As I sit here quietly, contemplating tomorrow's events, my mind keeps wondering off into the ozone's. I have this utopian image of what it would be like if the majority of people in leadership roles today (business, government, administration, teachers, parents, etc.) all had the same overriding vision. Leaders all over the world need a vision that has the power to create a foundation whereby everyone is inspired to do their best work. What would that one common goal sound like? What sweet harmony would it play? In what ways would it entice us to dance more freely? How would it beckon us to remove the deep seated fears that hold us back? Would we find the courage we need in each musical note to reach heights never before imagined?
Of course, I don't have answers to this imaginary state, but it's a vision that I don't mind wrapping my head around, even for a brief moment in time, real or imaginary. If you dare allow your mind to drift into this space as well, from time to time, please share what your Leadership Symphony would call us to consider or do.
Sidebar: Have fun and commit yourself whole heartily to the things that have a positive effect on the lives of those around you. Make every effort to discover who you are. Challenge your own thoughts and reasons for doing and being on a regular basis.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Surrogate Power and Human Resources
Over the years we have become very aware of the term surrogate as it is often used to denote the mutual agreement between individual parties for one to act as a substitute for another in some form or fashion. But, how does this relate to most Human Resources? They are the frontline managers' surrogates. When it comes to holding difficult conversations with staff, they do our jobs for us. How did we get here?
Willingly or unwillingly, frontline managers have allowed it, encouraged it and now we're stuck with it. We are no longer responsible for dealing with our own dirty laundry, messy employee performance issues. We gladly avoid having difficult conversations with employees regarding work related job performance. And guess what, HR loves the job as surrogate and the power that goes with it. Hence, initially it appears to be a win-win situation, a mutual surrogate relationship.
Perhaps you're thinking "who cares, no one wants to do dirty laundry anyway". Perhaps you rationalize the giving up of these responsibilities in the fact that you have more pressing thing to tend to, why waste your time. But, here is the reality of your actions, whether willingly or unwillingly failure on your part to develop the muscle, the courage, or the strength the deal with challenging employee performance issues will ultimately render you ineffective as a frontline manager. And before long, HR will be calling all the shots. And guess who has input when it comes time for promotions?
You will become more and more dependent on their ability to make wise decisions and less on your. Eventually, it will get to the point where you don't even trust your own thinking. Contacting HR before having a one-on-one with staff members soon becomes a way of life. How could you ever manage without them? At this point you have become shackled by your own ineffectiveness. And, worst yet, you may not even realize its happening.
If you don't want to continue the intellectual rollercoaster associated with being carried around in a wheel barrel by others who make decisions for you because you lack the strength associated with professional skills development in the way of communications then you (we) had better wake up and reclaim the power we've given away.
Sometimes, I consider it wise to retrace your steps to determine how you arrived at a particular location, a specific point in time. This is one of those times. I couldn't help but wonder when did HR become the surrogate? When did frontline mangers give up their responsibility to lead no matter how difficult the task?
The answer came to me one day as I observed a little boy in a local Barnes and Nobles. He couldn't have been more than four or five year's old, cute kid. There was something on the shelf that caught his eye. And according to his immediate desires in life, he had to have it, now! He petitioned his mom to carry just one more item to the check-out stand, but her initial reply was a firm "no". After a second and third inquiry, the little boy asked her "why" he couldn't have the item. Her final reply, probably having become exhausted by the young boy's tenacity not to give in, was "because I said so." It was at this moment that I thought to myself "oh my, this is where it starts. This is the space in which we are first introduced to "surrogate power".
Having raised little ones of my own, I am all too familiar with the word "no" and I know why we (adults) often follow it with "because I said so". It's a quick way of saying, you ask too many questions about things that are beyond your comprehension. And if I were to proceed to explain you would continue to ask me "why". Within the context of this scenario, it's obvious that mom has the responsibility of making the ultimate decision with or without further explanation.
However, I consider this surrogate power; because as most parents know there will come a day when the child will want to know and do for himself or herself. They will want the power to decide. And therein the struggle begins. Once someone willingly or unwillingly has surrogate power over you, for whatever reason, they may not willingly give it up. And before long, if you can't change the tides, you are held captive by their decision making process; you stop thinking for yourself.
Power is a reality of life, good or bad, depends on you. And if you fail to maintain, claim or reclaim the power you have to make intelligent decisions and address the things that you are accountable for as a frontline manager, one of which is developing the communication skills to have difficult conversations, on your own behalf then know this, an HR surrogate will always be there to step in and take control.
As it is today, Human Resources, calls the shots and makes the rules for most frontline staff members. And in many cases you can't even ask "why". When we (frontline staff members) fail to adequately, responsibility, and intelligently develop the skills needed to fulfill our role in life as frontline managers and employees capable of making decisions we eventually become ineffective and powerless.
Challenge round: As you consider this topic what should frontline staff members do? What steps would you take?
Willingly or unwillingly, frontline managers have allowed it, encouraged it and now we're stuck with it. We are no longer responsible for dealing with our own dirty laundry, messy employee performance issues. We gladly avoid having difficult conversations with employees regarding work related job performance. And guess what, HR loves the job as surrogate and the power that goes with it. Hence, initially it appears to be a win-win situation, a mutual surrogate relationship.
Perhaps you're thinking "who cares, no one wants to do dirty laundry anyway". Perhaps you rationalize the giving up of these responsibilities in the fact that you have more pressing thing to tend to, why waste your time. But, here is the reality of your actions, whether willingly or unwillingly failure on your part to develop the muscle, the courage, or the strength the deal with challenging employee performance issues will ultimately render you ineffective as a frontline manager. And before long, HR will be calling all the shots. And guess who has input when it comes time for promotions?
You will become more and more dependent on their ability to make wise decisions and less on your. Eventually, it will get to the point where you don't even trust your own thinking. Contacting HR before having a one-on-one with staff members soon becomes a way of life. How could you ever manage without them? At this point you have become shackled by your own ineffectiveness. And, worst yet, you may not even realize its happening.
If you don't want to continue the intellectual rollercoaster associated with being carried around in a wheel barrel by others who make decisions for you because you lack the strength associated with professional skills development in the way of communications then you (we) had better wake up and reclaim the power we've given away.
Sometimes, I consider it wise to retrace your steps to determine how you arrived at a particular location, a specific point in time. This is one of those times. I couldn't help but wonder when did HR become the surrogate? When did frontline mangers give up their responsibility to lead no matter how difficult the task?
The answer came to me one day as I observed a little boy in a local Barnes and Nobles. He couldn't have been more than four or five year's old, cute kid. There was something on the shelf that caught his eye. And according to his immediate desires in life, he had to have it, now! He petitioned his mom to carry just one more item to the check-out stand, but her initial reply was a firm "no". After a second and third inquiry, the little boy asked her "why" he couldn't have the item. Her final reply, probably having become exhausted by the young boy's tenacity not to give in, was "because I said so." It was at this moment that I thought to myself "oh my, this is where it starts. This is the space in which we are first introduced to "surrogate power".
Having raised little ones of my own, I am all too familiar with the word "no" and I know why we (adults) often follow it with "because I said so". It's a quick way of saying, you ask too many questions about things that are beyond your comprehension. And if I were to proceed to explain you would continue to ask me "why". Within the context of this scenario, it's obvious that mom has the responsibility of making the ultimate decision with or without further explanation.
However, I consider this surrogate power; because as most parents know there will come a day when the child will want to know and do for himself or herself. They will want the power to decide. And therein the struggle begins. Once someone willingly or unwillingly has surrogate power over you, for whatever reason, they may not willingly give it up. And before long, if you can't change the tides, you are held captive by their decision making process; you stop thinking for yourself.
Power is a reality of life, good or bad, depends on you. And if you fail to maintain, claim or reclaim the power you have to make intelligent decisions and address the things that you are accountable for as a frontline manager, one of which is developing the communication skills to have difficult conversations, on your own behalf then know this, an HR surrogate will always be there to step in and take control.
As it is today, Human Resources, calls the shots and makes the rules for most frontline staff members. And in many cases you can't even ask "why". When we (frontline staff members) fail to adequately, responsibility, and intelligently develop the skills needed to fulfill our role in life as frontline managers and employees capable of making decisions we eventually become ineffective and powerless.
Challenge round: As you consider this topic what should frontline staff members do? What steps would you take?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Star-Lite
Organizations, within the private sector, seek to capture, coax, entice, the best and brightest talent on the planet. These individuals are viewed as the "future" of all private sector organizations where innovation represents one of the primary keys to success. They represent the energy and talent needed to propel any organization to new heights and low them to retain or runaway with the lion's share of the market. Who wouldn't want that? But, can these young, inexperienced, stars really live up to the challenge? How many of them successfully avoid political derailment and make the ascent to the top?
Over the years these forward thinkers are often referred to as "Upcoming Stars" or "The Best and Brightest". Although few, they represent your bench strength, your leadership talent pool. And while many of them will enter the organization, often times fresh out of college, at the middle management level. Yet, several of them will simply fall by the waist-side.
Overall one could reason that the process of bringing up new talent should work. After all, organizations spend thousands of recruiting dollars to draw this talent out almost as if to imply that money is no object when the future of the organization is at stake. But, the facts remain,the process is in need of improvement.
In 21st century leadership vernacular, remember we are developing a new language, we should consider them "stars waiting to be lit", hence the title "Star-Lite". Truth be told, it doesn't matter how energetic and bright they are in the early years within the organization. Equally important is the degree to which they feel they will rule the world and turn the organization on its head, shake things up or make things happen, they are full of knowledge. But, their new terrain is rough and they don't even know how to go about discovering the bitter or sweet morsel that will aid in their own success.
According to a Harvard Business Review article, "How To Keep Your Top Talent", May 2010 "Practically every company these days has some form of program designed to nuture its rising stars...But...our recent research shows...that nearly 40% of internal job moves made by people identified..."high potentials" end in failure." By the time new stars arrive on the business scene they have forgotten most of what they learned in school and lab case studies regarding organizational life and corporate politics. The latter of which is probably far more detimental to their long term success.
So, what can an organization do to give these "Star-Lites" the extral help they need and improve the likely hood that they will succeed? One reformation step would be to provide them with an organizational "culture coach". The primary role of the cultural coach would be acclimate the new "Star-Lite" to his/her surroundings, help them understand how things get done, especially on the frontline. These frontline relationships should not be taken for granted during the early days. People have long memories. Get to know them and treat them well.
A cultural coach's role would be different from that of a mentor. While the mentor "shows them the ropes" and allows them to make key strategic connections higher up in the organizational pyramid, the cultural coach would be responsible for introducing them to others within the organization and pass down the history of the organization through story telling. This activity could take place on a formal or informal basis, meet and greet, lunches, coffee, etc. The knowledge gained through these efforts will pay dividends for them in the long run when they are faced with the tough task designed to showcase their talent. Knowing who's who and who can help goes a long way in getting things done. But, who in the organization will fill the role of cultural coach?
Let's answer this question in the reverse. Let's identify who shouldn't fill the role--the executive staff members (i.e. directors or above). The individuals most qualified to fill the role of cultural coaches are those who have been with the organization the longest (cultural "history" coaches)regardless to position, but no higher than middle management. The cultural coach, in good standing, has a wealth of knowledge in relationship to how the organization "really" functions on the frontline. They can tell you who's who, who knows who, and who's on who's side, all of which are important organizational facts.
Of course, deliberately placing them in such an environment means they will get an ear full of stories about the way things use to be, and where the organization is today, laced with a few things you might not want them to know. But, the reality of it is, the faster they can begin to decipher the way things really work and how things get done the sooner they can move from "Star-Lite" to "Star-Bright".
Challenge Round: There are several reasons why individuals in organizations are resistent to change. And much of this resistance is visible at the top. I'm beginning to believe that it has more to do with the "Power" struggle and less to do with other overarching theories about individual or collecitive aversion to change itself. Because of the "Power" struggle within an organization people choose not to communicate. They choose not to understand. They choose not to respect the other person and they choose to retain their opinions of self an others.
Let's reason, with the intellectual IQ that exist at the top of any organizational structure these geniuses know what needs to be done, same as any other group in the hierarchical structure. But, they choose not to relinquish any of their "Power" especially if means they could potentially end up with less in the process. At this point, the greater good appears to be null and void.
And the easiest way to avoid willingly giving up "Power" is to make sure you don't spend too much time communicating with the other guy. And when in his/her presence, do all you can to highlight even the slightest difference of intellect, talent, abilities, likes, dislikes, etc.--just keep up the fight, no talking, no chance of working things out and coming up with a better, more equitable plan that may leave you holding the short end of the stick.
What are your thoughts?
Over the years these forward thinkers are often referred to as "Upcoming Stars" or "The Best and Brightest". Although few, they represent your bench strength, your leadership talent pool. And while many of them will enter the organization, often times fresh out of college, at the middle management level. Yet, several of them will simply fall by the waist-side.
Overall one could reason that the process of bringing up new talent should work. After all, organizations spend thousands of recruiting dollars to draw this talent out almost as if to imply that money is no object when the future of the organization is at stake. But, the facts remain,the process is in need of improvement.
In 21st century leadership vernacular, remember we are developing a new language, we should consider them "stars waiting to be lit", hence the title "Star-Lite". Truth be told, it doesn't matter how energetic and bright they are in the early years within the organization. Equally important is the degree to which they feel they will rule the world and turn the organization on its head, shake things up or make things happen, they are full of knowledge. But, their new terrain is rough and they don't even know how to go about discovering the bitter or sweet morsel that will aid in their own success.
According to a Harvard Business Review article, "How To Keep Your Top Talent", May 2010 "Practically every company these days has some form of program designed to nuture its rising stars...But...our recent research shows...that nearly 40% of internal job moves made by people identified..."high potentials" end in failure." By the time new stars arrive on the business scene they have forgotten most of what they learned in school and lab case studies regarding organizational life and corporate politics. The latter of which is probably far more detimental to their long term success.
So, what can an organization do to give these "Star-Lites" the extral help they need and improve the likely hood that they will succeed? One reformation step would be to provide them with an organizational "culture coach". The primary role of the cultural coach would be acclimate the new "Star-Lite" to his/her surroundings, help them understand how things get done, especially on the frontline. These frontline relationships should not be taken for granted during the early days. People have long memories. Get to know them and treat them well.
A cultural coach's role would be different from that of a mentor. While the mentor "shows them the ropes" and allows them to make key strategic connections higher up in the organizational pyramid, the cultural coach would be responsible for introducing them to others within the organization and pass down the history of the organization through story telling. This activity could take place on a formal or informal basis, meet and greet, lunches, coffee, etc. The knowledge gained through these efforts will pay dividends for them in the long run when they are faced with the tough task designed to showcase their talent. Knowing who's who and who can help goes a long way in getting things done. But, who in the organization will fill the role of cultural coach?
Let's answer this question in the reverse. Let's identify who shouldn't fill the role--the executive staff members (i.e. directors or above). The individuals most qualified to fill the role of cultural coaches are those who have been with the organization the longest (cultural "history" coaches)regardless to position, but no higher than middle management. The cultural coach, in good standing, has a wealth of knowledge in relationship to how the organization "really" functions on the frontline. They can tell you who's who, who knows who, and who's on who's side, all of which are important organizational facts.
Of course, deliberately placing them in such an environment means they will get an ear full of stories about the way things use to be, and where the organization is today, laced with a few things you might not want them to know. But, the reality of it is, the faster they can begin to decipher the way things really work and how things get done the sooner they can move from "Star-Lite" to "Star-Bright".
Challenge Round: There are several reasons why individuals in organizations are resistent to change. And much of this resistance is visible at the top. I'm beginning to believe that it has more to do with the "Power" struggle and less to do with other overarching theories about individual or collecitive aversion to change itself. Because of the "Power" struggle within an organization people choose not to communicate. They choose not to understand. They choose not to respect the other person and they choose to retain their opinions of self an others.
Let's reason, with the intellectual IQ that exist at the top of any organizational structure these geniuses know what needs to be done, same as any other group in the hierarchical structure. But, they choose not to relinquish any of their "Power" especially if means they could potentially end up with less in the process. At this point, the greater good appears to be null and void.
And the easiest way to avoid willingly giving up "Power" is to make sure you don't spend too much time communicating with the other guy. And when in his/her presence, do all you can to highlight even the slightest difference of intellect, talent, abilities, likes, dislikes, etc.--just keep up the fight, no talking, no chance of working things out and coming up with a better, more equitable plan that may leave you holding the short end of the stick.
What are your thoughts?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The Tangible Measures of Leadership!
Over the years organizational leadership has not been easily defined and lacks clear tangible measurements that can be used to weed out those, in positions of leadership, who do harm to those who give life to the organization-its people.
Should we blindly accept the fact that everyone in a position of authority is a leader? If you rest your case on the simple statement that "anyone who has followers is a leader" then your answer would have to be "yes". And, with that I am inclined to agree. However, if we agree that there is but one simple definition of a leader then the differentiator critical factors such as impact, effectiveness, or success, to name a few, all of which are subjective in nature.
So, what do tangible measurements of a positive or negative, good or bad, effective or ineffective leader look like? Can positive or negative behavior characteristics be identified and used as a baseline for rating the overall effectiveness of a leader within the organizational setting? According to Donald T. Phillips, the author of Lincoln on Leadership, "Since leadership skills are expressed rather abstractly, there is a great need for simple, concrete illustrations. Tangible examples make the difference; people relate to them".
I've been pondering why leaders are not held as accountable for the way in which they fill their roles as leaders of others. Why is ineffective leadership of people within organizations so easily overlooked? Yet, leaders who fail to met the monetary obligations of the organization are ultimately removed. If you can't sale the product, or get the product out the door, or cost the organization too much money with no clear returns, you're out. However, you can mismanage the people for a very long time, heck you may never be discovered. And because the current definition of what leaders should do is quite vague, some leaders may not even realize the error in their ways.
More so now than ever before, I'm beginning to buy into the saying that "if it's worth doing it's worth measuring", so let's get out the measuring rod. Just like other critical success factors in business can be measured--so can leadership. One way to start is by creating examples of demonstrated leadership behaviors. For example if spending one-on-one time developing staff members is important to the organization then the frequency of such activity can be measured. Does the leader spend 5% of his/her time developing staff or more? The quality of the interaction can be measured by expert observation, outcomes--changes in staff performance or by the staff members themselves with tools like 360 degree feedback. Bottom line, it's measurable.
Challenge Round: I'd like to invite you to share some of your examples, scenarios, of measurable leadership behaviors that fall on either side of the spectrum or somewhere in the middle. Tell me of a situation or time when you were the recipient of, witnessed, or demonstrated positive or negative leadership behavior. What was the situation, who was there (position in the organization)? What was the impact, or impression, on you?
Should we blindly accept the fact that everyone in a position of authority is a leader? If you rest your case on the simple statement that "anyone who has followers is a leader" then your answer would have to be "yes". And, with that I am inclined to agree. However, if we agree that there is but one simple definition of a leader then the differentiator critical factors such as impact, effectiveness, or success, to name a few, all of which are subjective in nature.
So, what do tangible measurements of a positive or negative, good or bad, effective or ineffective leader look like? Can positive or negative behavior characteristics be identified and used as a baseline for rating the overall effectiveness of a leader within the organizational setting? According to Donald T. Phillips, the author of Lincoln on Leadership, "Since leadership skills are expressed rather abstractly, there is a great need for simple, concrete illustrations. Tangible examples make the difference; people relate to them".
I've been pondering why leaders are not held as accountable for the way in which they fill their roles as leaders of others. Why is ineffective leadership of people within organizations so easily overlooked? Yet, leaders who fail to met the monetary obligations of the organization are ultimately removed. If you can't sale the product, or get the product out the door, or cost the organization too much money with no clear returns, you're out. However, you can mismanage the people for a very long time, heck you may never be discovered. And because the current definition of what leaders should do is quite vague, some leaders may not even realize the error in their ways.
More so now than ever before, I'm beginning to buy into the saying that "if it's worth doing it's worth measuring", so let's get out the measuring rod. Just like other critical success factors in business can be measured--so can leadership. One way to start is by creating examples of demonstrated leadership behaviors. For example if spending one-on-one time developing staff members is important to the organization then the frequency of such activity can be measured. Does the leader spend 5% of his/her time developing staff or more? The quality of the interaction can be measured by expert observation, outcomes--changes in staff performance or by the staff members themselves with tools like 360 degree feedback. Bottom line, it's measurable.
Challenge Round: I'd like to invite you to share some of your examples, scenarios, of measurable leadership behaviors that fall on either side of the spectrum or somewhere in the middle. Tell me of a situation or time when you were the recipient of, witnessed, or demonstrated positive or negative leadership behavior. What was the situation, who was there (position in the organization)? What was the impact, or impression, on you?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Strengthen Your Odds!
As new employees enter the professional workforce, straight out of college, many have visions of getting ahead and occupying the "corner office" at some point in the future. Given the future is just that--the future, and decidedly uncertain, the question is what do you need today? How can you increase your odds of success? One thing is certain; the "corner office" maybe an evasive goal in the 21st century if you're not prepared to lead and coach others.
If you're interested in strengthening your odds then seek out an on-site coach from within your work environment that you can learn from. An experienced coach, defined as one with several years of hands on training in the trenches and a proven track record, can afford you valuable insight regarding the ups and downs of understanding self and working with others. Your coach, unlike a mentor, should be someone who interacts with you and those around you on a regular basis. But, make sure they willingly accept the responsibility that comes with coaching. The best way to identify the right coach is to start by observing, not asking. And, be very open to receiving and analyzing feedback if you expect to gain from your experience and theirs.
As organizations struggle to find their way out of the fog of today's economic pressures, on-site coaching is pivotal to your cause as formal education alone will come up short in the area of practical experience needed for successful execution of leadership know how. According to a blog post written by Nic A Paton "...It's not just managers and the newly-redundant who are being let down when it comes to skills, either...new graduates and younger Generation Y workers were being badly let down by the schooling system when it came to trying to get ahead in the jobs' market..." http://www.management-issues.com/2009/7/15/research/america-sill-suffering-shortage-of-skilled-labour.asp July 15, 2009.
A second blog post written by Brian Amble made similar claims; "Management and leadership skills development has been neglected by employers, government and managers themselves for far too long...We need a renewed focus on investing in training and development in this field, both for the current generation and future generations of mangers." http://www.management-issues.com/2010/8/11/research/self-delusion-rife-among-managers.asp August 11, 2010.
Each post finds fault with one group or another. Either it's the business schools, employers, government, or managers who are to blame. However, according to the later Peter F. Drucker you need to take matters into your own hands, "The worker has been given even less attention--and the knowledge worker so far receives almost none...Managers cannot wait till the scientists and scholars have done their work. Nor can the worker." So, who cares who's to blame? Either way you slice or dice it; you're left hanging in the balance.
And don't bother to run to your Human Resource department to sign up for yet another vanilla, geared for the masses, development and training program. While these programs have their value, it is obvious that they too are not enough. The learning process in these settings is too controlled and represent very little in the way of practical experience. Life comes at you from various angles, it's not scripted.
All frontline staff members would benefit from on the job coaching. Developing a coaching relationship will allow you to experience things differently as your coach will help you see and understand things that may otherwise go unnoticed. They can help you create a heightened sense of awareness of who you are and help you recognize the need for further development. Your coach can accelerate your ability to put theory into practice and give you the added courage to try. They also have a way of not allowing you to drown, hence delivering an invisible, mental, safety net. They are there for you and usually have enough business savvy to help you out of a jam. A good coach will not protect you from meaningful experiences, but enable your ability to recover quickly from missteps.
Managers who say they can't afford to take time away from the daily grind to coach staff members don't fully understand or appreciate their role within the organization. They cost their organization money and more than likely spend too much time working on the wrong thing--still carrying out daily task best assigned to others instead of planning for the future success of their staff.
If you already have someone in the work environment that fills the role of a coach--consider yourself fortunate. Perhaps you can further help your department by marshaling in a coaching program on a larger scale. If you've never had a coach you may not believe that such a person could be of any value to you. Don't take my word for it--experience it for yourself, find a work environment coach. If you can't find one, or no one professes to have the time, strongly consider who you are working for.
Sidebar: The line between coach and mentor is sometimes hard to separate. As a competitive figure skater, my coach and I worked together on a regular basis on the ice. My training routine included practicing jumps and spins--repeatedly. She was in a position to assess all of the factors that either facilitated or posed barriers to success during the actual practice session. She offered just in time, real time, feedback which allowed me to make adjustments on the spot.
In addition to competing, I had a second goal of becoming an adult figure skating coach as well. Thereby, my coach also served as my mentor. She provided insight, shared the ropes, introduced me to others and endorsed my skills or ability to coach others. Hence, my association with her opened doors for me. In some cases your coach and mentor maybe one in the same. If this is the case, consider yourself double lucky!
Challenge round: How effective or ineffective is the employee development training provided by most organizations through their Human Resources department? What worked, how is it valued? What doesn't work, what void does it leave in its wake? How does the program take you from knowing to doing? Is there any follow up to performance?
If you're interested in strengthening your odds then seek out an on-site coach from within your work environment that you can learn from. An experienced coach, defined as one with several years of hands on training in the trenches and a proven track record, can afford you valuable insight regarding the ups and downs of understanding self and working with others. Your coach, unlike a mentor, should be someone who interacts with you and those around you on a regular basis. But, make sure they willingly accept the responsibility that comes with coaching. The best way to identify the right coach is to start by observing, not asking. And, be very open to receiving and analyzing feedback if you expect to gain from your experience and theirs.
As organizations struggle to find their way out of the fog of today's economic pressures, on-site coaching is pivotal to your cause as formal education alone will come up short in the area of practical experience needed for successful execution of leadership know how. According to a blog post written by Nic A Paton "...It's not just managers and the newly-redundant who are being let down when it comes to skills, either...new graduates and younger Generation Y workers were being badly let down by the schooling system when it came to trying to get ahead in the jobs' market..." http://www.management-issues.com/2009/7/15/research/america-sill-suffering-shortage-of-skilled-labour.asp July 15, 2009.
A second blog post written by Brian Amble made similar claims; "Management and leadership skills development has been neglected by employers, government and managers themselves for far too long...We need a renewed focus on investing in training and development in this field, both for the current generation and future generations of mangers." http://www.management-issues.com/2010/8/11/research/self-delusion-rife-among-managers.asp August 11, 2010.
Each post finds fault with one group or another. Either it's the business schools, employers, government, or managers who are to blame. However, according to the later Peter F. Drucker you need to take matters into your own hands, "The worker has been given even less attention--and the knowledge worker so far receives almost none...Managers cannot wait till the scientists and scholars have done their work. Nor can the worker." So, who cares who's to blame? Either way you slice or dice it; you're left hanging in the balance.
And don't bother to run to your Human Resource department to sign up for yet another vanilla, geared for the masses, development and training program. While these programs have their value, it is obvious that they too are not enough. The learning process in these settings is too controlled and represent very little in the way of practical experience. Life comes at you from various angles, it's not scripted.
All frontline staff members would benefit from on the job coaching. Developing a coaching relationship will allow you to experience things differently as your coach will help you see and understand things that may otherwise go unnoticed. They can help you create a heightened sense of awareness of who you are and help you recognize the need for further development. Your coach can accelerate your ability to put theory into practice and give you the added courage to try. They also have a way of not allowing you to drown, hence delivering an invisible, mental, safety net. They are there for you and usually have enough business savvy to help you out of a jam. A good coach will not protect you from meaningful experiences, but enable your ability to recover quickly from missteps.
Managers who say they can't afford to take time away from the daily grind to coach staff members don't fully understand or appreciate their role within the organization. They cost their organization money and more than likely spend too much time working on the wrong thing--still carrying out daily task best assigned to others instead of planning for the future success of their staff.
If you already have someone in the work environment that fills the role of a coach--consider yourself fortunate. Perhaps you can further help your department by marshaling in a coaching program on a larger scale. If you've never had a coach you may not believe that such a person could be of any value to you. Don't take my word for it--experience it for yourself, find a work environment coach. If you can't find one, or no one professes to have the time, strongly consider who you are working for.
Sidebar: The line between coach and mentor is sometimes hard to separate. As a competitive figure skater, my coach and I worked together on a regular basis on the ice. My training routine included practicing jumps and spins--repeatedly. She was in a position to assess all of the factors that either facilitated or posed barriers to success during the actual practice session. She offered just in time, real time, feedback which allowed me to make adjustments on the spot.
In addition to competing, I had a second goal of becoming an adult figure skating coach as well. Thereby, my coach also served as my mentor. She provided insight, shared the ropes, introduced me to others and endorsed my skills or ability to coach others. Hence, my association with her opened doors for me. In some cases your coach and mentor maybe one in the same. If this is the case, consider yourself double lucky!
Challenge round: How effective or ineffective is the employee development training provided by most organizations through their Human Resources department? What worked, how is it valued? What doesn't work, what void does it leave in its wake? How does the program take you from knowing to doing? Is there any follow up to performance?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Great Leaders "Hall of Fame"
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
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
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)