When something goes wrong, people tend to look for others to blame before they blame themselves. That makes sense, as most human beings do not wish to be the cause of problems. Sure, some may admit to their share of mistakes on smaller issues such as typos, missing appointments, and maybe even a missed deadline. But the bigger more systemic issues like lack of productivity, loss of revenue, or even negative company culture? That's probably a harder pill to swallow.
But as leaders, it is prudent that we admit our "part of the mess" in any challenge or problem. In other words, what are you contributing to the cause of the problem? It's always easy to point fingers at others first and run with the interpretation that group "X" is responsible, but an objective look at a problem or challenge tends to show that there are multiple groups (including the one you are in) that are causing the problem to exist.
Let's illustrate this with an example.
As a leader, you see that your team is constantly getting frustrated with another department in emails and phone calls. The frustration stems from both sides blaming each other for slowing down the workflow process. This has been going on for almost 2 years now. The back-and-forth between your team and the other department has started to get the attention of other departments and upper management, and you want to get to a resolution before it becomes a more entrenched systemic issue.
In your position as a leader, it would be easy to take your team's side and blame the other department for the delays; but how likely is that approach going to solve the problem? You risk creating a further divide between your team and that other department. Conversely, you may not take your team at all, and tell them to abide by the other department's workflow process. This runs the risk of your employees mistrusting you, leading to a drop in productivity - never mind the fact that it may not stop the workflow challenges and growing animosity between your team and the other department.
Clearly, there is no quick fix here; and any "technical fix" via using authority will only put a bandage on a much larger problem that deals with human emotions. In other words, no amount of authority can change how someone feels about another person. This is a problem that requires real leadership - the ability to mobilize others to make progress on complex challenges.
So what do you do? Start with yourself; how are you a part of "the mess"? What is your contribution to the problem at hand? What is going to be an interpretation of this problem that might be tough on yourself?
Let's get back to the example to find out more:
You start to look at the situation more objectively and ponder; how might you be contributing to this problem? After some analysis, you realize that your lack of action in the past has contributed to the dynamic of the relationship between your team and the other department. You also recognize that past interactions with the other department's manager have created similar frustration and dissatisfaction between each other.
The result? Your part of the mess is how you have set the tone for interacting with the other department. Your past interactions and tolerance of your team's interactions with the other department has become systemic within the organization.
The intention behind this example is to show that self-reflection on "your part of the mess" may lead to a larger, more systemic view of a problem. Notice the initial problem was interactions between your team and the other department, but has now expanded to include people not involved in the interactions (notably you). Clearly, this problem involves leadership, and not just on your end. Think about it; if your role as a complacent manager with past history contributes to the problem, then logically the management for the other department has their share of "the mess" as well. Even the organization as a whole has tolerated the discourse for almost two years, so what might other key players be involved; Examples might be upper management and other managers of lateral departments.
So what is the solution to this problem?
Let's see the ending of the example:
Having identified your part of "the mess", you start to identify the other key players (or stakeholders) that both contribute to the problem and have the ability to solve it. You identify the other department's manager (with whom you have a history with), and your direct superior in upper management. You reach out to both parties and state the elephant in the room clearly - both your team and the other department are not getting along. You have offered a solution to the problem
You wish to have a round-table discussion between the director of the other department and yourself and have your boss moderate it. You state the goal for the discussion is to identify the points of contention between both groups and come up with solutions that both sides can agree on. Some of that work will be technical (i.e. the workflow processes being adjusted and streamlined for both parties), and the rest will be more leadership-oriented action (i.e messaging to employees, cooling tensions, and changing mindsets and emotions around each other).
All sides agreed to the meeting and walked away from said meeting with a new sense of camaraderie and cooperation between the leaders. Both the department director and you know the technical work can be resolved quickly, but the leadership work will take more time to see progress.
Conclusion:
Looking at problems or challenges requires leaders to be strong enough to admit what they may have contributed to them. This does not mean they are the only part of the problem. Rather, it means they can start to shift focus from "it's their fault" to "let's find out who is involved, and come up with a solution; I'll start with myself..."
Комментарии