Not My Problem

Patrick knew his brother was headed in the wrong direction. He could see it clearly because he’s been there before. But Max doesn’t seem to know the potential consequences of his actions.

Being the oldest of his siblings, Patrick has embraced the fact that they all look up to him. On a few occasions, they have come to him to ask questions. He has provided them with insight when they don’t want to go to their parents. After all, they’re all adults and in their twenties now. He’s only a few years older and can empathize with some of the things they go through - maybe a little more than their parents.

Patrick thought the manner in which Max spends his money leaves much to be desired.

As a software engineer, Max has a good, well-paying job and he’s doing really well in the organization. In fact, he gets a bonus almost every month, which is rare in most places.

But rather than maintaining a good budget and putting the bonuses towards investments and paying down his $125K in student loans debt, he’s more interested in the finer things in life - expensive dinners, shoes and clothes.

Max also has a new girlfriend. As the older sibling who is now married, Patrick thought his brother is going about the relationship all wrong. This was Max’s first real romantic relationship and Patrick felt he’s in over his head.

As worried as Patrick was for his brother’s future, he was hesitant to interfere. He’s torn between saying nothing in order to preserve their relationship and potentially jeopardizing it by providing a much-needed constructive feedback. He’s at loss with what to do. He deeply loves his brother and doesn’t want to hurt him by telling him what he may not want to hear.

He’s a grown man after all, Patrick thought. He can make his own decisions. Even if he thought his decision-making could be better, they are his to make. If he needed counsel, he knew that he could come to him at any time to ask.

Does this scenario sound familiar to you?

You know a much-needed feedback would be helpful to someone but you’re hesitant to deliver it to them simply because you don’t want to hurt their feelings. It’s difficult to be the bearer of news that could be perceived wrongly.

Yes, there may be some people who always delight in pointing out where someone is wrong. But for most of us, it takes an incredible amount of courage to speak up. Many people avoid it because they feel that doing so would hurt the person or bruise their ego.

It was King Solomon who said, "Open rebuke is better than hidden love." The sting of a critical feedback can be strong at the moment it’s given. But I think it hurts more when the consequences of what they’re doing wrong eventually catches up with them.

I know there are some of us who shy away from speaking up because doing so had blown up in our faces in the past. As a result, we’ve become overly cautious in speaking truth to power. You may have even taken the posture that it’s not your problem. Let them learn the tough lesson from experience.

But if they’re close enough to you, whatever it is may eventually be your problem.

I want you to imagine how you would feel when you later realize that you could have helped prevent their unwanted outcome with a timely feedback. Imagine the person you care about suffering as a result of preventable actions, only if you had spoken up.

So, what would you do when the situation arises? Will you be able to summon that courage when needed? Or will you shrivel under the weight of the responsibility?

That’s something for each of us to think about this week.

When Moral Fortitude is Lacking

I was in my home office a few days ago when a strange car pulled into my driveway. As I was wondering who it was and what they wanted, the car immediately pulled away and returned in the direction from which it came. It seemed the person was just using my driveway as a U-turn.

Quickly, I realized that I’ve done something similar a few times when I’d turned into the wrong street or passed a house I was going for the first time and needed to turn around. Then suddenly, it dawned on me that this behavior could be deadly.

It has been dangerous as recent experiences can testify.

On April 18 - just a couple of days before my experience - in upstate New York, 20-year-old Kaylin Gillis was shot and killed after the car in which she was riding accidentally pulled into the wrong driveway. The group of friends in the car were going to a party and did not even get out of the vehicle. Realizing they were at the wrong address, the group started to back out of the driveway when the resident fired two shots from his porch, striking Gillis in the neck.

Five days before that in Kansas City, Missouri, Ralph Yarl, a 16-year-old teenager, was shot twice by a man after ringing the man’s doorbell. Yarl had mistakenly rang the doorbell to 84-year-old Andrew Lester’s home believing it was where his two younger brothers were visiting a friend. He was there to pick them up. Instead, he was shot twice without being given the chance to explain why he was there. Luckily, he survived.

That week from hell wasn’t done as another man in Texas shot and injured two cheerleaders, Payton Washington and Heather Roth, after one of them almost got into his parked car by mistake. This happened just a couple of days after Gillis was killed.

During the previous day, a six-year-old girl and her parents were shot by a neighbor after a basketball that the child was playing with rolled into the attacker’s yard. Witnesses said the man ran out of his home upset about the ball’s intrusion into his yard and started firing a gun at the little girl who was trying to retrieve her ball.

As I looked back at each of these incidents, I couldn’t help but imagine what was going on in the heads of each of these shooters. None of the people they shot posed any immediate risk or danger to them. When did we become a nation of shoot first and ask questions later?

I usually try to steer clear of topics that could be seen as political in this newsletter. But then, it seems that virtually everything is political these days, especially in the United States. So, I’m diving headlong into this even though I realize that my head could get chopped off in the process. To be clear, I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but I’m sure that won’t dissuade someone who is bent on seeing this as a political issue.

I can’t help but wonder what it would take for our lawmakers to pass a gun safety reform. Almost every single day, this issue of gun safety is thrust to the fore because of incidences such as these, where people with guns discharge their firearms in situations that are not necessary.

With a new incident, there’s usually an immediate outcry but it’s soon forgotten until the next incident or mass shooting. Meanwhile, innocent people are either dying or being maimed almost daily.

When it’s easy for anyone to get a gun, including people who are neither mentally stable nor emotionally mature, we’ve got a real problem. Unfortunately, those with the power to do something about this, lack the moral fortitude to take action because of fear.

I read in an article last week that Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership, yet the country has not had a mass shooting in more than 20 years. In the United States, unnecessary shooting is almost a daily occurrence.

The Swiss have very strict rules about who can own a gun and what type of training is needed to possess one. They have laws designed to prevent anyone who’s incompetent or has violent tendencies from owning a gun.

In the United States, we’re supposed to have one of the world’s best and brightest minds but it seems our stupidity, ignorance, and impotency know no bounds, especially in this area. We’re not willing to do the right thing for the fear of a few interest groups. We major in minor issues and gloss over serious situations that are taking the lives of innocent people.

We're in self-destruct mode and we don’t seem to realize it. I can only hope that our leaders wise up soon and do the right thing.

I just wonder what it will take for that to happen.

Knowing When Time's Up

Less than two weeks ago, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern suddenly announced her resignation. When I first heard it, my mind immediately thought of what she must have done to warrant her stepping down.

But I was wrong.

In an era when leaders around the world hold on, and try to consolidate their powers even in the face of scandals, Ardern isn't leaving because she did anything wrong. She's leaving because according to her, she thinks she's no longer able to shoulder the responsibility of leading the country.

Her actual words were:

"𝑰'𝒎 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒅. 𝑰 𝒂𝒎 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒂 𝒑𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒈𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒔 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 - 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐, 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒏𝒐𝒕. 𝑰 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒋𝒐𝒃 𝒕𝒂𝒌𝒆𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑰 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑰 𝒏𝒐 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒆𝒏𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒐 𝒊𝒕 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒆. 𝑰𝒕'𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆."

I think she deserves some kind of global award to recognize this decision. There's no Nobel prize in Leadership, but I believe Ms. Ardern deserves one. What she did is a rare attribute of great leaders. This is what true leadership is all about.

The greatest passion of a true leader is to serve and bring about positive change for the benefit of those being led. That includes the ability to recognize when you're no longer able to deliver and also having the courage to step aside.

Such courage, honesty, and humility are rarely seen in people at the highest levels of government. Consider that she's also the youngest ever head of government - she was only 37 years old when she was elected as Prime Minister. This is proof that great leadership has nothing to do with age.

I hope some of the (older, and supposedly wiser) sexagenarian and septuagenarian heads of state can learn a thing or two from this great leader. Rather than weakly holding on to power irresponsibly as some have done (or tried to do), she demonstrates that it's a show of strength to relinquish it willingly.

Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe held onto power for 37 years before being forced out of the presidency. He was 93 years old at the time and refused calls from his own party to step down until the decision was made for him. For someone like that, being president had nothing to do with serving people. It's about consolidating power.

While this tendency to hold onto power is common in politics and government, it's not completely absent in business.

I once had a boss who tried all he could to suppress and keep down those of us working on his team so that none of us would be able to take over his position. He was so short-sighted in his thinking that he had reached the apex of his career in the company and wanted to stay there for as long as he could. His tactic worked for a while and he lost quite a few good team members in the process.

Great leaders know what it takes to lead their teams. A good portion of that is knowing when they're no longer the right person to lead the team.

Will you know when you're not the right leader your team needs?

Will I?

Persistent Feedback

Scott was part of a small team of six in a large organization with multiple locations around the globe. His job required a lot of collaboration with other members of the team. But no one on the team was thrilled with the prospect of engaging Scott.

The main reason for this was not far-fetched.

He was always abrupt in his dealings with other members of the team. The way he said things, his facial expressions, and his overall abrasive approach seemed to rub everyone the wrong way. But he didn't care. As far as he was concerned, he was just being himself.

The team leader, Wayne was aware of the impact of Scott's behavior on the team's performance and had tried to address it. Within the past several months, he had told Scott twice that he needed to improve his social skills as he interacted with others on the team. It took some convincing, but Scott eventually agreed to the assessment and promised to improve.

But then, nothing changed. Almost a year later, Wayne could no longer tolerate the situation and decided to show Scott the door.

Scott couldn't believe it!

After the two times that Wayne had told him to clean up his behavior, he had tried to turn a new leaf. In fact, he actually thought he was getting better. Now, this?!

On leaving Wayne's office after being fired, Scott immediately called his attorney. He's going to sue the company for wrongful termination!

What's your assessment of this situation? Who do you think dropped the ball here? Most of us would most likely say that Scott was responsible for his ultimate fate.

But I would argue that Wayne was more culpable.

Yes, it was clear that Scott had issues that needed to be addressed. And yes, he agreed to do better on the two occasions Wayne had discussed the situation with him. So, why do I say that Wayne has more blame in this situation?

I say that because the two instances he brought up the situation with Scott over a six-month period were not enough. Wayne would be the first to tell you that he's not a "confronter." He tries to avoid uncomfortable discussions with his team members. And those two discussions he had with Scott were very uncomfortable for him.

Most organizations have many leaders like Wayne. They steer clear of tough conversations. Even when they summon the courage to engage in such a dialogue, these are very few and far between. In doing so, they miss a vital part of their team members' developmental process: a constant, regular, and persistent reminder to the employee if they are not doing what is needed.

Yes, I know what you're thinking. This can be excruciating!

I doubt if any leader enjoys the thought of reminding a team member for the tenth week in a row that they're still not doing enough of what they had agreed to. It seems like nagging. For many leaders, it's awkward and unpleasant. Yet, this is what is needed for behaviors to change.

Human behaviors do not change overnight, especially ones that had become well-honed habits. Even someone who has realized that they need change with a particular behavior may not have the willpower to effect the change on their own. A lot of support is usually needed, especially during the first few weeks as the new behavior tries to take root.

Scott did not get that level of support. He neither received constant reminders when his old behaviors reared their ugly heads nor encouragements when the new ones were displayed. Had he received constant, weekly reminders, he would not have been surprised when Wayne told him he was being let go.

In his book, The Ideal Team Player, Patrick Lencioni said that "when a manager steps up to this challenge, week after week after painful week, one of two things will always happen."

1. The employee will achieve a breakthrough once they decide that they don't want to keep hearing those reminders. With this, they're able to embrace the new behaviors long enough to turn them into habits.

2. They could decide the new behaviors are not for them and decide to leave the team.

Lencioni also noted a third possible outcome: the employee decides to tolerate the constant barrage of reminders and neither changes nor leaves. This can ultimately lead to the employee being fired.

As a leader, you must do your best to ensure that you give your people all the opportunity to change behaviors that have been identified and discussed with them as having negative effects on the team. Failure to do this is tantamount to a dereliction of duty.

One way to avoid this is by giving those constant and regular reminders and reinforcements so the team member knows where they stand. This can be done in a kind, compassionate, but firm approach that should leave no doubt as to what the expectations are.

The key is to remind privately and encourage publicly.

Unlike what many of us may think, reminding someone of an area they can get better is an act of kindness and compassion. We just need the courage and strength of character to follow through.

After all, open rebuke is better than secret love.

Be Bold

Allow me to take you back to when you were in school. It could be high school or college. You choose.

Imagine you were in one of your classes. The teacher or professor has spent the last hour teaching a complex subject. He's now done, and he asked if anyone had questions.

The truth is that you did not understand one thing from what had been taught during the last hour. So, you figured there would be others in the class who did not understand also. Surely one of them would ask a question, you thought.

But no one was biting.

You looked around the room. "Is it possible that everyone understood what was taught?" you wondered. "That seems to be the case if no one is asking a question!" It must just be you then.

If no one is asking a question, they must have understood everything. Better not to show your ignorance by asking a question to which everybody else know the answer, right?

So, you kept quiet.

Has this happened to you before? Or is it just me?

But there's else something you didn't realize in that class.

Nobody understood the material. Every other student in the class was thinking the same thing you were thinking. No one understood what was taught, but no one wants to exhibit their ignorance. Everyone remained quietly uninformed.

Social scientists call this Pluralistic Ignorance. It happens when a group of people go along with an idea because they erroneously assume that the idea is accepted or understood by everyone.

And it happens more frequently than you would think.

Far beyond school settings, pluralistic ignorance is rampant in many strata of our society. It leads corporations to continue with failing strategies. It leads government to continue with unpopular policies, foreign or domestic. It's rampant because most people are not bold enough to speak up.

No one wants to bell the cat and speak up when they perceive that something is wrong. They sit in silent agreement because they think everyone approves of what was happening.

Here's what happens you don't speak up:

• Terrible ideas can move ahead uncontested

• Great new ideas could go unheard

• Average ideas will be untested

• Contrary but game-changing views will go unheard

Organizations lose, and government policies fail when you and I don't have the courage to speak up. We don't speak up because we're either lacking or low in the emotional intelligence skill of Assertiveness.

With strong levels of Assertiveness, you have the boldness to speak up and communicate your beliefs and ideas openly. Rather than cower in fear, you defend your thoughts, values and personal rights. But you do all these in ways that are socially-acceptable, non-threatening and non-destructive. These are what separate assertiveness from aggression.

Some people shy away from being assertive because they confuse it with being aggressive. How can you tell the difference? Being assertive requires you to be both bold and kind at the same time.

Ask yourself, "Is what I'm about to communicate going to come across in a way that's non-threatening to the other side?"

"Am I about to defend my ideas in a manner that is non-destructive to my relationship with this person?"

If you can't answer "yes" to these questions, bite your lip, calm your emotions and rehearse in your head how you can turn these questions to "yes".

Do this before you proceed. But you do need to proceed.