Leader's Digest #30 (August 2019) by Leadership Institute

LEADERS ISSUE 30

AUGUST 2019

y t i l i b a t n u o c Ac

DIGEST

LEADERS

DIGEST

PUBLICATION TEAM EDITORIAL

Editor-in-Chief Ismail Said Assistant Editor Yvonne Lee Graphic Designer Awang Ismail bin Awang Hambali Abdul Rani Haji Adenan

* Read our online version to access the hyperlinks to other reference articles made by the author.

CONTENTS

ISSUE 30 I AUGUST 2019

ACCOUNTABILITY IN A CULTURE OF EMPOWERMENT

MILLENNIALS DON’T WANT FUN; THEY WANT YOU TO LEAD BETTER

THE PEER PRINCIPLE

HOW BRAIN SCIENCE CAN HELP LEADERS PROCRASTINATE LESS

UNDERSTANDING THE TRAITS THAT CULTIVATE BAD LEADERS

WORTHY OF TRUST?

THE MOST OVERLOOKED EXECUTION BLIND SPOT

THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF MICROMANAGEMENT

WHY ARE CONSCIENTIOUS PEOPLE MORE SUCCESSFUL?

5 WAYS TO DISCREDIT YOURSELF AS A LEADER

THE OTHER DUTY OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

FEEDBACK OR FEEL BAD?

Read this issue and past issues online at bit.ly/LEADSCS Scan the QR code below for quicker access:

Content Partners:

Leader’s Digest is a monthly publication by the Leadership Institute of Sarawak Civil Service, dedicated to advancing civil service leadership and to inspire our Sarawak Civil Service (SCS) leaders with contemporary leadership principles. It features a range of content contributed by our strategic partners and panel of advisors from renowned global institutions as well as established corporations that we are affiliated with. Occasionally, we have guest contributions from our pool of subject matter experts as well as from our own employees. The views expressed in the articles published are not necessarily those of Leadership Institute of Sarawak Civil Service Sdn. Bhd. (292980-T). No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the publisher’s permission in writing.

Issue 30 I August 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

“

Leadership is a way of thinking, a way of acting and, most importantly, a way of communicating.

“

- Simon Sinek

Issue 30 I August 2019 3

LEADERS

DIGEST

ACCOUNTABILITY IN A CULTURE OF

EMPOWERMENT BY CHONG SOOK LENG

Employees desire freedom to exercise their intellect, explore options and contribute ideas. They seek flexibility and space in the process of accomplishing their work. As we move towards an economy of managing a workforce of knowledge workers, employees want autonomy and control to carry out their job regardless of their age, rank or experience. Typically, employees are asking for empowerment, which is about delegating power and authority to another person, usually someone whom you can trust.

Recently, during one of my regular coffee sessions with an old friend, who is a CEO of a public listed company, he shared with me that he trusts his senior directors because they have been with the company for more than 10 years, and he knows that they have the best interests of the company at heart. As a result, he gives them a free hand to manage their respective functions. When I asked if he was pleased with the results they were achieving, he mentioned that there were mixed feelings involving both contentment and disappointment.

The need for trust?

Trust in a person is built over a period of time and through proven track record that demonstrates that an individual is someone you can count on to consistently achieve expected results.

Although business remains profitable, it isn’t growing as fast as its peers and there were several missed opportunities which relegated the company from being a leader in the industry to lagging behind its newer competitors.

This recurring trend proves a person’s credibility and accountability to deliver the required service quality and goals.

How many leaders have you known who started out with the best of intentions in delegation and empowerment, only to experience less than desired outcomes?

Their reputation makes this person a candidate worthy of more power and authority to make bigger impact decisions. But is trust a sufficient yardstick to qualify a person as worthy of being empowered?

Because each of us is motivated by different factors, the amount of space to be given to the empowered individual is subjective. The degree of “letting go” is a delicate balance for the leader giving away such power and authority.

Let us consider what empowerment is not. Empowerment is not about entrusting power to someone and adopting a hands-off approach from thereon.

Issue 30 I August 2019

Some of us require total control of our work with little or no supervision. There are others who prefer some form of managerial presence whom they can refer to for surety.

LEADERS

DIGEST

In the case of my niece, Sally, who just graduated with a communications degree and joined a new start-up of about 20 employees in the business of social media marketing, the laissez faire environment was unsettling. Whenever she referred to her seniors for guidance, they would advise her to be more assertive and proactive in carrying out her work.

3. Set aside time for mentoring and coaching

Since it was Sallyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first job, she needed more supervision to give her the direction and confidence that she was on track as she developed her ideas on the project.

Feedback is important to help further expand on strengths and close developmental gaps. At the same time, these sessions are opportunities to further deepen engagement between the employee and the manager. Coming back to the CEO, he had assumed that because he had built a relationship with his directors over many years and given their age, rank and experience, they should be able to understand and think like him.

Keeping the right distance

How then does one avoid getting too close for comfort to the point of micromanaging versus being too distant and lose sight of the sinking ship? For empowerment to be successfully practised, both the giver and the taker need to hold each other accountable to ensure they each succeed in their roles. In making each other accountable, a simple mechanism should be agreed by both parties. The process is no different from any project management exercise of setting goals, tracking milestones and disciplined execution.

Here are some easy steps to build a structure of accountability: 1. Set clear goals

In most organisations, a formal or informal performance management system is already in place. Setting clear goals and desired results are excellent ways to manage expectations of the empowered and avoid micromanaging by the business leader. Goal setting also allows both parties to be aligned and on the same page.

2. Set up a monitoring system

Agree on milestones to be achieved, and identify critical paths and approval processes. Establish regular checkins and both sides must be comfortable of the frequency.

During the check-in process, seek opportunities for mentoring and coaching. Adequate support and guidance are essential as the person learns to make judgment calls, select choices, evaluate risks, consider different perspectives and build stakeholder engagement.

In his mind, they would make the same decisions and act in the same manner as the CEO would. However, although the senior directors care for the company, it does not mean that their goals are same as the CEOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. What if the CEO agreed with his directors on tangible milestones to be achieved and held them accountable to them? Imagine if he scheduled periodic meetings for directors to report on progress and guided them to resolve deviations and issues. And suppose he uses those meeting sessions to share his wisdom and experience while providing mentorship and feedback coaching to his directs. Then perhaps the outcome achieved could be different from their current circumstance. Empowerment and accountability are heavily dependable on each other to succeed. One should not be given power if they are not ready to be responsible for results and impact of their decisions. On the other hand, we cannot hold someone accountable if the person is not given the authority to influence the required outcome.

The giver needs to ensure sufficient oversight and guidance is provided. The taker has to be responsible to deliver the expected goals. Track progress and recalibrate when necessary. Chong Sook Leng Chong Sook Leng is the head of human resource at Tokio Marine Insurans (M) Bhd.

Issue 30 I August 2019 5

LEADERS

DIGEST

THE PEER PRINCIPLE

Accountability is the ultimate driver of performance BY JOSEPH GRENNY

Few of us will ever replace a commercial gas metre. But in case you ever do, here’s some advice: during the brief interval when your gas pipe is not connected to either the old or new metre, be sure to vent the highly combustible leakage outside. We learnt this from Ramon, whose face and arms were covered with thick waxy scarring. The day Ramon changed the fateful metre, he was behind schedule. He knew he should vent the gas. The three co-workers who accompanied him also knew he should vent the gas. But he didn’t. And his co-workers didn’t make him. Unbeknownst to Ramon, the water heater in the room sported a pilot light. When the gas filled the room, the pilot light caused a fire to erupt around Ramon. His colleagues rushed to open the door but not before Ramon was badly injured.

Safety doesn’t travel alone

My colleagues and I met Ramon because we were wrapping up an international study on workplace safety. We wondered what practices separated the best at safety from the merely good. We identified 30 organisations with strong safety records – a few of whom were the best of the best. As we searched for the sources of influence that accounted for differences in safety, we found that on the surface, the best and the rest looked quite similar. All were “Johnny-on-the-spot” at keeping up with signage, inspections, compliance training, and enforcing safety policies. But we kept hearing unusual language in our interviews with the true standouts. It wasn’t until we

Issue 30 I August 2019

interviewed and surveyed 1,600 safety directors, managers, and employees that we realised we weren’t really getting it. We were so focused on finding the key ingredient to building a perfect safety record that we missed the big picture our interviewees were trying to paint for us. That is, until one safety director used a bull horn. Mike Wildfong, the global director facilities risk management at TI Automotive, put it bluntly, “You’re missing the point.

“We lead in safety because we lead in accountability – not only as it relates to safety but as it relates to everything else we do.” His thesis intrigued us. Could it be that the secret sauce in flawless safety records was not just being accountable to safety policies and practices, but holding people accountable for any project, responsibility or expectation? And if so, could you prove this? Curious, we dug deeper. We divided 420 supervisors and managers from our original 30 companies into two groups. The first group had fabulous and sustained departmental safety records. The second group’s safety records were middle-of-the-road. After comparing the two group’s general safety compliance levels, we then looked at whether or not differences in safety mirrored differences in other areas of performance. Not only were there differences – but the differences were

LEADERS

DIGEST

profound. Those supervisors and managers with the strongest safety records were five times more likely to be ranked in the top 20 per cent of their peers in every other area of performance. They were five hundred per cent more likely to be stars in productivity AND efficiency AND employee satisfaction AND quality, etc. Just as Wildfong had suggested, the companies that were best at holding people accountable for safety were best at holding people accountable for everything. Since accountability appeared to be the key not just to safety, but to the full trove of corporate performance treasures, we then explored what made accountability tick in the leading teams and companies.

The peer principle

The answer came back to Ramon. Remarkably, cultures of accountability had little to do with bosses. Rather, it was all about peers. The problem that contributed to Ramon’s painful scarring was not just that Ramon violated a safety policy. It was that three others were aware he was violating the policy and said nothing. Our safety research showed this pattern doesn’t just explain what happened to Ramon, it explains what undermines safety in general. And similarly, it doesn’t just explain what happens with safety, it explains what happens with performance in general. Peer accountability turned out to be the predictor of performance at every level and on every dimension of achievement. The differences between good companies and the best weren’t that apparent when it came to bosses holding direct reports accountable. The difference become stark, however, when you examined how likely it is that a peer will deal with a concern. Our data further confirms that this peer principle is the holy grail of performance influence. In the area of safety, our study found that 93% of employees say they see urgent risks to life and limb and yet less than one-fourth of those who see concerns speak up about them. Rather, they wait for bosses or others to take action. The problem is not that we have problems. The problem is that leaders don’t ensure employees are motivated and are able to speak up about these problems. When concerns about

performance, quality, and safety fester until a boss notices them, an enormous amount of time and money are wasted. On the safety front, unaddressed concerns lead to injuries. When these same issues arise in organisations like Mike Wildfong’s – they are addressed immediately and directly – usually at the peer level and long before they cause major crises. This rapid horizontal accountability drives quality, safety, productivity, costs, and efficiency.

There’s something about our peers

It shouldn’t have taken me so long to recognise the peer principle in our safety study. I had seen it years earlier as an incredible competitive advantage when, while meeting with a team in the financial services sector, it was sometimes hard to distinguish bosses in the room because peers were just as likely to deal with accountability concerns as the head honcho. The bottom line is this: much of our effort to improve performance in organisations is misplaced. We obsess over “performance management.”

“We try to get the right forms, the right processes, the right conversations at the right frequency – all in the name of getting bosses to hold direct reports accountable. We think vertical accountability is king.” Our research suggests this focus is right on target if your goal is mediocrity. When bosses consistently hold employees accountable, you get “good” performance. But if your goal is stellar performance, peer accountability is the ultimate source of influence.

Joseph Grenny Joseph is a four-time New York Times bestselling author, keynote speaker, and social scientist for business performance. His passion and expertise is human behaviour and its impact on business performance and relationships. His work has been translated into 28 languages and has generated results for 300 of the Fortune 500. Joseph has been a contributing columnist for BusinessWeek, Forbes, and Harvard Business Review. He has appeared on The Today Show, CNN, Bloomberg, and Fox Business News, and been cited in hundreds of national news publications including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and USA Today. Joseph is the co-founder of VitalSmarts, an organisation committed to teaching others how to effectively change human behaviour.

Issue 30 I August 2019 7

LEADERS

DIGEST

Understanding The Traits That Cultivate Bad Leaders BY DANIEL RUSSELL

Destructive leadership has become an important issue around the world for political, business, and nongovernmental organisations. However, most of the advice and case studies only focus on improving the skills of good leaders. In today’s climate, it’s just as important to understand how to prohibit destructive leadership from damaging your organisation. Likewise, most leadership articles focus on the person. However, context is also a vital consideration. Leadership is not a person – a leader is a person. Leadership involves followers and other external forces. Thus, it’s critical to take into account both a leader’s characteristics and the environment of that leader, to best identify ways to avoid destructive leadership. Types of destructive leaders There are three main types of destructive leaders: • Narcissistic • Machiavellian • Incompetent

Issue 30 I August 2019

1. Narcissistic leaders While it is easy to envision narcissistic leaders throughout history, they are not easy to spot in the moment. Furthermore, it’s important to remember that there is a spectrum of narcissistic leader types, from those who are simply confident, to the arrogant, to the dangerously self-centred. They are often characterised as charismatic, self-absorbed and sometimes even psychopathic. These leaders put their own self-interest above organisational goals and the common good. Narcissistic tendencies drive the corrupt leader to believe that he or she is a special person with a unique destiny to fulfil and is entitled to the special treatment and wealth that comes along with the abuse of power. Sepp Blatter, former president of FIFA, is an example of a corrupt leader who abused his power to enrich himself and his close allies. Reports suggest that corruption and bribery had been going on for years within FIFA. In extreme cases, narcissistic leaders may actually be psychopaths – that deadly mix of narcissism, shallow emotions, anti-social tendencies and a penchant for risk-taking. Hitler, organised crime bosses and violent workplace bullies are examples of psychopathic leaders.

2. Machiavellian leaders Machiavellianism is a potentially destructive leader type that is characterised by the saying “the ends justify the means”. The concept was born out of Niccolò Machiavelli’s 1532 treatise entitled ‘The Prince’ where he describes the need to engage in ruthless behaviour to maintain power for the overall benefit of society. Machiavellian leaders will mistreat groups seen as subversive or as potential threats to power, in order to maintain security or achieve some grand vision. Although Machiavellianism is often talked about as being almost the same as narcissism and psychopathy, in reality, it is quite distinct. Machiavellian leaders are motivated by their view of what’s best for the group while psychopaths are motivated purely by selfishness. Although the motives are different, Machiavellians can behave in ways that are just as destructive as corrupt leaders. Indeed, truly terrifying leaders are often a combination of both.

LEADERS

DIGEST

3. Incompetent leaders Incompetence is another type of destructive leader. Sadly, these leaders may have good intentions and be kindhearted, yet make terrible mistakes that destroy organisations and harm individuals.

leadership: perceived threat, cultural values, and organisational norms (see Figure 1).

These leaders may even be duped by trusted advisers into making bad decisions that benefit a few while doing great harm to many. We have all known leaders whom we liked and thought were “nice” but had been promoted beyond their level of competence. It is unfortunate to see these individuals struggle alone when everyone around them clearly sees the right decision to make. Identifying destructive leaders Organisations can avoid massive problems by identifying destructive leaders before they obtain power. The use of thorough leadership assessment to select leaders will reduce the chances of hiring or promoting a destructive leader. However, the usual types of leadership assessments are not designed to identify destructive leaders. Narcissistic and psychopathic leaders often charm recruiters and interviewers with their confidence and flattery. Likewise, Machiavellians will seem to have pure motives and passion to do good. Even incompetent leaders may be given the benefit of the doubt because they are friendly and likeable. However, trained psychologists with experience assessing destructive leaders can identify those with negative tendencies. Conducive environments While destructive leaders are very dangerous, there are situational factors that can reduce or exacerbate the scope of destruction. Recent research has found three environmental factors which are more conducive to the rise of destructive

Figure 1 Destructive leaders often take advantage of instability to create a perception of imminent threat. When people feel threatened, they are more willing to give away personal freedom and accept oppressive leadership. For example, former US president George W. Bush was able to use the instability and feelings of imminent threat to begin the American “War on Terror” as well as the second Gulf War in 2003. It is important to note that these threats do not need to be real, only perceived. Destructive leaders frequently play up biases to create fear and gain power. Additionally, destructive leaders are more likely to emerge in cultures that avoid uncertainty and confrontation, are collectivistic and have high power distance. Such cultures prefer strong leaders who bring people together and in part, absolve individuals from the responsibility of working out their conflicts directly. Furthermore, high power distance cultures tend to be more tolerant of large discrepancies in wealth, education, and power. Followers in these types of cultures are more susceptible to destructive leadership and likely to conform. Norms and systems at the organisational level have a strong influence on curtailing destructive leaders.

We know through research and experience that destructive leaders are drawn to positions with low supervision, frequent risk-taking, and high visibility (such as sales, investment trading, and senior leadership). Having independent governance with a series of checks and balances, is crucial to avoid damage by destructive leaders. Perhaps even more important is to instill a culture of accountability and ownership rather than dependence on “policies” or “systems” to force compliance. Centralised governance systems that rely on the top of the organisation, lead to over-dependence and weakening of critical thought and expression of opposing views. Systems with decentralised, autonomous units foster greater accountability and are more effective at blocking destructive acts. Concluding thoughts Clearly, destructive leadership has tremendous ability to negatively impact individuals, teams, companies, and nations. These leaders are frequently charismatic, manipulative and skilled at taking advantage of the culture and situations, to rise to power and exploit others. It is vitally important for organisations to be on guard against manipulation by destructive leaders. It is also important to build an organisational culture that fosters personal accountability and open debate, rather than relying solely on bureaucratic rules and procedures. Thus, even when destructive leaders do rise to power, their impact will be minimised.

Daniel Russell

Daniel Russell is a partner at the management psychology firm RHR International. He has been researching destructive leadership since 1991 and has published research articles and professional papers on leadership assessment and development, talent acquisition, and workforce analytics.

Issue 30 I August 2019 9

LEADERS

DIGEST

The Most

Overlooked

Execution Blind Spot BY RAJEEV PESHAWARIA

Issue 30 I August 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

Throughout my 25 years of coaching and consulting with top management teams, I have witnessed the same problem over and over again in companies and organizations around the world. It goes something like this: Senior management develops great strategic plans each year, which are beautifully cascaded down the organization until each function (and each individual) in the organization has clear goals and measures. Individual managers closely monitor the performance of their teams, give regular feedback, and even communicate regularly to make course corrections and adjustments as needed. Yet, despite everyone’s best intentions, the organization does not achieve its full potential. The big question is, why does this happen with such regularity, and how can you avoid it in your organization. Of course, there are many reasons why organizational performance can be sub-optimal, but I have noticed one that ends up being the culprit in organization after organization that we work with. In essence, the CEO or head of the organization fails to incorporate a very important step in the planning and goal cascade process – called Goal Mirroring. Let me explain. Typically, the senior management team meets to discuss and finalize an overall plan for the organization, which in the case of a company, ends up becoming the CEO’s goals or KPIs. Next, each division head develops his or her own goals. Once divisional goals are blessed by the CEO, the division heads share the plan with their direct reports and ask each of them to develop their own goals. This cascade process goes on until each person in the division has clear and measurable performance goals. Once the cascade is completed in all divisions and functions, each group gets busy working on their respective goals. Each division head regularly updates the CEO throughout the year on his or her area as per plan. All sounds logical isn’t it? Then why doesn’t the company achieve what it is supposed to? Here’s the problem – most divisions tend to work in isolation rather than collaboratively with each other. Everyone gets so busy in their own silo that they forget the inter-related and inter-dependent nature of divisional goals. As performance goes below par, the blame game starts and there’s conflict galore…

You’re probably shaking your head right now because you’ve seen this dance play out at least a few times already. So how can it be fixed? Simple: Before division heads cascade their goals to the rest of their staff, the CEO should host a goal alignment meeting wherein each division head presents his or her goals; and lists key internal dependencies. An internal dependency is the support A needs from B in achieving a goal. Once internal dependencies have been identified by division A, the corresponding division (B) head must include “mirror goals” in his goals to ensure division B does whatever it needs to do to support division A. By adding mirror goals, all division heads are now responsible for making it happen. What gets measured, gets done! Here’s an example. In a financial services company, the Chief Technology Officer’s key goal for a particular year was to migrate all customers to a paperless, online system. By the third quarter it was clear that the goal would not be met. Why? Did the Technology Division not work hard enough? No. What did not happen is that the CTO failed to ask who the success of this goal depended on internally. Had he asked himself that question, it would be clear that unless the heads of the two primary customer management channels work closely with the technology division to convince clients to move from the manual to online process, the goal would be impossible to achieve. So, if the alignment meeting had taken place, the customer management channel heads would have created mirror goals to support the technology division in making sure the conversion happens as planned. But since they did not have mirror goals, the channel heads were focused on their main goal of growing the top line, at the cost of the online conversion goal. An alignment meeting to understand the goals of all divisions, and to develop mirror goals to ensure collaboration, is a simple but powerful tool. Adding it to the annual strategic planning process can make all the difference between mediocrity and excellence.

Rajeev Peshawaria

CEO of the Iclif Leadership and Governance Centre, author of the Wall Street Journal and Amazon best seller Open Source Leadership (McGraw Hill 2017), Too Many Bosses, Too Few Leaders (Simon & Schuster 2011), co-author of Be the Change (McGraw Hill 2014) and a regular writer for Forbes, Rajeev is an out-of-the-box thought leader on leadership, management and corporate governance. He has extensive global experience in leadership and organizational consulting, with a particular focus on uncovering personal and organizational “leadership energy.”

Issue 30 I August 2019 11

LEADERS

DIGEST

Why Are Conscientious People

More Successful? BY ROSHAN THIRAN

Issue 30 I August 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

Let’s get straight to the point. Those who are conscientious are likely to be more successful than those who are less so. But why is that? And what does it mean to be conscientious? One dictionary defines conscientiousness as a person’s ‘wish to do one’s work or duty well and thoroughly’. It points to people who have a laser-like focus on the task at hand, with a mindset that whatever they do is serving their long-term goals. In other words, they sacrifice whatever short-term gains they might receive from distractions and other temptations. Price’s Law describes the idea that half of the work is done by the square root number of the people involved. For example, if you have ten people working on a project, the chances are that three people from that group will do the lion’s share of the work. This notion can be applied across any field that produces volumes of work. For example, most of the classical music that’s commonly listened to comes from a handful of composers. These usually include Mozart, Beethoven, Bach and Chopin. When you walk into a bookstore at the airport, you’re most likely to find books by authors such as Danielle Steel, Stephen King, Paulo Coelho and Agatha Christie. In both the literary and the music world, hundreds of millions of works are published each year, and yet, only a few prominent names stick in our minds. Common among all those who are prolific in their work is that, in their prime, they were the most committed to their passion: their time was dedicated to their work, with little being wasted on anything that did not add value to their long-term goal.

THE SECRET TO SUCCESS

“…If you work hard enough and assert yourself, and use your mind and imagination, you can shape the world to your desires.” - Malcolm Gladwell

In a 2012 study, Angela Duckworth and colleagues wanted to know who does well in life. What does it take to truly excel? Is it genius? Luck? Financial resources? What they found was that conscientious people excel most in objective and subjective success. They are able to focus on what matters and dedicate their efforts to manifest whatever goal they shoot towards. Explaining their findings, the researchers note, “What seems to tie facets of conscientiousness together is the tendency to act in accordance with long-term, global goals, and standards when there is a temptation to do otherwise.” “In the workplace, conscientious individuals who work hard, complete tasks thoroughly, stay organised, act responsibly, and make decisions carefully are more productive than less conscientious co-workers. “The same behavioural tendencies may help conscientious individuals maintain healthy social relationships, a key predictor of subjective well-being. “Conscientious individuals are more likely to avoid unnecessary interpersonal conflict and amend rifts when they do appear.” Conscientiousness is one of the Big Five Personality traits that measure five major dimensions of personality. These are: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extroversion and neuroticism.

Issue 30 I August 2019 13

LEADERS

DIGEST

Forming the basis of personality research, by taking the test, we are able to get a sense of where we sit on each scale of the five dimensions. As Duckworth and her colleagues imply, conscientiousness relates to the level of our work ethic. It makes sense that those who work harder achieve more, right? Well, there’s a little more to it than that. It’s not enough to just work hard ‒ our efforts need to be carried through with diligence, focus, and a deliberate commitment to do the best we can…and to raise our game wherever it’s needed. For some, being conscientious can be a difficult trait to develop ‒ but it can be developed.

“ Instead of succumbing to distractions or a temptation to procrastinate, we can harness the power of our minds to focus on getting the job done where it helps us to move forward at a quicker rate. ” Studies on time wasted, for example, have shown that we can waste, on average, up to five hours per day on things like checking email, aimlessly scrolling through social media, watching TV shows, and so on. Over the course of a working week, that amounts to one full day’s worth of work lost. Across one year (assuming an hourly rate of RM20), the time lost amounts to RM26,000. When we boil it down, conscientious people are more successful because they simply make the most of their time. Of course, it’s important to take breaks from time to time ‒ hopefully no-one would suggest we should work 24/7 ‒ but time wasted refers to time that is available outside of leisure time that could be put to more productive use. Some might say, “It’s alright for those who are already conscientious, but what about the people who procrastinate and find it difficult to get motivated?”

Issue 30 I August 2019

Thankfully, like leadership, conscientiousness is a skill that can be learned over time, and there are a few steps you can put into practice to get you started. Let’s take a look at three of those right now:

1. Don’t try to be conscientious. Instead, focus on the specifics If someone were to say to you, “Just be more conscientious!” you might (understandably) be confused by such broad advice. Think of it in the same way as fitness. If someone tells you to become more fit ‒ to set that as your goal ‒ it doesn’t really help much. On the other hand, if someone says, “If you commit to running 1.5km four times a week for a month, you’ll begin to see improvements,” that gives you something to aim for. Therefore, set specific goals such as “For the next month, I’m going to reduce my social media use by one hour per day and devote that time to reading/mastering a new skill/learning how to start an online business.” Taking that one step at a time has already increased your productivity rate by seven hours every week, and that’s a great start that you can then build on as you become more focused.

LEADERS

DIGEST

2. Set yourself reminders Trying to change the habits of a lifetime can be tough, which is why it’s important to set reminders of the times that you’ve committed to improving your conscientiousness. Let’s say you’ve set a goal to read for one hour per day. Set the time aside on your calendar and treat it like an important appointment, such as going to the doctors or attending a job interview. By treating this as time of utmost importance ‒ something that’s going to add enormous value to your development ‒ it will help you to cultivate a new behaviour that will become a productive habit. 3. Let people know what you’re doing Oftentimes, when we set ourselves a new goal to work towards, we fail in our endeavours (New Year’s Resolutions, anyone?). In many cases, this is because we keep our goals private, which limits the accountability to the very person who might procrastinate on our goals…ourselves. By telling a few close friends or family members of our intentions and asking them to help keep us accountable, they can help to minimise distractions and keep us focused by providing support and the occasional morale boost when it’s needed. After all, we wouldn’t want to let down the people who are there for us, and so we’re much more likely to stick to the commitment of improving ourselves when others are in on it.

For example, you could approach your goal through the Pomodoro Technique, or you could reward yourself whenever you recognise positive progress. Let’s say you’ve managed to cut out seven hours worth of unnecessary social media scrolling in a week. You could reward yourself by doing something you enjoy, such as treating yourself to your favourite dessert. The important thing here is to create positive associations with the efforts you’re making, which will increase the likelihood of staying the course, rather than feeling that your new lifestyle change is based on sacrifice and denial of small pleasures. REMEMBER… The most important thing to keep in mind when making any kind of positive change in your life is to focus on the value you’ll receive from your commitment. Never think of your conscientious efforts as sacrifices. Instead, see them as part of the journey towards creating your best self. With this at the forefront of your mind, you’ll be motivated to keep pushing forward. There’s a good reason why behavioural change is referred to as part of our development ‒ it takes time, and while we might prefer quick-fix solutions nowadays, the old adage still rings true: anything worthwhile takes time. But as Charles Duhigg reminds us in his book The Power of Habit, “If you believe you can change – if you make it a habit – the change becomes real.”

4. Remember to reward yourself One of the reasons people give up while attempting to create changes in their lifestyle is because they feel like they have to push themselves all the way without stopping. In other words, they don’t celebrate the small victories along the way, and that’s a vital component of maintaining your enthusiasm. Self-improvement of any kind should be seen as an investment in yourself, not a chore, so remember to reward yourself.

Roshan Thiran

Roshan is the founder and CEO of the Leaderonomics Group. He believes that everyone can be a leader and make a dent in the universe, in their own special ways.

Issue 30 I August 2019 15

LEADERS

DIGEST

Before I do so, consider a question my colleagues and I have been asking senior management teams over the past 12 years: On a 1 – 10 scale where 1 is “well below our potential” and 10 is “at peak potential,” how is your organisation currently performing in the marketplace?

The Other Duty of Corporate Governance BY RAJEEV PESHAWARIA

Most definitions place significant emphasis on enterprise value preservation, which largely comprises of rules, regulatory compliance, risk management, and other types of watchdog activities. Clearly, value preservation is an important duty of the Board of Directors. In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis and the recession that followed, defending against downsides has become more important than ever before. However, there is another equally important side to the board’s responsibilities – enterprise value enhancement – that I believe might be slightly under served by boards today. Consider the following. By some estimates, 65% of a company’s stock price is attributable to intangible value, promises of future economic benefits based on the quality of leadership and management, the company’s ability to innovate, the depth of talent, employee engagement, etc. While most boards recognise this duty to ensure that management does all it can to maximise this future value as well as stave off present dangers, in this article, I want to offer a simple but powerful information system that can help boards better fulfill this duty.

Issue 30 I August 2019

The average answer we get each time we ask is around 6.5. This means, by their own admission, captains of industry are saying they can be 35% more successful without adding any more resources. Can you imagine if your organisation were 35% more successful? What can management do to go after that elusive 35%? And what can boards do to find out if management is indeed doing it? To answer these questions, lets first take a quick look at what companies do to destroy value. In his book, “The Self Destructing Habits of Good Companies, And How to Break Them,” Jagdish N Sheth lists the following seven habits that eventually make good companies go bad: 1. DENIAL: Refusal to recognise or acknowledge reality 2. ARROGANCE: Overblown self image that just doesn’t square up with the facts 3. COMPLACENCY: Sense of security from the belief that past successes will continue indefinitely 4. COMPETENCY DEPENDENCE: Limited vision due to over dependence on one core competency 5. COMPETITIVE MYOPIA: Defining your competition too narrowly 6. VOLUME OBSESSION: Rising costs and falling margins 7. TERRITORIAL IMPULSE: Culture conflicts and turf wars within a company’s silos Again, how can the board safeguard against the possibility of one or more of the above habits taking root in the company? More importantly, how can board members coach senior management when they see the symptoms? A good place to start might be to better understand what is really going on in the company. If a company is not achieving its full potential, the first people to find out are usually the employees. A simple way to find out, therefore, is to ask them. A few years ago, I devised a simple framework that links current company performance to future value. The premise: a company must proactively shape and maintain three pillars of sustainable growth that I call B-B-N: Brains (vision and strategy), Bones (organisational architecture) and Nerves (culture) of the business. I have described this framework in a fair amount of detail in Too Many Bosses, Too Few Leaders (Free Press 2011) and in other articles and blog posts: http:/ rajeevpeshawaria.com/articles/

LEADERS

DIGEST

However, in each of the earlier texts, I looked at B-B-N from the perspective of the management. I described it as a framework through which management can stay in touch with reality and take corrective action proactively. My purpose in this piece is to present B-B-N as a source of information for the board of directors, and explain how board members can use the information to help management in maximising the future intangible value of the enterprise. The process begins with a very quick survey. Employees are asked to rate each of the following statements on a 1-5 scale. The desired response score for each of the survey statements should be 4 or 5. In other words, if management is doing a

good enough job of enhancing future value, employees must either agree or strongly agree to each of the above statements. Any response score below 4 means there is work to be done. For example, if management feels it has done a huge amount of work in formulating and communicating a compelling vision and strategy, employees should agree or strongly agree to the five statements under the Brains section. If the average response is 3 or below, it means either that the strategy is not compelling, or that management needs to do a better job of communicating and cascading it. In either case, it (management) has work to do. The B-B-N survey is an instant pulse check to find out if management actions are perceived (by employees) to be hitting the bull’s eye or not. The results of this survey can easily be plotted on a onepage graph to provide quick visual stimulation. To make the data richer, companies may add another question in the end asking for verbatim comments to substantiate ratings to the 15 statements. I have successfully used this tool with many management teams across the world to help them generate ideas for growth acceleration. However, like any other information tool, the data needs to be used with good

judgment aftertaking the broader business landscape into account. The employee perspective is just one perspective, but an important one for boards and management to consider. If boards insist on seeing the results of this survey on a periodic basis, they can engage in a very healthy dialogue with management about what can be done to address issues if any. Some board members (with their own vast corporate experience) can even coach senior management once they understand the crux of the issues. I know one CEO who regularly sits down with his chairman to discuss the company’s B-B-N scores and seeks her feedback and coaching. When I asked him why he does so and were their any risks involved in opening up the whole kimono with the Chairman, he said, “… on the contrary, I see only upside in sharing the information with the Chainman and seeking her guidance. There’s a double bottom line here …. 1) by sharing honestly, I involve her in addressing the problem(s). Rather than a jury, the board now becomes a partner. And 2) I almost always get good coaching … there are very few places a CEO can go to for good coaching, but your board is one of them…. and we tend to under use this source …” Most companies administer lengthy employee satisfaction surveys. But, as one of my colleagues points out, satisfaction surveys only measure if people are happy with the pay and rations. The B-B-N survey takes only seven minutes to fill out, but gives real and tangible information about the impact of the actions of the senior management team in driving long term sustainable growth as perceived by employees. For board members, it can be a powerful tool in fulfilling their duties without micromanaging the CEO.

Rajeev Peshawaria

Issue 30 I August 2019 17

LEADERS

DIGEST

Millennials Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t Want Fun; They Want You To Lead Better BY MARK C. CROWLEY

Issue 30 I August 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

After more than a decade of effort, businesses still have not figured out how to successfully motivate, inspire, and keep – millennial workers. According to a Gallup study, employees aged 20 to 36 years old are the least engaged generation in the workplace by far. On top of that, 21 percent quit their jobs last year, and 60 percent say they’re floating their resumés right now! For all the companies that tried to win over their ‘Gen Y’ workers by paying down their student loan bills, introducing free energy drinks and making the hoodie acceptable office attire, these stats may seem galling. Perhaps we should all just accept that this is simply a group of needy and entitled people who’ll never be truly happy or loyal at work? Not so fast.

Here are the big three: 1. They observed the work-driven stress levels of their parents As children, many millennials came home from school to an empty house (latch-key kids) and felt the brunt of not having their parents readily available. They saw how a 40-hour work week came to represent the bare minimum expected by organisations, and how their parent’s stress levels often proved toxic. The millennial pivot: A generation far less willing to sacrifice their lives for work. They want to be judged on their results, not time spent on the clock.

2. Traveling teams and helicopter parents

“Gallup’s research reminds us that millennial workers grew up very differently than previous generations, and have a unique set of values, needs, and worldview as a result.”

While the Baby Boomer and Gen-X generations played Little League and soccer growing up – one activity at a time – millennial parents had their kids over-scheduled.

What’s evident is that this is no slacker class, nor are they hardwired to be disloyal. What they are is demanding.

Perhaps in response to not being able to spend time with them during the workweek, parents attended all of their children’s weekend events – praising and encouraging them all along the way.

They know very clearly what they want in exchange for their work, and have proved very willing to keep looking until they find it. Remarkably, this is a generation of workers that rejects traditional ways, and fully expects their bosses and organisations to adapt to them. It’s a stunning fact that millennials already represent 40 per cent of the American workforce – and that number will nearly double in just 10 more years. While some of us may have resisted changing how we lead in response to the demands of millennial workers, the conclusion of the research is that we must act now. Importantly, the most progressive organisations are already on their way.

What shaped the millennial mindset Last year, Gallup published ‘How Millennials Want To Work And Live,’ an in-depth look at what defines millennials as employees.

They participated in cheerleading camps, Taekwondo, music lessons, water polo, and highly competitive traveling teams often at the same time.

The millennial pivot: A generation that needs much more frequent feedback and approval, and expects highly personalised attention from their bosses.

3. They’re the most technologically connected generation, ever This is the first generation to grow up with immediate and broad access to information due to technology. And because of social media, millennials are not only far more attuned to what other people think, they have far greater insight into how other people feel in their jobs. The millennial pivot: They have a huge awareness of what other job opportunities are available, and great visibility into the leadership cultures at other organisations. They may also operate with an idealistic expectation that getting whatever they want should happen quickly.

After digesting all 150 pages, I sat down with Gallup’s long-time Research Director, Dr Jim Harter, and asked him to explain the key life experiences that shaped the Gen-Y personality.

Issue 30 I August 2019 19

LEADERS

DIGEST

Millennials are pushing organisations to fully reinvent how they lead and manage

As evidence of why the United States engagement remains strikingly low, Gallup believes very few people today have this kind of boss.

Gallup has identified a list of key functional changes that managers must make in order to successfully influence millennial workers.

Noting that the mindset of a ‘coach’ tends to be more supportive, caring, and nurturing to people than what we’ve traditionally expected of workplace managers, I asked Harter if businesses would be wise to formally rename the role.

Collectively, they also represent a comprehensive redefinition of what all 21st century workers seek from work today. Millennials are simply the first generation to insist upon them:

“If the expectation is that managers should act like coaches,” he told me, “then why not just call it that?”

1. They want to know their work has purpose “Deep inside of us there is a primal desire to do something important in life,” said Oracle CEO, Larry Ellison, and fulfilling this need is a huge driver of millennial engagement. Gallup’s data proves that millennials are not a generation that wants everything handed to them, nor do they prioritise having a fun workplace over their own growth, development, and feelings of fulfilment. “What they want,” Harter told me, “is to know their work matters.” They want accountability and a sense of significance through their own accomplishments.” As someone who brilliantly led an entire workforce of millennial employees, Google’s former head of people, Laszlo Bock sized it up this way: “Over the coming decades, the most gifted, hardest working people on the planet will gravitate to places where they can do meaningful work and help shape the destiny of organisations.” 2. They don’t want a boss; they want a coach There once was a day in business when we believed people didn’t want to work and needed constant coercing to remain productive. But millennials have a deep desire to make their lives meaningful ‒ through work. As a result, they tend to set very high goals for themselves, take ownership for their successes, and want to be held personally accountable. Tied to this disposition, Gen-Y workers are repelled by traditional bosses who bark orders or manage people in uniform ways. “This a generation that comes into the workforce expecting to not just have a good boss,” Harter told me, “but a boss who’s a good coach, too. Coaches drive performance by being approachable human beings. They get to know people as a whole person. They discover what they’re best at, mentor their growth, and provide ongoing feedback. They’re advocates.”

Issue 30 I August 2019

3. They want much more frequent feedback Research shows that most organisations today give employees an annual performance review – a discussion where managers devote more attention to correcting someone’s weaknesses rather than focusing on their strengths. And in the experience of millennials, that’s like getting a bad report card in June without any other update all year. “This is a generation that needs and expects much more frequent communication than that,” Harter told me, knowledge that may make some leaders bristle. “But if the ultimate job of a manager is to improve performance in the organisation, then giving people more consistent feedback just means they’re doing their job.” And what is it millennials need to hear from their bosses? Beyond recognition, they’re seeking clarity. Are they working on the right things, succeeding, and making a difference? Gallup believes twice-a-year formal reviews have become the minimum for businesses today, and that routine ‘check-ins’ are a highly effective way of sustaining trust and connection. While its clear millennials don’t really need a lot of trophies, they nevertheless do need a lot of love. 4. Focus on their strengths Gallup did a study recently and asked people to re-live their previous work day. What they discovered is that workers who had the highest engagement were able to use their strengths four times more often than things they did less well. “In many cases, the jobs we give people don’t match up to how they’re advertised,” Harter told me, “and this is an easy and direct way of losing their commitment right out of the gate. While we cannot ignore a person’s weaknesses, the wisest leaders are ones who discover what makes each person different and then tailors their job to their strengths.”

LEADERS

DIGEST

5. Growth and development is one the greatest drivers of millennial engagement

Conclusion

It was Yeats who said, “We are happy when we are growing,” and science bears him out.

Some organisations seem to have it in their minds that millennial workers are mercenaries, always looking for a new and better deal.

When people feel they’re in a constant state of maximising their own human potential, they tend to be extremely engaged in their jobs.

But Gallup’s research shows what they’re really looking for is a compelling reason to stay.

As the best educated generation of all time, millennials are also highly attuned to their need for growth and want to envision their futures.

When Gen-X workers were at the same stage of life as where most Gen-Y employees are today, they actually job-hopped more frequently.

They want to know where they stand, where they’re going, and how they’ll be supported in getting there.

But there came a day when they made a long-term commitment to one organisation – a decision many millennials themselves are getting ready to make.

“A manager’s job going forward has to be focused on development as much as it is on performance,”

And where they’ll land will likely be in response to how you choose to lead.

Harter insists, “Development leads to performance and giving people more feedback leads to tighter relationships.”

The Change in Leadership Past My Paycheck My Satisfaction My Boss My Annual Review My Weaknesses My Job

Future My Purpose My Development My Coach My Ongoing Conversations My Strengths My Life

Mark C. Crowley

Mark spent over 25 years as a senior executive in financial services, and now is a leadership speaker and consultant. His book, Lead From The Heart, is now being taught at four American universities.

Issue 30 I August 2019 21

LEADERS

DIGEST

HOW BRAIN SCIENCE Can Help Leaders Procrastinate Less BY DR EUGENE YJ TEE AND DR CHOY TSEE LENG

You arrive at your office on a Monday morning ahead of your colleagues. Deciding to get a head start to the workweek, you come in at least an hour earlier than usual, and start on that financial report you held off last week.

Your colleague comes in a short while later and you think, well, it wouldn’t hurt to ask about her weekend. You join her for coffee. You’ve effectively made the situation worse for yourself, and deep down you know it.

Then there’s that difficult client you need to ring up today. Let’s not forget that backlog of emails flagged for followup last Friday evening. You leaf through your contact cards for the client’s phone number, but given the disorganised mess your business card folder is in, you decide to start on that financial report instead.

You really should have started on one of those tasks. It’s already half past 10 in the morning, and you feel guilty for not having accomplished anything despite clocking in early.

You see numbers with lots of decimal points. Now you remember why you put that report on hold. Well, clearing emails shouldn’t be too difficult – an easy task to start the workweek, you think. You log on only to see 50 new emails added to your backlog of previously-flagged messages. That difficult client has also sent you an email marked “urgent” and judging from the preview of that message, he doesn’t sound too happy. It’s not even the start of your official hours yet, and you are already yearning for the weekend to come sooner.

Issue 30 I August 2019

WE ALL DO IT! At some point in life, most of us have procrastinated – generally defined as putting off an undesirable task despite knowing the negative implications. Procrastination affects between 20% and 25% of adults worldwide. In a local study published in the Malaysian Psychology Journal last year, 22 out of a sample of 310 students reported they almost never procrastinate but 92.9% acknowledged to procrastinating in study-related activities. Of course, there may be good reasons to leave certain tasks for later. The problem arises when procrastination tempts you to repeatedly do so.

If you are in a leadership position, you may have procrastinated over a series of important decisions. Indeed, leaders often procrastinate about important decisions – that proposed merger, who to hire for a senior management position, important budgeting consideration, and other things – that make up a leader’s portfolio. Leaders need to make those important calls, and yet, they too, are prone to putting off all the tasks they need to complete before a decision is made. When leaders procrastinate, the delay often results in poor, sometimes even damaging outcomes to the organisation. Procrastination limits a leader’s ability to be proactive – to develop the necessary foresight for making tomorrow’s decisions today. To a leader, time is a sunk cost; how well the leader uses his time determines the quality of the decisions made. Procrastination is a thief of the leader’s time. Procrastination is rife in all spheres of our work and personal lives, but it can be overcome. Some interesting insights on how to do so come from neuroscience – the study of the nervous system, and how it influences our thoughts and behaviours.

LEADERS

DIGEST

THE NEUROSCIENCE OF PROSCRASTINATION Neuroscience studies the brain, but its interdisciplinary nature offers revealing perspectives to many fields. Our brains are wired to integrate, predict and automate – each experience leaves a neural footprint, so future responses to similar events would be faster and more efficient.

YOU CAN CONTROL IT Interestingly, selectively stimulating another part of the brain – the medial frontal areas, actually lowers the likelihood of procrastinating. What this all means is that while it is tempting to conclude that the brains of the procrastinators “made them do it”, the reality remains that we are ultimately still in control of our actions.

This outcome was advantageous to our ancestors, where rapid reactions increased survival. The primitive hindbrain, an older part of our brain; drives this process to develop habits.

While the instinctive and voluntary systems can be at odds, they are not mutually exclusive, nor is it always detrimental to give in to our instincts. As such, one way to overcome procrastination is by strategically delaying gratification rather than suppressing or giving in to it. At no point are procrastinators oblivious of the negative repercussions of procrastination, reflecting awareness and choice over their actions.

The pre-frontal cortex of the forebrain is key in this voluntary process, in charge of decision-making, organising and inhibiting inappropriate behaviour. It is this same region that matures in our mid-twenties, accounting for the decline in reckless and impulsive behaviours when we come of age. How is all this related to procrastination? In the past, the instinctive system promoted survival through immediate drive satisfaction with minimal consideration of its consequences. However, this system can clash with modern circumstances and the voluntary system. Procrastination occurs when we succumb to instant urge gratification (e.g. having coffee instead of working on that report) despite knowing the consequences (e.g. not having the report in time for management’s review). In short, the instinctive system overrides the voluntary system, even when it is disadvantageous to do so. Current neuroimaging research shows that procrastination occurs when various pre-frontal regions of the brain fail in regulating impulsivity.

One study showed that while procrastination, poor self-control and goal management share similar genes, this genetic overlap may not directly cause procrastination. If anything, it leads to procrastination via interaction with environmental factors.

In this regard, our brains are like car engines in that they drive procrastination tendencies. The drive itself can be impacted by engine malfunctions, weather and road conditions. If all else fails, the engine can be recalibrated or restarted.

“

Put simply, procrastination can still be managed despite having a neural or genetic susceptibility to it – especially if we become more aware of how our environments trigger our tendencies to procrastinate.

“

Newer regions of the brain – like the forebrain – enlarged and became dominant as we evolved, and when instinctive behaviour became more purposeful. This shift was necessary to adapt to modern, complex settings, where voluntary deliberation is more beneficial than instinctive drives.

(e.g. changing key performance indicators or assessment formats), so that employees are forced to abandon their habitual routines and start again on a fresh slate. In doing so, the voluntary system takes precedence and the instinctive system is reset.

Knowing why we procrastinate can help in its management. This can include reframing or breaking timelines into manageable chunks, maintaining mini rewards at regular intervals to stay motivated, removing or minimising distracting situations, or having procrastinators work closely with disciplined peers to stay on track. For work cultures where procrastination is deeply entrenched, researchers have suggested major systemic “rebooting”

Dr Eugene Y.J.

Dr Eugene Y.J. Tee is a senior lecturer at the Department of Psychology, HELP University. His research interests include emotions and leadership. Eugene’s second favourite way to procrastinate at work is to have water cooler conversations about the newest neuroscience research findings.

Dr Choy Tsee Leng Dr Choy Tsee Leng is a neuroscientist and lecturer in the Department of Psychology, HELP University. Her research interests encompass consciousness, emotion, music and brain injury. She tends to procrastinate in search of, or in the presence of, pint-sized snacks and desserts.

Issue 30 I August 2019 23

LEADERS

DIGEST

Worthy Of

Trust?

What makes a person “Credible”? BY JACK CHUA

Trust is the chain that binds followers to their leaders - and trust only comes when followers perceive their leaders to be credible. Long-time researchers of leadership credibility, Barry Posner and Jim Kouzes wrote, “If you don’t believe in the messenger, you won’t believe the message.” They called this the First Law of Leadership. Important though it may be, credibility is still something that eludes many. The researchers, Posner and Kouzes spent more than 30 years studying how ordinary leaders from all walks of life from CEOs to nursing home administrators strived successfully to build credibility. They have written best-selling books on leadership credibility such as The Leadership Challenge, making them a household name on the subject.

Extensive research has shown that accomplishment in these three areas is arguably the most soughtafter characteristic that any leader can have. Posner and Kouzes ran surveys from year 1987 to 2007 asking employees worldwide what traits they admired in leaders. Respondents listed hundreds of traits which were then sorted and classified into 20 key traits. The striking result of their study was that four of these traits stood the test of time by being listed as the top soughtafter traits by more than 60% of respondents with amazing regularity across the 20 year research period. The pattern was even evident across cultures. The traits correspond with what we have defined earlier as the dimensions of credibility: 1. Honest (trustworthiness)

According to them, communications experts characterise a source of information as “credible” if it possesses elements of reliability, authority or believability. They define credibility along three separate dimensions: 1. Trustworthiness

3. Inspiring (dynamism) 4. Competent (competence)

2. Dynamism

Dimension #1: Trustworthiness

3. Competence Dimensions of Credibility

Description

Sought-After Characteristics of Leaders

Trustworthiness

Having quality of believability or truthfulness

Honest

Dynamism

Having the ability to keep abreast with change

Forward-looking/ inspiring

Competence

Having knowledge or experience that enables success

Competent

2. Forward-looking (dynamism)

Issue 30 I August 2019

When one trusts a leader, one is putting the things he or she cares about at stake to follow a worthy cause. The bind of trust gives us hope that the sacrifice of our time, energy, or the things we value will lead to a worthwhile outcome. Honesty, as noted earlier, has been shown by research to be a crucial trait valued in leaders, and it is a leader’s perceived honesty that determines his or her trustworthiness. Growing doubt and suspicion about the leader’s ethics

LEADERS

DIGEST

can quickly turn the organisation into a silent battlefield. Followers will have little reason to strive for a common cause. The resulting impact on followers’ loyalty is clear from Kouzes’ and Posner’s research. Disheartened workers only work when superiors are watching and are motivated solely by the money. They may feel like a hypocrite, telling others positive things about the organisation, but feeling otherwise. They are also more likely to leave if the organisation faces problems.

STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ON THIS DIMENSION #1 Building visible connections

#2 Do what we say we’ll do The second crucial step is practising DWWSWD (Do What We Say We’ll Do). As a leader, it is not enough to simply practise what one preaches, but to practise values that are shared by the group. Take for example Juan Gonzalez, an IBM industry solution manager, whose story can be glimpsed from Kouzes and Posner’s book, The Leadership Challenge: Going beyond the usual amount of social interaction expected for a manager, Juan joins his fellow co-workers, occasionally making phone calls for them and helping solve some of their day-to-day problems. His workers feel valued with their leader working beside them to take some burden off their shoulders.

What few senior managers acknowledge is that the problem with trustworthiness has more to do with the visibility of honest actions. A series of interviews conducted by Linda Trevino and her colleagues with 40 corporate compliance officers and senior executives from various US firms found that there is a credibility gap between the average worker and senior managers.

His real challenge came one Saturday morning when the company applied a product upgrade for a client’s live system which failed to work at a critical moment.

Top management perceives their own actions to be honest, ethical and transparent (aka the “fishbowl” perception). The average worker, on the other hand, perceives top management as a “fortress”, where many decisions are made without their knowledge behind an impenetrable bureaucratic barrier.

Even though he could have ordered his best workers to deal with the issue without him (they were after all paid to do the job), Juan arrived first at the scene and spent hours testing the system to figure out solutions and making sure he had done everything he could before calling his teammates.

With most of these top managers barricading themselves at the top most floor of the building, it comes as no surprise that the fishbowl/fortress mismatch exists.

His willingness to engage with his followers and willingness to make personal sacrifices to uphold high customer service standards impressed his followers and set a norm for them to follow.

Trustworthy leaders are approachable. The book Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It describes honesty and trustworthiness as a trait that can be advertised by practising key principles of relationship building. As leadership is about relationships, people whom we consider to be trustworthy are people whom we feel we have an intimate connection with. Leaders perceived to be trustworthy practise the following frequently instead of creating suspicion by distancing themselves from followers: Practices

Examples

Physical presence

Physical closeness and visibility

Act of friendliness

Shaking hands, leaning forward, being a good listener, being responsive to other’s plight, sharing experiences with one another

Juan did not wait until the weekdays to settle the problem. Despite enjoying his holidays, Juan gathered his team by calling them up personally.

“They knew that I was willing to do whatever it took to get this solved… and they picked up the same attitude,” said Juan. The diligent software engineers were finally rewarded with a note of appreciation and compensatory time-off.

Dimension #2: Dynamism #1 Having a shared vision As Kouzes and Posner write, “the domain of leaders is the future”. Dynamism refers to the leader’s ability to look ahead, inspire others, and adapt to changes in the pursuit of shared values. Leaders who are credible care about long-term orientation, not just today’s bottom-line. To pave the way forward, leaders must be good at constructing a shared vision that compels followers to put aside personal differences and work together. Kouzes and Posner provide an exemplary case study of how Dave, a manager from Bank of America’s

Issue 30 I August 2019 25

LEADERS

DIGEST

Consumer Call Centre, accomplished this: Dave took charge of the call centre which was underperforming despite having some of the brightest individuals. It had a key performance score that was 21% lower than the top-performing call centre and 18% lower than the second best call centre. Half of its employees felt that their frustrations went unheard and their opinions undervalued. Dave came up with a plan. He sent Post-it notes to all his employees and asked them to write down the five adjectives that described their situation. Onerously, the list went: “demotivated, disorganised, frustrating, lack of appreciation, not enough coaching, etc.” He then handed them another stack and this time, asked them to list down what they wanted their call center to be like. Listing down the characteristics of their ideal workplace, the notes read: “amazing results, world class, exemplary, unique, opportunities to learn and grow, true passion for our customers” Dave then gathered the above statements and compiled them to form their vision and mission. Every month, he holds a “town hall” meeting to measure their accomplishments and reiterate their goal to be a world-class exemplary organisation that is growth-oriented. He also listens to the opinions of employees on how better to realise their shared vision, and incorporated a “Celebrating Heroes” session during meetings to reward and celebrate those who have made crucial contributions towards achieving their vision. Because the vision was made collectively, and sustained by the leader, the company made it to the top of the game, boosting Dave’s image among his followers as a credible leader who could turn the tables in their favour.

Dimension #3: Competence #1 Capitalising on small wins Competence is the leader’s reputation of past successes. People want to follow those who are most likely to lead them to victory. Usually associated with wisdom and knowledge, competence refers to the leader’s ability to understand the bigger picture of the operations they are placed in charge of – and this expectation becomes particularly true as one moves up the hierarchy to more senior positions.

Issue 30 I August 2019

Managers at the top are expected to be competent in strategic planning and policymaking, and chief executive officers (CEOs) usually have to be competent in competitive marketing to be credible leaders. Expertise in technical skills is also crucial for a leader to be seen as competent by employees working on the line or in direct contact with customers. First, the path to building a successful track record is not by tackling the big issues head on, but by accumulating small but successful changes to the organisation. Tempting though it may be, starting with the big issues is usually unwise. Plans to rid humanity of poverty or provide the silver bullet to ending environmental issues may impress many, but such goals may be too overwhelming to put into practice. Not only will the logistics and effort required be staggering, such goals may also lack the specifics necessary to direct followers to action. In addition, the looming failure and the inability to advance anywhere near the goal may dampen the spirits of followers leading to procrastination or abandonment of their lofty dreams. This will, in a way, lower the credibility of the leader who is supposed to realise their shared goal. In The Leadership Challenge, the authors’ interview with Venkat Dokiparthi – who directed a team of Indian software developers – attests to the wonders of working in “short bursts”: Venkat’s software developers had been working on a difficult project for weeks with no development to report, before finally admitting that it was beyond their capabilities. Venkat was able to efficiently finish the seemingly impossible project by breaking it down into small parts each of which must be delegated and completed within a short span of time. “I realised that I needed to break down the task and make it simple for them to feel successful,” Venkat said. By continuously sustaining the team’s morale with one small win after another, Venkat was able to lead the team to the project’s completion and hence, elevate his perceived competence in dealing with complex issues. #2 Gaining knowledge through outsighting Many of us are familiar with the term “insight”, which can be interpreted as gaining an intuitive understanding of things. Kouzes and Posner suggest an addition to this, which they call “outsight”–the ability to listen and attend to information beyond our private thoughts.

LEADERS

DIGEST

Great leaders realise that knowledge is not just the mental and intellectual activity going on in our heads, but also the skill in looking out for crucial indications of change. A survey conducted by IBM on 765 CEOs worldwide found that good ideas can come from anywhere whether from business partners, coworkers, or clients—with about two-thirds of the most significant ideas being contributed by people outside the organisation. Research by MIT professors Ralph Katz and Tom Allen found that high performance teams have frequent contact with the “outside world”— constantly receiving input from those uninvolved in the project such as stakeholders and customers, compared to low performance teams. The degree of isolation from outsiders is higher for groups that have been around longer, and the negative impact of their isolation more pronounced. Isolated teams cut themselves from the advantages information sharing such as advancements in technology and marketing opportunities. Kouzes and Posner interviewed Jacqueline Maartense of Intuit, a small software company, whose finance application, Quicken, managed to outsell Microsoft’s personal finance software five-to-one, soldering its employees’ confidence in their leaders’ plans:

A final note We can finally draw a conclusion that the three dimensions of credibility – trustworthiness, dynamism and competence – significantly improve a leader’s ability to influence followers. These dimensions should not be treated as separate pathways to win the trust of followers. Rather, they should be seen as intertwining and inseparable ingredients of credibility because deficiency in any one of them, despite sufficient strength in the others will necessarily hamper the effort of gaining followers’ trust. Untrustworthy leaders, despite being knowledgeable and visionary, would provoke suspicion and distrust among followers. Honesty and insight may be exemplary characteristics; but failure to cultivate far-sightedness limits one to subordinate roles. Finally, incompetence will drive away disenchanted followers from a sincerely-conceived vision when they see failure at every turn. The strategies discussed above should set any leaders’ mind to work on how to improve followers’ trust, as only a credible messenger can surpass the hurdle of uncertainty and bring people together for a common cause.

The secret to Quicken’s success despite being outmatched in resources by tech goliath, Microsoft was Intuit’s philosophy of “customer-driven innovation”. Co-founder, Scott Cook, asserted that members of the Intuit community “from him [Scott] to the janitor” should part-take aggressively in “customer contact activities”. Every employee listened for calls eight hours after each product launch to ensure early detection and repair of flaws in their software. “Follow-me-home” programmes had technical staff visit customers’ homes and observe their everyday interaction with their applications. They also sought input in various locations from passers-by at shopping aisles to travelers in an aeroplane flight. New ideas and suggestions are written down and brought back to the office to improve their products. As Jacqueline put it, “[customer-driven innovation] became part of our very fabric it was the way we did business.” Jack Chua

Jack writes about the psychology of leadership. His interests span across various fields – from psychometrics (the science of measuring the human psyche), to developing software that improves people’s lives.

Issue 30 I August 2019 27

LEADERS

DIGEST

The Attractiveness Of

MICROMANAGEMENT BY JOSEPH TAN

According to Mary Parker Follet, management is “the art of getting things done through people.” Getting things done is indeed the sum total of what a manager aspires to accomplish. However, the process of making sure that the actual outcome matches the manager’s expectations is quite a challenge. This matching process is what keeps managers awake at night. Giving instructions is the easy part, making sure that it is acted upon (without the stress of nagging and reminders) is the cause of sleepless nights, and perhaps even a cause of stomach ulcers. Yet, the act of micromanagement is usually the default management mode when it comes to getting things done through people. Before we become too quick to tear down the concept of micromanagement, there must be something inherently enticing about this approach, which caused it to be the prevailing method of interaction with employees. Let’s explore the attractiveness of micromanagement and deliberate through the consequences of such a mind-set.

Issue 30 I August 2019

Things get done in a specific way

“

When I meticulously monitor the performance of my employees, I get what I want, when I want. It is normal for a manager to be expecting a high performance from his or her employees. In fact, if there are no performance standards communicated, then there is really nothing to manage in the first place. When there is micromanaging, the manager has the supposed benefit of being able to control exactly how their employees produce and deliver the goods. However, it means that the employee is less than buoyed with motivation to perform well. The specifications of the task looks like this: • The boss dictates not only the end result, but also the way it is achieved. • The boss demands progress by applying pressure. • When it comes to safety protocol or critical work process steps, it is understandable that every step must be followed precisely.

LEADERS

DIGEST

However, when managers are managing for competitive advantage, the wise manager is the one who goes beyond the specifications and focuses instead on the spirit of the task. The spirit of the task looks like this: • The boss describes the end result and then allows for the application of individual talent. • The boss discusses progress by providing support and resources. According to Gallup, employees who are encouraged to focus on their strengths are six times as likely to be engaged in their jobs, and more than three times as likely to report having an excellent quality of life in general. If an organisation aims to tap into the leadership potential of every employee, then the onus is on the manager to practice the art of outcome-based management. In outcome-based management, the manager plays the role of a coach who identifies the talent of the employee. When the race starts, the manager guides from the sidelines instead of being on the racetrack itself. Here are three steps to becoming an outcome-based manager: 1. Identify the individual talents of your employee (each one of them is unique). 2. Integrate their talents into their role description. 3. Intentionally allow your employee to meet the described goals through their own strengths. Tried and tested methods work

“

“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” While it’s often quoted that the only constant is change, one of the manager’s job is to provide stability and predictability. If the manager constantly changes how things are done, employees are then left without a stable structure to enable high performance. One of the flavours of micromanagement could be the good intention of the manager to provide stability to the employee (i.e. “Let’s continue to do it this way because this is the proven path”).

Whether you need continuity or creativity depends on your answer to the following question: “If your employees continue to think and act as the way they do today, will you be able to meet your desired results in the next three years?” If your answer is a clear “No”, then the micromanagement style of the proven path is not the way to go. We can see that what has been proven to work in the past is not good enough to propel us into the future. In other words, what got us to this point will not necessarily carry us forward. Here are three steps you can take to manage with passion and creativity: 1. Identify the compelling case behind the change. Employees need to understand the ‘why’ of the change before you tell them exactly what will change. 2. Implement a clear reward system for those who comply. 3. Implement a clear reprimand system for those who fail. It is relatively easier to recognise our employees who do well but, if no action is taken against non-performers, you are actually sending out the wrong signal (i.e. there is no need to do your own job well – others will pick up the slack). Hence, when you have non-performers, remember this – the passion and creativity of your high performers will be affected if you do not take action. Conclusion – it is about being a great manager The great manager engages with his or her employees so that things get done in the right spirit with passion and creativity. According to Gallup, the single greatest factor that determines employee engagement is the quality of the relationship between the employee and his or her direct supervisor. The employee, who performs well, is the employee who is first treated as an individual. Nobody likes to be treated as just a dot on the organisation’s chart. Although micromanaging is an attractive default option, it is not a sustainable option. However, when there is great management, there is the release of the freedom of individual talent and creative passion. Yes we get things done, but we get it done in an engaging manner.

However, the proven path may not always inspire motivation or passion. It all depends whether if the manager is managing for continuity or managing for creativity. If continuity is the order of the day, then some degree of micromanaging may be necessary because employees need to toe the line so that we all can put our best foot forward.

Joseph Tan Joseph is a Leaderonomics faculty trainer who is passionate about engaging with leaders to transform culture in organisations.

Issue 30 I August 2019 29

LEADERS

DIGEST

5 WAYS TO DISCREDIT YOURSELF AS A LEADER What makes a credible leader? BY DINESH DORAI RAJ

Credibility is the foundation of leadership in the 21st century and would be the most important aspect of leading a team or running a business effectively.

Gen-X

This topic got me thinking hard whether credibility may be a fixed theory.

He pondered on the word “credibility” in relation to his business and said that a start-up is like a hot air balloon that has not taken off.

As I sipped my coffee, I pondered if people with varying experiences across different generations would have different perceptions on credibility. Almost instantaneously, I whipped out my phone and dropped texts to people on their thoughts about credibility. As a result, I got three people that I interact with on a daily basis and from different generations – Gen-Y, Gen-X and a Baby Boomer.

Gen-Y Saarvin Vignesvaran, 26, is an engineer with a large multinational oil and gas organisation who is based offshore most of the time. Working alongside personnel from diverse age groups, background and cultures, he said credibility is firstly built from SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Reasonable and Time-bound) communications that enable effective delegation and execution of tasks. Saarvin continues that the credibility of leaders is elevated when they acknowledge achievements of their subordinates and subsequently take the effort to create a desirable working environment for all. He adds that a leader’s credibility is largely gauged based on the importance to the subordinates’ welfare.

Issue 30 I August 2019

Jeffry Sashitaran, 35, is currently running a start-up in the medical line.

For a hot air balloon to be flying high, some amount of hot air has to be blown into the balloon. He says that the hot air for a start-up would be credibility. Jeffry believes that business growth is exponentially proportioned to credibility that is gained through reputation, past successes and trustworthiness from the ground up. He stresses that the core to building credibility for the business and business leaders starts from the provision of great service to clients in all situations, and to deal with them with total honesty, high morality and integrity.

Baby Boomer Dorai Raj, 56, is a director of finance with one of the fastest growing chains of five-star international hotels in Malaysia. Having been attached to the same company for 27 years, at different locations and positions across the region, he believes that credibility is intertwined with trust that is built over the years of loyalty. Dorai Raj says: “To be a credible leader, we must firstly associate ourselves with the organisation we are in as one. This is followed by a lot of hard work and commitment which must contribute to organisational growth.” He adds that as a credible leader, one must be open to communication and constructive discussions.

LEADERS

DIGEST

A credible person should also have the right balance of having a tough front and being able to lend a shoulder to cry on.

What I can deduce

Despite the different perspectives on credibility from the three different generations above, I can clearly draw a parallel that all of them strongly relate credibility to trust and integrity. They gave the impression of how vital credibility is in different situations, businesses and positions. I quote from this book, Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It by Kouzes and Posner:

“We want to believe in our leaders, we want to have confidence in them as people, we want to believe their word can be trusted, and that they have the knowledge and skill to lead, and that they are personally excited and enthusiastic about the direction in which we (the organisation) are headed.” Although credibility is imperative, we seem to hear more and more about leaders losing their credibility lately. What leads to this phenomenon? Let’s now focus on the five common factors.

1. Practising dictatorship in leading As a leader, one must be prepared to listen to other people’s constructive feedback. After all, leaders are the epicentre of a vast web of relationships. Failing to build an emotional connection with others disrupts their credibility to lead well. Allowing others to share opinions towards taking a right decision increases the respect gained towards a leader’s credibility.

3. Not taking ownership Referring to a quote by John G. Miller, “Ownership is a commitment of the head, heart, and hands to fix the problem and never again affix the blame.” I believe that taking ownership of an issue, good or bad, is the foundation upon which a leader’s credibility is built. Many leaders tend to push the blame onto somebody or something else when things go wrong. This response actually breaks the trust that people had placed on them. Instead, when one takes ownership despite failures, he builds a great reputation as a credible leader and would be trusted by more people.

4. Not bothering about others A self-centred leader would crush his credibility faster than ever. A leader who couldn’t care less about others would disrupt the whole ecosystem of building an emotional connection with stakeholders, which is an important tool to ensure high credibility. It is important to ensure that everyone is given great attention and treated with care. This will eventually bridge great gaps towards credibility.

5. Lack of understanding of own business and job Credibility always goes back to one’s ability to carry out the task and in keeping updated on the latest changes. People will always prefer to follow leaders who have a very clear understanding of what they are doing as they will be able to innovate ways to improve the team and the business. The top gun, being an example to others, will aggravate the need in the others to give their best in what they do.

So, talk less and listen more to develop the ability to influence and develop great credibility.

Concluding thoughts

2. Unwillingness to share information and knowledge

Credibility definitely makes a huge difference in current times. It is undeniable that credibility will be the key that differentiates a common leader from a great leader.

A credible leader is always willing to nurture his followers to become greater than who he is. Frequent failures in credibility happen when a leader withholds acquired knowledge and refrains from sharing information with others.

No matter where we are in the leadership journey, credibility is needed at the core. We also need to understand that credibility cannot be built without the trust and support of others around us.

Dinesh Dorai Raj

Dinesh wants to prove his credibility as a business and people leader and is willing to go all out against any boundaries to make it a reality. He continuously learns great credibility lessons from the leaders around him and enjoys the pain of growth as he embarks through the journey. He strives to inspire and build more credible leaders around the world over time.

Issue 30 I August 2019 31

LEADERS

DIGEST

FEEDBACK OR FEEL BAD? BY RAJEEV PESHAWARIA

The last time I drove the missus to town for our regular weekly shopping trip I actually counted the number of road signs that I saw on my side of the road between my house to the wet market. Admittedly there were a few that I had never noticed before this despite having plied that route countless times since we moved into the neighbourhood in January 2009. This is not an admission that I have been running through stop signs with impunity and endangering precious lives while pretending to be the Mr Magoo of Bangi but I have realised that if I had driven slower and paid enough attention to the road signs, I am convinced that my journey would be more pleasant for everybody especially the occupants of the car and kinder to the aging jalopy. The signs were put up for a purpose, which is to inform, to warn and also to educate.

Issue 30 I August 2019

Feedback to me is the breakfast of champions. At home it tells me if I am giving enough attention to my daughterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s schooling, it provides a pretty timely indication if I have been less than disciplined in observing my diet or even if the tie matches the shirt! At work it is even more critical. It tells us many things. It is a gauge that measures our performance and it can also mirror our behaviours quite reliably. First of all there must be a strong enough relationship with our colleagues. This is maybe stating the obvious to some since no stranger is going to walk up to us and proceed with giving us feedback on our performance. However I feel it cannot be overstated because in my work I have come across too many leaders who fail to do this. They may be too busy with their daily tasks that they fail to focus on creating and nurturing relationships with their people yet at most

LEADERS

DIGEST

meetings or townhall gatherings staff are expected to share thoughts and feedback! If the staff needs to be reminded, to be coaxed and cajoled for feedback then the culture of openness is not yet there. It is up to the leader to set the tone of the organisation. If the leader is seen to be generous with his feedback then it follows that the staff too will learn to be easy with their feedback. It is a good idea to begin by sharing positive feedback a few times to make people accustomed to the idea of giving and receiving feedback. Once there is a comfort level amongst staff with regards to feedback sharing, quickly find opportunities to ask permission from staff if he or she can be given a feedback for improvement. The staff identified at this point must be one who is open and comfortable enough to receive such feedback. The positive experience of the conversation may be used to showcase the benefits of sharing feedback. Throughout this time the leader too must find opportunities to ask for feedback from staff about his own performance. One will be amazed at the results. To maximise the effectiveness of feedback shared there must be a set of criteria observed. The easiest of these is timeliness. Timeliness ensures that the receiver is given the information about her performance as soon as possible. This also allows her to benefit from it quickly without having to wait until the next time she has a discussion with the leader before she is given the feedback. This is even more imperative if the feedback is one for behavioural improvement. It would be quite damaging both to the person and to the organisation if the person continues to project the wrong behaviours any longer than necessary. The second criterion is being specific. This perhaps poses a greater challenge to Malaysians generally especially since we are so accustomed to our meaningless “interesting la”, “can la” or what, to me, is the single most disturbing of all : “boleh la” replete with the all too famous non committal tone that usually accompanies it. Being Malaysians we were not trained to be direct, in fact we are made to believe that being less than direct is actually a virtue in certain situations. However, in helping a colleague or a subordinate understand with clarity how and which part of her performance needs improving, the feedback giver must be as specific as possible. She needs to know what was the behaviour observed, its impact on the observer, and, if it is a feedback for improvement, a suggested alternative for her future reference as well. I have observed that keeping the impact limited to the observer helps in keeping the interaction focussed. There is no issue about how “others” might be impacted because the giver has made it clear that he is sharing how he himself felt about it. And I have also noticed that following a conversation such as this, the staff will make an effort to seek feedback from others about her

performance, starting with people she is most comfortable with and perhaps, even from those she does not yet consider to be her close friends. The third and last criterion is ensuring that the feedback given is balanced between the positive and the negative or between the ones for recognition and improvement. This is not to say that for each recognition feedback there must also be a feedback of the improvement variety to follow suit. Or vice versa. This is not about keeping tabs of the types of feedback given either. Instead it is about the state of mind of the giver. He must always find the windows of opportunity to share feedback of both types as and when they present themselves. To always be observant about the performance of the team because negative behaviours if left unchecked would wreak untold damages to the performance and image of the organisation. On the other hand, great performance left unrecognised long enough will somehow fizzle out or fall through the cracks. Leaders should always be aware that the main objective of sharing feedback is to prevent the wrong behaviours from being repeated and to nurture an environment which promotes the right behaviours being practiced until they become part of the organisational culture. So the question is, are we doing enough to promote this culture?

Muhammad Sabri Rawi Muhammad Sabri Rawi is Iclif’s Mastercoach extraordinaire. His skills as a leadership development expert spans almost two decades. Sabri’s forte includes Leadership & Learning industry design, development & delivery of leadership training courses. He has distinguished himself as a Mastercoach from years of honing his skills in leadership training in multiple industries which include pharmaceutical, manufacturing, plantation, automotive, oil & gas, FMCG, GLC and the public sector.

Issue 30 I August 2019 33

LEADERS

DIGEST

Issue 30 I August 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

True leadership lies in guiding others to success. In ensuring that everyone is performing at their best, doing the work they are pledged to do and doing it well.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;

- Bill Owens

Issue 30 I August 2019 35

Building Leaders of Excellence

LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE OF SARAWAK CIVIL SERVICE KM20, JALAN KUCHING SERIAN, SEMENGGOK, 93250 KUCHING, SARAWAK. TELEPHONE : +6082-625166 FAX : +6082-625966 E-MAIL : info@leadinstitute.com.my