Can the Humanities Train you to be a Leader?

Are leaders trained and developed or are leaders born? Will any one degree prepare you for management and leadership? Is there a clear way to develop the correct skills and competencies and go from being a frontline manager to the c-suite?

Every person who starts as a frontline manager looks ahead in their career and thinks, “how far can I take this?” Some have dreams of the corner office while most are happy being a mid-level leader. But along the way the skills, competencies, and education of each person comes into play and how to develop is a constant focus of those who want to improve not only themselves, but to assist their long-term career efficacy.

The first question, “are leaders trained and developed or are they born” is perplexing. Sometimes people are born and they seem destined to lead. There is something about these people from an early age that predisposes them to leadership. Is it just because they are outgoing, confident, and tall? Maybe, but not always. At the same time, some people who do not seem like they could be good leaders come into their own later in life and become excellent leaders in their 30s or 40s. When it comes to personality types, are people who are predisposed to leadership always have to be ESTJ or ENTJ or could a leader be an INFJ or an ISTP?

The next question, “will any one degree prepare you for management and leadership?” The answer seems so obvious, a business degree will best prepare individuals to be a manager or leader. But is this true? If you look at many managers and leaders out in the real world (that have degrees), more often than not, they have a degree in business. Is this is good thing or a bad thing? It is neither. When it comes to choosing a degree, getting a business degree is a practical decision that can help students prepare for the uncertainties of a career. The knowledge learned and skills acquired getting a degree in business are general but they offer a wide breadth of understanding and basic preparedness that other degrees do not offer when it comes to the nuts and bolts of business and management concepts.

But are there other degree options? Yes.

In an excellent report called, High-Resolution Leadership, Development Dimensions International analyzed over 15,000 assessments they have given to frontline managers to c-suite executives (High-Resolution Leadership, 2016) to find interesting and useful information when training and developing leaders. In the section, Not Merely a Matter of Degree: How Education Both Informs and Misleads about leader Skills, it is easy to overlook the findings but if you dig deeper you find that when choosing a degree, there are more options than just business. Seven degrees, business, engineering, law, humanities, IT, natural sciences, and social sciences were rated against eight leadership skills, financial acumen, business savvy, compelling communication, driving execution, driving for results, entrepreneurship, influence, and inspiring others.

The degree that performed the best was business, which makes sense since the skills surveyed are all standard business skills that every manager and leader should possess, while on the opposite side engineering performing the poorest (to be fair, to be an engineer requires different skills). Below is a summary of how the different degrees fared; I added a scoring system to stack rank them (strength = 1; mid-range = 0; weakness = -1):

• Business = 5 (five strengths and three mid-range)
• Humanities = 3 (five strengths, one mid-range, and two weaknesses);
• Social Science = 0 (one strength, six mid-range, and one weakness);
• Natural Science = 0 (two strengths, four mid-range, and two weaknesses);
• IT = -1 (one strength, five mid-range, and two weaknesses);
• Law = -1 (two strengths, three mid-range, and three weaknesses);
• Engineering = -6 (two mid-range and six weaknesses).

Business scored the best with five strengths, three mid-range, and no weaknesses. This makes sense because the skills surveyed are are those skills required of managers and leaders and are taught throughout every business degree. But the standout from this report is that Humanities came in second with five strengths, same number as business, one mid-range, and two weaknesses. For the strengths, business and humanities overlapped entrepreneurship and influence, but were divergent on the others. Business has financial acumen, business savvy, and driving execution, while humanities had compelling communication and driving for results. Humanities also had two weaknesses, financial acumen and business savvy.

So what does this mean? When hiring managers and leaders look to fill the ranks, will they hire people with humanities degrees to lead their employees?. Yes and no. As stated in the report:

Humanities graduates struggled with business savvy and financial acumen but outperformed other degrees in many skills, and did so through strengths not only in interpersonal competencies (such as influence), but also in strong performance in results orientation and entrepreneurship. Many humanities programs incorporate debating, communicating, and critical thinking, which would contribute to well-rounded graduates in these fields. (Sinar, Paese, Aubrey, Watt, & Wellins, 2016, p. 35)

In addition, one of the actions from this sections stated the need to, “challenge--and encourage others to reevaluate--long-held assumptions based on education” (Sinar, Paese, Aubrey, Watt, & Wellins, 2016, p. 35). What this section from High-Resolution Leadership shows is that different degrees can provide different skills when it comes to a leadership team. The ideal leadership team will have diversity of thought by bringing different backgrounds, skills, and competencies to the table that will allow them to overcome challenges and solve problems as a high performing, collaborative team.

The next section that is interesting is, EQ vs IQ: The Surprising skills Where Each Matters Most. This section examined which skills were influenced by a person’s emotional intelligence (EQ) or cognitive ability (IQ). Using very standard measurement devices (see the report), DDI concluded that business savvy, financial acumen, and influence are mainly cognitive (IQ) while cultivating networks, driving execution, and leading teams are emotional intelligence (EQ).

If you take these findings with the previous section, Not Merely a Matter of Degree, people who have humanities degrees have potential for growth. The two weaknesses that humanities had, business savvy and financial acumen, were classified as cognitive abilities which is good because organizations need to constantly train their leaders to have better financial acumen and business savvy! In addition, those trained in the humanities often excel at emotional intelligence giving humanities an edge when it comes to communication, having empathy, and and just understanding people around them. One of the interesting comments from this sections states, “it’s fair to say that a larger percentage of leadership failures may be attributed to insensitivity than stupidity” (Sinar et al., p. 23).

Without letting this article become too long and potentially, unfocused; are there clear and authoritative answers to the questions at the top of this article? No. Leaders have a multitude of different personalities, have different degrees, and are constantly developing skills. That is why there are countless articles, books, and companies that provide ideas, perspectives, and training on how to become better leaders.

This is why there is such a bright spot for those trained in the humanities. Using the findings from High Resolution Leadership, along with countless articles about how the humanities and liberal arts are desperately needed in today’s world, gives hope to everyone trained in the humanities. When humanities people become frontline managers and have successful leadership careers, they will easily prove that they have the skills, competencies, perspectives, cognitive abilities, and emotional intelligence, to not only be successful, but to contribute to whatever leadership team they are part of and the overall success of the organization.

Postscript: it would be nice to see the data sets from High Resolution Leadership to better analyze the findings.

References:

Beecroft, A. (213). The humanities: What went right? The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/07/03/the-humanities-what-went-right/

Byrne, J. (2014). Why the MBA has become the most popular master’s degree in the U.S. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2014/05/31/mba-popular-masters-degree/

Brendel, D. (2016). Reading the humanities promotes emotional intelligence and leadership capacity. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-brendel/reading-the-humanities-pr_b_8489894.html

Coleman, M. S. & Hennessey, J. L. (2013). Lessons from the humanities and social sciences. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lessons-from-the-humanities-and-social-sciences/2013/11/14/7441f9b6-4655-11e3-a196-3544a03c2351_story.html?utm_term=.2244e7768a1a

High-Resolution Leadership. (2016). In DDI World. Retrieved from http://www.ddiworld.com/hirezleadership?elqTrackId=3e8bf8191d2e4945845dbdf79125c7f7&elqaid=946&elqat=2

Litt, M. (2017). Why this tech CEO keeps hiring humanities majors. Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/40440952/why-this-tech-ceo-keeps-hiring-humanities-majors

Llopis, G. (2016). Is diversity good for business? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2016/04/23/is-diversity-good-for-business/#45fab0564a40.

Sinar, E. Paese, M, Aubrey, S., Watt, B., & Wellins, R. (2016). High-resolution leadership. Development Dimensions International, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.ddiworld.com/DDI/media/trend-research/high-resolution-leadership-2015-2016_tr_ddi.pdf?ext=.pdf

Stewart, M. (2006). The management myth. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/06/the-management-myth/304883/

Thoughts on Leadership: Employee Engagement

Over a year and a half ago I started writing my series I titled, Thoughts on Leadership. The idea was to discuss what mid-level managers can do to better engage employees and to self-reflect on how my behaviors, impact others. A lot has happened since in my own life since I posted my first article in January of 2016 but the one thing that will never change is how people act and how they want to be treated while at work. This is why employee engagement is the last article of this series because it is the culmination of all of my thoughts on leaders that include communication, attitude, drive, support, skills, self-awareness, language of inclusion, and engagement.

What is Employee Engagement?

To start things off, what is employee engagement? From the employee point-of-view, “employee engagement is the emotional commitment the employee has to the organization and its goals” (Kruse, 2012). This is extremely important because each person is different and how they are engaged at work, not to mention their personal life, is critically important. Employee engagement is not just if a person is happy, but:

Engaged employees begin the day with a sense of purpose and finish it with a sense of achievement. They consistently bring high levels of determination, tenacity, energy and resilience to everything they do. They are dedicated to their jobs, and it shows in their enthusiasm, inspiration and pride in their work. They become easily engrossed in their roles, and time flows quickly for them when they are at work (Royal & Sorenson, 2015).

This is not a lot to ask for from employees. Most people want to have a sense of purpose, most people want to be determined, tenacious, have lots of energy, and be resilient at work. Most people want to be dedicated to what they do, show enthusiasm, pride, and inspire others. Most people want to be engrossed in what they do and want the days to pass by quickly because of their engagement with their work. But this is not the norm. In a Gallup poll rating employee engagement, 33% of the US working population is engaged (Royal & Sorenson, 2015) while globally, 15% of workers are engaged (Clifton, 2017)

These numbers are shocking and who is to blame? Are the managers, leaders, and institutions to blame for abysmal employee engagement? Are the employees to blame because they are not intrinsically motivated? Like everything, it is more complex than just resolving a binary problem.

Choosing the Best Possible Manager

One of the most interesting facts about employee engagement is just how important the individual manager is. No matter where you work, whether it is a large or small organization that has incredible notoriety or anonymity, your manager is the single most important component of employee engagement. When Gallup rates employee engagement scores, “managers account for at least 70% of the variance in employee engagement scores across business units” (Beck & Harter, 2015). Much like the 33% of Americans who are engaged, this is shocking. This means that in the same organization and in the same department, one team can have a horrible engagement score while the team next to it can have an incredible engagement score. Same work, same place, same everything except managers.

This is why choosing the best possible person to manage is probably the most important decision any organization can make when it comes to their employees. The need to have managers that can manage, lead, and develop their employees is more important now than ever before and “more carefully choosing managers, and then providing those managers with the learning and tools to psychologically engage their teams, makes a movement” (Emond, 2017).

But why is it so difficult to find managers that can engage their employees? Part of the difficulty is that hiring managers is a largely un-scientific process that varies from hiring manager to hiring manager. Some places like managers who were top performers; some places like assertive managers that are tall; and some places use favoritism (and nepotism) to find their managers. And most places do little to actually develop their managers once they are managing and leading people. An interesting and depressing quote from an article on meaningfulness at work states, “quality of leadership receives virtually no mention when people describe meaningful moments at work, but poor management is the top destroyer of meaningfulness” (Hakner, 2016).

The need to have the right managers in place is not only important for employee engagement, but also so organizational resources are effectively used and not wasted. As stated by Beck and Harter:

“without the raw natural talent to individualize, focus on each person's needs and strengths, boldly review his or her team members, rally people around a cause, and execute efficient processes, the day-to-day experience will burn out both the manager and his or her team. This basic inefficiency in identifying talent costs companies billions of dollars annually” (2015)

The right manager is not about command and control, it is about collaboration, doing the right thing, having difficult conversations, connecting with your employees, motivating, and understanding the person across from you for the good of the organization and the the team.

Organizational Responsibility

The need to choose the best possible manager is important for every organization and also important is the need for every organization to have good employee engagement programs. If you have worked at a medium to large sized organization, you have encountered an engagement program. Usually an email comes out every six-months with a survey. Then a little while later the results are communicated with a commitment on how the organization is going to improve employee engagement. Then in the next leadership meeting, the next-level leader tells her or his managers that everyone has to do a better job with employee engagement but there is no budget and little time to carve out for engagement activities.

When it comes to employee engagement programs little time or energy is actually committed because of the busyness of day to day operations and the fact that many leaders do not see the value in them. That is why “employee engagement programs haven't worked at many companies because they haven't been done right or implemented thoroughly” (Emond, 2017). Much like choosing the best possible manager, thoughtfully implementing an employee engagement program is more than just sending out email and having meetings, it is about being engaged with employees and doing a thousand things every week and not just a fun activity once a quarter to raise a survey score.

Personal Responsibility

And finally, personal responsibility. For some, employee engagement is 100% on the manager and the organization while for some leaders, if an employee does not have intrinsic motivation then there is nothing the manager, the leader, or the organization can do to engage that person. Like everything there is a middle ground but when it comes to employee engagement, there is a great deal of personal responsibility we all must own.

From the article by Royal and Sorenson, a large part of employee engagement is choice; it is about how employees approach problems, life, work, happiness, and their own attitude (2015). This, mixed in with each individual’s own life’s journey makes employee engagement extremely complex. If an employee is going through hard times, does not feel connected to the organization or mission, is having medical issues, family issues, financial issues, or whatever, then not being engaged is a real state of being. There is very little a manager or organization can do, besides being supportive, to help employees who are struggling personally or professionally and that is why as with life in general, each individual need to own their own life’s journey and do everything possible to to improve, have a great attitude, and be engaged with life and work.  

Postscript

Employee engagement is huge. As a manger, employee engagement combines everything from the eight previous, Thoughts on Leadership articles and is really the culmination of everything a manager does. If the overall team is not engaged, that means that as a manager you are not doing your job and although this might not be an issue with your leadership team (because they are oblivious or do not care) it is a serious issue with your employees, their productivity, and their ability to effectively get the job done. The best course of action as a manager is to take personal responsibility and be 100% engaged with your employees. Focus on their development, their needs, and the challenges they face everyday, and employee engagement, for most of them, will be stellar.

References:

Beck, R. & Harter, J. (2015). Managers account for 70% of variance in employee engagement. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/182792/managers-account-variance-employee-engagement

Clifton, J. (2017). The world’s broken workplace. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/212045/world-broken-workplace

Emond, L. (2017). 2 reasons why employee engagement programs fall short. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/216155/reasons-why-employee-engagement-programs-fall-short

Harkner, J. (2016). Meaningful work not created, only destroyed, by bosses, study finds. Retrieved from http://www.sussex.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressrelease/id/35796

Kruse, K. (2012). What is employee engagement? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/06/22/employee-engagement-what-and-why

Royal, K. & Sorenson, S. (2015). Employees are responsible for their engagement too. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/183614/employees-responsible-engagement

Thoughts on Leadership: Language of Inclusion

Throughout 2016, I wrote down my musings on what it means to be a leader in an organization where you lead and manage people. As stated in the post that started this series, I have used the term manager because I have focused on mid-level managers; those individuals who spend most of their time interacting with employees, managing day-to-day activities, and leading them practically. And because of this, every manager needs to be keenly aware of the language they use and always use language of inclusion.

What is language of inclusion?

Using language of inclusion means you are not excluding anyone because of their gender, race or ethnicity, sexual preference, age, political leanings, or in the way you interact with them verbally and non-verbally. It means that whoever is in front of you, you listen to them, hear them out, include their contributions, and show them respect. It means everything you do as a manager is about including your employees and as stated by the Linguistic Society of America:

Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities...lead the way in proactively writing inclusively and avoid past pitfalls or habits that may unintentionally lead to marginalization, offense, misrepresentation, or the perpetuation of stereotypes. Stereotyping language is often not a matter of intention but of effect (2016).

And from a short, well thought out article at Forbes, "The body language of inclusion and warmth includes positive eye contact, genuine smiles, and open postures in which legs are uncrossed, and arms are held away from your body, with palms exposed or resting comfortably on the desk or conference table" (Goman, 2017).

As a manager and as a leader it is your job to include everyone within the team’s fold and and to be keenly aware of what you say, what you do, and how you are coming off to your employees.

Why is language of inclusion important?

Gone are the days of managers and leaders doing whatever they want, being inappropriate, being biased, or not choosing their word carefully; everyone is accountable (...eventually). When an institution goes through the great expense of hiring an individual, onboarding them, getting them used to policies and procedures of the organization, and spending a great deal of capital to train them, then why would a manager exclude them from being part of the team? Making sure that each individual is included in the daily work of a team and contributes substantially is just good business and it facilitates engagement with employees. Being inclusive also helps build trust with employees, and trust "is the belief or confidence that one party has in the reliability, integrity and honesty of another party. It is the expectation that the faith one places in someone else will be honored. It is also the glue that holds together any group" (Goman, 2017).

Below are a few straightforward reasons why to use language of inclusion:

• Helps employee productivity (they do their job and they do it well);
• Helps employee engagement (they are engaged with the institution, the team, and the manager);
• Responsible use of human capital and resources (they are being paid and they use resources to get the job done) .

What happens if language of inclusion is not demonstrated and used?

If a manager does not use language of inclusion then they will exclude members of their team. This might happen because of specific actions that that are obvious to everyone or it might happen because of subtle use of language or actions. As a manager, you never know when someone might be offended by something you say or do, but by using inclusive language, you will at least be working everyday to choose your words and actions carefully to ensure maximum employee engagement. (Dealing with an employee that disengages because of their own choices is a different conversation.)

If a manager is not careful and language of inclusion is not used and demonstrated then individual employees might feel excluded and eventually become disengaged. And when an employee becomes disengaged, their work becomes “an environment of suspicion, people withhold information, hide behind psychological walls, and withdraw from participation" (Goman, 2017).

Is worrying about inclusive language just being politically correct?

No. As stated, gone are the days of managers or leaders saying whatever they want without consequence. Gone are the days of jokes at the expense of others (usually those not in the room). Gone are the days of managers or leaders complaining that the country is too PC and venting about it while employees grin and bare it. (Actually, all of this happens but the people who do this are held accountable eventually and in some manner.)   

Over the past few decades, being politically correct has helped create a more inclusive culture and work environment. With that said, are there issues with being too politically correct as stated in a wonderful Harvard Business Review article:

We are troubled, however, by the barriers that political correctness can pose to developing constructive, engaged relationships at work. In cultures regulated by political correctness, people feel judged and fear being blamed. They worry about how others view them as representatives of their social identity groups. They feel inhibited and afraid to address even the most banal issues directly. People draw private conclusions; untested, their conclusions become immutable. Resentments build, relationships fray, and performance suffers (Ely, Meyerson, & Davidson, 2006).

If you listen to the loudest people in the room they want others to be either 100% politically correct or 0% politically correct. This is not helpful. When it comes to using inclusive language, managers need to focus on using language and demonstrating actions that helps bring down barriers, improves communication, strengthens employee engagement, and sets a foundation of trust where employees can feel part of the team. All of this is not being overly politically correct, it is just a manager doing their job.

Reference:

Ely, R. J., Meyerson, D., & Davidson, M. (2006). Rethinking political correctness. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2006/09/rethinking-political-correctness

Goman, C. K. (2017). Six crucial behaviors of collaborative leaders. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2017/07/11/six-crucial-behaviors-of-collaborative-leaders/#7af626258cbe

Linguistic Society of America. (2016). Guidelines for inclusive language. Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/guidelines-inclusive-language.

Thoughts on Leadership: Self-Awareness

Self-Awareness:

Each person, no matter who they are in this world, needs to be aware of how the world views them, reacts to them, and perceives them. This is not always 100% possible because even the most self-aware manager will have gaps in her or his ability to understand reality. As a manager, you must always work to understand how you come off to your employees so trust can be built and unintended actions do not create conflict.

Confident but not arrogant: Confidence in a manager is key. You must be able to lead meetings with confidence, look over a situation and react with confidence, interact with concerned employees and support them with confidence, and know that the majority of decisions you are making will positively impact your institution. But you must be weary; being overly confident creates a barrier between you and the rest of the world. An overconfidence manager is arrogant, has an inflated ego, and is not able to fully collaborate because they are not open to feedback.

Understand your impact: Understanding how your behaviors affect others is one of the most difficult skills to develop. A manager should have the utmost confidence in how they come off to people but you must also understand that some traditional management traits can push people away and create a distance between you and your employees. To mitigate this, a manager should always self-reflect on how you and your message, verbal, non-verbal, and written, are received by people and if possible, collect feedback from someone you trust who can give you honest and critical feedback.

Courage: Courage as a manager is a tricky word. Courage is the confidence and determination to speak the truth when the truth is not desired by your employees, your peers, or your boss. Courage is not ripping into someone for every little performance issue; courage is speaking the truth in the face of a challenging situation where silence is easier and where the status quo is comfortable. Courage requires everyone to grow, to self-reflect, and change for the better even when it is painful.

Humility: Yes humility, the word often given lip service by management but never embraced or truly accepted. The generic manager personality traits of assertiveness and confidence rarely provides enough room for humility and when it does, it is surface level only in front of employees. Humility should always be present because it is an ego check. Every person, every manager, and every leader must have enough self-awareness to know they are fallible and that feedback from every level of the institution helps improve the bottomline and trust.

Distinguished: Does a manager and leader need to be distinguished? Yes. Being distinguished means that you handle yourself with grace and professionalism during typical times and when the pressure is palpable. To be distinguished, you must have a strong moral compass and stay true to the business/institutional ethics that keeps you focused on the task at hand and allows you to always treat your employees with respect and inclusion.

Stay approachable: This is either really easy or really difficult. Some people and some managers are approachable while others struggle being approachable. It is highly recommended that as a manager, you always stay approachable to your employees so there can always be trust and openness that will allow for two way communication. If as a manager you are not approachable, problems that your employees are having might not get resolved and linger affecting morale and productivity.