Research Paper No.

1999

Leadership Excellence and the “Soft” Skills:

Authenticity, Influence and Performance

David L. Bradford
Carole S. Robin

2004

R E S E ARCH P AP E R S E RI E S
 Leadership Excellence and the "Soft" Skills:
Authenticity, Influence and Performance

David L. Bradford & Carole S. Robin

Graduate School of Business, Stanford University

(working paper)

Introduction

While leaders need analytical competencies such as those associated with strategy,
finance and all the planning processes, research on Emotional Intelligence (as reported by
Goleman, ―What Makes a Leader?‖, HBR, 1998) suggests it is increasingly the "soft"
skills that differentiate those who are highly successful from those who just get by. This
shift in emphasis is largely due to a series of fundamental changes in organizations over
the past decades. Increasingly, today's organizational realities are characterized by:

High performance standards - Organizations can no longer survive over time by

just "getting by." Global competition has raised the bar on the level of quality in
products and service that is expected. And the rate of technological innovation
demands speed, agility and ability to adapt by all parts of the organization.

The leader no longer has all the answers - Knowledge and expertise is now
distributed throughout the organization. Excellence is achieved when
everybody's competencies are fully used. [In fact, the institution that is
dependent on the solo brilliant leader is in a very vulnerable, unsustainable,
position.] This means that the task of the leader has changed from being the
solution-provider to building conditions that release and focus the competences
throughout the organization.

Changes in the nature of work [and workers] - The diffusion of expertise,

increased task complexity, and needed speed of response mean that there is much
greater interdependency than ever before. Few tasks of any significance can be
solved by individuals working alone. Furthermore, the work force has changed
in that there is much greater diversity not just in gender, ethnicity and sexual
orientation, but also in background and work style. This increases the challenge
of building the necessary collaboration among the relevant players.

Excellence can't be commanded - While leaders need to set high standards, they
can't "order" the behaviors that produce excellence. If they want members to
take initiative, make full use of their abilities, and perform "above and beyond,"

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004

 leaders need the influence skills that truly build commitment, cooperation and
high performance.

These forces require a new set of individual, interpersonal and team skills. Leaders need
to be able to quickly build strong relationships [especially with people who are different]
and develop powerful, high performing teams in a short period of time. Time, not
money, is the scarce resource in today's organizational world.

Team Competencies

Teams consistently make superior decisions to individuals when the task is complex,
there is no one expert, and the team is working well as a team. Furthermore, a cohesive
team can create synergy and provide crucial mutual support so that decisions are
implemented in a timely fashion. Strong teams are highly adaptable and are not thrown
by crises—rather they have the ability to respond quickly. Finally, highly developed
teams are places where members hold each other accountable. This not only improves
task performance, but also can be an important source of individual learning.

High performing teams such as we are describing are "conflict-positive." Research

shows that productive task conflict increases the quality of the outcome. [Conflict can
also speed up the process by surfacing issues earlier and sharpening the contrasting points
of view.] But this means that the leader has to build conditions where members can bring
up different viewpoints and disagree in a direct, healthy fashion. And, if members are to
hold each other accountable for each other’s performance, they need to learn the skills of
being confrontational without turning confrontation into personal attacks.

Developing such teams requires that leaders learn how to build a climate where important
issues are proactively and productively addressed on a routine basis. Leaders must thus
have competencies in:

Building appropriate norms so that members communicate in a direct and honest

way

Being comfortable with task conflict and knowing how to surface differences in
a productive way

Helping members be able to hold each other accountable in a way that is helpful
and not punitive

Assisting the group to look at it's own process to increase the team's
effectiveness

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004

 Directly facing and surfacing problems rather than avoiding them or "managing
around" them

Interpersonal Competencies

Henry Ford once said, "Why, when I want to hire only a pair of hands, do I get a whole
person?" In today's knowledge based economy, the question needs to be rephrased as,
"Now that I am hiring a whole person, what can I do to make full use of that individual's
competence?" Leaders often hire others for potential, which means that a crucial task of
leadership is to further develop each person's abilities. While training programs can be a
useful supplement, most learning occurs on the job and leaders need to know how to use
every opportunity to further enhance the competencies of those around them.

But what is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." If leaders are to build a climate
where continuous development of members and teams is expected, they too have to be
open to their own learning. In fact, who best knows how one is performing as a leader
than those being led? Thus, leaders too have to be open to feedback about ways they can
manage more effectively.

A leader's interpersonal competence is not restricted just to dealing with direct reports. If
tasks are becoming more interdependent, one needs to learn how to influence colleagues
as well. And if expertise is held by those below, one has to also be able to influence
upwards to gain needed autonomy, resources and support. Knowing how to "influence
those you don't have authority over" requires empathy in understanding the world of the
other and skills in setting up win-win exchanges.

The process of mutual influence is crucial in building strong relationships. People are
willing to be influenced by others if they know that they can influence back. This
process of mutual influence is what builds trust, and trust is a crucial component between
leader and members. And when there is trust, there can be more open communication.

Building strong, trust-based relationships is especially important when dealing with

people who are different in background, demographic characteristics and style. Open and
full communication is crucial under these circumstances since these are the sorts of
relationships where muted or indirect communication can most easily result in
misunderstandings.

All of these interpersonal skills require leader competencies in:

Being able to give [and receive] behaviorally specific feedback

Knowing how to raise difficult issues (and then being able to resolve them)

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004

 Having the ability to talk about your relationship and what is getting in the way
of each party being more productive

Understanding the "world of the other" - what is important to that person

Knowing how to set up win-win exchanges

Individual Competencies

Leaders bring many types of competencies based on their education and years of
experience. But for this discussion, we want to explore three types of personal
competencies: a) the extent that one can recognize and appropriately express emotions; b)
the ability to learn; and c) the extent to which an individual can more fully use his/her
self. All three of these serve a leader in being more powerful and effective.

Identifying and Utilizing Our Emotions - Managers who say, ―Leave feelings out of the
work place; be professional‖ are missing some of the more powerful tools at their
disposal:

 Emotions convey important information. Saying, "I am

pleased/appreciative/excited about your work" or "I am annoyed/bothered/angry at
the way you have been acting" can have a major impact on another's behavior.

 Emotions are the basis for behaviorally specific feedback (and keep us from
making damaging attributions about the other's intentions, motives or personality.)

 No organization can be excellent unless the leader and members are passionate
about what they do.

This is not to say that one should be controlled by one's emotions. But as the research
on Emotional Intelligence indicates, knowing one’s feeling and knowing how to use
them appropriately is one key to successful leadership.

The Ability to Learn - One executive we worked with said, "I always want to learn. I just
don't want others to know that I am learning." How sad and what a loss of influence. If
leaders want to build an organization where there is continuous learning for members and
the team, then what better way to establish this than through modeling that? But learning
is not easy. It requires:

Willingness to look at one's own behavior

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004

 Seeing "mistakes" as something to learn from vs. something to hide.

Being minimally defensive

Being open to feedback from others

Willingness to try new behavior

Using More Parts of our Self -- Most people use only a small fraction of their abilities.
We limit our self far more than we should. What we fail to realize is that most behavior
is appropriate under some conditions. There are times when leaders need to be decisive
and positive and other times when they need to admit that they don't know. There are
times to take actions unilaterally and other times to ask for help and/or work
collaboratively. There are times when we need approval from others and times when we
need to make a decision even if it causes anger and unhappiness.

Using more aspects of our self requires two things: a) knowing one's self and b) accepting
one’s self - including those parts about which we might not feel most proud. The latter
doesn't argue for complacency or going along with self-limiting aspects of ourselves, but
it is about recognizing that ―that thing‖ is still "part of me." Self-limiting parts that we
don't acknowledge don't go away – in fact, what we don't see and don't accept is more
likely to control us.

For example, research shows that leaders that have a strong need to be liked by their
direct reports, tend to have lower performing organizations. (They are unable to take the
necessary, but unpopular actions.) But saying "that's not me" doesn't make the need to be
liked go away. In fact, recognizing that gives a leader control over how and where that
need is met.

As important as it is to understand and accept our self, there are also times when it is
appropriate to share some of that with our direct reports. (Note that it's not as if this will
always be a great surprise to our staff—people who work for us are often quite aware of
our needs and foibles as leaders.) Acknowledgment can make us more human and not
just a two-dimensional poster image of what a ―leader ought to be‖. And the more we
can be fully our self, the more we give permission for others to be fully themselves when
they are with us. The more our direct reports think they should appear all knowing,
without flaws or concerns, the more they will: 1) hide necessary information from us, 2)
close themselves off from learning and impede their own development and 3) not fully
use all of their abilities.

What keeps leaders from fully knowing and expressing their emotions, from being open
to learning and from acknowledging and using more of themselves? There are many

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004

reasons, but a frequent one is the heroic notion that people carry around of how leaders
ought to act.

Insofar, as one believes that good leaders…

- always have the answer and never are unsure about what to do

- never admit self-doubt, acknowledge their mistakes or show any form of

vulnerability

- never ask for help [or directions!]

- and hide their emotions to always appear cool and "professional"

… then one inevitably limits one self. When we operate within this belief system as
leaders, we bring only a small part of ourselves to work. We can't be open to feedback or
our own learning. And our inability to accept all parts of ourselves inhibits a critical
ability to understand and be empathic to others. Finally, since our direct reports will
model themselves after us, they might well feel that they have to:

Appear perfect

Have difficulty admitting mistakes or asking for help

Be unable to admit weaknesses and get defensive when they get feedback

We are suggesting that there is great power in authenticity. To act in a congruent fashion
["say what one means and mean what one says"] is not only great modeling for others,
but it is inspiring to a leader’s direct reports. They don't have to waste time guessing
what you "really mean" by your statements or what you are "not saying." They don’t
have to wrestle with making sense out of mixed messages. And openness with others
breeds openness from others.

Enhancing one's individual competencies requires:

Being able to identify one's emotions and knowing how to use them
appropriately

Being open to learning, which includes being willing to look at one's behavior
[including mistakes] non-defensively and being open to feedback

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004

 Stepping out of one’s comfort zone and taking the risk of trying new behavior
(that might at first feel awkward and uncomfortable)

Being willing to be vulnerable (and seeing that as a sign of strength and not of
weakness)

In Closing

We would like to conclude with two key points. The first is with regard to power and the
other is to correct a misunderstanding that can arise from this paper's title.

In terms of power, it is crucial to recognize that leadership is all about power and
influence- it is about the ability to get things done. Many managers misuse power and,
because of that, others are leery of acting in influential ways. Power is misused when the
wrong form is employed and/or it is used for personal aggrandizement. As implied in
this paper, power should be used for achieving organizational goals. Furthermore, power
doesn't have to be a zero-sum game or a fixed-quantity commodity [e.g., the more that I
have, the less that you have]. Power can be a variable so that leaders can "increase the
size of the power pie." Much of what has been discussed above increases the size of that
pie. For example:

When teams handle the really important issues, everybody's influence increases
(and everyone has more power)

When members can support each other, the "whole is greater than the sum of the
parts"

When a leader is open to influence, members are more willing to be influenced

so the size of their "interpersonal influence pie" has increased.

As leaders (and members) use more parts of themselves, their "individual

influence pie" increases.

Our second point deals with the use of "soft" in describing the competencies covered in
this paper. "Softness" can too easily carry the connotation of "fluff" and/or being easy
with people. But what the astute reader will have noticed is that there is a real
"toughness" in what we have been describing. It is tough in two senses: it is tough
(challenging) to do and it is about being "tough" [not mean] with others:

It is tough to, in a meeting, when heated disagreement emerges, let it play out
rather than trying to shut the conflict down or smooth it over.

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004

 It is tough to hold others accountable in the meeting when they are not coming
through on responsibilities and obligations.

It is tough to give [and maybe even tougher to hear] negative feedback.

It is tough to continue to do what you believe is right even when your direct
reports tell you how unhappy they are with your decision.

It is tough to surface difficulties you are having working with another.

It is tough to admit when you, as a leader, have not acted correctly.

It is tough to confront one's boss when s/he is not fulfilling their role or is
behaving in ways that one thinks are detrimental to the organization.

All of this is tough, but absolutely necessary if one is to achieve high performance.
Using these "soft" competencies is not easy, but whoever said excellence came easy?
The question for you as a leader is, ―Do you want to be comfortable or do you want to be
effective?‖

© David Bradford and Carole Robin, 2004