rotmanmagazine.ca / 129“So You Think You Can Innovate,” Rotman Management,
Winter 2016], so I will just briefly summarize the three di-
mensions:
CHARACTER, which affects the connection people feel with
the leader and includes a leader’s authenticity, integrity,
concern for others, restraint and humility;
SUBSTANCE, which affects credibility, includes a leader’s
practical wisdom, confidence or bias for action, composure
under pressure, resonance and vision; and
STYLE, or the approach to execution, includes a leader’s ap-
pearance and readiness, intentionality in aligning actions,
inclusion of others in decisions, the quality and quantity of
interactivity, and assertiveness in managing conflicts.
When executives develop fluency in all three dimensions,
they distinguish themselves as leaders rather than manag-
ers and are able to help organizations capitalize on new op-
portunities.
Coaching a leader usually begins with providing feed-
back, often from interviews, but even more powerfully
when it includes a quantitative 360 assessment. Frequently,
the feedback received includes areas where a leader tends
to react impulsively. Helping that leader gain awareness
of what triggers these reactions is an important first step
to gaining greater control and demonstrating restraint and
composure.
In Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman de-
scribes two thought processes of the human mind: System 1
thinking is quick and reactive, and involves little conscious
thought. It is useful, especially in routine situations, but is
prone to error and biases. System 2 thinking is also respon-
sive to the situation, but is much more measured. It comes
into play when we are learning to do something or when
we are being more deliberate. For example, experienced
drivers in North America use System 1 thinking most of the
time, but would likely revert to System 2 when driving in the
UK for the first time.
In coaching leaders, we always explore, In which situ-
ations will they be most prone to reacting unproductively?
Ironically, some of the triggers leaders have develop as a
result of having an ‘over-strength’ — or too much of a good
thing. For instance, high levels of professional competence,
particularly in technical areas, and a strong commitment to
one’s chosen discipline can result in an individual treating
their expertise in much the same way as they treat their val-
ues: Questioning their professional conclusions feels tanta-
mount to questioning their integrity. In these situations, lead-
ers often react defensively and may dig in and stall progress.
In our assessment work with the ExPI, we have seen
this reflected in relatively low correlations between Integri-
ty (actions consistent with principles) and Confidence (bias
for action).
The System 1 reactive process is similar to the Ladder
of Inference model by Chris Argyris, which describes how
feedback loops from our ‘noble certainties’ can cause us to
behave reactively. As with all biases, awareness of the dy-
namic is the first step in slowing down the process, shifting
from System 1 to System 2 thinking, and becoming reflective
rather than reflexive to situations.
In Cal’s case, his identity is inextricably linked to his
deep technical knowledge. His encyclopedic command of
the intricacies of science and drug development compels
him take a stand on matters across the organization—in-
cluding areas outside of his discipline. His strong sense of
his own superior expertise has become such a fundamental
part of his self-perception that any disagreements with his
point of view are experienced as personal affronts, and he
reacts bitterly.
In coaching Cal, we worked on developing his aware-
ness of how questions about his opinions act as triggers
to his negative reactions. With increased self awareness,
Cal was able to recognize situations where he was get-
ting triggered and, with practice, to slow down and re-
spond intentionally rather than reacting impulsively. The
result: Others noticed his improved ability to temper his
responses, and his colleagues became more open to work-
ing with him.
Our assessment of leaders across the 15 facets of the
ExPI entails measuring 90 specific behaviours. Looking at
data from thousands of assessments over the past couple
of years, we have been able to isolate and compare two co-
horts of leaders: Those who are highly trusted and those
who are not trusted. Comparing these cohorts, we found a
statistically-significant difference: Highly-trusted leaders
outperformed untrusted leaders in 86 of the 90 behaviours
on the ExPI.
Clearly, trust is foundational to a leader’s ability to in-
fluence, and each of the 15 facets contribute to building it.
Trust comes in the following two forms:1.RELATIONAL TRUST. Some experiences of trust are almost
visceral or automatic. They involve a strong sense of
connection or relationship with the other person. This
‘relational trust’ operates through System One: We pick
up on initial cues in an interaction and consider some-
one trustworthy. Relational trust is about interpersonal
connection and is affected by behavioural biases such
as representativeness (per Kahneman and Tversky),
whereby we experience someone as having qualities