Valuing Humility in Leadership

/in /by

In a blog post earlier this year, I wrote about the value of productive narcissism for leaders in organizations, but also raised some questions about its dangers. In this blog, I want to focus on humility – a trait we often don’t associate with leaders, especially those larger-than-life leaders past and present. Even among CEOs, the leaders who readily come to mind for many include Jack Welch, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates – none of whom we would think of as humble. Jeffrey Pfeffer, in his book Leadership BS, in fact argues that while there are advantages to modesty (which he uses as a synonym for humility), there are several disadvantages. He claims that immodesty and narcissism actually help people attain leadership positions and help them to advance. He cites research that overconfident individuals tend to achieve higher social status, respect and influence in groups. Narcissists tend to exhibit more energy, dominance, self-confidence and charisma than non-narcissists. And he concludes that most companies have a preference for selecting leaders who are immodest, grandiose and narcissistic. Because they are more extroverted and have higher self-esteem, narcissists are more likely to be chosen as leaders and to be seen as having leadership potential.

Furthermore, it could be argued that humility might not work all that well cross-culturally. Power distance, the acceptance of inequality and status differences, is one of the major cultural dimensions differentiating cultures, with high power distance cultures such as Russia and Malaysia placing great importance on status, rank and deference to authority, and low power distance cultures such as Australia and Denmark placing less emphasis on hierarchy and titles. High power-distance cultures seem to admire authoritarian leaders who run their organizations (and countries) with an iron fist, and who display no outward signs of weakness.

Let’s first define humility, and then let me make the case for the value of humility in leadership. Owens et al. (2013), after reviewing the literature, proposes this definition: … an interpersonal characteristic that emerges in social contexts that connotes (a) a manifested willingness to view oneself accurately, (b) a displayed appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions, and (c) teachability. In my view, humility in leadership is first and foremost an orientation, a mindset, an attitude if you will, when engaging in interactions with others. The elements of this orientation are an openness to listen, a willingness to learn from others, and an awareness that one may not have all the answers.

Here are three reasons why humility is important for leaders. First, being humble tempers the excesses that extreme self-confidence can bring. The research on derailed managers shows very clearly that strengths when overused can lead to fatal flaws. Managers who derail show several traits and skills that more often than not narcissists have in abundance. They include lack of emotional stability, defensiveness, lack of integrity, insensitivity and abrasiveness. As summarized by Gary Yukl (2010):

“…the derailed managers could be charming when they wanted to, but over time it became evident that beneath the façade of charm and concern for others, the person was really selfish, inconsiderate, and manipulative … when they disagreed with someone, (they) were more likely to be outspoken and offensive.”

In my judgment, Pfeffer’s conclusions about the value of narcissistic leaders are based on two flawed arguments. The first is that while the research does show that self-confident and outgoing individuals are more likely to be selected as leaders and to advance, it does not mean that they will be effective as leaders. This is perhaps why there are so many bad bosses, and why the psychologist Robert Hogan and others have cited that the base rate of managerial failure averages around 50 percent. In fact, Pfeffer’s descriptions seem out of synch with organizational reality. Executives who rise to the top because of their narcissism seldom are able to build sustainable organizational performance. They may be able to bluff and bully their way for a short period of time, but it all catches up to them. Perhaps thirty or forty years ago, such an executive might have been able to get away with this. But with the pressures for increased transparency and standards for a certain level of behavior, such narcissistic leaders do not survive for long in many corporations. Research has shown that all sorts of negative things can happen when people are placed in positions of power; for example, they begin devaluing the contributions of others, start thinking of themselves as superior, etc. The dose of humility in self-confident leaders helps them to become less arrogant. In fact, many other studies show that while charisma may predict career success and advancement, it does not necessarily predict organizational or firm performance. As Keltner (2016) has pointed out: “In primate social life, human and nonhuman alike, groups give power to those who advance the greater good. This basic power dynamic ensures that groups are led by individuals who will not be their undoing but will instead act with enthusiasm, kindness, focus, calm, and openness, thereby benefiting the groups.” (pp. 52, 55).

The second flaw in Pfeffer’s argument is that while it might indeed be the case that narcissists do display energy, dominance, self-confidence and charisma, these are not unique to narcissists. We do tend to like our leaders to show self-confidence and energy, but we don’t view these traits in isolation but as part of an entire package when we view them. It is the toxic mix of arrogance and disdain, along with a lack of humility, that dooms many narcissists. Pfeffer may also be confusing self-confidence with cockiness, and the two are actually very different. And the meta-analysis I mentioned in my earlier blog post found a wide range of relationships between narcissism and leadership effectiveness. On average, narcissists were no more or less likely to become effective leaders. In fact, there seems to be an inverted U-shaped relationship; leaders who are weak as well as those who are very strong narcissists don’t tend to become effective leaders.

The second argument for humility in leadership is that a humility mindset helps leaders make better decisions and build better teams through a balance between advocacy and inquiry. While leaders often believe that they have to be forceful and aggressive, and act like they know the answers (the advocacy position), they also need to balance this with a spirit of inquiry that encourages others to challenge them. They ask good questions, they seek feedback, they actively listen, they admit it when they make mistakes, they praise and recognize others and give them credit, and minimize bragging about their accomplishments and about themselves. In a recent Fortune article (November 2016) about Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella, a former colleague said this about the Nadella’s humility: “(He) could suspend his disbelief and opinion to listen to you thoughtfully. The slight difference between listening to argue and listening to learn is not subtle. It’s huge. Satya is soft-spoken but energetic …”.  Recent studies of teams have shown that those led by high-empathy individuals tended to perform better on a series of collective intelligence tasks. Keltner (2016) argues that those with what he calls “enduring power” have empathy, are generous and tend to express gratitude. He does not explicitly use the term humility, but this can be inferred from what he writes.

The third argument is that, in my experience, humility actually helps leaders when managing cross-culturally. When we are interacting with others from different cultures or nationalities, adapting a mindset that is flexible, accepting, curious and empathetic is essential (Henson, 2016). Humility is important especially in many cultures where building relationships and establishing trust are essential in developing business ties, as well as loyalty and commitment from local staff. I have seen many expatriates fail in their assignments when they believe that they know it all, especially because they come from corporate headquarters. Ethnocentrism is antithetical to humility. Even in low power distance cultures like Australia, for example, there is a cultural norm against the so-called tall poppy syndrome, where many want to put in their place those who have achieved something or are successful. Showing a dose of humility will certainly help.

Interestingly, there is a body of literature in the counseling field around cultural humility, and the importance of this orientation for therapists in working with their patients, especially those with different cultural backgrounds from the therapist. That is, the culturally humble therapist is open, self-aware, egoless, self-reflects and engages in supportive interactions (Foronda et al., 2016). Leaders of course are not therapists but do share an important common goal: that of creating commitment from others through positive influence. Furthermore, when leaders disempower us with their arrogance and lack of humility, our bodies start producing cortisol, which is what prepares the body for defense and a fight-or-flight response – not exactly ideal conditions for productivity and high performance. Cortisol increases our heart rate and blood pressure, and releases sweat in the hands. It also activates glucose production and stimulates the immune system. Over time, high levels of cortisol among employees lead to absenteeism and various health problems.

This is not a plea for leaders to suppress their self-confidence or their energy level, both highly important traits for leaders. However, confidence should not be confused with arrogance or self-righteousness. Leaders need to be confident; they need to have a point of view and express that point of view, but it does not mean that they cannot have some humility.

Here are three tips to developing a dose of humility. One, increase your self-awareness through regular self-debriefings and self-reflections. Reconstruct meetings that you’ve just had, for example, and, before jumping off to another meeting, take a couple of minutes to think about what you did that helped the meeting and what you might have done differently. Two, solicit feedback. On a regular basis, seek out individuals you trust and ask them what you could do to improve. Three, improve your listening skills. This is especially important for higher-status leaders who might not acknowledge their dependency on others, such as a senior surgeon at a hospital who is actually dependent on his operating room team. By practicing what Edgar Schein (2013) calls humble inquiry, this surgeon, as well as other leaders, can create a climate that gives others permission to help them should they need it.

 

Foronda, C. et al. (2016). Cultural Humility: A Concept Analysis. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 27 (3), 210-217.

Henson, R. (2016). Successful Global Leadership: Frameworks for Cross-Cultural Managers and Organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Keltner, D. (2016). The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence. New York: Penguin Press.

Owens, B. et al. (2015). Expressed Humility in Organizations: Implications for Performance, Teams, and Leadership. Organization Science, 24 (5): 1517-1538.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time. New York: HarperCollins.

Schein, E. (2013). Humble Inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

 

 

“I’ve Gotta Be Me” – Always?

/in /by

In his wonderful book “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There,” Marshall Goldsmith lists twenty habits that he claims often prevent successful people from becoming more successful.  The twentieth habit he calls “an excessive need to be me.”  Here his explanation of this habit:

Each of us has a pile of behavior that we define as ‘me.’  It’s the chronic behavior, both positive and negative, that we think of as our inalterable essence … If we are incorrigible procrastinators who habitually ruin other people’s timetables, we do so because we’re being true to ‘me’ … If we always express our opinion, no matter how hurtful or noncontributory it may be, we are exercising our right to be ‘me.’

You may recognize this as a variation on the old cartoon character Popeye, who said, “I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.”  There was a popular song many years ago called “I’ve Gotta Be Me” that had a similar theme.

Kerry Lane was an Australian manager of a global medical devices company when she was sent to Japan to open a sales and marketing office in Tokyo.  Smart, ambitious, and highly driven, Kerry saw this as an opportunity to prove herself while acquiring skills and knowledge by working in another country.  She had never been to Tokyo before, although two years ago she had completed a successful six-month assignment in the Philippines to help develop a marketing campaign for one of her company’s products.

Needless to say, Kerry experienced a series of culture shocks in her first three weeks on the job.  Her new boss, a Japanese who was head of the subsidiary, kept on bowing and apologizing to her, which she found very annoying.  When she met her team of six direct reports, she was surprised at how formal they seemed to be.  In meetings, they would sit quietly in their navy-blue business suits (they were all male), and hardly spoke up.  She knew a little bit about Japanese culture, and the head of HR, another Japanese, explained to her some of the differences between the way business gets done in Japan versus Australia.  I get it, she thought to herself.  But this is not the way I do things, and I know that I have been successful doing things a certain way.  Why change now?  Besides, this is not me.  All this bowing and politeness and talking so indirectly!  I would go crazy if I were to adjust my style just because I am in Japan.  Besides, I am not Japanese, and they should understand and adapt to me.

Eventually, Kerry’s frustration got the better of her and after three months, she requested for a change of assignments from head office.

What happened to Kerry, and what could she have done differently?  First, let’s go back to what Marshall Goldsmith points out as an excessive need to be me.  For Goldsmith, the solution to this is for the person to focus less on himself (or herself) and more on other people.  For example, in his case study, a manager who does not like to give recognition and praise to people because “that’s not me” could improve by focusing more on what his people wanted (in this case, a little more praise and recognition) and abandoning the notion of “me.”

This is easier said than done.  What makes this difficult for many are two underlying issues.  First, in my experience, this mindset of “being me” is especially prevalent in what Hofstede refers to as individualistic cultures, where the emphasis is on individual achievement rather than on group harmony.  Cultures like the United States, Australia, and Sweden (to name a few) value individualism and self-advancement.  So when Kerry, and Goldsmith’s example, clings to this notion, their behavior is in part culturally determined.  This is what they have learned by growing up in a highly individualistic culture.

The second issue is the apparent dilemma that is created when people frame the problem as having to choose between being authentic and adapting (that is to say, not being authentic).  I have worked with a number of executives who believe that they are somehow compromising themselves if they were to change their management style.

Here are two pieces of advice.  First, define the handful of values or qualities about yourself that are core to you and that you believe reflect best who you are.  For example:  honest, reliable, hard-working, assertive, self-confident.  Then as you work with people and teams from other cultures, consider how these values might be expressed in these different cultures.  For example, in Thailand, being honest might mean:  keeping your word, being fair, and not cheating.  In America, this might mean:  being direct, speaking your mind.  It may turn out that your Thai colleagues share some of your values, but just express them in different ways.  So the key point here is to recognize that the behaviors that demonstrate a quality or value that you feel strongly about because they mean “being you” may differ by culture.  Therefore, what you might have to do to work effectively in these cultures is to adapt behaviors that are more appropriate for that culture but are still consistent with your underlying values.

The second piece of advice is to expand your comfort zone so you can begin to develop what   Andy Molinsky calls global dexterity.  Every one of us has a style of behavior that we are comfortable with, or that comes natural for us.  And most of the time, we would rather not change our style either because we believe that this works well for us, or because it is too much trouble to learn a different style.  When working across different cultures, there will be a range of behaviors and styles that will be different from what you are used to.  Some will be easier to adapt to than others.  For example, learning how to bow slightly in Japan, or learning how to greet someone in a different language are relatively easy behaviors to learn, and will not require much difficulty in getting you out of your comfort zone.  However, other behaviors – for example, learning how to be more patient rather than being your normal assertive self, learning to read non-verbal’s in high-context cultures – are more difficult to adapt.  So expand your comfort zone by practicing some behaviors that may at first not feel too comfortable for you.  Get help from a friend, a trusted co-worker, or a colleague from another culture so they can give you feedback and coach you.

Goldsmith, M.  (2007).  What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.  New York:  Hyperion.

Hofstede, G.  (2001).  Culture’s Consequences.  New York:  Sage.

Molinsky, A.  (2013).  Global Dexterity.  Boston:  Harvard Business Review Press.

Becoming a Global Leader from a Regional Leader’s Perspective

/in , /by

When Zoe Chang was promoted to become the Asia-Pacific regional marketing head for her company, a major global consumer products firm, she was very excited.  She had been head of marketing for Taiwan for the past five years, and had achieved outstanding results.

Shortly after her promotion, Zoe flew to the United States to meet with her new boss and her counterparts from the other regions.  She was determined to get an in-depth understanding of the company’s global marketing strategy and its implications for her region.  While in the United States, she also scheduled one-on-one meetings with some potential key stakeholders, such as the Head of R&D and the head of Human Resources.  She spent time meeting with her new boss, hoping to understand exactly what his expectations were and what his perspective was on whether and how to adapt global strategies to fit local markets.  And she accompanied marketing researchers to retail stores where some of the company’s key products were being sold to find out more about consumers and their preferences in the U.S. market.

After returning to Taiwan, she then decided to visit each of the six countries that she was now responsible for and spend time meeting with the marketing teams to better understand their local customers.  While in each country, she took time to explain the company’s global marketing strategies and asked each team how they thought these strategies could be implemented in their market, and where they thought these strategies could be adapted to better fit local market conditions.  She also described her marketing vision for the region, how excited she was to be working with them, and shared some of her expectations.

Rather than flying “in and out,” as she observed previous executives had done, Zoe made sure to spend a week in each country.  Working with the local marketing head, she developed an agenda for each country that involved meeting with the country head and his functional heads, meeting one-on-one and in groups with the marketing professionals, and visiting retail stores to learn about marketing and consumer practices in the country.  Her evenings were not exactly free either.  She scheduled dinners with several key executives (both from within the subsidiary as well as outsiders, such as key suppliers and government officials) and had at least one group dinner in each country.

At the end of each visit, Zoe shared with the local marketing head her observations, asked for feedback, and, with the team, identified follow-up actions for her team and herself.  She asked the country manager for feedback, as well as for any additional support or resources that might be needed for the country’s marketing team.

In one country, there was quite a bit of concern and pushback about the pricing for one of the company’s products that were about to be introduced.  Both the country manager and the marketing head were not convinced that the proposed pricing from corporate would be competitive and would generate the expected revenue for the product.  That week, Zoe and the country manager made calls to the Global Marketing head as well as the head of Asia Pacific to express their concerns, and to present data based on market research on competitors’ price points and consumer preferences.  Based on these discussions, the pricing was modified.

It is too early to tell whether or not Zoe’s approach will lead to outstanding results, but I believe, based on my experience and practices of successful global companies, that Zoe is on the right path to becoming an outstanding global leader.

Let’s examine more carefully what Zoe is doing.

First, it is clear that Zoe is adopting a global mindset.  She understands that while headquarters may be driving global strategies, her role is not simply to push this strategy down to the countries but to make sure that she can synthesize and integrate, adapting where necessary to local market conditions.

Second, Zoe is making an effort to understand her company’s overall strategy and priorities.  At the same time, Zoe is aware that she needs to align her region to the company’s goals, so a clear understanding of the company’s priorities is important so that she can explain this perspective to her country teams.

Third, Zoe is also making an effort to understand local stakeholders’ and customers’ needs.   As Bartlett and many others have pointed out (Bartlett and Beamish, 2008), one of the key challenges of a global company is managing the tension between standardization and customization.  By drilling down so that she is familiar with each market, Zoe will be in a better position to recognize and recommend solutions that meet both corporate needs as well as regional and local needs.

Fourth, Zoe is building relationships.  She understands that in many Asian cultures, relationships come before task.  People will need to trust you first before they will do business with you, and so Zoe is spending time building relationships.  She is doing this both through formal and informal means, spending time in meetings as well as socializing after office hours.

Based on my experience and discussions with many successful regional leaders, these four practices – adopting a global mindset, integrating the company’s overall strategy and priorities with regional and local needs, understanding local customers’ needs, and building relationships – are key to the success of a regional leader in a global company.

Bartlett, C. and Beamish, P.  Transnational Management, 6th Edition.  (2008).  New York:  McGraw-Hill.