Chapter 4: Bring People on Board: Negotiating Buy-In


OVERVIEW

As Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, he took her hand and said, "We are about to enter a time of transition." Leaders today face a similar prospect. No matter how good their intelligence, how strong their backing, and ample their resources, they are venturing into uncharted territory. If our interviews are a good indication, leadership appointments of the routine sort are relics of the past. Not a single commentator took on a new assignment expecting to be a caretaker. Instead, the women confronted roles that demanded they shepherd change. Some were called upon to revive flagging departments or whole enterprises . Others, in the wake of mergers, faced the challenge of marrying disparate cultures. Still others sought to get new initiatives off the ground ”either bringing new products to market or introducing new internal systems.

The risks of the assignments were great. The contemplated changes hit people from all angles: as individuals, as members of a department or group , and as part of an organized system with habits, personal ties, and a decided culture. Yet the old guidelines of what it took to be a leader no longer provided much guidance ”or comfort . In the face of rapid technological progress and intense competitive pressures, these new leaders were thrown into situations where they constantly had to reinvent themselves and their roles as leaders. Rosabeth Moss Kanter captures the new realities: "[As] the clear distinctions of title, task, department, even corporations blur, traditional sources of power erode and the old motivational tools lose their magic." [ 1]

If new leaders are called upon to implement change, they also must adapt to it. In an environment where the "half-life of knowledge grows ever shorter," even high-performers must "unlearn what they know and do." [ 2] The risks they bear are obvious. Yet peers and subordinates can carry an equal burden of risk ”and with fewer means of control. And the degree of perceived risk correlates directly with the level of change contemplated.

It is not that change automatically breeds resistance. Few lottery winners balk at the sudden shift in their fortunes. [ 3] But when change brings with it the possibility of loss ” threatening comfortable ways of doing things or long-standing loyalties ” it can precipitate formidable resistance. Because that resistance often takes aim at the new leader, it can be characterized as a personal vendetta, undertaken for parochial or shortsighted reasons. [ 4] It may well be. But just as new leaders must constantly adapt to fluid circumstances, they must encourage their peers and subordinates to adapt as well.

To get peers and subordinates to put their weight behind a change agenda, you must first convince them that you can lead them through it successfully. You have to engage them on your agenda. They need to know that however threatening departures from past practices might appear at first blush, they have something to gain from them. You cannot impose change, as in the older hierarchical organizational models, announcing that change, like castor oil, is good for them. You have to bring them to the understanding that the opportunities of the new outweigh the costs of giving up some of the old. You are, after all, asking them to step outside their comfort zones. They have to start to trust you.

Commentators in the business press, in fact, often give the edge to women on this front. Socialized to care about others, the reasoning goes, women early on develop an aptitude for collaboration and hone their ability to connect with others. They supposedly have a greater tolerance for ambiguity, appreciate the efforts of teams , and, accustomed to juggling multiple roles, exhibit greater flexibility than do their male counterparts. These skills and inclinations should stand them in good stead when they need to enlist buy-in from their team.

Unfortunately those relational abilities that mark the "feminine" style ”the ability to mentor and to foster collaboration and open dialogue ”do not necessarily work to the advantage of women. Doubts about their abilities may force them to adopt exacting standards. Indeed, some critics have gone so far as to suggest that the female advantage is really the advantage of competence. [ 5] For women leaders to get where they are, they simply have to be very, very good at what they do. That competence can generate resistance when women take on certain kinds of roles or operate in certain male-dominated environments.

If, however, a woman taking on a new role emphasizes the feminine side of leadership ”the nurturing, supportive aspects ”she is likely to be considered too nice. Relational skills, long associated with a woman 's predilection for nurturing, may not add to perceptions of her leadership ability. They can be discounted as traditional women's work. Her male colleague, on the other hand, gets kudos for the courage to show his softer side and for his attentiveness to the concerns of others. [ 6]

Different leadership roles call for and tolerate various blendings of decisive decision making and appreciative inclusion, but the mixture must fit both the leadership role and the expectations of behavior appropriate to a woman. The dissonance between the two may have accounted for the visceral reactions to Martha Stewart. Women confessed to "Martha Stewart moments," then disparaged the "domestic diva" or applauded her success. Men secretly delighted in her predicament, one more common to male CEOs. The smiling image on the television screen, patiently molding chocolate curls, warred with the tales of the harridan barking out orders behind the scenes or the hard-nosed negotiator cutting a marketing deal with Kmart on sheets. Stewart's dual personae ”as a traditional woman bringing impeccable order to closets and as a leader imposing equal order on her business empire ”managed to push sensitive buttons in either role.

To convert a change agenda into a shared agenda, women must often navigate in this uneasy territory between what is expected of a leader and what is expected of a woman. [ 7] That can be an uncomfortable place from which to bring people on board. The challenge is to help peers and subordinates deal with their very real (and quite legitimate ) fears and to move past that initial resistance. A key to getting peers and subordinates to pay attention is for the new leader to pay attention. Most people don't resist change because they take pleasure in being obstructionist. They can back up their objections with what they consider valid reasons. They may even think that the change effort is pointless.

Women leaders in new positions face dual challenges: They must establish commitment to the task at hand and develop a communal commitment at the same time. On both counts, they can anticipate resistance and must have strategies in place to overcome it. The objective is to convince these potential naysayers that change is not only possible but, with their help, likely.

That objective makes for a delicate balancing act. The leader needs to bring her team on board by creating a context for them to contribute and by enlisting them to work with her. To do that, she must rely heavily on relational skills ”responding to her team members' concerns and appreciating the difficulties they have experienced in the past and those that they see ahead. But she must couple these connected overtures with moves that establish her credibility as a leader.

Because connection is so closely associated with women, it is important for women leaders to work on both levels: simultaneously establishing their decision-making authority and engaging others in the decision-making process. Tough assignments inevitably bring on tough choices. Before team members sign on, they must be individually convinced that you can make those choices and won't waffle at the first hint of opposition or resistance.

[ 1] Rosabeth Moss Kanter, On the Frontiers of Management , p. 59.

[ 2] Dave Ulrich, Jack Zenger, and Norman Smallwood, Results-Based Leadership . The results that the authors focus on demonstrate the changing attitudes toward leadership. They sequence leadership responsibilities in the following way: invest, leverage, and expand human capital; improve capabilities to learn, act swiftly, collaborate without boundaries, and be accountable; build firm not brand equity. Only then do increasing shareholder value and improvements to the bottom line appear as natural consequences.

[ 3] Claus Otto Scharmer, "Dialogue on Leadership: Conversation with Ronald Heifetz."

[ 4] In Leadership on the Line , Martin Linsky and Ronald A. Heifetz identify four forms resistance can take: marginalization, diversion , attack, and seduction.

[ 5] Rochelle Sharpe, "As Leaders, Women Rule."

[ 6] Joyce Fletcher, Disappearing Acts .

[ 7] Transformational approaches to leadership draw heavily on the twin sides of the leadership calculus: both the instrumental, task-oriented (masculine) and the communal, relational (feminine) sides. The androgynous blending may well be one reason that women can find the approach so successful in receptive environments. Alice H. Eagly and Linda Carli, "The Female Leadership Advantage."




Her Place at the Table. A Woman's Guide to Negotiating Five Key Challenges to Leadership Success
Her Place at the Table: A Womans Guide to Negotiating Five Key Challenges to Leadership Success
ISBN: 0470633751
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2003
Pages: 64

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net