New Wine, Old Bottles
By Stephen R. Covey
(Source: http://www.franklincovey.com/ez/library/wine.html
and
copied here in case the source is deleted some time in the future)
For
many years I've worked with chief executives in many organizations, training
them to be better coaches, servant leaders, and sources of help—rather than be
judges, policemen, motivators, and magicians.
Most training programs try to put new wine in old bottles. For instance, they take the marvelous "new wine" concept of servant leadership—which the Greenleaf Center has created and implemented so successfully—and then they mix it with the old command-and-control or benevolent authoritarian approach.
But such mixing only compounds the original problem, because it gives the boss an aura of respectability as a coach or servant leader, when in fact he's fundamentally unchanged in his basic style. He's now a wolf in sheep's wool.
That's why most people resent performance appraisals. In fact, when I speak to an audience, I know how to get a fast reaction. I simply say, "The latest artifact of modern-day bloodletting in management is performance appraisal." The audience will almost stand and cheer. People have had it with performance appraisals where management uses a human relations approach and a coaching style, but there's no clear performance agreement. And so the person is still not the one ultimately responsible for results.
Servant leadership requires humility of character and core competency around a new skill set—not just directing, motivating and evaluating people using traditional performance appraisals.
Three Steps to Transformation
To become servant leaders, executives need to take three steps›building
relationships of trust, setting up win-win performance agreements, and then
being a source of help.
The agreement gives the other person total freedom within the guidelines to accomplish objectives. The moment such an agreement is set, the leadership paradigm shifts from one of benevolent authoritarianism to one of servant leadership. You become a source of help to those individuals who have entered into this agreement with you. The accountability process is based on self-evaluation, using feedback from different stake holders. In fact, I often refer to this agreement as "stewardship delegation," since in such agreements each person becomes a "steward" over certain resources and responsibilities.
In the mutual accountability sessions conducted by the person or the team, the servant leader asks four questions:
Flying High Anyway, they put me in a flight simulator, and while I was in the simulator,
I was attacked by different "bandits" that tried to shoot me down. An
instructor taught me how to use the stick in my right hand and the guns in my
left hand to fight the bandits. My teenage son, Joshua, could easily have killed
these bandits, because he plays all these video games, but I was just total
thumbs—and they shot me down one right after another.
Then they sent across the screen a "dumb bandit." It couldn't shoot
me down, but I had to shoot it down. Well, I sat there for 15 minutes, and I
could not kill this bandit. Finally, the commander put his hands on my hands and
showed me how to do it.
Next, they took me into a room where pilots go after they've had their
"dog fights." In this room, the pilots see visual recreations of the
encounters as captured from the perspective of the other planes. So I sat there
as they showed the pictures taken from different angles by planes involved in
this simulation.
The commander sat next to me and showed me how my plane was seen from all the
other angles on these simulated combat missions. So, in this way, I had access
to all the data. The commander helped me interpret the data and understand what
was happening and why. He explained why I should have done this or that. Of
course, I was very open to his instruction because we shared the same
objective—to save our lives, to win the battle, and to preserve the peace. So
we quickly formed a relationship based on trust, shared vision, common purpose,
and access to all the information.
From this experience, I gained important insights about servant leadership.
At first, I had a limited vision and had trouble working the controls. I was
being shot down all the time. Even with the instructor's hands over mine, I
could hardly shoot down a dumb bandit.
But after seeing the big picture, the shared vision and mission, I had a much
broader awareness of what was going on. With a servant leader by my side, I
learned fast.
This experience represents the difference between "go-fer"
delegation (go for this, now do this, now do that) and empowerment (let's spend
the time to set up the agreement and to operate within the guidelines, but from
the moment we set it up, you're responsible for desired results, and I'm a
source of help).
In her book, The New Science of Leadership, Meg Wheatley teaches the same
basic principle. She says what you need is a common vision and purpose, and free
information flow, because it's going to be chaotic, and you've got to expect it.
But use chaos to your advantage. Let people have whatever information comes in,
and then become a source of help to them.
The servant leader often has to help expand vision and perspective, and then
bring to bear his experience. But people want it. They're asking for it, because
their lives are at stake. They know that their organizations are fighting for
their economic life. And so the people working under the servant leader have
more responsibility and accountability. They're at the controls and sense that
they're in charge, that this isn't a game any more, that there's something at
stake here.
Examples of Servant Leaders For example, when I was just 20 years old, I served as an assistant to the
president of an organization. One time I asked him, "Why don't you ever
give me any feedback? You never tell me if you like my speeches." And he
said, "Do you want to be dependent upon me? You know within yourself what's
happening. If you want some help, you just ask me. I'm here." From then on,
I was free of the president. I didn't have to worry about his reaction. He never
praised me or blamed me, but if I wanted help, he'd give it. So I would ask him,
"What do you think of this." He served me as a source of help.
Later in life, I served as a vice president under a benevolent dictator. The
servant leader who replaced him was actually tougher. That experience taught me
that servant leadership is not soft or touchy-feely. It's a much tougher style
because when you set up performance agreements and become a source of help,
people have to be tough on themselves. They just can't sit around and blame
others.
I've come to greatly admire the leadership that Horst Schulze, president of
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, provides to his management and staff. He's a
very authentic person. His energy, commitment, and service to his people have
created a culture of "ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and
gentlemen." While staying at the Ritz-Carlton at Amelia Island, Florida, I
walked through the kitchen and was amazed to find that it was as clean as the
lobby. The people there were in a class of their own. I'm convinced that it's
the culture that has drawn out the best in them.
At the Toro Company in Minneapolis, chairman Ken Melrose has certainly made a
difference. Only an exceptional chief executive would subject himself
voluntarily to internal scrutiny and external accountability, involving all the
stakeholders. Melrose is one such executive. He even posts his personal goals
outside his office for all to see, along with an accounting of his performance
against those goals. Both his office and his mind are open, and people at all
levels are invited to share their ideas. He freely shares information in good
times and bad, thus creating a culture of trust.
By inviting people's involvement, he gains influence and commitment. He
empowers others. His sense of stewardship, not ownership, of his resources makes
him a model of servant leadership.
I recently attended a football game that demonstrated a magnificent contrast
between the servant leadership and benevolent authoritarian styles of
management. Both teams had great coaches. But as I watched the game, I could see
one coach pacing up and down the sideline, making every decision on both offense
and defense. In stark contrast, the other coach only got involved in the pivotal
decisions, because he had set up a system of empowerment with his assistant
coaches.
Historically, the servant leader tends to have a longer tenure. In many
organizations, leaders, like coaches, come and go. They have two or three years
to turn things around, or they're out. Servant leaders, like the second coach I
described, often have 200-win careers that span several decades. But often their
contributions are rather subtle and long-term. The critics of servant leaders
are people who want more dramatic near-term results; however, you don't get real
and sustained success this way. You can manage things, but you must lead people,
and that leadership takes time. Remember, with people, fast is slow, and slow is
fast.
Dr. Stephen R. Covey is an internationally respected leadership authority,
family expert, teacher, organizational consultant, and co-chairman of Franklin
Covey Co. He is also the author of several acclaimed books, including The 7
Habits of Highly Effective People.
I once had an experience that for me was a simulation of
servant leadership. I was working with the Oregon Air National Guard and was
scheduled to go up in an F-15 fighter jet. But because Congress has put its foot
down on such flights without special permission, it was cancelled. When I
checked into it and saw the kind of strength you need in your back and neck
muscles to deal with those G-forces, I was glad my flight was canceled.
In many organizations I've worked in or with, I've seen examples of servant
leaders who have really made a difference.