May 20, 2025 • 19 mins
Clarity isn't just a leadership buzzword—it's the difference between victory and defeat. In this continuation of leadership lessons from Gettysburg, host John Broer unpacks how ambiguous communication can derail even the most talented teams. Drawing parallels between Robert E. Lee's fateful directive to General Richard Ewell in 1863 and modern workplace challenges, John reveals the profound consequences of leadership language that leaves room for interpretation.
HERE ARE MORE RESOURCES FROM REAL GOOD VENTURES:
Never miss a good opportunity to learn from a bad boss...
Click HERE to get your very own Reference Profile. We use The Predictive Index as our analytics platform so you know it's validated and reliable. Your Reference Profile informs you of your needs, behaviors, and the nuances of what we call your Behavioral DNA. It also explains your work style, your strengths, and even the common traps in which you may find yourself. It's a great tool to share with friends, family, and co-workers.
Follow us on Instagram HERE and make sure to share with your network!
Follow us on Twitter HERE and make sure to share with your network!
Provide your feedback HERE, please! We love to hear from our listeners and welcome your thoughts and ideas about how to improve the podcast and even suggest topics and ideas for future episodes.
Visit us at www.realgoodventures.com. We are a Talent Optimization consultancy specializing in people and business execution analytics. Real Good Ventures was founded by Sara Best and John Broer who are both Certified Talent Optimization Consultants with over 50 years of combined consulting and organizational performance experience. Sara is also certified in EQi 2.0. RGV is also a Certified Partner of Line-of-Sight, a powerful organizational health and execution platform. RGV is known for its work in leadership development, executive coaching, and what we call organizational rebuild where we bring all our tools together to diagnose an organization's present state and how to grow toward a stronger future state.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
John Broer (00:03):
Welcome back to all of our friends out there in The
Bossh ole Transformation Nation.
This is your host, John Broer,and I'm going to be dropping an
episode, a continuation of theexperience at Gettysburg.
If you listened, a couple ofweeks ago I was live from the
battle at Gettysburg doing someleadership development and this
(00:23):
is a continuation of that.
Hope you like it.
The Bossh ole Chronicles arebrought to you by Real Good
Ventures the talent optimizationfirm, helping organizations
diagnose their most criticalpeople and execution issues with
world-class analytics.
Make sure to check out all theresources in the show notes and
(00:44):
be sure to follow us and shareyour feedback.
Enjoy today's episode.
Good to have you back, everybody, and I just wanted to take a
little bit of time to drop thisepisode in, based on some pretty
powerful leadership lessons.
(01:04):
I think that would be helpfulfor all of our managers and
supervisors out there.
But a few lessons that havesort of resurfaced for me since
my most recent activity or mymost recent visit to the
battlefield at Gettysburg,Pennsylvania.
If any of you tuned in, acouple of weeks ago I did a live
(01:26):
from the battlefield episode.
I was fortunate enough to bethe guest of one of our clients,
Marco's Franchising.
Thank you to my friend andcolleague Rod Sanders, Chief
People Officer at Marco'sFranchising, for inviting me to
be a part of it.
And the event at Gettysburg isreally the capstone event for
their internal leadershipprogram.
(01:47):
It's a wonderful cohort.
They put a lot of effort and alot of resources behind their
leadership development programand it pays dividends.
I mean, they are the fastestgrowing pizza franchise in the
country, started in Toledo, Ohio, my hometown.
There were two really bigthings that I've been thinking
about as a result of that eventand just a quick recap.
(02:10):
Marco's works with anorganization, a consulting
practice called Diamond Six.
Colonel Jeffrey McCausland isthe founder of it took us around
the battlefield for the day andused that as a backdrop to
understand leadership dynamicsbetween the Confederate Army and
also the Union Army in thosethree days in July in 1863 in
(02:34):
Gettysburg.
But two things really jumpedout at me and they have to do
with unclear and inconsistentdirectives that you get from a
manager or a leader.
I think all of us can attest tohow frustrating it is to get
orders or directives orexpectations from a manager or
(02:56):
supervisor that one are unclearand ambiguous or inconsistent
over time, and I've got twoexamples for you.
So the first one has to do withunclear or ambiguous directives
, and I'm pulling this directlyfrom what happened in Gettysburg
, and if any of you study alittle bit about the Battle of
(03:19):
Gettysburg, I mean it is afascinating dynamic.
We actually used AI to helphypothesize what would be the
reference profiles, the PIreference profiles of the key
leaders in Gettysburg, and therewere actually two that I want
to reference.
First of all, Robert E Lee.
Robert E Lee, of course, wasthe overall commander of the
(03:39):
Confederate Army, the Army ofNorthern Virginia Army, and he
was beloved, educated at WestPoint.
Interestingly enough, most ofthese generals were educated at
West Point, so they all had avery similar briefcase.
Remember, we talk about head,heart and briefcase.
How those skills in thebriefcase are deployed all
depends on what's in the head,the behavioral and the cognitive
wiring.
(04:00):
But we used AI to hypothesizewhat do we think the reference
profiles were for some of thekey leaders.
So for Robert E Lee, we knowthat, based on AI's research,
that he was probably on ourcompeting values matrix in the
upper right-hand corner, alongwith Captains, Mavericks,
Venturers and Persuaders.
(04:22):
There was some hint of scholarcharacteristics, so he would
have been on that right side ofthe competing values matrix,
somewhere between the innovationand agility and the results and
discipline group.
Now, just to give a little bitof history, Robert E Lee, his
literally right-hand man, wasStonewall Jackson.
(04:42):
And of course, StonewallJackson has a storied history of
success on the battlefield,even before the North and the
South split.
But one of the things that wasreally apparent is that there
was a very strong chemistry,working relationship between
Robert E Lee and StonewallJackson.
Well, Stonewall Jackson, priorto Gettysburg, actually was
(05:05):
wounded.
He lost his left arm and diedshortly thereafter.
Robert E Lee was either quotedas saying or he wrote down
Jackson has lost his left arm, Ihave lost my right.
And that's how reliant Robert ELee was on Stonewall Jackson.
(05:26):
Now Stonewall Jackson is out ofthe picture and the Confederate
Army starts to descend onGettysburg.
Who actually came in to, who waselevated to replace Stonewall
Jackson is a very different typeof leader.
(05:50):
As a matter of fact, we did thesame thing.
Stonewall Jackson would havebeen in that, you know,
innovation and agility quadrantmuch like Robert E Lee.
Maybe there were a lot ofsimilarities.
They thought the same, they hadsome similar strategic
perspectives, if you will,General Richard Ewell very
different.
The research came back that hewould have been more in the
(06:11):
process and precision type ofgroup.
So this would have beenGuardians, Operators,
Specialists and Artisans.
Those are folks that are highlyprecise, focused on accuracy,
tend to be a bit more riskaverse and I know we're talking
about war, but I just bear withme here for a second.
(06:32):
But it's interesting how thisplays out.
I mean risk averse or cautious,with risk meaning probably in
battle, making some veryinformed decision before putting
your troops at risk.
So what happened was early onthe 1st of July 1863, Ewell was
in position just on theoutskirts of Gettysburg and the
(06:54):
Union Army was actually inretreat back through Gettysburg
and starting to move towardLittle Round Top, toward the
latter part or toward the end ofCemetery Ridge.
It's just one of the geographicfeatures.
There's Seminary Ridge,Cemetery Ridge, point being
Robert E Lee went to GeneralRichard Ewell and, by the way,
(07:16):
Ewell's troops got there laterin the day.
And one of the things you haveto know is that fighting at
night in that period of time wasjust something you didn't do.
I mean, it was highly dangerous, it was a high risk scenario
and he didn't have a lot ofpeople.
The bulk of the Confederatearmy had not yet arrived.
So anyway, Lee went to Ewelland said I do not want a general
(07:39):
attack on the Union army, notuntil more of our troops get
here.
That's another story, becauseit actually did happen.
Now number one no general attack, like a large scale attack,
okay.
But what he did say he wantedhim to seize the high ground in
front of him.
(07:59):
That's where the Union army wasgoing to be.
If you find it practicable todo so, okay, that's how they
talked in those days.
So he essentially said nogeneral assault, but seize the
high ground and take it awayfrom the Union army if you find
it practicable to do so.
Don't attack one way, butpossibly press an attack or put
(08:24):
pressure on them in this way ifand here's the unclear directive
if you find it practicable todo so.
So what General Ewell did?
He decided not to press theattack and he made that decision
for a number of reasons.
Again, it was late in the day,he did not have all of his
(08:45):
artillery and troops to bear anattack or press the attack on
the high ground where the Unionwas ultimately going to be.
Now, remember, the Union wasmaking its way back through
Gettysburg and behind them wasLittle Round Top or the high
ground at Cemetery Ridge.
So Ewell made the decision notto press the attack and, by the
(09:06):
way, something you should know,Robert E Lee was known for
giving somewhat vague andunclear orders, in other words,
leaving it open to the generalor the person to whom he was
giving these orders make thedecision.
Now, my assertion is that doingthat with Stonewall Jackson,
(09:28):
because he knew that StonewallJackson was a more aggressive,
risk-taking, proactiveindividual, based on what we
understand from history and thebit of research we've done, that
directive probably would havehad a different result if it was
Stonewall Jackson, and thereare a lot of people that think
that General Ewell.
(09:49):
Totally different result Ewell,who is more cautious by nature
and did not find it practicableto do so, did not pursue the
advance.
Well, what happens is the uniondoes move back into the high
ground up on Little Round Topand, of course, that high ground
, or what they would call goodground, turned out to be a huge
(10:11):
advantage for the union andtotally changed the nature of
that day, actually the nextthree days.
Okay, so what can we take fromthat?
Well, what we can take fromthat is that managers,
supervisors, leaders, if you arenot clear about your directives
and your expectations and yourorders if you will, then you
(10:33):
can't be upset when you don'tget the results you desire.
Because it is widely thoughtthat Lee really wanted him to
seize that higher ground andtake it away from the union.
But it wasn't really clear toGeneral Ewell and he didn't do
it.
And when you look at therationale behind Ewell not
taking those risks, it makessense because once again he did
(10:55):
not have his full artillery,full complement of troops, and
it was late in the day, whichcompounded the difficulty of
pressing an attack.
So unclear and vagueinstructions and directives
serve no one and no good purpose.
But you can see this dynamicplaying itself out in today's
workplace.
(11:15):
So my encouragement to ourmanagers and supervisors out
there if there's something youneed to have done, be very clear
in your communication.
Be very clear in yourcommunication.
Clarity is absolutely essentialand over-communicating that
clarity is also really critical.
That was my example from thebattlefield experience a couple
weeks ago.
(11:35):
But it made me think of anotherthing that happened to me
actually, and it has to do withvery inconsistent directives and
expectations.
So this is years ago.
I was working for a company Iwas running the sales program
and another vice president, Iwas a vice president, another
vice president and I were giventhe directive by the CEO to shut
(12:01):
down a small division of thecompany that had been acquired
more recently.
This was a small division, itwas a company that really wasn't
a core element of what we did.
It was such a departure fromour core business.
So the CEO was going to begoing out of town and we were
given the directive to meet withthe team of the smaller
(12:24):
division and let them know itwas going to be shut down.
Now that was really clear.
All right, we knew exactly whatwe needed to do.
And this other vice presidentand I, we got together and we
were very, very thoughtful.
We were thinking about how dowe best approach this?
How do we do this in the mosthumane way possible to give
these people some runway andopportunity to start to figure
(12:47):
out what their next step isgoing to be and set the date,
brought them together and weshared the news.
Okay, exactly what we wereasked to do.
So we did this.
Obviously, it was hard for themto hear, but we also let them
know that we had a plan in placeto help them make a transition.
(13:08):
Not long after that, we had aphone call with the CEO, who was
on vacation, and just said hey,just want to let you know, we
shared the news shutting downthe division and we're taking
the steps necessary to help themmove on.
And this is what he said.
He said what are you talkingabout?
That's not what I wanted.
(13:28):
I said okay, I mean, we were ona phone call, on a conference
call, and this other VP and Ilooked at each other and it was
like two wide-eyed deer in theheadlights thinking what did he
just say?
I mean, honestly, did we hearthe same thing?
And we clarified to say youasked us to do this and we did
(13:50):
it.
And he said that is not what Iasked you to do.
(14:10):
Now, if it were just merelaying this story, would I
heard the same thing and we wereon the same mission?
There was no misunderstanding.
What he did was change his mindor chose to remember
differently what he communicatedto us.
Now this happens.
It created a horrible and very,very awkward situation and we
(14:33):
had to backtrack.
We had to go back to the teamand say, listen, there have been
some developments and this isactually what's going to happen,
and we just looked stupid andincompetent.
Now this is where myencouragement to managers and
supervisors and leaders when youmake a decision, stand behind
(14:53):
that decision, all right, don'tcower away from it.
Stand on your square andconfirm that this is exactly
what we're going to do, which wedid, by the way.
I mean that was very clear.
But now, at this point, afterthe fact, are we going to
challenge him on this?
I mean we did.
I mean I remember saying to himin our conversation week before
(15:38):
last you were absolutely clearthat you were going to shut this
division down and no, no, no,that's not what I said at all.
Nothing but breed discontent,contempt, sometimes from the
people that are on the receivingend of this confusing
information, and just overalldisengagement.
So I wanted to just drop thisepisode in there because, again,
(16:00):
you are never too old to learnhow to refine and improve your
leadership and coaching anddevelopment skills,
people-focused skills,development skills,
people-focused skills, and inthe work we do with our clients,
especially around leadershipteam development.
We have some just remarkableleadership teams with whom we
(16:23):
get to work, and on a veryconsistent basis.
We will employ and you've heardus talk about this some of the
amazing work of Patrick Lencioni.
And if you're going to develop acohesive leadership team, you
have to have clarity.
You have to be able to identifywith great clarity what are our
expectations, who's doing what,what is our mission and how are
(16:48):
we moving forward.
And you have toover-communicate.
You cannot over-communicatethat level of clarity, because
if you lack that clarity, youlack the results that you hope
to get.
And then the other part of it,too, is stand on your square.
If you make a decision, own thedecision, even if it was a bad
(17:08):
one, or you decide you know what?
I know I wanted it that way acouple of weeks ago, but I've
changed my mind, which I guessis which, of course, is
anybody's prerogative but itreally doesn't make for a strong
and cohesive culture if peoplecan't see their leadership of
one mind, if you will, or onemission or one message.
(17:30):
One of the other things we talkabout when it comes to
leadership team development isthat comes to leadership, team
development is that when theleadership team comes together
and you're focusing on teamnumber one, I mean that again is
taken right out of Lencioni'sbook the Five Dysfunctions of a
Team.
If you haven't read that, youhave to read it.
But team number one isn't theteam you manage, it is the team
(17:50):
of which you are a member.
So if you're a member of aleadership team, an executive
team, you need to be talkingabout these things and have
great clarity and commitment.
And, by the way, while you maydisagree about policy or
procedure, when all is said anddone you can disagree but you
commit.
You know that disagree butcommit is a very powerful
(18:15):
element of team cohesiveness.
And as long as you have a voiceand you have a level of
psychological safety where youcan call out mistakes, challenge
the status quo, ultimately thatteam will be strengthened.
But what does not strengthen ateam are unclear or inconsistent
directives and expectations.
(18:36):
It just serves to confusethings and things begin to break
down.
Whether it's in 1863 or morerecently in my history, in my
work history, these areincredibly valuable lessons and
I just wanted to share them withyou as well.
This is what makes for strongermanagers and supervisors in
helping them stay out of theboss hole zone.
(18:57):
Well, listen everybody.
I really appreciate you lettingme continue my lessons from
Gettysburg.
Great experience.
I could see this beingsomething that we would take our
executive teams to do as acapstone event.
Absolutely amazing.
Well, I thank you for listeningi n.
Keep sharing our episodes withyour friends and colleagues.
(19:17):
We really appreciate the wayour audience is growing out
there.
The Bossh ole TransformationNation is absolutely growing and
we will see you next time onthe Bossh ole Chronicles.
Thanks very much for checkingout this episode of the Bossh
ole Chronicles.
It was so good to have you here, and if you have your own Bossh
(19:39):
ole story that you want to sharewith the Bossh ole
Transformation Nation, justreach out.
You can email us atmystory@thebossholechronicles.
com.
Again,mystory@thebossholechronicles.
com.
We'll see you next time.
Welcome back to all of our friends out there in The
Bossh ole Transformation Nation.
This is your host, John Broer,and I'm going to be dropping an
episode, a continuation of theexperience at Gettysburg.
If you listened, a couple ofweeks ago I was live from the
battle at Gettysburg doing someleadership development and this
(00:23):
is a continuation of that.
Hope you like it.
The Bossh ole Chronicles arebrought to you by Real Good
Ventures the talent optimizationfirm, helping organizations
diagnose their most criticalpeople and execution issues with
world-class analytics.
Make sure to check out all theresources in the show notes and
(00:44):
be sure to follow us and shareyour feedback.
Enjoy today's episode.
Good to have you back, everybody, and I just wanted to take a
little bit of time to drop thisepisode in, based on some pretty
powerful leadership lessons.
(01:04):
I think that would be helpfulfor all of our managers and
supervisors out there.
But a few lessons that havesort of resurfaced for me since
my most recent activity or mymost recent visit to the
battlefield at Gettysburg,Pennsylvania.
If any of you tuned in, acouple of weeks ago I did a live
(01:26):
from the battlefield episode.
I was fortunate enough to bethe guest of one of our clients,
Marco's Franchising.
Thank you to my friend andcolleague Rod Sanders, Chief
People Officer at Marco'sFranchising, for inviting me to
be a part of it.
And the event at Gettysburg isreally the capstone event for
their internal leadershipprogram.
(01:47):
It's a wonderful cohort.
They put a lot of effort and alot of resources behind their
leadership development programand it pays dividends.
I mean, they are the fastestgrowing pizza franchise in the
country, started in Toledo, Ohio, my hometown.
There were two really bigthings that I've been thinking
about as a result of that eventand just a quick recap.
(02:10):
Marco's works with anorganization, a consulting
practice called Diamond Six.
Colonel Jeffrey McCausland isthe founder of it took us around
the battlefield for the day andused that as a backdrop to
understand leadership dynamicsbetween the Confederate Army and
also the Union Army in thosethree days in July in 1863 in
(02:34):
Gettysburg.
But two things really jumpedout at me and they have to do
with unclear and inconsistentdirectives that you get from a
manager or a leader.
I think all of us can attest tohow frustrating it is to get
orders or directives orexpectations from a manager or
(02:56):
supervisor that one are unclearand ambiguous or inconsistent
over time, and I've got twoexamples for you.
So the first one has to do withunclear or ambiguous directives
, and I'm pulling this directlyfrom what happened in Gettysburg
, and if any of you study alittle bit about the Battle of
(03:19):
Gettysburg, I mean it is afascinating dynamic.
We actually used AI to helphypothesize what would be the
reference profiles, the PIreference profiles of the key
leaders in Gettysburg, and therewere actually two that I want
to reference.
First of all, Robert E Lee.
Robert E Lee, of course, wasthe overall commander of the
(03:39):
Confederate Army, the Army ofNorthern Virginia Army, and he
was beloved, educated at WestPoint.
Interestingly enough, most ofthese generals were educated at
West Point, so they all had avery similar briefcase.
Remember, we talk about head,heart and briefcase.
How those skills in thebriefcase are deployed all
depends on what's in the head,the behavioral and the cognitive
wiring.
(04:00):
But we used AI to hypothesizewhat do we think the reference
profiles were for some of thekey leaders.
So for Robert E Lee, we knowthat, based on AI's research,
that he was probably on ourcompeting values matrix in the
upper right-hand corner, alongwith Captains, Mavericks,
Venturers and Persuaders.
(04:22):
There was some hint of scholarcharacteristics, so he would
have been on that right side ofthe competing values matrix,
somewhere between the innovationand agility and the results and
discipline group.
Now, just to give a little bitof history, Robert E Lee, his
literally right-hand man, wasStonewall Jackson.
(04:42):
And of course, StonewallJackson has a storied history of
success on the battlefield,even before the North and the
South split.
But one of the things that wasreally apparent is that there
was a very strong chemistry,working relationship between
Robert E Lee and StonewallJackson.
Well, Stonewall Jackson, priorto Gettysburg, actually was
(05:05):
wounded.
He lost his left arm and diedshortly thereafter.
Robert E Lee was either quotedas saying or he wrote down
Jackson has lost his left arm, Ihave lost my right.
And that's how reliant Robert ELee was on Stonewall Jackson.
(05:26):
Now Stonewall Jackson is out ofthe picture and the Confederate
Army starts to descend onGettysburg.
Who actually came in to, who waselevated to replace Stonewall
Jackson is a very different typeof leader.
(05:50):
As a matter of fact, we did thesame thing.
Stonewall Jackson would havebeen in that, you know,
innovation and agility quadrantmuch like Robert E Lee.
Maybe there were a lot ofsimilarities.
They thought the same, they hadsome similar strategic
perspectives, if you will,General Richard Ewell very
different.
The research came back that hewould have been more in the
(06:11):
process and precision type ofgroup.
So this would have beenGuardians, Operators,
Specialists and Artisans.
Those are folks that are highlyprecise, focused on accuracy,
tend to be a bit more riskaverse and I know we're talking
about war, but I just bear withme here for a second.
(06:32):
But it's interesting how thisplays out.
I mean risk averse or cautious,with risk meaning probably in
battle, making some veryinformed decision before putting
your troops at risk.
So what happened was early onthe 1st of July 1863, Ewell was
in position just on theoutskirts of Gettysburg and the
(06:54):
Union Army was actually inretreat back through Gettysburg
and starting to move towardLittle Round Top, toward the
latter part or toward the end ofCemetery Ridge.
It's just one of the geographicfeatures.
There's Seminary Ridge,Cemetery Ridge, point being
Robert E Lee went to GeneralRichard Ewell and, by the way,
(07:16):
Ewell's troops got there laterin the day.
And one of the things you haveto know is that fighting at
night in that period of time wasjust something you didn't do.
I mean, it was highly dangerous, it was a high risk scenario
and he didn't have a lot ofpeople.
The bulk of the Confederatearmy had not yet arrived.
So anyway, Lee went to Ewelland said I do not want a general
(07:39):
attack on the Union army, notuntil more of our troops get
here.
That's another story, becauseit actually did happen.
Now number one no general attack, like a large scale attack,
okay.
But what he did say he wantedhim to seize the high ground in
front of him.
(07:59):
That's where the Union army wasgoing to be.
If you find it practicable todo so, okay, that's how they
talked in those days.
So he essentially said nogeneral assault, but seize the
high ground and take it awayfrom the Union army if you find
it practicable to do so.
Don't attack one way, butpossibly press an attack or put
(08:24):
pressure on them in this way ifand here's the unclear directive
if you find it practicable todo so.
So what General Ewell did?
He decided not to press theattack and he made that decision
for a number of reasons.
Again, it was late in the day,he did not have all of his
(08:45):
artillery and troops to bear anattack or press the attack on
the high ground where the Unionwas ultimately going to be.
Now, remember, the Union wasmaking its way back through
Gettysburg and behind them wasLittle Round Top or the high
ground at Cemetery Ridge.
So Ewell made the decision notto press the attack and, by the
(09:06):
way, something you should know,Robert E Lee was known for
giving somewhat vague andunclear orders, in other words,
leaving it open to the generalor the person to whom he was
giving these orders make thedecision.
Now, my assertion is that doingthat with Stonewall Jackson,
(09:28):
because he knew that StonewallJackson was a more aggressive,
risk-taking, proactiveindividual, based on what we
understand from history and thebit of research we've done, that
directive probably would havehad a different result if it was
Stonewall Jackson, and thereare a lot of people that think
that General Ewell.
(09:49):
Totally different result Ewell,who is more cautious by nature
and did not find it practicableto do so, did not pursue the
advance.
Well, what happens is the uniondoes move back into the high
ground up on Little Round Topand, of course, that high ground
, or what they would call goodground, turned out to be a huge
(10:11):
advantage for the union andtotally changed the nature of
that day, actually the nextthree days.
Okay, so what can we take fromthat?
Well, what we can take fromthat is that managers,
supervisors, leaders, if you arenot clear about your directives
and your expectations and yourorders if you will, then you
(10:33):
can't be upset when you don'tget the results you desire.
Because it is widely thoughtthat Lee really wanted him to
seize that higher ground andtake it away from the union.
But it wasn't really clear toGeneral Ewell and he didn't do
it.
And when you look at therationale behind Ewell not
taking those risks, it makessense because once again he did
(10:55):
not have his full artillery,full complement of troops, and
it was late in the day, whichcompounded the difficulty of
pressing an attack.
So unclear and vagueinstructions and directives
serve no one and no good purpose.
But you can see this dynamicplaying itself out in today's
workplace.
(11:15):
So my encouragement to ourmanagers and supervisors out
there if there's something youneed to have done, be very clear
in your communication.
Be very clear in yourcommunication.
Clarity is absolutely essentialand over-communicating that
clarity is also really critical.
That was my example from thebattlefield experience a couple
weeks ago.
(11:35):
But it made me think of anotherthing that happened to me
actually, and it has to do withvery inconsistent directives and
expectations.
So this is years ago.
I was working for a company Iwas running the sales program
and another vice president, Iwas a vice president, another
vice president and I were giventhe directive by the CEO to shut
(12:01):
down a small division of thecompany that had been acquired
more recently.
This was a small division, itwas a company that really wasn't
a core element of what we did.
It was such a departure fromour core business.
So the CEO was going to begoing out of town and we were
given the directive to meet withthe team of the smaller
(12:24):
division and let them know itwas going to be shut down.
Now that was really clear.
All right, we knew exactly whatwe needed to do.
And this other vice presidentand I, we got together and we
were very, very thoughtful.
We were thinking about how dowe best approach this?
How do we do this in the mosthumane way possible to give
these people some runway andopportunity to start to figure
(12:47):
out what their next step isgoing to be and set the date,
brought them together and weshared the news.
Okay, exactly what we wereasked to do.
So we did this.
Obviously, it was hard for themto hear, but we also let them
know that we had a plan in placeto help them make a transition.
(13:08):
Not long after that, we had aphone call with the CEO, who was
on vacation, and just said hey,just want to let you know, we
shared the news shutting downthe division and we're taking
the steps necessary to help themmove on.
And this is what he said.
He said what are you talkingabout?
That's not what I wanted.
(13:28):
I said okay, I mean, we were ona phone call, on a conference
call, and this other VP and Ilooked at each other and it was
like two wide-eyed deer in theheadlights thinking what did he
just say?
I mean, honestly, did we hearthe same thing?
And we clarified to say youasked us to do this and we did
(13:50):
it.
And he said that is not what Iasked you to do.
(14:10):
Now, if it were just merelaying this story, would I
heard the same thing and we wereon the same mission?
There was no misunderstanding.
What he did was change his mindor chose to remember
differently what he communicatedto us.
Now this happens.
It created a horrible and very,very awkward situation and we
(14:33):
had to backtrack.
We had to go back to the teamand say, listen, there have been
some developments and this isactually what's going to happen,
and we just looked stupid andincompetent.
Now this is where myencouragement to managers and
supervisors and leaders when youmake a decision, stand behind
(14:53):
that decision, all right, don'tcower away from it.
Stand on your square andconfirm that this is exactly
what we're going to do, which wedid, by the way.
I mean that was very clear.
But now, at this point, afterthe fact, are we going to
challenge him on this?
I mean we did.
I mean I remember saying to himin our conversation week before
(15:38):
last you were absolutely clearthat you were going to shut this
division down and no, no, no,that's not what I said at all.
Nothing but breed discontent,contempt, sometimes from the
people that are on the receivingend of this confusing
information, and just overalldisengagement.
So I wanted to just drop thisepisode in there because, again,
(16:00):
you are never too old to learnhow to refine and improve your
leadership and coaching anddevelopment skills,
people-focused skills,development skills,
people-focused skills, and inthe work we do with our clients,
especially around leadershipteam development.
We have some just remarkableleadership teams with whom we
(16:23):
get to work, and on a veryconsistent basis.
We will employ and you've heardus talk about this some of the
amazing work of Patrick Lencioni.
And if you're going to develop acohesive leadership team, you
have to have clarity.
You have to be able to identifywith great clarity what are our
expectations, who's doing what,what is our mission and how are
(16:48):
we moving forward.
And you have toover-communicate.
You cannot over-communicatethat level of clarity, because
if you lack that clarity, youlack the results that you hope
to get.
And then the other part of it,too, is stand on your square.
If you make a decision, own thedecision, even if it was a bad
(17:08):
one, or you decide you know what?
I know I wanted it that way acouple of weeks ago, but I've
changed my mind, which I guessis which, of course, is
anybody's prerogative but itreally doesn't make for a strong
and cohesive culture if peoplecan't see their leadership of
one mind, if you will, or onemission or one message.
(17:30):
One of the other things we talkabout when it comes to
leadership team development isthat comes to leadership, team
development is that when theleadership team comes together
and you're focusing on teamnumber one, I mean that again is
taken right out of Lencioni'sbook the Five Dysfunctions of a
Team.
If you haven't read that, youhave to read it.
But team number one isn't theteam you manage, it is the team
(17:50):
of which you are a member.
So if you're a member of aleadership team, an executive
team, you need to be talkingabout these things and have
great clarity and commitment.
And, by the way, while you maydisagree about policy or
procedure, when all is said anddone you can disagree but you
commit.
You know that disagree butcommit is a very powerful
(18:15):
element of team cohesiveness.
And as long as you have a voiceand you have a level of
psychological safety where youcan call out mistakes, challenge
the status quo, ultimately thatteam will be strengthened.
But what does not strengthen ateam are unclear or inconsistent
directives and expectations.
(18:36):
It just serves to confusethings and things begin to break
down.
Whether it's in 1863 or morerecently in my history, in my
work history, these areincredibly valuable lessons and
I just wanted to share them withyou as well.
This is what makes for strongermanagers and supervisors in
helping them stay out of theboss hole zone.
(18:57):
Well, listen everybody.
I really appreciate you lettingme continue my lessons from
Gettysburg.
Great experience.
I could see this beingsomething that we would take our
executive teams to do as acapstone event.
Absolutely amazing.
Well, I thank you for listeningi n.
Keep sharing our episodes withyour friends and colleagues.
(19:17):
We really appreciate the wayour audience is growing out
there.
The Bossh ole TransformationNation is absolutely growing and
we will see you next time onthe Bossh ole Chronicles.
Thanks very much for checkingout this episode of the Bossh
ole Chronicles.
It was so good to have you here, and if you have your own Bossh
(19:39):
ole story that you want to sharewith the Bossh ole
Transformation Nation, justreach out.
You can email us atmystory@thebossholechronicles.
com.
Again,mystory@thebossholechronicles.
com.
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.