ARTHUR PSALTIS

The concept of Counterbalanced Thought.

Most successful organisations are founded on clear principles, a strong culture, and an uncompromising commitment to values.

These are all critical components, and few would argue over their importance.

However, there is also a well-known saying that “too much of a good thing can be bad for you”. So, can an organisation have too much self – discipline, clarity, or commitment?

Within every principle, decision or approach lies the danger of committing or executing to the extreme. This “at all costs” or “without due consideration” mindset can be blinding to issues or specifics that can ultimately cause damage. It’s one-dimensional thinking.

To manage this risk, a concept worth considering is the system of Counterbalanced Thought.

Fundamentally, this notion allows an alternative measure to sit distant from the main agenda, to be called on when it’s recognised that the common approach, previous directive, or normal rules may not apply in certain instances.

People should understand that they carry responsibility for implementing the normal. But they become more empowered once they also recognise that in extreme situations, or abnormal circumstances, a counterbalanced view may be required. It’s a simple way of explaining how to take responsibility for not doing the normal when the normal is not appropriate.

Counterbalanced Thought can be executed across all aspects of an organisation. For example, promoting integration, but not at the expense of intimacy. Promoting variety but not to the detriment of clarity. Promoting flexibility but not to the sacrifice of structure. While the primary intent is defined, the counterbalanced alternative is identified. It’s the counterbalanced alternative that needs consideration when implementing the primary intent.

The concept of Counterbalanced Thought provides another dimension to the thought process. It changes what would be one-dimensional to two-dimensional. The next obvious question is, what makes three-dimensional thought? I’m still thinking about that. Stay tuned…

In every organisation, the approach taken in establishing levels of authority is critical to a well-structured operation.

A common methodology is to place people with the most accountability at the highest levels of authority. This makes perfect sense. What is often overlooked, or implemented without due consideration, is how these people use their authority. In most organisations, “authority” means power, influence, a mandate to make decisions, and even more-so, overturn the decisions of others.

This traditional approach is flawed in many aspects. The way people with authority act and behave is fundamental to the success of an organisation and sets the tone for everyone to follow.

Defining actions that align to someone with authority is the first aspect to resolve. It shouldn’t be, the right to overturn decisions, undermine the role of others, instruct, or demand. But unfortunately, this is often the interpretation.

In contrast, those with authority should respect the roles and responsibilities of others, respect the decisions of others, provide advice, guidance, and assistance. This leads to a far more collaborative and respectful environment.

Once there is a common understanding within the definition of “authority” and why it exists, people recognise the benefits and embrace the concept, rather than bemoaning the concept of others having more authority.

The second aspect to resolve is how authority is imparted. Usually there are two concerns of people with less authority.

One is the concern of providing negative news or highlighting poor performance. To negate this, those with higher authority must show a want and willingness to receive bad news, so that assistance can be provided, and the issue improved.

Additionally, no one should be protected. Pushing negative news down rather than raising it to a higher level, is a common protective behaviour. Resentment builds when someone entitled to the privileges of authority, refuses to be held accountable for the poor performance of others, or refuses to raise it themselves for the purpose of self-preservation. Those with authority must be authentic in their role of being accountable for outcomes.

So, the question to be answered; Do flat structures work? What does “flat” actually mean? Does everyone have the same authority in a flat structure? I’d suggest not. Is no one accountable? This would be concerning. Do those that promote flat structures really have them? They may not be top heavy, but that doesn’t mean flat.

My advice is, rather than promote flat or worse still try to achieve flat, embrace a vertical structure, because we all know it’s the only way to operate effectively. Get the balance right throughout, not too heavy, not too light, at different levels of authority. And most importantly, rather than have everyone report up, insist that everyone support down.

When it comes to leadership, a sound understanding of accountability is paramount. In senior roles, clear accountability is critical to organisational structure and performance.

Most organisations hold people accountable by having them report to someone more senior. I’m a strong believer in an alternative view. In my mind, the highest performing organisations allow people to hold themselves accountable. More so, the very best leaders are those who can hold themselves accountable and draw confirmation from those around them, rather than those more senior.  Accountability is something that must sit with someone. It’s something people carry. It’s not transferable, nor can it be effectively managed through someone else’s oversight.

The way people behave is very much driven by the way they are assessed. Creating an environment where people act in a way that satisfies those more senior, to whom they report, drives negative behaviour. Often these behaviours are isolating, confining, and focused towards satisfying one individual or small group. It forces people to protect or hide problems, filtering only positive information upwards, and influences people to behave based on how someone more senior would behave.

The alternative, and far more effective approach, is allowing leaders to be accountable to themselves by gaining confirmation from those around them. This removes the stigma of worrying about how something will be received or interpreted by those more senior. It encourages people to take responsibility for decisions, acting authentically to the problem, without fear of being judged. It brings problems more readily to the surface, for resolution rather than avoidance.

Many organisations talk positively about delegating responsibility. This alone is not enough. It’s how you deal with accountability that either restricts an organisation or allows it to prosper. The ultimate benefit in allowing accountability to sit with someone, is the gain in trust that results, and how it can empower people. The concept of reporting upward to someone is flawed. Having a more senior person holding someone else accountable, is undermining and erodes trust.

So, to all the aspiring leaders, I offer simple advice. Be comfortable carrying accountability, and don’t expect anyone else to hold you accountable for it.

A close friend of mine is a primary school principal. I had the privilege of working with him for a number of years as chair on the school board. Recently, he mentioned something that resonated with me. He said “Arthur, they say the most important person in the classroom is the teacher, however they become the most important by ensuring everyone else in the room is more important.”

This statement captures so much of what many define as good leadership. It recognises that a role is more important than a title. Its message is focused on the performance of others, rather than the individual. It highlights the value of humility, of sharing and empowering. It identifies the importance of transferring knowledge and experience onto others.

When leaders consider their own performance, it is important to keep measures in perspective. Is the performance of a leader more important or less important than the group? Sometimes leaders become too focused on their own performance. It is relatively clear the performance of the group must be the true measure, not the individual.

Leadership phrases such as “make yourself redundant” or “make sure you’re the weakest link or the least capable” all carry similar messaging; however, the classroom phrase is more profound. It implies that for those in leadership roles, ultimate performance is achieved through the performance of others, and we should measure leaders who have wisdom, knowledge and experience by how willing they are to develop others around them, without need for recognition.

So, why do the best classroom teachers act this way? They only have students for one year generally, and then pass them onto the next teacher. The answer lies in what motivates people. Do they gain satisfaction and self-reward through their own performance or through the performance of others? Good teachers, as with good leaders, are motivated to see others develop, improve, and perform to their highest ability.

If leaders need direction on how to improve culture, and how to develop high performing teams, they should look no further than this classroom reference. It is no coincidence that my close friend has been a highly successful and respected principal for most of his career.

While it may seem an easy question, leadership requires a few key attributes that change the obvious answer. My experiences and observations have taught me that there are three essential traits a leader must exhibit to be effective.

The first relates to energy and drive. A leader must be PASSIONATE. This characteristic is important not only for the individual, but also in how they influence others. Leaders who lack passion for their role are less likely to reach their full potential. This passion also contributes to effectiveness. Without showing passion, it is very difficult to yield influence.

Secondly, a leader must be PRINCIPLED. Clarity and consistency in actions and behaviours are crucial to gaining the confidence of others. This instils a sense of dependability and assuredness. It provides guidance for leaders in decision making, while building reputation and personal brand.

The last attribute is functional – a great leader must be PERSONABLE. In modern society dictatorial, demanding and commanding roles are unpalatable and usually ineffective. Collaborative, team oriented, and persuasive influencers draw the best out of others, while gaining respect. They exhibit empathy and engage sincerely. They build relationships either directly, or indirectly through their words and actions. They connect with people.

These are the three P’s in leadership – PASSIONATE, PRINCIPLED, and PERSONABLE. Does this mean everyone with these characteristics is a start-up leader? I’d suggest not. I know many people with these attributes that neither are, should be, or would want to be a leader. However, if you are in a leadership role or you aspire to be one, then it’s important to recognise some key traits that you not only must have within yourself, but portray at all times to ensure you remain as effective as possible. Display these three P’s and you’ll give yourself every chance of being a successful leader.

Questions are continually asked in relation to what constitutes effective leadership. In many ways, there appears to be more answers than questions.

As with most things, the simpler the answer the more effective and truer it will often be. Without wanting to unnecessarily contribute to the multitude of opinions on this topic, some of the recent events that have happened domestically and around the world, have in many ways crystallised my thoughts and highlighted the relevance.

I believe the true art of leadership entails influencing people to accept decisions based on what’s best for everyone rather than what’s best for the individual.

Leaders should always make decisions that benefit the broader group. The phrase often used is “for the greater good”. Effective Leaders, however, have the ability to influence thought away from the potential negative impact on the individual and instead, help them accept the decision by recognising the overall benefit.

This approach is always more challenging to implement during difficult times. Weak, ineffective leaders turn to popular decision making, in which individual support can be simply garnered by personalising the impact, while cowardly or naively ignoring the longer-term effect on the broader group. Effective Leaders can implement sound decisions, however difficult it may be.

In fact, one could sensibly argue that highly popular decisions can’t be “for the greater good”.

If the decision is popular based on the benefit to individuals, then leaders should question its soundness.

So let’s not confuse popular decisions with great leadership. Let’s understand that effective leadership is difficult to undertake and can often lead to decisions that are difficult for individuals to accept. Let’s identify and commend those among us that show the true art of leadership.