[July 13, 2016] Only leaders with priorities get things done. This is often called the “first principle of success” for good reason. That may, at first, seem intuitive to those who study leadership but when we begin to dig deeper into how leaders act, we find that many don’t practice this key standard of leadership. Leaders without priorities are more common that one may think.
“The key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule, but to schedule your priorities.” – Stephen Covey
Many of us have witnessed leaders who do a good job of providing guidance (that’s important, of course) but then fail to give priorities that are realistic and that can be followed. There may actually be formally adopted workplace priorities; placed on posters, announced in newsletters, and mentioned at meetings. Yet, when we review them in context of the work environment, there is often a disconnect between what leaders say they want done and what leaders expect to be done.
Leaders without priorities sow confusion and contradictions. As a commander, I was often given more things to accomplish than could reasonably be done in the time allocated. I was a junior Army Colonel then and asked several senior General flag officers how they expected me to accomplish the surge of assigned tasks. How they could create such inconsistencies was puzzling to me.
This was a worthwhile lesson in senior leadership. At first I thought they were lazy but came to understand that it was my responsibility as a commander to make decisions on what was most important and thus of higher priority. They had taught me that not all senior leaders will do some hand-holding for officers that have General officer potential.
Yet the more common scenario is when a leader announces priorities and has no intention of using them in their work effort. For example, I have found the senior military headquarters at the Pentagon had announced, as part of a money saving effort, a requirement to cut 10% (or some higher number) from staff positions at lower commands but fail to cut their own staff. The message sent is that cost cutting is not really a priority.
When the U.S. Congress demanded a lower budget for the military in Fiscal Year 2016, it was actually increasing its own budget. Again, the message was that a priority to cut costs rings hollow. Such action generates resentment and anger, uncertainty, destroys loyalty, and reduces the credibility of Congressional leaders and the U.S. President. Nothing is more important for leaders to do than to lead by example. That is how priorities are made to stick.
If leaders believe something is important enough to rank of their list of priorities then those leaders need more than messaging, they need to show action to ensure everyone understands the value of that priority. This means that resources (money, time, effort) should be dedicated to that priority. In the U.S. military we call that “priority of effort” and expect all activities to strive to accomplish that priority.
When leaders have priorities and they are real, success is not far behind.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]