Phoenix Leadership for Business

An Executive's Strategy for Relevance and Resilience

Valentina Gokenbach

• Publisher: Productivity Press
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351008303
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

The world continues to ride a wave of turmoil, challenging leaders like never before. New laws, competitive markets and the need to respond to the demands of corporate boards and stockholders unnerve even the most senior of leaders resulting in progressively shorter tenures of those in leadership positions. The modern leader needs to be increasingly resilient and their leadership must be entirely relevant to their organizations and the industry.

Phoenix Leadership for Business: An Executive's Strategy for Relevance and Resilience provides a brand new, innovative concept, that of the Phoenix Leader, with proven strategies and approaches to evolve your leadership approach to one that is flexible, powerful and effective. This book utilizes the strong metaphor of a Phoenix and identifies all of the necessary techniques that leaders need to improve profitability, resource management and organizational success thus improving their relevance to the company.

This book introduces a new paradigm created by Val Gokenbach for leadership in complex organizations and provides effective strategies that will guide leaders in the business field. Val possesses a doctoral degree in Management and organizational leadership and over 40 years of experience as a healthcare executive. She is also a leadership consultant, professor, executive coach and author on leadership topics. You, as a business leader, will learn to reinvent yourself by putting her proven concepts into effect to become a Phoenix in your organization.

Chapter 1

Status of Organizational Leadership in the United States

Your present circumstances don’t determine where you can go; they merely determine where you start.

Nido R. Qubein

Leadership: An Awesome Responsibility

I began my leadership career in healthcare when I was appointed manager of an intensive care unit 1 year after my graduation from nursing school. I was promoted because my director said that I had leadership abilities and I was the best clinical nurse. As I was planning my next move up the ladder of leadership, I decided that I would go back to school for my master of business administration (MBA). At that time, most of the chief executive officers (CEOs) and chief financial officers (CFOs) were MBAs. Degrees in healthcare administration were just emerging, and I felt that if I wanted to speak the language of the leaders, I needed the same educational background that they had.

The MBA program was very difficult but fascinating to me, but what was especially valuable to me was that I was attending with students from a variety of industries, such as manufacturing, service and sales. This provided a wealth of diverse learning experiences that taught me to think in different ways. In my studies on quality improvement, focusing on the works of Edwards Deming and others, I learned the concept of the widget. A widget is nothing more than a word to apply to any unit of production in the world of manufacturing. When Deming and others spoke of zero defects, it was to prevent financial loss due to the improper manufacturing of whatever widget that was in production. These defective parts, if used, can lead to national recalls, safety concerns for consumers and the potential for legal exposures in the event of an injury.

What was illuminating for me at the time was the notion that in healthcare, our unit of production, or our widget, is the patient. The profound difference, however, is that a patient, unlike an inanimate widget, is far more complex and has a high degree of variability, making it very difficult for those of us in healthcare to develop processes that meet the specific needs of all patients. Other compounding complexities of patient care include understanding and dealing with emotions, knowledge base, culture, diversities, family concerns, finances, language differences and other unique attributes of the particular individual. In other words, the complexity and unpredictability of the human being makes the delivery of healthcare very challenging. If a company produces a batch of widgets that cannot be used and is therefore discarded, there is a financial loss to the organization for product, resources and time. If there is a breech in the delivery of healthcare, it can result in the injury or death of a patient, which is a tremendous responsibility for healthcare providers. As healthcare executives, we must continue to strive for zero defects, which in our industry translates to the highest degree of quality and safety. Unfortunately, in my career I have worked with individuals that looked upon patients as widgets, and even in the care area observed staff that focused on tasks while forgetting the emotional needs of the patient. These concepts can apply also to service organizations that have high personal touch points with consumers and other businesses. It is critical that all organizations strive for continued quality and safety in their products and services. To illustrate this point, I like to use the concept of a plane crash that creates a visual for why quality and safety are so important.

Concept of a Plane Crash

The news of a plane crash is always troubling to hear. We are impacted by the massive loss of life, especially if the incident involves a large plane. We feel for the families that are left behind and for what their lives will be like without their loved ones. The reality is that every injury or death for a patient secondary to medical error is a plane crash for that patient and family, yet the emotional impact to us does not seem to be the same, but it should be. A similar analogy can be made in any business. Products need to be safe for the consumer; manufacturing facilities need to be safe for workers. Any breach in quality and safety can kill or injure people—a plane crash for them and their families.

The statistical comparison is profound. The Aviation Safety Network (ASN) is one of the organizations that are responsible for tracking statistics on the safety of aviation. In 2014, the ASN reported 761 deaths in 12 commercial aviation accidents. In 2015, the number was much less, at 265 deaths. The year 2015 was recognized as the safest in aviation. This translates to 0.24 deaths per 1 million departures.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM), in their report To Err Is Human, reported that 98,000 patients die every year secondary to mistakes in hospitals. The inspector general for Health and Human Services in 2010 reported that in Medicare patients alone, the number of injury or death incidents was 180,000. The last report from the Journal of Patient Safety anticipates that the numbers may be grossly understated and could be as high as 210,000–440,000. It is much safer to fly than it is to seek healthcare. This information underscores the need for effective leadership in healthcare, as well as what an awesome responsibility healthcare leaders bear.

The U.S. Department of Labor (2016) has shown an increase in employee deaths from 2013 to 2017 despite regulation and safety requirements. The employee injury rate in 2017 per 100 full-time workers was a staggering 7.7. The U.S. Consumer Product and Safety Commission (2017) reports staggering rates of injury and death in consumers in a multitude of product categories. Every one of these represents a plane crash for the individual and their families.

Leadership Is the Answer to Quality, Safety and Effectiveness

The important concepts of quality, safety and effectiveness in organizations will not be realized without the engagement and effective leadership of staff, who at the point of service make magic happen. The literature strongly suggests that engaged staff are more focused at work and provide safer and higher-quality work (Gallup, 2016b). Unfortunately, the environment in many organizations does not support a nurturing and enjoyable work environment. Human resource research has repeatedly identified that staff disengagement and turnover is a result of the employee’s desire to leave their manager, and very little turnover is for other reasons, such as moving, money or promotions. Gallup’s report on the state of the American workforce in 2013 identified that most employees across the country are dissatisfied with their workplace. They published that

■ Eighteen percent of the workforce is actively disengaged or disgruntled.

■ Fifty-two percent of employees are identified as “present” but not engaged.

■ Thirty percent of the employees are identified as engaged and inspired by their work and their leaders.

This represents a tremendous dearth of leadership skill in all industries. If we translate this into organizations alone, a staggering 70% of our employee base is not working at their capacity, leading to a loss of productivity. The report further explains that as much as $550 billion in productivity is lost due to the 18% that are disengaged. Compound this over time and the effect on profitability is staggering. It means that quality and safety could be greatly impacted as well when employees are not present.

A good friend of mine said that the flavor of the sundae always starts at the top. My experience as a healthcare executive and my experiences in the consulting arena have proven this to be true. No organization is going to be successful unless the leaders are effective. In my mind, leadership is a science with a body of theories and research that, when studied and applied, improve the chance of organizational success. One of our challenges is that we do not necessarily promote capable leaders. Especially in the clinical areas, such as medicine and nursing, there is the tendency to promote the best clinicians, thinking that the ability to be a great clinician automatically transfers to the likelihood that they will be an effective leader. I have seen practices in other industries where individuals move into the next-level position due to an opening despite leadership capabilities—when they have “paid their dues.” We compound this problem by not providing the appropriate leadership education and development. This is due to the lack of insight into the importance of leadership development on the part of the organization. Focusing on leadership development is one of the key elements to organizational success, but in my experience, it is one of the vital strategies easily sidelined with budgetary constraints or other organizational priorities. Especially in times of organizational challenges, leadership development is exactly what is needed.

Are Leaders Born or Made?

As I was growing up, my mother used to tell me that I was a natural-born leader because I ruled the neighborhood kids and always told them what to do, and what was amazing to her was that they listened to me. My perspective on this had nothing to do with my effective leadership skills but rather the fact that I wanted to keep them away from my stuff. To that end, I was the one who organized play based on my desires. What was interesting is that my friends were always accepting of my recommendations. For years, leadership and behavioral theorists have been debating the question of whether leaders are born or made. The research now suggests that leaders are not born but can be made and developed with appropriate programs that focus on teaching, mentoring and learning. Bernard Bass (2008) had identified several characteristics inherent in successful leaders but also believed that these can be observed, and many of them acquired over time. Research published in Psychology Today reported that characteristics of successful leaders include assertiveness, risk-taking, extraversion, emotional intelligence and social intelligence (Arvey et al., 2006). Arvey et al. also believed that these characteristics can be studied and acquired over time with the right programs and guidance.

Difference between Leadership and Management

Stephen Covey identified the difference between leadership and management when he stated, “Effective leadership is putting first things first. Effective management is discipline, carrying it out.” More simply put, management is doing and leading is inspiring. John Kotter described that there is a profound difference between managing and leading despite the fact that the terms are oftentimes used interchangeably. This is important to note. Kotter further described the function of management as one of planning, goal setting, and budgeting, staffing and other operational tasks. What is important to realize is that when the operational tasks are completed, they needed to be executed in a successful and effective way. Success will not be achieved unless the leader can inspire the staff to engage in the plans and be involved in the successful execution. There are many examples of people that I have worked with that were very good at the operational planning but struggled with execution. Not all good managers are leaders, but there is a greater likelihood that good leaders will be good managers (Kotter, 2002).

Evolution of Leadership Theory

In order to better understand modern leadership theories, it is important to look over the evolution of leadership over time. This reflection of the past sets the stage for the transformation of leadership theories over the years. Our focus begins with the Industrial Revolution.

Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution began following the end of the Civil War, with the introduction of industry, manufacturing and growth of companies providing goods and services to local consumers. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the United States was primarily agricultural. Newly created technologies, such as the cotton gin and steam engines, further advanced industry growth. Manpower was now needed to work in the factories and run the new machines, which led to the hiring of employees in exchange for wages.

The rapidly increasing demands for goods increased production pressure and the need to extend hours in the factories. This demand resulted in longer shifts, unbearable heat and an absence of safety measures, oftentimes resulting in injury and death to workers. Employees were viewed as a means to an end, with little attention paid to their human value. Children were also exploited, and there were no labor laws to protect any of the workers. Leadership adopted an autocratic approach, with all decisions made by the leaders, who pushed their workers to produce despite the conditions and minimal wages.

In the early 1950s, American workers began to rebel against their employers, creating bargaining units and unions to use collective power and pressure through work stoppage and strikes. These formalized unions provided a forum for the workers to be heard and force changes in leadership approaches. These pressures on leadership gave rise to the human resource era of leadership.

Human Resource Era

The United States continues to reside in the human resource era, characterize...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Author
• Foreword
• 1 Status of Organizational Leadership in the United States
• 2 The Phoenix Leader
• 3 Attributes of the Phoenix Leader, a Strong Sense of Self
• 4 Attributes of the Phoenix Leader: Effective Interpersonal Relationships
• 5 Attributes of the Phoenix Leader: Building an Empowered Workforce
• 6 Attributes of the Phoenix Leader: Interdisciplinary Team Leadership
• 7 Attributes of the Phoenix Leader: Change Agency
• 8 Virtues, Attributes and Competencies of the Phoenix Leader
• 9 Foundational Behaviors of the Phoenix Leader
• 10 Becoming a Phoenix Leader
• References
• Index