Leaders and the "Win-Win" Game

Thomas Kilman Conflict Resolution instrument here provides five approaches to conflict resolution depending on the degree of cooperativeness and assertiveness of the conflicting parties.

I viewed the efforts made by UMNO top leadership on the impending transition of power as a case of: "tarik rambut dalam tepung: tepung jangan berserak, rambut jangan terputus" . Probably this is the Malay equivalent of Thomas Kilman's collaborative approach. But see also how the Malay proverb had placed emphasis on the importance of relationship even in a conflict situation. This is the so-called "soft on the people but hard on the issue" technique.

Many in the party may have felt a bit relieved on learning that the incumbent is ready to shorten the power transition period.

Kudos for having learnt, understood and practiced Thomas Kilman's conflict resolution grid and also lived the said Malay proverb, to some extend. But it sounds more like a compromise (you lose some - I lose some) rather than a win-win resolve.

Malaysian Insider's report here, the Malaysiakini's report here and the Star Online report here, on the other hand reminded me of an episode in the late Tan Sri P. Ramlee's Nujum Pak Belalang wherein 'Nyawa' and 'Badan' were trying to find ways for a win-win resolve over the looted treasure. I smiled as I recalled the glimpses of "ini kepala bapak kau & ini kepala bapak aku" technique we resorted to every time my friends and I had quarrels. That was many years ago when we were naive little kampung kids.

While I was pondering over the subtle messages written in-between-the-lines in the above-mentioned reports, the Nujum Pak Belalang video clip, the Malay peribahasa and the reminiscence on the children's games we played, what came vividly into my mind were: whose priority shall leaders place first? Whose problems shall leaders resolve first, whose interest shall leaders take care first - self, followers or the organisation/the country?

If Abraham Lincoln's (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865), Gettysburg address: "Government of the people by the people and for the people" could probably throw leaders in UMNO some light on the above issue, certainly this is another lesson learned by leaders/ managers in the business sector in deciding their priorities in a conflict situation.

Difficult People and Self-Esteem

More often than not, leaders tend to question why do difficult co-workers behave 'difficult'.

In a cycle of conflict, one is perceived as trying to change the other. The harder the attempt, the harder the resistance a change agent will experience.

Many leaders believe that co-workers resist change because they are living in a comfort zone, because they do not see the real need for change, because of the sour relationships co-workers had with the change agent. Little did leaders realised that co-workrs resist change not because of change per se but because of the uncertainties brought along by the change. These uncertainties create fear. Co-workers resist change because they are fearful of losing their basic needs, losing their security needs, their social needs they are currently enjoying, and more importantly they fear of losing their self-esteem and self actualisation. In other words, difficult people, very often have a low self esteem.

When change is inevitable, as a result of forces from within and outside, those resisting change suffer the 'denial syndrome'. They will always point the fingers at others for causing the problems except themselves. The irony is, while one finger points at others, four are pointing at themselves.

The current political turbulence within the ruling coalition especially after the March 8 GE and the 26 August PP by-election manifests this denial syndrome. When the pressures from outside are mounting, only then will leaders restrategise. Whether they are restrategising counter attacks or reforms is something that many people are anxiously waiting to know. The uncertainties has since translated into unfavourable social, economic and financial implications.

Likewise, similar situations could also happened in corporate organisations. In the process, a lot of time, money and energy are wasted. Many people were demoralised, some burnt-out and others find alternative solutions.

Difficult People & The Cycle of Conflict

Recently, in spite of Ramadan, I have the opportunity of facilitating a 2-day session on management skills. The programme was attended by managers and senior managers from the manufacturing industry. Several topics encompassing the conceptual, technical and human skills were covered. Yet, most critiques from participants were on conflict, dealing with difficult people and managing change - issues relating to human skills.

One participants remarked that the most important asset of an organisation - 'the people - is the most difficult to manage'.

Sometimes we find ourselves losing our heads when dealing with difficult people. We wonder how a simple disagreement can turn into a conflict.

So, on one side we have the nice people like us (the participants and me) and the difficult people on the other side (like the difficult co-workers).

I started by requesting the participants for words used to describe difficult people. As expected, everyone started to throw in negatives. Asking them to think like nice people, I went on to request them for words that described their reactions towards the 'difficult people'. Then I had asked them to analyse both the lists. They laughed. I was relieved when I learned that the they were indeed laughing at themselves. Little did they realised that, before this, they were behaving exactly in the same manner as the 'difficult people' when dealing with them.

How can we resolve the conflict or handle difficult people when we are behaving like them? Two negatives do not make a positive. It's a stalemate.How is this explained?

I have asked them to work in pair. One, A and the other, B. A holds his/her fist tight and B using his/ her creativity will try to open the fist. The 'lesson of the fist' manifests that the harder the attempt to open the fist, the more it motivates the difficult person to resist even harder. This creates the cycle of conflict. The cycle of conflict works in a vicious cycle.

Issues implicating Ahmad Ismail from Bukit Bendera; Penang recently, the reactions and exchanges of words from political and ethnic leaders from within and outside the ruling coalition, on the issues; Ahmad's refusal to apologise and the tearing away of Penang BN Chairperson and Former Penang CM's photograph; are classic illustrations on the cycle of conflict.

Positioned Leader Versus True Leader

Just before the Permatang Pauh by-election on the 26 August 2008, Malaysians witnessed two main opposing coalitions resorted to slinging mud and throwing rocks at each other. Each side bragged on their chances of winning the by-election. They deemed to have worked for a common cause. That's quite understandable. The by-election result literally do not change the distribution of seats. The ruling coalition still controls the majority.

I expected some signs of the dusts resulting from mud-slinging and stone-throwing to start settling down.

While much have been said and written on this issue, this observation will not add to the already lengthy list of political analyses. I choose to differ by looking at the issue from the leadership perspetive.

Yes, the dust has settled down, but in Pakatan Rakyat. They are already focusing on the next course of actions. The opposite is true in the ruling coalition. The dust has not settled down since the first election tsunami. In fact the dust is thickening after 26 August as they found a new ground for mud-slinging and stone-throwing. Now, within the coalition. Whether the dust will settled down soon is left much to be desired.

The above scenario provides us the relationships between positioned leader and true leader. It suggests the relationships between acquiring a position and the ability to control. There appears to be no guarantee that one will be able to lead and control even if he is positioned. Popularity positioned a leader, but true leadership steers and controls the entire team and its performance. True leadership is about influencing people/ followers. It is built around trust bound by personal attributes, competency and connection. Absence of true leadership can be chaotic and the result, fatal.

The current scenario is indeed annoying for everyone is hopeful for the dusts to settle down. But it takes a real leader ( and his power of buying-in) to settle the dusts (read resolve the problems)and clear the clouds (read set the vision).

When the dusts has settled and the clouds cleared only then could we see people lining up behind the leader.He is the real leader. And, everyone of us is waiting eagerly to see who he is...

Be A 'Good' Finder

"When can you know that you are making a mistake in your job?", I asked.
"When my boss gets angry with me.", replied one of the participants in one of my training sessions on leadership.
"What happened when everything goes fine?", I asked curiously. "Ah, nothing happened. Our bosses left leave us alone. He doesn't bother us and we'll just do our jobs as usual. It's business as usual.", another participant responded.
"How do you get rewarded for your good effort?", I asked further.
"Well, we have to wait till the end of the year. See if we will be getting any raise in our increment and bonus." someone senior in age replied with cynicism. The rest nodded in agreement.

These are usual stereo-typed responses I got from participants. No, they are not participants from the same company attending scheduled in-house training sessions. It would not be so surprising if it is so. The questions I asked would have been discussed among them before they attend the programme. But these are responses gathered during my public programmes.

These responses inferred that bosses, regardless industry, have not effectively put their thinking caps in the right perspective in dealing with their knowledge-coworkers. In short, they have not changed.

What is apparent from these responses is that co-workers learned that bosses paid more attention when they made mistakes. Co-workers got immediate 'beatings' for mistakes done and delayed recognition and reward for good work. Co-workers witnessed 'beatings' came personally from their bosses and delayed recognition from the company. Never could they witnessed recognition coming personally from their bosses. Such behaviour nurtures the 'blame culture'.The result is low morale and demotivated workforce.

While bosses expect greater efficiency and higher productivity from their co-workers at the end of each day, little did they realise that their leadership behaviour is counter productive. Already, many bosses and co-workers find their work stressful and for some, they are burnt-outs.

It is therefore paramount for bosses to find time to recognise and reward their co-workerss. Be a 'good' finder. Pick on every 'good' things your co-workers did and recognise their 'good' effort. You will soon realise that your co-workers repeat their 'good' behaviour. This raises morale, motivation hence greater efficienty and higher productivity.

Bosses should have the attitude of a staunch soccer supporter who gave his big applause for every move perceived fit to score a goal and a proud coach who hug the striker for the goal scored. And,these are done almost spontaneously - and not wait till the end of the game.

Then, what do bosses do with those making mistakes? Send them to school. The world has changed. 'Beating' your co-workers do not solve the problem. It created more problems for your behaviour made them more demoralised, demotivated, less effective and result in poor productivity. Worst still they shun away from you. This is the power of the powerless.

Bosses therefore need to find time to coach and show their co-workers how to come out of their work-related problems. If you do this, you have just found and learn to leverage your new source of power - the referent power.

So, to be effective, be a 'good' finder.

Knowing Where You Are and Your Role Play

End of last week I was on a 2-day training assignment. The programme was aimed at developing participants' skill in using tools and tactics in order to improve their capability. I was least concern on the quality of the contents. Quality of contents is essentially influenced by individual intelligence, exposures, experiences, the amount of information an individual has and more importantly the person's level of motivation. It also requires effective nurturing and coaching at workplace by leaders in the organisation. Tools and tactics can only structure the thought process that will enhance the quality of the contents. Besides, it is beyond scope of my training .

At the end of the 2-day programme, I was pleased to see that everyone had demonstrated the expected level of competency in deploying the tools and tactics shared. Such competency was manifested by their group work and presentations. I am must say that everyone had taken home more than they had carried into the training room and much more than I had expected. The objectives of the programme were met.

The participants ranges from junior executives with as low as 3 months experience to general manager with more than 20 years of experience. Pitching, though challenging, was not a problem . Presentations on the first day were dry and dragged. I had noted that except one, the rest of the participants were not too willing to open up. This one person though analytical was exceptionally critical on group work. Later in the day I had understood the environment as there were instances when I too felt uneasy.

The second day was supposed to start at 8.30am. By 8.35am the training room was still half-full. Two out of four groups had only 2 participants each. Someone senior in position had insisted that I start the programme right away as it would be unfair for him who had come early. I saw he valued compliance more than commitment. True leaders value commitment more than compliance. The other group members were as important to me as the rest. I recalled J.C. Maxwell's: "Leaders need to give up (their pride) to go up". This is humility. I did not see such quality in this person. He is not even willing to give in for 5 extra minutes to others. I had but to assert that we need to give another 5 minutes grace. Less than 2 minutes later four more participants came in. One group was still short of 2 participants. We reorganised the groups. We had 3 instead of 4 groups like in the first day. The participants had indeed went through the team dynamics of forming, storming, norming and performing.

As the participants left the room and shake their hands (except the ladies whom I do not shake hand with) at the end of the 2 day session , I could feel their tight grip except one person. I had however left some souvenirs for them to share - 12 Angry Men and Difficult People.

There are several points to learn from this experience:
1. Regardless of our position and authority, in a training sesssion we attended, we are just another participant.
2. We need to lock in our position and authority before leaving our office. In Rome, do as the Romans do. A local parable suggested "masuk kandang kambing mengembek, masuk kandang lembu menguak."
3. We may manage and lead our organisation, but the course leader/ facilitator leads the training session we attended. This is the law of connection (Maxwell).
4. We should not only be willing to learn but also should be willing to be taught.
5. Regardless how authoritative can we be, our skills in leveraging the reward power motivates others. The use of positive words will make a positive difference.
6. Leaders need to be 'good-finder' instead of being overly critical on nitty-grity, for we will end up with no one contributing any ideas in the future.
7. Learn to recognise small improvements as these are building blocks for bigger successes.
8. To motivate others, is to make them feel good about themselves and others.
9. At times, we need to play dumb and ignorant to excite others to give more information and show their 'colour'

Take note that these lessons learned too demand analytical thinking capability. I have to keep reminding myself of these lessons when presenting a paper in an upcoming logistics forum this October 2008 in Penang.

Leadership: Perception and Reality

It is has been sometime since I last blogged in June 2008. The schedules I had kept me busy taking through young executives from the industry - both private and public sector - on management and leadership lessons learned. And citing live-examples from the dramatic Malaysian political scenario seemed to create a lot of excitement in our discussions.

I too have the opportunity of sharing "Hang Tuah" the first Malay coloured-movie with our participants. We saw similar characters in today's leadership and management. We saw and learned how history repeated itself in our modern day management and leadership.

Hang Tuah survived the thick and thin of his life, from being praised, admired, condemn and cursed by the people. Tun Ali, Patih Karma Wijaya were colourful characters we can learn from but Hang Jebat remained principle-centred. Each of these characters - good or evil - has their followers.

At the end of the movie, Hang Tuah asked "Am I right or Hang Jebat?"

Right or wrong is a question of perception. It is a question of which side you are on on. As leaders, the reality is whether the people trust you and more importantly whether they accept you - as a person (not your position) and the cause for which you are fighting - to lead them.