I blog a lot about\u00a0leadership.<\/p>\n
And, usually, my blogs are geared towards people who are already in leadership positions. \u00a0But, today, I want to do something different.<\/p>\n
Today, I want to reach out to aspiring leaders \u2013 those on the way up the corporate ladder who haven\u2019t yet reached a leadership position. \u00a0Because demonstrating leadership qualities doesn\u2019t start only when one attains a leadership role. \u00a0It can and should begin when one is a follower.<\/p>\n
Sometimes, bad leadership by someone in a leadership position opens the door for a follower to show leadership. \u00a0Let\u2019s walk through some specifics.<\/p>\n
A common symptom of bad leadership is when the \u201cleft hand doesn\u2019t know what the right hand is doing.\u201d \u00a0If you\u2019re not familiar with that adage, it means that two people can have related roles, but don\u2019t work together causing all sorts of problems. \u00a0Those problems can include duplicated effort, conflicting results, poor communication, delays, critical work not getting done and so much more.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s the leader\u2019s job to assign roles and to set forth standards for individuals with related roles to work together. \u00a0But too many people find themselves in awkward situations with fellow employees and there are business risks that arise.<\/p>\n
I can think back to a couple of examples in my career as a buyer in the airline industry where poor leadership caused such awkward situations. \u00a0In both examples, I was responsible for buying aircraft parts for maintaining the airline\u2019s fleet of planes.<\/p>\n
The airline\u2019s purchasing department was split into many\u00a0sub-groups. \u00a0The sub-group I was a part of was called \u201cAircraft & Technical Purchasing.\u201d \u00a0The Aircraft & Technical Purchasing sub-group was further divided into teams. \u00a0I was on a team called \u201cMaintenance Support\u201d and other teams were \u201cWarranty Services,\u201d \u201cExpediting,\u201d \u201cInteriors,\u201d and so on.<\/p>\n
Us buyers in Maintenance Support were measured pretty much only on cost savings and spend under contract. \u00a0The only external\u00a0training we received was on negotiation. \u00a0And leadership didn\u2019t want us getting involved in tactical purchasing activities. \u00a0So, they created several of those other teams to handle tactical issues. \u00a0Warranty Services handled warranty claims with suppliers. \u00a0Expediting handled all communications with suppliers when a part was needed sooner than the standard lead time, including emergency situations when a part was needed because an aircraft was not permitted to take off prior to that part being replaced (called an \u201caircraft on ground\u201d or \u201cAOG\u201d situation).<\/p>\n
Sounds like a good division of labor, right?<\/p>\n
Well, it wasn\u2019t always.<\/p>\n
I recall one incident where a buyer in Warranty Services approached me during a time when I was working feverishly on a project with a very heavy workload. \u00a0Apparently, he was trying\u00a0resolve a warranty issue with a supplier with whom I contracted and he had trouble connecting with an appropriate contact. \u00a0He asked me to get involved. \u00a0He pictured me calling my contact there, walking through all of the details of the warranty-related problem, arranging the logistics of return and repair\/replacement, negotiating any conflicts, etc.<\/p>\n
As a super-busy buyer \u2013 and a 25-year old at that \u2013 I kind of took offense to that. \u00a0I thought he was lazy. \u00a0I resisted getting involved in a task that the company hired someone else to do. \u00a0He felt that the business relationship that I had developed with the supplier could be leveraged to make a difficult task easier. \u00a0In hindsight, we were both right.<\/p>\n
But we were both stubborn.<\/p>\n
I stood my ground. \u00a0He kind of threw a temper tantrum and went to his manager who went to my manager and the issue blew up more than it needed to. \u00a0But all because there were two people involved in a related task with no leadership inspiring us to work harmoniously.<\/p>\n
We spent more time arguing about how a task should get done than if either one of us had simply done the task! \u00a0In a situation where there was a lack of org-chart driven leadership, we as followers showed no leadership either.<\/p>\n
The second example involved me and a buyer from the Expediting team.<\/p>\n
Again, my performance was heavily evaluated based on cost savings. \u00a0So, when I got a requisition to purchase new parts, I would spend an amount of sourcing and negotiating time on the buy that was proportionate to the cost of what I was buying.<\/p>\n
I had received a requisition for a \u201cnose cowl.\u201d \u00a0This is the large, circular part that attaches to the front of an aircraft engine. \u00a0These things cost several hundred thousand dollars. \u00a0So, it was worth spending some time sourcing and negotiating for this beast!<\/p>\n
Nose cowls get damaged frequently by ground vehicles, like catering trucks, those luggage-carrying vehicles, tugs, and the like. \u00a0So, despite their high cost, airlines at the time would keep a small inventory of nose cowls to prepare for such unanticipated events and prevent the damaged aircraft from being taken out of service. \u00a0Most times, that damage can be cost-effectively repaired, so there was no need to buy a replacement nose cowl. \u00a0But, other times, the damage would be too severe and we\u2019d need to order a new nose cowl for inventory.<\/p>\n
So, I began speaking to aftermarket suppliers of nose cowls, some of whom had repaired\/overhauled nose cowls in stock. \u00a0These suppliers were smart negotiators. \u00a0Before we\u2019d even get to the topic of price, they\u2019d ask: \u00a0\u201cHow soon do you need it?\u201d<\/p>\n
Well, the requisition I had did not specify a need date. \u00a0So, I answered that we were not necessarily in a hurry, but were comparing availability and price among multiple suppliers and would choose the supplier who offered the best overall value.<\/p>\n
However, as I was beginning this process, little did I know that the Expediting team was duplicating effort.<\/p>\n
Apparently, there had been an unusual rash of incidents where nose cowls were damaged by ground vehicles. \u00a0Not just within our airline, but in the entire industry. Industry-wide availability of serviceable nose cowls had almost dried up! \u00a0Remember, these things are expensive, so if every major airline only had one or two extras, that was only slightly more than a dozen in the entire country!<\/p>\n
So, unbeknownst to me, the Expediting team was engaged. \u00a0Apparently, the two nose cowls we had in inventory had quickly been dispatched. \u00a0And, now, we had an AOG situation where, if we didn\u2019t get a nose cowl for a certain aircraft scheduled to conclude its maintenance cycle, the company would have to cancel flights. \u00a0At the time, the rule of thumb was that an aircraft unexpectedly out of service cost the company $40,000 per day. \u00a0So, any time there was an AOG situation, it set many people into a panic!<\/p>\n
Expediting was calling the same suppliers I was calling. \u00a0Some of those suppliers refused to sell Expediting the solitary nose cowl in their inventory because they were \u201calready negotiating with Charles Dominick.\u201d \u00a0Other suppliers quoted Expediting an exorbitant amount of money, then called me to say their previous quote was now off the table because they were contacted by Expediting, who needed the nose cowl immediately. \u00a0 Other suppliers were telling us both that they had no nose cowls available any more.<\/p>\n
I was never informed that we had an AOG situation. \u00a0Expediting was never informed that I was sourcing a nose cowl and close to making a deal. \u00a0So, when suppliers were telling us that they were dealing with another employee of our company and that was impacting our ability to get a nose cowl at a reasonable price, we got quite mad at each other, yet didn\u2019t communicate directly. \u00a0It wasn\u2019t necessarily policy, but it was common practice\u00a0to address issues with our manager who would, if necessary, then talk to the manager of the other team. \u00a0All this time, the clock was ticking. \u00a0The left hand didn\u2019t know what the right hand was doing and it almost resulted in a situation where we had a $40 million aircraft sitting on a tarmac without the ability to fly our customers or generate revenues for an indeterminate period of time!<\/p>\n
The Expediting manager stepped in and purchased the nose cowl for a huge sum of money but, fortunately, prevented an AOG.<\/p>\n
Now, both situations involved leadership problems. \u00a0Leadership divided work in a way that was certain to result in overlap and conflicts. But, looking back, I see that \u2013 despite being in a follower role \u2013 I should have exercised some leadership. \u00a0I should have initiated direct dialogue with the counterparts with whom I was having a conflict. \u00a0I should have begun that dialogue by setting the goal that we\u2019d have an agreed-upon plan by the end of the conversation.<\/p>\n
Both situations were relatively easy to resolve. \u00a0But, because of lack of leadership and flawed work structure, we followers were floundering.<\/p>\n
So, here\u2019s my advice. \u00a0As soon as conflict with another employee seems to arise, don\u2019t wait for leadership to lead if you already know that you\u2019re working in an environment with poor leadership. \u00a0Lead the resolution yourself. \u00a0Don\u2019t be defensive. \u00a0Don\u2019t be abrasive. \u00a0Do what a good leader should do: \u00a0make the best interests of the organization your focus, open a dialogue, don\u2019t waste time, suggest resolutions, get buy-in, take action, resolve the problem, and move forward onto the more strategic activities on which you should be focused.<\/p>\n
Sometimes, followers have to be leaders. \u00a0That makes you a great follower. \u00a0And great followers often become great leaders on the org chart, too.<\/p>\n