Have you read the pithy one page article entitled “The Ten Fatal Flaws That Derail Leaders” in the June 2009 Harvard Business review?  I quickly skimmed the flaws to see if I had any of them.  At first I was relieved.  While I can be pretty hard on myself, I didn’t think I had any of these flaws.  But the authors’ closing comments caused me to reconsider.  ”But the ineffective leaders we studied were often unaware that they exhibited any of these behaviors.  In fact those who were rated most negatively rated themselves substantially more positively. Leaders should take a very hard look at themselves and ask for candid feedback on performance in these specific areas.  Their jobs may depend on it.”   Denial is a dangerous thing.

I read the ten flaws a bit more thoughtfully and my conclusions the second time were sobering. For each behavior,  I took the time to think about things I had done or had not done in the last two weeks that a third party might view as examples of “flawed” leadership behavior.  I was able to recall at least one example for each of the ten flaws.  While this doesn’t necessarily mean I am a hopelessly flawed leader, it made me own up to the fact that I regularly exhibit sub optimal leadership behavior.  This exercise made me realize that seemingly small transgressions that I excuse because I am busy (and a leader – see the Toxic Tandem in the same issue of HBR), when seen objectively, are powerful examples of poor leadership and they add up.  Maybe going through this exercise will help you identify some areas in which you could raise your game and improve your image as a manager and a leader!

The Ten Fatal Flaws by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman

Lack of energy and enthusiasm

Accept their own mediocre performance

Lack clear vision

Have poor judgement

Don’t collaborate

Don’t walk the talk

Resist new ideas

Don’t learn from mistakes

Lack interpersonal skills

Fail to develop others

An article in the April 2009 Harvard Business Review by Julia Adler-Milstein describes research that suggests that organizations need to make changes to how they are organized and how they operate in order to enjoy the benefits of new technologies they introduce.  The article cites a study by MIT Sloan School’s Erik Brynjolfsson and others that finds that the following specific operating model changes were required for successful implementation of new technologies:

1) increased training

2) increased individual decision making authority

3) flattened hierarchies

4) greater use of skilled resources

5) decentralized teams

5) incentives for team performance

Organizations that didn’t make these changes fared worse than they would have had they not introduced the technologies in the first place.  The article focuses on adoption of electronic health records but the findings apply across the board.  

One thing we can take away from this is that successful change that brings value and is sustainable is multi dimensional. We need to take time to think deliberately about the whole system into which we are introducing a change (people, the processes, physical assests and the organization structure).  We need to think openly and strategically about what other parts of the system need to be changed to create the conditions for success and to minimize the conditions for failure.  

As managers we may find that “we don’t have time” to think about all of this or that the prospect of thinking about it all is daunting – like confronting a multi dimensional chess game.  We often find that our management just wants the change to happen and doesn’t want to get bogged down in considerations and activities that might increase cost and slow down delivery.  You can use this HBR article and the underlying research to make your case!