Tue • Sep 22nd, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 1
seizing leadership moments – the true test of leadership
Even though I strongly believe in and advocate for leadership development I am also aware that leadership often emerges from the crucible of challenges which come our way whether we are prepared or not.
It may be an event as overwhelming as a World War II which thrust Winston Churchill and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into roles they could never have imagined nor would have asked for. Or it may be something as private and close to home as a parent needing to intervene on behalf of a struggling child.
Leadership is mostly routine and predictable, without crises. But sooner or later some surprise event will force us to take the lead, to take charge, to weather a storm and give direction into the unknown future.
In a recent article Steve Gunderson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Council on Foundations praises the decisions of charity leaders for their response to recent financial challenges. “What I’ve learned,” he writes, “is that you can’t schedule leadership moments — they find you. And how you respond to the challenges of your time defines whether you individually, or collectively, have met the true test of leadership.”
Years ago the organization I was leading was threatened by the misfeasance of a trusted staff member and resulting negative publicity. A wise elder, recognizing my distress, reminded me that how I handled what had happened was as important, if not more important than what happened. His counsel proved to be true. I convened the best minds I knew of to guide me and the organization through the crisis. That “leadership moment” resulted in increased respect and support for the organization.
Leadership moments are opportunities to be seized or squandered. New York mayor Rudy Giullani was admired for seizing the moment, giving courageous leadership following 9/11. On the other hand, government leaders squandered an opportunity to lead by by failing to act immediately following Hurricane Katrina even though the disaster was predicted.
As Steve Gunderson notes, no one could have imagined the recent financial collapse on Wall Street and its domino effect on nearly every organization. And yet, he points out, the leaders of charities he represents have stepped forward to secure the future of their organizations to the benefit of the common good.
The result may not be what these leaders would have chosen, but at least they met what he calls “the true test of leadership” – being present and guiding the way when faced with a leadership moment.
Tue • Sep 15th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 3
knowing about one another is as important as knowing the mission
Most leaders work with and guide an inner circle of colleagues in teams and groups. Many so-called teams are in fact simply groups of people who meet to report in to a leader and one another. There is nothing wrong with groups – it’s just that they are not teams.
Teams are made up of individuals whose individual success depends upon the efforts of others and and the group as a whole – as in an athletic team. And, as in athletics, most teams are built around role-players, that is, each one has a unique assignment in the success of the team.
Industrial teamwork was pioneered by Toyota where automobile assembly line workers were clustered into teams working together to complete a specific task. Teamwork is the creative genius in high-tech companies where groups of people are given product ideas to develop.
Team-building is the skill to organize people to get things done most effectively. That is as important as the reputation of being a “team player” – a cliche that often means no more than going along to get along.
Most leaders, including those in the nonprofit and public sector worlds are engaged in team-building – transforming a working group into a team, or improving a team as in Patrick Lencioni’s best-seller, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team .
I recently spent several hours with a group in a team-building exercise. They were given a team report compiled from their individual iWAM assessments from which they leaned important differences and similarities about their motivation and behavior.
For instance, while some of them were motivated to take immediate action, to move ahead with projects, others were inclined toward patience wanting to take more time before deciding. They learned that some of them think out loud while others are more reserved, if not silent during discussions. Silence was not disengagement. Most of them were big-picture people with less interest in problem-solving. That too has its advantages and disadvantages.
This team-building process proved to be as fun as it was revealing and positive. They learned that some of their differences provided balance even as some of their similarities strengthened their team.
Knowing more about themselves and how to adjust to one-another is as essential for building their team as is holding their mission in common.
Mon • Sep 7th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 1
when strengths become pitfalls
We are all “excellent at a certain number of things, mediocre at different things and just awful in other areas,” claims Shelle Rose Charvet in her book, Words That Change Minds, in which she explains how we are programed through genetics, environment, experiences, even bio-chemistry for our strengths and weaknesses. She teaches how to manage behavior patterns to produce good results.
Which reminds me of a professional baseball pitcher explaining his secret of success. Find out, he said, what you don’t do well at and don’t do it. He went on to explain that no pitcher can throw all the pitches equally well. He learned to perfect the few he was good at and not even try the others.
During past decade the StrengthsFinder assessment marketed by the Gallup organization has promoted the idea that success in life and leadership is achieved by developing our strengths rather than trying to correct our weaknesses.
StrengthsFinders is based on the work of the late Donald Clifton who developed a computer-based analysis of a self-assessment which identifies a person’s unique combination of “signature” strengths from among 34 “themes,” or universal strengths – some with odd names such as “maximizer”, “intellection” “and woo”.
The newest application of the StrengthsFinder series of best-selling books is Strengths Based Leadership by Gallup writers, Tom Rath and Barry Conchie. They’ve grouped 34 “themes” in four categories, which from their research of followers are the most important qualities wanted in leaders: Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building and Strategic Thinking.
As important as it is know to their strengths leaders do well to also recognize when a strength becomes a pitfall. Back to the pitching analogy – good hitters learn to predict what to expect from the best of pitchers. They may swing and miss a few good fast balls, but if the pitcher throws it too often it’s likely to become a home run pitch.
So it is with leadership. Strengths have their pitfalls – or too much of a good thing.
For instance, many leaders are proactive initiators. They want immediate action to get things done. The pitfall – or too much of a good thing – is impatience, hyperactivity and insistence. Likewise, too much courage could could lead to recklessness. Too much self-confidence could lead to arrogance. Too much patience could prevent action.
With executive coaching clients and in team building training I balance the StrengthsFinders assessment with the iWAM (inventory for work attitude and motivation) – a recently developed motivational and behavior assessment – inspired in part by Charvet’s work. It measures how well core qualities and strengths are working in particular contexts or assignments.
As with the baseball pitcher – it takes more than just knowing about one’s strengths and abilities to succeed. Successful leadership results from knowing how to use and modify strengths, natural abilities and core qualities.