At my house, I am a leader. More accurately, I am one half of a leadership team. I have 3 children, and I like to think they need my advice, direction, and all of the other things that go along with being a parent.  As I wrote that last sentence though, I realized this is why it’s a good thing I’m only one member of the leadership team in my house. Absent from my stream of consciousness right then were terms like tenderness, cuddling, and kissing boo-boos to make them better. It’s not that I don’t do those things (or enjoy doing them); it’s just that those are not what initially come to my mind when I think of how I lead the kids at home. Conversely, I’d wager that those terms would be at the top of their mom’s list. 

It is interesting to think of how differently our followers act depending on who seems to be in charge at the moment. With me, things are more pragmatic; if we have a task to do (whether it is putting together a race car track, picking up toys, or finishing homework), we focus on the task. When things need to be done, I prefer to just get them done. No need to talk about how much you like the task, or if you feel it’s fair – the task needs to be done, so let’s just do it.     

Conversely, when mom is in charge I hear a lot more back-and-forth about the tasks – “well my teacher said you can only get the answer if you do it this way” (it’s math – 2+2 is always 4), “I don’t want to pick up my toys” (they’re your toys), “why?” “Why?” “Whaa?” But when I am in charge, those types of behaviors don’t often occur.

Whether my kids have a preference for either of our leadership styles, I’m not sure. One is 13 and doesn’t seem to look too favorably on anything her parents say. The second is 2 and half, so our communication is not particularly deep or feedback rich and is sometimes limited to talks about the merits of Hot Wheels vs Matchbox, whether we like brown or yellow dogs better, and Dora the Explorer.  And last is our 1 year old; he doesn’t really talk, so unfortunately he just has to deal with things. I help him put together Mega Blocks, mom soothes the devastation brought on by literally spilled milk.

The point being, when something just needs to get done, I’m the man they go to. But when feelings get hurt, knees get skinned, or emotions are running high, everyone seems to clamor for mom’s attention.   

I think this may be analogous to why finding good leaders can be difficult. I fulfill one part of our followers needs – mom fulfils another. But our followers need both. 

In a work setting, discovering an individual who excels in all areas is rare; that is why good leaders can be hard to come by. As Dr. Robert Hogan pointed out in his blog Leadership is a Hygiene Factor, although a good leader may not be the most important aspect of unit performance, a bad one can certainly ruin things. I suppose that is why things at my house have not imploded yet – we have the benefit of spreading the needs of our followers across two people. My advice? Try not to alienate the kids too much – unit performance will suffer.

On January 13, 2012, the Costa Concordia luxury cruise liner passed approximately 150 meters off the island of Giglio, striking rocks that would tear a 50 meter gash in its hull. According to the ship’s operator, Costa Cruises, the captain of the ship, Francesco Schettino, made an unauthorized and unapproved maneuver, veering off his pre-approved route and bringing the ship dangerously close to shore. In his defense, Schettino says Costa Cruises ordered him to conduct such a maneuver and it was a common practice used to attract publicity and make passengers happy.

Whether the maneuver that caused the accident was approved or not, the actions of Captain Schettino have received plenty of criticism. It’s reported that Schettino has a history of taking risks and disobeying orders. He reportedly left Marseilles, France in bad weather, against company policy and coast guard orders. A former Costa Concordia captain who Schettino served under as first mate described him as “too high-spirited and a dare devil,” while officers who served under him at the time of the accident labeled him as risky, authoritarian, and inflexible. Transcripts of conversations between Captain Schettino and Coast Guard Captain Gregorio de Falco show a defiant Schettino as he failed to comply with orders to re-board and direct passenger and crew evacuation from aboard the Costa Concordia (a criminal act under Italian law). Instead, he claimed he would do so from a life raft with his 2nd in command (who happened to be in the same life raft Captain Schettino claimed he fell into after slipping from the ship).

There is also issue with the delay between the time the Costa Concordia made contact with the rocks and when a distress call and the order to abandon ship were declared. From most reports, a majority of the crew and passengers had no idea of the potential danger they were in. One can see videos of crew members telling passengers in life vests to return to their cabins – informing them the ship was only experiencing an electrical problem. Unfortunately, it appears even those who knew better declined to tell the whole truth; transcripts show that approximately 20-30 minutes after contact with the rocks, phone calls from the Costa Concordia to the local Coast Guard admitted the ship was experiencing electrical problems but failed to initially report the collision. Despite knowledge of contact with the rocks, and the fact the ship was taking on water and listing, it still was over an hour before the captain ordered everyone to abandon ship.

Whether he was confident he could handle the situation on his own, or frozen by fear at the outcome of his actions, Captain Schettino messed up. Accounts from those who have worked with him describe a man who enjoyed doing things his way, was willing to take risks, and had a “pronounced ego.” Audio of the conversations between Schettino and de Faclo show a man who seems to have panicked when his crew and passengers needed him most.  
Despite Schettino’s actions (and inactions), concerns have been raised about the practices of Costa Concordia’s operators, Costa Cruises. Since the accident, the terms “sail-by” and “salute” have become more common, and decidedly negative. During an interview with a Senate committee in Italy, Costa Cruises’s CEO, Pier Foschi, stated the company encourages its captains to bring ships close to shore, saying such actions were “in demand” and helped “enrich the product”; however, he noted the captain’s actions on January 13 were not authorized. Also, Mr. Foschi admitted the Costa Concordia conducted an authorized sail-by a few months earlier, but stressed the ship never came closer than 500 meters to the shore – GPS evidence shows the authorized trip actually brought the Costa Concordia even nearer to shore than the unauthorized January 13 route.

Many of the details surrounding this accident will emerge as the investigation continues. At this point, there are more questions than definitive answers. Was the sail-by actually approved/ordered as Captain Schettino claims? Why did Costa Cruises approve a similar route months earlier, but deny that their ship came as close as GPS evidence shows? Was it really happenstance that Captain Schettino fell and landed in a life boat with his 2nd in command during the evacuation? Answers to these questions will shed light on the actions and mistakes that resulted in the loss of at least 17 lives (15 people are still missing), damage to and the possible destruction of a $500 million ship, and additional costs from lawsuits, fines, penalties, and environmental damage that could approach $1 billion.

When facts have been separated from speculation we will know what truly happened on the Costa Concordia that night. However, in reference to Dan Paulk’s recent blog, we can be sure that many of the scales he outlined are applicable to this situation. By most accounts, Captain Schettino was confident to the point of arrogant, willing to take unnecessary risks, and defiant in the face of authority. Once the accident occurred, he clearly panicked. Expanding on Dan’s analysis, questions have also been raised about the leadership at Costa Cruises. Do they foster an environment which rewards risk taking? Are they trying to use Captain Schettino as a scapegoat for poor industry-wide practices?

This could be a prime example of what can happen when safety takes a back seat to profit and publicity. Unfortunately, as is often the case with safety-related accidents, the costs associated with the Costa Concordia will not only be measured in dollars but in lives.   

As I was flipping through the channels the other night, I noticed a pattern. Making my way up through the 100s of channels, I saw multiple shows featuring “clowns." These are not the kind of clowns you find at the circus or the kind of clowns that make you go, “haha,” but the kind of clowns that make you go, “meh” (or worse).

News shows, talk shows, reality shows...as I flipped through the channels, I was amazed to see people espousing ideas, behaviors, and attitudes that are generally reserved for the make-believe world of sitcoms and movie blockbusters. Their emotional outbursts, exaggerated smugness, and what can only be described as extremely poor attention-seeking strategies do attract viewers. We like to laugh at others. We like to feel an emotional charge now and then. We even like watching others make fools of themselves. And during my channel surfing, I sometimes find myself staring at the train wrecks too (several of my personal favorites come from MTV, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Sometimes the Glenn Becks, Chris Matthews, and Snookis of the world are entertaining. Not because they are intentionally funny, but because of the extreme, negative characteristics they display. I can’t imagine trying to get work done in an office space with someone who needs as much attention as Snooki or trying to reach anything resembling a compromise by Mr. Matthews. Even my ten-month-old son appears to display more emotional control than Mr. Beck. Although these people are fine in their roles, most would agree that having to interact with them day after day would take its toll (sometimes I can’t even bear it through a whole TV segment).

My personal opinions and facetiousness aside, some of these clowns’ behaviors are extreme examples of interaction styles we all encounter at work. Be it your Colorful boss, your Excitable co-worker, or your unbelievably Bold subordinate, you have met and worked with these people. Although passion, confidence, and social skills are desirable, taken to the extreme, these same characteristics will derail everyone sometime during their careers.

Luckily, we have the ability to measure individuals’ propensity to engage in these derailing behaviors. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) allows us to be cautious about whom we hire, or to be proactive in coaching individuals who are predisposed towards certain undesirable actions (like writing a blog the night before it’s due). Knowing what could go wrong can be just as important as knowing what could go right. Remember, the next time you have to make a human capital decision, you could be dealing with “The Situation.”