Wed • Jul 16th, 2008 • by Tom Nees • Comments 0
“Most companies maintain their office copiers better than they build the capabilities of their people, especially the ones who are supposed to be their future leaders . . .”
Fortune magazine, October 2007
“How To Be A Great Leader” is the cover story in the October 2007 issue of Fortune magazine which includes a “Leadership Report” identifying corporations that are best at leadership development. GE comes out on top. (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/leadership/2007/index.html)
The lead article begins: “Your competition can copy every advantage you’ve got—except one. That’s why the world’s best companies are realizing that no matter what business they’re in, their real business is building leaders.”
I recently attended a seminar at Steelcase University, the leadership development program for Steelcase, the largest manufacturer of office furniture in the world.
CEO Jim Hacket described how that under his leadership Steelcase has been repurposed from a manufacturing to a “work environment” company. Their return to corporate profits after several years of decline has been the result of finding and developing the best talent. The “university” is a hub for their global leadership training, provided, if not required, for thousands of employees around the world. Employees assessed with the potential for executive leadership are placed in a fast track intensive development program.
The Fortune article explains why companies like Steelcase are willing to invest so much in leadership development. However, as the article states: “most companies maintain their office copiers better than they build the capabilities of their people, especially the ones who are supposed to be their future leaders . . .”
This is especially true for nonprofit and faith-based organizations without the resources of major corporations for leadership development. Managers and executives in these organizations are often left to pursue their own leadership development programs including executive coaching.
I’ve added leadership development to the two other competencies everyone in today’s workforce needs in order to advance their productivity and fulfillment. For years I’ve advised those who report to me that they must not only master a discipline but they must also stay up to speed with technology. Career advancement depends upon constant improvement in these two areas.
In his book “Five Minds for the Future,” Howard Garner writes about the importance of a “the disciplined mind,” by which he means becoming competent in some vocation or specialty. He contends that it takes ten years to learn such a discipline, i.e., law, medicine, history, management, art, etc., and a lifetime of continuing education to stay current. (Five Minds for the Future, by Howard Gardner. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2006)
Add to that technology. Knowledge workers are dependent upon computers to access information on the Internet and connect to their constituencies. I’ve heard that technology is advancing so fast that we must relearn everything every two years.
But now, those with responsibility for guiding people and organizations must add a third track: a life-long pursuit of leadership development for themselves as well as others who may report to them.
These three pursuits are essential for every manager and executive: the mastery of a discipline, competency with technology, and leadership development. Leadership failure often results from the mistaken assumption that leadership is positional. Effective leadership doesn’t necessarily flow from positions of influence and responsibility: it must be developed.
Whether it’s in a large multinational corporation, a faith-based organization or a church, leadership can be learned and improved upon. Our personal well-being as well as the success of the organizations we serve depends upon a journey to leadership maturity.
Wed • Jul 16th, 2008 • by Tom Nees • Comments 0
In a recent blog – What Kind of Leader Are You? – prompted questions about how to know what kind of leader you are.
In their book Leadership Agility Joseph and Joiner use a case study method. They apply each of their 5 leadership styles – Expert, Achiever, Catalyst, Co-Creator and Synergist, to the case. It’s a practical way for them to demonstrate how leaders vary in the way they lead. I found myself wondering about how I might act in the situation they pose and thus learn something about myself.
We are constantly observing and describing how leaders lead – whether it’s the pastor of a church or the President of the United States. No two are alike. Some are better than others. I suspect that leaders routinely compare themselves to other leaders and wonder about how they would lead if given the same responsibility. Good leaders are self-aware. They observe others and themselves.
In his books Emotional Intelligence and Social Intelligence, Daniel Goleman insists that there is no self-management without self-awareness.
Self-awareness can be developed by observing and reading.
I’ve found that leadership examples and lessons from the business and corporate world – Donald Trump, Jack Welch, Jim Collins, etc., have been difficult to apply to leadership in nonprofit and religious communities. Better learning for me, at least, has been from resources like the Leadership Network (www.leadnet.org), the Leader-to-Leader Institute (www.leadertoleader.org) and writers such as Robert Greenleaf on servant leadership, Max Dupree in The Art of Leadership, and Peter Drucker – each of whom wrote to a wider community from their knowledge of business leadership.
Self-awareness can be learned through self-assessments.
There any many self-assessments or personality profile instruments that leaders will find helpful if not essential to self-awareness. The best known is Myers-Briggs. But there are many others including FIRO-B – the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation-Behavior assessment, HPI – the Hogan Personality Inventory, and the Enneagram. I recommend the Strength-Finders assessment from Gallup (http://gmj.gallup.com/content/102310/Clifton-StrengthFinder-Book-Center.aspx) and any number of the emotional intelligence assessments (www.eqi.org).
Self-awareness through 360 feedback.
Writing in What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, executive coach Marshall Goldsmith claims that “360 feedback” – in which superiors, subordinates and peers rate the individual – is the best, if not the only way for leaders to get a broad-based assessment of their performance.
Wed • Jul 16th, 2008 • by Tom Nees • Comments 0
In a leadership seminar I attended was at George Washington University in Washington, DC., the presenter contrasted leadership by influence vs. control.
He asked us, “How much control does a salesperson have?” The correct answer was zero. No one can be forced to purchase anything. Another question to help us understand the contrast was, “Do parents lead by control or influence?” We were reminded that when children are young they must be controlled, but by the time they reach their teen years parental control gives way to influence.
In nonprofit and religious organizations supported by volunteer members and contributions, leadership is entirely by influence. No one can be forced to attend church or put money in the offering plate.
In The Leader of the Future 2 (2006), edited by Frances Hesselbein and Marshall Goldsmith, Brian O’Connell the founding president of INDEPENDENT SECTOR recalled what America’s management guru, the late Peter Drucker observed about the leadership skills of the clergy.
“. . . in just about any American city, the very best leaders were most likely to be found leading the major religious organizations. He explained that such ministers, priests, and rabbis demonstrate a staggering array of talents, including recruiting, retaining, inspiring, unifying, counseling, communicating, fundraising, and networking—all on top of instilling and building faith.”
And yet, even those who have been parish clergy for some time are tempted to revert to leadership by control rather than influence. There must be within us some lurking need to control subverting the difficult and uncertain challenge of leading by influence.
Movements are lead by those who know how to develop a following through inspiring communication and moral authority rather than command and control.
In a leadership seminar for Nazarene district superintendents, James O’Toole author of Leading Change: The Argument of Values-Based Leadership, instructed the group to watch an hour of the movie Gandhi. He then led us through a group reflection of how Gandhi, without position or power, became the great leader of Indian independence.
Leadership is about people following when they don’t have to. That takes influence.