Saturday, October 11, 2014

Breaking through the pacesetting leadership style stereotype


Early in my career I was in highly analytical roles.  I felt if I ever wanted to be taken seriously as a leader with organisational impact I needed to get out of my comfort zone and transition to an executional role. It was a compelling mind shift change that impacted my approach to so many things.


What I learnt was being action orientated is a skill, and it sometimes intimidates others. I can understand this having spent the early days of 
my career watching in 'awe' and even avoiding those that seemed to push me faster than I wanted to move.

Pacesetters can be viewed as self serving workaholics, who are uncaring. I have experienced some of this demanding dominant style of pacesetting leadership which is demoralising - to the point of being bullying. 

Most of us pacesetters are not like this. We are just trying to get things done and help others do the same along the way. Yet our motives can be viewed as suspicious and others fail to see our good intent.

The pacesetters that I admire and have role modelled myself on,  expect more of themselves than others. This is not because they think others are incompetent, but because they are self motivated and will pick up tasks to keep things moving along . They need to do, share, direct, discover, solve and create. To turn ideas on paper or in thought into reality.

This is what can be misunderstood about effective pacesetters. They navigate the way for others as much as themselves. They take responsibility for ensuring the right people collaborate or connect the dots to get to the next step. 

Pacesetters have an eye on the time. They intuitively know when things are looking like they are going to miss a deadline. It takes courage to remind others about this. Pacesetters will find the courage to say the things that others won't. It can be a lonely and thankless task keeping an eye on timelines and end goals, especially if you don't own the actions to get things moving.

Effective Pacesetters do care! Probably to their own detriment at times. They care about the integrity of their work, they care about the efficiency of processes, they care about follow through, and mostly they care about getting to an outcome. They don't walk away from actions or take a responsibility lightly. This often makes it easy for others to take advantage of them. They can be relied on. When a pacesetter drops off even half a beat it is noticed.

Effective Pacesetters are outcome focused. They will find a way to get things done and put in extra effort to gather stakeholders views. They try to identify and over come road blocks. This may make them appear highly political when in fact they are trying to positively influence and lobby.

Pacesetters can sometimes move so fast it can seem difficult to keep up with them. They action things immediately and follow up promptly. They state their opinions and move on. They tend not to dwell on things too long. 

Great pacesetters want their teams and projects to succeed.They tend not to give up and feel that people are happiest at work when they have a sense of achievement.

Finally, knowing what goes into developing pacesetting skills I know how vulnerable a style it truly is. Think about a pacesetter you admire. They may be a little annoying always driving the agenda, chasing up on things, and seemingly being overjoyed at ticking off their 'to do' list

Without dynamic pacesetters in an organisation there would be ideas without action, great conceptual thinking without structure, and lots of information exchange without a way forward. 

At some point someone has to be brave and make the move to get things started. Pacesetters do this, even when others resist creating some traction for momentum. 

This is the great irony for pacesetters who truly do care and put ourselves in this state of vulnerability. Being  outcome focussed is the way we show we care. We are looking out for rather than controlling others. After all, business success is about what gets done, and one of the main causes of frustration in organisations is activity that goes nowhere.

That's the different between effective and non-effective pacesetters - those that  are outcome focused vs those that are activity focused. There is a distinct difference.

So here's to all you pacesetters who enjoy the chemical rush of getting things done so everyone feels a sense of achievement,  who make yourself vulnerable everyday, and care enough to know that nothing happens without the tenacity make it happen!




The Great Talent Trade-Off



The global financial crisis has seen a reduction in team sizes, flater structures, and a focus on short term results. This has impacted on how talent is recruited and developed. Acquiring resources that make an immediate impact and are given a remit to 'act and ask questions later' is a trend.

In this current over stretched and activity driven business landscape, the process of developing people through mentoring and coaching is a distraction. Over burdened managers and team members do not have the time to do this well.

So where does this leave talented resources who want to learn and grow. I have seen many people thrown into the 'deep end' who rise to the surface displaying skills they did not even know they had. In these cases, it has mostly been a combination of personal tenacity, coupled with informal coaching and support that has fast tracked professional growth.

Resources that have development needs are missing out on quality informal support networks due to the stress on manager workloads. The outcome being a rush to recruit 'new' rather than enhance 'existing' skills. Given the cost, risks  and lead time of external recruitment this seems like a false economy.

Business leaders indicate that finding and managing talent is one of the biggest; if not the biggest; organisational issue and opportunity. Having resources with the right capabilities, attitudes and experience is a key success enabler. One dissenter, aggressor or saboteur can impact on a team's performance, morale and dynamics. The risk of this increases when new variables are thrown into the mix.

Learning theory states that the more frequently we perform a task, gain experience or apply knowledge the more adept we become. Many younger or developing professionals are finding that time, patience and tolerance for error needed for growth is a scarcity. Being 'tagged' specifically by the job function they perform rather then the potential abilities they possess.


Most managers indicate that they don't have time to manage people, let alone develop people. There is a lot of pressure on team leaders to performance manage individuals and significantly less focus on development. This is a symptom of the current business climate where people management is part of a job function and not a specialised competency.

Short term, high impact resources have come to be seen as the solution. However, when this solution is applied too often it can damage team performance. Causing disruption, frustration and even friction as teams attempt to move quickly while adjusting to change and pushing for results.

It takes time in any new organisation to learn how 'things are done' and effectively build internal networks to influence outcomes. Even highly experienced resources coming into a new organisation need to navigate decision politics and build influence. So the ability to make an immediate impact can be stifled. These resources too can suffer from a lack of internal guidance and coaching.

Bringing in new perspectives and skills is necessary at times. At other times it's a catalyst for disaster. While immediate results are the ultimate aim, these are hindered by changing group dynamics and lack of internal process experience. 

Existing resources that are dedicated, hardworking and willing to learn can excel in stretch roles with the right coaching. They have the advantage of established internal networks and trust. In short, they will get things done. Channelling existing talent into appropriate development roles would reduce recruitment costs, staff turnover and time wasting. It will build a learning environment and motivate current staff to excel with promotion in mind.

Getting the right mix of established and new talent requires considered thinking. People Managers have many time pressures, giving them little time to focus on others in their teams. So naturally it seems expedient to look for team players that need little guidance or direction.

Yet where does this leave individuals with potential who want to learn and grow. These resources can miss out on receiving the attention of their line managers for informal and formal mentoring. Is the desired outcome of minimal involvement for quick wins really holding true as managers struggle to do just that - manage people.

I can't help but ponder... managers are too busy to manage and resources need to be 'ready to roll.'

Are we making talent assessments based too much around short term needs?

Is there a section of the workforce missing out on developing professionally through informal support networks?

Is the cost vs benefit stacking up?

Is this a time of short term talent trade-offs that will have long term impacts on individual and team performance?

What do you think?