no longer colleagues - because they are not only unusually good colleagues; they also have the potential to form unusually good, lifelong friendships.
(Translated from Til den gode kollegas pris, originally published February 14th, 2018)

On the topic of team composition

Recently, I have been quite occupied by thoughts about diversity - about the positive sides of surrounding ourselves with people who bring other things to the community than what we bring ourselves.
I found one of the interesting metaphors I have seen in the discussion in a post by Wendy Woolfork on LinkedIn - originating from the question "What kind of team would your team be if everyone on it had your exact attitude" - perhaps it would be better, if the team was composed with greater diversity.

I think that the universe, from which Wendy's post originates - the world of sorts - is a very suitable one to start out from. It is worth considering in relation to e.g. a soccer team: a player can be the best defender in the world, but if the team were composed solely of players with the exact same mentality, it is very likely that the defense would be world class, but the goals necessary to reach the finals would never be scored. Or you could have a team of the finest forwards with a flair for scoring excellent goals - but if no one passes the right balls to them, the goals will never be scored.
So I am actually quite convinced that the best teams are composed with a wide range of diverse people, who challenge each other with mutual respect and respect for the diversity of the team, headed by a leader capable of providing the space for the team members to flourish. In that way, we will reach the championships - or whatever the metaphors of sports translate into in the worlds, in which we operate on a daily basis.
(Translated from Noget om holdsammensætning)

Well - in which camp do I belong?

Once again, Rebecca Elvy has made me do some introspection. In her weekly newsletter, she asks her readers, which of the following three camps they're in:

• For some people, the racket is too much. They settle in for a non-eventful life, rich in routine and devoid of impact.
• Others lean toward this quiet life, because it seems like less effort… but deep down they wonder what else they could achieve…
• And a third group desperately want to achieve sometime massive, to make that personal leadership contribution, but they’re not sure where to start or in what domain their efforts should be spent.

Which made me wonder: where do I belong in that picture? And after some contemplation, I found myself to be somewhere between the ones who wonder what else they could achieve, and the ones who desperately want to achieve sometime massive - right now you could say that I am in some sort of hibernation state, where I am perfectly content with being doctor Watson to other people's Sherlock Holmes - the person who does not really do anything out of the ordinary to the table himself, but tries to faithfully bounce the brilliant balls back with a slight twist, when you throw them in my direction; hopefully with the symbiotic result that both of us get inspired.
At least, I have in multiple situations found myself to be inspired by all the brilliant people that I am so fortunate to interact with.
And the good thing - which indicates to me that for now, I am in the exactly right spot: each and every time someone says that I have been able to inspire, it feels like the only thing I really want to do...
(Translated from Ja, hvilken lejr tilhører jeg?)

If you find a problem...

Recently, I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture given by the Danish management consultant Christian Ørsted about what he calls "Lethal leadership" - a great pleasure, because there were many interesting takeaways.
It was not necessarily things that was unaware of - but there were points that are not necessarily consistent with how people usually act, and hence, it can be really good to put words on them.
One of the most outstanding examples was how to handle people, when they report problems.
Often (if the old-fashioned method of "killing the messenger" isn't applied), it is implicitly expected that if someone reports a problem, the same someone should also be able to come up with a solution.
An expectation which often has as its only outcome that if someone sees a problem, she keeps her mouth shut unless she is so lucky as to know how to solve it. Something which far from always happens to be the case.
Therefore, it is important to say that if someone finds a problem, then you expect that person to tell about it. Then, together, you can assess the problem and put an effort into solving the problem using the best best means available - rather than frightening people into silence by setting up unrealistic expectations.
(Translated from Hvis du finder et problem..., originally published October 13th, 2017)

Vacationing with a clean conscience

In some circles, it seems that managers consider it a good idea to be a role model, spending time working during vacation periods like the upcoming Christmas holidays. Apparently with the purpose to give the people they manage a good example to follow, spending some time themselves, thus increasing the overall productivity.
However, I'm afraid it's just not a good idea at all - on the contrary, it might rather be a bad idea. Vacations are not intended for work. Vacations are meant to be days off for the vacationing person. Time to spend to recover - recharge oneself physically and mentally to be able to once again perform optimally when returning to work and the daily life. And often, it will prove to be a better investment to let employees keep a clean conscience while doing nothing productive at all during vacations, rather than pushing them to squeeze some extra hours out of them, thereby only achieving a lower overall performance.
But this of course demands the ability to see the bigger picture.
(Translated from: Ferie med ren samvittighed)

Stray thought on leadership

It's scary how many people believe that when you are a leader, people are there to serve you - when in reality, it is the exact opposite way around: you are there to serve people.
(Translated from Strøtanke om lederskab)

When culture eats breakfast

According to Mark Fields, who was heading up Ford Motor Co. in the Americas in 2006, Peter Drucker has once said that:

Culture eats strategy for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

And even if I have not really found any evidence that Drucker has used exactly the words in question, there is still something very true in this quote. Because you can have the best of strategies, devised the sharpest brains in a management team, often even with the help of external consultants - if you do not have a proper culture in the company, it does not matter.

As I have seen Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla like to be one of the hottest hotshots in corporate management these days, quoted:

Every person in your company is a vector. Your progress is determined by the sum of all vectors.

- and it expresses the same in a way for even nerds like me to be able to understand it.
Business culture is what it takes to make sure that all the vectors that a company consist of point in roughly the same direction. If the culture is sick, and the vectors point all over the place, then even the finest strategy is close to no good.
(Translated from Når kulturen spiser morgenmad)

More on the topic of chairs

Not long after I had written two posts: the one about t superbosses and the one about wishing to sit in the manager's chair I came with the idea to combine the two posts. Because it struck me: if you went to a job interview with one of Sydney Finkelstein's excellent managers with the point of view that in five years you would like to sit where the manager now sits; the hiring would most likely take it as given - why should she be interested in candidates who aren't ambitious? So I'm convinced that the superboss will take her candidate as far as possible and get as much as possible from the person in the process. The question mentions five years as a measure of "a long time", and much may have happened that could be of great value to the company before "long time" has passed.
Yes, it is more likely that the excellent leader calls on her employees to wish for the boss's chair, rather than to refrain from thinking so.
(Translated from Mere om siddepladser, originally published May 15th, 2016)

On the topic of help and delegation

In Rebecca Elvy's latest i3 Leadership Newsletter, she challenges us "to stop trying to do it all on your own and ask for help..."

The challenge of asking for help is an interesting one.

Let's forget that asking for help to a certain degree is a display of vulnerability - that you are not the superperson that you might desire to project the image of, because such a superperson would be able to do everything herself and still be able to fly around the world at the speed of light, all in a day's work. (The topic of vulnerability and why showing your weak spots might be a good idea has been discussed here earlier). And the vulnerability can easily be explained - there's a reason that you are the leader of a team; you simply have so much to do that you should not be able to do it yourself - or might not have all the relevant skills - hence the team.

Let's also forget that some people avoid delegation because knowledge is power - if a leader does not want to share necessary knowledge, she is not displaying leadership, not to be considered a leader and should never have been appointed in the first place.

And then I am happy that I did not even think about the point that Rebecca also mentions: the thought "that delegating or asking for help will ... not meet your exacting standards..." Because I take pride in empowering and trusting my team, it makes me happy that I did not even think that whoever I might delegate a task to might not be up to do it in a satisfactory way.

But Rebecca is still so absolutely right. From time to time I get into these situations where delegating seems a waste of time - because I would be able to do what I ask for in a fragment of the time, as I have tried it before, and know that simply the task of delegating it to a more inexperienced person would take time, because I would at least need to have a mentoring role in the process.
At these times, it is beneficial to at least consider: is this something that we for sure never need to do again. Because if there is a fragment of possibility that this could be a recurring task, then it must be remembered that next time the task occurs, the additional resources used on mentoring and building up experience will start paying back. And even if it is a one-off task, there is still a possibility to develop the delegate in the process, and it should be considered, if the time is not well spent on it.

Finally, the delegation is also a process of knowledge sharing - and if the knowledge is shared, the risk that a task cannot be handled the next time I am for some reason not around for it diminishes.

But in the heat of the moment, we tend to act rather than think. And if there's one thing your piece on asking for help has done, it has made me make a mental note: the next time, I am about to start on something that I might as well delegate, stop doing and start delegating. It's not necessarily an easy thing to do, but the above considerations show that it's an important one.

(Translated from Noget om hjælp og uddelegering)

On the topic of chairs

At one point I went to a lecture where the lecturer spoke of one of these usual recruitment interviews, where the interviewer asked the hopeful candidate the traditional question: "Where are you in five years?"
The applicant had the courage to answer "At that time I sit in your chair!"
From here, what happened further fades in to the mist - the story does not even tell whether the applicant got the job, but we can guess that the outcome to some extent had something to do with the interviewer's courage: if she was a little nervous and looked at the recruitment as part of a zero-zero game where the total amount of team cake is a constant, she would naturally feel somewhat threatened.
But if she was able to see the possibilities - and able to examine the applicant so well that she dared to trust that the person could contribute constructively to the progress - thereby ensuring growth and positive development - there are certainly perspectives in having such an employee.
Maybe there would even be room for promotion of the employee without the expense of the person hiring her - maybe because the hiring manager herself was destined for bigger things.
(Translated from Noget om siddepladser, originally published May 2nd, 2016)

On the topic of (not) walking the talk

One of my favourite bloggers out there recently asked the question: Why do we say a leader lacks authenticity, when what we mean is they're a hypocrite?
I think part of the reason for using “not authentic” rather than “hypocrite” is that authenticity is a positive/good character trait whereas hypocrisy is a negative/bad one. For some reason, there’s a milder tone to being “not good” than to being “bad”.
And therefore, recognizing people as lacking positive traits rather than displaying bad traits is a milder judgment – which in turn makes it easier for us not to walk the talk and in some way express that it’s impossible to work with that person, e.g. by resigning.
That, I think, is at least part of the explanation.
(Translated from Noget om at (ikke) at gå linen ud)

On the topic of market value

Some time ago I heard an interesting point of view on people management. In all its simplicity it was stated that a people manager's sole duty towards her employees is that she must at any time work to increase their market value - enable them to sell themselves at a higher price, so to speak. If the manager does so, the employee has every reason to be satisfied.
On the other hand, the worst accusation that you can give your manager face to face is: "You do not increase my market value" - or perhaps even "You are impairing my market value." If the employee is in that situation, it is the most important reason that she should look after something else to do.
Not least if the manager is confronted with it and no improvement can be noticed.
(Translated from Noget om markedsværdi, originally published March 5th, 2012)

On the topic of leadership and navigation

Some time ago, I went to a lecture where the lecturer had a point that initially may seem slightly rebellious - that you, rather than being locked into existing management structures, should let the best and most competent person in a given situation lead - something that could appear to be dynamite in leadership teams if brought to life and thrown in there.

Image courtesy of pixabay / Pexels

But the presenter had a point - for as he exemplified it: if you are a bunch of people travelling from point A to point B, and some of you have local knowledge of some of the places where you need to pass - wouldn't you allow those who have local knowledge at that location, to show the way?
And it makes excellent sense - rather than leaving it to the owner of the car to find his way across Westminster, why not let the Londoner who's a passenger do it, instead of telling her to just sit in the back seat and keep quiet?
I think that one of the neglected disciplines of management is the art of finding the one who is the best suited in a given situation and properly empower this person.
(Translated from Noget om at lede og finde vej, originally published November 15th, 2014)

Pedestrian

I highly appreciate a management style known by the acronym MBWA - "Management By Walking Around" - which in all its simplicity is about the manager setting time aside to get around in her (or his) organization, talk to people and understand what is happening. As a matter of fact, I have never met very many managers who makes use of the method; for sure, they can stand on a stage in front of the employees and do one-way communication, but when for once they manage to come by the desks of the employees, it typically causes the reaction: "My goodness, there must be something terribly wrong since the manager comes here. "
If a leader does MBWA, I see several benefits. Firstly, the manager is better informed about what actually occupies people, but not least it significantly reduces the distance between the leader and the employees - and in good times it establishes a connection between the manager and the employees; a connection which can be extremely valuable in difficult situations.
But unfortunately, there are too few leaders who find time in their schedule to do it on a regular basis. Last time, I saw something similar to MBWA was actually back at the university where the rector had made it his routine to visit all departments in the week before Christmas to wish the students and staff happy holidays. Although once a year is not much, is it, after all - and unfortunately - more than what I experience as average.
(Translated from Fodgænger, originally published March 3rd, 2017).

On the topic of superbosses

From time to time, I am fortunate enough to get hold of a book, which pages almost turn by themselves because the author handles an interesting topic and is able to illuminate in an appealing and relevant way.
Recently, I experienced it when I stumbled upon Sydney Finkelstein's book "Superbosses". Based on numerous examples of superbosses in a variety of fields - ranging from music, american football and the restaurant business to marketing and other professions where business leadership is a more conventional topic - Finkelstein details what makes these leaders so excellent, causing the success of their own business, and members of their staff to later successfully spread like wildfire as leaders in the same industry.
Finkelstein does it so enthusiastically that it can make anyone want to, if not develop superboss personality traits, then certainly work for a superboss - or wish that one's boss developed that kind of personality.
I at least could easily find someone for whom to place this book under their Christmas tree.
(Translated from Noget om fremragende ledere)

Leaders and leadership - where's the connection?

Once again, I had the pleasure to visit TED.com to listen to a presentation - this time, it was Simon Sinek, author of the books "Start With Why" and "Leaders Eat Last". In the presentation, he tells us abour leaders, and leadership in general:
In the presentation, Sinek draws the following conclusion, which i find immensely interesting.

Leaders hold a position of power or authority, but those who lead inspire us. Whether they're individuals or organizations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to.

- in other words: if one claims to be a leader, it does not necessarily have any connection to whether or not one is able to exhibit leadership abilities - as we do not follow leaders because we are told that they are leaders, but rather because we want to follow them. And it is the leadership rather than the title that is important.
Maybe more leaders should take this into consideration?
(Translated from Hvad har ledere med lederskab at gøre?, originally published February 28, 2016)

What can I do for you today?

When this post was originally written, I had recently written about psychopathy and management in a way that would make would think I experienced it on a daily basis, despite the fact that this is not the case. So therefore I found it appropriate to provide an example of the opposite; the best CEO I have ever met and had the pleasure to work for.
He was brought into a company in which I was then employed, with what was later understood as the agenda to sell the business to the highest bidder. He was presented to the rest of the company in an information meeting called for in a flash - and the meeting started with this one strange man going around to all the staff, greeting and shaking hands with all hands. After this he told us who he was, a little about his history, and what he stood for - ending up in the mantra:

What can I do for you today? 

And actually, he succeeded - by taking the first step and practicing his mantra, by highlighting that management did whatever it could for the employees, as far as it was within his power - to make practically the entire company operate in the same way; to meet each other in the offices with a spirit of "what can I do for you today?"
And finally - when the company actually found a buyer, and probably about one-sixth of the company's employees refused to sign a new contract that gave the new owner the intellectual property rights to virtually any idea that the employees would to get at work or in the leisure time, awake or asleep, it was he - personally - who were able to make ends meet. Because everyone knew he was a man whose word was to be trusted.
If anything, there is certainly a phrase that I have brought with me from there to remember to this very day. It may well happen that I do not often speak it out verbatim. But I try my best to live the spirit of it.
(Translated from Hvad kan jeg gøre for dig i dag?, originally published September 16, 2010)