|
I received the following
e-mail this week.
"Hello Dr. Romig,
I am a student at a major University and would like to know what inspired
you to create the Side by Side Leadership® Program? I am pursuing
leadership as my specialization and believe I would benefit from your
story."
--- Online Community Member.
"Dear Online Community Member,
I will answer your question and if you do not mind, I will share that
answer with the Side by Side on-line Leadership Community."
--- Dennis Romig
In 1996 my Performance Resources (PRI) associates and I were implementing
teamwork systems around the world for Texas Instruments, Dell Computer,
Amoco, Raytheon and other Fortune 500 clients. All of the organizations
obtained breakthrough business results including $100's of millions worth
of documented improvements. Texas Instruments' Portugal and Texas Instruments'
Singapore each won their country's National Quality Award using the Side
by Side teamwork skills and system to implement best in class quality.
One division from another of PRI's clients was so successful that it won
an international award for excellence and made their company a ton of
money at the same time. The PRI consultants and I loved working with this
client. People came to work excited and bouncy with smiles on their faces.
The Vice President of the division was effective. He had led the formation
and training of cross-functional teams, which had highly effective communication,
cooperation, coordination, and creative improvements. He included workers
from all levels of the organization in goal setting and business strategy
execution meetings. He created an across-level organization breakthrough
teamwork culture steering team. The Vice President was so good that he
was promoted and transferred to another site.
The new Division Vice President came in from outside of the organization.
The first thing he did was disband the breakthrough culture team. He discontinued
the goal setting and strategy alignment meetings. He did all of the talking
in the meetings he held with subordinates. The new VP was impatient and
critical if any of the managers or supervisors tried to contribute improvement
ideas. Gradually all of the workers trudged into work with their heads
down. The business results plummeted. The workers and supervisors saw
the breakthrough culture crumbling before their eyes. Some of the more
tenacious supervisors came together as a group armed with factual data
identifying a major business problem and wrote up a series of solutions.
They sent the plan to the VP. He ignored it and let it sit on his desk.
The division's business results got so bad that it crippled the parent
company.
As I observed the destruction of the division's breakthrough teamwork
culture and the corresponding loss of millions of dollars, I asked myself
the following question, "How could one person so negatively impact an
organization of bright, intelligent, and highly motivated workers?"
I decided that even though I knew a lot about teamwork and how to implement
teamwork systems, I did not know what leadership was. I could not answer
the question, "What type of leadership fits best with organizations of
highly motivated workers placed in shared management teams?"
I knew that the answer to the question was not only useful in business
organizations but would also be relevant for government, non-profit, churches
and other religious organizations.
With the help of my associates at PRI, I gave myself a three-year, half
time research assignment: find the best research on leaders who produce
the best organizational and business results. I knew from previous research
assignments that control group studies done in real organizations, where
improved productivity or quality was measured, provided the best answers.
I called these studies hard data studies. I reviewed almost 3,000 studies
to find 300 hard data studies. Along the way I also found new research
in neuroscience, biology and natural systems.
I gave myself the
assignment to review again in one week the 300 hard data studies in which
many studies had documented improvements of 5% - 40%. On Friday afternoon
as I finished up reading the results of the last studies, I looked up
the definition of leadership in the dictionary. The dictionary said that
to lead meant: "to direct; to command; to be first; and to influence."
The next morning, Saturday, I woke up early and popped out of bed. I went
into the living room and I exclaimed to myself, "It's wrong! The dictionary
definition of leadership is wrong." I knew that the one way influencing
model of leadership where the leader alone did the directing, commanding,
or influencing, had not produced the outstanding business results presented
in the hard data studies. The research painted a picture of leaders who:
listened as much as they talked; developed goals with their people; used
participative decision-making and problem-solving; and offered help and
asked for help from subordinates during coaching and performance evaluation
meetings with their employees. Initially I called this type of leadership
mutual or two-way. Later, my colleague, Paul Radde, offered the name Side
by Side Leadership. As I have developed and implemented Side by Side Leadership
training and coaching, I had a little surprise a long the way. I discovered
that my own leadership needed to become more Side by Side. And still each
week I observe how I must fight the culturally driven model of one-way,
top-down leadership. But to the extent I am able to back off and be two-way,
the people around me are more thoughtful, creative, and productive.
|
|
Initially
I called this type of leadership mutual or two-way. Later, my colleague,
Paul Radde, offered the name Side by Side Leadership.
As I have developed and implemented Side by Side Leadership training and
coaching, I had a little surprise a long the way. I discovered that my
own leadership needed to become more Side by Side. And still each week
I observe how I must fight the culturally driven model of one-way, top-down
leadership. But to the extent I am able to back off and be two-way, the
people around me are more thoughtful, creative, and productive.
|
