Speaking to a business owner recently who had been suffering significant losses as a result of theft by employees, I was quite surprised when at one point he out rightly declared “I don’t trust any of these people working for me. Never have and never will.”

Of course anyone in his position could be forgiven for having trust issues, but to reach the point where you do not trust anyone in the organization – that’s a terrible place to be. But perhaps even worse is that there’s a very strong possibility that the business owner himself could be the cause of this breakdown in trust. The fact that his business is suffering from high employee turnover, low job satisfaction, a general lack of motivation and is losing revenue to boot could be the direct result of this employer’s attitude of never having trusted any of his employees to start off with. Let me explain.

The Trust Hormone

Oxytocin is a neurohormone produced in the brain of all mammals and is known to play a role in various social interactions such as the maternal attachment a mother has with her baby, social recognition, pair bonding between couples, sexual arousal and social bonding. However research headed by Paul J. Zak, neuroeconomist at Claremont Graduate University in Southern California, has shown that oxytocin also plays a significant role in the formation of trust between people.

Wondering how the human brain determines when to trust someone and when not to trust someone, Zak and his colleagues conducted several experiments using students from the University of California as participants. Among others, the participants took part in the Trust Game – an experiment devised to study individuals’ propensity to be trusting and to be trustworthy. Participants’ oxytocin levels were then monitored throughout the process.

Response to Being Trusted

The researchers found that when participants felt that they were trusted, their brains responded by producing oxytocin. When the level of trust they were given was increased, their brains produced even more oxytocin. Most significantly however, was that the rise in oxytocin levels then caused these subjects to behave more trustworthy. In other words, people who feel trusted become more trustworthy as a result of increased oxytocin levels in their brains!

To make sure that they were right about oxytocin’s “on-switch” role, Zak collaborated with a research team from the University of Zurich headed by economist Ernst Fehr. They conducted experiments where 200 investors inhaled a dose of oxytocin formulated as a nasal spray to artificially increase their oxytocin levels while playing the Trust Game. Again the results were overwhelming – the “dosed” subjects showed a significant increase in trustworthy behaviour.

Response to Distrust

And what about the opposite – how do people respond when they feel distrusted? Zak and his team discovered that when male participants are distrusted it causes a rise in the levels of a hormone called dihydrotestosterone (DHT). Increased levels of DHT increase the desire for physical confrontation in challenging social circumstances. In other words, men have an aggressive reaction to being distrusted! And if you’re wondering about female’s reaction to distrust – let Zak speak for himself on this one: “We think of women as “cooler” responders, although we do not yet fully know the physiological underpinnings for this difference”.

Leadership Implications

You probably don’t need me to say this, but just so we have it on record: Leaders who want to increase trust in the workplace can start off by being trustworthy and by trusting their people more. Of course this doesn’t mean acting oblivious to individuals who clearly cannot be trusted. But it does mean at least giving people the opportunity to prove themselves trustworthy by showing that you trust them. While this may work on a conscious level where people just want to honor your trust, this research shows that it definitely also works on a deeper, neurological level in the human brain. In a team or organization this has the potential to trigger a snowball trust-building effect. Showing people that you trust them rises the oxytocin levels in their brains and that makes them potentially more trustworthy. They then also show more trust in you and that in return rises your oxytocin levels, causing you to be more trustworthy and to show more trust in them. Get the idea?

On the other hand leaders and managers who show constant distrust can trigger a whole sequence of negative responses. At best people will do what they have to and behave in a trustworthy manner simply because they are guided by firm values and moral principles. At worst they could respond with aggression which could manifest in any number of ways, such as sabotaging the organization, spreading discontent or stealing your profit.

• In my next post I plan to take a closer look at why trust in the 21st Century workplace is such a critical determinant of success. Meanwhile I would appreciate any comments and insights on this article or on trust-related issues in general!

References:
Zak, P. J. (2008). The Neurobiology of Trust 2008. Scientific American, June, 99-95.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W.T. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior 48, 522–527.
Kosfeld, M et al, (2005). Oxytocin Increases Trust in Humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.

Reblogged from Leadershipwatch - Aad Boot:

Photo: Tuppys/Flickr (Creative Commons)

In Part 1 of this series I wrote about the importance of people alignment as a crucial competence for today’s leaders. Especially in a globalized world, where cross-cultural and multinational challenges are becoming more and more a normal part of the leader’s job, leaders need to understand how to create people alignment. In Part 1 I also described how ‘personal alignment’ plays an important role when creating people alignment.

Read more… 850 more words

Make sure to read Part 1 of Aad Boot's excellent blog on this topic first. He makes some really important observations about the critical importance of alignment, and also provides some practical advice to help leaders achieve alignment.

Reblogged from Leadershipwatch - Aad Boot:

Photo: Tuppus/Flickr (Creative Commons)

Today’s and tomorrow’s leaders are more and more facing cross-cultural challenges caused by globalization, emerging economies and new markets. How to notice differences in cultures? How to understand their impact on people behavior and performance? How to avoid cross-cultural friction and conflict? How to lead people and teams with different cultural backgrounds? How to create successful collaboration and teamwork cross-border?

Read more… 715 more words

No doubt that one of the most popular buzz-terms of our time is “global leadership” – I just did a Google search and got no less than 3 100 000 hits! So while it seems that a significant proportion of the world’s online population is either training others to be global leaders or aspiring to be global leaders, I reflected on just what it takes to be a global leader.

As a student in the turbulent days of apartheid South Africa, I worked in Olifants Camp in the Kruger Park on a part-time base and it is there where I got my first glimpse of global leadership. In Kruger as in most of South Africa at the time the racial divide was clear and strongly imposed through company policy and the laws of the country. This often caused tension in the workplace as “whites” were generally in charge (irrespective of ability and skills) while “non-whites” were expected to fill the lower ranks and do what they were told without questioning the authority or competency of those in charge. As a result, many non-white workers begrudgingly went about their work, doing the bare minimum and understandingly showing no commitment or loyalty to the manager or company. But in the restaurant at Olifants Camp things were different.

Dieter (I’m using a pseudonym, not to protect him but because I really can’t remember his name) was a German national who had only immigrated to South Africa two years before. Short and skinny with a pale complexion and an accent that was difficult to decode, he sort of stood out for all the wrong reasons in an environment where big and rugged males grappled for primacy. However, it soon became evident that Dieter had an amazing ability to motivate, build trust, set the direction and ultimately lead. Within only a few months this somewhat odd-looking little German was able to cross and to some extent mend cultural and political divides like few others. He molded his extremely diverse team of chefs, kitchen helpers, waiters and assistant-managers into a cohesive and effective unit. He became the father, brother, friend and mentor to many who worked under him, but he never compromised on quality and maintaining the highest standards of service. The team thrived and so did the restaurant.

So what did Dieter do that was different from those who failed to lead in multi-cultural environments?  He was able to find cross-cultural ‘common ground’ – align his leadership with the cultural demands and expectations of those he was leading – which I believe is the critical foundation for effective global leadership. The Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness Research Program (GLOBE) and other research h has shown that what followers expect of leaders – what leaders can and cannot do and the status and authority given to leaders – vary a great deal as a result of the cultural forces in the countries or regions in which the leaders operate.

While I have written about the skills required to lead in a globalized world and how the purpose of leadership had changed in the 21^st century before,  Jan Muczyk and Daniel Holt’s framework for global leadership probably provides one of the best roadmaps for leaders looking to lead in a diverse global context. They developed this framework by mapping five dimensions of leadership onto Project GLOBE’s cultural dimensions (if you’re unfamiliar with these cultural dimensions, the Grovewell LLC website and the Geert Hofstede site provides some good information). Use their framework to adapt and align your leadership style with the culture in which you operate:¹

Consideration: To be considerate is valued in all cultures, even in those that score high on high assertiveness and masculinity and low humane orientation. However, leaders who operate in societies that score high on femininity and humane orientation and low on assertiveness should take even more care to show consideration. Even more – leaders who operate in societies with a high score in collectivism (group-orientated as opposed to being individualistic) would do well to also show some consideration for their followers’ families (Examples: Southern Europe, Central and Southern America, Africa, Asia.)

Concern for Production: To be competitive in the global marketplace leaders in all countries need to be concerned about production. Leaders operating in cultures scoring high on uncertainty avoidance with an external environmental orientation need to be even more focused on production, especially when these cultural traits are combined with a short-term orientation (Examples: Central and South America, Eastern Europe.)

Participation /Democratic: Cultures which are low on power-distance and uncertainty avoidance but high on individualism and femininity, often value democratic decision-making the most. Leaders operating in societies where there is low regard for hierarchy and chains of command would also do well to engage their followers through democratic decision making and goal setting. (Examples: United States, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand.)

Reblogged from Thinking is Hard Work:

Whether or not we like it, leaders are born, not made. Although our culture would like to believe that there is a kernel of leadership in everyone, I’m just not convinced.

While there might be a bit of leader deep inside everyone, that does not make them a leader. People become leaders when they step forward and when they are accepted as leader by their followers.

Read more… 303 more words

The debate carries on: Are leaders born or can anyone become a leader? Colleen makes some very interesting and relevant observations here, but I would suggest the critical factor would be to determine what we regard as "leading" and when a person qualifies to be a leader. For instance, is someone with strong (inborn) leadership capabilities a leader even if he or she is not leading anyone? Or the opposite - is someone without any natural leadership capabilities who have learned basic leadership skills which he or she uses to lead people, not a leader? My personal take is that just about anyone could improve their leadership skills: some from poor to acceptable; others from acceptable to good; and yet others from good to great. What do you think?

Watching the D-Day landing of Allied forces on the coast of Normandy as portrayed in the epic Saving Private Ryan with my son recently, I was once again struck by the mind-boggling obedience of soldiers as they stormed onto the beach while literally being blown apart by enemy fire. How do leaders gain that level of power over men to order them to near certain death and still have them obey?

Of course it is a well-established fact that most soldiers do not fight and risk their lives in battle for political ideals or even for their country, but for their comrades in arms. In the heat of the battle their concern for one another, more than anything else, becomes the force that drives them to pay the highest price if neccessary.¹ However, in most battle situations there is still a strong element of obedience to authority. Over centuries a significant part of infantry training has focused on ‘programming’ soldiers not to think for themselves or react on their survival instincts, but to blindly obey orders if these orders are perceived to be legitimate. So one question that comes to mind is what is the source of power that military leaders use to wield such an incredible level of command over their followers?

While both Jim Collins and John Maxwell has provided some valuable insight into the power and influence dynamics of leadership, to my mind the most significant contribution to the topic was made by leadership and organizational expert Richard Daft. Like Collins and Maxwell he identified five sources or bases of power, but made a clear distinction between sources of positional power and sources of personal power. Daft’s first three sources are all types of positional power which is derived from the leader’s position or rank in the organization:²

SOURCE 1: Legitimate Power is the authority a person has as because of the formal position he or she holds in the organization. Leaders at this basic level of leadership often rely on titles (or rank, in the military environment) to assert influence over their followers. Followers mostly comply because they accept the source of power as legitimate. Leaders who do not develop their personal sources of power (see SOURCE 4 and 5) often get stuck at this level. The result is that their ability to influence people is restricted by the level of authority derived from their position or title. Such leaders can never become “great leaders” and their long-term impact will always be limited.

SOURCE 2: Reward Power is related to the authority a leader has to reward followers. In practice leaders are in control of an organization’s resources and how these are distributed. As such, they can use their reward-power to influence the behavior of followers. Followers then comply in order to receive the rewards.

SOURCE 3: Coercive Power is in a sense the negative side of legitimate power and the opposite of reward power. It is the power a leader has to punish followers or to recommend punishment. A leader with coercive power has the legitimate right to demote or lay people off, to criticize, and to reduce or withdraw rewards.

The last two sources of power according to Daft’s model are both “personal” – power inherent to the individual leader himself and not derived from the position or rank that he holds:³

SOURCE 4: Expert Power refer to the skills and/or abilities that followers value and need.⁴ It can be expert or technical knowledge or abilities relating to the task itself, but it can also be the ability to construct a team by uniting other individuals who has such knowledge or abilities. In other words, the leader doesn’t have to have all the skills and abilities, but he or she knows where to find them.

SOURCE 5: Referent Power comes from the leader’s personal characteristics or personality through which he or she commands the follower’s loyalty and commitment. This power is derived from the identification of the follower with the leader, and on how much the follower trusts, likes, admires, respects and wants to be like the leader.⁵ In a very real sense then, referent power is power which the leader receives as a result of his or her positive personal influence on followers.

Most effective leaders will at different times, as demanded by different situations, make use of all these sources of power. However, a leader who only uses positional sources of power is highly unlikely to make any impact beyond that which his or her position or rank dictates. While soldiers may blindly obey them in battle, the leader’s influence will never develop any further if the leader doesn’t build up his or her personal power sources. Research has proven beyond any doubt that in today’s changed global environment and authoritarian approach, tight control and rigidity suppresses employee commitment, morale, innovation and motivation, which in turn produces weak outcomes for the organization.

On the other hand, leaders who develop and use their personal sources of power are able to influence people far beyond that which is prescribed or expected by the leader’s formal authority as derived from their position or title. Since change has become a constant in our globalized world this ability is particularly valuable. The new challenge for leaders is therefore to develop skills that would enable them to influence followers in a constructive manner. Such leaders are able to motivate, increase employee’ commitment to the organization and thus encourage them to make their knowledge, creativity and skills (which have now become the crucial dynamic for production) readily available to the organization. More than ever before, this is a time when we need legitimate, values-based visionary leaders with strong Emotional Intelligence and people skills who are able to develop, motivate, equip and mobilize their followers to produce the best possible results.

References:

^1. Bryant, C. D. (2003). Handbook of death & dying, Volume 1. Sage: California.

^2. Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. (3^rd Ed.) Mason, OH: Thomson, p. 479.

^3. Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. (3^rd Ed.) Mason, OH: Thomson, p. 481.

^4. Braynion, P. (2004). Power and leadership. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 18 (6), 447-463.

^5. Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. (3^rd Ed.) Mason, OH: Thomson. Braynion, P. (2004). Power and leadership. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 18 (6), 447-463.

When you try to imagine the future, what do you see? Does it look like the past or the present, or is it perhaps very different from the world we now live in? It might come as a surprise to some, but the mental images or pictures we have of the future actually influences the occurrence of the very future we see in that picture.

Consider the popular images of our time: airplanes smashing into the Twin Towers, the 2004 Tsunami in Thailand, the inauguration of Barack Obama as the USA’s first African-American President , violence in the streets of London and other European cities, the smoldering Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, violent civil unrest and war in the Middle East, starving children in Africa… Whether you’re aware of it or not, if you’re connected to the rest of the world via mass media, these images have a profound influence on how you personally view the world in which we live, and to a large extent also how you view the future.

Even more – these images, together with all the other pictures and images we carry in our heads from what we’ve seen, heard or experienced throughout our lives – may in a very real sense be shaping or influencing the future.¹ This ‘shaping of the future’ happens on two levels: firstly and quiet logically, these events have direct consequences in the future. After the 9/11 attacks on New York in 2001, the United States and its allies declared the “War on Terror” which is still impacting the lives of millions of people all over the globe and may continue to do so for decades to come.² The direct effects of pictures often also apply on a personal level, where perhaps an individual decides to launch a feeding scheme or dedicate his life to HIV/Aids research in reaction to the pictures of suffering and distress or simply where I’m experiencing the discomfort of stricter security measures when I travel.

The second way in which our images of the world influence the future is more subtle and indirect. In The Image of the Future, Fred Polak’s seminal and ground-breaking work in future studies, he proposed that social change occur as a “push-pull process” in which a society is simultaneously “pulled forward by its own magnetic images of an idealized future” and “pushed from behind by its realized past.”³ Man is thus always a “citizen of two worlds” – the present ‘real’ world and the imagined world (formed by our perceptions, feelings, and responses). The future is created through the interaction between these two opposite worlds. In a sense man’s “dualism” is the driving force (what Polak calls the “indispensable prerequisite”) for historical change and the “movement of events in time.”

In other words, while numerous forces work together to create history, Polak believed that “the positive ideas and ideals of humanity, expressed as positive images or visions of the future – make history what it is.”⁴ These images of the future serve as the motifs and “guiding stars” to the individuals and societies which create and (consciously or subconsciously) pursue them. Here’s how Polak described the influence of images on cultures and civilizations:⁵

“The rise and fall of images of the future precedes or accompanies the rise and fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing, the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive.”

On a very practical level this means that we constantly act on the images we have, and in particular the images of the future (what we expect the future to look or be like). In doing so we help create the future in which we eventually live. The implications are really intense and far-reaching. It means that as we act on our images of the future, we are constantly influencing various levels of human existence: our immediate and future circumstances as individuals; as well as the present and future of our communities, our nations, and – albeit often more indirect – the very future of human civilization.⁶ Polak provided several examples from past and present cultures to emphasize the role of positive images in their survival:⁷

“The secret of Greek culture, which came to its second flowering in the Renaissance, lies in the imperishable harmony of its image of the future. The endurance of Jewish culture, reborn today in Israel, lies in its fervently held image of the future, which has survived Diaspora and pogrom alike. The prognosis of the dying Christian culture—if it can be said to be dying—lies in its dying image of the future.”

Perhaps Polak was overly pessimistic to refer to the “dying Christian culture,” but what does the Christian Church’s picture of the future look like? What are the mental images the average citizen of our global village hold of the expected future? How, for example, will these pictures contribute to what Africa’s future will eventually be like as we consciously or subconsciously react on them? Think about it for a moment: the media images of civil war, starving children and dying HIV/Aids sufferers may be somewhat exaggerated stereotypes of Africa, but how many Africans are not caught in an endless cycle of suffering and poverty as a result of the images they have of what life is like and what it will be in future? Right now millions of people are stuck in a daily struggle for survival without any picture or image of a better future.

One way to look at this would be to blame the mass media for stereotyping and sensationalizing and its apparent obsession with bad news. However, consider how you and I often react on these images and how we tend to amplify their effect in our thoughts and conversations… Are we not all guilty of creating a world which is suffering from a critical shortage of positive visions and images for the future? Even more, how often do we as leaders not use these negative images to move and even manipulate people to serve our own agendas? If so, the lack of positive images of the future is nothing less than a global leadership failure, for it is the task of leaders to provide people with images of hope and visions of progress to guide them towards a preferred future…

References:

^1. Dator, J. (1993). Future studies and sustainable community development. Presentation made to the Renewing Community as Sustainable Global Village Conference.

^2. On This Day: President Bush Declares “War on Terror.” (2010). FindingDulcine. Retrieved September 19, 2010, from http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/September-October-08/On-this-Day–President-Bush-Declares–War-on-Terror-.html

^3. Polak, F. (1961). The image of the future. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: Netherlands. Retrieved May, 22, 2010 from http://www.cnam.fr/lipsor/eng/data/the-image-of-the-future.pdf, p. 1.

^4. Schultz, W. L. (1994). Unit Reader 7: America’s Alternative Futures: Images Past and Present. Retrieved May, 18, 2010, from Regent Blackboard.

^5. Polak, F. (1961). The image of the future. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: Netherlands. Retrieved May, 22, 2010 from http://www.cnam.fr/lipsor/eng/data/the-image-of-the-future.pdf, p. 19.

^6. Schultz, W. L. (1994). Unit Reader 7: America’s Alternative Futures: Images Past and Present. Retrieved May, 18, 2010, from Regent Blackboard.

^7. Polak, F. (1961). The image of the future. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: Netherlands. Retrieved May, 22, 2010 from http://www.cnam.fr/lipsor/eng/data/the-image-of-the-future.pdf, p. 19.

People who don’t have much and are struggling to survive are forced to fend for themselves and would therefore be more likely to “do what it takes” even if it means cheating and behaving unethically, right? Wrong – a recent study at the Berkeley University of California found that the rich and those of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to cheat, fail to observe traffic laws and even take candy from kids.

The team conducting the research used various experiments to determine a possible link between wealth or socioeconomic standing and ethical behaviour. They discovered that wealthy and more powerful people were not only less likely to act generously; they were four times more prone to break traffic rules and engage in other unethical behaviour than those of lower social standing. The researchers concluded that because wealthy people have more financial resources, they do not have to rely on social bonds (e.g. attachment to family, commitment to social norms and institutions, interaction with society, etc) for survival. The consequence is that some wealthy and powerful individuals put their own interests first and have fewer misgivings about ignoring society’s rules. However, this does not mean that the poor are ethically superior: the researchers also found that “anyone’s ethical standards could be prone to slip” if they suddenly won the lottery and joined the ranks of the wealthy.

Reading about this, the parallel with leadership behaviour struck me – how many autocrats, embezzlers, and dictators started out well but became completely unethical once the effect of power took its toll? Two examples that immediately jump to mind are China’s Mao Zedong and Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. Like so many dictators throughout history Mao and Mugabe once inspired their followers with great ideals and noble values, but over time these were forsaken in favour of their own selfish agendas and political survival.

It seems there are at least two major forces which cause leaders to become corrupted by power – intoxication with power and addiction to power.

To some extent, leaders who become intoxicated by the thrill of wielding great power lose their perspective on reality. As with the wealthy in the Berkeley experiment the leader starts believing that the laws and rules of society no longer apply to him or her. They can call the shots according to their own selfish whims and ambitions and few or none have the guts or the resources to challenge them. From 1958 to 1961 between 25 million and 40 million Chinese died in the “Great Famine”. This terrible human tragedy was brought on by a combination of natural disasters and Mao Zedong’s blind obsession to prove that China could out produce the West. Instead of collecting the harvests which soon lay rotting on the land, millions of people were forced to help with the production of iron ore to serve Mao’s selfish ambition. Perhaps his own words best describe the heartless and delusional mind of a leader who could allow his own egocentric aspirations and obsession with power to cause so many deaths: “I do not agree… that to be moral, the motive of one’s action has to be benefitting others. People like me want to satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes”. The iconic leader who had once courageously led his people to freedom had become so intoxicated by power that he regarded his own subjective “moral codes” as superior to that of the society which he was supposed to serve, even if it meant that millions of lives were lost.

Leaders who become addicted to power often display similar behaviours than those intoxicated by it, but the fear of losing power becomes an additional driving force. Forsaking the noble values, ideals and principles which they once professed then become a small price to pay for remaining in power for as long as possible. Elected as Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister in 1980, Mugabe first revised the country’s constitution in 1987 to make himself President and later did so repeatedly to enable him to remain in power. Over the years many laws were changed, elections allegedly rigged and thousands of those who opposed or threatened his position had been intimidated, tortured and killed. Again a leader who was once the self-sacrificing (he spent more than 10 years in prison for political reasons) hero of Zimbabwe’s freedom struggle turned into a ruthless dictator by his addiction to the power of his office.

While some might argue that Mao and Mugabe are two extreme cases, history is rife with similar and perhaps even more extreme examples at all levels of society. In a sense perhaps even more disconcerting is the array of celebrities, clergy and organizational leaders whose unethical behaviour saw them fall from grace over the last decade or two. Also consider that the number of cases is very difficult to determine – while the transgressions of some are exposed publicly many others are covered up in fear of a scandal and just quietly slip back into obscurity.

While some might argue that Mao and Mugabe are two extreme cases, history is rife with similar and perhaps even more extreme examples at all levels of society. Just consider the array of celebrities, clergy and organizational leaders whose unethical behaviour saw them fall from grace over the last decade or two. Also consider that the number of cases are very difficult to determine – while the transgressions of some are exposed publicly many others are covered up in fear of a scandal so they’re allowed to just quietly slip into obscurity.

So what does this say to you and me, irrespective at which level of leadership we are currently functioning? Is there anything we can do to prevent us from succumbing to the pitfalls of increased power? How can you and I be sure that the values and ethical norms we now profess will stand if discarding them becomes a stepping stone to much greater personal achievements and rewards? I would love to hear from your experience and insights on this…

Also see the LinkedIn discussion on this topic here: http://lnkd.in/AJc2kt

We are currently living in the 4^th Revolution – a strange and unpredictable period where the interaction between information and communication technologies has created a snowball-effect causing change to literally become the only constant. Sociologists distinguish three previous revolutions which completely changed the way humans live: the agrarian revolution, the printing revolution, and the industrial revolution. However, the impact of the 4th and current revolution – also referred to as the information or technological revolution – will most probably outweigh that of all its predecessors as it is causing simultaneous changes in just about every sphere of human existence.

While the rate of change is still increasing exponentially as new technology and new innovations are constantly feeding each other, one of the areas in which we face new challenges and opportunities is the practice of leadership. In short this means that the volatile global playing field no longer lends itself to self-serving autocrats wielding all the power from the top of hierarchical and inflexible organizational towers. Today’s leaders need to be able to motivate, empower, collaborate and bring out the best in their followers while at the same time keeping an eye on the horizon to steer the proverbial ship towards their future of choice. Richard Daft, organizational behavior and management expert, identified six distinct changes in the purpose and function of 21^st Century leadership which are completely changing our definition of what it takes to lead effectively:

Since the luxury passenger cruiser Costa Concordia sank off the Tuscan coast at Giglio island last Friday, the media have been screaming accusations against its captain for abandoning ship while many passengers were still on board. Captain Francesco Schettino’s somewhat bizarre explanation that he didn’t intend to abandon the ship but that he “slipped and fell into a lifeboat while helping passengers” did not add to his credibility or defence. In the eyes of millions he has now become the personification of cowardliness and failed leadership, and is said to be the “most hated man” in Italy.

But is this justified? Many of us hold the romantic notion of a ship’s captain as a noble hero who would sacrifice his own seat on the last lifeboat and sink to the bottom of the ocean with his ship if that’s what it take to save his crew and passengers. Fortunately not many captains are tested in the way Captain Schettino was tested last week, but how many leaders face and fail similar tests of courage, efficiency and reliability every day? The circumstances of Captain Schettino’s leadership failure was dramatic and was splashed across front pages and television screens all over the world, but the lessons we can learn from it are basic and universal. Here are 7 lessons about leading during a crisis that we can take from the Costa Concordia disaster:

Lesson 1: Taking risks is often necessary, but it’s no excuse for stupidity… Just about every successful venture involves at least some level of risk taking. However, if the possible losses far outweighs the gains, it is just stupidity. If the Costa Concordia followed its scheduled route it would have passed safely about 8 kilometres from the coast of Giglio island. Instead the captain steered it to within 300 meters of the island’s rocky shores, apparently so that he could perform a ‘salute of respect’ for a retired officer and to impress his head waiter’s family watching from the shore. “I don’t know why it happened. I was a victim of my instincts,” he later said. Good instincts are crucial for great leadership, but if your instincts (or ego) lead you take unnecessary risks, you’re in dangerous waters… sometimes literally.

Lesson 2: Relying on technology is okay, but only to a point … Interviewed by the Czech paper Dnes about a year before the tragedy, Captain Schettino stated that “everything is much safer” on cruise ships than a century ago when the Titanic sank. He attributed the increased safety to “modern technical instruments and the internet” and declared “if an error occurs, it is not so serious, because we are better prepared for possible complications”. We’re all continuously amazed at how technology is improving the way we live and work, but leadership is a human enterprise and cannot be abdicated to technology. Great leaders understand that even at the best of times things can change in a minute, and while they don’t waste energy worrying about what can go wrong, they plan and prepare strategically to anticipate all possible future scenarios. Relying blindly on technology to navigate safely through dangerous waters is simply not enough.

Lesson 3: Self-confidence and optimism should not stop you from facing reality… Described by other officers as “too exuberant”, a “daredevil”, and a “braggart and show-off” who “drove the luxury liner like a Ferrari”, Captain Schettino’s self-confidence and ego could easily have led to much greater loss of life than it did. For about 45 minutes after the ship had ran onto the rocks Schettino continued to assure an anxious harbourmaster on the island that everything was fine, other than a “small technical problem”. Meanwhile he was trying to manoeuvre the ship back into open water and refused to give the order for the vessel’s 4 200 passengers to “abandon ship”. He obviously over-estimating his ability to rectify the situation by himself and stubbornly refused to accept the reality and the seriousness of the crisis. Great leaders understand that recognition of reality is the first and crucial step in solving a problem. Ignoring reality, denying that a problem exists or trying to find quick-fix short-term solutions that only address the symptoms can waste valuable time and cause even more harm to those you are supposed to be leading. If other officers didn’t ignore Schettino’s orders not to abandon the ship, many more passengers and crew members could have died.

Lesson 4: Effective communication becomes even more important during a crisis… In essence, leadership is an inter-personal relationship enacted through communication. Where there is a lack of communication, there is a lack of leadership. During a crisis, more than any other time, people look up to leaders to provide explanations, information and direction. While the leader might not yet have all the information when the crisis occurs, he or she can create calm and order by sharing whatever information they have and by giving clear direction as to the immediate steps needed to avoid further disaster. Not only did Captain Schettino fail to communicate the extent of the pending disaster to the authorities on land who could have initialized emergency procedures long before they eventually did, he also failed to provide any clear direction to crew and passengers when it finally dawned on him that the ship was sinking.

Lesson 5: A leader should remain visible and available during a crisis… Closely related to the previous and the next point, leaders cannot afford to go ‘below radar’ when there is a crisis. Recordings from a frenzied telephone conversation between Captain Schettino and an Italian coastguard on the night of the disaster reveal how Schettino tried to argue that he could co-ordinate the evacuation of the ill-fated passengers from the safety of his lifeboat. During a crisis people need someone to give them hope – someone who sets an example and who can assure them that a solution will be found. A leader who jumps (or stumbles as he claims) into a lifeboat to save himself and who was safely on land seen getting into a taxi and leaving the scene as hundreds of passengers were left to fend for themselves, just doesn’t provide that kind of hope.

Lesson 6: Being scared is okay, loosing self control is not… A leader’s true character and underlying values become clear when a crisis hits. When the ship started tilting and even Captain Schettino realized that it was going under, the fear he felt was every bit as real and justified as what everyone else on board was experiencing at that moment. But as the saying goes – courage is not the absence of fear, it is doing the right thing in spite of fear. In reality this is much easier said than done and many have failed this test. However, it is what we expect from great leaders in a crisis – to get their own fear under control and provide at least some degree of calm and direction. In a crisis everyone is watching to see how the leader will react. Will he or she stay true to their principles and values? Will they succumb to the pressure or face up to the crisis? Will they capitulate for short-term rewards, or will they make the sacrifices needed to mend the situation? Schettino’s greatest failure was not to be scared, but to succumb to his fear and abandon those who depended on him in their greatest hour of need.