Ten characteristics of natural leaders
Leadership exists on a continuum from managing self to managing others to managing the organization. Natural leadership does not mean that you either have it or you don't. It does mean that you are willing to assess your style and behavior, and that you are willing to learn and grow.
1. The only person you can change is yourself.
Self-management comes before managing others or managing an organization. Understanding the impact of your behavior is crucial to leadership.
2. You must feel comfortable being in a leadership role.
Leadership calls for authenticity. If you are not comfortable with the role, others will sense it and withhold the full measure of whatever it is they have to contribute.
3. Being a natural leader involves being able to adjust your style to the skill level and commitment of others in any given situation.
Reading the people/task mix requires skill, flexibility and intuition.
4. Natural leaders develop other leaders
Leaders of today must share skills, insight and power to bring along others who have the potential to lead. This includes giving others the opportunity to lead. Someone once said that leadership is like manure. Left in a pile it starts to smell really bad and does no good. Spread around evenly it promotes growth and doesn't smell bad at all.
5. As a leader, you must make sure information flows freely in all directions.
The culture must be such that withholding information to strengthen one's own power or for any reason is absolutely not tolerated.
6. Leaders have to be accessible.
You have to create a culture in which people feel they can tell you the bad news as well as the good news. You cannot isolate yourself or let others isolate you.
7. Leadership in modern organizations means sometimes fading into the background . . . when it is natural to do so.
You do not have to plan every tactic or lead every charge. Hire good people who can articulate your vision as well as you can (maybe even better) and then let them do it.
8. Leaders need to provide support.
Become a sponsor for someone else's idea or project. Make sure you provide the resources and structure others need to succeed.
9. Leaders must create a culture that encourages risk and tolerates mistakes.
In these times, playing it safe in business is the riskiest strategy.
10. Leadership skills can be developed.
Natural does not mean born with. Leadership skills can be learned and this learning circles back to self-management.
Food For Thought
The biggest obstacle standing between you and anything you want, is your lack of belief that you can have it. Once you truly believe it is possible, once you can see yourself doing it or being it or having it, the rest is just details. With belief, plus the commitment to follow through and do whatever it takes, anything can be yours.
Everything you need to get there is available to you, when you believe and when you commit to getting there. Know that you can do it. Nothing can hold you back once you have belief and commitment. You will find a way. You can. Do it.
Pleasure is a matter of conditioning. A teenager smoking her first cigarette doesn't enjoy it at all. She's almost certainly doing it to "fit in" and it probably even makes her a little sick. After a while, though, she likes it so much she finds it hard to quit.
Strategy for achieving your success: Choose the pleasures that move you toward your goals.
For example, there is just as much potential for pleasure in jogging 2 miles as there is in eating a bag of potato chips. The person who is trying to get in top physical shape would be well advised to find his pleasure in the jogging rather than the chips. Just like everything else in your world, your pleasures are under your control. Use them to your advantage.
What is it that you truly want to do? You can do it. Realize that you are as capable as any person. See yourself doing it. Touch it. Hear it. Taste it. Walk inside of it. Drive around in it. Believe in it and believe that it is yours.
http://www.belgotec.com/sb-tips/tips76.htm
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Leadership From the Inside Out
May 27, 2010, 7:59 PM ET
Leadership From the Inside Out — Part I
By Gary Hamel
In a pair of recent posts (Part I, Part II) I argued that many of us have lost our faith in large institutions. We increasingly feel ill-used by our employers and ill-served by our elected representatives. More troubling still, many of us have also lost faith in faith-based organizations. In this regard, the Church of England (CoE) stands as Exhibit A. Founded 476 years ago when King Henry VIII broke with papal authority, the Church of England has in recent years been fractured by a contentious dispute over the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy. As thorny as that issue may be, it is not the most vexing problem facing the “mother church” of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Today, less than 3% of the British population attends a Church of England service in a typical month—this according to a recent CoE report. That’s down by nearly 50% from 1968. A survey by Tearfund, a Christian charity, found that a third of Britain’s population is now “de-churched.” These are former parishioners who no longer attend weekly services. The fact that more than 50% of UK residents still describe themselves as Christians makes the decline of Britain’s “established” church all the more perplexing. As one website put it, “If the Church of England was the national football team, we would have sacked the manager long ago.”
The fact is, the Church of England has become irrelevant to most British citizens. At this point I should declare a personal interest. During the ten years I lived in the UK, I frequently attended an Anglican church just outside of London. I enjoyed the energetic singing and the thoughtful homilies. And yet, I found it easy to be a pew warmer, a consumer, a back row critic. After all, the only thing the vicar seemed to want from me was a kind heart and a generous hand. Like the other congregants, I was asked to donate time and money to the church’s programs—and that was it. None of the clergy seemed eager for me, or others, to actually take the initiative and start something. I was never challenged to lead—only to “serve.” If it sounds like I’m justifying my indolence, I am—but it’s hard to get excited when there’s little scope for initiative, or when the categories of contribution have already been defined by others. Though inclined to faith, I struggled to find my niche in a top-down, pulpit-led model of “church”—and still do. In this regard I’m not alone—well, not if the experience of Drew Williams is anything to go by.
I met Drew last autumn, 15 years after I’d moved back to the U.S. Drew, I learned, had recently made his own transatlantic move—to take up the role of senior pastor at a church in Greenwich, Conn. Ten years earlier, he had also changed careers. Trained as a corporate litigator, Drew practiced law for ten years before deciding to pursue a “higher calling.” After finishing his theological training in Bristol, he was appointed assistant vicar of an Anglican congregation 25 miles northwest of London, in Chorleywood, England.
Drew e-mailed me after hearing a talk I had given on “management innovation.” During my exposition I argued that organizations should be built around “communities of passion.” Apparently Drew agreed. In his note he told me, “I wanted to jump up and clap when you made that point, but since I’m English, I didn’t.” When we finally connected by phone, I learned that Drew had helped pioneer a radical new “management model” during his tenure at St. Andrews—one that was led from the pews rather than from the pulpit, one that fit programs to people, rather than the other way around. Wow, I thought, there’s something to learn here. Maybe there really is a way to reconnect individuals and institutions.
When Drew arrived at St. Andrews in 2003 as assistant vicar, he joined a church that had 500 members, a full roster of programs and a top-notch worship service—a church that was, by UK standards, large and successful.
Problem was, as Drew put it, St. Andrews had a back door that was bigger than its front door. Each year enrollment was shrinking by about 10%. Drew was bothered by what he saw as a “come to us” model of church—where the worship service and the physical building were the center points—both physically and spiritually—of the church’s mission.
“There was a lot of excellence in worship,” recalls Drew, “but we were pretty weak at making disciples. People would look at those leading from the front and say, ‘What could I possibly offer here? Everything is done so professionally.’ We had a congregation that saw themselves as an audience.”
St Andrews’ vicar, Mark Stibbe, was also troubled by this reality, and asked Drew to take charge of developing a new church strategy. Believing that the real mission of St. Andrews was to bring hope to those outside of the building and beyond the congregation, Drew started to think about how he might build a “go-to-them” church—one that would encourage the spiritual growth of its members while multiplying their impact in the community around them.
As he struggled with this challenge, Drew was hit with another realization. While St. Andrews had small groups (typically 3-4 believers who’d meet during the week to chat and pray), and a really big group (the entire congregation), it had no mid-sized groups—nothing that was the equivalent of an extended family—more than three but less than fifty. This struck Drew as odd since the early Christian church had been built around communities of just this size.
So Drew went out searching for some in-between models of church—and found one in Sheffield, England. There, Mike Breen, the vicar of St Thomas Crookes, had been experimenting with programs built around “mid-sized” groups of 20-50 members. Intrigued, Drew drove up to Sheffield and spent several hours interviewing Mike about his novel approach. During that conversation, Mike planted the seeds for what would become a bold experiment at St. Andrews.
Drew saw several advantages to organizing around medium-sized groups—what he would later call “Mission-shaped Communities” or MSCs.
First, they would be more open and inviting than the small groups. Over time the small groups tended to become cliquish. Often, when Drew tried to help a new member connect with a small group, he’d be told that the group was full, or be asked whether the newcomer was “needy.” A mid-sized group was big enough that a newcomer wouldn’t stand out, yet small enough so he or she wouldn’t get lost.
Second, there’d be a lot more room for members to exercise their leadership gifts in intermediate-sized groups. A group of three or four wasn’t really big enough to tackle significant projects—and thus wasn’t very good at exploiting the leadership talents of its members. On the other hand, few lay members were eager to volunteer for large-scale, church-wide projects.
And third, Drew hoped the MSCs would strengthen the social fabric of the church by creating new opportunities for members to interact with one another.
Despite these potential advantages, Drew had doubts—and faced some tough, practical questions . . .
How, exactly, could he transform passive followers into active leaders? Was this even possible? How could St. Andrews exploit the power of self-organizing communities without creating a bunch of cliques and factions? Where would the cohesion come from? What role would he and Mark need to play in supporting this new strategy? Could they actually “lead,” if they weren’t leading from the front—and if so, how?
With just a month to go before he had to stand in front of the congregation and outline his strategy, Drew knew he needed answers to these questions—and fast.
So, dear reader, what advice would you give to Drew? What have you learned about turning followers into leaders—and then leading the leaders? And is it possible to dis-integrate an organization without fragmenting it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2010, 5:19 PM ET
Leadership from the Inside Out — Part II
In my previous post, I introduced you to Drew Williams. For seven years Drew served as assistant vicar at St. Andrews, an Anglican parish in Chorleywood, England. When he arrived in 2003, Drew found a church that was big but not growing, and a congregation that was loyal but not energized. Mark Stibbe, head vicar at St. Andrews, challenged Drew to develop a plan that would change this.
On a blustery November night, just a few short months after taking up his post, Drew stood in front of a nearly-full church and presented his strategy. Those hoping for a grand vision were disappointed. Instead, Drew pointed back to the early church. In the first few centuries after Christ, the church had been organized around small, local communities. Drew noted that those early believers had typically met in the biggest house they could find, and when they ran out of room, would subdivide and form a new community.
Drew admitted he didn’t have a precise plan for how to put his idea into practice, but he asked everyone present to think about the kind of difference they thought they could make if they were part of a more intimate community. He challenged his parishioners: What’s your passion? What service-oriented program would you want to start or join if you had the chance?
At the end of his talk, Drew announced that he’d hold a follow-up session a month hence, on December 6. He invited anyone who thought they might be willing to lead an “MSC” – or “mission-shaped community” — team to come along. In his heart, Drew was hoping 12 volunteer leaders would show up, and four weeks later, that’s exactly the number that did.
Some of those who came had a passion for children, others were eager to help the disabled, or the elderly. Drew encouraged his newbie leaders to start talking to others in the congregation, to start recruiting other volunteers and laying out plans, but provided very little direction. When a lay leader would ask him, “How often should we meet?,” Drew would say, “I don’t know, why don’t you pray about that.” When someone would ask, “Where should we meet?,” or “What should our strategy be?,“ he’d give the same answer: “Just pray about it.” Again and again, Drew pushed the responsibility for making the new model work back onto the parishioners—and (Drew believed) onto God.
Drew was clear about one thing, though—every group had to have a purpose that went beyond merely meeting up. Each week Drew met with all of the nascent teams, praying for them and encouraging them to take risks and fail forward.
The first MSC got up and running in January. It brought together a group of members who lived in Watford, a large town near Chorleywood. The group met in a home to hash out their mission, and soon realized that a gaggle of children were playing football in a park across the road. Parents were standing around the frozen pitch, cheering on their kids. Standing on the sidelines were a few dozen younger siblings, obviously cold and bored. Maybe, someone ventured, we could run a club for the all the kids who come out each week and don’t get the chance to play. That plan was rapidly turned into action. Word spread, and soon the freshly-hatched MSC was being asked to run an after-class club at a nearby school. At every stage the MSC members were upfront about their intentions. “We’re going to talk about Jesus, is that OK?” Virtually all of the parents said “yes.”
Another MSC formed up to help people coming out of night clubs at 4 in the morning, when many were a bit worse for wear. Team members would offer the bleary-eyed revelers a cup of coffee or a ride home.
One MSC bought a double-decker bus and turned it into a mobile coffee bar. They’d park the bus in a disadvantaged neighborhood and invite folks in to sip a warm latte in convivial surroundings.
Video was key to making these early successes viral. Drew would film the MSCs at work, play the videos at church on Sunday, and encourage other parishioners to get involved.
In addition to their community work, MSC members were encouraged to gather at least once a week outside of church to worship and plan. In setting up their worship space, most groups arranged their chairs in church-like rows. When they did so, Drew would remind them, “You don’t have to do it this way. You can ‘do church’ however you like.”
Drew’s mantra, borrowed from Mike Breen, was “low control, high accountability.” Every team was free to set its own mission, but members knew the whole church was expecting them to do something that would make a noticeable difference in the lives of others. One rule, though, was sacrosanct: once an MSC grew to fifty members it had to subdivide.
Initially, the MSC project had no budget. Drew says that’s part of the reason the program didn’t run into a wall of resistance—he wasn’t pulling resources out of other programs.
For the most part, the MSCs raised their own money—though eventually they were able to draw on church funds for minor operational expenses like renting a hall. At one point, Drew was supporting 30 MSCs on an annual budget of £30,000 (about $45,000).
Despite those early successes, Mark and Drew believed even bigger things were possible. Even as the MSC program was taking off, they were praying that God would put some dynamite under their church—to shake off the last cobwebs of complacency.
The TNT came in the form a major refurbishment that would close the church for 9 months. Rather than find an alternate space, Mark and Drew told the congregation that if they wanted to continue worshipping together they’d have to hook up with an MSC, if they weren’t already part of one. Dissenters warned Drew that this move might slim the church rolls by as many as 200 members. But over the next 9 months, St. Andrews grew from 500 members to nearly 1,000—as fence-sitting parishioners and got infected by the MSC virus.
There were other doubters who worried that giving would go down. When meeting outside the church, MSC leaders weren’t keen to take up an offering. So instead, the church set up a program that allowed members to set up a standing order for a weekly direct debit—funds would be drawn from the member’s bank account and deposited in the church’s coffers.
There was one fact, however, that no one could argue with. The new, community-based approach to church was getting folks off the sidelines and into the game. It was also unleashing a ton of latent leadership talent. Here’s how one MSC leader, a woman who was profoundly deaf, described her role:
I can honestly say that leading an MSC for the last eight months has been the hardest and most challenging thing I have ever done – parenthood aside. In running the MSC I have discovered a lot of things about myself. Some I knew already and others are fresh revelations. I am not a brilliant administrator, neither am I a preacher. I don’t think I am a worship leader or a kids ministry leader but I have had to do all these things and more at some stage or another and I discovered that I can passably lead prayers, make OK coffee, improvise a kids session, preach if necessary, [and] impart difficult decisions.
Once the church re-opened, Mark and Drew realized St. Andrews had now grown too big for its building. For their part, many of the MSC members had secretly hoped that the renovation work would never be completed, since they were enjoying the adventure actually doing something, rather than being “nailed to a pew.” By this point, most MSC teams were meeting twice a month for worship and at other times to carry out their mission work. When team leaders asked Drew, “Do we really have to come back to church?,” he told them, “Pray about it and do whatever you feel led to do.” Everyone, though, was encouraged to show up on the fourth Sunday of each month for a time of “celebration.” To accommodate the entire congregation, the service was repeated four times during the day.
Turns out, there’s a month each quarter that contains five Sundays, and these, too, became occasions for church-wide meet-ups. Typically, the format was conference-like, with guest speakers and presentations focused on the practical challenges of doing good in the world. Church services are held at St. Andrews on other Sundays, but there’s no expectation that everyone will attend. Whatever the agenda, though, MSCs leaders are always welcome to stand up and pitch their project.
While the MSCs multiplied opportunities for leadership and service, there were those who feared the new model might undermine the unity of the church as a whole. There was a risk that as members became more tightly knit together within their teams, they might also become less connected to the larger congregation. Mark and Drew wanted communities, not splinters.
A weekly newsletter was one of way connecting members. Each week Drew sent out a note updating MSC leaders and asking for prayer requests. Periodically he also brought all the leaders together to set priorities and identify new opportunities. Over time, many of the MSCs set up their own websites and this became another mechanism for keeping people informed.
Other common touch-points included a church-wide teaching guide used by all the MSCs in their weekly worship discussions, and a compulsory training courses for MSC leaders and members.
There were, of course, hiccups. Occasionally an MSC leader would fight tenaciously for a project that was only marginally effective. Another source of friction came from neighboring vicars. The CoE is divided into geographically-defined parishes and some vicars raised objections when they learned that a St. Andrews team was operating outside its local franchise. In hindsight, Mark and Drew admit that they might have done more to anticipate these objections and smooth feathers along the way. Nevertheless, after witnessing seven years of growth and impact, there are few at St. Andrews who would opt to undo the MSC experiment.
As Drew says, “this is a radically different model of doing church. It’s one where not every program gets established and blessed at the center. It’s one where the authority doesn’t trickle down, and where the spokes of control don’t run out from the center.” It is, though, a model that has been amazingly effective. In once representative month, more than 106 outreach projects were conducted by the MSC teams.
By the time Drew left St. Andrews, in 2009, the congregation had grown to more than 1,600 members. Drew contrasts this with the “before” snapshot: “In 2003, we did back-to-back carol services at Christmas, with a great orchestra and a gifted speaker. At both services we invited people forward for prayer, and everyone stayed seated—no one came forward. I thought, this is as good as church is ever going to be. It was an exemplary piece of ‘attractional’ worship. We had drained every church within 40 miles, but it was all transference, no new growth. Everyone who was sitting there was already a Christian. I thought, we would have been better to break the congregation up and send them out caroling. It was just clear that this model wasn’t working.”
Drew goes on: “Before we started the MSCs, we had a whole Sunday devoted to children’s work, and the point was to get more volunteers. People wept at the end of the service. And yet we had zero response. It was so depressing. When we started doing the MSCs, people had to step forward. And suddenly, people realized that they had a gifts, unexploited talents. In the culture of excellence, people felt under-qualified. Once they were in an MSC, they had folks they could work with, other amateurs who said, ‘Come on, we can do this.’ These were friends rooting for you.”
There are many lessons that could be drawn from this experiment in management innovation, but for now, let me suggest just two. First, if you’re a formally appointed leader, and you want to turn sheep into shepherds, you have to step out of your leadership role and say to people, “I don’t have a plan, what’s yours?” This is humbling. But only by doing this will you release the latent talents within your organization.
Second, you have to let people find the work that best suits them—this is the key to building a community of passion. If you force people into pre-determined slots, you’ll get slot-shaped contributions; you won’t get bold and innovative contributions. It’s pretty simple, really. If you want the unexpected, you have to give people the freedom to do the unexpected.
Now, can you run an airline this way, or a semiconductor fab line? I don’t know, but I bet you can run parts of it like this. One thing I’m sure about: if you want to fully take advantage of the extraordinary talents that exist in your organization, you’ll need to ask yourself each day, “What can I do to make this place feel less like a hierarchy and more like a community?” And here’s the good news: you don’t have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury to get started.
So, dear reader, a few questions. Do you think Drew’s ideas have any relevance for your organization? If so, what would you do to build some communities of passion where you work? How would you start? What levers would you pull?
http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2010/06/17/leadership-from-the-inside-out-part-ii/
Leadership From the Inside Out — Part I
By Gary Hamel
In a pair of recent posts (Part I, Part II) I argued that many of us have lost our faith in large institutions. We increasingly feel ill-used by our employers and ill-served by our elected representatives. More troubling still, many of us have also lost faith in faith-based organizations. In this regard, the Church of England (CoE) stands as Exhibit A. Founded 476 years ago when King Henry VIII broke with papal authority, the Church of England has in recent years been fractured by a contentious dispute over the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy. As thorny as that issue may be, it is not the most vexing problem facing the “mother church” of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Today, less than 3% of the British population attends a Church of England service in a typical month—this according to a recent CoE report. That’s down by nearly 50% from 1968. A survey by Tearfund, a Christian charity, found that a third of Britain’s population is now “de-churched.” These are former parishioners who no longer attend weekly services. The fact that more than 50% of UK residents still describe themselves as Christians makes the decline of Britain’s “established” church all the more perplexing. As one website put it, “If the Church of England was the national football team, we would have sacked the manager long ago.”
The fact is, the Church of England has become irrelevant to most British citizens. At this point I should declare a personal interest. During the ten years I lived in the UK, I frequently attended an Anglican church just outside of London. I enjoyed the energetic singing and the thoughtful homilies. And yet, I found it easy to be a pew warmer, a consumer, a back row critic. After all, the only thing the vicar seemed to want from me was a kind heart and a generous hand. Like the other congregants, I was asked to donate time and money to the church’s programs—and that was it. None of the clergy seemed eager for me, or others, to actually take the initiative and start something. I was never challenged to lead—only to “serve.” If it sounds like I’m justifying my indolence, I am—but it’s hard to get excited when there’s little scope for initiative, or when the categories of contribution have already been defined by others. Though inclined to faith, I struggled to find my niche in a top-down, pulpit-led model of “church”—and still do. In this regard I’m not alone—well, not if the experience of Drew Williams is anything to go by.
I met Drew last autumn, 15 years after I’d moved back to the U.S. Drew, I learned, had recently made his own transatlantic move—to take up the role of senior pastor at a church in Greenwich, Conn. Ten years earlier, he had also changed careers. Trained as a corporate litigator, Drew practiced law for ten years before deciding to pursue a “higher calling.” After finishing his theological training in Bristol, he was appointed assistant vicar of an Anglican congregation 25 miles northwest of London, in Chorleywood, England.
Drew e-mailed me after hearing a talk I had given on “management innovation.” During my exposition I argued that organizations should be built around “communities of passion.” Apparently Drew agreed. In his note he told me, “I wanted to jump up and clap when you made that point, but since I’m English, I didn’t.” When we finally connected by phone, I learned that Drew had helped pioneer a radical new “management model” during his tenure at St. Andrews—one that was led from the pews rather than from the pulpit, one that fit programs to people, rather than the other way around. Wow, I thought, there’s something to learn here. Maybe there really is a way to reconnect individuals and institutions.
When Drew arrived at St. Andrews in 2003 as assistant vicar, he joined a church that had 500 members, a full roster of programs and a top-notch worship service—a church that was, by UK standards, large and successful.
Problem was, as Drew put it, St. Andrews had a back door that was bigger than its front door. Each year enrollment was shrinking by about 10%. Drew was bothered by what he saw as a “come to us” model of church—where the worship service and the physical building were the center points—both physically and spiritually—of the church’s mission.
“There was a lot of excellence in worship,” recalls Drew, “but we were pretty weak at making disciples. People would look at those leading from the front and say, ‘What could I possibly offer here? Everything is done so professionally.’ We had a congregation that saw themselves as an audience.”
St Andrews’ vicar, Mark Stibbe, was also troubled by this reality, and asked Drew to take charge of developing a new church strategy. Believing that the real mission of St. Andrews was to bring hope to those outside of the building and beyond the congregation, Drew started to think about how he might build a “go-to-them” church—one that would encourage the spiritual growth of its members while multiplying their impact in the community around them.
As he struggled with this challenge, Drew was hit with another realization. While St. Andrews had small groups (typically 3-4 believers who’d meet during the week to chat and pray), and a really big group (the entire congregation), it had no mid-sized groups—nothing that was the equivalent of an extended family—more than three but less than fifty. This struck Drew as odd since the early Christian church had been built around communities of just this size.
So Drew went out searching for some in-between models of church—and found one in Sheffield, England. There, Mike Breen, the vicar of St Thomas Crookes, had been experimenting with programs built around “mid-sized” groups of 20-50 members. Intrigued, Drew drove up to Sheffield and spent several hours interviewing Mike about his novel approach. During that conversation, Mike planted the seeds for what would become a bold experiment at St. Andrews.
Drew saw several advantages to organizing around medium-sized groups—what he would later call “Mission-shaped Communities” or MSCs.
First, they would be more open and inviting than the small groups. Over time the small groups tended to become cliquish. Often, when Drew tried to help a new member connect with a small group, he’d be told that the group was full, or be asked whether the newcomer was “needy.” A mid-sized group was big enough that a newcomer wouldn’t stand out, yet small enough so he or she wouldn’t get lost.
Second, there’d be a lot more room for members to exercise their leadership gifts in intermediate-sized groups. A group of three or four wasn’t really big enough to tackle significant projects—and thus wasn’t very good at exploiting the leadership talents of its members. On the other hand, few lay members were eager to volunteer for large-scale, church-wide projects.
And third, Drew hoped the MSCs would strengthen the social fabric of the church by creating new opportunities for members to interact with one another.
Despite these potential advantages, Drew had doubts—and faced some tough, practical questions . . .
How, exactly, could he transform passive followers into active leaders? Was this even possible? How could St. Andrews exploit the power of self-organizing communities without creating a bunch of cliques and factions? Where would the cohesion come from? What role would he and Mark need to play in supporting this new strategy? Could they actually “lead,” if they weren’t leading from the front—and if so, how?
With just a month to go before he had to stand in front of the congregation and outline his strategy, Drew knew he needed answers to these questions—and fast.
So, dear reader, what advice would you give to Drew? What have you learned about turning followers into leaders—and then leading the leaders? And is it possible to dis-integrate an organization without fragmenting it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2010, 5:19 PM ET
Leadership from the Inside Out — Part II
In my previous post, I introduced you to Drew Williams. For seven years Drew served as assistant vicar at St. Andrews, an Anglican parish in Chorleywood, England. When he arrived in 2003, Drew found a church that was big but not growing, and a congregation that was loyal but not energized. Mark Stibbe, head vicar at St. Andrews, challenged Drew to develop a plan that would change this.
On a blustery November night, just a few short months after taking up his post, Drew stood in front of a nearly-full church and presented his strategy. Those hoping for a grand vision were disappointed. Instead, Drew pointed back to the early church. In the first few centuries after Christ, the church had been organized around small, local communities. Drew noted that those early believers had typically met in the biggest house they could find, and when they ran out of room, would subdivide and form a new community.
Drew admitted he didn’t have a precise plan for how to put his idea into practice, but he asked everyone present to think about the kind of difference they thought they could make if they were part of a more intimate community. He challenged his parishioners: What’s your passion? What service-oriented program would you want to start or join if you had the chance?
At the end of his talk, Drew announced that he’d hold a follow-up session a month hence, on December 6. He invited anyone who thought they might be willing to lead an “MSC” – or “mission-shaped community” — team to come along. In his heart, Drew was hoping 12 volunteer leaders would show up, and four weeks later, that’s exactly the number that did.
Some of those who came had a passion for children, others were eager to help the disabled, or the elderly. Drew encouraged his newbie leaders to start talking to others in the congregation, to start recruiting other volunteers and laying out plans, but provided very little direction. When a lay leader would ask him, “How often should we meet?,” Drew would say, “I don’t know, why don’t you pray about that.” When someone would ask, “Where should we meet?,” or “What should our strategy be?,“ he’d give the same answer: “Just pray about it.” Again and again, Drew pushed the responsibility for making the new model work back onto the parishioners—and (Drew believed) onto God.
Drew was clear about one thing, though—every group had to have a purpose that went beyond merely meeting up. Each week Drew met with all of the nascent teams, praying for them and encouraging them to take risks and fail forward.
The first MSC got up and running in January. It brought together a group of members who lived in Watford, a large town near Chorleywood. The group met in a home to hash out their mission, and soon realized that a gaggle of children were playing football in a park across the road. Parents were standing around the frozen pitch, cheering on their kids. Standing on the sidelines were a few dozen younger siblings, obviously cold and bored. Maybe, someone ventured, we could run a club for the all the kids who come out each week and don’t get the chance to play. That plan was rapidly turned into action. Word spread, and soon the freshly-hatched MSC was being asked to run an after-class club at a nearby school. At every stage the MSC members were upfront about their intentions. “We’re going to talk about Jesus, is that OK?” Virtually all of the parents said “yes.”
Another MSC formed up to help people coming out of night clubs at 4 in the morning, when many were a bit worse for wear. Team members would offer the bleary-eyed revelers a cup of coffee or a ride home.
One MSC bought a double-decker bus and turned it into a mobile coffee bar. They’d park the bus in a disadvantaged neighborhood and invite folks in to sip a warm latte in convivial surroundings.
Video was key to making these early successes viral. Drew would film the MSCs at work, play the videos at church on Sunday, and encourage other parishioners to get involved.
In addition to their community work, MSC members were encouraged to gather at least once a week outside of church to worship and plan. In setting up their worship space, most groups arranged their chairs in church-like rows. When they did so, Drew would remind them, “You don’t have to do it this way. You can ‘do church’ however you like.”
Drew’s mantra, borrowed from Mike Breen, was “low control, high accountability.” Every team was free to set its own mission, but members knew the whole church was expecting them to do something that would make a noticeable difference in the lives of others. One rule, though, was sacrosanct: once an MSC grew to fifty members it had to subdivide.
Initially, the MSC project had no budget. Drew says that’s part of the reason the program didn’t run into a wall of resistance—he wasn’t pulling resources out of other programs.
For the most part, the MSCs raised their own money—though eventually they were able to draw on church funds for minor operational expenses like renting a hall. At one point, Drew was supporting 30 MSCs on an annual budget of £30,000 (about $45,000).
Despite those early successes, Mark and Drew believed even bigger things were possible. Even as the MSC program was taking off, they were praying that God would put some dynamite under their church—to shake off the last cobwebs of complacency.
The TNT came in the form a major refurbishment that would close the church for 9 months. Rather than find an alternate space, Mark and Drew told the congregation that if they wanted to continue worshipping together they’d have to hook up with an MSC, if they weren’t already part of one. Dissenters warned Drew that this move might slim the church rolls by as many as 200 members. But over the next 9 months, St. Andrews grew from 500 members to nearly 1,000—as fence-sitting parishioners and got infected by the MSC virus.
There were other doubters who worried that giving would go down. When meeting outside the church, MSC leaders weren’t keen to take up an offering. So instead, the church set up a program that allowed members to set up a standing order for a weekly direct debit—funds would be drawn from the member’s bank account and deposited in the church’s coffers.
There was one fact, however, that no one could argue with. The new, community-based approach to church was getting folks off the sidelines and into the game. It was also unleashing a ton of latent leadership talent. Here’s how one MSC leader, a woman who was profoundly deaf, described her role:
I can honestly say that leading an MSC for the last eight months has been the hardest and most challenging thing I have ever done – parenthood aside. In running the MSC I have discovered a lot of things about myself. Some I knew already and others are fresh revelations. I am not a brilliant administrator, neither am I a preacher. I don’t think I am a worship leader or a kids ministry leader but I have had to do all these things and more at some stage or another and I discovered that I can passably lead prayers, make OK coffee, improvise a kids session, preach if necessary, [and] impart difficult decisions.
Once the church re-opened, Mark and Drew realized St. Andrews had now grown too big for its building. For their part, many of the MSC members had secretly hoped that the renovation work would never be completed, since they were enjoying the adventure actually doing something, rather than being “nailed to a pew.” By this point, most MSC teams were meeting twice a month for worship and at other times to carry out their mission work. When team leaders asked Drew, “Do we really have to come back to church?,” he told them, “Pray about it and do whatever you feel led to do.” Everyone, though, was encouraged to show up on the fourth Sunday of each month for a time of “celebration.” To accommodate the entire congregation, the service was repeated four times during the day.
Turns out, there’s a month each quarter that contains five Sundays, and these, too, became occasions for church-wide meet-ups. Typically, the format was conference-like, with guest speakers and presentations focused on the practical challenges of doing good in the world. Church services are held at St. Andrews on other Sundays, but there’s no expectation that everyone will attend. Whatever the agenda, though, MSCs leaders are always welcome to stand up and pitch their project.
While the MSCs multiplied opportunities for leadership and service, there were those who feared the new model might undermine the unity of the church as a whole. There was a risk that as members became more tightly knit together within their teams, they might also become less connected to the larger congregation. Mark and Drew wanted communities, not splinters.
A weekly newsletter was one of way connecting members. Each week Drew sent out a note updating MSC leaders and asking for prayer requests. Periodically he also brought all the leaders together to set priorities and identify new opportunities. Over time, many of the MSCs set up their own websites and this became another mechanism for keeping people informed.
Other common touch-points included a church-wide teaching guide used by all the MSCs in their weekly worship discussions, and a compulsory training courses for MSC leaders and members.
There were, of course, hiccups. Occasionally an MSC leader would fight tenaciously for a project that was only marginally effective. Another source of friction came from neighboring vicars. The CoE is divided into geographically-defined parishes and some vicars raised objections when they learned that a St. Andrews team was operating outside its local franchise. In hindsight, Mark and Drew admit that they might have done more to anticipate these objections and smooth feathers along the way. Nevertheless, after witnessing seven years of growth and impact, there are few at St. Andrews who would opt to undo the MSC experiment.
As Drew says, “this is a radically different model of doing church. It’s one where not every program gets established and blessed at the center. It’s one where the authority doesn’t trickle down, and where the spokes of control don’t run out from the center.” It is, though, a model that has been amazingly effective. In once representative month, more than 106 outreach projects were conducted by the MSC teams.
By the time Drew left St. Andrews, in 2009, the congregation had grown to more than 1,600 members. Drew contrasts this with the “before” snapshot: “In 2003, we did back-to-back carol services at Christmas, with a great orchestra and a gifted speaker. At both services we invited people forward for prayer, and everyone stayed seated—no one came forward. I thought, this is as good as church is ever going to be. It was an exemplary piece of ‘attractional’ worship. We had drained every church within 40 miles, but it was all transference, no new growth. Everyone who was sitting there was already a Christian. I thought, we would have been better to break the congregation up and send them out caroling. It was just clear that this model wasn’t working.”
Drew goes on: “Before we started the MSCs, we had a whole Sunday devoted to children’s work, and the point was to get more volunteers. People wept at the end of the service. And yet we had zero response. It was so depressing. When we started doing the MSCs, people had to step forward. And suddenly, people realized that they had a gifts, unexploited talents. In the culture of excellence, people felt under-qualified. Once they were in an MSC, they had folks they could work with, other amateurs who said, ‘Come on, we can do this.’ These were friends rooting for you.”
There are many lessons that could be drawn from this experiment in management innovation, but for now, let me suggest just two. First, if you’re a formally appointed leader, and you want to turn sheep into shepherds, you have to step out of your leadership role and say to people, “I don’t have a plan, what’s yours?” This is humbling. But only by doing this will you release the latent talents within your organization.
Second, you have to let people find the work that best suits them—this is the key to building a community of passion. If you force people into pre-determined slots, you’ll get slot-shaped contributions; you won’t get bold and innovative contributions. It’s pretty simple, really. If you want the unexpected, you have to give people the freedom to do the unexpected.
Now, can you run an airline this way, or a semiconductor fab line? I don’t know, but I bet you can run parts of it like this. One thing I’m sure about: if you want to fully take advantage of the extraordinary talents that exist in your organization, you’ll need to ask yourself each day, “What can I do to make this place feel less like a hierarchy and more like a community?” And here’s the good news: you don’t have to be the Archbishop of Canterbury to get started.
So, dear reader, a few questions. Do you think Drew’s ideas have any relevance for your organization? If so, what would you do to build some communities of passion where you work? How would you start? What levers would you pull?
http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2010/06/17/leadership-from-the-inside-out-part-ii/
The Purpose of Power
May 11, 2011, 3:54 PM ET
The Purpose of Power
By Gary Hamel
Courtesy of HarperBusiness
Power has long been regarded as morally corrosive, and we often suspect the intentions of those who seek it. Indeed, the lust for dominion is so unseemly that few of us would openly admit to a craving for clout.
Hence, it might surprise you to learn that one of the world’s most distinguished management thinkers has recently produced a detailed manual for the power-hungry.
It often seems that the mendacious and egotistical have a particular talent for accumulating (and abusing) power—and at some point, most of us have probably been out-maneuvered by a more adept political infighter. But in Power: Why Some People Have it and Others Don’t, Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, gives nice guys and gals the tools they need to even the odds, by summarizing more than 30 years of research and teaching on how to get ahead.
Recently I talked with Pfeffer about why he’s written a book on power at a time when most management gurus are talking about collaboration, community and “open leadership.” Pfeffer’s argument is disarmingly simple: It takes power to get things done. Without power, you’re impotent—irrespective of your talents or the righteousness of your cause.
Pfeffer started our conversation by reminding me of a disagreeable fact: Power is largely independent of intelligence (emotional or otherwise) and job performance. All of us know individuals who are brilliant but who punch below their weight when it comes to office politics. Conversely, we all know dim bulbs who’ve somehow found their way to the top of the tree. Cunning power players can even slough off failure. Think, for example, of all those executive vice presidents and board members who dithered while the banking system burned and yet managed to hold on to their positions, or even grab better ones in the wake of the collapse. It’s not that IQ and value-added aren’t important; it’s just that they’re no substitute for power.
So what’s Pfeffer’s advice for those eager to take charge?
First, you have to recognize that power is mostly taken, not given. Jeff quotes Peter Ueberroth (who organized the 1984 Summer Olympics and went on to become Major League Baseball’s Commissioner and head of the U.S. Olympic Committee), as saying power is 80% taken and only 20% given. In other words, if you want power you have to grab it. So when you see opportunities to extend the scope of your influence, seize them, and when you spot a power vacuum, fill it.
Second, you need to understand the importance of your personal network and work relentlessly to improve it. Pfeffer recounts a conversation he had with Chip Conley, CEO of Joie de Vivre hotels. Conley pointed out that most people think of networking as a task, like taking out the trash. But no one tries to get better at taking out the trash. You can, however, get better at networking, and it’s important for people who are trying to gain more power to do so. With this in mind, Pfeffer recommends you think of networking as a skill “like speaking French or playing the piano.”
Third, if you want power, you have to work to stand out. Growing up, we are often taught to be timid: Ask permission; Wait your turn; Stay in line; Don’t attract attention. But to get power, you have take the risk that comes with raising your head about the parapet. “Risk,” says Pfeffer, “is just as important in human capital markets as it is in financial capital markets. No risk. No reward.” Early in your career, it can help to volunteer for a task that others have shunned, or jump into a newly created role. The logic? It’s easier to stand out when you have your own niche and easier to get ahead when you don’t have to expend a lot of energy fending off rivals for a coveted post.
Fourth, the pursuit of power requires persistence. Too often, Pfeffer argues, we look at powerful leaders and assume they got there without stumbling. But every great leader, from Abraham Lincoln to Steve Jobs, has encountered failure. The difference between those who go on to become powerful leaders and those who don’t, rests in how they react to reversals. If they accept failure as a verdict of fate, they will sink into anonymity. If, on the other hand, they learn from the blow, if it strengthens their resolve and prompts them to search for lessons, they will rise higher. Pfeffer cites the example of Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, co-founders of The Home Depot: “That story begins with two words: ‘you’re fired.’” In 1978, Marcus and Blank were fired from Handy Dan Home Improvement Centers in a dispute with the largest shareholder—this despite the fact that as president and CFO, the pair had led the business to record earnings. The setback proved to be the impetus Marcus and Blank needed to chase their dream of building an entirely new sort of super-scale DIY chain.
If you want to hang on to power, Pfeffer argues that it’s better to be aggressive and unapologetic than bashful and contrite—even when you’re wrong. In his long-running MBA course, The Paths to Power, Pfeffer shows his students two videos. In each, the CEO of a beleaguered company is getting grilled on Capitol Hill. The first features Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs’ Chairman and CEO. When challenged over his bank’s role in the financial meltdown, Blankfein is pugnacious, unrepentant and in no mood to cede points. In the second video, BP’s Tony Hayward, who was unlucky enough to be CEO at the time of the Deepwater Horzon oil spill, comes across as meek and penitent. When the videos conclude, Pfeffer notes dryly that while Blankfein still has his job, Hayward was forced to resign less than six weeks after his congressional testimony. The meek may one day inherit the earth, but Pfeffer doesn’t think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Pfeffer concedes that the quest for power demands a certain degree of selfishness. When asked whether a would-be leader should put company ahead of career, Pfeffer is unequivocal: “I’m not sure you should worry over much about the effect you behavior has on the organization overall, because there’s lots of data that suggests the organization doesn’t care much about you.”
But what about the (very real) risk that power becomes an end in itself—that principles and prudence get jettisoned as excess baggage in the clamor to the top? Pfeffer’s advice: Put together a “personal board of directors” comprised of capable and honorable mentors. These shouldn’t be close friends or competitors, since you’re looking for honest and objective counsel. They should be people, though, who care enough about you to hold you accountable, and conversely, you should care enough about them to take their advice seriously.
Like all of us, Pfeffer wants leaders who aspire not only to power but to goodness. The virtuous don’t always win, but Pfeffer believes a meritorious cause can be a signficant force multiplier. As an example, he cites the case of Dr. Laura Esserman, a surgeon at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. For years, Esserman waged a tireless campaign to make the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer more humane and patient centric. Her ultimate success, Pfeffer argues, was due in part to the nobility of her cause. While the meek may never inherit the earth, it’s heartening to know that the selfless may have a slim advantage in accumulating power.”
Having updated Machiavelli for the 21st century, does Pfeffer believe that everyone will soon become an accomplished power hound? Nope. Most people, it turns out, just aren’t willing to put that much into achieving the power they think they want. “There’s a price for power,” Pfeffer says. “I know very few very successful people who don’t devote a lot of time and a lot of energy and a lot of effort to their careers. Successful football coaches, for example, spend a lot of time in the film room watching games. When you’re watching the films, you’re not with your wife or your kids or your friends or whatever. So there is definitely a price to be paid, and not everyone is willing to pay that price. In the end, people have to figure out how much work they’re going to put into this.”
Like most of us, Pfeffer wishes large-scale organizations were paragons of meritocracy where competence and influence are always perfectly correlated, but he knows that’s not the case—at least for now. Hence his advice to anyone who’s itching to turn their company into a post-bureaucratic nirvana: You’d better first equip yourself with the armaments you need to beat the partisans of power politics at their own game.
So dear readers, a question: Do you believe you can succeed in an organization without explicitly working to acquire power? And if you answer “yes,” please explain your thinking, or provide an example.
http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2011/05/11/the-purpose-of-power/
The Purpose of Power
By Gary Hamel
Courtesy of HarperBusiness
Power has long been regarded as morally corrosive, and we often suspect the intentions of those who seek it. Indeed, the lust for dominion is so unseemly that few of us would openly admit to a craving for clout.
Hence, it might surprise you to learn that one of the world’s most distinguished management thinkers has recently produced a detailed manual for the power-hungry.
It often seems that the mendacious and egotistical have a particular talent for accumulating (and abusing) power—and at some point, most of us have probably been out-maneuvered by a more adept political infighter. But in Power: Why Some People Have it and Others Don’t, Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, gives nice guys and gals the tools they need to even the odds, by summarizing more than 30 years of research and teaching on how to get ahead.
Recently I talked with Pfeffer about why he’s written a book on power at a time when most management gurus are talking about collaboration, community and “open leadership.” Pfeffer’s argument is disarmingly simple: It takes power to get things done. Without power, you’re impotent—irrespective of your talents or the righteousness of your cause.
Pfeffer started our conversation by reminding me of a disagreeable fact: Power is largely independent of intelligence (emotional or otherwise) and job performance. All of us know individuals who are brilliant but who punch below their weight when it comes to office politics. Conversely, we all know dim bulbs who’ve somehow found their way to the top of the tree. Cunning power players can even slough off failure. Think, for example, of all those executive vice presidents and board members who dithered while the banking system burned and yet managed to hold on to their positions, or even grab better ones in the wake of the collapse. It’s not that IQ and value-added aren’t important; it’s just that they’re no substitute for power.
So what’s Pfeffer’s advice for those eager to take charge?
First, you have to recognize that power is mostly taken, not given. Jeff quotes Peter Ueberroth (who organized the 1984 Summer Olympics and went on to become Major League Baseball’s Commissioner and head of the U.S. Olympic Committee), as saying power is 80% taken and only 20% given. In other words, if you want power you have to grab it. So when you see opportunities to extend the scope of your influence, seize them, and when you spot a power vacuum, fill it.
Second, you need to understand the importance of your personal network and work relentlessly to improve it. Pfeffer recounts a conversation he had with Chip Conley, CEO of Joie de Vivre hotels. Conley pointed out that most people think of networking as a task, like taking out the trash. But no one tries to get better at taking out the trash. You can, however, get better at networking, and it’s important for people who are trying to gain more power to do so. With this in mind, Pfeffer recommends you think of networking as a skill “like speaking French or playing the piano.”
Third, if you want power, you have to work to stand out. Growing up, we are often taught to be timid: Ask permission; Wait your turn; Stay in line; Don’t attract attention. But to get power, you have take the risk that comes with raising your head about the parapet. “Risk,” says Pfeffer, “is just as important in human capital markets as it is in financial capital markets. No risk. No reward.” Early in your career, it can help to volunteer for a task that others have shunned, or jump into a newly created role. The logic? It’s easier to stand out when you have your own niche and easier to get ahead when you don’t have to expend a lot of energy fending off rivals for a coveted post.
Fourth, the pursuit of power requires persistence. Too often, Pfeffer argues, we look at powerful leaders and assume they got there without stumbling. But every great leader, from Abraham Lincoln to Steve Jobs, has encountered failure. The difference between those who go on to become powerful leaders and those who don’t, rests in how they react to reversals. If they accept failure as a verdict of fate, they will sink into anonymity. If, on the other hand, they learn from the blow, if it strengthens their resolve and prompts them to search for lessons, they will rise higher. Pfeffer cites the example of Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, co-founders of The Home Depot: “That story begins with two words: ‘you’re fired.’” In 1978, Marcus and Blank were fired from Handy Dan Home Improvement Centers in a dispute with the largest shareholder—this despite the fact that as president and CFO, the pair had led the business to record earnings. The setback proved to be the impetus Marcus and Blank needed to chase their dream of building an entirely new sort of super-scale DIY chain.
If you want to hang on to power, Pfeffer argues that it’s better to be aggressive and unapologetic than bashful and contrite—even when you’re wrong. In his long-running MBA course, The Paths to Power, Pfeffer shows his students two videos. In each, the CEO of a beleaguered company is getting grilled on Capitol Hill. The first features Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs’ Chairman and CEO. When challenged over his bank’s role in the financial meltdown, Blankfein is pugnacious, unrepentant and in no mood to cede points. In the second video, BP’s Tony Hayward, who was unlucky enough to be CEO at the time of the Deepwater Horzon oil spill, comes across as meek and penitent. When the videos conclude, Pfeffer notes dryly that while Blankfein still has his job, Hayward was forced to resign less than six weeks after his congressional testimony. The meek may one day inherit the earth, but Pfeffer doesn’t think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Pfeffer concedes that the quest for power demands a certain degree of selfishness. When asked whether a would-be leader should put company ahead of career, Pfeffer is unequivocal: “I’m not sure you should worry over much about the effect you behavior has on the organization overall, because there’s lots of data that suggests the organization doesn’t care much about you.”
But what about the (very real) risk that power becomes an end in itself—that principles and prudence get jettisoned as excess baggage in the clamor to the top? Pfeffer’s advice: Put together a “personal board of directors” comprised of capable and honorable mentors. These shouldn’t be close friends or competitors, since you’re looking for honest and objective counsel. They should be people, though, who care enough about you to hold you accountable, and conversely, you should care enough about them to take their advice seriously.
Like all of us, Pfeffer wants leaders who aspire not only to power but to goodness. The virtuous don’t always win, but Pfeffer believes a meritorious cause can be a signficant force multiplier. As an example, he cites the case of Dr. Laura Esserman, a surgeon at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. For years, Esserman waged a tireless campaign to make the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer more humane and patient centric. Her ultimate success, Pfeffer argues, was due in part to the nobility of her cause. While the meek may never inherit the earth, it’s heartening to know that the selfless may have a slim advantage in accumulating power.”
Having updated Machiavelli for the 21st century, does Pfeffer believe that everyone will soon become an accomplished power hound? Nope. Most people, it turns out, just aren’t willing to put that much into achieving the power they think they want. “There’s a price for power,” Pfeffer says. “I know very few very successful people who don’t devote a lot of time and a lot of energy and a lot of effort to their careers. Successful football coaches, for example, spend a lot of time in the film room watching games. When you’re watching the films, you’re not with your wife or your kids or your friends or whatever. So there is definitely a price to be paid, and not everyone is willing to pay that price. In the end, people have to figure out how much work they’re going to put into this.”
Like most of us, Pfeffer wishes large-scale organizations were paragons of meritocracy where competence and influence are always perfectly correlated, but he knows that’s not the case—at least for now. Hence his advice to anyone who’s itching to turn their company into a post-bureaucratic nirvana: You’d better first equip yourself with the armaments you need to beat the partisans of power politics at their own game.
So dear readers, a question: Do you believe you can succeed in an organization without explicitly working to acquire power? And if you answer “yes,” please explain your thinking, or provide an example.
http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2011/05/11/the-purpose-of-power/
Nine Ways to Identify Natural Leaders
Nine Ways to Identify Natural Leaders
By Gary Hamel
May 14, 2009, 11:54 AM ET
The need to empower natural leaders isn’t an HR pipedream, it’s a competitive imperative. But before you can empower them, you have to find them.
In most companies, the formal hierarchy is a matter of public record—it’s easy to discover who’s in charge of what. By contrast, natural leaders don’t appear on any organization chart. To hunt them down, you need to know . . .
Whose advice is sought most often on any particular topic? Who responds most promptly to requests from peers? Whose responses are judged most helpful? Who is most likely to reach across organizational boundaries to aid a colleague? Whose opinions are most valued, internally and externally? Who gets the most kudos from customers? Who’s the most densely connected to other employees? Who’s generating the most buzz outside the company? Who consistently demonstrates real thought leadership? Who seems truly critical to key decisions?
A lot of the data you need to answer these questions is lurking in the weeds of your company’s email system, or can be found on the Web. Nevertheless, it will take some creative effort and software tweaks to ferret it out.
A few suggestions . . .
1. Establish a directory of key words corresponding to critical skills and competencies within your company, and then see who generates or receives the most emails on any particular topic.
2. Add a small box at the end of every incoming email that lets the recipient grade the sender’s response: was it timely, was it helpful?
3. Analyze internal email flows to see which folks are most likely to respond positively to emails from colleagues in other divisions—who’s collaborating across unit boundaries?
4. Create a system for ranking the frequency and value of each employee’s contributions to internal wikis or communities of practice.
5. Encourage employees to write internal blogs, and to rank posts and comments.
6. Using key words, analyze company emails to see who’s had the most to say about important corporate decisions, and to see how widely those views have been disseminated and discussed.
7. Identify emails relating to key projects and then identify the individuals who were the most critical “nodes” in the project team—the folks who seemed to be in the middle of every email exchange.
8. Review incoming emails from customers to determine who’s getting the most requests for help, who’s been most responsive and who’s receiving the most praise. Or, give customers the ability to immediately score the email responses they get from company personnel.
9. Use Google Alert and news tracking to find out which employees are getting quoted most often online, and who’s showing up most often in the press.
There are other types of data that might also be useful—but you get the idea.
Sure, there are some practical challenges in collecting and analyzing this sorts of data. But ultimately, it should be possible for a company to create a multivariate leadership score for every employee.
Obviously, the old top-down hierarchy isn’t going to disappear any time soon. What would happen, though, if every employee had the chance to compete for leadership “points,” whether or not they had a management job? What would happen if everyone’s leadership score showed up in their online profile—so everyone knew how their colleagues ranked on expertise, helpfulness, collaboration and thought leadership? What would happen if anyone could attach a public comment to a colleague’s leadership score? What about including highly rated “natural” leaders in every important decision meeting? And finally, what would happen if leadership points were considered in compensation and promotion decisions? I’m not sure, but I bet it would do more good than harm.
One thing’s certain, though: we can’t invent Management 2.0 without inventing some new ways for people to accumulate and exercise authority. In the tempestuous seas of today’s creative economy, top-down leadership structures are fast becoming a liability. We need is a new currency of power—one based not on titles, but on every individual’s capacity to lead, every day. We need fewer zero-sum battles for plum positions, in which Machiavellian maneuvering wins the day, and more positive-sum competition to increase one’s personal leadership score—by delivering real value to colleagues and customers. We need a system that forces titled leaders to justify their positional power by competing in an open market for leadership esteem. And finally, we need organizations that aren’t built around a single, dominant hierarchy, but are comprised of many soft hierarchies, each corresponding to a critical skill or issue.
A few years back, two of my colleagues at the London Business School posed a cheeky question in the title of their leadership book: “Why,” they wondered, “should anyone be led by you?” If you reflect on this question every morning, your leadership score is bound to go up.
So, readers, here are some questions to ponder: How would you find the natural leaders in your company? And once found, how would you help them expand their influence? Can you imagine other alternatives to traditional power structures? If so, what might they be?
http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2009/05/14/nine-ways-to-identify-natural-leaders/
By Gary Hamel
May 14, 2009, 11:54 AM ET
The need to empower natural leaders isn’t an HR pipedream, it’s a competitive imperative. But before you can empower them, you have to find them.
In most companies, the formal hierarchy is a matter of public record—it’s easy to discover who’s in charge of what. By contrast, natural leaders don’t appear on any organization chart. To hunt them down, you need to know . . .
Whose advice is sought most often on any particular topic? Who responds most promptly to requests from peers? Whose responses are judged most helpful? Who is most likely to reach across organizational boundaries to aid a colleague? Whose opinions are most valued, internally and externally? Who gets the most kudos from customers? Who’s the most densely connected to other employees? Who’s generating the most buzz outside the company? Who consistently demonstrates real thought leadership? Who seems truly critical to key decisions?
A lot of the data you need to answer these questions is lurking in the weeds of your company’s email system, or can be found on the Web. Nevertheless, it will take some creative effort and software tweaks to ferret it out.
A few suggestions . . .
1. Establish a directory of key words corresponding to critical skills and competencies within your company, and then see who generates or receives the most emails on any particular topic.
2. Add a small box at the end of every incoming email that lets the recipient grade the sender’s response: was it timely, was it helpful?
3. Analyze internal email flows to see which folks are most likely to respond positively to emails from colleagues in other divisions—who’s collaborating across unit boundaries?
4. Create a system for ranking the frequency and value of each employee’s contributions to internal wikis or communities of practice.
5. Encourage employees to write internal blogs, and to rank posts and comments.
6. Using key words, analyze company emails to see who’s had the most to say about important corporate decisions, and to see how widely those views have been disseminated and discussed.
7. Identify emails relating to key projects and then identify the individuals who were the most critical “nodes” in the project team—the folks who seemed to be in the middle of every email exchange.
8. Review incoming emails from customers to determine who’s getting the most requests for help, who’s been most responsive and who’s receiving the most praise. Or, give customers the ability to immediately score the email responses they get from company personnel.
9. Use Google Alert and news tracking to find out which employees are getting quoted most often online, and who’s showing up most often in the press.
There are other types of data that might also be useful—but you get the idea.
Sure, there are some practical challenges in collecting and analyzing this sorts of data. But ultimately, it should be possible for a company to create a multivariate leadership score for every employee.
Obviously, the old top-down hierarchy isn’t going to disappear any time soon. What would happen, though, if every employee had the chance to compete for leadership “points,” whether or not they had a management job? What would happen if everyone’s leadership score showed up in their online profile—so everyone knew how their colleagues ranked on expertise, helpfulness, collaboration and thought leadership? What would happen if anyone could attach a public comment to a colleague’s leadership score? What about including highly rated “natural” leaders in every important decision meeting? And finally, what would happen if leadership points were considered in compensation and promotion decisions? I’m not sure, but I bet it would do more good than harm.
One thing’s certain, though: we can’t invent Management 2.0 without inventing some new ways for people to accumulate and exercise authority. In the tempestuous seas of today’s creative economy, top-down leadership structures are fast becoming a liability. We need is a new currency of power—one based not on titles, but on every individual’s capacity to lead, every day. We need fewer zero-sum battles for plum positions, in which Machiavellian maneuvering wins the day, and more positive-sum competition to increase one’s personal leadership score—by delivering real value to colleagues and customers. We need a system that forces titled leaders to justify their positional power by competing in an open market for leadership esteem. And finally, we need organizations that aren’t built around a single, dominant hierarchy, but are comprised of many soft hierarchies, each corresponding to a critical skill or issue.
A few years back, two of my colleagues at the London Business School posed a cheeky question in the title of their leadership book: “Why,” they wondered, “should anyone be led by you?” If you reflect on this question every morning, your leadership score is bound to go up.
So, readers, here are some questions to ponder: How would you find the natural leaders in your company? And once found, how would you help them expand their influence? Can you imagine other alternatives to traditional power structures? If so, what might they be?
http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2009/05/14/nine-ways-to-identify-natural-leaders/
Monday, August 8, 2011
FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF WEAK LEADERS
FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF WEAK LEADERS
Sometimes you learn from positive role models. Often you learn from negative ones. This is one of the reasons I love to read history—you inevitably get both.
For the last week or so, I have been reading Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It is a page-turning account of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency and his political genius.
At the beginning of Lincoln’s first term, he appointed each of his former Republican rivals—those who had run against him for his party’s nomination—to cabinet posts. The narrative demonstrates his amazing ability to tap into a broad array of perspectives and create alignment among those who often disagreed violently with one another.
Unfortunately, Lincoln’s leadership was not perfect. He occasionally selected men for public service who were unworthy of his trust. One such individual was General George B. McClellan, commander of the “Army of the Potomac” and, eventually, first general-in-chief of the Union Army.
General McClellan had significant character flaws that I believe serve as warning signs to anyone in leadership. Ultimately, these cost him dearly: He lost Lincoln’s confidence, his job, and a run for the White House (against Lincoln). Worse, they prolonged the Civil War and cost the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides of the conflict.
Here are the five flaws I jotted down as I read the book:
Hesitating to take definitive action. McClellan was constantly preparing. According to him, the Army was never quite ready. The troops just needed a little more training. In his procrastination, he refused to engage the enemy, even when he clearly had the advantage. He could just not bring himself to launch an attack. When Lincoln finally relieved him of his duties, he famously said, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”
Complaining about a lack of resources. He constantly complained about the lack of available resources. He didn’t have enough men. His men weren’t paid enough. They didn’t have enough heavy artillery. And on and on he went. The truth is that, as a leader, you never have enough resources. You could always use more of one thing or another. But the successful leaders figure out how to get the job done with the resources they have.
Refusing to take responsibility. McClellan was constantly blaming everyone else for his mistakes and for his refusal to act. He even blamed the President. Every time he suffered a defeat or a setback, someone or something was to blame. He was a master finger-pointer. Great leaders don’t do this. They are accountable for the results and accept full responsibility for the outcomes.
Abusing the privileges of leadership. While his troops were struggling in almost unbearable conditions, McClellan lived in near-royal splendor. He spent almost every evening entertaining guests with elaborate dinners and parties. He insisted on the best clothes and accommodations. His lifestyle stood in distinct contrast to General Ulysses S. Grant, his eventual successor, who often traveled with only a toothbrush.
Engaging in acts of insubordination. McClellan openly and continually criticized the President, his boss. He was passive-aggressive. Even when Lincoln gave him a direct order, he found a way to avoid obeying it. In his arrogance, he always knew better than the President and had a ready excuse to rationalize his lack of follow-through.
President Lincoln had the patience of Job. He gave General McClellan numerous opportunities to correct his behavior and redeem himself. But in the end, McClellan either could not or would not do so. He left the President no choice but to relieve him of his duties.
These same character flaws afflict many leaders today. The best safeguard is self-awareness.
Question: Do you see any of these flaws in your own leadership? What can you do to correct them now—while you still have time?
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Disclosure of Material Connection: Some of the links in the post above are “affiliate links.” This means if you click on the link and purchase the item, I will receive an affiliate commission. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will add value to my readers. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
Book Notes: Derailed by Tim Irwin
What Keeps You Going When You Want to Quit?
POSTED ON OCTOBER 28, 2009
In: Leadership
http://michaelhyatt.com/five-characteristics-of-weak-leaders.html
The CEO of The 21st Century Author: Mark Goulston
The CEO of The 21st Century
Author: Mark Goulston
Mark Goulston is Senior Vice President of Emotional Intelligence at Sherwood Partners, a Palo Alto, California-based turnaround and growth consulting firm.
Author of 'Get Out of Your Own Way: Overcoming Self-Defeating Behavior', Goulston is also a professor at UCLA. In his work, he helps leaders and teams quickly recognize, accept, correct, and learn from mistakes.
Mark can be contacted through his website www.shrwood.com, or by email at mgoulston@shrwood.com
What are the qualities and characteristics that help create successful leaders ? Consider this four-point plan.
With business leaders' public - and private - behavior coming under increasing scrutiny, it's becoming nearly impossible to avoid getting caught in a lie. Few things detract more from your credibility and the respect of your colleagues and peers than being called on the carpet to deflect accusations and defend an untruth. Can leaders who lapse learn how to be truthful in words and honorable in deeds ? Of course they can.
If you're fortunate, you'll meet people over the course of your career who exceed your expectations in every way. When you work or spend time with them, you find yourself wanting to be a better person. You put a lid on your neuroses ( which might cause you to coax others to go easy on you because you are wracked with worry ) and on your sense of entitlement ( which can drive you to manipulate others into doing what you want through intimidation ). And you work well.
Why do we try to be the best that we can be with such people ? Given the choice between instant gratification and the lasting satisfaction of earning the esteem of someone you respect and admire, all but the most myopic of us would choose the latter.
What would happen to your leadership effectiveness if you became more like the people from whom others actively seek acceptance and support ? How productive would your teammates and peers become if they all felt that having you as a leader represented the rare opportunity to work with someone that people inside and outside the company admire ? How much harder would people work if they were inspired and motivated by the privilege of your adamant faith in their skills ?
If you answered anything less than an enthusiastically positive response to those questions, imagine the effect on people if you acted in a manner that was the polar opposite of this. How motivated would your colleagues be if you attacked, blamed, demeaned, and embarrassed them and yourself ? Perhaps they'd work hard in the short run because of fear or even resentment. Your organization might squeeze a winning quarter out of intimidation, but without inspiration you will never build a winning company.
What are the qualities that leaders should aspire to in order to earn, deserve, and command respect ? Look no further than a mentor whose belief in you made you want to give your best shot in your professional and personal life. Chances are they possessed the following four attributes:
The judgment to know the right thing to do
The integrity to do it
The character to stand up to those who don't
The courage to stop those who won't
If you consistently practice and develop these qualities in your professional and personal life, you will accrue an additional benefit beyond getting the best out of your peers and colleagues, as well as your family. You will develop wisdom. With that you will be able to distinguish what's important in life, what's worth fighting for -- even dying for -- and what makes up a life that's worth living.
Usable Insight - Command respect, and people will beat a path to your door. Demand obedience, and sooner or later they'll head for the exits.
This article formed the first part of a five part series by Mark Goulston, originally published in Fast Company earlier in 2004. The other four articles are available to read within the Value Systems section of the LeaderValues website.
© Copyright Mark Goulston 2004
http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=268
Author: Mark Goulston
Mark Goulston is Senior Vice President of Emotional Intelligence at Sherwood Partners, a Palo Alto, California-based turnaround and growth consulting firm.
Author of 'Get Out of Your Own Way: Overcoming Self-Defeating Behavior', Goulston is also a professor at UCLA. In his work, he helps leaders and teams quickly recognize, accept, correct, and learn from mistakes.
Mark can be contacted through his website www.shrwood.com, or by email at mgoulston@shrwood.com
What are the qualities and characteristics that help create successful leaders ? Consider this four-point plan.
With business leaders' public - and private - behavior coming under increasing scrutiny, it's becoming nearly impossible to avoid getting caught in a lie. Few things detract more from your credibility and the respect of your colleagues and peers than being called on the carpet to deflect accusations and defend an untruth. Can leaders who lapse learn how to be truthful in words and honorable in deeds ? Of course they can.
If you're fortunate, you'll meet people over the course of your career who exceed your expectations in every way. When you work or spend time with them, you find yourself wanting to be a better person. You put a lid on your neuroses ( which might cause you to coax others to go easy on you because you are wracked with worry ) and on your sense of entitlement ( which can drive you to manipulate others into doing what you want through intimidation ). And you work well.
Why do we try to be the best that we can be with such people ? Given the choice between instant gratification and the lasting satisfaction of earning the esteem of someone you respect and admire, all but the most myopic of us would choose the latter.
What would happen to your leadership effectiveness if you became more like the people from whom others actively seek acceptance and support ? How productive would your teammates and peers become if they all felt that having you as a leader represented the rare opportunity to work with someone that people inside and outside the company admire ? How much harder would people work if they were inspired and motivated by the privilege of your adamant faith in their skills ?
If you answered anything less than an enthusiastically positive response to those questions, imagine the effect on people if you acted in a manner that was the polar opposite of this. How motivated would your colleagues be if you attacked, blamed, demeaned, and embarrassed them and yourself ? Perhaps they'd work hard in the short run because of fear or even resentment. Your organization might squeeze a winning quarter out of intimidation, but without inspiration you will never build a winning company.
What are the qualities that leaders should aspire to in order to earn, deserve, and command respect ? Look no further than a mentor whose belief in you made you want to give your best shot in your professional and personal life. Chances are they possessed the following four attributes:
The judgment to know the right thing to do
The integrity to do it
The character to stand up to those who don't
The courage to stop those who won't
If you consistently practice and develop these qualities in your professional and personal life, you will accrue an additional benefit beyond getting the best out of your peers and colleagues, as well as your family. You will develop wisdom. With that you will be able to distinguish what's important in life, what's worth fighting for -- even dying for -- and what makes up a life that's worth living.
Usable Insight - Command respect, and people will beat a path to your door. Demand obedience, and sooner or later they'll head for the exits.
This article formed the first part of a five part series by Mark Goulston, originally published in Fast Company earlier in 2004. The other four articles are available to read within the Value Systems section of the LeaderValues website.
© Copyright Mark Goulston 2004
http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=268
The Global Leader of the Future : New Competencies for a New Era Author: Marshall Goldsmith
The Global Leader of the Future : New Competencies for a New Era
Author: Marshall Goldsmith
Marshall Goldsmith is one of the world’s foremost authorities in helping leaders achieve positive, measurable change in behavior: for themselves, their people and their teams. He is Founder of Marshall Goldsmith Partners www.marshallgoldsmith.com
Marshall is a founding director of A4SL - The Alliance for Strategic Leadership, a consulting alliance that includes over 200 top professionals in the field of leadership development at www.A4SL.com. He is also the co-founder of the Financial Times Knowledge Dialogue, a videoconference network that connects executives with the world’s greatest thinkers. He has a Ph.D. from UCLA. He is on the faculty of the global executive education program for Dartmouth, Michigan and Oxford ( UK ) Universities. Marshall has partnerships with Hewitt Associates and Russell Reynolds to provide coaching for leaders around the globe. He has served on the Board of the Peter Drucker Foundation for ten years.
Marshall’s fourteen books include: The Leader of the Future ( a Business Week “Top 15” best-seller ), Learning Journeys and Coaching for Leadership.
( Adapted from: Global Leadership: The Next Generation, FT Prentice Hall, Marshall Goldsmith, Cathy Greenberg, Alastair Robertson and Maya Hu-Chan )
Accenture Consulting ( with Marshall Goldsmith ) was recently engaged in a multi-country research project aimed at helping global organizations understand the most important characteristics of the leader of the future. As part of our research we asked leading companies to identify future leaders who have the potential to be the CEO of a global organization. Rather than the usual process of asking today's leaders ( who will not be there ) to describe the future of leadership, we decided to ask tomorrow's leaders. We received input from these future leaders through focus groups, interviews and surveys. In total, we received input from over 200 future leaders who were nominated from over 120 major companies around the world.
In comparing the desired characteristics of the leader of the future with the desired characteristics of the leader of the past we found both similarities and differences. Many qualities of effective leadership were seen as being important for yesterday, today and tomorrow. Characteristics like vision, integrity, focus on results and ensuring customer satisfaction were seen as factors that were critical in the past and will be so in the future.
Five key factors emerged that were seen as being clearly more important in the future than in the past include :-
thinking globally
appreciating cultural diversity
demonstrating technological savvy
building partnerships
sharing leadership
In this article, we will not address each of these factors in detail, but we will describe some of the key learnings from our research for each factor.
Thinking Globally
Globalization is a trend that will have a major impact on the leaders of the future. In the past, even major companies could focus on their own country or, at most, their own region. Those days are soon going to be over. In the new world, a financial crisis that may begin in Thailand and spread to Southeast Asia will dramatically influence the rest of the world. The trend toward globally connected markets is likely to become even stronger in the future. The participants in our interviews mentioned that not only would leaders need to understand the economic implications of globalization; they will also have to understand the legal and political implications.
Two factors that are seen as making global thinking a key variable for the future are the dramatic projected increases in global trade and integrated global technology. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in the USA, joked that he had difficulty trying to buy an "American" car because it was almost impossible to determine what percent of the car was actually made in America. In our research, participants from around the world saw the value of global trade. Several suggested that future leaders might need to spend time in multiple countries to better understand how multi-country trade could help their organizations achieve a competitive advantage. In an environment where competitive pressures are rapidly increasing, producers will have to learn how to manage global production, marketing and sales teams.
New technology is another factor that is going to make global thinking a requirement for future leaders. With the use of new technology it will be feasible to export even office and "white collar" work around the world. Computer programmers in India can communicate with designers in Italy to help develop products that are manufactured in Indonesia and sold in Brazil. Technology can help break down barriers to global business that seemed insurmountable in the past. Leaders who are stuck in local thinking will be hard-pressed to compete in a global marketplace. Leaders who can make globalization work in their organization's favor will have a huge competitive advantage.
Appreciating Cultural Diversity
As the importance of globalization increases, future leaders will also need to appreciate cultural diversity. They will have to understand not only the economic and legal differences, but also the social and behavioral differences that are part of working around the world. Our research is consistent with research from the Center for Creative Leadership, which showed that "respect for differences in people" is one of the most important qualities of a successful global leader. The high-potential leaders we interviewed believed that developing an understanding of other cultures was not just an obligation, it was an opportunity.
The appreciation of cultural diversity will need to include both the "big things" and "small things" that make up a unique culture. For example, few Europeans or Americans who work in the Middle East have taken the time to read ( much less understand ) the Koran. It is clear that religion is one of the most important variables that impact behavior in the region. Smaller issues, such as the meaning of gifts or the importance of timeliness will also need to be understood.
Participants noted that the ability to motivate people in different cultures would become increasingly important. Motivational strategies that are effective in one culture may actually be offensive in another culture. The same public recognition that could be a source of pride to a salesperson in the USA could be a source of embarrassment to a scientist in the UK. Leaders who can effectively understand, appreciate and motivate colleagues in multiple cultures will become an increasingly valued resource in the future.
Demonstrating Technological Savvy
High-potential leaders from around the world were consistent in expressing the view that technological savvy will be a key competency for the global leader of the future. One trend on this issue was clear - the younger the participant, the greater their emphasis in the importance of technological savvy. Many young future leaders have been brought up with technology and view it as a part of their life. Many present leaders still view technological savvy as something that is important for staff people, but not for the line officers that run the "real" business.
What does "technological savvy" mean ? It does not mean that every future leader will be a gifted technician or a computer programmer. It does mean that leaders will need to;
understand how the intelligent use of new technology can help their organizations;
recruit, develop and maintain a network of technically competent people;
know how to make and manage investments in new technology and
be positive role models in leading the use of new technology.
Most young participants believed that new technology would become a critical variable that will directly impact their organization's core business. They expressed little sympathy for executives who thought they were either "too busy" or "too important" to learn the power of new tools. The clear consensus was that organizations that had technologically savvy leaders would have a competitive advantage over organizations that did not.
Building Partnerships
Building partnerships and alliances of all kinds was viewed as far more important for the future than the past. Many organizations that seldom formed alliances in the past ( such as IBM ) are regularly forming alliances today. This trend will be even more important in the future. Reengineering, restructuring and downsizing are leading to a world where outsourcing of all but core activities may become the norm. The ability to negotiate complex alliances and manage complex networks of relationships is viewed as becoming increasingly important.
The changing role of customers, suppliers and partners has deep implications for leaders. In the past it was clear who your "friends" were and who your "enemies" were. In the future these roles are becoming more blurred. In fields as diverse as energy, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals the same organization may be a customer, supplier, partner or competitor. In this "New World" building positive, long-term, "win-win" relationships with many organizations becomes critical. Defeating an "enemy" who may turn out to be a potential customer can prove to be a short-term victory.
Sharing Leadership
In a world where leading across a fluid network may become more important than leading from above a fixed hierarchy, being able to effectively share leadership is not an option. In an alliance structure telling partners what to do may quickly lead to having no partners. All parties will have to be able to work together to achieve the common good.
Not only did our participants believe that the leader of the future would be different than the leader of the past, they also believed that the employee of the future would be different. Many of the future leaders saw that the management of knowledge workers was going to be a key factor in their success. Peter Drucker has noted that knowledge workers are people who know more about what they are doing that their managers do. In dealing with knowledge workers old models of leadership will not work. Telling people what to do and how to do it becomes ridiculous. The leader will be more in a mode of asking for input and sharing information. Knowledge workers of the future may well be difficult to keep. They will probably have little organizational loyalty and view themselves as professional "free agents" who will work for the leader who provides the most challenge and opportunity. Skills in hiring and retaining key talent will be a valuable commodity for the leader of the future. Sharing leadership may be one way to help demonstrate this skill.
Implications for the organizations of the future
The high-potential future leaders that we interviewed believe that new times will require new skills. Unfortunately, many of today's leaders have not been trained in these skills or even been encouraged to believe that these skills are important. Thinking globally, appreciating cultural diversity, demonstrating technological savvy, building partnerships and sharing leadership are competencies that many present leaders do not have.
To successfully prepare for the next millennium, tomorrow's organizations will have to either change the mind-set of many leaders or change their employment status. For leaders who are near retirement, this may not be an issue. For middle-aged leaders who lack the needed new skills this may be a challenge. Leaders will have to learn why the new skills are important. They will have to understand what they need to learn and be shown how they can best learn it. The organization's reward and reinforcement system will need to be changed to reflect the new competencies.
The "bad news" is that many existing leaders do not see the value of these new competencies. The "good news" is that almost all of the top high-potential future leaders do see the value of these new competencies. Historically, present leaders have been expected to help mentor and develop future leaders. While this will still be true in the future, there may be a major addition to the process - future leaders may be recruited to help mentor and develop present leaders. If future leaders have the wisdom to learn from the experience of present leaders and present leaders have the wisdom to learn new competencies from future leaders, both parties can share leadership in a way that can benefit their organization.
© Copyright Marshall Goldsmith, 2005
http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=937
Author: Marshall Goldsmith
Marshall Goldsmith is one of the world’s foremost authorities in helping leaders achieve positive, measurable change in behavior: for themselves, their people and their teams. He is Founder of Marshall Goldsmith Partners www.marshallgoldsmith.com
Marshall is a founding director of A4SL - The Alliance for Strategic Leadership, a consulting alliance that includes over 200 top professionals in the field of leadership development at www.A4SL.com. He is also the co-founder of the Financial Times Knowledge Dialogue, a videoconference network that connects executives with the world’s greatest thinkers. He has a Ph.D. from UCLA. He is on the faculty of the global executive education program for Dartmouth, Michigan and Oxford ( UK ) Universities. Marshall has partnerships with Hewitt Associates and Russell Reynolds to provide coaching for leaders around the globe. He has served on the Board of the Peter Drucker Foundation for ten years.
Marshall’s fourteen books include: The Leader of the Future ( a Business Week “Top 15” best-seller ), Learning Journeys and Coaching for Leadership.
( Adapted from: Global Leadership: The Next Generation, FT Prentice Hall, Marshall Goldsmith, Cathy Greenberg, Alastair Robertson and Maya Hu-Chan )
Accenture Consulting ( with Marshall Goldsmith ) was recently engaged in a multi-country research project aimed at helping global organizations understand the most important characteristics of the leader of the future. As part of our research we asked leading companies to identify future leaders who have the potential to be the CEO of a global organization. Rather than the usual process of asking today's leaders ( who will not be there ) to describe the future of leadership, we decided to ask tomorrow's leaders. We received input from these future leaders through focus groups, interviews and surveys. In total, we received input from over 200 future leaders who were nominated from over 120 major companies around the world.
In comparing the desired characteristics of the leader of the future with the desired characteristics of the leader of the past we found both similarities and differences. Many qualities of effective leadership were seen as being important for yesterday, today and tomorrow. Characteristics like vision, integrity, focus on results and ensuring customer satisfaction were seen as factors that were critical in the past and will be so in the future.
Five key factors emerged that were seen as being clearly more important in the future than in the past include :-
thinking globally
appreciating cultural diversity
demonstrating technological savvy
building partnerships
sharing leadership
In this article, we will not address each of these factors in detail, but we will describe some of the key learnings from our research for each factor.
Thinking Globally
Globalization is a trend that will have a major impact on the leaders of the future. In the past, even major companies could focus on their own country or, at most, their own region. Those days are soon going to be over. In the new world, a financial crisis that may begin in Thailand and spread to Southeast Asia will dramatically influence the rest of the world. The trend toward globally connected markets is likely to become even stronger in the future. The participants in our interviews mentioned that not only would leaders need to understand the economic implications of globalization; they will also have to understand the legal and political implications.
Two factors that are seen as making global thinking a key variable for the future are the dramatic projected increases in global trade and integrated global technology. Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in the USA, joked that he had difficulty trying to buy an "American" car because it was almost impossible to determine what percent of the car was actually made in America. In our research, participants from around the world saw the value of global trade. Several suggested that future leaders might need to spend time in multiple countries to better understand how multi-country trade could help their organizations achieve a competitive advantage. In an environment where competitive pressures are rapidly increasing, producers will have to learn how to manage global production, marketing and sales teams.
New technology is another factor that is going to make global thinking a requirement for future leaders. With the use of new technology it will be feasible to export even office and "white collar" work around the world. Computer programmers in India can communicate with designers in Italy to help develop products that are manufactured in Indonesia and sold in Brazil. Technology can help break down barriers to global business that seemed insurmountable in the past. Leaders who are stuck in local thinking will be hard-pressed to compete in a global marketplace. Leaders who can make globalization work in their organization's favor will have a huge competitive advantage.
Appreciating Cultural Diversity
As the importance of globalization increases, future leaders will also need to appreciate cultural diversity. They will have to understand not only the economic and legal differences, but also the social and behavioral differences that are part of working around the world. Our research is consistent with research from the Center for Creative Leadership, which showed that "respect for differences in people" is one of the most important qualities of a successful global leader. The high-potential leaders we interviewed believed that developing an understanding of other cultures was not just an obligation, it was an opportunity.
The appreciation of cultural diversity will need to include both the "big things" and "small things" that make up a unique culture. For example, few Europeans or Americans who work in the Middle East have taken the time to read ( much less understand ) the Koran. It is clear that religion is one of the most important variables that impact behavior in the region. Smaller issues, such as the meaning of gifts or the importance of timeliness will also need to be understood.
Participants noted that the ability to motivate people in different cultures would become increasingly important. Motivational strategies that are effective in one culture may actually be offensive in another culture. The same public recognition that could be a source of pride to a salesperson in the USA could be a source of embarrassment to a scientist in the UK. Leaders who can effectively understand, appreciate and motivate colleagues in multiple cultures will become an increasingly valued resource in the future.
Demonstrating Technological Savvy
High-potential leaders from around the world were consistent in expressing the view that technological savvy will be a key competency for the global leader of the future. One trend on this issue was clear - the younger the participant, the greater their emphasis in the importance of technological savvy. Many young future leaders have been brought up with technology and view it as a part of their life. Many present leaders still view technological savvy as something that is important for staff people, but not for the line officers that run the "real" business.
What does "technological savvy" mean ? It does not mean that every future leader will be a gifted technician or a computer programmer. It does mean that leaders will need to;
understand how the intelligent use of new technology can help their organizations;
recruit, develop and maintain a network of technically competent people;
know how to make and manage investments in new technology and
be positive role models in leading the use of new technology.
Most young participants believed that new technology would become a critical variable that will directly impact their organization's core business. They expressed little sympathy for executives who thought they were either "too busy" or "too important" to learn the power of new tools. The clear consensus was that organizations that had technologically savvy leaders would have a competitive advantage over organizations that did not.
Building Partnerships
Building partnerships and alliances of all kinds was viewed as far more important for the future than the past. Many organizations that seldom formed alliances in the past ( such as IBM ) are regularly forming alliances today. This trend will be even more important in the future. Reengineering, restructuring and downsizing are leading to a world where outsourcing of all but core activities may become the norm. The ability to negotiate complex alliances and manage complex networks of relationships is viewed as becoming increasingly important.
The changing role of customers, suppliers and partners has deep implications for leaders. In the past it was clear who your "friends" were and who your "enemies" were. In the future these roles are becoming more blurred. In fields as diverse as energy, telecommunications and pharmaceuticals the same organization may be a customer, supplier, partner or competitor. In this "New World" building positive, long-term, "win-win" relationships with many organizations becomes critical. Defeating an "enemy" who may turn out to be a potential customer can prove to be a short-term victory.
Sharing Leadership
In a world where leading across a fluid network may become more important than leading from above a fixed hierarchy, being able to effectively share leadership is not an option. In an alliance structure telling partners what to do may quickly lead to having no partners. All parties will have to be able to work together to achieve the common good.
Not only did our participants believe that the leader of the future would be different than the leader of the past, they also believed that the employee of the future would be different. Many of the future leaders saw that the management of knowledge workers was going to be a key factor in their success. Peter Drucker has noted that knowledge workers are people who know more about what they are doing that their managers do. In dealing with knowledge workers old models of leadership will not work. Telling people what to do and how to do it becomes ridiculous. The leader will be more in a mode of asking for input and sharing information. Knowledge workers of the future may well be difficult to keep. They will probably have little organizational loyalty and view themselves as professional "free agents" who will work for the leader who provides the most challenge and opportunity. Skills in hiring and retaining key talent will be a valuable commodity for the leader of the future. Sharing leadership may be one way to help demonstrate this skill.
Implications for the organizations of the future
The high-potential future leaders that we interviewed believe that new times will require new skills. Unfortunately, many of today's leaders have not been trained in these skills or even been encouraged to believe that these skills are important. Thinking globally, appreciating cultural diversity, demonstrating technological savvy, building partnerships and sharing leadership are competencies that many present leaders do not have.
To successfully prepare for the next millennium, tomorrow's organizations will have to either change the mind-set of many leaders or change their employment status. For leaders who are near retirement, this may not be an issue. For middle-aged leaders who lack the needed new skills this may be a challenge. Leaders will have to learn why the new skills are important. They will have to understand what they need to learn and be shown how they can best learn it. The organization's reward and reinforcement system will need to be changed to reflect the new competencies.
The "bad news" is that many existing leaders do not see the value of these new competencies. The "good news" is that almost all of the top high-potential future leaders do see the value of these new competencies. Historically, present leaders have been expected to help mentor and develop future leaders. While this will still be true in the future, there may be a major addition to the process - future leaders may be recruited to help mentor and develop present leaders. If future leaders have the wisdom to learn from the experience of present leaders and present leaders have the wisdom to learn new competencies from future leaders, both parties can share leadership in a way that can benefit their organization.
© Copyright Marshall Goldsmith, 2005
http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=937
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
