William Elliott

'Bigote' by Daniel Lobo

Ever had to work with –or for– someone you didn’t respect?

What was that relationship like? Do you think you were able to keep that lack-of-respect from coming across?

You don’t have to skip to the end for the answer sheet, or turn this post upside down, the answers are: YES, BAD and NO.

Every organization needs to implement change on a regular basis, and the biggest roadblock to this change is a lack of respect.

I recently weighed in on the mutiny at the RCMP via this blog and a letter to the editor. Unfortunately, my ultimate conclusion on the solution got lost in my overselling of the motivation of the revolt: a play for the top job. A discussion initiated on my personal blog led me to realize what is more likely the root cause of this conflict: a perceived –and potentially prevailing– lack of respect.

Some ideas on where this lack of respect originated:

It is no surprise that Mr. Elliott has faces opposition from the start. He came in as a ‘fixer’ in 2007 when past commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli left the force rocked by scandal and in crisis, and nobody likes to be ‘fixed’. The RCMP has a strong identity, much of it deservedly positive, but this also gives it a strong immune system when it comes to change. I’ve seen a new ‘outside’ CEO come in to a large organization in crisis (Nortel), and the strong reaction that it will illicit from those that want to protect the status quo. – Me

Mr. Elliot has done precious little to alleviate the daily burden of the officers who patrol the streets and try to keep a lid on criminal activity. His appearance at a northern RCMP office in Alberta and his disdain for questions and sincere explanations was so evident, the ranking officers were embarrassed at his display of condescension and rudeness. – “getsomereality” @ SfaUT

To summarize each of these, I would say the RCMP was pre-disposed to question Elliott’s ability and motivation to lead the force (they likely don’t trust or respect him), and you can see in ‘getsome’s comment above that the feeling generated by the Alberta meeting is getting passed along, and the conclusion is ‘Bill doesn’t respect the RCMP‘.

And when it comes to feelings, fact is irrelevant… you can’t argue feelings.

What happens when respect is lost?

Think about a time where you thought someone didn’t respect you. In this situation, did you feel open to constructive criticism, or did you focus your energy on defending yourself? The fact is, justifying yourself is an instinctive reaction to the feeling of disrespect. Spending energy justifying yourself is the antithesis of change.

You will notice that in most situations where a private company brings in an external CEO, it is expected that he/she will bring in some of “their people”. Some may view this as cronyism, but it actually has a lot to do with respect. The new CEO wants to have some of their senior deputies that can hit the ground running, without a lot of one-on-one attention. For those that are retained from the old structure, much energy must be spent going through the usual “Forming – Storming – Norming” before you can get on to “Performing”. During the ‘Storming’, there is a lot of opportunity for respect to be lost, and even more-so when ALL the C-levels aside from the new boss are from the old structure, each requiring this one-on-one attention.

This was certainly the case for the RCMP, where William Elliott was made the new ‘CEO’ but had to retain all of the old C-levels (those reporting to the CEO).

Loss of respect during the ‘storming’ phase is very damaging, as respect is easy to lose, and hard to regain.

So to summarize what may have contributed to an overall lack of respect at the RCMP:

Organization is told that it needs to be fixed (Message: RCMP is incompetent)
RCMP has a strong tradition-based culture (Effect: Attempts to change the force can easily be interpreted as a lack of respect for it.)
New Commissioner (CEO) is put in place, whose background does not represent the tradition of the force (Message: We aren’t capable of fixing ourselves)
New commissioner is given a tight 2-year timeline to implement change (Effect: lets rush the ‘storming’ to get to ‘performing’, resulting in lots of hard feelings)
Commissioner does not bring in ‘his people’ (Effect: instead of being able to focus his change efforts on a subset of leaders while ‘his people’ execute, he has to do work them all at the same time. I can only imagine how hard this must be.)

How to regain respect?

A full treatment of this requires more detail than can be shared here, but I will share one suggestion that may help address a similar situation; while the structure is mine, the idea originates from an anecdote in the book Crucial Conversations, and concerned how to get management and union working together again after a prolonged acrimonious strike.

Identify members on each side of the conflict.
Put key members of each side into separate rooms supplied with a flip-chart or printable white-board.
Randomly select one room and inject poison gas.
Just kidding… ignore #3 skip to 5.
Give each team 20 minutes to write down what their goals for the organization are.
Assemble both sides in one room to review the conclusions of each team.
Identify areas of alignment between the sides.

Even though each side has been arguing, they will inevitably see that they have considerable overlap in their purpose. In the RCMP’s case, I would be very surprised if both sides didn’t want an effective police force that was respected by the public they serve. What this activity does is to start rebuilding respect by having both sides of the conflict realize that they have a common purpose, which is a crucial step to building trust and respect.

RCMP Mutineers: Be Careful What You Wish For

: Image via Wikipedia

I have been watching with interest the tenure of William Elliott, the first Commissioner of our Royal Canadian Mounted Police who was not a RCMP officer. I am not surprised at this recent mutiny (that is what it is) but not because of anything to do with Mr. Elliott’s management style.

The Allegations

First, some perspective on the allegations against him: One of the biggest complaints is that Mr. Elliott is a petulant –some say passionate– boss, prone to outbursts and paper-throwing (unsubstantiated). It seems to me that the typical beat cop is subjected to more petulance from the public, or even risk of physical harm on a daily basis, than anyone sitting in a board room. You’d hope that the veteran officers reporting to Mr. Elliott were made of sterner stuff, and able to deal with petulance! This is why I think this is an excuse, not the real reason they want Mr. Elliott out.

The second allegation suggests –more subtly– that Mr. Elliott isn’t capable to lead the force. Much has been made of him being a career bureaucrat, not a police officer. If we extend this logic, we would argue that iTunes dominance of the music business now means Steve Jobs shouldn’t lead Apple because he doesn’t have the requisite experience in the music business. Closer to home, do we suggest a veteran officer can’t lead the RCMP if they haven’t had experience in special weapons and tactics (SWAT), counter-fraud and forgery, musical ride, or any other one of the specialized functions in the RCMP? Top executives need to have the skill to learn what is important, and fast! A career RCMP officer may be good for morale, but the person that leads the RCMP needs to be a skilled bureaucrat first and foremost. Supporting this observation is the fact that the RCMP hasn’t fallen apart with Mr. Elliott in the top seat, and seems to be doing a better job keeping out of trouble (if you really are stuck on credentials, it is also worth pointing out that the RCMP enforces the laws of the country, and Mr. Elliott IS a lawyer).

Is the real reason for the mutiny that someone is tired of waiting for their shot at the top job? This seems to me the most plausible explanation. [Note: Based on more dialogue with interested parties, I have revised this theory, but following comments regarding the likely outcome stand. -ed.]

Mutinies Don’t End Well

Leadership change via mutiny doesn’t lead to desired results for anyone involved. Mr. Elliott’s job either becomes more challenging if he stays, or he loses it entirely. However this plays out, the RCMP further establishes its reputation as an organization that is stuck in its ways.

And then there is what happens to the new person if they succeed in their coup d’état: you still have all the same problems, but now you have nowhere to hide. After a 2-3 month grace period, employees will start wondering why nothing has improved with the change in command. While Mr. Elliott provided a convenient scapegoat for all the new requirements placed upon the force, the new Commissioner will see that the pressures that motivated Mr. Elliott are still present and now the buck stops with them. They will also have helped foster a new culture where mutiny is a valid means to affect change at the top, and even more organizational energy will be spent on politicking that before.

What To Do?

It is no surprise that Mr. Elliott has faces opposition from the start. He came in as a ‘fixer’ in 2007 when past commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli left the force rocked by scandal and in crisis, and nobody likes to be ‘fixed’. The RCMP has a strong identity, much of it deservedly positive, but this also gives it a strong immune system when it comes to change. I’ve seen a new ‘outside’ CEO come in to a large organization in crisis (Nortel), and the strong reaction that it will illicit from those that want to protect the status quo.

Mutineers have to recognize this, and decide where their true motives lie. Are they really trying to make the RCMP a more effective organization, or are they trying to promote themselves? Those that can see the latter motivating their behaviour should remember the oath they took, and realize that their job is to help protect citizens, not promote their careers (maybe consider a job in the private sector).

Those that truly believe that changes Mr. Elliott is directing are going to harm the RCMP’s ability to protect citizens and enforce the laws of the land, need to make this very clear. The timing is perfect for them to give Mr. Elliott their support and explain where they see lines being crossed. By doing so, they can avoid a mutiny that will hurt the RCMP, and help create a more effective organization.