by Adam L Stanley | Aug 4, 2016 | Leadership, Relationships, Teamwork
Helping your organization move on
Let me start out this post by saying it’s NOT about politics. In fact, let me repeat that one more time right up top: it’s not about politics. It’s about how a figure in the 2016 political landscape — nope, not Trump — can teach you something about business and culture within organizations.
I was watching a few nights of the Democratic National Convention last week and when I saw Bernie Sanders speaking to the crowd, I sent a one-word text to a good friend of mine: Brilliant.
Why did I think it was brilliant?
Bernie Sanders took his followers through three major stages of any process:
- Celebration
- Application
- Dedication
This is insanely hard to do. In fact, just the other week — after seeing Bernie at the convention — I was having lunch with a colleague and we were talking about merger integration. As I think most people know or realize, most mergers fail. (83% is a conventional number thrown around.) And yet, we see them every week — in this summer alone, we’ve seen Microsoft grab LinkedIn (for a lot) and Verizon grab Yahoo (for not nearly as much). That part makes sense: mergers are one of the fastest paths to growth.
Here’s what is harder: in every merger or acquisition, there’s a company and set of leaders who “won” or will “win” in terms of their ideas, processes, and culture coming through stronger. This happens in politics, obviously: Clinton beat Sanders, and Trump beat Cruz and Rubio and others. It’s the nature of competition that certain people, and ideas, win out over others.
Every company and leader that gets into these positions, though, has a Bernie Moment. It’s where you can choose to move from application to dedication on behalf of another set of leaders, or another company.
You can’t miss the Bernie Moment. When you miss it, your merger/acquisition is headed for that 83% failure rate stat above.
So what’s the method for arriving at the Bernie Moment? I’d say it breaks down into five parts:
Celebrate the previous victories
If you watched Bernie’s speech at the DNC, he spent the first couple of minutes on himself. He talked about all the votes he received. He mentioned that donations averaged $27 (the crowd loved that part). He mentioned all the voters who had never participated before. He defined it as a movement, essentially.
This was a crucial step because you had 5-10 minutes of yelling and hollering in a happy way. The crowd was chanting “Bernie!” almost the entire time. This needed to happen first, because if he had gone right into supporting Hillary, his supporters would have booed the hell out of that. A TV moment like that isn’t good for Hillary, and it isn’t good for what Bernie accomplished in this campaign cycle.
For a leader, then, it needs to begin with celebrating the wins that came before. That gets everyone aligned around the greatness of the cause and the work.
Be honest about change
After the crowd was fired up, Bernie admitted defeat. He lost. It wasn’t useful to sugarcoat it. He came right out and said it:
I understand that many people here in this convention hall and around the country are disappointed about the final results of the nominating process. I think it’s fair to say that no one is more disappointed than I am.
If you’re familiar with the standard stages of grief, it looks something like this:
As a leader or when building out a culture/movement, though, it doesn’t move in this exact way. Bernie almost began on the far right side — affirmation, hope — then moved down to depression. It’s almost the reverse of the standard grief curve, which usually happens when a loved one dies or something else terrible happens.
By now, though, Bernie had fired up the crowd then reset them in reality. Now it was time for the transition point.
Transition
Here’s what he did here:
Let me be as clear as I can be. This election is not about and has never been about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders or any of the other candidates who sought the presidency. This election is not about political gossip, it’s not about polls, it’s not about campaign strategy, it is not about all the things that the media spends so much time discussing.
This election is about and must be about the needs of the American people and the kind of future we create for our children and our grandchildren.
In short, this is what he was saying: the mission is the mission, and the mission is important. It’s not about the people. It’s about the purpose.
This has TONS of implications in mergers/acquisitions, because usually what happens in those contexts is that one culture is totally absorbed by the other — so the “losing” culture is chucked out the window, essentially. If you have one culture based on financial metrics only and one culture based on collaboration/sharing, and the latter culture loses, well, those people who liked collaboration feel they now have to adapt or get a new job ASAP.
Leaders often try to skirt this issue by appealing to mission, purpose, and core values. That’s the “transition” moment in mergers. That’s when you move from “We were two companies” to “Now we’re one company, and let’s be honest, stuff will be different around here.” But you can make people focus less on what’s going to be different by appealing to a purpose. That’s what Bernie did and what a good leader can do.
Moving On
In standard grief cycles, this is “acceptance.” Bernie transitioned to supporting Clinton and encouraging others to support her as well. Days earlier, when he even remotely suggested this, he was booed. But here, he had to move on. Now, it’s easier to move on when you can …
Find a common enemy
In an article from The New Yorker about how the gun industry markets itself (and please remember, again, that this post is not meant to be political), there was a reference to the acknowledged technique of generating revenue by emphasizing the boundaries of a community. “We all have the need to belong,” he wrote in a presentation entitled “How to Turn One of Mankind’s Deepest Needs Into Cold, Hard Cash.” In a section called “How Do You Create Belief & Belonging?” he explained, “You can’t have a yin without a yang. Must have an enemy.”
Must have an enemy. It’s very powerful. You can argue Trump does this too, re: Clinton (“Crooked Hillary”) and immigrants.
Bernie made Trump, and his implied lack of focus on mission/purpose, the common enemy. In this way, he wasn’t necessarily “siding” with Hillary so much as he was working alongside her against a common foe.
This is really important in business. You wouldn’t do the merger or acquisition unless there was some value-add on both sides, right? So the value-add was there, the financials and legal repercussions were vetted, and it proceeded. Now you’re together. It’s going to be hard but you’re together against a common enemy — your competition, or the idea you’re trying to take down. When Google buys a company, for example, hopefully it’s fitting into the matrix of “organizing the world’s information.” The acquired company has common enemies with Google now — other tech rivals, but also processes that are making it hard for people to acquire and organize information.
You need to appeal to the common enemy. Almost all of our brains are wired to think in terms of “ingroup” vs. “out-group.” Business has been organized in those terms and constructs for generations.
The Recap
That’s the five-step path to your Bernie Moment, then:
- Celebrate
- Accept fate and be honest
- Transition
- Move on
- Find a common enemy
It worked for Bernie — he’s continuing his movement — and it can work for your business, whether you’re Satya Nadella and Jeff Weiner or two guys merging local ice cream stores. Just think about the process and try not to miss your Bernie moment!
Be well. Lead On.
Adam
Related Posts:
The Power of Authenticity
Investing in talent for the long-term
Peer accountability is critical to success in teams
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog
Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
AdamLStanley.com
Follow me on Twitter | Connect with me on Linked In | “Like” me on Facebook
by Adam L Stanley | Jun 10, 2016 | Leadership, Relationships, Teamwork
I started to make this blog post one of my #SoapBox rants. It is in fact a topic about which I am passionate. Largely because I have seen really bad behaviors and would love to do my part to get rid of them. I’ve blogged about Trust, Empowerment, and Accountability, but never really dug deep into accountability. While I think many organizations are starting to do a really good job at defining expectations and holding people accountable, it is still too often the manager that is calling the tasks and managing the tough conversations. A few people have really argued that peers can play as active a role in this and they should. And I agree. So this post is about holding each other accountable, across silos and organizational hierarchies.
————————–
There is a dirty little secret in many organizations that teams oftentimes don’t want to collaborate, driven perhaps by the idea that while we do a lot of our work in teams, we still promote individuals. If you follow the two-pizza rule and assume most teams are 8-10 members dispatched to work on a business need, in a given fiscal year probably 1-2 of those people (at most) will get advanced. If you’re in the 7-9 who don’t get advanced and that keeps happening, you might eventually become a bit disgruntled about the idea of constant team-building.
Here’s the other problem with teams besides the motivation aspect: how they’re run. Oftentimes, teams are very driven by process — which is a good thing, as it sets rules and expectations for how the work will get done — but there’s a large concern over who owns the process, i.e. the team lead. This is also good in one respect (accountability), but bad in another — and ironically, it’s also accountability.
I saw this recently in an organization. One of the leaders designed a portfolio dashboard for project management in his group. It was pretty awesome — there was easy-to-access, intuitive information about timelines, budgets, due dates, and roles. Here was the problem: the tool was created by someone not responsible for creating that tool based on the operating model and org structure (it should have been the PMO). Because the team wasn’t getting what they wanted from the PMO, they did an end-run and created a better solution. Of course, this type of action can lead to a decent amount of politics and finger-pointing over responsibility, as opposed to a focus on being the most productive we could be.
Sadly in many cases, the way we structure teams is typically representative of the way we structure whole organizations. Hierarchy defines decision-making authority in the most formal sense. Since hierarchy may never die — despite what we’ve been told about millennials — we should, in a way, get used to this.
Think for a second about how ineffective this can be. You’ve probably seen this cycle a dozen or more times in different jobs you’ve had, but here it goes: an employee escalates an issue to a team manager, who then must go and talk to a peer manager. The peer manager has to go talk to the employee, who presents his/her perspective to the peer manager — who now has to go back to the team manager and explain the perspective. The team manager can now go to the employee. It’s like a massive version of reply all chain threads, but in real life and not in your inbox. It kills time and saps productivity, and yet, that’s typically how we deal with team management and issue escalation.
Escalations and circles of perceived accountability should be the exception and not the rule. I think of my work this way: 95% of real change comes from the direct reports of my direct reports. They do the actual work. I should be focusing on strategy and growth. If I’m spending all my time quashing escalations, we’re all in a free fall.
There’s a potentially better way to run teams, though: universal accountability.
The basic principle is simple, but very hard to execute: anyone on a team can hold anyone else accountable if it’s in the best interest of the team. And yes, that means you can cross hierarchical lines and call out someone that outranks you.
In a post on the Harvard Business Review blog, “The Best Teams Hold Themselves Accountable”, Joseph Grenny summarized a theory based around this series of logic:
- In the weakest teams, there is absolutely no accountability: You’ve probably seen this a few times wherever you work, or in previous jobs.
- In mediocre, middle-of-the-road teams, the boss/team lead is the source of accountability: This team might get a few things done, which is good, but there’s a tendency towards HIPPO Management (highest paid person’s opinion) and other flaws of ideation.
- In high-performing teams, peers manage each other: This is hard to arrive at because of how people tend to contextualize bosses and hierarchy, but actually drives the best results.
How can you apply this to your team?
-
Focus on team composition a lot more
You need to think a little more thoroughly about team composition. Oftentimes teams are thrown together based on a few silos that have ownership of a product or service or project. There can often not be much thought given to who’s involved and what role they’d play. As a result, you have a random smattering of individuals and a team lead. That team could come together and achieve some great business results, but I wouldn’t necessarily throw $20 on that happening in Vegas. It’s more likely that role confusion will lead to overlapping responsibilities, which will lead to team members chasing their tails, and ultimately the team lead will be on the hook for the flaws.
2. Hire the curious as much as (or more than) you hire the smart
Universal accountability will tend to work better on teams with a high degree of self-awareness and curiosity, as those teams are more willing to embrace changes to conventional team management models. Cass Sunstein, a professor at Harvard Law, has written and spoken extensively about what makes teams smart or dumb — and while he embraces universal accountability, he admits the bigger driving force of a successful team is ‘C-Factor,’ or the ability to embrace new ideas while working together. Hire people that are comfortable with change and ambiguity as long as they are learning. Hire the curious.
3. Reward problem solving without escalation
Perhaps as importantly, publicly scorn premature or unnecessary escalations. When I was a kid, my parents often told me “everyone hates a tattletale”. Of course, they did not mean to say I should never tell them if something awful happened to me. They simply wanted me to learn to self-heal and self-resolve conflicts as much as possible. Little did I know then they were teaching me a life lesson. The more you can solve problems direct with the source, the more effective you will be. Celebrate the problem solvers.
4. Model the behavior
You likely have issues with your peers as well, and your frustration is very visible to your teams. Show them you hold your peers accountable and they are more likely to model this behavior with their peers.
In an average day, you will only have so many productive hours outside of meetings and required client events, so you need to make the most of them. Every hour spent dealing with someone else’s drama or problems is an hour you could be driving value. Try to build a culture of universal accountability and see how much more you can get done.
Ever been on a team where Universal accountability was the norm? Could it work in YOUR organization? As always, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Be well. Lead On.
Adam
Related Posts:
Defining the Perfect Employee – Top Traits Series
Trait 1: Hard working AND talented
Trait 2: Pride in work product
Trait 3: Fun to work with
Investing in talent for the long-term
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog
Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
AdamLStanley.com
Follow me on Twitter | Connect with me on Linked In | “Like” me on Facebook
by Adam L Stanley | Apr 14, 2016 | Leadership, Relationships, Teamwork
Find the right “fit” for the role
“If you read the papers, you’ll see that people are hired for what they know, and they’re fired for who they are. Hiring for knowledge is a mistake management makes all the time.” — Unattributed, World 50 Member
So, I heard it again the other day. What, you ask? I heard the famous “he just wasn’t a good fit” for the team. The problem is, I get it. But that word has always driven me crazy because it was often used to deny people of different racial, religious, and gender backgrounds from roles. “Not a good fit” meant not part of the same country club or socioeconomic circles. But, as much as I hate the word, “fit” does matter. But in my case, I choose to define fit as having similar character and values. Character and values transcend race, gender, religion, etc. — and they are very important in hiring decisions. The fact is, outcomes are greater when you hire employees with values in sync with the values you hold as a manager, and more importantly, with the general values of the company. You are adding valuable people and you want them to be happy, engaged, and aligned.
Why this matters
Lots of really smart and really successful people talk about this yet some of the lowly C-suite mortals like me often neglect it.
Sir Richard Branson, billionaire mogul of Virgin Group: “If you can find people who are fun, friendly, caring and love helping others you are on to a winner. …. Personality is the key.”
Elon Musk, founder of SpaceX and the increasingly ubiquitous Tesla car: “[My biggest mistake is] weighing too much on someone’s talent and not someone’s personality…it matters whether someone has a good heart.”
These men are incredibly professionally and financially successful, as are their organizations. They recognize that values tie to performance. In fact, character and values oftentimes tie back to a new hire’s attitude. Mark Murphy, the author of Hiring for Attitude, conducted a study based on 20,000 new hires. He found that roughly half failed within the first 18 months on the job, and 89% of those failures came from problems related to attitude.
Amazingly, that same percentage — 89% — has been tied to hires not working out due to cultural fit in another study.
Character and values set the culture of an organization. Character and values drive the attitude of an employee.
See how this is crucially important?
Of course, hiring for character and values is tough, and it’s understandable why so many people do not intentionally do so. The way most companies set up headcount protocols means that when a role is open, a crucial metric becomes “time to hire.” When you combine the regular daily responsibilities of HR and hiring managers, you can have rushed processes based on video screens, 30-minute interviews with mostly generic questions (“What’s your biggest weakness?”). Furthermore, applicant tracking systems weed out potentially good candidates based on keywords and character does not always come through in print or catch phrases. Hiring for character and values takes time, and time is our most precious asset.
So, is it achievable?
How can you hire for Character and Values
Here are some quick tips:
Use LinkedIn recommendations.
I look closely to see what people have said about a key recruit. How does he or she lead, make decisions, and team with others? Is there a high level of energy and passion in her effort? I look for works like “trust”, “integrity”, and “fun.” If they do not have any, ask for references from a broad group and ensure you get detailed feedback on character and values. References are hard because they’re very curated — obviously if a past manager didn’t like an employee, he/she probably won’t post that on LinkedIn because of professionalism. (And if he/she does, the employee has the option not to show it publicly.) But looking at crucial words is valuable.
It’s ok to have a social component of the interview process.
Doesn’t have to be drinks, but if you are going to be in the trenches with someone, you must spend time with them outside of the office. Over coffee. A breakfast. Drinks. Plan, within HR rules of course, an interaction outside of the office where the plan in not to talk specifically about the company for which you are hiring. Talk about what matters to the potential employee. What makes him or her happy?
Ask probing questions about the “how”.
Resumes and bios often highlight the “what” and I find it surprising when interviewers spend half or more of an interview asking for a restatement of what is clearly written. I want to know how you delivered something as much as I want to know what you deliver. John Wooden is one of the most successful coaches of all-time in any sport — nine NCAA titles, 88 straight wins at one point — and a major psychological research study done around his processes showed that he overwhelmingly focused on the “how” as opposed to the “what.” Again, model success — it can work in hiring.
Always ask what they disliked.
It’s tough, and yes you will get canned answers sometimes. The famous “I just hated that guy that did not work to my level of expectations. It is hard for me to deal with people who have less of a work ethic”. BS. We all read that same book. I REALLY want to know who or what you didn’t like. If a lot of what you DO NOT like exists in my company, we would both be miserable if you join me. You would not be happy and therefore your performance would be subpar and thus I would not be happy. Work is a two-way street: you get money in exchange for performance, but the performance is within a context of co-workers, clarity of information, job description, skill set, and more. If you know you’re not a good fit for certain types of offices or organizations, be honest about that. You hurt everyone — from yourself to future co-workers — when you try to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Have them meet their peers.
For some reason, early in my career I came to expect to meet several peers during the interview process. They were interviewing me as much as I was interviewing them. As I advanced, I noted that these kind of interactions became more sporadic. If you are hiring, make sure to add a couple of peers to the interview schedule. If you are contemplating joining a company, demand to speak with your peers. Quick story about this from a collaborator of mine: after business school, he interviewed for a job based in Texas. He met a few (2-3) of the Texas-based team. Within a week or two of starting the gig, though, he realized he pretty much only worked with the Seattle-based team of the same company. They had barely met him and had no context for him, and he was sitting 1,200 miles away from them. That creates reduced productivity and bad teams, which shouldn’t be a goal for anyone. So meeting peers is important, but make sure they’re meeting the right peers.
Obtain senior buy-in
This comes up in any business article, of course — you have to make sure there’s senior buy-in on any major decisions in an organization. Hiring is maybe the most major decision; it’s half your money going out, and your people are your greatest strategic advantage. Hiring can sometimes be ignored by the top executives — they view it as the domain of HR or specific hiring managers, and because it’s harder to measure, they don’t focus on it as much. Hiring needs to be a focus of your executives. They need to be regularly telling people around the org what culture, values, and character traits they want to see. It needs to be commonplace for a C-suite leader to tell a middle manager what values should be in the company. Otherwise it becomes the domain of specific silos, and finance has a certain type of employee vs. marketing with another vs. Ops with another. Then when those teams need to collaborate, it can be a mess. You’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. And you can avoid it by aligning around character and values.
I’ve spoken about the perfect team traits and the importance of thinking of every employee as allies on a tour of duty. If you are going to make a significant hiring decision, bringing on another comrade on the tour, why not spend the extra time to make it the right decision. Hire for “fit” for character and values. You will be happier. they will be happier. And, the company will benefit for the extra time you took.
As always, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Be well. Lead On.
Adam
Related Posts:
Defining the Perfect Employee – Top Traits Series
Trait 1: Hard working AND talented
Trait 2: Pride in work product
Trait 3: Fun to work with
Investing in talent for the long-term
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog
Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
AdamLStanley.com
Follow me on Twitter | Connect with me on Linked In | “Like” me on Facebook
by Adam L Stanley | Dec 14, 2015 | Leadership, Relationships, Teamwork
You are the leaders of this organization and hold the keys to success.
At the heart of any mission is talent. Whether building the new rocketship to take us to Mars, raising money for a charity, designing a new service online, or working to be the best manufacturer of the latest series of widgets, talent matters. Which is why it is part of so many of my blogs and why I want to quickly share some thoughts for leaders. This one is targeted to leaders that are at the director/senior manager level, typically CEO – 3 layers. In my org, this would mean people that report to my direct reports. Beyond that, I think they could really be considered for any leaders of teams.
The crux of the message is this: You are the leaders of this organization and hold the keys to success. When given a role as a leader, you must immediately transform yourself from an individual contributor that must manage up, to a leader that must manage up, down, and sideways. And, from time to time, you will need to transform again as peers and managers change significantly, or you go to a new company. In many ways, the global leadership team (my directs) need to serve in the capacity of “Chairman and CEO” of the company we are building. They need to be the ones setting the strategy, selling the vision, and building the dream. But if the next layer down is not willing and ready to be the “President and COO” of our company, the dream can never be achieved.
People may think that I want the directs of my directs to be “empowered”, “trusted”, and held “accountable” because that is the right thing to do for team engagement. Bullocks. Yes, its good for the teams to be treated with respect in this way. However, it is not purely altruistic that I form teams in this manner. The fact of the matter is, our mission DEPENDS on this. We simply cannot be successful if leaders at all levels do not step up to the challenge they have been given to drive change independently. The directs of my directs, I call them the XLT, run our business. That means we expect a lot of them and, likewise, they should expect more from us. So, I wanted to share some thoughts on leadership and my expectations. I am sharing these with my team as well as with my friends here in the online world.
What we expect from you as a manager
- Ownership of transitions Remember back when you were in grade school? Don’t worry, I don’t remember much either. However, I do remember that each new year was a new adventure pretty much directed by my teachers. They showed me how my last year’s learning tied to the new year. They led exercises to introduce me to my new classmates, courses, and books. But in the corporate world, on our mission, we do not always have that luxury. And, frankly, the higher up you go, the less assistance you will get with transitions. Things move faster and are not always as structured as grade school. That means you are in some cases you will be leaving behind responsibilities to take on new ones before fully completing your prior responsibilities. As leaders, you are expected to manage transitions, ensuring that your responsibilities are not only well in hand but all key stakeholders are informed of the change. This is a critical mission success factor.
- Setting expectations I was the News Editor of my college newspaper, Student Life, at Washington University. At the beginning of each editorial cycle, I worked out a set schedule of articles our reporters were expected to write, with dates they were due and no leeway for being late. For a newspaper that came out twice a week, there was only so much flexibility. But the MAJORITY of corporate decisions are not actually this tightly time constrained. So, leaders must help manage expectations. You know your workload, skillsets and available tools better than anyone else. And you are a leader. If you get a request to drive something, you must set expectations. When should I hear from you and how often will you provide updates? Where does this fall within your priority list? Are you not the right person for the job? If you do not set expectations appropriately, the best possible outcome is that you unwittingly meet expectations set by someone else. The worst case is that the expectations that were set were completely unrealistic and you will fail.
- Communication to your teams and peers – Every day, I think about what I want to wear to the office. That is perhaps the only decision I make each day that does not require input from others. Even that one is influenced by others based on conversations I have had about a particular type of shoes (“Adam is the only c-suite exec here that has a pair of Blue shoes”) or my choice of casual or formal business attire (“still wearing a tie, eh, Adam?”). But in a fast-changing, active decision environment, communication is critical. Especially during times of change and transition, our colleagues need to hear from us much more. Decisions are being made that impact lives, impact our clients, impact the markets and how our competitors react to us. We can get into a trap of having so many meetings and conference calls that we forget the basics. Pick up the phone. Reach out to someone for coffee. Write a personal thank you note.
- Driving independently In order for any organization to deliver effectively the massive change programs underway in a competitive environment, we must hold our leaders accountable for driving independently. We must empower them to make decisions without funneling every action through hierarchies. We must trust them to get done their component of the work. And we must hold them accountable for delivering and punish/reward them based on agreed expectations. I blogged on this a while back (See Blog and a poster with these three words in on most of my team’s desks. We must expect XLT leaders to deliver on change programs with less direct intervention. Clear objectives set up front, guidance and support when needed, and recognition/credit when complete. The mission depends on this, as every hour spent by me working on a component of the mission is an hour I cannot sell the dream, build the vision.
What you should expect from your manager
It is easy for senior level executives to set expectations on their subordinate leaders. However, we must recognize that relationships go two ways. If I truly want my leaders to act a certain way, managing transitions, communicating to their teams, and driving independently, my leaders must be able to expect certain things from me.
- Support for this process, including patience and understanding as they build plans, outside assistance if justified, and help identifying the right person to whom you should transition if needed.
- Leading by example when it comes to communication and team engagement.
- Unless you lead them to conclude otherwise, your manager should trust your judgment and be reasonably accepting of the expectations you set.
What are some expectations you have of your leaders and how have you seen them help your mission? Is your manager providing effective space for you to grow as a leader?
Be well. Lead On.
Adam
Related Posts:
Investing in talent for the long-term
Expectations of Leaders at all Levels
Khalil Gibran on Leadership
Lessons from Henry V
Adam Stanley
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog
Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
AdamLStanley.com
Follow me on Twitter | Connect with me on Linked In | Join me on Instagram
by Adam L Stanley | Feb 27, 2013 | Leadership, Quotes and Inspiration
Looking for inspiration in history (and movies …)
In a recent leadership course sponsored by my employer, we used The story of Henry V and the battle at Agincourt as a metaphor for leadership. I have watched this video of his speech to the troops every day since then and wanted to share it with you. It provides me with inspiration and hopefully some potential tools I can use to take my troops into battle every day: humility, decisive leadership, participative decision making, scenario planning, and clear articulation of vision and objectives are but a few reasons Henry V prevailed against overwhelming odds.
For a great synopsis on leadership lessons from this battle, read the article found on Knowledge@Wharton, from my alma mater. Enjoy the video clip and let me know what lessons you think are learned from his speech or the battle itself.
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING. What’s he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark’d to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God’s will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say “To-morrow is Saint Crispian.â€
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say “These wounds I had on Crispian’s day.â€
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day.
Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb’red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.
Be Well. Lead On.
Adam
Adam L. Stanley Connections Blog
Technology. Leadership. Food. Life.
AdamLStanley.com
Follow me on Twitter | Connect with me on Linked In | “Like†me on Facebook
Let me start out this post by saying it’s NOT about politics. In fact, let me repeat that one more time right up top: it’s not about politics. It’s about how a figure in the 2016 political landscape — nope, not Trump — can teach you something about business and culture within organizations.
In a post on the Harvard Business Review blog, “
