Create Ownership by Asking and Listening
A leader of a government organization was having difficulty getting her people to understand and follow her. She was intelligent
and experienced in her industry, and previously, she had been very successful, but given the current budget cuts and fast
paced conditions they were facing, it was proving to be challenging getting this new group of people to follow her.
She knew what needed to get done and how she wanted to accomplish it. Her leadership style was direct, clear, and to the point.
Her unspoken motto was, "I will talk and you will listen." When she implemented a plan, it was always crystal clear in her
mind. The only problem was it wasn't always crystal clear in the minds of her direct reports. Because they hadn't experienced
the process she went through to create her vision, those who reported to this bright, hard-working leader could neither see
the big picture nor identify all the pieces. She had clarity of her vision because all decisions had been a process for her.
For her direct reports, however, she did not share her creative process, so they did not see her steps or reasoning.
This leader would share the end product. In preparation for this, she would go through the mental gymnastics needed to sift
out every feature of the plan. She would tear it apart and put it back together. As a result, when she communicated the plan
to her direct reports, she wasted no time. Inadvertently, in the sharing process, she also left out many small but vital
pieces of information. Because she was so immersed in her own process, she could not see how her omissions caused chaos
and confusion to others. However, her style of decision making and her communication style were causing her direct reports
to face repeated work until they could grasp the vision through trial and error. And, this was causing more than a little
friction within their staffs.
She and I discussed the value of having people struggle firsthand with problems and find their own answers. At first, in
response to the concept, she said, "We wouldn't have time for that. It would take too long."
My response to her then was in the form of a reflective question: "Your evidence shows that your organization had to have
these highly-skilled workers repeat their work two and three times. Significant time is currently being lost because of
heightened levels of frustrations. You are hearing from your direct reports that they are not getting the big picture or
the important details. How might it be different if, rather than through trial and error in the implementation phase, your
direct reports were given upfront time to process problem identification and participate in problem solution?"
After careful thought, she decided to set up bi-monthly meetings attended by each direct report, as well as each department
head, for a problem identification and problem solution process. At her request, my role was to include
facilitation of her new objective: to get input from the leadership of each department so that, from then on, every major
decision had timely input and support from all the stakeholders. She wanted buy-in, diverse thinking in problem
identification and solving, and more efficient, more profitable results.
At first, it was true that many of her people didn't provide input because she had made it clear in the past that she
preferred they be passive. For so many years, her unspoken rule had been essentially "shut up and listen" while she delivered
the solutions. She recognized how she needed to re-teach each member of each department, especially her department leaders,
so that all would participate. She had to re-teach each person to provide input or give critical thought to the
validity of each topic. In some cases, she even taught how to address or challenge the value of the topic. She re-taught
her work force how to think and communicate cooperatively.
These new participation skills proved to be big steps for all. Briefly, she and her staffs were all on a steep learning
curve. It was a push, but despite this challenge, in short order the skills became second nature to all. Plus the rewards
for success were highly motivating. The combination of her leadership and their active participation resulted in more
efficiency and increased profits.
Obviously, in her reflection, she shared that not all "group" decisions received unanimous support. (That would have
been idealistic, but certainly not realistic.) However, she clearly saw that the real benefits of active participation
in the process were threefold. First, active participation led to the generation of surprisingly fine ideas and diverse
input. This excited the work force as well as their leader. Second, her direct reports and their department staffs were
empowered by having their voices heard and their opinions valued. Staff morale measurably increased at all levels.
Finally, a direct positive correlation was evident between task completion and worker buy-in. In her previous decision
making style, she had sought unanimous consent on decisions. Now this was of minor concern to her. Other more impressive
outcomes outweighed this old priority. Leveraging the knowledge and abilities of her leaders and staff toward shared decision
making and open communication was clearly more cost- and time-efficient. Now, her people understood, followed, and helped
to lead her organization toward their mutually accepted goals.
