It should not surprise you too much that an individual who started a company called the Leadership Difference, Inc. places a high level of importance on leadership when predicting organizational success. In fact, of the five metrics discussed in this book, leadership ideology is the only one that can, by itself, actually will a company to success. Leadership is that important – combined with passion, that is. If passion is an organization's foundation and alignment is its framework, leadership is the power. Like electricity in a house, leadership allows us the necessary source of all our company's potential. Due to my fixation with and focus on leadership, no other element of peak performance draws as much scrutiny from me when I work with an organization. And no other metric disappoints me as much as leadership when it is hamstringing organizational success.

Unfortunately, I have found it far too common that organizations struggle with leadership instead of excelling. I have often noticed that companies are created as a reflection of a single person's passion – someone who is inspired to lead others based on their own dedication to the success of an idea. They experience initial success, which requires that they expand the responsibility for leading the organization to others. Slowly, the passion, ideology and character that drove that initial success becomes diluted. The energy changes. While this may not be a terminal problem – many organizations continue to chug, stumble, and/or stagger along – the level of success of those early years is never replicated.

THE PROBLEM WITH VALUES

One clear symptom of an organization desperately trying to rekindle that original feeling is the identification of organizational values. You know, that list of 4–8 behaviors that the company believes is the cultural basis of their success and that they encourage, maybe even mandate, all employees to manifest. I have seen them hundreds of times, on websites (“About Us”), marketing materials (“Why Us?”), and – the most ridiculous of all – on posters in the employee cafeteria.

There I am, walking from the reception area to the CEO's office, human resources department, or training meeting room, and we pass a poster on the wall. It has been there for so long that it has become invisible to the employees, but it is new to me. The language is nearly the same wherever I go: “At ABC Dynamics, each employee embodies our values: Integrity, Honesty, Care, Dedication, and Accountability.” The exact words change a little, although I am always struck by how often “integrity” and “honesty” make the short list. My reaction is always the same, “Do we really have to communicate to our employees that we value integrity?” “Isn't honesty something we should just expect rather than promote?” “Why would I employ someone who doesn't care, isn't dedicated, or lacks accountability?” And finally, “How many people have read this poster and thought to themselves, ‘Well, I have not been honest in the past, but now that I know it is an organizational value, I will be honest going forward.’”

It's not that I don't see the value in behaviors like honesty, accountability, integrity, and so on; in fact, it is the opposite. I hope all people believe in these values. I would think we would want to hire people who exhibit these characteristics. The ugly truth is, if a person does not possess these behaviors by – oh, I don't know – 25 years old, I doubt they ever will. And even if you could instill within them these values, is that really where you want to spend your time as a leader? That's called parenting, not leading.

I have always subscribed to a simple philosophy when it comes to selecting employees: hire character, train skills, lead style. The reason is straightforward. If a person is a combination of their character, their skills, and their style, you can only significantly change one of those through leadership. Thoughtful, thorough, and effective skill training will improve someone's talent. Style can certainly change over the course of a person's life. I have written two books on the topic: The Power of Understanding People and The Power of Understanding Yourself. Our style can transform as we amass new and different life experiences. Our job as leaders, however, is to recognize a person's style, communicate with them accordingly, and ensure that their intrinsic needs are met to promote peak performance (more on that later). It is not our responsibility to change someone's style. It is rarely necessary to do so.

Character is the element of a person's essence that we are least likely to change once they have reached adulthood. I assume it is possible – I would hate to give up on another person – but I would rather not be responsible for it as an employer. If someone is not honest, I don't want to have to invest time, money, and other resources trying to change their behaviors with no guarantee I will be successful. Imagine the damage this person is doing to customers and co‐workers while I endeavor to teach them the importance of not lying. It sounds silly, right? And yet, there's that poster in the employee cafeteria.

But that isn't even the worst part of the company values poster. That poster, the one that lists honesty as one of the core values of the organization, is itself a lie. Not always, but often. I have worked with a lot of executives who don't reflect the values listed on their company's own website. I have sat in meetings with employees who have asked me why, if these values are so damn important, do their leaders not display them. It is uncomfortable because there is no defense for this situation.

Here's the problem. Life is complicated. What one person believes to be honesty, integrity, and dedication others view as something else. It is very difficult for us to agree on exactly what these things look like in every situation, and so they are quickly ineffectual. Worse, they are harmful in that they profess to create a specific expectation of behavior that can never be adequately fulfilled. The corporate values on that poster set you up for failure.

THE IMPORTANCE OF BEHAVIORS

This is not to say that there are no behaviors around which to build your culture. There are, and they begin with leadership. Specifically, I believe the leaders of the most successful organizations share a fundamental approach to how they lead. Steve Thompson, president of PrimeLending, shared with me some very impactful ideas on leadership ideology that have contributed to his organization's success. Two practices particularly struck me as uncommon in businesses. One was “assume positive intent.” Many leaders, Thompson points out, can be quick to assume that mistakes are made for reasons other than the best interests of the organization or the people involved, whether that's a customer or an employee. The reality is that most employees are working hard to do what is right. Rather than immediately responding critically to errors in judgment, it is beneficial for leaders to “listen intently and be slow to respond in an attempt to first understand,” says Thompson.

Related to assuming positive intent is leading with an “assume you don't know” mindset. Thompson describes the tendency of some leaders to presume an understanding of situations and make determinations for handling them before they have acquired all the information. By entering a conversation with the presumption of ignorance rather than omniscience, leaders often discover many more complexities involved in scenarios and can make even better decisions while also enhancing employee relations. Both “assume positive intent” and “assume you don't know” fall within a type of leadership ideology I call benevolent accountability with pragmatic creativity. This ideology mixes two complementary philosophies.

Another example of an organization that has crafted meaningful corporate values to guide leadership ideology is DaVita Kidney Care. A longtime client of mine, DaVita provides valuable renal care around the world. The source of their benevolent accountability approach resides – quite literally – in “The Village,” which is DaVita's term to describe their culture. The DaVita Way includes commitment to a set of corporate values. These values are less conceptual than most: service excellence, integrity, team, continuous improvement, accountability, fulfillment, and fun – but still a bit soft. There are several reasons why these expressed values have more impact than the usual poster‐on‐the‐wall experience. For one, each team member, or “citizen” (the term used to describe members of the DaVita village), attends training on the corporate culture. At the culmination of the meeting, villagers are invited to cross a bridge – yes, an actual bridge – on stage to represent their commitment to the DaVita way. While that ceremony may bring out some rolling eyes, I saw the impact firsthand.

As a frequent vendor/partner, I was invited to become an honorary villager. The training sessions are extremely high energy, steeped in solid training techniques, and, most importantly, contain a great deal of audience participation that reinforces the behaviors expected to match the values. At every single meeting where I presented to a DaVita audience – and we are talking dozens and dozens across the United States – the corporate values were on display and the language of the DaVita Way was used. The impact of this culture even influenced my presentations. I took great care to draw a link between my content and their core values by starting each seminar by pointing out that this experience relates to service excellence, team, continuous improvement, and fun. Imagine a corporate culture within which every meeting was expressly connected to the values of the organization. That is what DaVita accomplished. As a result, the beliefs of leadership were instilled at all levels of the organization. In fact, the values DaVita expresses as core to their success were identified and agreed to by the employee base – not by leadership.

That's another key to the success of good corporate values. One absolute truth of organizations is that there are always more non‐leaders than leaders. Reconciling that imbalance of perspective is vital to a peak performance culture.

Benevolent accountability is a leadership ideology based on several ingredients all designed to achieve high levels of performance while simultaneously being mindful of the inherent needs of the individuals you lead. People have lives, and those lives are complicated. To pretend that the human beings who populate the organization can compartmentalize their lives in such an absolute way as not to allow any part of their personal life to affect their job is not reasonable. Great organizations balance an assertive commitment to peak performance with a sensitivity to the complexities of the forces present in each employee's life. After all, an organization is simply a collection of people. To pretend that we can lead an organization without being mindful of the needs of the individual people makes no sense at all – unless you plan to populate your company with robots.

Benevolent accountability starts with the belief that all employees want to be successful. Is this true? Perhaps not, but I feel strongly that believing otherwise will only lead to cynicism and negativity. It is far better to believe in the best of others and be disappointed occasionally than to be suspicious of others and be proven right – particularly since the latter mindset in a leader can create a self‐fulfilling prophecy. Besides, who wants to live in a world where people aspire only to mediocrity? Not me.

Pragmatic creativity represents the other important mindset of peak performance leadership and reconciles a common challenge for organizations: the origin of innovation. Many – in fact, most – of my clients over the years boast of a visionary approach to their operation. They maintain that someone – the founder, owner, CEO, or the like – has identified a unique future state for the organization that guides their successful efforts and distinguishes them from their competitors. I don't disagree with the importance of brand differentiators to organizational success, as made evident by the chapter on Horizontal Alignment. However, finding true visionary leaders like Jobs, Bezos, Gates, or Walton – well, good luck. The truth is that most organizations are led by energetic, intelligent individuals who use passion, effort, research, and commitment rather than a savant with unrivaled abilities to imagine the future. Pragmatic creativity doesn't require the practitioner to conjure up a unique future state. This form of creativity is based on maintaining an openness to change and implementing it with structure, tactics, and facts. Creative and pragmatic.

Some people can pull creativity out of thin air. They are organizational artists, able to work with a blank canvas to create a desired future state. Listening to them talk about the desired future state is like watching a talented artist paint. They have a keen mental image of the final version of the work, but the observer sees only a white space that slowly takes form. For the observer, the painting must be near completion before it becomes recognizable. For the artist, it was always recognizable – even when there was nothing on the canvas. These “artists” are rare in organizations. More commonly, great leaders are problem solvers who continually look for opportunities to improve the organization with better ideas combined with clear strategies for realizing them. They do their work after the image has taken shape. That is pragmatic creativity.

The bottom line is that few organizations build a culture out of a unique, creative expression of conceptual ideals or novel approaches. Most peak performance cultures enlist a more practical approach. They build their organization around leadership principles that transcend subjective interpretation. They identify techniques that can be specifically defined, identified in others at the time of employee selection, taught to those who do not currently possess them, and measured for ongoing impact. Rather than focus on corporate values, these organizations focus on leadership ideology – which comprises both methodology and mentality. It is an orientation to leading that provides a map for peak performance. More specifically, a leadership ideology that reflects benevolent accountability and pragmatic creativity is critical to peak performance cultures. This ideology starts with a concept that I address in every book I write: internal locus of control.

INTERNAL LOCUS OF CONTROL

For those of you who have read each of my previous three books, thank you! Also, I am keenly aware that I continually hammer on this quality of internal locus of control. I do so because I believe it to be the single most important personal characteristic to success and happiness in life. If you are not familiar with the term, here's how I explain it.

Imagine that life is like beef stew. As you progress through life, you will experience times that are easy – like you are moving through the broth. Much of the time we are unaware we are moving through the broth because things are progressing as we expect them to. We live our normal days, going through the routines that populate our day. Then, often without warning, you hit a carrot or an onion or a piece of beef. These represent the unforeseen developments in your life – often negative – that can redirect your journey away from your planned path. Stew contains carrots and onions and beef, so it should come as no surprise that a journey through it would likely include running into those ingredients. When the inevitable occurs, we face some choices. Some people will blame the carrot, lamenting the impact of this unexpected development on their life. They consider the broth to be their permanent state and the contact with the carrot is an unwelcome – and unwarranted – exception. This is an external locus of control. This person believes – consciously or subconsciously – that they are entitled to a carrot‐free life. This expectation is rationally flawed, so the behaviors of the external locus of control‐oriented person betray reason. “Why did this happen to me? I can't believe I have to deal with a carrot!” Of course, you do, because carrots are part of stew (life).

Others will immediately look inward to determine what they need to do to return to their planned path after having hit the carrot. Even better, they may have anticipated the collision with the carrot and already have contingency for this potentiality. They recognize that life, like stew, contains many elements. Some will be amazing, most will be mundane, and some will be difficult. Life is also random. Some spoonfuls contain carrots, others onions, some both, some neither, and so on. Life just happens, but your life is your responsibility. That is an internal locus of control. To paraphrase the stuff of motivational posters: life isn't what happens to you; it's what you do after it happens.

Basically, there are two reactions to life's challenges: taking responsibility for them or blaming something or someone else. While not all the negative developments in our life are our fault, we are the only person accountable for our own life. It does us no good to allow ourselves to be the victim of life developments. As part of a leadership ideology, an internal locus of control encourages individuals to act to move situations toward successful outcomes. For example, here are some questions that great leaders may ask themselves to reinforce an internal locus of control when faced with a challenge or unhappy customer:

• What can I do to create a positive experience for this customer?
• What do I need to do in the future to avoid this mistake?
• How can I impact this process to improve it?
• What can I do to enhance the teamwork within the organization?
• What can I do to improve the team's performance?
• What can I learn from this mistake?

Notice a pattern in these questions? Each one involves reflecting on one's own influence over the situation. Good leaders not only ask themselves these kinds of questions; they also facilitate that same introspection with the teams they lead. Steve Thompson at PrimeLending goes so far as to ask his direct reports to complete a “Dos and Don'ts of Communicating with You.” He uses these guidelines to ensure that he isn't making mistakes in his leadership style. He also revisits this list from time to time with his team members to make sure he is being consistent with their expectations. In this way, he is displaying an internal locus of control for the effectiveness of his relationship with his direct reports. Many leaders put the ownership on the team when it comes to communication with them – a behavior that reflects an external locus of control.

One final consideration as it relates to an internal locus of control. Failure is one of the most important leadership development tools. In the 25 years of the Leadership Difference, Inc., I have had many more good years than tough years. In fact, from 1995 to 2007, the company grew substantially every year. It is easy to take full credit for that success, but the fact is success is an equation that combines good practices with luck. The problem is knowing the role of luck. When the economy slumped wildly in 2008, I knew exactly how much luck had contributed to my previous success. That's the profundity of failure. It reveals the impact of luck and reminds you of your own limitations. The experience of surviving 2008–2011 during one of the most challenging global economies of my lifetime made me a far better leader. It also reinforced the importance of an internal locus of control as it required that I take responsibility for determining a path forward. I know of others who were content to blame the economy and give up on their visions. Many companies disappeared in those 3–4 years.

An internal locus of control that is prevalent throughout the organization provides the foundation for reconciling one of the biggest challenges within an organization: influence versus impact.

AN EMPOWERMENT CULTURE

Organizational executive leadership wields incredible influence. Decisions about products, services, goals, strategies, and methodology are made every day in boardrooms around the world. When done thoughtfully, these decisions are designed to guide the organization toward successful horizontal and vertical alignment. Executives have abundant influence. Conversely, they do not have much impact. That is why ego can be a destructive element to successful leadership ideology. Executives who overvalue their impact fundamentally misunderstand their role in the company. An organization's impact rests in the execution of the employees who are either in direct contact with the customer or in direct contact with an employee who is (the internal customer). Executives have influence but little impact; employees have impact but little influence. In between are mid‐level leaders – managers, supervisors, leads – who are trying to ensure the implementation of the influence through the execution of the impact. It is a critical fulcrum of organizational excellence. The most meaningful employee coaching falls to this level. This is the group that can practice benevolent accountability. It is also the most often overlooked level.

My experience has been that training resources are more generously allotted for employee skill training and executive development. Both are important, for sure. Unfortunately, the one population that represents the focal point between influence and impact – middle management – is often given short shrift when it comes to professional development. Many of the individuals in this group were never given leadership training, have often been promoted based on skills unrelated to leadership abilities, and lack the confidence required to navigate the role in which they find themselves. If a company's success revolves around executing on a clear vision, it is this level of leadership that connects the concept with the pragmatic. Executives envision; employees execute. Between them are the critical contributors who must interpret the strategy and ensure it gets applied. These are the individuals who vertically align the organization. If this is not done effectively, the best visions go unfulfilled. Ultimately, no executive or employee alone can compel their organization to sustainable success.

An empowerment culture's hallmark is the elevation of middle management's importance. Positioned between executives and employees, middle management is the toughest of all jobs in the organization. Grievances, criticisms, and continuous negative feedback can come from both directions. An incompetent executive can be protected by exceptional managers. An incompetent employee can be covered by an exceptional manager. Neither of these are optimal, nor are they uncommon. But an incompetent manager will damage the performance of several employees and can bring down the efforts of the best executives.

My first significant client project after starting the Leadership Difference, Inc. in 1995 was developing the Certified Leader Program for Rosen Hotels and Resorts (called Tamar Inns back in those days). The goal was to build upon their management training – a curriculum that was largely based on procedural training. Harris Rosen, the legendary central Florida hotelier and namesake of the organization, was an influential supporter of education and imagined this program to be a sort of graduate degree in leadership for new leaders. I constructed classes delivered monthly over the course of a year that covered topics like motivation, law, interviewing, coaching, counseling, performance feedback, customer service, conflict resolution, and employee training. Each class included homework that required the participants to apply what they had learned and write reflection papers on their efforts. We even conducted a study under the direction of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign to determine the impact of the course.

Statistical analysis validated that graduates of the Rosen Hotels and Resorts Certified Leader Program experienced a measurable increase in skills self‐efficacy as a result of the curriculum. Self‐efficacy is an underappreciated contributor to peak performance and one that I examine in detail in Chapter 6, “The Employee Experience.” In short, attending this program increased the new managers' confidence in each of the skills addressed in the classes.

Confidence, combined with competency, is a key to peak performance execution. During the twenty years that I facilitated this program, I watched leaders progress through the company, witnessed the organization's continued success and growth, and developed relationships that continue today. Those are the hallmarks of an empowerment culture.

Preparing midlevel leaders before they are promoted into this role reflects a commitment to operational excellence. Many of the best organizations prepare succession plans to respond to the sudden departure/promotion of individuals. Taking that a step further, the peak performance culture would invest time and resources preparing those team members on succession plans for their eventual leadership role. Inviting them to participate in management training is one strategy. At the Buena Vista Palace Resort and Spa in Orlando, Florida, we utilized another.

In 1992, the total quality management (TQM) approach to leadership was not common within the hospitality industry. TQM was far more popular among manufacturing companies. That began to change largely due to the efforts of Horst Schulze at the Ritz‐Carlton Hotel Company. That year, Ritz‐Carlton won the prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. I remember this distinctly because we were also competing for this award. I remain bitter. Kidding. (Kinda.)

Anyway, our own efforts to integrate a TQM approach to hotel management included an element designed to prepare our next middle managers for their inevitable leadership role. Like many high‐performing organizations, we had a group of impressive employees who were ready for more responsibility but were forced to wait for an opening. These were role models of peak performance who were eager for the next challenge. We didn't want to lose them, so to satisfy their ambition and prepare them for their future leadership role, we created a new role: Red Coats.

As the name suggests, Red Coats were given a red coat to wear at work. Their primary jobs were in specific departments, but their red coat role spanned the entire hotel. The purpose of the coat was to draw attention to them among both customers and employees. We encouraged the Red Coats to respond to and resolve customer and employee questions, regardless of whether it was within their job responsibilities. They were empowered to cross organizational boundaries (more on the concept of seamwork later) to improve operational efficiency, satisfy customers and employees, and serve as a vivid example of performance excellence. Red Coats met once each month to share data they had collected from customers and employees and discuss ways to improve the hotel. It was not just a leadership preparation strategy; it also helped to reconcile the authority/impact imbalance in the organization.

The peak performance culture will place a high value on management and leadership development for those vital roles between executives and employees. Decisions to promote individuals to this level will be thoughtful. Great care will be taken to support their dual challenge of understanding the long‐term, big‐picture view of the organization while also ensuring that products and services are delivered each day that reflect the quality required to please the customer. This is the essence of pragmatic creativity. An empowerment culture, one that develops the abilities of mid‐level managers, is a critical component to a benevolent accountability and pragmatic creativity approach to leadership ideology.

INTRINSIC NEEDS FULFILLMENT

The importance of a leadership ideology predicated on benevolent accountability is never more obvious than its impact on the intrinsic needs of the organization's employees. As I have discussed in my last two books, individuals perform at their highest capabilities when their respective intrinsic needs are being met within the organizational environment. There are four iconic intrinsic needs that we all possess. While each of us desire all four, we have a primary intrinsic need based on our preferred interactive style.

Some employees – individuals I call “Romantics” – thrive in workplaces that contain abundant praise and appreciation. These employees often self‐sacrifice, take on job responsibilities that others avoid, and volunteer to do tasks when others refuse. In exchange for being eager team players, they desire the recognition of their leader – even if they outwardly express no need for such. These contributors are emotionally sensitive and seek to know that their leader genuinely recognizes their dedication and loyalty. A leader who practices a “no news is good news” approach to employee communication will demotivate this employee.

As previously described, “Warriors” get things done. They are typically efficient performers and highly productive. They prefer a leader who provides direction and then leaves them alone to accomplish the desired outcome. Independence is the intrinsic reward that drives their performance. Their logical orientation contributes to a keen awareness and disdain for activities, interactions, and processes that are unnecessary. Competitive and renowned for being a self‐starter, this type of employee finds a meddlesome leader to be a nightmare.

If Warriors are known for the quantity of their work, “Experts” are the quality contributors. They apply best practices based on their personal experiences. They rue mistakes, particularly ones that they have made, and strive to avoid them at all costs. Being accurate – doing things the right way – requires depth of information. They are most comfortable in situations that provide comprehensive training and education, consistent policies and procedures, and few surprises. Romantics soar with praise, Warriors with independence, and the Experts with security.

Finally, “Masterminds” are the risk takers. They have an entrepreneurial orientation. The thought of repetitive, predictable routines does not inspire them and, in fact, bores them. Masterminds like what's new and different and will seek novel challenges, special projects, and other ways to customize their employment experience. They need options. Leading a Mastermind requires that you continually stimulate them with new directions, responsibilities, and possibilities.

The terms “benevolent accountability” and “pragmatic creativity” in many ways reflect the four types of interactive style and their respective intrinsic needs: benevolent (Romantic), accountability (Warrior), pragmatic (Expert), and creativity (Mastermind). Any effective leadership ideology must be inclusive of and accessible to all styles. Fulfilling these four intrinsic needs – appreciation, independence, security, and options – assures that your leadership ideology is contributing to peak performance. For more information on the four iconic styles of people, check out my book The Power of Understanding People.

DIALECTICAL THINKING

“Internal locus of control” is easily the first characteristic uttered from my lips when people ask me about peak performance culture. Right behind it is dialectical thinking. At first glance, the idea that dialectical thinking even needs to be emphasized as a component of high‐performance culture seems silly. Like honesty, care, and integrity, dialectical thinking should be a no‐brainer in creating the foundation of behaviors in any organization. Sadly, this is far from true. Let's begin with defining the term as it applies to my purposes, then examine why this obviously critical element of culture is far too rare within organizations.

When evaluating an organization's culture, I have found that evidence of a dialectical style of leadership is conducive to peak performance. Unlike the other philosophies for resolving conflicting opinions, the basis of dialectical thinking is initiating a dialogue with others to determine the truth.

What do I mean by dialectical thinking? Let me offer a story. Imagine two people – let's say Bob and Jack – having a nice glass of wine and discussing the news of the day. I would picture this happening at a lovely wine bar with comfy seats and a view of a bustling street just outside. It's a sunny day, not too warm. The wine is a French rosé. (Too much detail?) So, we have two people having a conversation about current events. As they sip their wine, a homeless person walks by them on the sidewalk outside the bar. Bob says to Jack, “It is so sad that a nation as prosperous as ours has people who do not have a place to live.”

Jack responds, “Meh, there are plenty of jobs and support available. If that person really wanted to get off the street, they would seek out that support, get a job, and rent a place to live. My bet is that they prefer to beg for drug money and live the way they are.”

“So, you think someone wants to live like that?” Bob can barely conceal his irritation.

“I'm just saying they have a choice. If they want to get off the street, they can. They choose not to. I know this to be true because we have hired homeless people to do odd jobs at my workplace and they show up one time, get some cash, and never come back.”

Not content with this response, Bob fires back, “You don't know the details of their life. Maybe they have a medical problem. It could be addiction, or it could be a mental illness or some other problem that keeps them from being able to work. To just dismiss their situation as a lack of initiative is to have no compassion for their situation.”

“No compassion for their situation!” Jack is becoming angry at the insinuation that he is not a good person. “I volunteer at a homeless shelter through my church. I give money. I want these people off the streets and leading productive lives. We all benefit, them and us, if they contribute to our society in a positive way. Allowing them a free ride to just take handouts, live on the street, and make our parks and neighborhood look like shit when there is an entire infrastructure of support for them not two blocks away is not being cold hearted. I work. I contribute to society. Excuse me if I don't think they should just panhandle, drink, and do drugs and expect me to pay for it. Look, I get that people have mental health problems or addictions or whatever, but there are many resources to help these people. If they want to make their situation better, they can. Many of them don't.”

Bob's voice is starting to rise. “So, you think many of these people are just lazy freeloaders who enjoy sleeping in a box under the overpass? Many of the homeless are military veterans. Were they lazy freeloaders when they served our country? That's bullshit, Jack.”

“Whatever, Bob. That's not what I said.” Jack turns to the server who is passing by. “Check, please.”

It is unlikely that either Bob or Jack has changed their position on homelessness. The point of the story is not who is right or wrong; the point is that the relationship between Bob and Jack may have been negatively affected by the way that they discussed the issue. This effect may be only momentary, it may linger for days or weeks, or it could last forever. Regardless of the duration, the effect is toxic. Further, neither Bob nor Jack likely changed their opinion on the issue one bit. In fact, it likely pushed them further into their own perspective while creating an antagonism in their relationship.

Now, let's revisit the same conversation using a dialectical thinking approach. The wine bar setting and the French rosé remain the same.

Bob observes, “It is so sad that a nation as prosperous as ours has people who do not have a place to live.”

Jack responds, “I don't think it's related to the nation's prosperity. I think there are ample resources and jobs available for the homeless if they choose to take advantage of them. I think they choose to live on the street because it is easier than working or finding support.”

“That's interesting.” Bob probes further. “What about individuals with mental health issues, addictions, or who just simply do not have the means to get to work? I think there are many legitimate barriers prohibiting homeless people from changing their circumstances even with jobs and resources available.”

“Perhaps. What I know is that many of the homeless people we have hired for odd jobs at my work never come back once they get some cash. I also know, through the work at my church, that they can get support for food, shelter, and clothing. It just seems to me that if they want to get back on their feet, they could.”

Bob nods. “The work you are doing at your church and the support of your workplace are fantastic. It could well be that some people abuse these resources. I also think there are many people who face very difficult circumstances that have made it almost impossible for them to escape homelessness. Mental health care can be difficult to access and maintain. Did you know that many homeless people are military veterans?”

Jack nods. “Yeah, I have heard that. That is really sad. We should do a much better job caring for our veterans. I think we probably need to do a better job at outreach to get these folks the help they need so they can contribute more to society.”

“Agreed. I am sure there are some people who choose to be homeless. I just think that we can do a better job as a nation helping those who haven't made that choice.”

“Yep.”

The two conversations are essentially the same, with one very important distinguishing characteristic – the second example utilized dialectic thinking to discuss the differences in the perspectives of the two men. In the first example, the two men engaged in an argument over who was right. Depending on your own point of view, you may have aligned more with one or the other. In their respective efforts to change the mind of the other person, they became increasingly more entrenched in their own point of view. Bob and Jack listened for areas of disagreement that they could attack as wrong. Their debate was based on an antagonistic dialogue. The resultant conflict was a predictable outcome for this approach.

In the second example, each person expressed their current perspective. When they listened to each other's point of view, they looked for areas of agreement rather than conflict. In this way, their debate was based on respect. When you debate an issue respectfully, you are not engaged in argument but rather exploration. Bob and Jack are considering a broader understanding of the topic. Dialectical thinking is about using two perspectives to arrive at a third, more robust perspective. In my definition, a dialectical approach requires you to assume that just as you arrived at your opinion in a reasoned, rational way, so did those whose perspective differs from yours. As a result, we both have things to learn from each other and the greater truth will emerge from that dialogue.

There are essentially three ways to approach a disagreement: universalistic, relativistic, or dialectic. Universalistic thinking means that there is a single, correct perspective on the issue. This means that in every argument someone is right and someone is wrong. Unfortunately, this doesn't encourage dialogue since the person who is made to feel wrong will likely find another argument to get even. Think about it: Have you ever really “won” an argument with your spouse or significant other? More likely, you just extended the single issue into a best of three series of arguments. It's conflict resolution executed like an NBA playoff round.

Relativistic thinking reflects the whole, a “different strokes for different folks” way of resolving differences. The belief of relativists is – well, it's relative. I feel the way I feel based on the context of my life while you feel differently because of the context of your life. “You do you,” as people are fond of saying these days. The problem with this approach is there is no need for dialogue because no one need change their perspective anyway. It is essentially “agreeing to disagree.”

In a peak performance organization – one that manifests benevolent accountability and pragmatic creativity – the culture must be open to reconciling differences using respectful dialogue that generates broader and better resolutions. Dialectical thinking requires the following:

• Mutual respect for another's perspective especially when it is different from your own
• The freedom to express your point of view
• Listening to other perspectives to find areas of agreement, which requires a genuine interest in hearing a point of view that differs from your own
• An eagerness to expand and enhance your perspective

One final note on dialectical thinking: dialectics is a way of discussing issues that have no specific moral correctness. There are clearly some issues that are black and white as it relates to workplace conduct. Harassment, theft, lying, and unlawfulness are all areas that are not subjected to dialectical thinking because they are non‐starters. Dialectical thinking is less a value and more a philosophy or methodology in this application. With that said, the peak performance culture has a successful conflict resolution process and a dialectical approach that works well. Imagine an organization where people are respected for their perspectives, are free to share them, and resolve differences by finding areas of agreement that lead to broader and better new perspectives. Pretty cool, huh?

ZERO‐BASED THINKING

There is an undeniably uncomfortable moment during every one of my keynote speeches on leadership ideology. Here's when it happens:

• “I need everyone to close their eyes right now.”

Yes, that seems like this would be the uncomfortable moment – when the keynote speaker asks a few hundred people in a conference center in Las Vegas to close their eyes. That's not the moment I am referring to. Stay with me.

• “I want you to picture all the individuals on your team – all the employees who look to you for leadership. Line them up in your mind's eye along a wall and walk down that line looking each of them in the face.”
• “Now, ask yourself this question, ‘Knowing what I know about your performance now, would I hire you again?’”
• “Keep your eyes closed. Raise your hands if you answered that question with a ‘no’ about any of your current team.”

Then comes the uncomfortable moment for me. That's because nearly every leader in that meeting room raises their hand. Nearly every leader admits that they have at least one member on their team whom they would not hire again if given the opportunity.

Next comes the uncomfortable moment for them.

• “Open your eyes. It is my duty to inform you that nearly every one of you raised your hand. That tells me that nearly every one of you has someone on your staff who is not performing at a level that you expect. That means you have at least one person who is below your expectation of what is satisfactory. So, my next question is, what are you doing about it? If your answer is ‘nothing,’ then you are the problem.”

Benevolent accountability in leadership begins as an adherence to a personal standard. Leaders must ask themselves, “Am I doing what is necessary to ensure peak performance in this organization?” It is easy to slough off on one or two team members whose performance is less than remarkable. It seems like an innocuous decision to allow underperformers – particularly those who are otherwise not toxic and maintain a positive attitude – to continue to generate substandard work. Unfortunately, the decision to tolerate substandard work does not exist in a vacuum.

The literal definition of a performance standard is the minimum level of quality and quantity at which a task must be completed to satisfy the requirements of the job. The evaluator of this level of quality and quantity is the leader. If the leader accepts a level of quality and quantity generated by a team member and maintains their employment, then that performer has met the standard. It does not matter what level of performance is stated or expected, only what is accepted.

As a result, when the leader accepts a level of quality and quantity below the stated expectation, that leader has now lowered the standard. When a leader lowers the standard, the impact of that decision is not limited to the performer responsible for the work product that is below the stated expectation. Other performers attenuate their efforts and work product relative to their perception of the standard. If the standard is lowered, then they lower their quality and quantity. This does not just apply to team members who perform at the expected standard, but also to those who are performing above standard. Team members who perform at high levels do so relative to the expected standard. So, if a leader reduces the standard, they also reduce the performance of high performers relative to that standard.

The metaphor is like measuring the height of boats in a harbor. Let's say the tallest boat is 6 feet taller than the next tallest boat, 15 feet higher than the shortest boat, and 20 feet higher than the water. If the water goes down, the tallest boat is still taller than the next tallest, the shortest, and the water by the same amount. However, all the boats are now shorter because the depth of the water has fallen. In this way, the water is like the standard. When you drop the expected standard, the performance of all team members goes down.

When a leader engages in zero‐based thinking – and they should with frequency – it is completely acceptable to identify performers who are not meeting expectations. The term “zero‐based” refers to a return to the zero point of a decision, that point when the decision was made. So, engaging in zero‐based thinking literally means returning to that moment but now with the advantage of additional data. That is the value of this element of peak performance culture – to identify areas where improvements are necessary by reevaluating decisions with updated data. Great leaders make mistakes and poor decisions on occasion. They sometimes hire the wrong person for a job. However, if the leader is not engaging in some process of coaching and/or counseling to improve that team member's performance, the exercise should now be uncomfortable. Benevolent accountability and pragmatic creativity involve doing what is necessary to shift peak performance responsibility from the leader to the team member.

COACHING AND COUNSELING TO SHIFT RESPONSIBILITY

I spent a dozen years in corporate human resources development. This period was split evenly between positions specializing in training and development and generalist functions in human resources management. When I was a human resources generalist, a significant part of my responsibility was consulting with leaders to review and approve their approach to addressing employee performance, particularly performance that was deemed to be below our standards. It was in this capacity that I became aware of a significant deficiency among many leaders that I found alarming – and that is that many leaders did not feel accountable for their own team members' failures.

It seems obvious to me – and it has been my experience in the classroom that others agree – that when a person is considered the leader of a team, they are assumed to be ultimately responsible for the performance of that team. In sports, the first person who will likely lose their job if a team underperforms is the coach. In this case, sports is a good metaphor for all organizations. Poor leaders create poor teams. You can imagine how I responded to the following common scenario:

• “Hey, Dave, do you have a minute?”
• “Of course, Mateo, what's up?”
• “I wanted to talk to you about Jed. He's a problem. I just don't think he's a good fit for our department.”
• “Jed? He's new, right?”
• “Well, he's been here almost six months, so he's not that new.”
• “Okay. Let me pull his 90‐day review.”

This was often an uncomfortable development for the leader. I was always surprised that someone would want to discuss the performance of an employee without me looking at what was in their human resources file. It was the first mental alarm bell for me.

• “Mateo, you wrote his 90‐day review and listed his work as ‘exceeding expectations.’ Has his performance decreased since then?”
• “I was probably being generous. We were shorthanded, so I didn't want to lose him, plus I know he needs money, so I wanted him to get a good merit increase at 90 days.”

While I might commend Mateo for his honesty, all I could think of was that two of our gross misconduct provisions – situations that resulted in immediate termination – were falsifying a company document and theft. At this point it sounded like we should be firing Mateo rather than Jed.

• “So, you are telling me that you have had concerns about Jed since he was hired six months ago?”
• “Yep, pretty much.”
• “Well, Mateo, I have some bad news. I don't think the problem is Jed right now. I think the problem is you.”

It was clear from Mateo's nonverbal behavioral cues that this was not how he imagined this conversation going down. Mateo had failed to understand that Jed's performance was his responsibility. If Jed was performing below expectation, Mateo had a duty to do what was necessary to fix that. This includes:

• Effectively communicate the job responsibilities and the required standard to which they are to be performing.
• Provide training on each of these job responsibilities.
• Provide continuous feedback – both affirmative and critical – on the performance of responsibilities.
• Shift responsibility for meeting standards from the leader to the team member.

I have often heard that when an employee is not meeting performance standards, it's because they are either unwilling or unable. My experience is that the far more common reason is a third scenario: they are unaware. Regardless of which reason – unwillingness, inability, or lack of awareness – the same process can be used to address the challenge. It begins with the leader assuming accountability for the problem.

In a traditional model for employee coaching and counseling – often referred to as “progressive discipline” – there are four steps:

• Verbal warning
• Written warning
• Final warning or suspension
• Termination

In a peak performance culture, these four steps are executed by the leader using this approach:

• My fault
• Our fault
• Your fault
• Termination

There is a huge difference in the efficacy of verbal warnings that are conducted with a tone that indicates that the reason for the team member's performance deficiency is due to the leader's lack of effectively communicating expectations or providing sufficient training. Imagine being Jed and consider which of these two approaches to performance counseling would likely be more effective when executed by Mateo.

• “Jed, I am very concerned about your performance. You are not meeting our expected standards. If you continue to perform at this level, you could eventually lose your job. I am going to need you to improve your performance.”

Or:

• “Jed, I believe I have failed to communicate my expectations for the performance of your responsibilities. Let's discuss the standards for each of your job duties. As we do, please let me know what I can provide you in regard to training and resources to execute at that level.”

While neither of these conversations will be fun, the latter approach is far less confrontational and is a better reflection of a leader who has taken responsibility for the team member's performance. It also eliminates one of the three possible reasons for Jed's performance situation: lack of awareness. Jed's performance may improve simply because he now clearly understands what is expected. Furthermore, based on Jed's response, Mateo may discover the competency gap between Jed's current ability and what is necessary to meet the standards. This revelation will lead to additional training to fix Jed's inability – the second of the three reasons for a performance deficiency. Through training, Mateo will learn if Jed ultimately can do the job.

If the initial verbal warning – the “my fault” leader conversation – fails to adequately improve Jed's performance, then the responsibility becomes shared. A written warning reflects that a problem is now being shifted from the leader's responsibility to that of both parties. It sounds something like this:

• “Jed, last month we discussed the need to increase your performance level to meet the organizational standards. I feel like I clearly communicated those expectations and I offered the support of additional training or other resources if you needed them. Unfortunately, your performance is still not meeting standards. I want you to be successful. If there is something you do not understand about our performance standards or how to achieve them, please let me know. Continued performance at this level is not acceptable and could result in your termination.”

If there was a chance that the first conversation failed to resolve a lack of awareness or ability, this step will likely correct that failure. The clear implication is that the current state of performance is untenable and that something will change, either the employee's performance or their employment status. It has been my experience that any change in employee behavior and performance is most likely to occur after the verbal or written warning because it is during these steps that a lack of awareness or ability are ferreted out. If a team member is unable to do the job, they most likely will admit that during this stage. If Jed is unwilling, he may continue to perform below standard even with the knowledge that the situation will eventually be addressed by the leader.

By the time of the final warning or suspension, the accountability for the performance deficiency has now shifted entirely from the leader to the team member. At this point, the organization/Mateo is essentially doing a reverse two weeks' notice to Jed in that he is letting him know that unless an unexpected improvement occurs in his performance, he will lose his job. The hope is that Jed uses this period to find a position in which he is willing and able to meet the standard. The best possible outcome is an amicable parting of the ways.

In a peak performance culture, leaders take full responsibility for their team members' performance. When performance deficiencies are identified, the leader assumes this situation reflects a lack of awareness or training, both of which are the accountability of the leader. When continued efforts to educate and train the team member fail to improve the team member's performance, the accountability for their performance shifts to them. The resulting process results in substandard performers self‐selecting out of the organization.

Benevolent accountability and pragmatic creativity are not limited to addressing performance deficiencies. Quite the contrary. Exceptional leadership ideology focuses on those who exceed performance standards. One of the most common failures of leadership is the tendency to take peak performance for granted – the whole “no news is good news” approach to leading performance. The peak performance culture must have a mechanism for continually monitoring and recognizing high performance as well.

PEOPLE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SYSTEM

I think all professionals, over the course of their career and regardless of the discipline, will discover widely accepted practices that they don't support. For me, there are two classic tools used by human resources professionals that I think are not only ineffective but I actually believe do more harm than good. One is the employee recognition program – the employee of the month, quarter, year, whatever. The traditional example is to gather the organization together each month and present a plaque and a convenient parking spot to the single most valuable employee.

My problem with these programs is that, at best, they are appealing to a small percentage of the employee base while potentially alienating the vast majority. That seems mighty counterproductive to the purpose of the program. A plaque and parking spot don't really capture any employee's fundamental needs. Referring to my interactive style descriptors, Romantics want to be appreciated. While an employee of the month award would appear to accomplish that on the surface, the reality is that Romantics can feel uncomfortable with being publicly honored; it places them on a pedestal above their peers and risks their relationships with co‐workers. They prefer a more personal affirmation of gratitude. Romantics may conspire to rotate the award so that no one feels left out or elevated above the rest of the team. The Warriors don't need to be told they are the best; they already know, and would prefer a cash award since that has a great deal more value than a plaque. Experts are likely to impeach the selection criterion, thus invalidating the award winner, and Masterminds likely have no idea the program even exists. For me, employee recognition programs as I have described them are a waste of money, effort, and time.

My other pet peeve in human resources management is the employee opinion survey. This may seem contradictory to my views stated on horizontal alignment that include the need to achieve employee satisfaction. Theoretically, an incredibly well‐designed data collection process combined with effective post‐survey feedback could be a great system for monitoring and enhancing employee satisfaction. The problem for me is that I have yet to see this system used. Mostly, what I have seen is an annual exercise in requiring employees to answer questions about the work experience using a Likert scale (four or five potential responses ranging from awful to great) with some room for providing a more expansive response via comments. The resulting data will likely confirm the following:

• The organization does not pay well enough.
• The organization should add or improve the benefits package.
• There is at least one team member in each department who is very critical of their leader.
• Overall, people are satisfied with their jobs.
• The organization doesn't really know much more about the employee perspective after this massive undertaking than it did before it, but the whole thing took a lot of everyone's time.

Further aggravating the situation is that upon completion of this endeavor, the organization will:

• Not increase pay
• Make few or no changes in the benefits package
• Do nothing with the feedback about the leader
• Not discuss the results with the employees since not much was really learned
• Vow to repeat this exercise next year

For those readers who have managed to avoid these pitfalls and install an effective employee opinion process, good on ya! But my experience is that many organizations haven't. In fact, most of the companies that choose to do employee opinion surveys are doing more harm to their organizational health by doing so. The ceremony of collecting employee data only to discover little and/or do nothing with this information is soul crushing to all involved. The intentions are good, but the execution is not.

A far better approach to collecting feedback relative to employee satisfaction is to use a more casual mechanism. I have found that effective leaders seek feedback frequently by allowing employees the space to share their frustrations, excitement, and ideas. I dubbed this process the “People Preventative Maintenance System.” (In The Power of Understanding People, I referred to this system on pages 133–34.) It's a simple system that works like this:

• Create a spreadsheet with all your team members' names in the left column and the months of the year as headers for the next 12 columns:

  Team Member	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	June	July	Aug	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec
  Sally
  Ahmad
  Pietra
  Bill

• Each month, schedule a casual 15‐minute meeting with each of your team members. The key is to execute the meeting informally but track it formally to ensure that you speak with each team member each month. For example, you may conduct the meeting while grabbing a cup of coffee or taking a brief walk so that it feels spontaneous; but you should note the meeting on your spreadsheet so that you ensure you have conducted PPM meetings with each team member.
• Ask the team member the following questions (or similar ones that feel more natural to you). Each of these questions may open additional areas for discussion, so while the meetings generally last only 15 minutes, you may want to schedule 30 minutes on your calendar to avoid feeling rushed.
  • How are things going at work?
  • What do you like most?
  • What do you like least?
  • What would you change in the department to improve our work?
  • What do you need to make it easier for you to be successful?
  • How can I better support you?
• Have a conversation about the answers. Some of the team members' ideas may include suggestions that you will be unable to make happen. If so, discuss this with the team member so that they understand why you can't institute change.
• Make notes on the feedback – particularly on team member suggestions that you can and should implement. Determine what must be done, research their practicality, and respond to the team member within a few days about the status of their suggestion.
• PPM systems often take several months to truly hit their stride. During the initial months, team members may be reticent to share their honest feedback or suspicious that any changes will result. Once you have asked for their input several times and they have seen their ideas implemented, team members will be more eager to participate and share.

The key to a successful People Preventative Maintenance System is that you are consistent in collecting the information and reliable in acting on what you collect. This cycle creates an internal continuous improvement process based on employee feedback, which in turn helps assure high levels of employee satisfaction and reflects benevolent accountability and pragmatic creativity.

SEAMWORK

That's not a typo. Seamwork is a word I use to describe the interdepartmental relationships within an organization. Traditionally, companies pay a great deal of attention to teamwork within functional units. I have done many team building programs for sales teams, customer service representatives, and leadership teams. Far fewer clients have hired me to strengthen the communication and collaboration between functional teams. However, as it relates to peak performance, it is these very relationships that signal a high level of function and vertical alignment.

The classic dysfunctional seam in many companies is between business development and service delivery – sales versus operations. The nature of their jobs fundamentally creates friction. I know this not just from the work with my clients but also from firsthand knowledge. In my company, I almost always identify, develop, and close client business. I am also the primary – often the only – service provider. When I am operating in the capacity of business development, I stretch the possibilities to their outer limits. For example, I once booked speaking engagements in San Francisco, Paris, and Las Vegas in the same week. (It's possible.) Flights are available that accommodate being in San Francisco on Monday, Paris on Wednesday, and Las Vegas in Friday while also allowing for time to speak at a conference in each of the cities. Accepting these opportunities is a no‐brainer for a sales professional.

When it came time to deliver these keynote addresses in three cities on two continents in five days, well that was an entirely different issue. I remember being quite displeased – nay, angry – when I was sitting at the San Francisco International Airport waiting for my flight to Paris. I was already tired and the prospects of two more events and the corresponding travel involved made me even more exhausted. Who would book such a crazy week? Oh, that's right, me. Me, in a business development mode.

Conflict between sales and operations is quite common within organizations. Unfortunately, this lack of seamwork is particularly detrimental to the company's performance potential. There is no more powerful business development resource than a service delivery approach (operations) that collaborates closely with business development (sales) to keep them informed of the client experience and needs. Retaining and expanding the services we provide to existing customers is far and away the most cost‐effective component of business development. Capturing more revenues from existing clients results in less pressure to identify, develop, and close new clients. Finding new clients is exponentially more expensive, complicated, and inefficient than growing our existing client base.

Seamwork between sales and operations is not the only interdepartmental relationship that can be unhealthy. Seams exist between all functional units (human resources, accounting, purchasing, sales, service, maintenance, etc.). A leadership ideology that promotes the strengthening of these seams will enhance organizational performance and vertical alignment. This can be achieved through cross training, job sharing, cross departmental meetings, corporate team building, and other devices that generate awareness for the important role each team plays in organizational success. Some companies have gone so far as to fundamentally reshape their organizational structure. Rather than operate with the traditional function‐based approach to structure (Figure 4.1), they have created cross‐functional teams devoted to specific clients (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). In this model, clients work with their own service team composed of a business development person, a client service liaison, accounts receivable professionals, and a team of service providers. Each of these functions meets to discuss the client needs. In this type of organization, an individual doesn't work in accounting, for example; they work for ABC Client Team, providing accounting services.

Seamwork doesn't require a radical shift in organizational structure. Seamwork does require that the communication between functions is just as strong as the communication within functions. Effective leadership ideology promotes these relationships.

LEADERSHIP TOXICITY

As beneficial as the previous eight leadership components are to peak performance culture, there are other qualities that, when manifested by even a single leader, can be devastating. Practically every C‐suite leader whom I have met possesses an ample ego. Ego has taken a bit of a beating as a leadership quality in recent years. Like almost everything about human beings, ego has the potential to be beneficial or damaging. Leaders with a strong ego often have clarity and conviction when it comes to their strategies. They are often more resilient – capable to bounce back strong after mistakes. A positively developed ego combined with ample self‐examination can result in a confident leader who recognizes her strengths, is comfortable with her shortcomings, and surrounds herself with others to augment her talent. My previous book, The Power of Understanding Yourself, examines the importance of metacognition – thinking about how you think – to arrive at your personal mission statement, desired future state, preferred communication style, and the strengths and weaknesses that make you who you are. Leaders with strong egos are particularly in need of defining these qualities.

However, ample ego can be a double‐edged sword. Without the balance of self‐awareness, leaders can develop toxic characteristics. The most prominent ones that I have witnessed are arrogance, complacency, and trend chasing. The latter two may well be manifestations of the first.

The symptoms of arrogance are easy to spot. Leaders who possess this toxic quality are often dismissive of input from others. They position themselves as the one gifted person driving performance with their infallible vision and strategy. Others are merely pawns for executing their plan. The failure to listen to or solicit feedback from others is indicative of this trait. Often this disinterest in others' perspectives is accompanied by belittling – overt or subtle – of others. One of the most unexpected realizations for me in my career was how many CEOs or senior‐level leaders talk critically of their own organization's culture. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they are instrumental in creating the very culture they are criticizing.

Complacency may be an offshoot of arrogance, a reflection of a lack of creativity, or simply denial. It becomes evident in an organization that had a high‐performance culture at one time but is clearly losing its competitive edge. The arrogance is indicated by the belief that, regardless of market changes, the way they have always done things will continue to generate success. Or leaders may have no idea how to deal with market changes and their egos prevent them from reaching out for help. Finally, complacency can be the product of an unwillingness to engage in the tough decisions necessary to remain a peak performance culture. After all, changes to horizontal and vertical alignment are usually long, arduous journeys that may not be appealing to a veteran senior leader.

Finally, trend chasing can have the most debilitating effect on the organization. These senior leaders attend a conference or read an article about the most recent panacea for success. They then direct the organization to adopt the approach without proper consideration of whether the strategy is viable and appropriate. They deploy huge resources. Eventually, the leader moves on to a new buzz word, realigning the organization again. The inevitable response among the rank and file becomes “Just wait for this phase to pass.” The strategies lose credibility while wasting large amounts of time, effort, and funding. Trend chasers represent the other side of a spectrum that includes complacency. It is as if the trend chasers fear being complacent and err in the opposite extreme.

THE GREAT EIGHT OF BENEVOLENT ACCOUNTABILITY AND PRAGMATIC CREATIVITY

Organizations that achieve their highest performance potential do so not because of words on a poster in the employee cafeteria. They don't profess to care more, display more honesty, or have better teamwork than their competitors. What they do is manifest a leadership ideology that includes:

• Internal locus of control
• An empowerment culture
• Intrinsic needs fulfillment
• Dialectic thinking
• Zero‐based thinking
• Coaching and counseling to shift responsibility
• People Preventative Maintenance System
• Seamwork

They also avoid the toxins of leadership: arrogance, complacency, and trend chasing. When your organization has installed all eight of these elements, it will have successfully satisfied the third metric of peak performance culture. You have the foundation of passion, the structure of alignment, and the power of leadership ideology. Now you need some inhabitants to satisfy – customers and employees.

Key Considerations