A Passion for Leadership Read Online Free PDF Page B

to one side waiting for him to fail. The conquering hero (or hostile-takeover approach) is, in my view, all wrong. I learned this firsthand when I took this approach in one of my first senior jobs at the CIA, as I will describe later.
    Before issuing a single directive or making a single decision, a leader should talk to people at every level of her organization, from the front office to the mail room. Career employees often have startlingly insightful views about the strengths and weaknesses of their organization, which of course they know well; as a result, they often have well-informed ideas for practical ways to improve it. If appropriate to her position, the new leader should talk to stakeholders, governing boards, directors, retirees, alumni, legislators, other elected officials, and, critically, the “customers.” She should ask all of them about the organization’s strengths and weaknesses and what they think the priorities for change should be.
    Most of those the leader engages will have their pet peeves or projects, their axes to grind, or their own agendas. That’s okay. Taken together, these conversations will make her far more knowledgeable about the organization, with a richer understanding of the dynamics and culture of the place. Getting out of the office and listening to employees on their turf allows the leader to learn much more than enduring countless PowerPoint presentations in her conference room and will help inform her agenda for change—her vision. Even if she is an insider promoted to leadership, she will learn a lot from people who will talk to her differently now that she is the boss.
    If a leader listens during her first days or weeks—as I did as both CIA director and president of Texas A&M—she also will gain insight about the team she has inherited and the health of the organization itself.
    Through listening, the leader will quickly learn who is willing to be candid with her about problems and shortcomings (including who cynically trashes colleagues and who does not). She will likely be able to spot early on those self-promoters who are suck-ups and untrustworthy. In her “listening tour,” she will be able to make some preliminary assessments of who will be her allies in the effort to bring change and who will not. (A wise leader will not lock herself too firmly into these early judgments about people: there will be surprises along the way.)
    Listening before making decisions on the agenda for change has another significant benefit. It will allow the leader to put early points on the board in the eyes of the employees by sending the important message that their opinions matter, that she values candor, that she doesn’t pretend to have all the answers, and that she didn’t arrive with her mind completely made up or closed. But she mustn’t let the initial listening tour go on too long. That risks conveying the sense that she doesn’t have a clue about what to do, is simply a blank page waiting to be imprinted by the career folks, or is indecisive.
    A new leader should make clear from the outset that she intends to establish goals early. She should seek out reactions to her own ideas and working agenda. In short, she should communicate clearly that she has ideas and is prepared to act decisively but wants to test those ideas with those who will actually be responsible for implementation—and also get their advice, suggestions, and criticism.
    Whenever someone persuades the new woman in charge to alter her thinking or change her mind, she should make a point of saying so publicly, naming names. She may well convert the skeptic who challenged her into an ally, and she will reinforce the message that candor is truly welcome, has impact, and is career enhancing, not career destroying.
    It is especially important in the public sector for the leader to establish goals early because she has no idea how long she or her principal lieutenants will have to implement their vision. As I’ve