Honorable Failure: A Practical Guide to Harakiri

Colonel Timothy Kirk
The Senior Afghan Hand
ISAF Joint Interagency Task

              Honorable Failure: A Practical Guide to Harakiri

Who doesn’t like a good Samurai tale of legendary honor?  Who can resist the appeal of a culture dripping with the nobility of Bushido – the way of the warrior?  Most folks can recite the storyline of the dishonored medieval Japanese warrior by heart: the disgraced, noble fighting man in ceremonial dress would kneel, draw his short tanto blade, and reverently plunge the knife into himself.  In committing this final ritual act of Seppuku (or Harakiri to us foreigners who read the letters backwards), a warrior could restore lost honor for a variety of failings by sacrificing his own life.  The implication of such a brutal and terminal practice is clear: true honor demands great sacrifice, a warrior must preserve it through the most serious means, and the notion of honorable failure is unthinkable.

Yet while myths of Bushido practices and codes abound, we now know that much of this “history” was not a medieval tradition as much as it was a modern distortion carefully crafted to exploit people.  The term Bushido wasn’t even really used much until the 20^th Century to support a specific agenda.  In the years prior to World War II, Japanese Imperialists created propaganda using Bushido legends as role models for Japanese citizens.  It certainly got men fired up to fight, but it also did a lot of harm to society.  In fact, it likely cost Japan dearly during the war.  The Bushido ethos resulted in fighter aircraft designed without safety features or self-sealing fuel cells, naval vessels without fire control equipment and procedures, and a de-emphasis on tactical communications—not to mention an unwillingness to negotiate terms in obvious strategic defeat.  How did Bushido create such harm?  The answer provides an excellent example for those of us interested in the study of how failure impacts our character.

Japanese myth-builders created an extreme notion of character and honor.  Warriors were expected to be self-sacrificing, lone-wolf-minded, and fatalistic.  The Emperor needed them to defeat the enemy, but should the enemy manage to win a battle, he expected warriors to accept their fate with silent, noble “honor” to the ultimate extent.  They dealt with failure through an arcane expectation of self-destruction.  If a warrior lost a fight, they wasted no time in accepting their ritualistic duty within the context.  It was better to die in battle than to return home with the shame of defeat.  The Bushido made failure in performance a moral equivalent of a fatal failure in character.  The impact was final.

The resulting mindset made learning very difficult.  Loss was not seen as an avenue for introspection and study, but a fatal blow in itself.  The implications meant that routinized attempts at saving defeated warriors’ lives were themselves shameful efforts.  Engineering, weaponry, tactics and operational design all bore the moral burden of this mythos—life was not worth preserving if damage came at enemy hands.  Bushido limited prospects for success by inculcating a spirit in men that obliged them to think about the wrong things, or the right things in the wrong way for success.  Performance suffered, and authentic character died.

Today, we don’t observe mythological doctrines, yet we still contend with the question of how to deal with failure, and it is helpful to draw a distinction between failure in performance and failure in character.  The lesson of the Bushido myth suggests we pay close attention to the nature of failure’s causes; while failure in performance can certainly result from failure in personal character, it is not always the root cause.  At the same time, it should remain among the suspects.  Misattribution of the causes lead to future failures, so success requires honest intellectual rigor.  When failure occurs, consequences certainly follow and must be accepted.  Those consequences may be dire, but they should never be so extreme that they are fatal to our learning.  Any intellectual, emotional or actual version of Harakiri upon failure distracts us from determining if such a causal relationship truly exists and how it can be fixed. 

As it was for the Imperial Japanese military, proof of character can be found in real-world performance.  Yet an idealized form of character that looks good on paper is no substitute for results in the field.  Positive results are the product of years of learning, trial and error, and observation.  Failure is an important part of that process because it draws our attention to lessons we must learn.  If we abort the learning process, we disrupt and limit performance.  If our intention is to perform well, whatever the context, learning from failure becomes a paramount virtue.  Dealing with small failures as they occur can also prevent much larger failures down the road.  The practice of ignoring or forgetting performance failure invites catastrophe and erodes personal character.

Character failures can be just as catastrophic and yet are far more insidious.  Lapses in integrity, stewardship and other elements of personal character are hard-to-see and hard-to-admit root causes of failure.  While these kinds of failures are hard to confront, even world-class performance cannot overcome uncorrected character flaws.  We must consider character implications in every failure and do our best to fix any errors we find.  Shouldn’t we expect such errors?  The truth is that all men are corruptible.  Good character is the exception to humanity’s rule.  None of us can expect personal perfection.  If we intend to improve upon that condition, it is important to admit the truth and realize that we commit ourselves to high moral standards in opposition to our own nature.  That is not to suggest we should tolerate such failures.  Tools do exist that help us to achieve excellent character in our lives; but lofty idealism, unrealistic expectations and mythic notions are not among them.  Accountability, transparency and authenticity are far more valuable and effective for this purpose, and with them our character can improve even in the midst of failure.

As leaders, we must contend with the reality that failure both reveals and impacts our character.  Self-destruction cannot restore lost honor, but the self-awareness failure produces can help us improve our character, developing honorable virtues like humility and perseverance.  The best leaders are not those who never fail, but rather those who perform and deliver despite many failures.  While Samurai folklore may have us believe that the only virtue in failure is in the Harakiri, the truth is the opposite. Failure has value not in the termination of thinking, but in the inspiration of thinking, and the latter is the beginning of honorable failure.

Developing character through failure: The most important lesson I have learned

Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III

President, American Bar Association

Developing character through failure:  The most important lesson I have learned

As President of the American Bar Association, I am privileged to lead the largest voluntary professional association in the world.  Achieving this leadership position did not come easily.  Did I develop strength of character through disappointments, as well as successes, from time to time along the way?  Absolutely.  However, I would not describe those disappointments as “failures.”  Each and every time I faced disappointment, I learned a valuable lesson and became stronger to face adversity the next time. 

Over the course of my 40-year professional career as a lawyer in private practice, the most important lesson I have learned is that professionalism is never out of style.  Professionalism is embodied in how we conduct ourselves each and every day, even when we are not seen by others.  Professionalism includes the qualities we demonstrate with others, including dignity, equality and respect; as well as the goals we aspire to achieve, in our careers and in our lifetimes. 

 

As a lawyer, I have been privileged to represent a wide variety of clients, including individuals, companies and government agencies.  One of my greatest joys is to do something that lawyers all across America do every day:  stand before a judge in a courtroom and say:  Good morning, your Honor, Bill Robinson representing Jane Smith.”

 

I never tire of that or take it for granted, because  for me it symbolizes the essence of professionalism.  By representing the best interests of others, whether it is in a courtroom, at a deposition or a real estate closing, I always make every effort to put the interests of my clients ahead of my own as a matter of fiduciary responsibility.  That is professionalism at its core.

The first time I became aware of the potential value and positive impact of professionalism was when I was 9 years old.  I grew up in a working-class neighborhood in Cincinnati.  My dad held two full-time jobs, working as a postal clerk and a janitor, to support our family.  By the time I was 9, my parents were bringing me along to help clean medical office buildings.  They taught me the dignity of hard work and the importance of doing a job well.  They were the first to show me that, in their words, “doing the job right the first time,” no matter how menial the task, is essential to professionalism.  
 

At the age of 14, I left home to enroll in a local seminary.  The educational and spiritual experience of the next five years was constructive and beneficial in every way. Eventually, however, in the summer of 1964, I realized reluctantly that the clergy was not my calling.  I knew I wanted to serve others, but I was not sure how best to achieve that purpose.

 

Three pieces of literature helped guide me toward the law. I read about Alexis de Tocqueville, the political scientist and world traveler, who authored “Democracy in America” and toured this country in the 19th century.  He saw in America something he found nowhere else in his world travels.  He called it “a habit of the heart,” which I believe translates into the enduring spirit of volunteerism in our nation.

 

I had also studied “A Man for all Seasons,” Robert Bolt’s classic play about Sir Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of England, who refused to compromise his values and was beheaded by Henry VIII.  Finally, I read “To Kill a Mockingbird,” the Pulitzer Prize–winning novel written by Harper Lee. 

Thomas More and Atticus Finch, the lead character in Lee’s book, were professionals who stayed true to their principles.  They followed the rules but knew there were certain compromises that could not be conceded without sacrificing one’s self respect and integrity.  They had a conviction of conscience that guided them and fortified their character in the law and in life.

So with those role models in mind, I grew increasingly interested in a legal career.  I started going to the courthouse and various law offices in my community to watch lawyers at work.  I was enthralled by what I witnessed.  It was then I decided to become a lawyer in the service of others.

My law school experience was satisfying but challenging.  I sold my car to pay for the first semester’s tuition and books.  I worked as a night watchman so I could study all night “on the job” and attend classes full time during the day.  Joan and I married and started our family with the birth of our first son.  Soon after graduation, I co-founded a two-person law firm with a close friend and classmate from law school. 

My partner and I took in every piece of business that walked in the door as we struggled to build a practice and name recognition in Northern Kentucky.  We learned early on that to be hired and re-hired, we had to get on a potential client’s radar screen; then show the clients that we were competent, dependable and efficient.  Our growing reputation as well as our professional handling of cases and client relationships helped sustain us as referrals from other lawyers and members of the community started to flow in.

 

During those early years, I was told by a friend that “we never learn anything while we are talking.”  That piece of advice has made a difference throughout my career, but especially in the beginning.  The more I listened, the more I learned about how to treat clients, co-workers and members of the community. I remembered birthdays and anniversaries, and I said hello to people on an elevator or in a hallway.  I wrote notes (and later sent emails, as technology improved) to new business associates or acquaintances as I tried to build a network — a growing community of relationships — for our firm and our growing law practice. 

Remember that compassion and kindness can go a long way, as can thoughtfulness.  That is another, less often mentioned, side of professionalism.  It is not enough to be responsible and reliable, it is also important to show consideration — and when needed, compassion — for others along the way.

Persistence is another part of professionalism.  There is no guaranteed success in the courtroom, in the organized bar or even in the civic arena.  Others taught me to take the high road early and often.  I ran for president of the student government at Thomas More College and lost … but then won the outstanding senior award.  I ran for president of the student bar at the University of Kentucky College of Law and lost … but then made the law journal and the moot court board.  I ran for president of the Kenton County Bar Association and lost … but continued to volunteer; I received the distinguished service award the next year.  With each defeat and subsequent victory, I learned that I could do well by doing good.  I could achieve more by working to make a positive difference in the lives of those I have had the privilege to serve.  

For lawyers, volunteer service for others — in addition to our responsibilities to our clients or our employers — is not just what we do, it is who we are.  Volunteer service is part of our professional DNA.  It expanded my network of contacts and enhanced my legal and time-management skills.  Most importantly, volunteerism, for me, reinforced two essential qualities of every great lawyer who shows the highest levels of professionalism: leadership and empathy. 

In these challenging economic times, one might suspect that professionalism might be subject to compromise.  But that is not the case.  Again, professionalism is never out of date.  It is timeless and essential to how we conduct ourselves in the face of adversity or success.

Whatever our career choice or path, professionalism should characterize everything that we do.  Always strive for the highest standards of performance and professional responsibility.  Look for ways to serve others.  Build constructive relationships that will enhance our career.  If we do, we will experience a rewarding career of personal and professional fulfillment.

Failing Well Enhances Character Development

Commander Scott Waddle
Former Skipper of the USS Greenville

Failing Well Enhances Character Development

Life isn’t fair. There will always be someone who is smarter, stronger and better than you.  Your best effort will sometimes fall short and never be good enough no matter how hard you try.  It seems the only equalizer in life is death.  Even in death the path some follow to get there doesn’t seem fair.  So why even try if failure is certain? The resilience of the human spirit is what makes us unique and separates us from the rest of the creatures on earth.  When faced with failure we basically have three choices: withdraw and quit, waffle and do nothing, or try and figure out what went wrong, learn from it and try again until we succeed.  Learning to fail well provides an opportunity to push beyond barriers once thought to be impenetrable and a chance to develop ones character.

I envy toddlers (children ages one to four) and ankle biters (think pre K).  When kids play and begin to socialize with their peers, they have an uncanny ability to embrace setbacks, cast them aside and try again with greater vigor and determination until they achieve success.  They are fearless and know no boundaries or limits.  The fear of failing does not register with them.

Playing is a vital part of a child’s life and an opportunity for them to socialize experiment and try new things.  As children mature and they become more self aware, the consequences of their failures and how they deal with setbacks shapes their behavior and character.

When I graduated from the Naval Academy in 1981 I was unable follow in the footsteps of my dad, an Air Force pilot, because I didn’t have 20/20 uncorrected vision. I chose the submarine service instead and embarked on what would be an incredible twenty year journey. 

Getting to command was not easy.  Competition was fierce and opportunity for failure was high. Success was primarily achieved by balancing risk versus the gain.  If you were too cavalier or risk averse the chances of getting to command became more difficult.

Early in my command of the GREENEVILLE, during one of my weekly meetings with my squadron commander, I learned some of my fellow commanding officers were experiencing high turnover and attrition.  The same problem existed on my boat which I attributed to command climate.  In my boat’s case it was a matter of stopping the verbal abuse and hostility that existed on board.  As the Captain when I demonstrated that I cared for the professional development of my crew, their personal and family well being I won their confidence and trust. The hostility ceased and the crew worked as a team.  In the end my crew would be the best recruiters, pulling talent from across the globe.

Some of my crew members were disenchanted and simply hated their job.  My challenge was to help them understand the importance of their contribution to the boat’s operations, the team and mission success.  Often it wasn’t easy trying to convince an 18 year old, who was scrubbing out urinals and toilets, doing some other crewmember’s laundry or peeling potatoes how their efforts were contributing to protecting our nation from the bad guys.  I worked hard at it and in the end was successful.

Other captains were giving up on sailors and kicking them out of the Navy at an alarming rate.  When I shared with them my success stories they responded, “Too much effort.  It’s easier to give them the boot.”  Disappointed with the response I asked my squadron commander and his boss Rear Admiral Al Konetzni the Commander Submarine Pacific to transfer the hard case sailors from other boats to my command.  Over a two year period 29 careers were salvaged.  Those that had suffered defeat and chronic failure blossomed and succeeded on the GREENEVILLE.  My crew and I embraced these sailors and found the right fit for them onboard.  We knew each person was of value but they needed encouragement and guidance to succeed.  Once they learned how to fail well, success for them just took a little more effort on their part. While working with these sailors I would learn that for a sailor to respect their leaders they had to first respect themselves.

Leadership success aside; in command, the rules were simple. Don’t run your ship aground.  Don’t hit anything.  Don’t kill anybody (unless it is the enemy) and keep the core covered (think reactor safety).  I violated two of the rules on 9 February 2001 and on 1 October 2001 was invited to leave the Navy.

 At age 41 on February 9^th 2001 while in command of the submarine USS GREENEVILLE (SSN 772), an improved LOS ANGELES Class Fast Attack Submarine operating off the coast of my home port Pearl Harbor, I experienced a life changing event.  That Friday afternoon with civilian visitors on board I ordered an emergency surface maneuver that caused my submarine to collide with a Japanese fisheries training vessel the Ehime Maru killing nine civilians.  The accident took the lives of four seventeen year old students, two instructors and three crew members.

After two years in command I was comfortable and confident in my ability to lead my crew.  We had achieved unprecedented success up until the day of our collision.  After the accident, the two week long Court of Inquiry would document the details that contributed to the cause of the accident.  I was found guilty of dereliction of duty and intentionally hazarding my vessel.  The actions I took that day I thought at the time were prudent.  I was wrong.  That’s usually the case with hindsight being 20/20.

The accident had a dramatic impact on my life, my crew and the family members who lost loved ones.  My personal failure caused significant emotional and physical stress. Despite the strong desire to preserve my personal and professional reputation, by trying to place blame elsewhere, I chose to keep my integrity and character intact.  I took responsibility for my actions and the actions of my crew.

I ended up losing the job I loved the most because of arrogance and the belief that accidents happened to other ships and not to us.  My crew was extremely talented.  We backed each other up.  I thought we were better than those that had bitten the big bullet.  Unfortunately that arrogance exists today in commands across the military and in board rooms around the globe.  The challenge is to recognize the flaw and ferret it out.

Nothing in my training provided me with a formal procedure or instruction as to what to do if I “fell on my sword”.  All I had to go by were leadership classes at the Academy.  In the operational fleet there were incident and mishap reports as well as case studies that documented collisions, groundings, equipment damage, personnel injury and loss of life.  In the fleet most of the resources were part of a continuing training program that required periodic review.  Learning how to balance the risk was a skill acquired through personal failure and observing others fail.  I learned early in my career that it was less painful to learn from someone else’s mistakes. One of my old captains used to say, “If the heat’s on you it ain’t on me.  Remember Waddle to keep the spot light off you and on the other guy.”

Had I not learned to “fail well” early in life the choices I made following the incident most likely would have been different. Thoughts of placing blame elsewhere and trying to dodge the bullet were instinctive but I pushed the thoughts aside.  The reason I chose to take the moral high ground was simple.  It was the right thing to do.  In command accountability and responsibility is absolute. The same holds true in the corporate arena.  It is sad that most leaders that experience failure of this magnitude do not fail well. They spend their efforts covering their rear end.

Some of the role models I had growing up were my parents, teachers, coaches, clergy, bosses and scout masters. Each offered encouragement when I failed and sometimes provided a reality check when my goals were too lofty or unrealistic.  As I matured success was measured in small incremental steps. The failures served to humble me and teach me humility as well as perseverance.  Over time I would learn what my strengths and weaknesses were.  Dealing with weakness is tough but a necessity.  I learned to shore up areas that warranted work and supplement my weakness by recruiting those who were strong in areas where I was not and openly acknowledging my weakness.  The process built trust and respect with those I worked with.

Eleven years later I still reflect on what could have happened or would have happened if only the accident not occurred.  Most of us have had our “There by the grace of GOD go I moments.”   You might call them something else. In my post Navy career I am a public speaker, executive coach and consultant.  The audiences I speak before and customers are leaders who have experienced success in the past but for the first time in their lives are facing failure.  The challenge for most of them is they have not learned how to fail well.  My job is to help people get back on track and move forward.

I challenge you to look in the mirror and candidly determine if you fail well.  If you do not fail well find a mentor and learn how to.  If you do fail well help others learn the skill.  Your character development will only suffer if you chose the easy path by waffling, doing nothing or giving up.

Many successful leaders have learned to fail well. A few of them are Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Bill Gates, Sir James Dyson and Steve Jobs.  Take a few minutes and search for Steve Jobs’ 2005 Stanford commencement speech. You won’t be disappointed.

At some point, you will fail.  Don’t give up.  Fail well!

How you Lead those you Perceive as Uncommitted? Start by Looking in the Mirror

Dr. Gordy Curphy
President, Curphy Consulting Corp.

How do you Lead those you Perceive as Uncommitted?

Start by Looking in the Mirror

Gordy Curphy, PhD

Curphy Consulting Corporation

        How one leads those perceived to be uncommitted is a critically important question. Unfortunately the knee-jerk responses to this question from people in charge are often something like: “these people are losers”, “they just don’t get it”, or “some of my employees came directly from the Island of the Misfit Toys.”  Although there may be some truth to these assessments, they are essentially variations of blaming the victim. Adopting this attitude effectively absolves the people in charge from taking any responsibility for changing uncommitted followers and developing a deeper understanding of why employees become uncommitted (Argyris, 1991). The purpose of this article is to help readers understand three factors relevant to follower commitment and what they can do get followers reengaged.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

The fundamental attribution error (Millerand and Ross, 1975) comes from social psychology and describes people’s biases when assigning causation to success and failure. Essentially people are biased to credit personal factors for their own successes and blame situational factors or luck for their own failures. Precisely the opposite is true when assigning causality to others; people are more likely to ascribe luck or situational factors to others’ successes and personal factors for others’ failures. This means that if people in charge believe uncommitted followers are failures (and they do) then they are much more likely to attribute character flaws, upbringing, or ethnicity rather than situational factors as the underlying reasons for followers’ low commitment levels. This is unfortunate, as situational factors often play a predominant role in employee commitment and engagement. 

The Freedom to Flee and the Fundamental Attribution Error

There are three critical situational factors affecting follower commitment, and these include the freedom to flee (Hogan, 2007) managerial incompetence (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2011), and an organization’s performance management system. Hogan (2007) maintains that leadership only matters when followers have some choice to stay or leave an employer. If followers have no option but to more or less work at gunpoint, then leaders’ efforts to build teams or get followers to exert extra effort will fall far short of expectations. And “working at gunpoint” may be much more prevalent than commonly believed. For example, the United States military has an all-volunteer force, and once people sign up they cannot leave until their tours of duty have been completed. They have no say in when and where they go, how often they go, how long they are gone, what they do, and who they work for or with during their entire tour of duty. At this point some military units have been to Iraq or Afghanistan a half dozen times. Given this lack of choice and the number of tours endured it is hardly surprising that some soldiers lack commitment.

The working at gunpoint analogy is not unique to the military. Given an unemployment rate hovering around nine percent, underwater mortgages, non-compete contracts, and a health care system that severely limits mobility, many private sector workers have little real choice in jobs and employers. And with no relief in sight with respect to the economy, the housing market, or serious health care reform, those who are employed feel lucky just to have a job. People with limited occupational freedom may not like the situation and will probably do as they are told, but compliance is a lot different than commitment.

Managerial Incompetence and the Fundamental Attribution Error

            The second major situational factor at play with follower commitment levels is managerial incompetence. Although there are some distinctions between leadership and management, both essentially involve building cohesive, goal-oriented teams and getting results (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2011; Hogan, 2011). Effective leaders and managers are those who can consistently do both; incompetent managers are those who cannot build teams and/or get results. Research shows the base rate of managerial incompetence may range between 50-75 percent (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2011; Hogan, 2007).  Readers might think that this estimate is far too high, but if they counted the total number of people they had worked for in the past and identified those of this group they would willingly work for again then this estimate may not be far from the truth. And this ratio of willingly work for/total number of bosses seems to be fairly consistent across both the public and private sectors—most people feel that only a minority of military and civilian leaders are actually any good at it. Research and personal experience suggest that most people in positions of authority are not very good at building teams that actually win. 

Performance Management Systems and the Fundamental Attribution Error

A final situational factor affecting followers’ commitment levels concerns an organization’s performance management system. Most performance management systems consist of two major components: how things get done (i.e., competencies) and what gets accomplished (i.e., results). In many cases flaws in these two components perpetuate the managerial incompetence problem described earlier. To better understand these flaws it is necessary to take a hard look at why people in the public and private sector get promoted. Does an organization’s performance management system promote people because they have demonstrated an ability to build teams that beat the competition or because they never get into trouble and do everything they can to please their bosses?  The group with the best information about a leader’s team building competencies are direct reports, yet they are rarely asked for their inputs. And the results obtained is often of little help in differentiating effective from incompetent managers. This is because the vast majority of metrics found in most organizations are variations of navel-gazing, in that they are nothing more than comparisons against past performance. A team may have generated five percent more revenues or reduced costs by 20 percent from the year before, but the lack of external benchmarks makes it difficult to determine whether these results are any better than those achieved by other teams. It is not hard to see why followers become disenfranchised when the pathway to their boss’ career success is being a dutiful suck up who focuses on obtaining results that do not really matter.

How to Turn Around Uncommitted Followers

Managerial incompetence, a lack of occupational choice, and poor performance management systems are in and of themselves enough to drive followers to compliance rather than commitment. But when a revolving door of bad bosses is combined with an inability to flee then committed followers may actually be more the exception than the rule. And there is quite a bit of evidence to show that employee commitment levels are at all time lows. Employee satisfaction and engagement levels as measured by organizational surveys are lower than ever before (Aon Consulting, 2011) and the military has to offer ever greater incentives to get soldiers to re-enlist (Associated Press, 2007; Army Times, 2009). These results speak volumes about the pervasiveness of the uncommitted employee problem.  

No doubt there are some followers who remain uncommitted no matter who is in charge and how much freedom they have to leave. But this group is likely a small minority—most people come to work to succeed. So what can people in charge do to change the situational factors affecting follower commitment? Perhaps the first and most important step is to look into the mirror. Far too many people in positions of authority believe they are leadership legends in their own minds but are seen as charismatically challenged in the eyes of others. Shrinking the gap between self and others’ perceptions and improving those skills needed to build teams and get results are vital for people wanting to create committed followers. Yet getting accurate feedback about one’s strengths and shortcomings is not as easy as it may seem. It is relatively easy to administer 360-degree feedback surveys, but the accuracy of these ratings, particularly when direct reports have limited occupational choice, can be suspect (Curphy, 1991). Direct reports are likely to provide glowing ratings when the sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads, and more often than not bosses pull punches and peers can be too far removed from a ratee’s day-to-day work behaviors to have much confidence in the accuracy of their ratings. The end result is that most leaders may think they are doing a good job, have “data” to back up this belief, yet still be in charge of a sizable number of uncommitted followers.

Those in positions of authority who are truly interested in getting some unadulterated feedback about their leadership effectiveness should go through a comprehensive managerial assessment process (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, 2008).  This process typically consists of a structured interview, mental abilities tests, personality and work values inventories, various work simulations, and 360-degree feedback. These particular components assess many of the leading causes of managerial incompetence and provide participants with a more accurate and comprehensive picture of their ability to build teams and get things done through others.

Because most employees want to win and tend to rebel against a lack of choice, there are several other things leaders can do to improve follower commitment levels. One of these involves setting and being held accountable for team goals that are benchmarked against comparable teams. Given the abundance of information that is available through the Internet it is possible to find benchmarking data for just about every goal imaginable. Working with direct reports to set team goals and benchmarks, create strategies and tactics to achieve these goals, and conduct periodic reviews of goal progress are fundamental but often overlooked steps in teaching teams how to win. These actions also provide direct reports with some degree of choice, and whenever possible leaders need to provide direct reports with latitude to make the decisions needed to get tasks accomplished. As George S. Patton once said, “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.“

In conclusion, it is entirely possible to create teams of loyal and committed direct reports. But to do so people in positions of authority need to avoid blaming the victim and instead give serious thought to how their own behaviors, a lack of choice, and faulty performance management systems contribute to the creation of uncommitted followers.  Many of the actions needed to create engaged employees are directly under leader’s control; whether he or she chooses to do anything about it is another matter.

References

Aon Hewitt. (2011). Trends in Global Employee Engagement.  Chicago, IL: Author.

Argyris, C. (1991). “Teaching Smart People How to Learn.”  Harvard Business Review. Reprint Number 91301.

Army Times, “Army Bonuses”, 2009, http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/army_bonuses_070910w/.

Associated Press. “Military Pay Soars.”  April 11, 2007, http://military.com/NewsContent

Curphy, G.J. (1991). “Some Closing Remarks about the Use of Self- and Other-Ratings of Personality and Behaviors.” In M.D. Dunnette (Chair), Multi-rater Assessment Systems: What We’ve Learned.  99^th American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco, CA.

Hogan, R.T. (2007). Personality and the Fate of Organizations. Mahawh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hogan, R.T. (2011).  Leadership 101: A Brief Interview with Dr. Robert Hogan.  Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. 

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2011). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (7^th ed.).  Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2008). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (6^th ed.).  Burr Ridge, IL: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Millerand, D.T. & Ross, M. (1975) “Self-Serving Biases in the Attribution of Causality: Fact or Fiction?” Psychological Bulletin, 82, pp. 213-225.

How to lead the “uncommitted”?

Dr. Theodore Ryan
Consulting Professor of Ethics
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University

Dr. Joe LeBoeuf
Professor of the Practice of Managment
Fuqua School of Business
Duke University

How to Lead the Uncommitted?

This is an interesting and important question, since it certainly seems  that there are a lot of these uncommitted kinds of folks in the world of work. We may use different names for them, such as  uninspired, unmotivated , uncommitted or just disengaged.   One of the number one issues in corporate life is the lack of employee engagement at work. Estimates run as high as 70% for worker lack of engagement.  This employee disengagement translates into a trillion dollars a year in lost revenue.  And, who do we blame?  Of course, it is those damned uncommitted!  But, in reality, all this may very well be just a convenient excuse for a lack of effective leader and managerial behavior, and not, at its heart, an issue of a lack of commitment on the part of employees.  How can it be a leadership issue?

 Leadership, at its core, is an influence process: leaders influence others’ behavior by providing purpose, motivation and direction.  One could argue that leaders cannot really motivate others --- that is another’s choice.  What leaders really do is to provide purpose, inspiration, reduce organizational barriers, and create the enabling conditions for others to be motivated; executing their choice.  So, leading is about inspiring others to be motivated:  to find identity and meaning in their work, to find their “firm persuasion”, and ultimately to be their best selves every day.   

Viktor Frankl, a Nazi death camp survivor and world re-known psychiatrist, wrote a classic book called Man’s Search for Meaning [1959]. This book tells the chilling and inspirational story of this eminent psychiatrist, who was imprisoned at Auschwitz and other concentration camps for three years during the Second World War. Immersed in great suffering and loss, Frankl began to wonder why some of his fellow prisoners were able not only to survive the horrifying conditions, but to grow as human beings in the process. Frankl's general conclusion, from this crucible experience, was that human behavior was driven by a will to meaning; to find meaning and to make a difference, even under the worst of life conditions. 

In his subsequent research in the years following his release, he discovered that an overwhelming number of the survivors he surveyed had a strong desire and commitment to make a difference outside their selves -- to matter in the larger human community.  From his research and [emerging support from  others -- not clear what this means],  humans are not inherently disposed to being  uncommitted, but are inherently committed and goal-directed, given the right enabling conditions [which are created by leaders] to be their better selves, and do good things.

David Whyte [2001] suggests in his book, Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity that the pursuit of good work, which occupies much of our waking lives, as two major impacts.  First, good work creates the conditions for shaping our identity as human beings. Who we are becomes in large measure a function of what work we choose to do.  The meaning that is created by our work, is the meaning we attach to our sense of self, our identity and becomes an  important guide for our behavior.  As John Ruskin put it, “The highest reward for man’s toil is not what he gets from it, but what he becomes by it.”

Additionally, through work, we are enabled in finding our firm persuasion or motivation to matter, the will to meaning in Frankl’s terms, and to make a difference in the world.   “To have a firm persuasion in our work – to feel that what we do is right for ourselves and good for the world at the exactly same time – is one of the great triumphs of human existence.” [Whyte, 4].  Creating the enabling conditions that allow for others to choose good work, and find this firm persuasion to grow and develop, is the responsibility of leaders and managers, and a critical aspect of inspirational leadership.

So, let’s talk about the components of inspirational leadership that create the conditions for commitment to a firm persuasion.  Yes, this places a critical motivational accountability on the leader and manager. Leaders are not leaders when they resort to unfair labeling of employees as uncommitted.

Leadership in general, inspirational leadership specifically, begins with understanding how we view the nature of human behavior.   In his seminal article, The Human Enterprise [1961], McGregor was the first to examine how our notions of human behavior shape the nature of how leaders and managers behave towards others.  He introduced the notion of Theory X and Theory Y as specific categories of perspectives on human behavior at work.  Theory X suggests that humans are lazy, lack motivation, are indolent, and not committed to hard work.  The leadership and managerial behavior, which emerges out of this point of view, is designed to create policies and structure that are controlling, directing; it becomes a transactional process.    

On the other hand, Theory Y embraces a completely different view: humans are not inherently lazy, unmotivated, or indolent, but rather are goal-directed and desirous of mattering and making a difference.   The leadership and managerial behavior that emerges out this point of view, is designed to enable this natural human behavior, and create the conditions that allow folks to reach their potential as human beings; it becomes a transformational process.  So, the first question that leaders and managers need to ask themselves is: What is your perspective on the nature of human behavior at work?  This perspective will frame a leader’s behavior towards others in the work place.

Inspirational leadership is also shaped by how the leader views the execution of work.  Leaders who do not have a positive view of human motivation [e.g. Theory X point of view] create the conditions that treat others as simply a means to get work done, regardless of the impact the work has on those who are doing it.  These leaders only care about the work, how getting it done benefits them, and not the human beings doing the work.  These leaders focus on creating the necessary rules, policies, procedures and transactions to insure that the work gets done, regardless of whether the work being done is interesting, challenging, or meaningful; all critical elements that enable commitment and engagement on the part of others. These kinds of leaders treat their employees, not as humans, but solely as human resources.

On the other hand, leaders who embrace a more inspirational perspective, associated with a Theory Y point of view, understand that the work must get done, but the manner in which it gets done is important.   These leaders understand that getting the work done is important, but insuring that the work is challenging and meaningful to those doing it is as important.   They recognize the importance of the development of others, and are motivated by a desire to create the conditions for others to not only get the work done well, but to do so in a way that is developmental, and enables others to be their best selves.     Additionally, inspirational leaders create the conditions in which others become willing to help others with their work and to also work in the organizational “white space” – to do work that is not specific to anyone’s assigned role, but is necessary for the enterprise to be successful.   They leverage the notion that people are committed, want to do well and the right thing, but just need the right conditions to enable the process.

Given that inspirational leadership can raise the level of employee engagement dramatically, is it still true that there are “uncommitted” people out there?  Yes. People vary. We exhibit individual differences. According to Frankl, some people at Auschwitz survived because they had a great sense of meaning, while others, with a weaker sense of meaning, did not. Some people exhibit more achievement drive than others. Our point, though, is that the uncommitted, those who do not want to work hard, learn and grow are in the great minority. And experience shows that even with many of these people, inspirational leadership can provide the catalytic spark.

Inspirational [and competent] leaders have another important motivational role to play in order to maximize the commitment potential of each employee. Inspirational leaders must seek to optimize the match between each employee’s preferences, needs and goals, on the one hand, with the mission and work to be done by the organization. Inspirational leaders get to know each employee very well, and then these leaders work very hard at finding the kinds of work that best suit each employee. The matching cannot be perfect, of course, but employees greatly appreciate that their leader is even trying to make the match.

So, the bottom line here is that the answer the question we first proposed – How to lead the “uncommitted”? –  lies with the leader. It is not that people are inherently uncommitted. The problem is that far too often leader and managerial behavior creates the conditions that get in the way of people’s true motivation to be their best selves, and to do good work.   Leaders ought not to look outside themselves and label others, but ought first to look at their own leadership and managerial behavior.  Leaders must ask themselves, “Am I committed to those whom I lead?”

Are They Really Uncommitted?

 Robert E. Kelley

Tepper School of Business
Carnegie Mellon University

The initial premise: "How do you lead the perceived to be uncommitted?" is problematic. It begs the question: "To what (or whom) are they uncommitted?" Are the individuals uncommitted as a life stance or are they uncommitted to what you want them to be committed. In my experience, very few folks are truly uncommitted. Yes, some lost souls do populate the planet, but they almost never join organizations, especially organizations that demand participation, such as the military. The act of joining, all by itself, requires motivation and commitment. Some folks might not fully realize what the demands of the commitment are, others might make the commitment lightly, and a few may be very motivated to un-do their decision to join -- but they are not "uncommitted."

The issue, then, is perhaps better stated: how do you lead people who are committed to something other than what you want them to be committed. Or, they may share your commitment, but at a lower level of intensity. When my followership research started 30 years ago, I distinguished between followers who were committed to the organization and those who did not share that commitment. We were careful, however, to remember that someone who appears uncommitted is probably committed to something else. Consider the difference between a patriotic, duty bound soldier and a mercenary. One is committed to the country and its values; the other is not. But the mercenary is not uncommitted by a long shot. He or she may be committed to money, power, the adrenaline rush of action, or even a cause of some sort.

Step 1: Take a Cue from the Tailor

Top notch tailors, drawing upon skill and experience, can size up people pretty well. But, even so, they always measure and re-measure the customer each time she or he comes in for a new purchase. Likewise good leaders "measure" their "followers" (or those under your command). The first step, then, is to not make two problematic assumptions: 1) that you "know" or can intuit what drives your people, and 2) that your followers share your commitment. Chances are you have an incomplete picture of both.

One of your first jobs as a leader is to understand what motivates your subordinates. Why did they join the larger organization? How does their membership help them meet some goal (or multiple goals)? What is that goal: self-esteem, escape from their prior life, parental approval, money, future career progression, or something else entirely? Are they primarily moving away from or, instead, toward .

something? What are their personal goals outside of the organization? How do their organizational membership and success tie into those larger life goals?

While gathering goal knowledge, also learn about what they find rewarding. A big mistake that many large organizations make is "one-size-fits-all" reward systems. The reality is that some people are motivated more by money while others prefer promotions. Ribbons make some people feel special, while a hand written note to the family makes another beam. Also, find out what is punishing for those rare times you have to resort to it. Canceling weekend leave has little effect on someone who has nowhere to go. A strong chewing out may cause a meltdown in some, while it is water on a duck’s back to others. People also have a tendency to prefer either internal or external rewards/punishments. Those who derive their own rewards are very different than those who look to others for strokes. Learning the very individualized psychological, social, and economic rewards of each follower gives you the connections you need between someone’s goals and the action required to achieve those goals.

This more global understanding of motivation and rewards forms the foundation for leading them day-to-day. How does their specific job in your unit tie into their larger motivational scheme? How do the rewards of their job overlap with their personal reward system? What can you do to more closely match what they want and what you have at your disposal to offer?

Step 2: Take a Cue from the Coach

Every good coach must make decisions as to which players are let on the bus for the game. The first decision involves who to leave home because they either lack the skills to contribute or they lack commitment to the team. For the players on the bus, the coach must distinguish between three levels of commitment: those who get dressed for the game but don’t really want to play, those who play but are OK with losing, and those that give their all to winning.

A common mistake, as we saw above, is for leaders to assume that their followers have the same goals and commitments. At best, you will have large overlaps. But, except in a very few instances (and usually when life and death are at stake), there is a divergence. What you want out of your temporary shared experience is probably quite different than what they want. You might see a career ahead of you, when, more than likely, they see a job. These differences matter.

Even when you share the same goals and motivations, the intensity of your commitment will likely vary. While you may want to maximize performance, they might deem it better to do what my late colleague (and Nobel Laureate) Herb Simon labeled "satisficing," that is, to do it just good enough. So, your challenge is to know their commitment level. This is the base from which you build.

Step 3: Take a Cue from the Star Followers

My study of star followers has yielded many important lessons for leaders. Foremost is that too many leaders think that people are following them because they are, well, such great leaders. They have the "right stuff," and people just naturally follow it. Or they believe that their organizational role gives them the "right" to expect that people will follow. In contrast, I discovered that the best followers seldom follow people because of who they are or because they occupy an organizational role of leadership. .

Sure, they will carry out decisions, but they do not really follow. Instead, the stars follow goals, causes, ideals, and much less than anyone expected, people who have earned their respect.

To be a good leader, you have to get over yourself. You are not center stage. An important part of your job is to help your people be center stage. As I’ve said many times: "The best leaders are not heroes; they are hero-makers." If a leader needs to be the hero, then step down and let someone else take the job.

It is at this point that leaders can emulate star followers who look to connect with someone who is going to the same place that they are. An important part of the leader’s job is to create a shared context. You now know what drives your followers. Create the bridges from where they are to where you need them to go. Help them see that they can fulfill their dreams by being part of your (or the organization’s) plan.

Step 4: Take a Cue from the Sergeant’s Sales Pitch

Once you’ve identified the bridges between your commitment level to the organization’s goals and the goals/commitments of your subordinates, then you need to communicate them in a compelling way. You can’t expect the links to be obvious. Keep in mind that your "audience" knows you have your own agenda. So you have to put it in a way that is easily understood by them to be in their own self-interest.

During World War II, the U.S. government decided to offer a life insurance policy to the common soldiers. They thought that it would provide an economic cushion to those families left behind by fallen soldiers. The lieutenants were given the job of explaining the policy to their troops. In one particular unit, the lieutenant passed out the papers and went through a very thorough step-by-step explanation of the $10,000 benefit for $6/month ($139,000 and $85/month in 2011 dollars). After his well-reasoned presentation, he got no takers. An old sergeant asked for permission to explain the program. The lieutenant was a bit miffed, but agreed, feeling that the Sarge couldn’t do a better job. Sarge asked a simple question: Who do you think the government is going to send to the front lines first: the ones who would cost $10,000 if they are killed or the ones who would cost nothing." Everyone bought the insurance.

Step 5: Take a Cue from your Committed Followers

Finally, don’t over focus on the uncommitted. Instead, give first attention to the people who are already with the program. They are the foundation for your success, so secure their participation. Use the advice above to get to know what drives them and why they are committed. Which would you rather have: 1) a 95% highly committed team that feels acknowledged and valued by the leader with 5% peripheral, uncommitted players, or 2) a team where the 5% who were uncommitted are now on board, but the rest of the team feels like the squeaky wheels got the oil?

Also, use your committed followers as a resource. Your star followers are your ears and eyes into your unit. They have access to the conversations that you, because of your position of authority, will never have. So, ask them what is going on in the unit and what is with the uncommitted members who are sitting on the fence or dragging their heels. You are not asking them to snitch, but rather, how to build a stronger unit. .

Finally, never forget the power of the group to influence an individual’s behavior. Rather than see yourself as the solution, consider how the group can pull people to perform in desired ways. Peer pressure is a powerful force and must be used with care. But, it does work.

Conclusion

Think of iron shavings scattered randomly on a board. The five steps above (and other complementary strategies) are like a magnet that you pass over them. With each pass, more of the shavings form a line, becoming their own magnet. Eventually, even the farthest most shaving will snap into place.