Читать книгу Physician Leadership - Karen J. Nichols - Страница 12

“Wait a minute! I thought we were going to learn about leadership! This chapter is about knowing yourself. What does that have to do with leadership?”

Yes, we are going to learn about physician leadership, AND you cannot be a leader if you do not know yourself. This is one of the most important points in the leadership journey.

“But I DO know myself, it's just those other people who don't make sense.”

I must admit I came to this topic with the same opinion as our novice leader. However, the truth was I did not really know very much about myself or how and why I looked at things the way I do. Let alone that there might be logical, well‐documented explanations for why others might look at the same things and see them differently than I do. Who knew? Certainly not me!

The further unspoken implication here is I am right and they are wrong. As a doctor, I didn't have any problem making that assumption.

Let me explain how I came face to face with the impact of different personality types and approaches. When I first became the dean of Midwestern University/Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine (MWU/CCOM), I knew I had a lot to learn. I did not get my degree from this college of osteopathic medicine (COM); I only knew one or two faculty at the COM and only knew them from medical meetings. I also had never been a dean and I had never worked full time at a COM, so even though I thought I knew what I was supposed to be doing, I was certainly aware that I might be VERY wrong.

I still remember sitting at my desk in my new dean's office about 10 a.m. on my first day, having looked through the two file drawers of papers left by my predecessor and thinking, “So now what do I do?” The idea of a “listening tour” was popular then, so I decided to try that approach. I asked my staff to book an hour appointment with each of the 15 department chairs. I laid out three or four questions to ask each one. They covered the usual concerns for anyone new in a supervisory capacity: What are the biggest issues facing your department and the COM? What should a new dean focus on first? I was ready!

Note: I later discovered The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter by Michael Watkins (2013), an excellent guide for conducting this same type of listening tour approach. It is well worth a look when tackling a new position.

What I learned from this listening tour certainly surprised me, but not for the reasons I expected. The answers were enlightening, helpful, and insightful. What I was not prepared for were the different styles and approaches of these people. I am going to describe each response and the type of interaction in the way I encountered these people and their approaches. Over time, I learned about personality classification systems and could go back and see that approach in each of these individuals. Suffice it to say, I just didn't get it at first. Stick with me and we'll circle back to examine each approach. Lest anyone try to identify each chair, I have combined some characteristics and comments to make the approach distinction more clear.

The first chair came in with a thick document of notes outlining the recent history of the COM, what worked, what did not, advice for the future, and cautions regarding other chairs. I never even got a chance to ask my questions, as the entire time was filled with the narrative provided. Talk about “outgoing”!

The next chair sat quietly while I introduced myself. As I asked each question, there was clearly significant thought going into preparing the answers. There were silence gaps in the conversation as I asked my question and the chair quietly sat there and considered the answer before speaking. The answers were well crafted and helpful. I also quickly learned that if I did not ask about a specific point, I didn't get spontaneous input regarding that point, or any others I hadn't thought to ask. So, I had to carefully explore the answers with follow‐up questions to be sure I got the full picture. A very quiet thoughtful person.

Statistics were the focus for the next chair. He had every spreadsheet, every data point, and every numerical detail of the topics of concern he wanted to discuss. He knew every board score for every discipline for every year, the annual average GPA by class, the trend for course and board pass rates, the match/placement percentage, every bit of numerical data that could be gleaned from the operation of the COM. A true numbers person.

The next chair started out with a story to illustrate the culture of this COM. He continued to regale me with stories about students, faculty, administrations, and especially about past deans! He knew which deans worked on campus on weekends and which ones left campus the minute the president's car drove away. I didn't get a chance to ask questions, as his stories went on and on. He certainly lived in narratives.

Another chair took a different tack. When I asked about the most difficult challenges facing the COM, he never got to the end of that answer. “X is an issue, Y is an issue, Z is an issue, but actually A, B, and C also cause a lot of challenges.” He kept comparing and contrasting a variety of possible answers until our time ran out. Sheesh!

A different approach from another chair appeared to me to be focused on the tortoise tactic for COM management: slow and steady wins the race. Stay the course! The COM is doing well; the COM has lots of applicants, the COM has a great reputation. Why change?

As I worked my way through the meetings with all the chairs, I was struck by how differently each one presented themselves and how differently they answered my questions, assuming I got the chance to ask my questions. Not only did I quickly realize that my concerns about having a lot to learn about the COM were accurate, I also came to appreciate that I had as much if not more to learn about how to work with these chairs.

Most had been at the COM for many years and in the chair role for quite some time, too. The COM had a stellar reputation to be sure, and all the chairs were dedicated to maintaining the excellence of the COM, so I didn't see any need to make immediate and drastic changes. And yet, they were so different from each other. How was I going to figure out how to work with them? Where to start? Now that I had a better understanding of the challenges, the question was how to proceed.

The further problem was that I didn't truly appreciate the variation of the approaches of these chairs, why they took the approaches they did, and what I should do to use those differences to the best advantage for the COM. My initial reaction was that I heard what they said, I understood their points, and I thought the fairest thing was to treat them all the same. Who could disagree with being uniform? Frankly, I was annoyed by the ones who had a different approach than the one I was used to or desired. But I was the dean! They would have to learn how to deal with me! How wrong I was!!

What I had to learn was, there is more to leadership than telling people what to do. Not only were there different personality and approach types, but I needed to learn what those types were, what did those different types bring to the table, and so on. And while I thought I knew my own style, that wasn't true, either. As a doctor in practice for 17 years, I really had never had to consider that there were different approaches. I had just decided what to do in my private practice and did it. It slowly began to occur to me that maybe I had been missing an important piece of why I had such difficulty in getting my hospital and organization committees to work efficiently. Maybe the other committee members were coming with as many different approaches as the new dean (me) found in her chairs. Who knew? Obviously, I had to learn something about personality types and approaches. Where was the roadmap when I needed it?

OK, let's be a little introspective here and start with the dean. The recommendation to “know yourself” is nothing new. The statement “The unexamined life is not worth living” is attributed to Socrates (Plato 399 BCE). I must admit that when I read that statement years ago, I did not really understand it. I interpreted that the admonition was to recommend that I engage in what is known as “navel gazing,” or considering who I am and what I am doing. The accurate and more helpful implication goes much further into understanding the basis for our multifaceted personalities.

Further, the importance of this topic has a long presence in the literature. This passage from Tao Te Ching, Chapter 33 by Lao‐Tzu called “The Taoist Classic” has been variously translated; this translation (Lao‐Tzu 2000) is my favorite.

 Knowing others is intelligence.

 Knowing yourself is true wisdom.

 Mastering others requires strength.

 Mastering yourself requires true power.

I also like this statement by Warren Bennis: “Becoming a leader is synonymous with becoming yourself. It is that simple. It is that difficult” (Bennis 2009, xxxvii). In my opinion, his statement is spot on, because “becoming yourself” has to be preceded by “knowing yourself.” Truly understanding yourself is difficult and very important. If you know how you approach and how you react to situations, it is easier to be comfortable with that reality so you can accept and become who you are.

“Ok! I get it! I'll give it a shot. Let's get started!”

There are several instruments to assess personality approaches and are referenced in the following resource section. The most longstanding and highly utilized personality assessment instrument is the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). The basic idea is that there are four personality characteristics that have dichotomous options. I/E (introvert/extrovert), N/S (intuitive/sensing), T/F (thinking/feeling), and J/P (judging/perceiving) (Myers‐Briggs and Myers 1980; Myers‐Briggs 1993). With four different letters in each of the dichotomous choices, there are 16 combinations. The most predictive of behavior is the middle pair. Therefore, most analysts look at the middle pair of letters together. There are abbreviated versions of the MBTI survey instrument online so you can get a taste of the concept. However, if you want to dive in, it is most helpful to get the full MBTI picture with the purchased and professionally assessed version, as each person's categorization of the four characteristics will fall along a continuum. For example, while I categorize as an extrovert, I am fairly close on the continuum to crossing the line that would then classify me as an introvert.

Please note that some will point out that the MBTI developed organically and was not based on our usual research protocols. I would agree that it is not wise to be slavishly dedicated to MBTI or any other rubric as a rigid and immutable classification. That does not diminish the point that people bring different approaches to discussions, issues, and problems, which need to be acknowledged and appreciated.

“OK, now I know my full type, but I don't know what type other people might be. How do I figure that out? It's not likely that everyone has done these assessments, and wouldn't it be prying to ask everyone what type they are anyway?”

Yes, so let's look back at the chairs I introduced earlier. The first chair bowled me over with intensity and eagerness to talk. Not being impolite, just being more of an (E) extrovert. The next chair seemed almost uninterested in the discussion, speaking only when spoken to and not volunteering unasked but applicable information. He was not disinterested or lacking in ideas, just demonstrating more of an introvert (I) approach.

Then came along the statistics‐focused chair (most likely ST) and then the stories/people‐focused (most likely NF) chair. Here were two very different emphases selected from the exact same shared experiences.

How about that chair who never seemed to settle on a final determination of what were the most significant issues for the COM? I have come to learn that is much more of a “P‐perceiving” approach as opposed to a “J‐judging” approach in the MBTI spectrum. As a strong J, I was always frustrated by the person who could not seem to pick an answer. After studying more about personality approaches, I came to see that the strong P was doing a more thorough job of bringing up some additional viable options in a situation, even better than I did.

So the most important thing is to know that there are other types, and when one approach employed by you isn't working, it is wise to consider what other people's personality types may be, how they are thinking, and how they might be perceiving what you are saying and how you are leading. While it is unwise to try to peg every person's type solely by their behavior, the point is to be aware that behavior likely has its roots in their natural personality type. Remember, it is not about the type as much as about the approach employed by the person. And I must also point out that most personality type systems are descriptive, not prescriptive. More about that later.

I had another enlightening experience with a team member who tests almost the exact opposite on the MBTI assessment scale. I type as ENFJ. He types as ISTJ. He and I worked together for years, and while we always approached a question from a different perspective and through a different set of lenses, we invariably would come to the same conclusion. Our different approaches helped us realize that we were affirming each other's decisions because of our different approaches to issues. Bottom line: having a diversity of types in the decision‐making processes strengthens an organization's function. That is a theme that is wise for all leaders to follow as we progress down the leadership road.

There is another lesson to be learned from my experience. Any type can work with any other type, as long as at least one of the persons is willing to consider and appreciate what the other person's type brings to the table. Being of the same type may seem comfortable as you understand each other's perspective, but if two people are thinking alike, why do you need both of them to participate? On the other hand, a person with the opposite typing of your dichotomous pairs can be viewed as annoying or can be valued for opening up different thoughts on a topic.

What I also came to learn was that depending on the power structure in the room, some people modified their approach, at least for a while. Most seasoned people can modify their behavior and not participate “true to type,” based on the setting and what is at stake. I also experienced this shift from a different perspective. As a new dean, I was very uncomfortable when interacting with all the much more experienced deans and administrators. When I completed my first MBTI assessment in that environment, I typed as strongly introverted. Repeated assessments in later years showed that I type as an extrovert.

Why the shift? I realize now that I was modifying my approach, even unconsciously, curtailing my naturally outgoing personality due to feeling so inexperienced. I got over that!

The other important point to remember is that regardless of how well modulated and modified the seasoned leader and team member might be, when put under extreme stress and pressure with high stakes, it is the rare individual who does NOT revert to their original type. So, watch out when you really put the pressure on, as you may find some different and less‐effective approaches/responses and perspectives start to pop up from the group members. And from you! The rocky patch of road in leadership can shake a leader to the core if you don't have a good set of shock absorbers.

There is another interesting point about different personality types and approaches. You know what annoys you about other personality types and approaches? Be careful, as the things that annoy you may be reflecting aspects of your own personality and approach. A wise person once said that others are mirrors of you. You will see what you love or hate in yourself, in the behavior of others. Which is why it is often not solving your problem to move from one work setting to another. “There” is no better than “here,” especially when I must bring myself and all my quirks and foibles with me from “there” to “here.” Sometimes the lack of a leadership roadmap results in the novice leader going in circles! Think about it.

I am recommending that you consider taking the MBTI and also the DiSC assessments listed in the Resources at the end of this chapter, as they are the most well studied in leadership settings. As you are aware that there are different types, you will benefit from spending a little time perusing the literature that explains how each type likes to function; what are the best leadership approaches to work with each type, especially based on your type; what kind of culture the leader's type creates; and what kind of culture develops in response to the predominant type in the team. Even if you don't have time to take the assessments, remember what Yogi Berra supposedly said: “You can observe a lot by just watching.”

Anais Nin is credited with saying: “We don't see things as THEY are, we see things as WE are!”

Steven Covey (2004) made a similar point: “The way we see the problem IS the problem.” And yes, it can be hard to work with people who see the world differently from how you see it. It can also be an excellent learning opportunity. More on these points in Perspectives, Chapter 4.

NOW! Quit guessing what type you are and take either the short version or the fully analyzed versions of these most common assessment tools.