Leading Authentically in the Global Workplace

Between our coaching calls, Naveen, an Indian vice president of a technology company based in Bangalore, diligently read the handful of articles I had asked him to look over.  In our next call, he seemed perplexed by the term “authentic leadership” that he had seen in a couple of the readings.  What does it mean to be an authentic leader, he asked me.  He had looked up the dictionary definition of authentic and its synonyms, which included genuine, real, not a fake.  Well and good, he agreed.  But he seemed a bit confused.  To be genuine and real with your team, how much do you have to “self-disclose” by letting them know about your strengths and weaknesses, your likes and dislikes?  And does being genuine and real imply behaving and only using a leadership style that comes naturally to you?

Take a recent article by Goffee and Jones in Harvard Business Review.   In that piece, they write that one of the qualities of inspirational leaders is that they reveal their weaknesses.  “When leaders reveal their weaknesses, they show us who they are – warts and all.  This may mean they’re irritable on Monday mornings, that they are somewhat disorganized, or even rather shy.  Such admissions work because people need to see leaders own up to some flaw before they participate willingly in an endeavor.  Exposing a weakness establishes trust and thus helps get folks on board.”  

Part of Naveen’s discomfort was a particular concern about the cultural appropriateness of such self-disclosure, especially in countries where the expectations of what an effective leader is may not tolerate such complete transparency, at least initially.  In fact, a couple of more recent articles in Harvard Business Review suggest such caution in this regard.  For example, Rosh and Offerman urge leaders to understand the organizational and cultural context before they self-disclose.  Similarly, Ibarra writes that many models of authentic leadership are particularly American, especially in the advice to tell a personal story about a hardship they have overcome.  He points out that these are based on Western ideals of individualistic triumph over adversity.

In a recent study, two researchers examined how different cultures perceive “authenticity” in others based on their self-expression.  The countries representing these cultures, Germany and China, are on different ends of the spectrum in terms of their individualistic and collectivistic orientation.  An important facet of collectivism is contextualism, the extent to which the context is crucial in understanding other people.  Easterners more than Westerners tend to consider the context when explaining behavior.  On the other hand, in individualistic cultures such as Germany, dispositional information, such as the person’s personal preferences, is more important.  Therefore, according to these researchers, a person expressing both his likes and dislikes will be perceived to be more authentic by Westerners. They predicted that Germans learning about a person who expresses only his likes (culture-incongruent) would seek more dispositional information (culture-congruent), whereas Chinese learning about a person expressing both likes and likes (culture-incongruent) would seek more contextual information (culture-congruent) to better understand this person.  Their sample consisted of 73 German students and 87 Chinese students in universities in Germany and China who were randomly assigned to two scenarios.  In one scenario, they read about the likes and dislikes of a certain person named George (in Germany) or Yong (in China).  In the other scenario, they read about his likes only.

The participants were then asked how much each of 12 statements described George (or Yong).  These statements were based on a scale of authenticity developed by other researchers.  A sample item was the following:  George is true to himself in most situations.  Finally, participants were asked how useful they would find each one of six additional pieces of information to get to know George better. 

What did they find?  In brief, the Germans found the person expressing both likes and dislikes to be more authentic than the person expressing only likes, whereas the opposite was true for the Chinese.  They also validated their prediction: that Germans reading about a person expressing only his likes (culture-incongruent) would seek more dispositional information (culture-congruent), whereas Chinese reading about a person expressing both likes and likes (culture-incongruent) would seek more contextual information (culture-congruent) to better understand this person.  The Chinese rated contextual information as more helpful to better understand a person expressing likes and dislikes than a person expressing only likes  

So in answer to the first of Naveen’s questions, the choice for a leader is not necessarily whether or not to self-disclose, but how much.  Authentic leadership, as one of its pioneers Bill George has stated, is about practicing your values and principles.  It’s also about being honest.  In their surveys of over 75,000 leaders globally, Kouzes and Posner have pointed out that honesty is one of the four characteristics of admired leaders selected by their respondents in over 50 countries: “We simply don’t trust people who can’t or won’t disclose a clear set of values, ethics and standards and live by them.”

I propose the following principles for leader self-disclosure.  The first principle is to inform honestly.  Whether you are talking about your accomplishments or your failures, embellishing them with exaggerations or half-truths will not work in the long term.  We have all read about leaders who have padded their resumes or told stories about their past that, with a bit of fact-checking, turned out to be distorted.  This does not mean that you cannot tell a good story about your past or frame your experience in a way that helps you send a clear message to your team.  Just don’t play fast and loose with your facts.

A second principle is to consider organizational and cultural norms in selecting what to disclose.  Pay attention to these norms and make sure you do not violate them for they can quickly undermine your effectiveness as a leader.  The research study cited above is simply one example of how different cultures react to what they perceive to be authentic behavior.   I know of several organizations with very formal cultures – where employees dress very conservatively, managers and executives are addressed with their last names, and where meetings are run following strict guidelines.  As a new leader coming into such an organization, you may think that behaving this way is not being authentic, but behaving counter-culturally, at least initially, will not make you an effective leader.

A third principle is to consider your audience and, specifically, the relationship you have with your team and colleagues.  Imagine calling a meeting with your new team, most of whom have been with the company for a while, and confessing to them your skepticism at the extent to which people who have been in their jobs for a long time can adapt to change.  This is what happened to Marty, an executive from outside the company who was brought from the outside to head a business unit that had seen its profits and market share shrink.  He had a hard time recovering from his misguided attempt at being authentic. 

These principles should address Naveen’s two questions above.  Fundamentally, authentic leadership starts with having a deep understanding of yourself and how people perceive you.  Bill George and others written about the importance of self-awareness, and the challenges of arriving at this self-knowledge.  However, knowing your reputation, what others think about you, is also important.  You may believe that you are being genuine, that you are acting as an authentic leader, but if others do not perceive you that way, then there is a gap that you will need to address, and not simply dismiss it by saying, “I don’t care what others think of me.”

George, B. et al. (2007).  Discovering your authentic leadership.  Harvard Business Review, February.

Goffee, and Jones, G.  (2000).  Why should anyone be led by you?  Harvard Business Review, September-October.

Ibarra, H.  (2015).  The authenticity paradox.  Harvard Business Review, 93, 52-59.

Kokkoris, M. and Khunen, U.  (2014).  “Express the real you”:  cultural differences in the perception of self-expression as authenticity.  Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(8), 1221-1228.

Kouzes, J. and Posner, B.  (2007).  The leadership challenge (4^th edition).  New York:  Wiley.

     

Rosh, L. and Offermann, L.  (2013).  Be yourself, but carefully.  Harvard Business Review, 91, 135-139.

Practicing Mindfulness as a Global Leader

A recent New York Times Sunday magazine article featured the work of Ellen Langer, Psychology professor at Harvard and one of the pioneers of the concept of mindfulness.  This term is almost a buzzword these days, and is used often by those who lean towards meditation and Zen philosophy.  For example, Chade-Meng Tan has developed a meditation course that he offers to Google employees (Mr. Tan himself works at Google) and has written a book about his approach called Search Inside Yourself.  According to the New York Times (April 28, 2012) more than 1,000 Google employees have taken his class, which is offered four times a year.  Each class has 60 people and runs seven weeks.

            Professor Langer’s approach is different, and in her book Mindfulness, she herself writes that “My work on mindfulness has been conducted almost entirely within the Western scientific perspective.”  In the Times magazine article, she states clearly that her approach is different from the popular mindfulness meditation techniques in vogue today.  According to the article:

“Her emphasis is on noticing moment-to-moment changes around you, from the differences in the face of your spouse across the breakfast table to the variability of your asthma symptoms.  When we are ‘actively making new distinctions rather than relying on habitual’ categorizations, we’re alive; and when we’re alive, we can improve.”

Nonetheless, Langer admits that there are some parallels between her approach and the more mystical approach advocated by Tan and others.  What makes Langer’s work so important is that it provides a way to counteract the powerful unconscious biases we have that Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel-prize-winning behavioral economist, recently summarized in his book, Thinking Fast and Slow. 

So what is mindfulness and why does it matter for a leader working across cultures?  In re-reading parts of Professor Langer’s book, these are four take-away’s on how global leaders can improve their mindfulness.  I’ve summarized her suggestions and re-phrased them in ways that can be applied to the work of global leaders.

            First, “re-categorize” as you are interacting with business colleagues from different cultures.  As Langer explains this, what I think she means is that when we are actively taking in new information about others, we should pay attention to the situation and the context.  For example, say that you are meeting a female Argentinian executive on your first visit to Buenos Aires for a possible joint venture.  You have taken some Spanish lessons although you may not be that comfortable in speaking Rioplatense Spanish, which is the kind of Spanish spoken in the part of Argentina where your host is from.  You have an initial expectation of her based on what you know about her company and about her status in the company.  When you meet her, you might notice some other characteristics that might cause you to “re-categorize” your impression of her.  She might, in fact, be speaking excellent English since she went to university in England, you learn.  More surprisingly, you learn that her parents are actually from Spain, and that she goes to Spain quite regularly to visit relatives.  So by being mindful of these different “categories,” you get to shift and adjust your impressions.

            In their book Blindspot, Banaji and Greenwald provide research that shows that we have a category-forming capacity that enables us to think about four to six “identifiers” at any one time (pp. 82-83).  For example, they show that by considering six person categories simultaneously – race, religion, age, nationality, gender, and occupation - we can quickly form a mental image or a description of a person, e.g., white Catholic Polish male factory worker in his sixties.    

            Second, be open to new information.  As Langer puts it, “Mindfully engaged individuals will actively attend to changed signals.  Behavior generated from mindful listening or watching, from an expanding, increasingly differentiated information base, is, of course, likely to be more effective.”

            In psychology, such individuals are said to be “high self-monitors.”  They are aware of cues in the environment, and will not only pay attention to these cues, but alter their behavior accordingly.  In one of my first presentations to a Japanese audience several years ago, I noticed that not even halfway into my talk, about 70% of the managers in the audience had their eyes closed.  What was going on, I wondered.  Was my presentation that boring and uninteresting?  Perhaps they did not have enough sleep last night?  On the fly, I adjusted my presentation and began to ask questions to make my presentation more interactive.  Only later did I find out that closing their eyes is common for Japanese audiences, who want to concentrate on what the speaker is saying, especially if he or she is speaking in English.

              In high context cultures, as well as in cultures where direct confrontation is avoided, it is especially important to “read between the lines.”  This means paying attention to the tone of what individuals are saying, and their body language.  As a global manager, you may be receiving nods from your team but that may not necessarily mean that they agree with you, or that they will follow through on what you have asked them to do. 

            Third, adopt a “multiple perspectives” attitude.  This means trying to understand the situation from others’ points of view.  As a manager going into a subsidiary from headquarters, for example, you might think of yourself as someone who is there to make sure that the local employees understand what is expected from them by “corporate.”  You might think that you should be welcome because you are coming from the mountaintop to “enlighten” the local population.  Well, consider the situation from their point of view.  They might see you first of all as a corporate “spy” who has been sent to check up on them.  They might also see you as an ivory tower, naive manager who has very little idea of what goes on in the country and who is trying to impose corporate-wide solutions that will not work locally.  As Langer suggests (p. 69):  “If we cling to our own point of view, we may be blind to our impact on others; if we are too vulnerable to other people’s definitions of our behavior, we may feel undermined, for observers are typically less flattering of us than we are of ourselves.”

            Nonetheless, this ability for perspective-taking is critical for global leaders.  There is evidence that this is one of the characteristics that distinguish effective negotiators from average or ineffective negotiators.

            Fourth, pay attention to process and not just outcomes.  As a global leader, especially if you are sent overseas, you will no doubt be focused on producing results and on achieving the goals set out for you.  Being mindful means understanding that different processes may lead to the same outcome.  Langer says (p. 34):  “Throughout our lives, an outcome orientation in social situations can induce mindlessness.  If we think we know how to handle a situation, we don’t feel a need to pay attention.” 

            An American expatriate I was speaking with recently mentioned to me that in his first trips to Asia, he was very concerned about getting things accomplished in the short time that he was visiting a few Asian countries that he became impatient with his hosts, who wanted to take him out to dinners and have him meet with various managers in the country.  He was especially annoyed during meetings, when it seemed so difficult to reach decisions and move forward on the actions that he wanted them to take.  Only later did he realize that by focusing so exclusively on “getting things done” in the most efficient way, he was ignoring, and in fact, violating, some processes very important in these cultures.

Banaji, M. and Greenwald, A.  (2014). Blindspot.  New York:  Delacorte Press.

Grierson, D.  (2014).  What If Age Is Nothing But a Mind-Set?  New York Times Sunday Magazine, October 22.

Kahneman, D.  (2011).  Thinking Fast and Slow.  New York:  Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kelly, C.  (2012).  O.K., Google, Take a Deep Breath.  New York Times, April 28.

Langer, E.  (1989).  Mindfulness.  Cambridge, MA:  De Capo Books Press.

Tan, C.  (2014).  Search Inside Yourself.  New York:  HarperOne.

Boss, Manager or Leader?

After reading two excellent books with the word “boss” in their titles (Robert Sutton’s “Good Boss, Bad Boss,” and Linda Hill and Kent Lineback’s “Being the Boss”), I became intrigued with the connotations of this term, and how a boss differs from being a manager and a leader.

Sutton, Hill and Lineback don’t really make a big deal over these distinctions; it seems that for them, the three terms are synonymous.  I’ve observed that we use the term “boss” more frequently and more informally, both in the context of work and outside of work.  My children used to wonder who the real boss in the family was, and some of my male friends would sometimes defer making decisions by letting others know about their spouse that “she’s the boss.”  In my experience working internationally, I find that the word “boss” is commonly understood and used in many countries.  Sometimes the English word “boss” is used; at other times, its local equivalent is.  In Japan, for example, where titles are important, there are many different gradations for the title of boss, for example, honbucho, fuku-honbucho, bucho, jicho, kacho.

Most good managers at work will avoid throwing the weight of their authority around by telling their employees to do something because “I’m the boss.”  Many employees, however, will comply with their manager’s request (although they may not say it out loud) because “he (or she) is the boss.”  In fact, the dictionary definition of a boss is “a person who exercises control or authority.”

You won’t find many organizations where the word “boss” is in a job title, but you will find that a great majority of organizations uses the terms “manager” or “leader” in their job titles.  While managers tend to avoid referring to themselves as the boss, they are not reluctant to describe their job as managing or leading a group, department, or business unit.

In my opinion, Kotter’s article on managers versus leaders did no favors for managers.  When he wrote that article in 1990, he claimed that “most U.S. organizations today are over-managed and underled.”  Although he stated in the article that both managers and leaders are needed, the implication is that in a world of constant change and complexity, it is more important to be a leader than a manager.  As Sutton has pointed out, however, the distinction may be accurate but dangerous.  Why so?  Let me illustrate (with details disguised).

A number of years ago, I was coaching a marketing executive who I shall call Julia.  She had just been promoted and assigned to another country from her native Australia, where she had been the marketing head for one of her company’s product lines.  In this country, she was going to be the Chief Marketing Officer for the subsidiary.  The subsidiary had also just hired a new CEO, Ron, a native of the country who had been educated in the U.S. and Europe, and had actually come from a competitor’s European operations.  Ron was charismatic and energetic, and he went about exciting the subsidiary with his grand vision and plans for turning the subsidiary around. 

Julia was excited too.  She had met Ron soon after she arrived in the country’s capital, and was impressed by his passion and zeal.  However, she did have a bit of a concern about him.  Looking at his background and experience, Ron had an MBA and had been in sales for most of his career.  Now he was being asked to run a subsidiary that had a strong R&D function but had grown somewhat “bloated” over the years.  The subsidiary had not been turning out enough innovative products, and was not profitable enough, according to internal company and external industry benchmarks.  Did Ron know enough about the technical aspects of the business and about its operations to manage the entire subsidiary enterprise?

A few months after Julia arrived, the subsidiary began its profit planning for the following year, and she spent a couple of weeks with her team, individually and as a group, to get a detailed understanding of expenses and sources of revenue.  She grilled them on each line item, and made sure she understood exactly where the money was going, and how it was being spent.  She remembered her old boss in Australia, who would spend several hours with her on her budget every year that she learned to come in thoroughly prepared to respond to questions he might have about any line item on the budget. 

With this experience, Julia prepared for her first meeting with Ron.  She had sent him her profit planning figures a few days before, and came into the meeting with back-up notes and documents, ready to answer any question he might throw at her.  To her surprise, he did not have any questions.  He had not even bothered to open the e-mail she had sent him with the profit plan figures she had attached.  He glanced at the numbers she showed him, nodded, and then told her he would get back to her if his CFO had any comments or requests for more information.  He then started to talk to her about his vision for what Marketing could do to help launch some new products the following year. 

Julia was a bit stunned, but she went along and brainstormed some new ideas with her boss.  Ron lasted a couple of years with the subsidiary before he left.  While he injected a breath of fresh air into the subsidiary, his lack of attention to detail and the operational aspects of running a business did not help.  He was a leader, not a manager.

In my experience, the best bosses today both lead and manage.  They are able to wear both hats, and know when to “zoom in” and when to “zoom out.”  Take Alan Mulally, who was until recently CEO of Ford Motor Company, and who engineered a very successful turnaround of the company.  He set a clear direction, aligned his team and Ford employees towards a common purpose, and inspired people.  Yet, from all reports, he also was very conscious of Ford’s challenges in returning to profitability, and spent considerable amounts of time managing the bottom line and diving deep into the operational aspects of the business.

My advice for today’s bosses?  First, you can’t be a good leader without also being a good manager.  Get to know your functional area, and what your team is doing.  Ask questions and get into the details.  Second, as a leader, one of your first orders of business is to create a compelling purpose and direction for your team.  Don’t do it in a vacuum, or on a mountaintop where you come down to make your pronouncements.  Involve your team, find out what might excite them, and connect your team’s purpose with the larger goal of the company.  Third, as a boss, use your authority to set a direction; recognize and reward those who perform and who show the right values; and take action on those who don’t.

Then there is the leader as coach.  That’s a subject for another post!

Hill, L. and Lineback, K.  (2011).  Being the Boss. Boston:  Harvard Business Review Press.

Kotter, J.  (1990).  What Leaders Really Do.  Harvard Business Review.

Sutton, R.  (2010).  Good Boss, Bad Boss.  New York:  Business Plus.

Are Global Managers Portable?

I met Jacques Renard in Shanghai a few years ago, where he was CFO of the subsidiary of a global consumer products company.  A French national, Jacques has had a long career as an expatriate for his company; the last time he worked in his native France was fifteen years ago.  He has been assigned to Austria, Warsaw, Caracas, Jakarta, and now Shanghai.  His wife and their two children are used to moving with Jacques every few years.  Jacques is part of a small but enduring breed of managers who spend their careers working outside their home country. 

As I have written elsewhere, cultural sensitivity and global mindset – in addition to having the right set of technical skills and integrity - are important for success as a global manager.  Recently, I came across a study that suggests that these may not be enough, although this was not a study of global leaders.  Let me explain.  Groysberg et al. examined 20 high-level executives who were leaving one company (GE) to join another company at an even higher level of responsibility (e.g., Chairman, CEO).  In their study, which covered the years 1989 to 2001, they found mixed results for what they called the portability of these executives; some were successful, others less so.  For example, Robert Nardelli went to Home Depot and failed there; James McMerney went to 3M and thrived.  Both were at some point considered to be potential successors to Jack Welch at GE.

Why GE?  For many years, especially during Jack Welch’s time, GE was well known as a breeding ground for leadership.  I know several executive recruiters who used to keep close tabs on up-and-coming GE managers because of the company’s reputation for identifying and developing leadership talent.

What Groysberg and his colleagues found was that portability depended on a match between the executives’ skills and the requirements of the new position in terms of four areas: strategy, industry, relationships and culture/systems/processes. For example, companies’ subsequent performance was better when those executives had strategic skills that were a good match with their new company’s strategic requirements.  If an executive’s strengths were in cost cutting but the new environment required skills in growing the business, the chances were that the executives’ new company would not perform as well.  In other words, the portability of an executive (at least in the limited sample they studied) was a function of the match between the executives’ strengths and the company’s situation in these four areas:  “The more closely the new environment matches the old, the greater the likelihood of success in the new position.”  Subsequent research by Araoz supports this idea that “origin and destination matter.” 

What about managers like Jacques?  Despite the moves from country to country, he and other global managers for the most part remain in the same company.  Will similar cautions apply to the portability of global managers who are assigned to different country subsidiaries?  Or does having cultural sensitivity and a global mindset trump any potential mismatches in portability?

Many years ago, the company I was working for acquired a small business in an African country that was founded by a very successful entrepreneur.  To help integrate this business with the company, we sent a British manager who I shall call Philip.  He had been with the company for over twenty years, had been assigned to several overseas subsidiaries during that time, was highly experienced in operations, and was very familiar with the company’s culture and processes.  Unfortunately, Philip did not do well in his assignment.  His constant clashes with the local founder and his attempts to run a command-and-control operation did not fit with the loose, free-wheeling culture of the local company.  Using the Groysberg framework, there were mismatches in all of the four areas:

·      Strategy.  This was a situation that called for an executive with skills in blending together an entrepreneurial company with a massive global enterprise; Philip had never faced this kind of challenge before.

·      Industry.  As an emerging market, this country’s regulatory environment was not sophisticated, consumers had little awareness of the brand that the global company represented, and the competition was mainly other local companies.  These were unfamiliar challenges for Philip, and very different from what he had faced in the past.

·      Relationships.  Philip flew in “solo;” he had met the founder briefly but had no friends or allies in the company whom he could trust.  As a result, he had blinders on and was not able to get feedback or advice that could have helped him adjust his behavior and style.

·      Company culture/systems/processes.  Philip was used to working in a bureaucratic environment where processes were defined and well established.  Nothing in his past experience prepared him for this situation.

While Groysberg’s framework certainly fits, a certain level of cultural sensitivity and global mindset on Phil’s part could have helped mitigate these risks.  For example, being willing to learn about other cultures and building connections (two critical elements of global mindset) would have helped him understand the local company’s industry and processes, as well as establish productive relationships.  Therefore, the first screen in selecting potential global managers is still their global mindset orientation.  Assuming that companies have vetted their global managers on global mindset, what if it is apparent that there will not be a good match?  A company has three alternatives:

1.     Find someone else in the company with a better match for the situation, while sending the manager to another country where there is a better match for him or her.  This presupposes that the company has a pool of such managers and the capability to match them to the most appropriate situations.  If not, at least find the closest matches.

2.     Fix the manager by providing her with some counseling and coaching.  A global manager who may not be familiar with the regulatory environment in the country she has been assigned to can prepare by learning from more experienced colleagues about what to watch out for, consulting with country experts, or doing a lot of homework. 

3.     Fix the situation to enhance a better match, for example, by sending the global manager to a subsidiary where he already has a network.  Angela was a global manager for a technology company who had led a global team whose members were primarily in India.  When there was an opening for a manager to be assigned to the company’s Indian subsidiary, she was the logical choice, and Angela was able to take advantage of the alliances that she had already built in the subsidiary to have a successful assignment there.

Araoz, C.  (2014).  It’s Not the How or the What But the Who.  Boston:  Harvard Business Review Press.

Grosberg, B., McLean, A. and Nohria, N.  (2006).  Are Leaders Portable?  Harvard Business Review.