The Unlimited Human Potential Challenge Deadline Extended!

Why do organizations make it difficult for the good guys?

Thanks Polly, Gary and Jonathan for the conversation and the challenge you are asking us to consider.

Gary in your video talk with Jonathan you said, ‘Currently there are all time record levels of low trust within organizations’. You quoted a Human Capital Institute survey drawing data from over 300 companies where only 21% of employees believed their leaders effectively delegate and only 25% of employees believed that their leaders drew on multiple points in decision making. You asked, ‘How does a CEO make it safe for people to challenge them . . . how does a leader model the desirable behavior?’ And you observed, ‘We have been talking about this for 50 to 60 years and we haven’t seen any major changes. Why not?’

During the talk I was reminded of a frank admission into his modus operandi made by a chairman of a highly successful software company in the late 1990’s. The statement was reported in the Australian press at the time.

‘You don’t necessarily get to the top by being a good guy. The art of undermining competitors in the workplace remains rife. It takes the form of saying, “I think he would be good for the job, BUT” to the strategic raising of an eyebrow.’

Some different questions emerged. What is it about organizations that their leaders espouse good leadership but in practice display poor leadership? and Why do organizations make it difficult for the good guys?

Having asked those questions I’d like to share some observations and ideas.

One of the ways we help workshop attendees tackle this issue is to introduce the FIBS ROCK model. After a short outline of the process we ask leaders to vacate their chairs and walk into the centre of the seminar room to gather around a five to ten meter long line. The line is numbered from 1 to 5. We ask the leaders to show us their perspective, of where their organization “is at” by standing somewhere on this continuum, with FIBS behavior rating a 1 and ROCK behavior rating a 5.

At 1 FIBS behaviour is characterised by leaders who consistently;
Flatter those more senior to them,
Inflate their own contributions and downplay those of their colleagues,
Break most promises they make except those made to important people,
Scapegoat others when a mistake occurs.

For readers of Bob Sutton, and that includes me, there is great overlap between those who display high FIBS behaviour and those he describes as a**holes as in his book ‘The No A**hole Rule’. Other people suggest that high FIBS correlates with immaturity.

At 5 ROCK behaviour is characterised by leaders who consistently;
Respect everyone within the organisation,
Own problems and take responsibility for fixing them,
Credit others for their good work or thoughtful contributions,
Keep their promises.

Yes, the good guys consistently display high ROCK behavior and also have the humility to acknowledge that they sometimes slip into mild FIBS behavior.

We watch to see who takes a position first and where they stand. We watch what happens when the CEO takes her position and where other people stand in relation to her. Are they prepared to take a significantly different position? We repeat the exercise several times asking people to assess the executive team and ultimately themselves. (No one as yet has placed themselves on 1 = High FIBS although it is common for several people to rate themselves as high ROCK) If the CEO and executive team can acknowledge significant FIBS behavior in their own leadership behaviour we become more confident they will be willing to tackle the serious business of cultural change. Without judgement we make the experience more meaningful. People become keen to foster ROCK behaviors.

The CEO is encouraged to participate in a ‘forced ROCK ranking process’ which makes it safe for people to point out the blind spots in the CEO’s behaviour. The leaders develop an understanding that by supporting and acknowledging more ROCK behavior FIBS behaviour falls away. The model gives people a user friendly language to discuss how well the leaders are supporting ROCK behaviours and the circumstances in which they revert to FIBS behaviors which was previously undiscussable. The more we explore the issue the clearer it becomes that FIBS behaviors are major contributors to bureaucratic behaviors.

Once people understand the model we can explore the systemic organizational factors that support FIBS mindsets and behaviors. Chief amongst them is the organizational hierarchical structure which if left unaddressed will always undermine ROCK behaviour. As you commented, Gary, people have been talking about this for over 50 years. In his 1957 book, Personality and Organizations, the late Chris Argyris suggested that the single biggest factor behind immaturity was the ‘pyramidal organizational culture’ (his words). He showed how pyramidal behaviour with its emphasis on status and control not only undermined maturity but promoted immature (FIBS) mindsets and behavior.

Let’s get serious about helping the good guys win.

For more information about the FIBS:ROCK model and a paper please email me peter.rennie@leadershipaustralia.com.au

The FIBS:ROCK model was developed by Peter Rennie in 1998.

TSolving the people issues (unleashing the human potential in organisations, note the plural as the solution does not rest within a single organisation) is a legally binding obligation in most OECD countries since 1995 when the International Electrotechnical Commission published IEC 61508 functional safety of electrical, electronic and programmable electronic safety related systems (E/E/PESRS) this standard is the benchmark for industry specific standards and addresses the overall safety obligations, specific to ensuring safety action at the push of a button on demand. But it is only a part solution, stepping beyond regulation and education is the way to the future.
Hundreds of case studies were needed to find solutions to the myriad of issues essential to a practical solutions.
However, each organisation faces key issues such as language, enterprise architecture, knowledge sharing, transparency, truth and trust, competence, demographics, passion, ideas, innovation and invention, employee retention etc, the list is extensive all of which needs bottom up, top down and internal and external governance. Recent industrial disasters such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, Mexican Gulf oil well and spill disaster, where the planning of safety for all aspects of the life cycle of the whole facility resulted in huge losses. And with specific viruses to degrade the performance of process automation software, the threats are real. It all starts with the question, what are the management performance needs, levels, targets and how these targets are maintained for the life cycle of the technology in use.
The increase in management performance is a case study in its own right. The increase to manage the safety of process automation (digital technology) is off the chart (scale) of current measuring practices. An overhaul of a countries measurement infrastructure is a possibility
This may rattle the chain, get the ball rolling or the chins waging?
Best