The third most common leadership mistake that survey responders identified was in setting direction.  They identified three sub-sets of that issue:

1. Poorly set goals – incomplete and unrealistic.
2. Constantly moving expectations and targets. 
3. Poor communications about goals – clarity at all levels.

The aspect of goals being INCOMPLETE was covered in the post about involving the right people in accumulating data and drawing conclusions from that data, so I am not going to repeat that.  If you are interested, you can find more information on this link… http://www.scottneilson.com/?p=300

The aspect of plans being unrealistic is an interesting and frustrating one.  I am sure that we have all been in the situation in which we have developed a plan for our business or department only to find that our goals have been arbitrarily increased to some higher level in order to motivate the organization to achieve higher levels of performance.  The assumption seems to be that an organization can always stretch and achieve more.  I have to say that I agree that there is usually some degree of stretch that can be achieved by pushing your organization, and good leaders will push to find that right level.  However, the problem I have also observed is that leaders rarely push to find that RIGHT LEVEL.  They often set a goal and do not challenge and debate with their key team members to see if, in fact, that goal is achievable.  Often, they are not. 

The downsides of setting unachievable goals are significant.  They create expectations among owners/shareholders/Boards that damage your credibility as a leader and the viability of the business when they are not achieved.  Further, they damage your credibility as a leader within your organization because people interpret those goals as meaning that either you do not understand the business, have another agenda that is not necessarily in the overall interest of the business, or do not respect the people that have to deliver on those goals.  Consequently, the people in your organization will be demotivated by unrealistic goals and you will have the opposite effect than that which you intended.  Worse, you will have lost credibility in the process and future efforts to set goals will be received with skepticism.

Second, constantly moving targets is a frequent problem as well.  I am not going to spend a lot of time digging into this problem because I think the uncertainty it creates, and the damage to credibility that ensues, does not require elaboration.

Without clarity, business plans are just words which most people do not really understand and cannot apply.

Finally, a very common failure in setting direction, and one which is so easily corrected, is driving the plan and tactics down to the lowest level in the organization.  It is rare when leaders layout a plan for the organization and then develop the details of that plan down to the lowest level to instruct everyone about THEIR role in helping to execute it.  Therein lies one of the main shortfalls in plan execution.  It seems simple enough, and it is.  Leaders need to make sure that plans are cascaded to all levels in the organization and defined for all levels of employees so that they are clear about what the plan means in terms of their daily activites.  When I do quarterly Town Hall meetings I reiterate the plan every time, and I talk about what that plan means in terms of daily activities for the people who are actually doing the work.  You would not think it necessary to do that.  You would think that people can make that jump themselves.  But, often they cannot. 

Try this sometime.  After communicating your plan to the organization, pull a small sampling of people aside and ask them what they must do to contribute to achieving that plan.  You will likely find a high degree of uncertainty about how to make it happen.  Now, imagine all those people heading back to their workplaces and their day to day activities.  Do you think that they will be contributing to meeting those goals?  Not likely.  Without that clarity, those plans are just words which most people really do not understand and cannot apply.

LACK OF LISTENING (continued)…

As you may recall, the last post on this subject was getting a bit long, so I cut it off.  Continuing then…

The other aspect of listening that readers were referring to was that leaders do not involve the right people in accumulating the information they need to make decisions.   Further, they hear the information given to them through “frames” (perspectives/paradigms) which color their understanding and use of that information.

First, we have to be realistic about the fact that leaders find themselves in “decision mode” most of the time.  The pressure is on them all day long to accumulate relevant information and make decisions.  To complicate things, time is usually of the essence.  The idea of opening up decision processes for outside input is not appealing because (1) it slows the process down, and (2) it tends to open the door for new information which may not be readily understood and which will require time-consuming analyses to understand.  Both of these issues fly in the face of “time being of the essence”.

…effective listening require “openness”; openness to involving other people, and openness to incorporating new information.

It is essential that leaders recognize that good processes yield good results.  They should resist the temptation to come to quick conclusions simply in the interest of making a decision and moving forward.  They must take the time to do a thorough job of accumulating and evaluating all the relevant information.  I go into this in more detail in my post on Organization Failure http://www.scottneilson.com/?p=200

Second, good process means involving the right people.  For every decision that must be made there are stakeholders; people who have a stake in the decision; people who will be affected by the decision.  Involving these people in the decision process increases the likelihood that you will have all the information available to make the decision.  Furthermore, if your process for involving these stakeholders truly incorporates their input, you increase the probability that they will support the decision and assist in executing it.

Finally, I often find that people are not really open to new information.  Leaders often feel that it is their job to have the answers, and anything less is a failure on their part.  New information means something that they have not thought of, and many leaders cannot accept that or let it be known.  It is too bad because they put a lot of unnecessary pressure on themselves.  As Lee Iacocca says in his book “Where Have All The Leaders Gone”, business today is far too complicated and moving too fast for any one individual to have all the answers.  Utilizing processes of involving other people in key decisions not only alleviates that pressure, but it yields better results. 

However, new information means that leaders have to recalibrate their thinking and examine decisions from new perspectives.  Most leaders do not want to do that.  It takes more time and requires more work.  It is not that they are not interested in doing the job well, it is that they feel a sense of urgency in getting to closure and do not want to take a step back.  Their interest in getting to closure makes them move past new information that could be useful.  For me, I have found that my worst decisions happen at times when I fail to control my need for reaching closure.

These aspects of listening require “openness”; openness to involving other people, and openness to incorporating new information. 

These facets, of what is becoming known as “co-creation” in leadership, also deal with elements of managing one’s EGO.  This will be the subject for post #4 on leadership mistakes.  It is a big subject and one which will require expert opinion.  Stay tuned.