Unlocking the Three-fold Secret to Great Leadership
After analyzing data from
more than 15,000 interviews with CEOs and other business leaders, executives
from management consulting company ghSMART found that three fundamental factors
drive leadership success. In their book, Power Score: Your Formula for Leadership Success, Geoff
Smart, Randy Street and Alan Foster describe what they learned.
In this interview with
Knowledge@Wharton, co-authors Street and Foster talk about the formula for
management success, the hardest things for executives to get right and how
teams can use the PWR formula within their own organizations.
An edited transcript of
the conversation appears below.
Knowledge@Wharton: Randy,
you describe PWR Score as a “grand unified theory” of leadership, boiled down
to a single number. What exactly does that mean?
Randy Street: We’ve
been on a journey for the last 20 years, as a firm and as individuals, thinking
about leadership. Boards and CEOs would call us and say, “Hey, we’re about to
make a big change or a decision, and we need help to figure out how to get the
right people.” Our day jobs have been interviewing CEO candidates and senior
leaders for organizations of all shapes and sizes. Each interview has been a
five-hour interview or so, and then 15 hours of analysis around that.
Over the course of the
last 20 years, we’ve interviewed more than 15,000 people, and it occurred to us
that there is probably something to learn from that in terms of, what do
successful leaders really do? And over the last five years, we’ve been digging
deep into that data to understand it. What we have found is there are, in fact,
three factors that drive success and leadership. Physicists have been looking
to figure out a Grand Unified Theory that describes how the universe works. We
figured if they can describe the universe, surely we can describe leadership.
In fact, we have three factors that describe what success looks like.
Knowledge@Wharton: Alan,
could you describe what the PWR score is and how it is calculated? How did you
come up with this concept? What kind of research did you put into it?
Alan Foster: “PWR”
is an acronym. The “P” stands for “priorities,” the “W” stands for “who” and
the “R” stands for “relationships.”
We got a phone call about
five years ago from professor Steve Kaplan and a colleague of his at the
University of Chicago. He said, “Aren’t you sitting on what’s probably the
world’s most valuable database of leadership? I have an army of PhDs who would
love to pore over it, code it and analyze the heck out of it — I bet we could
learn something. Are you up for that?” We said, “Sure,” and they have been
kicking the tires on what really makes the difference.
We actually had a whole different
theory of leadership when we started writing the book, but the data didn’t
match it, it didn’t pan out. We had to say, “What do leaders do differently?”
What we found is that they go about accomplishing three things: They set the
right priorities, they get the right people in the right roles, and then, they
make the relationships work.
What we do with the teams
and with the executives we work with is to say, “On a scale of one to 10, to
what extent do you have the right priorities? Give yourself a score out of 10.
To what extent do you have the right who, [i.e.] the right people in the right
roles? A score out of 10. And to what extent do the relationships work? Again,
a score out of 10.”
Then, you have three
numbers out of 10. Multiply them together and you obtain a score out of 1,000.
That is the score we have been calculating with thousands of executives to find
out to what extent they run at full PWR.
Knowledge@Wharton: What
have you found so far when you talk to executives? Do you find that executives
are good at all three? Or are there some that they are better at than others?
Street: All three
matter. It’s something like a triathlon: If you can’t swim, you will not win
the triathlon. The same is true with the PWR score — P, W and R, you have to be
able to do all three. Most leaders only do one, or maybe two, of those really
well. Very few actually think to do all three, much less are really good at all
three. But the statistics are amazing. Those who do all three well are easily
twice as successful as the average leader, and 20 times more successful than
leaders who don’t do any of those three things.
Knowledge@Wharton: Which
of the three is the easiest for most leaders to manage? And which element do
they have the most trouble with?
Street: The easiest
is definitely the “R,” relationships. Most leadership theories focus on
behaviors and traits, and how you should show up as a leader, and that’s all
very important in leadership, of course. About half — 47% — of the leaders in
our data set were reasonably good at building the relationships that make a
team function.
On the flip side, the
hardest one is the “W,” the who, which is hiring the right people, removing
people, shifting people around on your team to make sure you’ve got the right
people matched to the right priorities. Only 14% of leaders were excellent at
that, which means 86% of all leaders are completely ignoring one of those
important factors of being a successful leader.
Foster: I was at a
conference last week with about 150 CEOs, and we were going through, “Do you
have the right priorities? The right ‘who,’ the right relationships?” And at
the end, I said, “OK, a show of hands: If you think about your score in each of
those dimensions, the score you’ve given yourself, which is the lowest? Which
is pulling your overall score down the most? And show of hands.” About 80% of
the audience put up their hand for the who — as in, they struggle the most with
getting the right people in the right roles.
Knowledge@Wharton: Let
us start with the priorities. Alan, are priorities the same as goals? If not,
what is the difference?
Foster: We had one
client, and I said to the chief operating officer, “To what extent do you have
the right priorities?” And he said, “Absolutely we do. We set goals.” And I
said, “Well, how many do you have?” And he said, “I have 164.” And I said,
“That must keep you quite busy.” He goes, “Yes, we have a very inclusive
culture, we are very bottom up, we like people to set their own goals.”
It was a high-achieving
environment, but they had no focus at all. We find the best leaders are very
good at setting priorities, which actually means saying no to things. It’s
looking at all your potential goals and saying, “Which are the three, four or five
that really matter?”
Street: Goals are
what needs to happen and that’s great, but they don’t give you a sense for
which ones actually tie back to your mission and why they are important, or how
they relate to one another. So you can have 164 goals, no sense of priority,
and a lot of diffused focus through the organization.
Knowledge@Wharton: How
can leaders become better at setting priorities?
Foster: You can
obviously hire consultants for millions of dollars, and I’m sure they’ll come
up with a great presentation. We have a slightly simpler way. We encourage
leaders and leadership teams to write what we call a scorecard: Given the
mission and vision of what you are trying to do, what are the five priorities?
If you fast-forward two or three years, and you are thrilled with what you have
got done, what will you have delivered?
It forces people to talk
in numbers, it forces people to have trade-offs. Then, we get the CEO to share
that with their leadership team. And then, we find everyone has a different point
of view. Then you just lock the door, and you don’t let them out until they
have actually had some of these tough conversations about “What are we not
going to do?” versus just “What are we going to do?”
Knowledge@Wharton: How
are priorities linked with purpose? Can you give examples of leaders who are
able to tie their priorities to the reason why the organization exists?
Foster: We have been
working with a leader, Atul Gawande, who is a surgeon and a great writer. He is
using a lot of his thinking around the checklist manifesto to apply to some
complex diseases and health care issues. When we very first spoke to him, we
said, “Why do you exist?” He said, “I am trying to save harm or suffering for
more than a million lives over the next three years.” He has written about
that, and he has founded a laboratory and innovation lab called Ariadne Labs.
We find it is like putting up a beacon into the sky, like the Bat Signal:
Surgeons and medical professionals flock from all over the world because his
mission resonates with them. He then goes to say — what are his three to five
priorities. But it all links back from that sense of purpose, his mission of
what he is trying to do.
Knowledge@Wharton: How
can you decide if your team’s priorities are clear and effective?
Street: It’s one
thing to think you have the right priorities, but then, to make sure that you
transmit them through the organization is another challenge. I had a client
recently share with me that he had a senior team get together and think through
priorities, and they all patted each other on the back and said, “Oh, we’ve got
our priorities, we all agree.” Then they had a conversation with the next level
down in the organization and there was a little more debate: “What are our
priorities? I’m not sure. Are we aligned here?” Then they took the conversation
to the next level down, and that group of people basically said, “What
priorities?” So there’s definitely a challenge in organizations as you go
through to create clarity. The first thing you need to do is limit yourself to
three to five. Five really is the absolute limit of priorities that we as
humans can process and remember.
The second piece is
communication — just constantly communicating, “These are the five things.”
Whenever something comes up that is outside of those priorities, calling it out
and saying, “You know what? That’s interesting, that might even be important,
we should look at that, but not now, it’s not part of our priorities.” I had
another client say that whenever someone comes to her with something that’s off
the list, she replies, “Make me care. If you can show me how that connects to
and supports one of our five priorities, then we should think about doing it.
But if you can’t, we’re not going to do it, we’re not going to put resources
behind it.” So it’s a combination of shortening the list from 164 down to five,
and then communicating it constantly throughout the organization.
Knowledge@Wharton: Let
us come to the difficult part of the PWR equation, which is the “who” part. How
can a leader select the right people for her or his team and make sure that
they are focused on the right priorities?
Street: Well, you’ve
actually begun to answer the question right there with that second piece, which
is to make sure they’re focused on the right priorities. The first mistake
leaders make when it comes to hiring and thinking about their team is they
haven’t even thought about their priorities in the first place.
Assuming you have thought
about your priorities, the next question should not be, “How do we accomplish
these priorities?” but rather, “Who should accomplish these priorities?” —
which is where the next big mistake comes. Most leaders don’t think that. They
think about the “what” questions and the “how” questions — “What do we need to
do? How do we need to do it?” — rather than “Who do we need on the team to do
it?” So question two is all about that “who.” Once you understand the priority,
who do we need on the team to accomplish it? From there, it’s about following a
structured process. Most leaders don’t, because they’re not asking the right
questions in the first place, and because they’re distracted with all the noise
and the meetings and the conference calls and the 200 emails a day, and all the
other things coming along. They don’t put the actual energy into hiring the
right people, thinking about mapping their team to the right priorities.
Knowledge@Wharton: You
write in your book that this aspect of management gives leaders the most
heartburn. How can leaders become better at selecting the right people?
Foster: It probably
begins by acknowledging the mistakes they typically make. On average, nearly
all the research proves that leaders are making mistakes about 50% of the time.
Half the time, the toss of a coin, they’re getting it wrong. And they use just
a lot of ill-informed techniques — we call them voodoo hiring tricks. For
example, if I was interviewing someone who is British and balding and has a
slightly quirky sense of humor, I’ll probably think, “You know what? They’re
really smart. I can’t put my finger on it, but I really like that guy.” We tend
to project ourselves onto the people we see.
Yet we don’t realize we
have all these unconscious biases. So the very first part — before you even get
to asking the correct questions — is to acknowledge the mistakes that you’re
making right now.
Knowledge@Wharton: How
do you go about removing under performers and getting “A players” on your team?
Street: The first
thing is understanding where you’ve got A, B and C players — if you want to use
a classification system of your team — and that goes back to the priorities.
Alan mentioned a little earlier a tool that we call a scorecard, which
basically documents your priorities, your mission and then the key priorities
that you’re pursuing. The best leaders actually take some time, maybe once a
quarter, to sit down, look at the priorities, map the team against them, and
ask the question: “How comfortable am I that these people are going to
accomplish these things?”
If you have any doubt in
your mind, if you think, “Well, maybe it’s 50/50,” that’s not very good. You’re
looking for a much higher degree of confidence, a 90% or even 100% degree of
confidence, that those people will accomplish those priorities.
Foster: I’m thinking
of a client…who took Randy’s advice and did exactly that. He emailed us about a
year and a half ago and said, “You know what? I have been following your
advice. Every quarter I sit down and I map out who is on my team and ask, “If I
was only allowed to have 50% of my people, who would be on my boat?” And then,
he goes, “Okay, now if I was allowed 75% of my people, who would I add to the
team?” Then he goes to 85%. And then at 85%, he goes, “Who is not on this team?
Who is not on this boat?” And he goes, “At that point, I need to look in the
mirror and ask myself some pretty tough questions about whether or not these
are the right people moving forward and to make some tough decisions.”
Knowledge@Wharton: Do
you have examples of leaders who do a really good job of managing the who? What
do they do differently than other leaders?
Street: From a
process perspective, the best leaders we work with start by thinking about
their team against the priorities. The second thing is they do remove the
weaker people — and in some cases, that means moving them to a different place
in the company or the organization. Then, third, they get very aggressive about
hiring.
Kristin Russell comes to
mind. She is the former head of IT for the state of Colorado, and she had some
big jobs at Oracle, I believe, and a couple of big IT shops. She considers
herself a chief recruiting officer. She says, “You know, I may be a CIO, but my
real job is CRO, chief recruiting officer.” She’s constantly on the hunt for
great talent, constantly sourcing interesting people that she may be able to
bring into her organization, or maybe refer to other people within the
organization or other organizations. Then she follows a structured process to
actually hire those people, as well, which is the other piece of the magic.
It’s about having an understanding that you need to have these people, it’s
putting that chief recruiter hat on at all times, and then following a
structured process to hire them against the priorities.
Foster: If you look
at every single executive we’ve ever interviewed, and we look at what’s the No.
1 risk or regret of that executive — the thing they wish they had done
differently — by far, the No. 1 is, “I wish I had moved faster on the people I
knew deep down weren’t the right people on the team.” But we feel conflicted.
We feel like, “Well, maybe it’s my fault they’re not performing, maybe I should
give them one more chance, maybe it will look bad — it will look bad on me.”
We’re very good at justifying why tomorrow will be different, we’ll take
action, but just for the moment, let’s keep the team as it is.
Knowledge@Wharton: Could
we talk a little more about the interview process and what are some of the most
common errors you find — the voodoo hiring errors that people make. How can you
eliminate those errors?
“Five really is the absolute limit of priorities that we as
humans can process and remember.”–Randy Street
Street: Sure, so we
can maybe banter back and forth on this, because this is a rich territory. One
that comes to mind that I think is very, very common is the hypothetical
question, and we call it the fortune-teller. “Nicole, what would you do if you
joined our team, which is right now a little dysfunctional, how would you fix
it?” It’s a forward-looking question. The problem is, you get hypothetical
answers. If you were to ask me, “You know, Randy, I understand that you
followed the space shuttle and the Apollo program when you were a kid. How
would you get to the moon?” I could actually answer that question. I know how
to get to the moon. But I couldn’t get you to the moon. And the same is true
here. Based on your education, based on examples you’ve seen, you could make
things up. Unfortunately, that’s not really a predictor of how somebody will
behave. Their past performance is a predictor, but not some projection of the
future. So don’t ask hypothetical questions.
Foster: Another
voodoo technique we see is what we call “the suitor.” This is when you know
you’ve got a good candidate in front of you and you feel immense pressure to
try and impress them, and to somehow make them join your company. So you talk
and you tell them how great it is and why you joined and you’re just trying to
sell them. Then you get to the end of 40 minutes and you’ve forgotten to ask
them any questions, and you’re like, “Well, I quite liked them, but I probably
should have got a bit deeper.”
Street: Again, we’re
trying to get the data to understand — what’s this person really about? And
does that mean they are going to be able to accomplish my priorities or not?
One last one to mention, it’s what Alan said about that strange attraction he
has to balding, British men [like himself] — “I think we’re going to be really
good in the job.”
We tend to be art
critics. You know, you see the painting on the wall, you like it for some
reason, you can’t really tell why, it’s just something you like. So, you end up
hiring that person. It could be a common interest or a common background or
something and you end up hiring people not based on what they’re able to do for
you and with your team, but based on some gut feeling that’s not substantiated
by any real data.
Foster: I had a
client last week, and I said, “Well, why did you give the offer to the CFO?”
And the CEO said to me, “He was reassuringly tall.” That may be true, but
that’s not the same person who can close the books on time, execute on the
M&A or the things you actually need them to get done.
Knowledge@Wharton: Let’s
turn now to the “R” part of the PWR score. How can leaders develop
relationships that deliver results?
Foster: I don’t know
about your calendar, but mine is full of meetings, and it always has been, and
they seem to be getting more frequent and longer. We find that this is true
across America and around the world. What we’re finding is, often, the wrong
people are coming together at the wrong time to talk about the wrong things in
an unstructured way. And meetings lack healthy conflict, they lack any sense of
coordination and forward progress. So one of the No. 1 things that we do is
explain that having good relationships isn’t about just liking one another,
it’s about — how do we get coordinated here? How do we bring the right people
together at the right time? Probably, half your meetings should be 30 minutes
shorter, and some of them should be much longer. Most of our calendars look
kind of the same as they did two years ago. We don’t update who we are talking
to, and when, and why.
Street: Getting
coordinated is one of the key thrusts. The other two big ones are building
commitment with your team and challenging your team. This is where most
leadership theories and leadership books and programs really focus their energy
— on these two things. Building commitment is all about mutual commitment with
one another, commitment to the organization and the cause, commitment to the
leader — and there’s obviously a wide range of things that you as a leader can
and should do. Chief among those is how you show up as a leader. This is where
role modeling comes in, and following through on commitments, and getting
things done as a leader. And how you set the stage to enable that team to
create mutual commitment.
The challenging piece is,
how do you challenge the team to be the very best? This is where motivation and
inspiration comes in. This is where you begin to push people beyond what they
think they can do on their own, and to see what’s possible to do when you bring
the collective talents together in a group. Getting coordinated, and then
working to help the team commit, and challenging them — those three levers
really seem to be the big ones that form the relationships where one plus one
equals five, and you get that multiplier effect in terms of results.
Knowledge@Wharton: Many
meetings simply are about status updates. Can you suggest some ways that
meetings can become more meaningful?
Foster: We believe
in healthy conflict. We think that if you’re not feeling slightly awkward or if
you can’t feel you’re leaning forward, then you’re probably talking about the
wrong things. This is not about process updates and scheduling and the rest of
it. This is about — how do we cut to the thing where we fundamentally disagree,
where reasonably smart people disagree? Let’s talk about that. You want to see
drama. If it’s not memorable, then you should probably shift the agenda.
Street: What Atul
Gawande, whom we spoke about earlier, did — he blew up the status meeting,
completely threw it out and basically said to everyone, “You have to submit a
problem that we’re going to solve, and this is going to be a problem-solving
meeting rather than a status update.” At first, people were very uncomfortable
with that. Over time, it has become electrifying for the team, I think, because
now they’re coming together to actually tackle real issues, solve real
problems, not give each other status updates.
Knowledge@Wharton: How
important is commitment to a team’s success? Do you think it’s inborn or can
leaders create it?
Foster: We believe
commitment is really important. If you don’t feel like your colleagues have
your back, then you’re really going to be floundering. We see the most
committed teams have actually really gone through some pretty tough times. They
haven’t just been out on a Sunday drive with the sun shining, they’ve actually
been to hell and back. As Winston Churchill said, “If you’re going through
hell, keep going.”
We find the most
committed teams have had this incredible crucible moment, where they’ve learned
to work together, but we also find other leaders — they try and accelerate that
process and that discussion. Some of the best leaders we know say, “At some
point, this project, this team, it’s gonna suck, it’s gonna be terrible, it’s
gonna be — we don’t know what it’s gonna be.” Now when that happens, what can
we rely upon in each other? Having that conversation ahead of time, almost like
rehearsing for the bad times, can really make the difference.
Street: Two leaders
come to mind. One is Caperton Flood, who is a former colleague of ours at Bain
& Company, and he actually has that conversation up front. When the case
team comes together, [he asks,] what mutual commitments are we willing to make
to each other as we do this project? And this is when people will say, “Well,
you know what? I prefer not to work past 8 p.m., because I’ve got children, and
I want to be putting them to bed.” Well, what happens if the client calls and
there’s an urgent matter? So they actually problem-solve that before they even
get into the real-life scenario, so that’s the rehearsing that Alan was
sharing. And they drafted up and signed this document, “This is what we’re
committing to.” So that’s one version.
Another example that
comes to mind is John Zillmer. He, at one point, was in charge of a division of
Aramark, and when he inherited it, his boss said, “Hey, John is taking this on,
he’s going to be the caretaker of this business.” And John thought, “Caretaker?
I don’t want to be a caretaker.” It was a poorly performing business, and he
didn’t want to care-take this poorly performing business. So he took his new
team offsite and basically, shared all of the results from the past year, which
weren’t particularly good, and then he said, “All right, I want you to come
back tomorrow at 8 a.m. and we will do something — and wear your gym shorts.”
And the leaders were thinking, “Gym shorts? Uh-oh.” They show up the next day —
in their gym shorts — and a van takes them out to a race track. So this was
that classic team building, and they have a wonderful day racing cars together.
When they come back, John said, “All right, it looks like you can learn new
tricks. So what I want to know is, what are you willing to do as a team? What’s
possible here?”
Over the next few hours,
this group of people actually began to challenge one another, and they came up
with goals that were greater than what John had envisioned. Over the course of
the year, he fostered it. He said, “All right, here’s the deal — if we can
accomplish these goals, we will come back next year, we’ll do the three-day
racing course.” So first quarter, they were making their numbers, John sent
them racing gloves and a note that said, “Congratulations.” Second quarter,
they’re still making their numbers, he sends them the racing suits with their
names on them. Third quarter, they’re making their numbers, he sends them
helmets. And sure enough, they make it, and they show up the next year and they
did this wonderful three-day program. It was just a wonderful testament of how
a leader almost manufactured commitment in a team that didn’t have it by
creating a shared experience. Building on that shared experience that they took
ownership and ultimately, delivered the results.
Knowledge@Wharton: As
the last question, let’s try to put it all together: If you look at all the
three elements that you talked about, the P, the W and the R — how can leaders
improve the PWR score of their teams?
Foster: What we find
with a lot of our clients is they sit down and they have a conversation with
their team and they say, “What’s our PWR score?” To which the team says, “What
on Earth are you talking about?” And then, the client explains it: “Okay,
everyone, get out a piece of paper, get out a pen, and now write down a number
between one and 10 as the answer to these questions: To what extent do we have
the right priorities? Do we have the right people in the right roles, and do
the relationships work?” And then, they all hold up their scores and —
Street: And multiply
your three numbers together.
Foster: All the
scores are different and it fosters a lot of curiosity and puzzlement and,
like, really? You scored that a four? I scored that a nine. Then, it leads to
the right discussion. And what our best clients do is, they don’t just have
that as a one-off conversation. It becomes something they actually begin to
track monthly or on a quarterly basis.
Street: The beauty
of the PWR score, going back to the Grand Unified Theory, is it does highlight
where you have an issue. So if your overall PWR score is 432 — what are you
going to do about it? Where are you weaker? Is it that the priorities aren’t
clear? Is it that the “who” aren’t right? Is it that the relationships aren’t
working? It very quickly allows you as a leader, and as a team — this is, by
the way, a leader with his or her team exercise, not something you do in a
vacuum — to look at that and say, “What do we need to do? How do we go from 432
to 500, to 600, to 700 and up?”
It becomes an enormously
clarifying vehicle for identifying issues and focusing in on those issues that
will drive results. The beauty of it is, the research shows if you can drive
the P, the W and the R, you will get results, you’ll be more successful than
the average leader and the average team by orders of magnitude. That’s where the
fun starts.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/unlocking-the-three-fold-secret-to-great-leadership/?utm_source=kw_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2015-07-29
No comments:
Post a Comment