Week 16: Autonomy Needed

An old friend contacted me out of the blue this week. She’s in the Army reserves and has been deployed overseas for a few months and is expected to stay for another year. Unexpectedly, however, she’d returned back to the United States on emergency leave because both of her parents’ health were degrading.

Her dad has suffered from dementia for many years and when she deployed, her mom was his primary caregiver. Somehow, her mom’s health has declined to a level where she isn’t even taking very good care of herself.

My friend traveled home with the expectation of establishing guardianship over both parents and being added to bank accounts, etc. Her mom had agreed that she needed help and that this would allow my friend to better help her, especially from very far away.

When my friend reached out and was sharing this story, she was doing so out of extreme frustration because, at the last minute while already IN THE BANK, her mom changed her mind. My friend was back on the plane facing a 2 day trip back to her duty station, having not accomplished any of what she came to do. As a result of this, her dad will likely be taken into custody by Adult Protective Services and her mom will need to be put in a home.

It’s one of the worst case scenarios.

As I was thinking about this post, I couldn’t help but draw a connection between my friend’s situation and one I’ve seen play out repeatedly in troubled organizations:

• Organization recognizes it is troubled - morale is low, revenue is declining, they are losing business, etc.
• Organization seeks help from someone who is experienced. They often woo this person and pay top dollar to bring them into the organization.
• Experienced person recommends that the organization make a change or do something different from what they’ve been doing (that has clearly contributed to the trouble).
• Organization rejects the recommendation.

I’ve also personally experienced this as the person who has been brought in to share their expertise and experience with an organization only to be ignored when making recommendations based on that expertise and experience.

It’s baffling but so common.

If you’re thinking but aren’t we supposed to be learning from Mulally, I’m getting to that ha ha.

In reflecting on how I could have been more effective in these situations to avoid my recommendations being dismissed, I have settled on two guiding principles:

1. I need to work on being more influential. That’s actually what initially led me to The Catalyst. See how this is coming full circle now?
2. I need to maximize the amount of autonomy I have in accomplishing what I’ve been hired to do.

It’s the second principle that I want to focus on in this post.

Often, when an organization hires someone to help them right the ship, it is because there was no one capable of doing so internally. This isn’t always an indictment on the leaders’ actual ability. While some organizations are run into the ground by poor leaders, others have leaders who may be so embedded in the organization that they would benefit from an objective perspective. Regardless, the critical part that is often overlooked is that the value in the new leader’s recommendation may not be immediately recognized. Therefore, the decision on whether to adopt the recommendation cannot be based on widespread agreement. Given that the organization has chosen the right candidate, the only hope for their success is to be given the autonomy to do what they think is right.

Mulally demanded autonomy at Ford

Just before Mulally took over, Bill Ford was the CEO and Chairman of the Board. During his recruitment phase, the board told Mulally that Bill was willing to consider giving him the chairman title if Mulally felt he needed both to get the job done.

This was yet another divergence in what I would naturally do versus what Mulally did. Facing such a huge turnaround effort and the many challenges that come with that, I would have probably agreed to take the chairman role. Mulally, however, turned it down.

Well….great points, Mulally!

Prior to agreeing to take the job, Mulally had been transparent with Bill Ford about his initial thoughts on what it would take to turn Ford around. These included the massive restructuring, layoffs and his mandatory Business Process Review meeting. It didn’t occur to me until writing that how remarkable that is. In being so transparent, he laid the groundwork for his change and gathered important feedback to able to make an initial evaluation on whether it would be possible. He also provided Bill Ford and the others who were vetting him an opportunity to avoid embarking on a path they knew they wouldn’t support.

But Mulally didn’t assume that meant he would have Bill Ford’s support. Like any exceptional leader, he confirmed it.

Incredible!

American Icon goes on to highlight a few instances where he needed to rely on that promise and Bill Ford followed through.

The lesson for me is to advocate for that autonomy and as you evaluate new opportunities, do your due diligence to seek out as much confirmation that you will have it as you can get.

When I was interviewing for my current job, I asked my would-be-boss how he would describe his leadership style. This was my attempt to determine how much autonomy I would have in the job. I don’t remember his response but it was aligned enough with my expectation that I took the job. He didn’t outright promise me anything but he has been very consistent in giving me the autonomy I need and empowering me to bring about meaningful change.

But the lessons from Mulally just don’t stop flowing…

Mulally gave autonomy to others

Not only did he seem to know how important it would be to have autonomy in his own role, Mulally also gave his backing to those he asked to take on important roles in his turnaround effort!

In his newly restructured organization, Mulally needed to fill the role of Head of Global Product Development. He promoted Derrick Kuzak to this position. Kuzak had played other key roles at Ford but had become disillusioned with the organization.

Fortunately for Mulally, this was perfectly aligned with his turnaround plan. Kuzak brought inside, historical knowledge and technical expertise that Mulally knew he needed. Mulally and Kuzak agreed to work together to make Ford’s cars and trucks the highest quality, safest, and most fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. He told Kuzak “I’m not just going to let you do, I’m going to back you up. I’m going to support you and I’m going to make sure the whole organization gets behind this. I’m right here for you, Derrick.”

I could also write a full post on the way Mulally was able to inspire even those who had become disillusioned with the organization.

The second lesson for me in this post is to make sure to empower others to carry out what you’ve entrusted them to.

Should we talk about why that’s so hard or has this post gotten long enough already?

We should definitely talk about it.

Why do you think it is so hard for leaders to give that autonomy once they’ve installed someone into a position?

I’ll give you my thoughts. I think there are three main reasons.

1. They don’t trust the person. This is easy though - if you are putting someone you don’t trust in a position, then YOU are the problem. Don’t do that.
2. They don’t communicate well. Honestly, all of these are rooted in some kind of trust but we’ll talk about this separately. If you haven’t properly defined the expectations and responsibilities of this newly installed leader, then you probably don’t feel very settled in their ability to carry it out. And they probably don’t either. Again, YOU are the problem. Do better.
3. They care too much about consensus. This is a huge problem for all the reasons we talked about in the beginning.
   
   One of my favorite stories is of John Wooden and how he taught each new player on his team to tie their shoes. For anyone who may not know, John Wooden is best known as the legendary U.C.L.A. basketball coach who won 10 championships in 12 years and was the first person inducted into the basketball hall of fame as a player and coach. So, he was teaching elite college basketball players to tie their shoes!
   
   To many people, this might have seemed unnecessary and trivial. If he’d had to get consensus, he may have been prohibited from wasting valuable time doing this. However, it was a key component of his overall winning strategy. Properly tied shoes would minimize blisters and reduce the chance of sprained ankles - both of which would impact the availability of his players on the court or in playing their best.
   When you find your John Wooden, let them do their thing even if others see it as unnecessary and trivial. That is ok. This is why you didn’t ask them to lead it. They will learn. Stay strong.

But all of this is mitigated if a good leader heads the organization, takes the time to find the right person for the open position and clearly communicates the expectations, responsibilities, vision of success, etc. to the person. Obviously you must also stay engaged with them as they carry it out but staying engaged is not the same as micromanaging or, worse, sabotaging.

Where are we in this development plan again?

Ha ha - I'm glad you asked!

So, remember how my posts always started with a reminder of this week’s lesson and then a forecast of next week’s lesson. Have you noticed I’ve been falling off that wagon a bit? Well, I figured you deserved an explanation.

I’m still reading American Icon, but there hasn’t been anything explicit in these chapters that make sense for us to talk about as I read. Instead, we’re talking big picture stuff. That’s the most important for us to take into our own future change efforts anyway.

But here’s where I’m going next. Once I finish this book, we’ll go back into study mode. We are going to alternate study mode and case study mode for the rest of the year. In study mode, we’ll use some resources to fill our tool box. I didn’t have this construct at the time but in hindsight, our reading of The Catalyst was in study mode and gave us these tools for our tool box:

• Understanding Reactance
• Providing a Menu to Reduce Reactance
• Asking Questions to Reduce Reactance
• Highlighting a Gap to Reduce Reactance
• A gauge for knowing when to increase or reduce friction.

Now, we’re in case study mode learning how Alan Mulally turned Ford around.

In our next study mode, I plan on reading A Sense of Urgency by John P. Kotter. This might change but I’m currently interested in Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance by Louis V. Gerstner which is Gerstner’s own account of leading a successful turnaround at IBM. I think it could be really interesting to hear directly from him about his experience.

Ok so that’s what’s going on in the mind of Dawn these days. Thanks for sticking with me and thanks for reading!