Heroes and Heroic Acts

One good act doesn't make an impeccable character

Photo courtesy of Tobias van Schneider

Late last year, cancer-survivor Lance Armstrong finally confessed to taking performance-enhancing drugs while winning a record seven Tour de France titles. This happened after many repeated denials. Until the confession, his response to anyone who suggested he cheated and doped was an intense denial. Typically, he would attack his accusers, often calling them all liars.

Similar stories abound in the world of baseball. In the latest episode early this month, Major League Baseball disciplined 13 players for their relationship to Biogenesis of America, a now-closed, Florida anti-aging clinic accused of distributing banned performance-enhancing drugs. Twelve players were suspended for 50 games each. The stiffest penalty was reserved for Alex Rodriguez, who was banned for the remainder of the 2013 season, and the entire 2014 campaign. While some are applauding the ban, others say that the punishment doesn't match the crime.

There have been many outcries against most of these athletes. People are disappointed because they looked up to them, especially because of the good work some of them do in their communities. They wonder how such “good” people could also be cheats.

What most of us forget, is that the fame and riches these people get as rewards from being good athletes does not translate to a change in character. They are who they are. In fact, their visibility as star athletes only magnifies who they already are, and elevates it for all to see. That’s why Michael Vick’s dog-fighting passion came to the fore a few years ago. Their riches helped them to indulge in who they really are.

But that’s not unique to famous people. It's in every one of us. We all have our character flaws. Mine is hidden from the public because I don’t have the fame that will put it on display for all to see.

This is especially true of leaders. The leadership position provides a level of visibility to others. The leader's flaws and shortcomings become easily apparent. Good leaders realize this, and they learn to compensate. They do not wane in their yearning for improvement, knowledge and growth. They acknowledge their areas of weaknesses and surround themselves with people who are strong in those areas. They do not cease to learn and grow.

One Good Act …

An athlete starts a foundation, and does good things in the community. The fire fighter runs into a burning building and rescues 20 people. As a result, we elevate them to the status of heroes. Once elevated, we expect their character to be spotless. There is a human tendency to deduce integrity and character from one (or more) noble acts performed by someone. However, no one’s perfect.

Months later, we discover that the fireman beats his wife and that our star athlete is a fraud. Our hearts are broken, and we get disappointed. But wait! Why do we expect perfection from these people? The good they do in the community does not make them saints. They’re just like us. My one good act does not translate to an impeccable character.

Character and integrity are the glues that tie everything together. No matter how much good you’ve done, one lapse in character could cost you several years to build back the trust that has been lost.

Why is this so?

It's because character speaks! Character communicates louder than anything else. In his book, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, John Maxwell describes some of the things that character communicates. He writes, “People will tolerate honest mistakes. People will also give leaders a grace period for connecting with others. However, they won’t forgive lapses in character”. 

I used to work with an organization whose CEO was an exceptional leader. He led the business to more than a decade of annual growth and high returns for shareholders. He treated everyone with respect and valued employees’ contributions, no matter how small. When he retired, the next CEO appointed by the Board of Directors was the complete opposite. He was arrogance personified, and did not hesitate to let everyone know how smart and better he was than everyone at everything.

Soon, he got into trouble and was fired. As a result, the goodwill previously enjoyed by the organization suffered. Its solid reputation, built under the leadership of the former CEO took a hit when the new guy showed up. It took many more years of good leadership to build it back. The character of the leader reflects on the team or the organization.

So, is someone a hero because of a few heroics acts? I think not! But just as in the baseball saga, people are lining up on either side of this debate.

The battle rages on.

Empty Words

Speaking when you have nothing to say is a waste of everyone’s time

So much has been said and written about the value inherent in speaking up, and most of them are valid. The fear of speaking in public has been ranked the number one fear of all time, and there are numerous reasons why people don't speak up, especially in a workplace environment.

Some may think that it's pointless because of their peculiar situation, whatever that may be. In his blog, Ron Ashkenas noted that others may simply lack the confidence, candor and courage. Then, there are those instances when an ethical dilemma may make someone suddenly go mute.

But how about those situations when people should keep quiet and they don’t?

Because most people have been sold on the merits of speaking, especially in a workplace meeting environment, can we ever have a situation where people speak when they shouldn't? Yes, we can! And I've seen it happen a few times.

When the culture of a place is dependent on how much people speak, things can quickly degenerate into chaos. Meetings could be filled with those who feel the need to say something even when they have nothing to contribute to the discussion. At the end, there’s so much talk with nothing concrete coming out of it.

This type of scenario is typical in places where the leadership rewards people who speak more and punish those who speak less. While the rewards and punishments could be subtle, those involved can easily pick up on the cues. In order to be seen as possessing leadership skills, they do what they have to, in order to get ahead. They realize what the game is, and they play it brilliantly.

One of the major symptoms of a place with this culture is that people who have something valuable to say have two options. They either keep quiet because they don’t get a chance, or they try to get their two cents in, by resorting to being rude. They interrupt others while they’re still speaking.

When people have nothing concrete to say, they tend to ramble on, so others would think they’re contributing. As a result of trying to make sense even to themselves, they just keep on talking. The result is that those who have real contributions have to find a way to say something. They have to interject. And that starts a vicious cycle of people not listening to another. There’s jockeying back and forth as one tries to get the floor over the other.

The sad part is that sometimes, those with valuable contributions do not really get a chance. Someone with a very good idea may choose to keep quiet instead of engaging in this battle to speak. While this shouldn't be a deterrent for any one, a good meeting facilitator should ensure that everyone in a meeting is given an opportunity to speak if they so desire.

A meeting where what I've described above happens, will be deemed unproductive or inefficient. What’s the impact of this to organizations? In his article, The Expense of Ineffective Meetings, Jeffrey Klubeck noted that “inefficient meetings cost organizations billions of dollars each year”. According to him, research indicates that over 50 percent of meeting time is wasted.

Patrick Lencioni, the author of Death by Meeting, stated matter-of-factly that bad meetings are a reflection of bad leaders. A good leader will quickly recognize when a meeting is becoming unproductive and speedily bring it back on the right course.

An ineffective leader will engender ineffective meetings. A good one will foster an environment of trust where all the parties in a meeting can freely speak up or be silent if they choose, without any fear of negative consequences.

What Are You Up To?

Declare your intentions or let it be imputed to you.

Last year, I was elected as the President of my Toastmasters club along with six other people on the leadership team. During the first month, I scheduled a one-on-one meeting with each of the other members of the executive committee to share my vision for the next 12 months and discuss my expectations with each one of them.

Since we had only one year to work together, I wanted to establish trust as early as possible. As part of this, I asked each one of them to let me know if there are ways that serving together with them on the volunteer organization could help either their professional careers or personal lives. I wanted to let them know that I care about them and that I’m willing to help in the achievement of whatever goals they have in life.

Each of the meetings went well. For some of them however, I could detect differing levels of hesitation when I got to where I spoke about caring about them personally. I must have sounded suspicious, especially since they were all women! I was the leader of this executive team and the only guy in the group. They didn't understand where I was coming from. I didn't tell them that what I was trying to do was lay the foundation for trust in our working relationship over the next year. I failed to use the opportunity to explain to them the basic principles involved in building personal trust. I didn’t give them the reason I did what I was doing. I didn’t tell them what I was up to, and it spooked most of them!

In failing to declare my intentions, I left a big gap for them to guess at what I was trying to accomplish. This is especially true because they didn’t know me that well at the time. We had all just been elected to serve together in the volunteer organization.

When we fail to declare our intent, others attribute some to us. Unfortunately, what is attributed will usually come from the other person’s values and experiences. We tend to judge the intent of others based on our paradigms and experiences. If you had been taken advantage of in the past by someone in authority, you will be suspicious of any kind of care shown to you by someone in leadership. In my situation, any kind of suspicion could have been avoided if I had simply declared my intent; if I had told them that my goal was to build trust.

Declaring your intent not only builds trust, it also makes you accountable. It signals your behavior. It tells others what to look for in their interactions with you. For a person of integrity, this becomes another facet of accountability that helps you be true to your word. Trust is built as they see you do what you said you will do.

When we say what we’re about, an obligation to follow through is implied. It was Joseph Fort Newton who said, “A duty dodged is like a debt unpaid; it is only deferred, and we must come back and settle the account at last."  It becomes a duty once you signal your intention. If you’re a person of integrity, you see that as a debt that must be paid.

Finally, as you declare your intentions, ensure that you’re being honest about it. Nothing depletes trust faster than someone who doesn’t keep their word.

You don’t want to be the hypocrite who says one thing and does another.

Difficult but Necessary

Providing honest and constructive feedback is no easy task, but it must be done.

In the January 2013 blog post, I wrote about my colleague who didn't react well to my telling him about how some of his actions may be affecting his credibility. Because of the way he responded, I was left wondering if I would ever approach him to provide any kind of feedback in the future. It's difficult, especially when I have an idea of what his potential reaction would be. However, if I truly care about him, I shouldn't allow the way he responded the first time to dictate whether or not I would approach him to provide another feedback that is deemed necessary.

Giving feedback about areas of improvement can be difficult because the act is usually met with resistance and defensiveness. While the possible response of the receiver of the feedback shouldn't be a factor, more often than not, it is. There’s a level of apprehension involved because most of us do not like to hurt other people’s feelings. But looking at the benefits of the act could be beneficial, and may help to dull the impact of  whatever potential backlash may result.

In his blog post, Don't Be Nice; Be Helpful, Peter Bregman wrote about how providing feedback to one another helps us be aware of our blind spots. We all have these blind spots, and it takes others to help us see them. That’s why they’re called blind spots. Bregman wrote:

“Giving people feedback is an act of trust and confidence. It shows that you believe in their ability to change. That you believe they will use the information to become better. And that you have faith in their potential.”

We should not be concerned about how the feedback will be received. We should focus on the fact that giving feedback is providing the needed help to the recipient, whether they realize it or not.

One of the key leadership skills that Toastmasters International helps to develop is that of providing feedback. Everything that is done in the course of a Toastmasters meeting is evaluated on the spot. Members provide evaluations in what is called a "sandwich approach". You start with something positive to encourage the member to continue doing. This is followed by a suggestion for improvement. You end the evaluation with another positive thing that you observe. This communicates the fact that feedback doesn't have to be all bad news. No matter how bad someone is, there are some good attributes and traits that could be praised and encouraged.

As we seek to give feedback, when we do it is as important as how it’s done. The recipient’s mood and frame of mind at the time is critical. It’s true that some people are never in a good mood to receive feedback. They will automatically go on the defensive when what they perceive as an attack comes. However, this should not deter us.

Sometimes, dealing with personal issues or struggles would make a person have a short fuse. You become impatient and unwilling to listen to any words of wisdom that could be beneficial. Rationality goes out the windows, and you don’t think straight. Not too long ago, I was about to give a friend feedback on the importance of keeping promises and delivering on commitments. But I stopped when I found out that he was going through a very rough time. Instead, we talked about the issues he was experiencing and I was able to offer some encouragement.

In one of the comments posted on the January blog post I mentioned earlier, Esther stated that “it is important to first build a relationship with someone ... Such relationship sets the ground for mutual trust and increases the chances of the criticism being received in good faith.”

I agree. Without a relationship built on trust, it’s difficult for feedback to be received. The same is true for giving feedback. No rational person gives feedback to someone they don’t know just out of the blue. It’s even odd to give it to someone that’s just an acquaintance. Providing feedback suggests a level of knowledge of the behavior that’s more than just casual. The behavior must have been observed repeatedly.

Finally, feedback is incomplete when it only points out what someone needs to do better. It’s helpful to also offer specific, actionable steps that could be valuable. This is another way in which you show that the motivation for giving the feedback is to be helpful. When you point out areas of improvement, and offer concrete steps for getting it done, you may not just be helping someone.

You could be gaining a friend for a lifetime.

Benefit of the Doubt

Take another look at what you see. It may not be the real thing.

Photo courtesy of Tobias-Zils

During a recent strategy definition session with a leadership group of about 25 people, most of us were tasked with coming up with specific action steps for a goal that was randomly assigned. I didn't like the one assigned to me. I thought I could do better with another goal, which was assigned to someone else on the leadership team. I made this known to Susan*, the facilitator and she asked me to do the best I could with what I have.

About an hour later, I had to present the specific action steps I came up with, to the rest of the group. As I began to speak, Susan suddenly started laughing. I was taken aback and wondered what was going on. Without any clue as to what just happened, I proceeded with my presentation. At the conclusion of it, I just had to ask the question because I was still intrigued at the sudden outburst of laughter earlier.

Susan explained that as I started to speak, I gave her the finger; and that it’s probably because I had wanted another goal to work on. I was shocked! I have never given anyone any kind of finger, neither do I intend to. I need every one of my fingers!

While I couldn't tell what my fingers were doing with the hand gestures I had during my presentation, I knew that I didn't intentionally give her “the finger”. After the meeting, Susan continued to make fun of me and insisted that I gave her a finger. A few weeks later, she finally admitted that she knew I wouldn't do that.

In the February 2013 blog titled, Oblivious, I wrote about how we may not realize the effect of our behaviors on others. This situation got me thinking about how we see the behavior of others, and how that in turn, affects the way we behave as leaders.

In his book, The Speed of Trust, Stephen M. R. Covey stated that “while we tend to judge ourselves by our intent, we tend to judge others by their behavior”. When we see a particular behavior in other people, we quickly jump to conclusions about what their intentions are. The focus on, and the attribution of motive or intent is almost immediate.

While behavior is usually the manifestation of motive, that’s not necessarily the case all the time. This is the case with my “finger-giving” example. That’s where knowing people well enough comes into play. Because Susan knew me fairly well, she knew that I couldn't have been giving her the finger, even though my behavior appeared that way. But what about people we don’t know quite well? That’s where it gets dicey, and where our own values, background and experience come into play.

Have you ever been around someone who immediately ascribes negative motives to the behavior of others?

He’s doing that because he’s just a mean person!

I've seen a few like that and my response is usually, “why don’t you give the person the benefit of the doubt?” Since you may not know what’s going on with an individual at a particular time, it’s always difficult to ascribe the right intent to their behavior.

We must be careful how they judge other people. We must be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when we observe behaviors that may be a little off. We would do well to recognize the possibility of good intent or motive in others, despite their observable behavior.

There are times when we actually project our own intent on others’ behaviors. When we observe a behavior, we unconsciously latch on to the motives that could make us behave in a similar manner; and project this on others. As fallible humans, we have to realize our tendency to do this, and work on ensuring that we don’t.

By deciding to look beyond the behavior of others, we can encourage and motivate them. This is possible when we project a positive intent on those behaviors and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Assume their intentions are pure, until proven otherwise.

*Names have been changed

How Do You See?

You can judge a man's character by the way he treats people who can't hurt or help him.

It was the first day back at work after the Christmas and New Year holidays. I was standing in line at the cafeteria checkout, lunch in hands. When it was my turn to pay, I smiled at *Nancy, the cashier.

“Hi! How are you today?” After she responded, I continued, “How was your holiday? Did you travel or stayed in town?”

Her face lit up with a smile as she told me that she spent the holidays with her son in India. He’s an engineer and had been in India for about a year on a 3-year contract. She was happy that she could spend the holidays with him, his wife and their little boy.

Later, as I settled down to lunch with *Frank, one of my colleagues, he asked, “What’s going on with you? I saw you talking excitedly to the cafeteria lady” I responded that I was just asking if she had a good time away from work, and wanted to know how she spent her holidays. His next comments baffled me.

“Why? You don’t have to talk to her! She’s just a cafeteria worker!”

I wonder how many of us see others the way Frank saw Nancy; people to be seen, not heard. We treat people as objects to be used for our purposes. But there’s something to be said for treating others with courtesy and respect; for valuing them as people with hope and dreams.

Some of these behaviors are so subtle and unconscious that we don’t even realize that we exhibit them. This could have their roots in our upbringing and the culture we grew up in. Frank grew up in the type of Middle Eastern culture where the elite do not typically mingle with middle-class and low-class people. His parents were rich, and they had several helpers or servants in their home. These people just worked for them; they never saw them as people. The entire family knew nothing about the personal lives of those who worked in their expansive mansion.

Now a leader in the organization, Frank is yet to learn how to relate to people appropriately; how to treat them with respect. Unfortunately, today’s American culture further diminishes the impact of respect. It’s filled with music, books, television shows and movies that elevate disrespectful attitudes and with behaviors that are borderline abusive towards other people. As a result, we are becoming numb to the effects that these have on meaningful relationships.

When you don’t respect people, you don’t see the value in them. When this happens, you are not able to benefit from whatever insights they may have and what value they may be able to add to your life.

I recently came across an anonymous quote that says, “You can judge a person's character by the way he treats people who can't help him or hurt him.” There are some people who would be polite to others they consider better than themselves; to those who have something that they want. It may be a boss or someone they want to do business with. But to others that they see as beneath them socially, politically or economically, they become very disrespectful. They think these people have no value to add to them. So they treat them as if they don’t exist. They don’t recognize or acknowledge them.

As a result, they miss whatever value these people could have added to their lives. In his book, Leading Change, James O’Toole proposes that “what creates trust, in the end, is the leader’s manifest respect for the followers”. When leaders do not respect those that they lead, this is a symptom of more fundamental problems such as insufficient humility and too much ego. Disrespecting people you consider unimportant says a lot about your character.

Have you heard of what is known as the Waiter Rule? It refers to a common belief that a person’s true character can be gleaned from how he treats service workers, such as a waiter. A USA Todayarticle by Del Jones in 2006 described some interesting experiences a few CEOs had when they were younger. They contend that how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about your character. Part of the article also described how this could be tied to the way people were raised.

About two years ago, I was having lunch with a friend, who is a Pastor. As we settled down to place our orders, he asked our waitress her name and asked if she had anything that she’s worried about, for which we could pray. She lit up immediately, and shared her concern with us.

Could you imagine what could happen if we all treat people who provide service to us in this manner? Or what the impact would be when leaders, in the true spirit of being servant leaders, extend some courtesy and respect to the people they lead?

What a revolutionary behavior that would be!

*Names have been changed.

A Gift Worth Receiving

Do you respond or react to feedback?

Years ago, I had a colleague who was always quick to volunteer for tasks and quicker to commit to deadlines for the completion of those tasks. But most of the time, he didn't deliver on his promises. Over a period of about 15 months, some of the commitments he made (and didn't deliver on) affected me, mostly because I had to pick up the slack. So I decided to speak to him about it.

I called him into a private meeting and told him how much I loved his enthusiasm for getting things done, but wondered if he was taking on too many things at the same time. I gave him three instances over the previous year that he was not able to deliver by the deadlines that he committed to, without even trying to re-negotiate those deadlines. I explained how this could affect his credibility as a person and that people could easily misjudge his intention as a result of his actions.

Bruised Egos

Let me pause here to say that it can be difficult to receive negative feedback without being defensive. As humans, we don’t like someone telling us what we’re not doing well. It bruises our egos. And that’s true even if we already know that we have opportunities to improve in those areas.

Let's get back to my colleague. While he thanked me for taking the time to discuss this with him, I could tell that he didn't like what just happened. During the half-hour discussion, he used the phrase, “I take an exception to that” at least twice. He also asked me what right I had to come to him with “accusations” that had no basis. I wasn't his boss, and had no other motive for telling him what I observed, than the concern for the damage to his reputation. He didn't seem to see it that way, however. I left the room wondering if I would ever approach him to discuss anything like that again.

Ask For It

Receiving negative feedback stings, especially when it’s coming from someone that we think has no business giving us such feedback. Our defenses come up against this unwelcomed interference that’s dealing blows to our egos. Early in my career, I was one of those who responded very poorly to receiving such feedback. Much later, I saw that the feedback I was receiving were to my benefit. I realized that those giving me the feedback were not doing it just to frustrate me or make me mad. They were doing it in my best interests! So to take the sting out, I decided to go on the offensive.

When I was a project manager, I started the practice of asking for specific feedback from my project teams, customers, vendors and all others that I had contact with, in the course of executing a project. At the end of each project, I would send each of these people a questionnaire to provide me feedback on how I performed as I led the project. I called it "Stakeholder Feedback". The last question is the only one for which they needed to actually formulate a response, and not just check a box. I ask them, “In your opinion, in what specific ways could I have done a better job while managing this project?” By doing this, I was giving them permission to provide me the kind of feedback that could help me get better. This helped, especially in situations where they had something to say, but were reluctant to do so. It also removed the sting that would have otherwise come from the feedback if it was unsolicited. Over the years, this practice has helped me to be more gracious in receiving constructive feedback, even when I didn't ask for it.

Be Humble in Receiving

Whether solicited or not, receiving negative feedback is not easy. Lashing out or becoming defensive is the natural response of the human nature. First of all, it’s good to make a prior decision not to respond in this manner. Next, you need to continually remind yourself of this decision because you can easily forget in the heat of battle. Finally, carry it through. Whether or not the “attack” is justified, hear the person out.

Leaders especially need to be careful when they ask for feedback. Ensure that you truly mean it, and not paying lip service to your request for true constructive feedback. Those you lead will know if you’re a phony right away. I used to be part of a team where the leadership talked about having an open door policy, and admonished the team to have the courage speak up. But any voice of dissent was quickly silenced. They didn't listen and internalize what they heard before responding. The result was that many who had real, helpful feedback kept quiet, and said nothing.

Give Thanks

Irrespective of how ridiculous the feedback seems, or how angry you are at the time of receiving it, thank the person for having the courage to speak up. This is especially true if they're not in a position of authority over you. Let them know how much you appreciate the fact that they have your best interests at heart. Take a few days to think about it, and if necessary, approach them later to ask clarifying questions. As you do this, you are demonstrating that you are coach-able, and will listen. In many cases however, feedback tells you more about the person giving it than about you.