Grace Under Fire

When Susan Williams was vice president for administration and planning at Belmont University in Nashville, she observed then-President Bill Troutt as he was faced with significant opposition from the faculty, staff, and students around proposed changes. It was the early 1990s, the private university was beginning a continuous improvement initiative, and Troutt advocated improvement in the way the university did its business. “He gave a speech that essentially said, ‘the train’s headed in this direction, I want you to go, but if you don’t get on board, you’ll probably be going somewhere else,’” recalled Williams, who is now a professor in Belmont’s graduate business program and one of the nation’s nine judges for the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality

Award, a 3-year post appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. “But rather than saying, ‘these are the tablets from the top of the mountain, and this is what we’re doing no matter what you think,’ he asked members of the university community for their opinion and got them involved,” Williams said. Troutt asked for input both informally and formally through a survey that asked all students, staff, and faculty: What delights you about Belmont? What disappoints you? If you could change one thing, what would it be? Williams said that there was a response rate of approximately 90 percent. From their input came initiatives that eventually changed the fabric of Belmont. The process of change was largely successful because the organization’s leader knew how to build coalitions in the face of opposition. Although Troutt had been firm in his direction from the start, Williams said, he also recognized that people usually support what they help to create.

Leaders today are waist deep in challenges, and at some point in their careers, most CEOs, business owners, and senior executives must lead their organizations through a crisis of change. A leader known to have “grace under fire” earns it and likely has scar tissue to prove it. When alligators are staring back at you, here are some things to keep in mind:

Be front and center. In times of upheaval, a leader’s visibility is paramount. Former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani was on the scene at the World Trade Center within minutes of the first terrorist attack, and in the weeks that followed September 11, 2001, he seemed to be everywhere—twice-daily press conferences, funerals, and memorial services. When the challenge hits, ask yourself: Who needs to see me? The people in your organization, department, or team want to see their leader—the captain—not just the flight attendants. Maintain high visibility by getting out of your office, touring facilities, and meeting with people. Answer their questions and keep them as informed as possible while also making clear that a course of action will soon be clear. “Let’s stay focused on what we can control, not what we can’t. Let’s be patient until we get all the facts.”

Remind them of their purpose. President Bush urged Americans to get back to their normal life routines after 9/11 and also urged everyone to help through their local charities. A lack of direction can create more tension, so leaders need to point people toward a meaningful target during tough times. Consider revisiting the organization’s values, vision statement, and guiding principles with people to give a sense of purpose.

Ask for help. Too often those at the top of an organization feel that they alone are capable of figuring out the pathway out of disaster. In certain situations, going it alone may be the only way; and ultimately, leaders are responsible for the decisions made. However, involving others may reveal a better plan of action. And as Bill Troutt proved, getting the troops involved is an effective way to build support and enthusiasm.

Give directions over and over. Clear, pointed information dispels confusion and worry. Do not let people free-float during a crisis. Once a plan is determined, craft a simple message that reminds people of the target, and deliver it frequently.

Show tough empathy. In a crisis, a leader must be calm and rational—staying focused on the task at hand—while still conveying care and respect for individuals. Leaders who take the unbalanced “stiff upper lip” approach probably will not connect with people who are experiencing fear, uncertainty, anger, or disappointment. Consequently, those who lead from the head and the heart are likely to be more effective.

Set the pace. Drastic changes can hit even the most composed executive right in the gut, yet leaders are expected to remain calm, point the way, and set the pace. When faced with a problem, many managers move into action. They adopt a tactic of attack, and when that tactic runs into problems, they move to another tactic—and another and another—without slowing enough to analyze what went wrong in the first place. Choose wise action over incessant activity. When we operate at full speed ahead, our decision making may not be at its best. Complex issues may require time. Also keep in mind that leaders who consistently present themselves as hurried can make followers uneasy and anxious. Business is inherently stressful, but a harried leader can feed the frenzy. People who are frequently rushed are described in these ways:

• “When work gets busy, she gets very fanatic with her management skills. The staff tends to get the brunt of her anxiousness in the form of impatience, ineffective/inconsistent communication, and the transference of her stress to us.”

• “Meetings are scheduled on top of one another, which doesn’t leave time for her to breathe and organize herself for other meetings. When the department needs to talk to her, or she needs us, it’s usually in between these tightly scheduled meetings. If only she’d slow down. Right now we aren’t getting the best of Donna.”

• “If Bruce could slow down—or at least pretend to— we’d gain a better leader.”

• “You’re always in crisis management mode, and you need to slow down.”

• “You can be brusque when busy and stressed.”