This was the question that was debated during a podcast which I did recently with Executive Coach Frank Marinko in Australia.
All of us know that leadership is all about making choices. It is about aligning the organisation and its underlying stakeholder relationships with an overarching vision and intrinsic values. However, the prism that each stakeholder uses to evaluate decisions and decide on a roadmap could be significantly different from one another. We might hold complete clarity, based on our own belief and experience-based prism, about what and how something needs to be done. This is where the pitfall of a ‘My way or highway’ mindset lies.
Based on market conditions and the need to do a strategic shift, you might need to cut costs by reducing the workforce. But this could lead to employee insecurity and negative publicity. You might decide to use certain material to improve product quality but that might bring a backlash from environmentalists. A tradeoff between shareholder profits and employee benefits might lead to morale drop and lower productivity. Such a list of potential pitfalls can be long.
So how could you as a leader successfully negotiate and mitigate the above risks?
In this context, you might wish to listen to the two podcasts which are in the laser coaching realm.
First the aspect of impact of AI as a fledging technology on Ethics and Morality. This becomes important as the influence could span across various aspects of human life, society and a ‘code of conduct’ for responding to situations. Another impact could be certain unintended moral consequences arising out of AI, such as enhancing of social inequalities and taking away of human jobs.
Secondly, the aspect of AI’s impact, or shall we say, its interrelationship with the concepts of Epistemology and Ontology. Epistemology is all about how our mind perceives reality. Our sense making of a situation provides us knowledge. AI algorithms are all about sense making and predictions. Deep Learning and neural networks might make a prediction, without any underlying explanations, which may be contrary to what we might be thinking. Ontology is the science of ‘Being’, of being something. As AI’s capability advances, it would show up as an entity with complex behaviours and responses. This prompts ontological questions about the nature of these behaviours and responses—how should we conceptualize AI’s ability to learn, reason, and interact with the world?
So, how do we determine the impact of AI on fundamental issues relating to Ethics and Morality? This aspect becomes particularly important because at the core of AI and its capabilities lies the requirement of enormous data streams. Since most of AI algorithm predictions relates to likely human behaviour and response, the data relates to humans. And this is where the fault line between usage of harvested data and the ethics and morality of using such data for AI based predictions, emerges. This is even beyond the realm of privacy laws. Fundamental questions about the consent, transparency, and control individuals have over their personal information remain.
AI, being a general-purpose technology, its use and spread is increasing exponentially in terms of organisations, individuals, and domains. This interaction of human-AI relationships is evolving rapidly, as AI technology evolves. These relationships are raising profound questions about our sense of self and identity. This becomes important aspects to deliberate upon.
Privacy Concerns: How AI systems handle personal data and influence decision-making processes can affect the consent, transparency, and control individuals have over their personal information.
Bias and Fairness: AI algorithms can perpetuate or amplify biases present in the data they are trained on, leading to unfair outcomes. Addressing bias in AI systems is crucial for upholding principles of fairness and equity, which are fundamental to moral frameworks.
Human jobs & Processes: AI technologies can disrupt job markets, potentially displacing human workers. Socio-economic considerations include ensuring a just transition for affected workers and promoting AI-driven benefits equitably.
Moral Principles & Decision Making: AI systems are increasingly being tasked with making decisions that have ethical implications, such as in healthcare (e.g., medical diagnostics and treatment recommendations) and autonomous vehicles (e.g., decisions in potentially fatal situations). Questions arise about their moral agency and whether they should be held responsible for their actions.
Epistemology and how knowledge shows up : As has been mentioned above, AI systems increasingly play a role in decision-making processes across various domains, from medical diagnostics to legal judgments. This challenges traditional notions of epistemic authority—who or what can be considered a reliable source of knowledge and expertise.
AI’s form of existence: As AI technologies evolve, they exhibit increasingly complex behaviors and capabilities. This prompts ontological questions about AI’s nature of being —how should we conceptualize AI’s ability to learn, reason, and interact with the world?
In the above context, Executive Coach Frank Marinko and I discussed the pressing issues on the development of AI and what that means for society at large.
Does AI possess moral agency?
How can you design AI systems to make ethical decisions?
Are there concepts such as moral reasoning and ethical behaviour in machines?
Frank Marinko and myself, both international Executive Coaches and Facilitators, grappled with this question using the critical thinking methodology, in a joint podcast. You might enjoy the discourse and the podcast link is given at the end.
If we are to deliberate on this question, we need to get to the essence of two aspects mentioned. First, AI or Artificial Intelligence as we call it. Second, ‘to lead’ which is all about Leading or Leadership.
So, what really is the essence of AI? That lies in its ability to mimic and augment human intelligence and decision-making processes using computational algorithms and data. At its core, AI systems can analyze vast amounts of data, recognize patterns, infer relationships, and make predictions or recommendations.
The important aspect to be kept in mind is AI’s ability to ‘learn’, its adaptability and the ability to improve over time. Machine learning algorithms, for example, can automatically adjust their behavior based on new data, allowing AI systems to become more accurate and effective with experience.
And when we think of the essence of Leadership, it is really all about envisioning a future which speaks to all stakeholders by addressing their concerns or satisfying some needs. Leadership thus involves directing and coordinating the efforts so that the full potential and collective success can be realised.
With the dawn of computers seven decades back, Alan Turing had considered the question, ‘Can a machine think like a human?’ and came up with a test now known as the Turing Test. With the advent of AI, several Artificial Intelligence programs have already passed the test. The purpose of this question seems to be a deep-down threat to our unique ‘leadership ability’ that we see emanating from AI. There are concerns that AI will not only start doing complex and decision-making tasks replacing humans but in the long run go beyond human controls and frameworks.
This idea of technological obsolescence where technology renders humans obsolete, and takes over most of human jobs and work, is a concern that has been raised in discussions about AI and automation. However, we humans have creativity, empathy, intuition, adaptability, and the capacity for complex moral reasoning, which are integral to many aspects of work and life. These qualities enable humans to excel in areas such as innovation, problem-solving, interpersonal relationships, and above all Leadership.
The idea of AI achieving consciousness is another topic of much speculation and debate. Consciousness is a complex and still poorly understood phenomenon, and whether AI can truly achieve it is uncertain. Even if AI were to achieve consciousness, the process of its development would likely still involve human input and guidance. AI systems, as they exist today, are created, and trained by humans, and any future developments in AI consciousness would likely follow a similar path.
However, it is worth noting that AI can already exhibit forms of “thinking” and problem-solving that are quite different from human cognition. Machine learning algorithms, for example, can process vast amounts of data and recognize complex patterns in ways that humans cannot.
Whether AI should create its own thinking framework independent of human influence is a philosophical question with no easy answer. It raises issues of autonomy, control, and ethics. If AI were to develop its own thinking framework, it would still need to start and remain ‘biased’ by frameworks that align with human values and approach. It thus seems that in the foreseeable future, Humans would continue to lead AI, leaving aside the esoteric visions of the Matrix and Terminator movies.
To effectively lead AI development which would synergise with human development, adherence to principles such as transparency, fairness, accountability, and human-centered design would be needed. We would then be able to harness the full potential of AI while minimizing harm. These principles should serve as guardrails rather than roadblocks, helping to steer AI development in a direction that aligns with human values and promotes the common good.
Some years back, I had a Divisional head join the team.
The guy had impressed the recruiting board with his talk of ‘track record’ and ‘ideas’ about how he planned to transform the business. When I got around to have a chat with him, he seemed to be all humility and spoke of his own self development through working and learning from me. But several subsequent events seemed to indicate that at the sniff of a challenge, his self-serving shield would go up, a lot of talk about blaming the environment and others in the team would emerge but not much action on the ground. In the meanwhile, the company kept losing competent and productive staff as well as customer accounts; his oft repeated declaration about ‘brickwalling’ them did not seem to be working.
To me it appeared that the Divisional Head did not know what he was working to develop; he was definitely not working on his own leadership. When I again had a chat with him, what came up were several blames. ‘That he had not bargained for the kind of work he was now being expected to do.’ ‘That I was failing to support him adequately.’ ‘That he was stuck with incompetent team members.’
In a nutshell, the job stank, I as the boss stank and the team stank! I did not have the heart to ask the guy that if the world all around stank, could it be that he himself was the problem?
How many of you have faced a similar situation at the workplace? If you have, have you wondered what one might need to do to transform the situation?
The world can shift when one shows up with authenticity and with humility.
Transformation:
When we see ourselves as the problem, we can be the solution too. We need to spend more time working on our own selves rather than trying to fix others.
Do we have the expectation that our team members should be the harbinger of good news and developments? We need to lower that expectation.
Empathy is a strong word; being empathetic is easier said than done. Nonetheless we need to practice putting ourselves in the shoes of others and seeing the world through their lens.
Gain the realization that others do not really humble us; we humble ourselves.
Show up as a servant leader. A leadership style that enables everyone in the organisation to feel empowered and thrive fearlessly as his / her authentic self.
Say ‘Thank you’ to three persons in a day. Look them in the eye and be specific. If someone is not around, send a thank you email or Whatsapp or make a call.
It was an economic downturn period with the attendant business concerns. In a management strategy meeting, team members were called upon to offer suggestions about how they would wish to ring fence one’s customer accounts, sustain revenues and margins, bring down expenses and so on. I got the sense that the participants were merely sticking to the safety of what we had been doing in the past; no creative suggestions were forthcoming. It seemed to me that in a perceived environment of insecurity, no one was willing to stick his / her neck out. All were hesitating, waiting to do what they would be told.
This set me thinking. Could it be that my seeking suggestions of what each team member plans to do in an adverse situation was being viewed as appraising and judgmental? Could it be that my stance smacked of arrogance, that I was putting others in a spot but was not willing to commit myself?
In a follow-up meeting, I decided to orient the conversation differently. Prior to the meeting, I sent a note to all participants inviting them to come into the meeting with an answer to a simple statement and a question:
You would like to ask me about _______________
What suggestion do you have about what I need to do?
The response was surprisingly overwhelming this time. Everyone chipped in with their frank assessment and the feedback I received were ‘I needed to be more of a team player, needed to be more accountable for team efforts’ and so on. Moreover, one could sense a renewed level of energy and vigour in the team’s declarations.
I thanked all for their frank inputs and avoided giving any explanations.
When later I thought about what had happened, I sensed that it all came down to my practicing humility in the meeting with vulnerability and the willingness to listen and learn. Without knowing it, I had shown up as a ‘Servant Leader’.
In ‘What Is Servant Leadership? A Philosophy for People-First Leadership’, author Sarah K. White, CIO says, ‘Servant leadership is a leadership style that prioritizes the growth, well-being, and empowerment of employees. It aims to foster an inclusive environment that enables everyone in the organization to thrive as their authentic self. it helps create a “psychological ethical climate” that allows employees to be authentic and not fear judgment from leadership for being themselves.’
Humility begins with authenticity. And the pathway to the practice of authenticity begins with ‘being authentic to your own self about your own inauthenticities’. This pathway has no end, it is the journey that we need to enjoy.
If we are not careful, a leadership role has this nasty tendency of making us arrogant. “I am a leader because I am better. I know what is good for the team, so it needs to be my way or highway” is the kind of thought that can sometimes circle inside us. And such thoughts manifest in our conversations and actions.
In our work life, all of us have come across bosses who are control freaks. These are folks with hardened mindsets about what got them to their positions of power. Under uncertain and ambiguous situations ( and today’s environment is becoming increasingly that), they are most prone to risk-aversion, look for scapegoats or black and white solutions and doubtful decision making.
Before we start forming strong opinions about others, we need to hold the thought we too exhibit ‘control freak’ characteristics at certain times; we are genetically wired with an intrinsic need for control.
In a past assignment, I was reporting to a ‘control freak’ in the corporate office. He lacked domain knowledge relating to our area of business and made up for this lack through demanding total transparency of all operational aspects from our side but with an opaque Blackbox approach from his end. In meetings, he would ask all the questions and then attempt to put one manager against another in a classic divide and rule tactic, to elicit the ‘correct answer’. At times he would deploy the ruse of ‘letting go’ when he would shift to a ‘looking over the shoulder’ kind of control.
What the ‘control freak’ boss ended up achieving was disrespecting and devaluing people, demotivating me and creating stress all round.
The way I managed to handle the situation was to shift from my preoccupation and anxiety about what the boss was saying and thinking to a more inward looking focus. I started thinking about myself, my ‘own battles’ and what I could do in a situation. Every time I felt mistreated, I tried to hold the thought that it was really ‘not about me’; this allowed me to shift from reactiveness and choose a better response. Over time I knew that if I was not careful, my ‘response’ might easily get tainted with bitterness, fear or thoughts of revenge.
In my work life, I was also lucky to have worked with a boss at the other end of the spectrum. He was the ‘hands off’ type but at the same time objective driven. He shied away from taking credit but was always available for discussions and guidance relating to decision making. The team under his watch successfully handled one of the most technically challenging and largest HVAC projects in the country.
So, how might we support others impacted by excessive control in the work place?
Coach how to ‘let go’ when perceiving to have been wronged. Such ‘looking inward’ practise needs dollops of courage, humility and self-compassion.
Listen to frustrations. Acknowledge that it’s awful to feel disrespected by one’s boss.
After listening, turn the conversation to the following:(a)How might you be a better team player as a result of working for a controlling boss? (b)How might you motivate yourself to perform even though your boss is disappointing?
In today’s fast changing world, we are almost always confronted by situations about which we lack past experience to engage or resolve. We try to force fit some past learning and end up either failing to get an outcome, or if lucky, achieving part success.
In a past assignment, I was managing a Travel & Destination services management company. One of our major customer accounts was the national petroleum development organisation and because of the large business quantum, we had an implant operation with a dedicated team. Our service and response levels were appreciated by the client.
In line with the commercial norms, as our contract period was coming to an end, the company released a tender for a subsequent period. Believing the client was happy with us, we submitted our competitive offer in line with what we had done during our last successful bid. When the tender was finalised, we were shocked to know that we had lost. When we asked the client company’s commercial team, we were informed that we had not complied with the technical terms of the bid. Going back to the drawing board, so to say, our analysis of the tender document revealed that there had been a small section requiring development and implementation of a Travel management Services (TMS in short) software as part of the client’s intranet, which we had not responded to.
Soon, we had the opportunity to bid against a tender released by the National Gas Company. We noticed that in this tender document too, there was a requirement of implementing a TMS software. This time we were careful enough to comply with the requirement by indicating our willingness to develop. But we again lost the tender! The winner was a competitor who already possessed a fully developed TMS module and had provided a live demonstration of the same to the client.
We had been disrupted. By a new technology, a new competitor, which together had disrupted our traditional business model. The world had shifted, the business need in the environment had changed and the earlier alignment of the latter with the competence set of our company had been lost.
A situation like the above can create a quandary for each one of us. Should we stretch our own competence and experience profile to paper over the gaps that exist because of the changed requirement? This usually is the easy and the quickest option, and thus gets chosen by most leaders and Managers. But the more sustainable and resilient pathway, a much tougher and thus rarely taken option, is to continually equip oneself with the needed competences so that the alignment between us and a world that is shifting, is not lost.
What I have frequently noticed is leadership folks, rather than confronting, resort to whining and complaining. Of how no one could have foreseen what happened, how they had planned and were equipped to handle what did not happen, and so on.
If we are not careful, we can end up in a downward spiral of negativity. I have seen leaders ending as black holes. With a huge gap between their original intention and final impact. This is largely because of a human psychology quirk. The more we talk of something we failed to do, the more important it becomes. As Noble Prize winner Daniel Kahneman said, ‘Nothing in life is as important as you think it is, while you are thinking about it’.
Ways to avoid the Black Hole:
Ask, “What can we do to resolve?” Wait for a positive response. We are conditioned to put effort once we commit.
Envision a future that was not going to happen anyway. Ask, “If things were going flawlessly, what would that look like?”
To get commitment from one’s team towards achieving a common objective is a Leadership fundamental.
Recently, I was anchoring a Management Development program (MDP) for Senior Managers of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation. The program was designed to endow the participants with Leadership and Performance skills. An experiential aspect of the program required each participant to articulate a Leadership and / or Performance challenge which he is presently facing at the workplace. This challenge would then become the central aspect of learning and application as the participant would be required to apply the various Leadership contextual elements to discover a ‘move forward’ pathway for resolving the challenge.
All the participants could identify such a challenge except one individual. Noticing that the person was looking lost, I asked him as to what the issue was. The response was surprising; the participant after some probing said that he could not think of any challenge at his workplace!
I though persevered and asked, “You surely would have faced some challenge at your workplace in the past, have you not?”
The participant still hesitated and with some reluctance started writing about a past challenge. To me it seemed the gentleman was fearful of recognizing and then committing about the situation at his workplace.
What is that which blocks many of us from recognizing an issue and then making a commitment to resolve it? Even when we might realize that the said commitment is something which works in our favour.
Commitment for many of us is like walking a tightrope. It carries with it the fear of failing, being ridiculed, getting our vulnerabilities exposed. Some of our past life experiences lead us to instinctively ‘avoid’ when it comes to making a commitment; we get conditioned to equate the latter to a danger of failing and losing our ‘status’.
When I think back about the participant and his reluctance to even identify a challenge, I can sense his avoidance mindset. In his mind, he would have been linking recognition of a workplace challenge to a commitment that he might need to make to resolve. If one avoids looking at an issue, one avoids getting involved. Like the protagonist Neo in the movie Matrix, one can cozily sleep walk in one’s make-believe world without the need to accept the harsh realities that exist.
So, what else could I have done to make it easy for that reluctant participant to identify and commit?
I could have tried to empathise about the stress he might have been feeling. I could have said, “Confronting your challenge must be stressful for you”. I could have made a commitment to him that I would work with him to ensure that his challenge is resolved.
***
At the work place, we often wonder, “How can I get my team to do what I want them to do?” Commitment cannot be force fitted and that paradoxically remains a leadership tool which can disempower. The answer is people do what THEY want to do. This remains at the core of how we could Invite effective commitment.
At the core of effective commitment:
Leadership which is unselfish; one which is willing to make unsolicited commitment to and investments in people.
Working from a perspective that commitment is a two-sided street.
Information sharing with all team members who have committed. Keeping information away weakens commitment.
Transparent and open-hearted conversations build connections which empowers two way commitments.
Moving on the commitment pathway addresses a deep-seated concern of each team member
Lasting goal achievement success requires commitment, not coercion.
As a leader, how might you establish shared commitments?
Have you ever wondered about all the things you do not want, all the things you avoid? These may be at your workplace. Or they may be in your personal life or relationships. Do you realise that all the things you do not want can actually support you to move forward in life?
In the second year of my post graduation, we had to choose elective courses to achieve a minimum number of credits. I remained in my comfort zone by choosing electives which I had the ability to do with minimum effort. I avoided taking on courses in the Computer Science domain (then in its infancy and consequently a ‘black box’ to me) which I figured would require a lot of learning and effort. Was it a mere avoidance mindset or a deeper fear of failure? Most of my batchmates who ‘took the jump’ and majored in Computer Science subsequently did very well in their careers. Fear of failure can help us succeed.
Fear of failure can help us succeed
An aspect we do not want is frustration. Frustration is really our reaction to stuff we do not like or cannot control. The ugly underbelly of frustration is that we tend to vent it on folks who may have nothing to do with it. These folks may be our spouse, family members or colleagues at work place. Frustration shows up as anger, impatience or both. I can recall a particularly difficult meeting with a client about a service failure in which they threatened to cancel our contract. It was a situation outside our control but my reaction had been to call the service team and vent my frustration on them. What I had done was to further spread the cycle of exhausting negativity without finding a solution. The section head though was a guy with a cool temperament; leaving the meeting he did what was needed to be done to retrieve the situation. Frustration can be a good thing if we channel it to move towards solution finding.
Frustration can be a good thing……
We do not want to do ‘heavy lifting’, we succumb to the temptation of doing theoretical stuff. In a previous project assignment, I interacted with two kinds of people. The first set were those who were smart, articulate, detested leaving office and had theoretical solutions for all operational issues. The second set were those who were low profile, operated in the field and were hands-on with the project. I found it comforting to hang out with the first set and opinionate about what was needed to be done or not done; true to the perception I held I avoided going out into the field. However, I soon found that grit, resilience and character developed only when I got down to ‘digging ditches’ in the field to circumvent failures, prevent time over-runs and ensure project completion. Resilience and Character wait on the other side of our disappointment and failure ditch.
Resilience & Character wait on the other side of our failure & disappointment ditch
In the hurry-scurry of our work life, we tend to develop revolving -door relationships. Relationships that we create to achieve quick business objectives and which tend to get jettisoned soon after. Such relationships may seem energizing, even meaningful in the moment, but really build a shallow work life. How many of these questions can you answer in the affirmative?
Do you take genuine care of the people who pull alongside you?
Do you invest time with your team and other stakeholders beyond work related stuff?
Do you serve those who serve you?
The deeper we nurture relationships, the more valuable they become.
The deeper we nurture relationships, the more valuable they become.
A way to grow one’s Leadership is through introspection. One needs to look back into one’s past and identify all that which contributed to one’s Leadership and performance development.
This may sound easy but it is not. As we move through work responsibilities and the corporate hierarchy, we tend to develop our own plethora of ‘what we believe made us succeed’ mechanisms consisting of inauthentic facades, assumptions and ‘need to impress the other guy’ behaviours. We also hone our survival instincts. So, when we do get down to ‘looking into our past’ and identifying all that which contributed to our development and growth, we tend to see stuff distorted by our facades, beliefs and impress the-other-guy behaviours.
The way to grow one’s leadership through introspection is to do the following practices.
Ask yourself, ‘Who were the people who changed you?’
When I thought about this question, I could identify two individuals.
The first was a senior colleague at the start of my career as an Assistant Mechanical Engineer in the Indian Railways. The quality that my colleague brought into our relationship was one of sunny optimism and a natural instinct to mentor without a self-serving mindset.
The second was my boss in Voltas Ltd, where I was handling HVAC projects. The quality that he brought into our relationship was one of down to earth openness and transparency.
I realise today that what allowed me to grow through the above relationships was to try and inculcate a non-self-serving mindset as also authenticity through openness and transparency.
Ask yourself, ‘What kind of people did you gravitate towards?’
When I thought about this question, I could again identify two individuals.
In my tenure in the Indian Railways, I had two workshop foremen report to me. The first was a kind of a ‘yes man’ guy. He made me at once comfortable through his unquestioning loyalty; he would do exactly what I asked him to. This was a great relationship for maintaining status quo about situations and other stuff.
The second was a guy who was a ‘shop floor rebel’. He would usually give a counter viewpoint to most stuff I would suggest, and at times speak uncomfortable truths based on his own past experience and arguments. I would often ‘see’ his approach as unwillingness to accept my authority or trying to prove me wrong. I would feel upset.
This did not seem to be the kind of relationship I would be comfortable with or gravitate towards at that point in time. But I realise today that the person who allowed me to grow was this ‘rebel’ guy as he shattered my comfort zone and forced me to look at uncomfortable possibilities.
So how might you grow your leadership in today’s disruptive world? How might you foster such growth in your team members?
Gain mastery about how to succeed in a business environment that is constantly changing and being disrupted. Do this free module:
A New Beginning 