Virtual Leadership

Guest blogger Jeffrey Shepard  is a CEO, Executive Producer, University Professor, consultant, a PhD student working on defending his dissertation, writer, closet poet and a friend of mine. He owns successful businesses in the New York and Cincinnati, Ohio areas  and is involved in pre-launch of several .com companies.

In a recent conversation Dr. Loyd and I talked about the evolution and popularity of the internet, virtual teams, advances in technology and the future of leadership.  We both agreed that some of the “rules” of the past are being broken and re-written to adapt to a changing “follower” as well as a new environment. 

I spend most of my time in technology based business and or “cloud” based companies, and much of my academic research concerns collaboration and virtual teams. Using “cloud” based software, and tools such as Skype, salesforce.com, and Google Docs, we are now able to work and lead in the same “space” with colleagues around the globe while being at the same time in the comfort of our own home (or Starbucks!).  What remains constant is that to be successful you still have to build great teams, provide them with the tools they need for success and effectively ensure team communication.

Virtual teams are exciting! As a leader you can assemble really effective teams without the geographic restrictions you once had.  For example, as a leader in the area of technology, I have members of my teams in many countries and time zones.  To be an effective leader I need to make sure that I set expectations and follow-up on managing projects with them while also providing timely feedback.  It’s fascinating (and challenging!) to lead people in different parts of the world, especially where the concept of “space” and “time” are differently defined than our earlier traditional experiences.  Looking at this new virtual environment from a leadership perspective, you are not able to lead and or manage the same way every day. Small adjustments to your leadership style and expectations are necessary.  These styles actually evolve as we discuss the new way we interact.

For example, even though we now can use web cameras to have more intimate meetings virtually, we can’t micromanage and or see what someone is doing during the course of the day.  Leaders are forced to trust their employees or followers to manage themselves.  This means that you look to your team for results and not for details on how they get to them.  A very different style than what some have experienced with the “old” management system with many layers. It has been my experience that setting clear expectations with detailed outcomes/requirements will bring your team the success that you desire.

Space is also redefined in this style of leadership.  We are starting to see the hours of the traditional workday as being defined as flexible in nature for some.  With the increased importance of deadlines and completed tasks, is it really important that your team work between the hours of 9-5PM?  In fact, some teams are set up to support one another by having periods that are open to collaborate via web tools such as instant messenger.  Other companies use cellular technology and require team members to be “logged in” during certain periods during the course of the day.  In this environment a good leader understands what is required of her team and makes the necessary adjustments to get the most efficient quality work for the team.  A leader in this environment needs to understand the technology and how to best use it for team optimal performance.  This skill set needs to be taught to future leaders who lead in this environment. 

Finally communication has changed.  First off, e-mail changed the way we communicate with our fellow teammates, managers, clients, and subordinates. Unfortunately I have personally experienced managers that have not been effective with e-mail as a communication tool.  For a virtual team leader this is a serious problem. Virtual teams demand intensive communication.

I have personally found that e-mail is good in some cases to communicate small tasks.  When a situation requires some complexity it is sometimes best to utilize other tools such as video calls (SKYPE) or chat.  In very rare situations it is important to meet in person.  Some successful virtual teams spend time together in person to build rapport and comfort.  Other successful virtual teams never see each other.   As a leader it is important that you gain an understanding of what is needed, what works, and how to best understand the needs of your team.

With technology we now have a new set of rules that governs the way people not only manage but lead.  It requires us to react to our new environment, and adjust communication and management styles.   It is not uncommon for virtual teams to outperform those that share the same office if they are led properly.  Good leadership will/must shift to adapt to the way we work and collaborate in the virtual environment.

Click here for Jeffrey’s blog.

Leadership Innovation

I’m crisscrossing the country this next week and will be updating this blog as I get the chance. Today, there is a great article on HBR’s blog site by Rosabeth Moss Kanter on innovative leadership. Her insights are good for both church and for-profit leaders.

Good Leaders Don’t Command – Myths (part 6)

Somehow, especially in the church, we’ve come to believe that good leaders don’t exercise authority. The idea of appealing to our position as leaders or to the authority of our office really makes some leaders uncomfortable. “Real leaders inspire people, they don’t command them. After all, authority ultimately comes from the people. If you have to order them about, you’ve already lost the battle.”

Not really.

A leader will not and cannot inspire everyone. Yet non-profits and churches view using authority as “not nice.” The resulting delays to project and goal completion can be maddening.

However, sometimes the job must get done. As leadership scholar Ron Heifetz points out, an emergency room surgeon putting together a new surgical team needs to exercise command (Heifetz, 1994). 

When necessary, it is possible to exercise authority without behaving like an insistent two-year old.

My father, a 30 year Naval officer, provides the illustration of this. (It’s Father’s day Sunday, so I’m allowed to have two father illustrations this week). As a Navy officer rises in rank, he is assigned to all the departments on a ship so that by the time he is promoted to captain, at one time or another he has been in command of all the ship’s systems (gunnery, operations, engineering, etc). 

My father was skipper (that means “in-charge-of” for all y’all civilian types) of a ship when it began experiencing some difficult engine problems. The repairs were not going well and so the chief engineer was reporting the status of the work to my father. The engineer was stymied, so the report became a discussion with my dad and the chief engineer breaking out the tech manuals and poring over the books and service bulletins trying to figure out what happened and how best to fix it. The chief engineer kept insisting on one kind of lengthy repair and my father was sure that it wasn’t necessary and that something else could be done. The engineer didn’t believe my father’s suggested solution would work and finally in exasperation he said to my father, “Show me that in writing.” My father calmly looked the engineer in the eye and said, “Get me some paper and a pencil.” 

Even in the flattest of organizations, there at times when leaders must exercise authority to get the job done. It can be wielded like a club or deftly applied with humor as my father did. And sadly, sometimes both are needed. Authority is an important element of leadership, even for the relational leader.

New Leaders Take Charge – Myths (part 5)

New leaders need to be “strong, in-charge types” who let people know they are on the job. This is similar to the myth that leadership is for heroes. However, this one has an upside, just so long as the leader doesn’t believe it!

For example, my father was a 30 year Naval officer (Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, etc.) and a great leader. He shared with me that whenever he took over a new command, he would look for the most inconsequential thing he could find. Usually it was the muster time (that’s the time everyone reports to the ship in the morning, for all y’all landlubbers). If the previous time was 6:30am, he’d change it to 7:00am. Or if it was 7:00am he’d change it to 6:30am. He really didn’t care about the time, he wanted to demonstrate to the command that there was someone new in charge who would be changing things. Then he took the time to get to know the department heads and assess the culture of the ship.

A Navy ship’s responsibilities don’t stop when the captain changes. Neither does a business or a church when they change leaders. Decisions still need to be made, operations must continue. Yet it takes time to lead well, time to know the people, time to see the challenges before the organization. Although “sudden leadership departures” due to death or firing or some other dire circumstance may seem to require an emergency triage of existing operations, even so, these need to be evaluated carefully before sweeping change can begin.

My father’s trick  toned down the crew’s anxiety about change, established his authority, and gave him “breathing room” to do the true work of a new leader, not “taking charge,” but finding out how his people worked together and how best to lead them.

Leadership is Charismatic – Myths (part 4)

Many people buy into the idea that leadership must be charismatic. They equate a good leader with someone who enthralls others, who can whip-up feelings/emotions of a crowd and use their personality to get others to follow. In a scene from Lord of the Rings, the hero Aragorn lines up his army outside the bad-guy fortress and while riding his massive charger up and down the cavalry line, gives a speech that inspires them to do great deeds. Ah, we say, that’s leadership! If only we had horses…

The result of defining leadership as charisma in the United States is the election to political office of people who have amazing personalities but who lack the skill, understanding or wisdom necessary to address the challenges facing the country (insert name of politician here). This dumbs-down leadership to a communication skill or personality trait. Issues of power, coercion and ethics are simply unimportant to this definition. This is how Hitler, a spell-binding orator by all accounts, can be considered by some to be a great leader. Ughhh.

We find a different approach illustrated by a story from an article by Ron Heifetz in Richard Couto’s terrific book Reflections on Leadership. 

A particular Native American tribal band went from nearly 100 percent alcoholism to 95 percent sobriety. When asked how the change happened, the credit was given to Lois. Lois would hold an AA meeting in the lodge of her people. Every week she would set up chairs in a big circle. And every week for two hours, Lois sat alone. No one came. For three years she continued this practice with almost no attendance. When asked about it she said, “I wasn’t alone. I was there with spirits and ancestors; and one day our people will come.” After ten years the room was filled with people. 

That is leadership without position, without authority, without a group of followers. Lois’s life was lived everyday in the tribal context. People knew her and she knew them. She connected with the values of her people, modeled them and people were mobilized for real change.  No salesmanship, no oratory skills, no gimmicks, no charisma, just plain character and passion on display for everyone to see. A real leader builds a mutual relationship with others on the basis of shared values, just as Lois did. Anyone can be a leader. More should be.

Biblical Leadership – Myths (part 3)

Biblical Leadership is a myth? Well…kind of. At least the way it’s usually portrayed. Often people writing about Biblical leadership take a “Let’s do leadership like Moses, or David, or Jesus, or Paul,” kind of approach. That is not a study of Leadership but of leaderships. 

Let me be academic here for just a minute. Leadership studies from the 1950’s to the 1970’s went through a period of time when “Great Man Theories” were the dominant model of leadership. The search was all about identifying the traits or abilities of leadership (looking almost exclusively at male leaders). By 1977 the verdict was in. Research failed to find a set of traits that leaders must posses in order to be leaders (Sorenson, 2007). 

Today’s popular presentation of Biblical leadership harkens back to this failed way of studying leadership, frequently identifying Biblical leadership as a compilation of different traits/abilities. This leader is strong, this one sensitive, this one wise, this one decisive, etc. Predictably, these books have different lists, some longer, some shorter. Rarely does one say a certain characteristic is more important than another and rarer still, how the characteristics ought to interact with one another. 

In addition, the Bible spans many diverse different cultures and customs. Yet leadership decisions and actions vary widely from culture to culture. For example, I led a group of congregations in Miami for 10 years. Our time conscious Anglo congregation met at 11:30am Sunday while our not-so-time conscious Haitian group met at 10:00am in the same Sanctuary. Some Anglo’s charged, “If the Haitians were good stewards of God’s time, they’d finish on time,” which seldom happened. Some Haitians responded, “We cannot set a time limit on the movement of God’s Spirit,” and without a doubt, He moved people greatly. So how shall we interpret the words/actions/decisions of these leaders? Culture is a prime factor in leadership decisions. We cannot render a judgment until we appreciate the culture of the people involved which, in books on Biblical leadership, is rarely articulated. 

Finally, popular Biblical leadership looks at only the leader and not the follower. By examining only one part of the equation you see only one part of the leadership relationship. Leadership becomes a property or power to be used to get someone else to do what you want. The danger is that popular Biblical leadership simply becomes a tool for getting your own way. 

So how should Christians analyze leadership? Studying the lives of Biblical leaders is a worthwhile task but must be augmented with examining what Scripture says about community purpose and behavior. Also, the results of modern leadership research must also be considered. Beware of books like “20 Essentail Traits of a Biblical Leader.” They tell wonderful, even inspirational stories about compassion, integrity, courage, etc. However, like leadership McNuggets, though each one is fine and tasty, a real leadership meal they are not.

Leadership is for Heroes – Myths (part 2)

Must Leadership be heroic, with good leaders coming to the rescue? This popular image of leadership is a combination of John Wayne self-sufficiency, James Bond expertise, and Winston Churchill determination. (The lack of women in these images is a topic for another post.) Do leaders stand alone against the crowd? Are they the people who bring solutions to whatever problems face the organization? That’s the popular conception of leadership, and it’s rooted in a false assumption that leadership is for heroes. 

Heroic leadership describes a particular relationship of the leader to the follower. Burns (1978) observes that the central element to this type of leadership is the absence of conflict. Want to be a hero leader? Take away conflict. People seek release from their fears and doubts and give to the leader the authority and power necessary to make them feel safe. The leader becomes the symbol of safety. 

A church in California was going through a pastoral transition. Known for its “avant-garde” ways, its founder left after 20 years of pastoring and the people were uneasy about the future. A confident, driven young man fresh out of seminary was chosen by the denominational leader to apply for the position. He came with a ready-made right-out-of-the-box program designed to take the church to next level. The people were ecstatic. Here was a man with a plan. Here was a forceful leader who had the answers for their uncertain future. 

Yet as time went by it became obvious that the young pastor did not have the experience working with people to make the plan work in the church. Resistance mounted to his “game plan” and he didn’t know how to handle it. He was simply too young, too brash, too forceful to be in the position. He lasted less than a year before he broke and ran to another church. 

Who was at fault? The denominational leadership for appointing him? The people who chose him? The young pastor? All of the above? Heroic leadership is for storytellers, those who like simplistic explanations and people who want to be rescued from uncertainty. Real leadership requires time getting to know your people, and then knowing how to regulate change initiatives so that the organization isn’t damaged. This kind of change is frequently accompanied by uncertainty and conflict. Good leaders don’t  simply supply heroic answers and thus provide people a way of escape from doing the real the work of transformation. Instead, the leader uses the urgency created by the conflict and uncertainty, to help people see the need for change. In other words, true leadership helps others find and craft unique solutions to the challenges facing the group. Leadership is relational.

Leadership Myths

Leadership is the most observed and least understood phenomena on the earth, said the father of modern leadership studies (Burns, 1978). Misconceptions about leadership permeate every organization. Some are worse than others. All distort the leadership process. People are hurt, jobs lost, morale suffers, goals are unattained and often it all stems from a misunderstanding of what a leader should do. My next few posts explore common leadership myths in churches and businesses. 

Many years ago I was part of a church leadership meeting bemoaning the lack of spiritual growth in the congregation. Different proposals were put forth to address the problem but each one was shot-down for not being directive enough or giving people too many choices. Finally one exasperated church leader expressed his frustration, “People are like sheep, they need to be led. We are responsible for their spiritual growth so let’s just tell them, here’s the way it’s gonna be.” 

“People are like sheep, they need to be led.” I’ve heard this many times over the years, mostly from well-meaning people who are somewhat frustrated with the slow rate of change in the church. The sheep – shepherd metaphor is based on Psalm 23 and found throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It is a beloved image of care throughout church and synagogue and is often a source of great comfort to people going through all kinds of difficult hardship. 

However, it was never meant as a paradigm for leadership. When used as a model for leader behavior it becomes paternalistic, fostering an air of elitism among the leadership. The concept itself steals choice and responsibility from the people, the very things that churches teach are so important to spiritual development. 

Following the sheep –shepherd model, a leader can “go to God” to get the marching orders for everyone. “I know the answers, they need to get with the program. If they refuse to follow, to submit to my authority, then clearly there is a problem with the people because after all, I am the Shepherd.” 

There is a large difference between authoritarian leadership and leading with authority . The first is a top-down dictation of what should be done. The second is decisive collaboration between equals to determine how best to complete the goals of the church. Yes there are different responsibilities, positions, perspectives and skill sets. Yet, adults are neither animals lacking understanding nor children needing guidance. Each person needs to be treated with respect and dignity as someone bearing the imago dei, the image of God. People are potential partners possessing the passion and skill needed to get things done. Church leaders need to get with the program.

Leadership and Vision

The leader’s vision should drive the organization. True or false? While leadership’s vision is supposed to guide the organization down the path, it just isn’t that simple. No matter how much we try to get our people to “buy-in” to our finely crafted and polished vision, their own personal motivations and values will always be the determining factor in what they do or how well they perform.

“Buy-in.” I hate the term. It turns a leader into a salesperson. Not that I have anything against salespeople. “Some of my best friends, etc., etc.”  However, “buy-in” conjures up images of used cars, “flim-flam men” and Professor Harold Hill from the Music Man. Popular leadership tells us that selling the people on a vision gets them excited and will make them own it and commit to it. In fact, a recent bestseller compares rationality to a Rider and emotion to an Elephant. The Rider may think she’s steering the elephant but watch out when the elephant decides to go its own way! The gurus say, sell the vision to the elephant and the rider will follow. 

It’s just that the leader as salesperson is a tremendous waste of energy and resources. Once a vision is “sold” to someone there must be a tremendous effort made to keep it sold. Savvy CEO’s realize this, making special “vision” appearances but delegating “vision-selling” to others. In reality a leader needs to be focused on industry developments, serious challenges coming at the organization, management tune-up, shareholder expectations, etc. 

However, if a leader can tap into the motivations and values of people, vision does not have to be sold, at least not continually. Construct a corporate vision from the values people already have and you’ll find them excited for new projects, for new ways of expansion. They become scouts looking for uncharted territory. How can you make this happen? 

Change your own understanding of the “vision thing.” Enough with the whole “go to the mountain, bring back the tablets of vision” idea! Instead, realize that your organization has already assembled a group of thinking adults who choose to affiliate with your group. What is their understanding of what you are about? Naturally, only a few people will have the whole picture. That’s because few people have the overall perspective you bring as the leader of the organization. Each person does however have a piece of the puzzle. Construct the vision of your group out of the pieces of your people’s motivations and values and you’ll find the elephant and the rider arriving at the right destination at the right time.