Dr. Murray Bowen was the top leader of his own research and counseling center. On his way home from work he reflected on the day.  He realized that he had gotten no work done. Throughout his work day his subordinates brought him problems to hear and solve. His people also brought him work related decisions for him to make. He patiently offered his “help”.

Dr. Bowen was frustrated because his own work that was vital to keeping his center in business remained undone.  He asked himself an unusual question: “What role in my interactions with my subordinates am I playing that makes them so dependent on me?”  Dr. Bowen discovered that even though his intention was to help, he was in fact micro-managing his subordinates. The unintended results were that his subordinates:

1. Developed low self-confidence in their own abilities to solve problems and make decisions;
2. Lost motivation; and
3. Became low performers.

A vicious cycle was in motion: the more Bowen micro-managed the less effective his subordinates became.  Have you seen this before?

This is a mind-blowing discovery about leadership—when we as leaders work too hard to manage our staff, when we over-perform, and/or “help”, we undermine their performance and they naturally function well below their abilities. Bowen worked to change himself. He knew that if he changed certain leadership behaviors in himself, there would be corresponding changes in his subordinates.

This discovery about the relationship between the leader and his or her subordinates explains why traditional top-down leadership does not produce outstanding performance. It explains what Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, discovered—that empowering workers produces consistent year after year 15% plus improvements in performance!

Here are some additional leadership discoveries about the Hidden Pitfalls that help explain how the relationship of the parts of the leadership system interact with each other.

–When micromanagers do all of the talking in meetings—the contributors listen but they stop thinking of ways they can help

–When micromanagers make all of the decisions—the contributors wait and do not make even the smallest improvement in their work processes

–When micromanagers blame their employees for problems—the employees hide the problems

These observations are just a few of the hidden pitfalls and ways that micromanagement fails in spite of itself.

Side by Side Leadership® on the other hand succeeds.

–The Side by Side Leader is always asking for and listening to new ideas from his or her team. There is a spillover result with contributors now spending 40 hours a week thinking about other ways to improve their performance and their organization as a whole.

–When the Side by Side Leader asks for subordinate’s ideas around his or her important decisions, the contributors take responsibility and ownership for implementing the decision.

–When the Side by Side Leader works with the team members allocating authority to make as many work decisions as each contributor is capable of making, the contributors learn the necessary information and make excellent decisions.

To learn more buy a copy of Side by Side Leadership today!!  Web Special!

Please visit Side By Side, Inc. for more in depth information.

The ensuing Columbia Accident Investigation Board discovered the major physical cause of the disaster.  It resulted from a large piece of foam that fell from the booster rocket hitting the leading edge of the space shuttle’s left wing during takeoff.  Before the disaster and within a day after Columbia’s launch, several engineers on the team presented evidence of the potential damage to different NASA managers.  In at least five documented cases, however, NASA managers dismissed or ignored the potential problems.  Linda Ham, the Columbia mission management chair of the flight was specifically singled out for not approving additional data collection and analysis to validate the extent of damage that occurred during the launch.

In August 2003 after completing its studies, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board criticized NASA for not taking the foam strikes to the space shuttle more seriously. The Board concluded that NASA had a management culture that discouraged technical engineers and other employees from sharing safety concerns with their managers. The conclusions of the investigation were as critical of the NASA management culture as they were the technical problems.  This was one of the unfortunate outcomes of a leadership style that does not include listening.

I was curious about this phenomenon in which workers are reluctant to share information with their managers.  I asked one of my colleagues, who was an intensive care nurse from one of Austin, Texas’ best hospitals, “Did the leadership style of the physicians in Intensive Care make a difference in the effectiveness of the patients’ care?”

She answered, “Yes, without a doubt.”  The physicians who supervised with a more side by side and participative style got great assistance from the intensive care nurses and other support staff in the hospital.  The nurses offered to write-up patient chart notes for these doctors ensuring accuracy and timeliness in the patient’s records.  In addition, if the nurses saw the doctor prescribing a medicine or treatment that they thought was wrong, they would speak up and tell the doctor their concern.  The Side by Side doctors would either say, “Wow, I am so glad you mentioned something. You are correct.”  Or the doctor would say, “Well, normally you are correct, but this time with this patient is unique.”  And the intensive care physician would go on and give the nurse advanced training in what was different in the current situation.  The Side by Side doctors had a supporting team.

On the other hand, my colleague described a sad, potentially lethal situation in the intensive care unit that involved the traditional authoritarian, top-down doctors.  When the authoritarian doctor made a mistake, the nurses did not dare say a word.  They knew they might be yelled at or even reprimanded by the doctor.  Such doctors would hurry in, examine the patient, make their pronouncements and hurry out.  The nurses and other support staff did not offer to help such a doctor.

Let us not be too critical of NASA or authoritarian intensive care doctors when the same criticism of people playing “hide the ball” is present in our own organizations.  Last year I was consulting with an organization that was achieving average performance.  One of the brightest employees in the company observed a problem that if it could be solved would make the company an extra $25 million in a short amount of time.  He struggled about whether to share the problem with his boss, because he knew his boss did not like to hear problems. The boss viewed problems as a personal indictment of his leadership style.  The bright employee decided not to share the problem with his boss.  A short time later he was saddened when his boss was fired for lack of performance.

Employees all over are playing “hide the ball” from their bosses because of the fear of retaliation. The fear of employees to share bad news is wide spread.  A 2000 American Management Association Survey presented the news that 755 survey participants reported a failing grade for senior managements’ performance in eliminating fear in the organizational culture.   NASA and hospitals’ failure to lead in ways that support open communication from employees is indicative of many U.S. organizations, maybe even yours. The above examples have caused me to reexamine my own leadership style.

Let us all be sure:

• We are asking for and listening to the ideas and opinions of our staff;

• When we disagree with our staff members ideas, we take the time to explain why things may be different this time; and

• We thank employees and others, including our customers, when they share a problem or criticism with us.

If you see visions of “hide the ball” behavior within yourself and would like to learn more, you may find my award winning book Side By Side Leadership helpful.  At a minimum, I hope that you will give me your thoughts and comments.  We at Side by Side Inc. are always excited to hear what people think.  We are committed to delivering leadership training and materials that deliver real bottom line results.  Thank you

Copyright Side by Side, Inc. 2009

One of my company’s, Side by Side, Inc.*, clients was so successful that it won an international award for excellence and made their company a ton of money at the same time. I and my associates loved coaching and training with this client.  Their people came to work excited and bouncy with smiles on their faces.  The Vice President of the division was effective.  He led the formation and training of cross-functional teams, which had highly effective communication, cooperation, coordination, and creative improvements.  He included workers from all levels of the organization in goal setting and business strategy execution meetings.  This Vice President was so good that he was promoted and transferred to another division of the company.

The new division Vice President came in from outside of the organization.  The first thing he did was discontinue involvement of the employees in organizational goal setting and strategy meetings.  He did all of the talking in the meetings he held with his subordinates.  The new VP was impatient and critical if any of the managers or supervisors tried to contribute their own improvement ideas.

Gradually all of the workers began trudging into work with their heads down.  The business results plummeted.  The workers and supervisors saw the breakthrough culture crumbling before their eyes.  Some of the more tenacious supervisors came together as a group armed with factual data identifying a major business problem and wrote up a series of solutions. They sent the plan to the VP.  He ignored it and let it sit on his desk.  The division’s business results got so bad that it crippled the parent company.

As I observed the destruction of the division’s breakthrough teamwork culture and the corresponding loss of millions of dollars, I asked myself the following question, “How can one person so negatively impact a whole organization of bright, intelligent, and highly motivated workers?”

I knew that the answer to the question was not only useful in business organizations but would also be relevant for government, non-profit, and even faith-based religious organizations.

With the help of my associates at Side by Side, Inc. I gave myself a three-year, half time research assignment: find research on leaders who produce the best organizational and business results.  I reviewed almost 3,000 relevant studies to find 300 hard data studies.  Along the way I also found new research on the human brain that was extremely relevant.

One Monday, I gave myself the assignment to review again in one week summaries of the 300 hard data studies which documented business improvements of 5% – 40%.  On Friday afternoon of that week after scanning the results of the last study, I looked up the definition of leadership in the dictionary.  The dictionary said that to lead meant: “to direct; to command; to be first; and to influence.”

The next morning, Saturday, I woke up earlier than usual.  I went into my living room and I exclaimed to myself, “It’s wrong! The dictionary definition of leadership is wrong.”  I knew that the one-way influencing model of leadership with leaders “directing, commanding, or influencing“ did not produce outstanding business results.  The hard data research studies painted a picture of leaders who:

• listened as much as they talked;
• developed goals with their people;
• used participative decision-making and problem-solving; and
• asked for, as well as offered, help to subordinates during coaching and performance evaluation meetings with their employees.

Initially I called it Two-Way Leadership.  Later, my colleague, Paul Radde, offered the name Side by Side Leadership.

As I developed and implemented Side by Side Leadership training and coaching, I got a big surprise.  I discovered that my own leadership style needed to become more Side by Side.  Each work week I observed how I must fight the culturally driven model of one-way, top-down leadership.

Fortunately I wrote a book that helps me lead more productively.  It is called Side by Side Leadership : Achieving Outstanding Results Together.   Evidently Side by Side Leadership is helping others as well. It is a Wall Street Journal Bestseller and New York Times Bestseller.

To the extent I backed off and led more two-way, I and the people around me became more thoughtful, creative, and productive.

*Side by Side, Inc. was formerly named Performance Resources, Inc.

Copyright, Side by Side, Inc., 2009

• Setting goals;
• Solving problems; and
• Making decisions

Motorola University discovered Side by Side, Inc.’s research and training when they visited with two training managers at the Austin Motorola computer chip factory, Dave Olski and Dave Willis.  Motorola contracted to develop their entire leadership, management and teamwork training around Side by Side, Inc.’s research.

After Motorola implemented the research-based training programs their corporation’s revenue grew from $3.3 billion to almost $11 billion in eight years.   Texas Instruments, Motorola’s main competitor, who was ahead in 1981 with $4.4 billion revenue only grew to $6.6 billion in the same eight years.  Motorola University invented the now famous Six Sigma quality program using Side by Side Inc.’s participative management and teamwork programs as a foundation for employee involvement.

Motorola, along with Ford and Xerox, led the way through the late 1980s showing how research based participative leadership and teamwork combined with quality programs increased both revenue and profits.  Motorola’s high tech competitors as well as other corporations visited Motorola in Schaumberg, Illinois to learn more. Some of the visiting leaders and training managers asked Motorola University who had helped them with their leadership training.  Motorola answered Dr. Dennis Romig in Austin, Texas.  Through Motorola referrals Side by Side, Inc. provided leadership training and coaching to most of the other major high tech companies – Texas Instruments, Dell, IBM, Raytheon, and Advanced Micro Devices.

Energy companies from Houston, Texas heard about Side by Side, Inc.’s successes in High Tech and engaged Side by Side to coach and train their leaders as well (Arco, Shell,  Vastar Resources, Inc. and Noble Energy).  In all cases companies achieved 20-40% improvements per year.  These case studies and the research behind the team approach were published in Breakthrough Teamwork, 1996 and Side by Side Leadership, in 2001.

Side by Side, Inc.. had some good luck and help with the book, Side by Side Leadership ; It was a 2001 Wall Street Journal and 2001 and 2002 New York Times Business Bestseller.  Side by Side Leadership also won the award for Best Business and Career Book of the Year for 2002.

One of the chapters in Side by Side Leadership  presents how Side by Side, Inc. assisted an Arco’s subsidiary, Vastar Resources, Inc., in growing its market cap from $2.8 billion to $8.3 billion using Breakthrough Teamwork and Side by Side Leadership .  All of the research-based success stories in both books were published with the permission and endorsement of the executives of the corporations who had benefitted from the leadership training programs.

The results sound unbelievable, but they are real. The outstanding results are because of the hard work of our clients and us applying the best scientific research on leadership, teamwork and synergy. Every month I am excited by reports from current and previous clients on new breakthrough results!

(Side by Side, Inc. was formerly named Performance Resources, Inc.)