From our experience in handling several diverse teams, I would like to point out a few things that you as a leader must watch out for. Avoiding these common leadership mistakes will certainly go to great lengths in firmly establishing yourself as a leader.

Leadership is what you DO – not what you SAY
The commonest mistake we have encountered is when what a leader says and what he does is in conflict with each other. I am not referring to large decisions– but rather to the small cues that leaders can unconsciously give out (and not notice), but which followers latch onto.

Let me give an example. One of our team workshops was kicked off by a leader who gave a stirring speech about everyone being an equal part of the team. Soon after that, when the actual team workshop started, he opted out of the many activities for no apparent reason. The unsaid message that went to the team was: “These things are meant for you – not for me as a leader”. In one swift blow, all the good work done by him through his speech was diluted by his actions.

As a leader, everybody watches you for the cues you give out, long after your speech is done & dusted.

Focusing on ME rather than WE
A few months back, I happened to read an interview of an industry leader where he was summing up the last one year of his tenure. What struck me in the interview was the number of times the word “I” was used, and in contrast, the few occasions “WE” was used. It was really not a surprise when I heard a few months after that this ‘leader’ was asked to leave.

One of the tenets of experiential learning is that, “The way you play is very often the way you work”. In our workshops we see this reflected, when on many occasions that we assign a task to a group, all eyes turn to the leader; worse still, the leader becomes the sole source of all ideas/actions.

As a leader, your biggest role is perhaps to empower your people to act. To make them heroes.

Not keeping an eye on the BIG picture
While conducting experiential workshops – the teams are generally split into smaller groups for ease of managing them while conducting the activities. But the minute we split people into teams, the competitive spirit of “Us versus Them” kicks in and people begin to think in silos. It’s very similar in organizations when people begin to think of themselves as “Marketing” or “Operations” or “Production”. Whose role is it then to remind people that they are part of one big team? That responsibility rests primarily with the leader.

To share a positive example: In one of our workshops, there was again a leader who sat out, but this time with a clear intent. All through the workshop, he moved from team to team – and when he saw the silos in action, in choice colorful language asked the groups himself: “How many teams are here?”. By constantly reminding and asserting the message of collaboration – he ensured the teams delivered a higher level of performance. Also the team was constantly aware of why the whole team building exercise was being undertaken in the first place.

As Stephen Covey said, your role as a leader is to climb the tallest tree and shout, “Water that side!”

Being a buddy, not a leader
One of the mistakes we sometimes see leaders make is falling prey to the temptation of wanting to be liked. Everyone wants to be liked – but a leader has the added responsibility of sometimes doing things that are good for the organization, but not necessarily popular with the ranks.

One stark example of this happened in a workshop, where in the midst of the workshop, some of the participants wanted to have beer. The leader was clearly caught between the decision of doing what was right for the organization (asking people to complete the tasks) and what was popular (allowing participants to have a beer). Unfortunately, in that case, he chose the easier path. Not surprisingly, the intensity of the workshop quickly dissipated – and a “learning moment” was lost.

As a leader, you have signed out of the contest to be Mr.Popular. Don’t try to sign in again.

This guest article is contributed by Mr.Arun Rao, Facilitator & LSP Coach and one of the Directors of Focus Adventure, India, an organization that conducts experiential corporate learning and team building programs.

It is very difficult for a CEO to start thinking about the future competencies of senior leadership when revenues are galloping with healthy profits and the Board is expressing satisfaction and rewarding management for a job well done. Such behaviour is counter-intuitive. But that is precisely when a change in leadership or leadership competencies may make the most sense.

However, true leaders are those who realize that the evolution of their top teams needs to happen one step ahead of performance. In other words, if you wait for poor financial results before you start tweaking your leadership team you are already too late.

A company has to assess its leadership team according to its own needs, defining competencies the team needs to meet future needs. It is essential to make the changes in leadership competencies well before poor financial performance has set in, before there is any apparent need.

Successful CEOs know the importance of organizational renewal to continue creating and delivering enhanced shareholder value. They are aware that the best leaders are able to maintain a fine balance with one foot in today’s market and the other addressing tomorrow’s needs in a way that focuses on achieving the team’s desired efficiency and effectiveness to execute future strategy.

Succession planning with specific reference to tomorrow’s strategy requires the ability to respond nimbly to desired future competencies or the sudden loss of key talent that has an uncanny knack of occurring when least expected.

CEOs need to build a leadership pipeline with appropriate talent geared towards the implementation of strategy to shape the future of the organization. They have to do this through continuous assessment and renewal, to help evolve their organization and its top talent to achieve future goals.

Truly evolved CEOs and organizations know that there is a clear and distinct connection between the attitudes and beliefs of their leaders and their behaviours, which produces the desired organizational outcomes for tomorrow.

Take, for example, a CEO who knows that his/her future chosen strategy requires increased customer-centric behaviours, while the current leadership and their teams today are focused on following processes, and their behaviours do not reflect a desire to find creative solutions to their customers’ problems. The CEO will know that he runs the risk of the business failing in future.

To prevent this, he will need to assess the top leadership and the management team which is lacking in the competencies of tomorrow, even though the financial results are noteworthy now. Senior leadership then has to evolve and bring about a change in the culture of the organization to align it to the strategic needs of the future.
Successful CEOs know that it is not always today’s leaders or today’s competencies that will ensure the success of an organization tomorrow. Quite often, a leader’s functional expertise gets recognized, especially in organizations where this plays a dominant role in ensuring high performance. However, beyond functional expertise, what matters even more are key personal competencies and specific leadership attributes.

For example, if the organization’s strategy and business model requires strong leadership attributes in the area of people engagement and influence, then several critical behaviours will need to be stressed. The ability of the leader to motivate and inspire the team, the way the team gets developed and empowered, and accepts accountability for results, all contributes to the successful implementation of strategy.

Another critical leadership attribute may be the whether a leader champions change and is able to work collaboratively to achieve the desired change.

At the end of the day, the key task of a leader is to make decisions.
This is an area where they can falter, if there is no clarity of thought and less coherence of action. A good leader needs to be deeply self-aware, knowing the strengths and weaknesses of himself and his team. He needs to be able to influence and motivate team members to change attitudes and beliefs that will help them acquire the mind-sets and skillsets that will take the organization forward to realize its desired future state.

The importance of paying attention to leadership attributes, and the relevance of proactive leadership renewal, apply equally to corporations, social enterprises and public sector organisations.
In the end, what distinguishes a great organization from a mediocre one is the quality of its leader’s decision making, the management of time, and the quality of personal interactions with staff, customers and other stakeholders. These are the critical behaviours that need to be constantly renewed and assessed as the organization moves towards implementing its strategy for the future.

Pratap Nambiar is a Partner at Heidrick & Struggles, a leadership advisory firm that helps organizations become better led.

Let me explain. Oracle’s CEO Larry Ellison in a letter to the New York Times said “the HP board made the worst possible decision since the idiots on the Apple board fired Steve Jobs many years ago.” In his opinion the board was wrong to force the resignation of their CEO Mark Hurd for what he obviously considers at the most to be a minor transgression.

The HP Board was forced to launch an investigation into the behavior of Mark Hurd because of sexual harassment allegations made against him by Jodie Fisher, an external contractor who helped organize executive events for HP. Interestingly they did not find anything to substantiate this claim, but they stumbled upon an accounting malpractice that eventually led to the CEO’s resignation. Apparently, Mark Hurd had submitted expense reports that hid his relationship with Ms Fisher. In simple words he was claiming meal and travel expenses that he should not have because they were incurred in his personal capacity and completely unrelated to the company’s business activities.

Larry Ellison rates Mark Hurd as an accomplished CEO (as does the HP Board) and letting him go was not in the best interest of the shareholders, customers, partners, and employees. This would have a negative impact on the financial performance of HP and in light of its magnitude, the error of judgment shown by the CEO was something that could easily have been sorted out possibly with a rap on the knuckles.

The essence of corporate values
Corporate culture is a way that companies accomplish their strategies. Hewlett and Packard formalized the HP Way as a management philosophy in 1957, the year the company went public. Integrity and Trust were strong pillars on which the firm built its cultural foundations. Belief in people was a large part of the culture and a persons’ credibility was built around his words and actions. However, with the changing dynamics of the industry and in particular the personal computer, many policy changes had to incorporated over the years which slowly but surely eroded the company’s long standing philosophy.

The HP Board as it contemplated the actions of its CEO had to consider the short and long term ramifications of their decision in the best interest of the organization. On the one hand there was the obvious short term consequence of losing a very competent CEO with its ensuing negative impact on financial performance and the sacrificing of shareholder’s interests in particular. On the other hand, there was the genuine long term risk of doing serious damage to the culture of the organization.

The Board’s role is to provide entrepreneurial leadership, set strategic goals, and ensure that financial and human resources are in place to meet the organization’s short and long term objectives. They also need to set the company’s values and standards that guide employee behavior and establish a framework of effective controls to assess and manage risk.

Entrepreneurial leadership versus organisational values
Clearly Larry Ellison is telling the HP Board to give greater weight to its entrepreneurial leadership role, as the downside of losing a good CEO and the cost of replacement is far too high and should not be compromised for something as trivial as a false expense claim. I guess he was also possibly keeping in mind the turbulence during Carly Fiorina’s term as CEO and the performance stability that Mark Hurd had achieved over the years. And given the ever changing and competitive nature of the industry, in the long run, there would be no long run if the short run was not taken care of first.

But the Board is also assessing the issue from the perspectives of corporate culture (values and beliefs that drive behavior) and associated strategic and operational risks. Let us consider the risks first. What is the probability that if the CEO was let off (because he was a top performer) there will not be a message that goes out to the rank and file in the organization that as long as you perform well you really don’t need to worry too much about honesty and integrity and trust in this organization? Further, what would be the magnitude of impact on the organization’s results if that scenario came to pass? The Board’s unanimous answer was that the probability of this kind of behavior occurring again was high and the magnitude of impact could be high too. Hence they did not have the appetite to expose the organization to this level of risk. They were in actual fact making a decision in the best long term interest of the shareholders.

Protecting integrity and potency of leadership
On the issue of the company culture, the Board had to safeguard the “way we do things here” aspect of running the organization. Setting the tone at the top was critical to shaping the values and beliefs of the HP leadership and their teams around the world. Leaders, and their ability to motivate, inspire, and coach their followers would depend a great deal on their trust quotient which is directly influenced by their credibility (what they say) and reliability (what they do).

What the Board has voted for is to protect the integrity and potency of their leadership and in doing so opted for what Jim Collins (Good to Great) refers to as Level 5 leaders who channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. They have also demonstrated what Jerry Porras (Built to last) believes – that a strong, almost “cult-like” culture is one of the factors contributing to the overall financial success of visionary companies.

Maybe the HP way is alive and well after all.

Clearly the oil spill caused by the explosion of BP’s rig in the Gulf of Mexico and the subsequent struggles of the technical team that could not cap the leak, was not Tony’s doing. But his comment which came as a result of his frustration and sincere desire to end the suffering for all (including his own) was seen as a poor example of leadership.

Leadership happens when a leader interacts with followers in the context of a situation. Very often in the euphoria of building so called leadership qualities we forget that a leader is only as good as his team allows him to be. Tony’s frustration was driven in part by the fact that he was being let down by his team who though doing their best were not delivering the desired results.

Rob Hughes in his heart of football column in the Straits Times ( June 6) talks about the travails of Liverpool and the need for a direct line between the chairman, the team manager, the general secretary, and above all, the players on the pitch. He had the privilege of spending an entire day at Anfield with Bob Paisley the Liverpool coach – and the words Bob used over and over again that day was that he could not do it alone. ‘It’s a lonely job’ he said and I am sure Tony Hayward would relate to that in more ways than one.

Steven Gerrard the captain of Liverpool when asked if he would relish becoming the captain of England for the world cup replied “I don’t know if relish is the right word, but I will be ready to lead the country if called upon”. Steven clearly knows that as much as he believes he is captaincy material, at the end of the day football is a team game and everyone has to perform to the best of his abilities.

Nobody knows this better than the CEO of an organization who has the unenviable task of presenting his performance numbers quarter after quarter to a Board that has placed their faith in his leadership.

When I work with CEOs almost to a person they feel that having one or two stars on the team may be good for the short term, but in the long run everyone has to pull their weight or the mission does not get accomplished. In fact very often it is the stars themselves who could be a hindrance as their prima donna behaviors can be extremely disruptive and distracting to an otherwise motivated and capable team.

Going back to football, nobody knows this better than Dunga the Brazilian coach on whose shoulders fell the responsibility of rebuilding a team that failed in 2006. Since then, he has deliberately and systematically changed the team culture, getting rid of the so called stars in favor of dependability and sustainable team performance.

Whenever I have looked at the Brazilian team of late, I have not seen the great stars that were so inspiring and magical in terms of their ball skills, but in the last 4 years Brazil under the leadership of Dunga has not lost a single tournament they have entered.

Surely, results matter and nobody knows this better than the leader whose responsibility it is to deliver it in a way that meets expectations. France’s coach Raymond Domenech knows how challenging it has been to live up to the performance levels of 1998 when the French team played as a diverse yet sublimely well knit team to win the world cup.

At the recently concluded ICC 20:20 world cup cricket event in the West Indies, it was an unheralded English side that performed well as a team and won the event for the first time, when many a star studded side failed to live up to expectations.

At the 2010 World cup, when all is said and done, and one country picks up the winner’s trophy let us spare a thought for all the leaders whose job it was to inspire, motivate, and bring out the best performance from their respective teams.

Thirty one of them will fail, not because they did not try, but because there can only be one winner and don’t forget there is also this thing called luck.

Leaders will have to learn their lessons well and with a lot of introspection become more aware of themselves and what they need to do to get their teams to do better in the years to come. Yes, leading is a lonely job, and it is the team that always wins.

Pratap Nambiar is the Executive in Residence at the National University of Singapore Business School. He is the founder and Chief Executive of Thought Perfect Pte Ltd an organization that helps CEOs and Business Leaders maximize their potential.

A difficult conversation typically suggests that one party has to deliver news that is potentially unwelcome to the other. It is discomforting, can erode the listener’s sense of worth and in the Asian context result in loss of face. It can be something as simple as telling your subordinate that the presentation he/she just made was not up to the mark, or a more serious situation where someone on your team who has worked with you for over 10 years has to be made redundant.

Be prepared: Irrespective of the situation it always pays to be prepared for a difficult conversation. Think through all the possible defenses, denials, and counter accusations the individual can react with when faced with what they assume is an unfair assessment of the situation. Knowing all the facts and the social style of the person you are interacting with will help you deal with them effectively. You cannot predict the reaction entirely, but you can anticipate them and be emotionally ready. Setting very specific and pragmatic goals for the conversation will help you measure your success.

Establish the situation: Explain the facts that clearly establish the situation. There is no point beating around the bush. This has to be done in a very factual manner as an uninvolved observer would and where both parties can collaborate on its accuracy. The entire approach has to be non judgmental and must demonstrate the value of having the conversation in spite of the obvious risk associated with it. The objective is to collaborate towards finding a mutually acceptable solution to an existing problem.

Listen well: Not only to what the person is saying but what he/she is feeling. To create clarity and to let people know you’re genuinely listening, summarize what they’re telling you — and ask them to do the same. In fact listen to their version of the story first before sharing yours, and always demonstrate you are genuinely interested in hearing their version. More often than not difficult conversations are emotional and you need to get a good appreciation of the underlying issues that drive the emotions. Is it that the individual resents the possibility of being viewed as incompetent, or is it something to do with his/her own assessment of self-worth in relation to core values, or the deep desire to have the approval of management/colleagues?

Demonstrate Empathy: A leader most of all is able to put him\herself in the other person’s shoes and understand both the thoughts and the associated feelings in a very sincere and selfless way. Showing that empathy, that understanding, will lead to the development of mutual trust allowing individuals to open up their mind and heart and derive all the possible benefits to help move them towards their goals.

Create Positive Energy: Every difficult conversation leads to changes in behaviors. Leaders create a sense of optimism that is essential to move people towards action. Positive energy is created by positive talk that works both on the conscious and subconscious level. A good leader enthuses and infuses people with positive energy so they look forward to the behavior changes that they will need to make and the actions they are going to take to achieve their goals.

Reframe Perspectives: Either your world is perfect or it isn’t; it all depends on your perspective, the way you look at things. Everything will work out in the end, it always does. Help the individual reframe perspective or get him/her to look at things differently. By reframing the person’s emotional and judgmental perspectives into more observationally neutral characterizations, you can defuse the emotion-laden situation and help him/her step back and re-examine it in a new light.

Shifting or reframing your perspective from one of imperfection to one that sees possibilities for perfection requires a great deal of experience and skill which is what a good leader will be able to achieve. Can the situation be better than this? Sure it can. We just need to think differently.

Build Trust: Every difficult conversation is an opportunity to enhance trust. Imperfections are the breeding ground for doubt. Doubts block the development of trust. The key to trust is perfection. To trust is to liberate your-self from limitations. As a leader you need to help open the individual’s mind to see possibilities, to get “out of the self imposed limitation” and perceive solutions. It may be a stretch to trust the fact that whatever you have perceived to be negative can in fact be positive, so it is the leader’s credibility (words), reliability (actions) and likeability (emotions) which will make it possible.

Change Behavior: You cant change people, you can only change their behavior. A leader is a catalyst for change. Change starts with self awareness. The leader helps you understand yourself better – your strengths and weakness, what works well and what does not in relation to the difficult situation. This is a huge step forward in your journey towards success. Once the awareness is achieved, it shapes your perception and changes your attitude towards yourself, your colleagues, and the business itself. Once an attitudinal shift happens, it invariably results in changes in behavior that makes it then possible for you to commit to action.

Commit to Action: Every difficult conversation must lead to action. The leader has to ensure that the actions are a way to achieve goals. But the action has to have intent – not just activity but focused on moving the individual towards set goals. People cannot and will not commit to action without clarity of thought. Clear thinking is required to generate momentum – which is what the leader provides through the process of the difficult conversation which drives the commitment to action.

Create Structure: Structure is the process of creating boundaries and standards around what is being done. It is important because it creates a pattern to follow and allows others around to know what is expected within that structure. Leaders know that without a structure your people lapse into behaviors that are inconsistent with set goals.

Every difficult conversation is an opportunity for leaders to change the way their people think. They will help you think the right thoughts, and ensure that your clear thinking will become visible through your actions- driven by your behaviors which will produce the desired outcomes.

Article by Pratap Nambiar, the Executive in Residence @ NUS Business School, and CEO of Thought Perfect Pte Ltd a performance coaching organization that helps C level executives maximize their performance potential. Contact us to find out more.