There are several nationally acclaimed “Hall of Fame” museums dedicated to honoring and preserving history, educating and maintaining the connection from one generation to the next. Why not add one more, the Great Leaders Hall of Fame—with emphases on the word “Great”.
On June 4, 2010, America received notice that Coach John Wooden had died. I listened to the various tributes to his success and his character as attested by those who had the pleasure of knowing him. Opening remarks found on http://www.foxsports.com/ began with “John Wooden, college basketball's gentlemanly Wizard of Westwood who built one of the greatest dynasties in all of sports at UCLA and became one of the most revered coaches ever… He taught the team game and had only three hard-and-fast rules — no profanity, tardiness or criticizing fellow teammates…’What you are as a person is far more important than what you are as a basketball player,’ was one of Wooden's key messages… His enduring legacy as a role model is one we should all strive to emulate…Even with his staggering accomplishments, he remained humble and gracious.” http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/John-Wooden-dies-UCLA-coach-99-060410
July 19, 2010 at 12:29 AM.
A few weeks later, America received the news that another well known figure in the sports industry had also died, George Steinbrenner, the owner of the Yankees. Remarks found on http://www.foxsports.com/ started with “He was baseball's bombastic Boss”, and continued with remarks like, “...When he thought the club's parking lot was too crowded…Steinbrenner…had a guard check every driver's credential…But he also tried to make up for his temper with good deeds and often-unpublicized charitable donations…He also was banned for 2 1/2 years for paying self-described gambler Howie Spira to obtain negative information on outfielder Dave Winfield, with whom Steinbrenner was feuding...Through it all, Steinbrenner lived up to his billing as ''The Boss,'' a nickname he clearly enjoyed as he ruled with an iron fist... Under his often brutal but always colorful reign, the Yankees won seven World Series championships, 11 American League pennants and 16 AL East titles...” http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/AP-source-Yankees-George-Steinbrenner-dies-at-80-94991842, July 18, 2010 at 11:30 PM.
It is without a doubt that both of these men achieved great things, helped others, and were quite charitable beyond that which most of us could ever imagine; however the way in which they conducted themselves and made things happen appear to be quite different. Yet, men still sing their collective praise. Why? When it comes to “greatness” do the means always justify the ends?
Okay, I will agree both men left an impression on the world. But, the purpose of the “Great Leaders Hall of Fame Museum”, as with the other Hall of Fame Museums, would be to serve as an example for future young leaders. We could talk about the importance of “doing no harm”, “walking the walk”, maintaining one’s values and beliefs, and respecting others. We could include leaders from all walks of life—business, medical, universities, sports, entertainment, political, etc. And let’s not forget, we (collectively) get to define the criteria for “greatness in leadership”.
The opening remarks for nominations to the Great Leaders Hall of Fame would not start with statements that ring of “pardon the mess he/she left behind, but in spite of himself/herself the following things were achieved during their reign…” I seek not to be the judge of any man for as the bible states “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him?; but, without trying to define what’s in a man’s heart it would still be a step in a positive direction to exemplify great character. Think about it, so many of the key figures the current generation of future leaders looks up to are failing short. Of course, perfection is not possible for any man or woman, and everyone can change (if they so desire).
The plumb for greatness cannot be placed at the crossroads of what was achieved while ignoring the “how”. We can’t allow a leaders ability to inspire, to win or to earn millions become our only criteria for ‘greatness”. Many have inspired, but how? Many have won, but how? Many have earned millions, but how? Or perhaps we should let them all in and just place an asterisk by the name of those in question.
There appears to be a magnitude of difference between leaders who honor and respect others and those who don’t.
Challenge Round: If these simple criteria’s won’t do, then what would? What character traits would be a must for you? Can you juxtapose leaders in similar fields or pursuits where the “how” differed?
Sidebar: here is a link to Coach John Wooden’s “Pyramid of Success” http://www.coachwooden.com/index2.html
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Roadblock to Innovation
It goes without saying that in an open competitive market, which I will define here as non-government organizations or institutions, innovation is key and breakthrough innovation is supreme. And in today’s knowledge based society incremental changes (a.k.a. feature enhancements) in products or services are no longer enough. Minor changes in any one market are easily copied, reproduced and sold at a discount. And if we watch closely, after the first device, or gadget, is introduced the manufactures will take us on a feature enhancement journey for decades. Needless to say, feature enhancement or brand extension does not represent breakthrough innovation.
Innovation less alone breakthrough innovation is difficult to achieve in most organizations partly due to the misalignment between the need to maintain order “control” verses the chaotic state associated with innovation. Organizations, as with any institution, have to create something in the way of stability. But the question what needs to be stabilized and for how long? For example, given certain government regulations and professional practices, like accounting, organizations have no real wiggle room. Any attempt to develop innovative ways to pay taxes would probably land someone in jail. However, the need for organizational leaders to create stability and minimize chaos through “control” shouldn't become a blanket under which the majority of the business is conducted. In short, if it’s not subject to government or professional regulations then “command and control” should be the last thing you foster as a leader.
Many leaders the world over understand the importance of breakthrough innovation. And many have postured themselves to believe that they foster innovative spirits at every level of the organization. However, a true spirit of innovation runs counter to the style in which these leaders lead—command and control.
I often wondered how so many leaders (relative to position), a large portion of which are men, developed what appears to be an institutional leadership style. A few conversations with friends led me down a path which serves, in part, as an explanation to the origin of the “command and control” mindset and its relative importance. The book IKE , by Michael Korda, further facilitated my understanding as it described the purpose of the command and control style of leadership relative to military warfare. According to the book this was taught at “The Command and General Staff Schools…A staff school is highly specialized, and not designed to promote or encourage originality of thoughts or new ideas…the staff officer’s job is to reduce …potential chaos” ( p171-172). The primary reason for this “command and control” style, as stated by my friends and confirmed in this book, is that you can’t have people going off in left field when lives are at stake.
However, the open competitive market represents an entirely different type of warfare and the same rules don’t apply. Better yet, organizations had better learn how to evaluate, assess, and assimilate new game plans on a regular basis and quickly. You cannot invent something or implement a process and allow it to become dormant, untouched and unchallenged, void of breakthrough innovative ideas for decades on end. If there is a direct correlation between market shares and the welfare of the organization then let’s recognize the fact that this too is a life and death situation. Under these circumstances “command and control” will ultimately lead to your demise, lives will be lost. It’s almost as if, today’s leaders need to be deprogrammed in an effort to create a new order of business—dedicated to the discovery of breakthrough innovation found only on uncharted terrain.
Sidebar: Organizations that find themselves so far ahead of the pack (competition) that they perceive there is no external competition should create some even if it's imaginary. Void of any external competition organizations tend to create competition from within. Simply put: A house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25). History has taught us that, eventually internal fighting will lead to self destruction. Rome was never conquered.
Innovation less alone breakthrough innovation is difficult to achieve in most organizations partly due to the misalignment between the need to maintain order “control” verses the chaotic state associated with innovation. Organizations, as with any institution, have to create something in the way of stability. But the question what needs to be stabilized and for how long? For example, given certain government regulations and professional practices, like accounting, organizations have no real wiggle room. Any attempt to develop innovative ways to pay taxes would probably land someone in jail. However, the need for organizational leaders to create stability and minimize chaos through “control” shouldn't become a blanket under which the majority of the business is conducted. In short, if it’s not subject to government or professional regulations then “command and control” should be the last thing you foster as a leader.
Many leaders the world over understand the importance of breakthrough innovation. And many have postured themselves to believe that they foster innovative spirits at every level of the organization. However, a true spirit of innovation runs counter to the style in which these leaders lead—command and control.
I often wondered how so many leaders (relative to position), a large portion of which are men, developed what appears to be an institutional leadership style. A few conversations with friends led me down a path which serves, in part, as an explanation to the origin of the “command and control” mindset and its relative importance. The book IKE , by Michael Korda, further facilitated my understanding as it described the purpose of the command and control style of leadership relative to military warfare. According to the book this was taught at “The Command and General Staff Schools…A staff school is highly specialized, and not designed to promote or encourage originality of thoughts or new ideas…the staff officer’s job is to reduce …potential chaos” ( p171-172). The primary reason for this “command and control” style, as stated by my friends and confirmed in this book, is that you can’t have people going off in left field when lives are at stake.
However, the open competitive market represents an entirely different type of warfare and the same rules don’t apply. Better yet, organizations had better learn how to evaluate, assess, and assimilate new game plans on a regular basis and quickly. You cannot invent something or implement a process and allow it to become dormant, untouched and unchallenged, void of breakthrough innovative ideas for decades on end. If there is a direct correlation between market shares and the welfare of the organization then let’s recognize the fact that this too is a life and death situation. Under these circumstances “command and control” will ultimately lead to your demise, lives will be lost. It’s almost as if, today’s leaders need to be deprogrammed in an effort to create a new order of business—dedicated to the discovery of breakthrough innovation found only on uncharted terrain.
Sidebar: Organizations that find themselves so far ahead of the pack (competition) that they perceive there is no external competition should create some even if it's imaginary. Void of any external competition organizations tend to create competition from within. Simply put: A house divided against itself cannot stand (Matthew 12:25). History has taught us that, eventually internal fighting will lead to self destruction. Rome was never conquered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)