Summing Up
How Should We Measure "Leadership Industry" Results?
Aspects of leadership can be taught, thereby providing a justification for the "leadership industry." But students of leadership (and followership) bring their own personal qualities to the task. The leadership industry in general fails in: (1) catering to customer desires for short courses that produce quick results, (2) emphasizing, and training for, ways of gaining self-knowledge, (3) providing laboratories for the application of passively learned theory, and (4) measuring results. This is my take on "the sense" of the many comments in responses to this month's column.
Leadership involves, among other things, "competence and interpersonal skill" (David Wittenberg), "visionary" and "administrative" components (Gerald Nanninga), "confidence" (Garth Trumble), "the ability to empathize" (Keith Williams), being a "curious follower and a good listener" (Bill Shirley), increasingly being comfortable with the idea that "no one person is in charge of anything" any more (Charles Green), the choice of followers (Ninie), the ability to learn from "repeated failure" (Shadreck Saili), "a quest for integrity" (Adriano Pianesi), a combination of ego control and "ambition … for the institution" (Bruno Coelho), communicating "where you are going" and creating a desire on the part of others "to go and be with you" (Mike Flanagan), "high emotional stability" (Pete Ciekurs), and "authenticity … in everything we do" (Raji Gogulapati). Some of these things can be taught, justifying a leadership industry. Others require more time than customers, and therefore those who cater to them, are willing to give it. As Sharath K put it, "Leadership … needs to be learned by experimentation over a lifetime."
There is perhaps too little emphasis on the development of self-knowledge. Wendy-Anne Naidoo, for example, commented that "… leadership growth involves a journey of a deeper awareness of self and others and impact of self on others." Jackie Le Fevre pointed out that "We can learn to become consciously connected with our own values." Scott Spreier extended this idea even further as he said "… leaders can be developed, but not unless they are willing to question their values, manage their motivation, modify their behavior, and challenge and change their very identities." Kapil Kumar Sopory punctuated this thought with the comment, "It is high time our basic teaching includes some sort of spiritual lessons."
The military is often cited as being one of the most effective corners of the leadership industry. As Pete DeLisi suggested, "… the big difference between leadership development in business and … in the military is the use of leadership laboratories in the military. Military leaders learn leadership by doing it…" Jessica Cruickshank concurred, saying that "It is the practice, more than the theories, that makes (teaching leadership) an effective experience."
Measurement is the biggest challenge to the industry. There was general agreement that it takes more time than most are willing to give it. Several commented that the best source of measurement is from followers. Tan Chin Thuan's suggestion illustrates the challenge nicely when he said "The irony yet sobering measurement of leadership could well be, 'the number of people who willingly attend a leader's funeral.'" How should we measure "leadership industry" results? What do you think?
Original Article
Leadership is under fire around the world, in business, government, and other institutions. Followers appear to be exercising more and more power, thanks to such contextual changes as the rise of social networks, ubiquitous communication, greater transparency, and rising and unmet expectations. It has made the practice of leadership more complex and demanding.
This is happening at a time when individuals and organizations of all kinds spend a great deal on leadership training, which ranges from in-house leadership programs to offerings by outside organizations. It encompasses a growth industry that spans various types of endeavors. (Several of Harvard's graduate schools include the terms "leader" or "leadership" in their mission statements.)
So why is there such a disconnect in the "leadership industry" between efforts and results? That's the primary question posed by Barbara Kellerman in her somewhat dramatically titled new book, The End of Leadership. Kellerman writes with authority, having authored, co-authored, or edited twelve books on the subject of leadership as part of her contribution to the industry. "Teaching how to lead is where the money is," she reminds us.
Kellerman hypothesizes that leadership is a process involving leaders and followers functioning in a context of societal, legal, and technological change, and that training for leadership too often ignores the importance of followership (especially changing patterns of dominance and deference), concentrating instead on the individual leader operating in a narrow, somewhat static context.
She questions several common assumptions in the leadership industry, such as:
- "notwithstanding the ostensibly flattened hierarchy, leaders are where the action is."
- in the absence of measures of leadership excellence, the best measure of leadership in the private sector is financial success.
- "leadership can be taught to virtually anyone and everyone," often in a one-size-fits-all manner.
- "leadership can be learned quickly and easily."
- "leadership can be codified and summarized and packaged."
- "leadership is a profession for which a professional education is optimal."
- "leadership should be taught … in different professional schools for different professional audiences."
While recommending a "buyer beware" approach to the leadership industry, Kellerman still continues to believe that there are great leaders and that learning to lead is possible. However, it will require such things as a greater appreciation of the complexity of the task of preparing leaders, a broader "curriculum" that includes emphasis on followership and the context in which the task is performed, and better measurement of effectiveness.
This leaves us with several questions: Do you believe that leadership can be taught? If so, how should we measure success? If not, how do you explain the financial success of the leadership industry? Can the leadership industry fulfill its promise? What do YOU think?
To Read More:
Barbara Kellerman, The End of Leadership (New York: HarperCollins, 2012).
Leadership is a quality that can shine with or without being in a management position.
1) Visionary - Where should I lead people
2) Administrative - How to get the pieces of the organization to effectively follow to achieve the vision.
If we spent more time teaching "doer-ship" (how to more effectively follow), leadership would be a lot easier. More time could be spent finding better visions.
However, we all really know why the focus is on leadership rather than doer-ship. It's greed. Leaders make more money than doers. Instead of leadership training, we could call it "How to increase your salary" training.
e fulfilling their individual promises. The industry as a whole will never meet the aggrandized expectations. Full development of a professional, any professional let alone a leader, is at minimum a focused, planned seven-year or so effort. Typically the new educational industries don't last the seven years. Of those that do, they may or may not be good, but they are perceived as better than any other apparent alternative (to the hard work, over time, by all concerned.) If the respective industries are seen to be just one more component to continuous improvement by their customers, they can be successful, seen as successful and the success more easily measured and demonstrated.
Can leadership be taught? As a Fellow of the Institute I am supposed to say it can. In truth it can only be taught effectively to those with the necessary personality traits.
Leadership style can not...leadership style manifests from one's upbringing and in some cases, basic moral compass as well as one's personality traits.
In my opinion leadership training has become all the rage primarily because business 'leaders' have confused their desire for leadership with their desire for a specific type of leadership style.
Until more business leaders come to terms with the fact that not everyone leads in the same manner that they might, leadership trainers and 'experts' will enjoy good times.
However, this exact reason is why I seriously advocate that there should be further R&D in this sector. I can only see better outcomes if further studies and experiments are carried out.
A leader is someone who can vision and lead to some place new. When it becomes known, it loses to be new. And hence others trying to emulate can NOT be a leader in that same path. But can BE a manager. So, although leadership courses can not necessarily develop leaders, it can make better managers. And it has, who serve in many such leading organizations in various sectors. Another reason why Leadership Industry has seen growth.
To create a better leadership industry, courses should highly focus on creating visions for the students. This can be achieved through current market analysis and future paths of business opportunities. An example would be BRICS, which should be part of leadership courses as many analysis show future businesses in this region.
To measure the success, there needs to be a feedback and followup procedure to identify if such future visions have been followed and accomplished by the students. In an MBA program, Harvard University students can do a semester in the Indian campus, while being actively participating as an intern in a local company. I am confident this would trigger a more clear future vision for the student which can be brought back to the university. And that intelligence can become part of the leadership course especially in the "Future Vision" course curriculum. So I would be expecting a lot of modification and development in this course to keep refreshing a real new area of growth and hence new leaders.
If such a strategy is executed, I hope it will create new leaders and can fulfill the promise of the Leadership Industry.
Regards
Kamal Hossain
Lecturer of Business Studies
London School of Commerce
hosnkml@gmail.com
Ray Pitman, inventor of the utility derrick and old competitor and customer of mine, claimed to be a pioneer and leader in the crane industry because he had the most arrows in his behind. I would agree with Kellerman that leadership, perhaps can be taught. The real test comes when the whistle blows and one has to walk toward the enemy without looking back to see if anyone follows. The average life of a subaltern on the Western Front, in combat in WW! was less that twenty minutes. Very few actually lead, the casualty rate is high, and the reward is often survival, rarely financial security. I would seriously doubt that the CEO, Chairman etc. actually lead in most cases, that directive is most often held by one most expendable.
Also unguided, on-the-job experience generally does not work much better. I'm not persuaded leadership skills can be taught but they can be coached if the leader-in-development is an emotionally aware, curious follower and a good listener working in a "safe" environment.
As Executive Leadership Coaches, we view leadership as more about our Being than our Doing. The bedrock of our Authentic Leadership Model is "All Leadership is example, anything else is coercion." It follows from this that the essence of leadership is the ability to gain buy-in to the leader's vision, values, purpose and priorities.
Emerging Authentic Leaders must find their own voice, their own unique way of courageously standing apart from the crowd. This requires expensive risk-taking and painful experimentation. Both the expense and pain can be reduced with a relationship with a skilled coach.
All the best leaders I've ever known have the healed wounds of their learning experience.
The explanation is that the nature of leadership has changed, and the leadership industry has failed to recognize it. The result is an industrywide continuation of "doing what we've always done, while expecting different results."
The nature of the change is so obvious we forget to notice it: the world has become flat, horizontal, interconnected, porous, and continuously unstable. The nature of leadership, of course, has changed as well.
The Old Paradigm of leader was one of powerful personalities, honed in narrowly cultivated cadres of "high potential" candidates to master the skills required to effectively marshall a variety of resources under control.
The New Paradigm is that, increasingly, no one person is in charge of anything. There are no vertical bosses with absolute control; instead, there are infinite variations of nexuses of influence, markets for resources and talent.
The management model is one of projects; all business is becoming like the movie industry, gathering together to make a Big Something, then vaporizing and re-emerging, re-constituted, to do the Next Big thing.
In such an environment, the effective leader is the one who can Influence People Not Under Her Direct Control to Join in a Common Cause. It's a horizontal skill, not a vertical skill. It amounts to playing nicely in the sandbox, and being able to subordinate one's ego to the greater good rather than to exert it.
It's not hard to see what this says about leadership. It CAN be taught, but it resembles soft skill training and emotional intelligence. It generally favors women, whereas the Old Model favored men. It requires less inspiration, and more helping others achieve what is important to them.
It's still leadership, and it can and should still be measured by financial and operational results. Just don't expect to find those results being delivered by the Next Incarnation of Jack Welch.
I oten say, Leadership is an art but manytimes i read about it and get leadership training. What then shall i say? Was i born a leader? or I was taught to lead. I assure you that it must be taught. I have always found myself leading even before i learned anything about leadership,in school, church, sports and other activiies, people often say im a natural. However, I have become a better leader after getting training. Leadership must be taught and the leadership industry must fulill the promise as thy are the model. If the industry dont fulfil the promise then be assured that Leaership will die.
Our financil success must match the enthusiasm, commitment and satisfaction of our clients.
l responsibility. The leader must think in long-term success (what is success?), sustainability and survival of his/her followers, do the right thing (what is the right thing? could it be sometimes unpopular?) with foresight (what is foresight? think Gandhi, Lincoln, MLK), have enough abdominal fortitude to do admit a mistake(s) and reverse course, and know when to handover the leadership to the next best leader (it does not have to be to a buddy or next of kin), and have a few other finer qualities (no time to pen it, I need to make a living!).
Given my thoughts above, the leadership industry has not quite earned its big bucks looking at the quality of leaders and leadership in the society today (or has it?). Leadership can be taught if the instructor understands it!
If one can look within and understand himself, he can properly understand anyone. Understand - Empathise - Influence Positively... this is the journey into the minds of people (followers) and being leaders... One may observe this in any successful leader...
I do agree that some sort of indicators should be established to measure success in leadership, based on the triple bottom line principle!
The challenge I've seen is that leaders are simply "plugged"on top off the hieracchy and heve have to deal with all these followers who have served a company for twenty years! and are expected to implement effective turnaround strategies, using the same outdated/unchangable resources. If only leaders had an opportunity to arm themselves with deputies with proven track records. In short, if leaders had a way of choosing followes!!
Leadership success measure could only be one - Have people shifted to a better future than was possible in the leader (in question)'s absence.
Financial success of the leadership industry is a reflection on the current world scenario - The corporates have grown larger than the governments and in majority of places impact policy decision making. The government enterprise nexus has led to monopolisation of resources all over the world in few hands and peoples interests are in general nobody's concern. Yet people have one utility - they create markets and they are needed for something to be sold to. Money is the sole criteria of judging progress, success even if people experience a degrading and stressful quality of life or world is dumped into a financial crisis time and again. In such a scenario there is only one skill that works - manage money. That's where lies the success of leadership industry. The question is how many true leaders world has seen out of the leadership indusrty?? There may be people who have improved toplines for various organisations , but that can hardly be synonymous with leadership.
Leadership industry may fulfil its promise only in limited confinement of defined objectives but surely not on delivering true leaders e.g. Gandhi, Steve Jobs
the principle of "non doership" that is, leaders should not start believing that they are the "doers"; they are only "trustees" or "agents" who facilitate others to excel and so on. Leadership literature and teachings today do not, in my belief, capture these cultural nuances and howsoever we may try to inculcate new theories into our curriculums, cultural and sociological factors pervade and supercede management theory.
But why bother? The cost of doing that is prohibitively expensive and the outcome will never be half as good as the real mango and will always have its inherent orange qualities.
So don't waste your time. What you need is (1) identify those who are born with leadership qualities, and (2) nurture them so that the qualities florish. (3) Put them in the environment where they can practice and learn and be their best.
I think the big difference between leadership development in business and leadership development in the military is the use of leadership laboratories in the military. Military leaders learn leadership by doing it and are evaluated on their ability to perform it. I have yet to see a leadership development program in business that does this effectively.
It is certainly academic that leadership is taught. It is also true that financial success of leadership industry is not 100% as a result of taught leadership. In my view what matters are experiences one or an institution goes through, repeated trails, failures and the individual zeal to overcome. Whether one is academically taught or not , without the attributes of shrewdness, die hard attitude very little success is achieved.
In this light, it is a challenge to measure success arising from taught leadership. To this effect, I align myself to believe that financial success in leadership industry is more inclined a product of
- repeated failure
- repeated trails
- repeated disappointments
and the drive to swallow the pain from such and yet find a way forward and move on.
It is my considered view that there is always a turning point of the financial success of the leadership industry and certainly that is not taught leadership, but either a series of disappointing experiences or a thrilling event that wakes up someone's mind and decide "never again"
I will definitely check on the article you reference here.
As an instructor, I do feel often that leadership industry is failing its students. And that - more importantly - leadership instructors often do not model the leadership thay are teaching. (Interesting that this piece is not part of Kellerman's ideas). For me the quest has been - ultimately a quest for integrity. In that path I have been searching for not just a leadership theory but also for a leadership development methodology attached to it that would bring congruence to the work.
Tired of the usual 5-step leadership recipes taught with powerpoint, I have had some successes taking inspiration from two bold leadership frameworks, which I have used in conjunction in my classess with great results.
The first is the ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP framework based on R. Heifetz work and on its description in "Leadership Can Be taught" of Sharon Daloz Parks, the second is ACTION LEARNING framework a' la M. Marquardt.
I confess that my attempt to bring relevance and vividness to the work has also been influenced by the class I took form you on Case Teaching in 2006.
Again thanks for your piece!
When it comes to measuring good leadership, one can look at the attitudes and productivity of those following. After all, can you really call someone a leader if no one is following them? Leadership is always rooted in relationship, making it a dynamic (not static) skill. One can evaluate leadership by looking at a person's results, both in meeting goals and in the development of those for whom they are responsible.
the environment, business acumen, etc. Specific to the financial success of the leadership industry, perhaps we should consider it only an indicator of the need the industry has to see their leaders become 'well-rounded' and not as a reflection of the leadership industry's ability to deliver leaders themselves. To much extent, believing the leadership industry will deliver it's promise is as much an ideal state as believing the private education system will deliver a generation of well-rounded citizens. The natural ability to lead cannot be discarded, and the sooner we start aligning with consistency people's strengths to their roles and responsibilities, not only will we see positive trends on the capable becoming more capable, but also the leaders under development, developing faster.
David Lapin
Author: LEad By Greatness
http://LeadByGreatness.com
1) values he/she should possess and demonstrate but he/she has to practice it over a long period
2) qualities which made the earlier leaders "Leaders"
In the last decade we have seen many people who have held degree from Business Schools/Universities/Forums demonstrated their inadequecies in the face of adversity or when confronted by a chance to make huge financial gains at the expense of others. They forgot about human value system, ethicality etc., and later failed badly. They were all found to be naked when tide went away.
This demonstrates that a person whose has internalized qualities consistent with Nature / Human values will be a "Leader" and mere tutoring does not guaratee status of "Leader"
No doubt, leadership can be taught but it is up to the learner to acquire the skills provided. Leadership is a hard as well as a soft skill for which theoretical learning is not at all sufficient. It is more important to have positive attitudes, humility, ethics and morality to become worthy of being followed. A leader exists only if he is able to have well intentioned and sincere followers. He shows the path by first traversing it
himself. He has to shoulder full responsibility for all
his actions. in short, he has to be an example for others. Self-centred and selfish people do not make great leaders.
As morals these days are low priority and achievement of results by hook or by crook is a common scenario, leadership industry is showing cracks. It is high time our basic teaching includes some sort of spiritual lessons also so that future generations are worthy of becoming good human beings and eventually good leaders too.
If you combine both concepts you get that a leader is someone that is going somewhere (vision) through a way (their guiding principles) as an example for others.
"Going in advance" means that a leader needs to lead himself first, on the way to fulfill his Vision of what it's the meaning of Life.
This means that anyone that is engaging in this kind of quest is a leader. Discovering what's the meaning of Life is a process and, just like any process, can be taught. That's also what I call Personal Success - knowing, living and making meaning in Life.
Remembering and doing these things are a habit of successful leaders.
Another habit of successful leaders is following and learning from leaders that represent what they want to become and are where they want to be. This is means that a great leader must be a follower of greatness. While this is a skill that can be taught it requires:
1) having the humility to realize that one doesn't know it all
2) having the courage to face the unknown
3) having the ambition to become more
William James once said that "the great use of life is to spend it for something that will outlast it".
That's not only something that great leaders take to heart but that's also what inspires people to follow them. That's why great leaders aren't self-serving leaders with a never-ending need to serve their EGO.
Jim Collins wrote about this, on "Good to Great", describing that Level 5 Leaders "channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It's not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious--but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution and its greatness, not for themselves".
Can this be taught? Lectures about this can teach leaders about the EGO and how to control it. However, if they don't have it in their Heart, they will crumble in moments of stress or great adversity.
Ken Blanchard and Phil Hodges, wrote a book together called "Lead like Jesus", describing the 4 domains of a Leader:
1) Heart: who are you and whom are you
2) Head: what your leadership beliefs
3) Hands: your behaviour as a leader
4) Habits: what are the activities that you constantly commit to doing
You can teach the Head what to know and the Hands what to do. The Habits take self-discipline to do but you can train yourself on that skill too.
The Heart is the root of it all and the only way to teach it... is by example. That's the reason why most people answer that the greastest leaders they know are their fathers, mothers and people really close to them.
Ken Blanchard's wife, Margie, has the best definition of leadership of all times. When somebody asked her "what is leadership?" she answered:
"Leadership is not about Love. Leadership IS Love! Is loving your mission. Is loving your costumers. Is loving your employees. And get this... is loving yourself enough to get yourself out of the way so other people can become magnificient.
Leadership is not something that has success, it supports others to assist in success. Just as one might be an excellent leader, it does not follow that all of the leaders endeavors will be successful. Success is reaching the goals. One can obtain a goal while not being a good leader but just a good worker.
To the assumptions:
2) Financial success is not the only guide nor most important for grading leadership,
4&5) Not sure if leadership can learned quickly by all and codified. Can it be possible
based on the diversity of people in general that would be exposed to it.
7) Leadership is not a profession, it is a trait or quality of a person who can be held in high esteem and honor.
mselves, and some guidance on how to reshape the individual they see reflected back.
Leadership is all about unleashing the talents and capabilities of followers in order to achieve strategic and tactical objectives in such a way that they are intrinsically motivated to perform. Leaders create an environment where performance can thrive.
Leadership techniques can be taught but not everyone is cut out to be a leader; just because someone is in a leadership position doesn't neccesarily mean they are a leader. Leadership requires certain talents which cannot be taught such as high emotional stability and empathy.
The measure of a leaders success should be based on both the results achieved and a rating from the followers.
Leadership can be good. Leadership can be ugly. Leadership can take you to some fantastic places. Leadership can take you to some scary places. I don't believe there is a failure in leadership. I believe there is a failure in leaders who take the courage to make a stand and lead in the right direction.
I can get anybody to follow me as long as I speak what they want to hear. It is more of a challenge to get people to follow you when they don't know what to think about what they are hearing, or worse, you are saying what they do not want to hear. People who can motivate followers to the right action in uncertainty have real leadership ability.
(I like your company name)
I agree that if we taught followership -- how to be a team citizen, how to coach your peers, how to be a direct report, how to coach your boss, how to support your boss, how to influence without authority -- leadership would be far more productive.
While one reason that we don't teach followership may be that leaders make more money, I think it is more likely caused by the lack of demand for a followership class.
When my university changed my course title from "management & communication" to "leadership, management & communication", enrollment grew dramatically.
Everyone wants a leadership course; few people want a management course. And corporate clients want leadership courses too.
The lack of demand for followership training may result from the (over-)promotion of the idea that "managers do things right and leaders do the right things."--Warren Bennis
Bennis, who provides us excellent information on leadership, unfortunately implies that managers don't have any imagination, don't have any vision, don't make ethical decisions without their leader's direction.
In truth, managers prevent chaos. Managers bring tasks and projects to completion through the active involvement of other people.
When managers and teammembers, the followers, are honored and respected as much as leaders, then we'll see people seeking to learn how to be great managers and teammembers. Leaders should model this behavior.
training without follow-up and appropriate measurement is convenient and is accepted. Change is tough. But, I still have hope because followers are 'rocking the boat'!
The leadership industry is helping people to understand themselves and improve the quality of their interactions with the outside world. It is helping people to live empowered and happier lives...it shoudl continue with the good work.
In one swish of intellect the founding failure of leadership was eloquently exposed. You work it out. In my own experience, Leadership development is used as a form of therapy for people who have ended up in jobs they can't do, in the belief that being a slightly more smashing person will somehow make up for an inherent lack of talent.
Leadership has more in common with religious cults that any other social construction that I can find. Apart from of course, kareoke, the other social construction that helps you stand up in front of people and pretend to be something you're not. Don't get me wrong kareoke is fun ... For a while.
Therefore despite the overwhelming rhetoric I have to occasionally stand up in a room full of people who have learned the words and the moves and embarrassingly raise my hand and point out that only Bono can be Bono.
In my 20 years in development activities, I have never met someone who was brilliant at something constructive and a numptie. Some numpties have pretended to be good, but they really weren't when you look hard enough.
Can we now start to concentrate our efforts back on being really good at something useful?
I believe the leadership industry is growing not because of the results it delivers but the perceived needs it's meeting - the stress and loneliness of leaders and aspiring leaders in the current rapid-change, complex organizational world.
What we do with the leadership skills we have acquired is up to us. HITLER was a very capable leader with lots of followers. Jim Jones was equally "gifted" as a leader. Both of these men were charismatic, effective, convincing but their agendas did not benefit mankind. Leadership in and of itself is one thing to explore. The end results of an individual's leadership are a whole different matter. Is a leader someone who has a stronger and a more manipulative will than the rest of us? Is our "leader" leading us to green pastures or is he leading us over a cliff. As effective as HITLER's and Jim Jones' leadership were, they were sorely misguided, as were their followers.
Objective success in leadership is measured by how many followers a leader has; that is easily quantifiable. The leadership industry will fulfill its promise; it will train people and it will make money for its backers. Leadership can certainly be taught. The heavier ethical question is: can leaders be taught to lead for the greater good of mankind? How can a leadership institute teach future leaders to not just lead, but to do GOOD so that good effective leaders do not use their newly acquired skills to become the next Hitler?
On the other hand, flies are group of the failure. No vision as well as mission. Aimless and seems vulnrable.Absence of leadership in their organization. Perhaps we should learn from them.
The leadership core issue though is, not the function of leadership, but the discernment of which objectives to pursue.
Leadership training must develop a sensitivity to societal needs and the passion to respond in an effective way. The metrics of leadership is the amount of "common good" achieved.
prot?g?s' "practical" leadership skills (inner strengths: can they be taught? can they be measured?) may weed out some of the fake (the kind that fall in disgrace with time) future leaders!
It is one year since a category EF-5 tornado with over 200 mph winds hit Joplin, Missouri. After the tornado (which destroyed JHS, St. John's Regional Medical Center and one third of Joplin), citizens, high school students, the school faculty and city administration assumed "no excuses" attitude (life is not fair but we will march on with the assistance of the neighbors, corporate citizens, city, state and federal governments and the world at large) and 2012 graduating class of JHS specially has achieved great success compared to previous school years. President Obama gave an inspirational speech to the graduating class of 2012 in JHS! Hope the graduates (future leaders of USA and the world) will analyze the speech and try to understand every word of it and ponder, absorb and incorporate what they can agree upon to their future practice (not just let it pass through their ears and be uninspired) while the world awaits them!
One important (civic) leadership event no American (or a world citizen) can afford to ignore is the American presidential elections coming this November. We Americans know that we cannot base our vote on the audio and video bites we hear and see on radio, TV, internet, social networks, twitter and all the new age mass media because it is mostly driven by hidden agendas of interested parties wanting to curry favors (trying to buy the election) from the next president. Hence, we the people need a model to objectively evaluate the leadership potential of the incumbent and the challenger to the presidency. One model is to compare and contrast President Obama's (incumbent's) current record (2009-2012) to his proposed leadership actions in the coming four years (2013-2016), compare and contrast Governor Romney's proposed leadership actions in the coming four years (2013-2016) to the last Republican president's (President Bush') leadership actions (2004-2008) since he wants to follo
w the same, and compare and contrast President Obama's and Governor Romney's proposed leadership actions in the coming four years (2013-2016) with respect to each other. It is not possible to ignore any of the three components if objectivity is desired in the national dialogue and debates!
We think the primary requirements for leadership to be successful are effective communication and trust within the group. The solution is to be the kind of person who facilitates communication and trust.
The financial success of the leadership industry is very easy to understand, since there isn't much leadership going around companies are desperate to get someone that can be a leader and provide answers and a path to follow. In the present economic situation it is very difficult and you need a leader with courage, knowledge, experience, vision, there aren't that many around.
How do you measure it? Results but not only "monetary", are stakeholders satisfied? are employees committed? are clients happy? If it is only a question of "making money", well, we do not need to go very far away, just read the last two or three years newspapers and you can see what happenned.
Take a pick at companies that are doing it all right (IDEO, ZAPPOS) and copy or at least use them as role models to plan your company's strategy.
Please excuse my English. I'm from Barcelona, Spain and do not use this language everyday.
Practicing critical thinking, collaboration, communicating and acting on issues that matter, problem solving, clarity of thought, word and deed are necessary to bring out the leader in everyone.
A true leader's visibility diminishes over time and shines through his/ her followers. When followers are many, it means it is time for facilitation to bring out the leaders from the many. The leader in the role of a facilitator is on the side, enabling leadership and is not on the center stage. There is mutual respect and trust in the execution of the process of the new kind of leadership.
I think the Weight Loss Industry is an analogous phenomenon. The basic engineering formula applies there....Input minus Output= Accumulation. So simple.....and so, I'd argue, are the core principles of leadership that are offered up in a thousand different ways.
What's really difficult is to practice any simple truths in real time when confronted with a wide range of choices....and temptations. For Christians....think, The Ten Commandments. Pretty straightforward stuff. Want to get into heaven? Adhere to them.
Real leaders, at every level, make what people perceive to be the best, or undeniably sensible, choices.....for more than themselves. And those are the people we'll follow.
I completely agree with that. Leadership is something that is situated in a place at a time involving a number of people. I do believe and have observed that the individuals others are prepared to follow willingly are those who clearly respond to the circumstances and do so in ways that fit with who they are (which is the authenticity and flexibility in Raji's answer.)
So what can be learned? We can learn to become consciously connected with our own values, we can learn how the things we believe and the experiences we have had prompt us to make sense of the world in certain ways and how we succeed or fail in communicating that sense to others.
For me those are the elements at the heart of effective practice of leadership.
roes but add little in the way of "strength of character" or a personality predisposed to seeking the best for their followers . Henri Fayol described the 4 key foundations of management activities as "Organising, Controling, Leading and Planning" but said little about "How" a manager is meant to become a "Leader" . Further, in recruitment and selection processes, there are job descriptions and specifications galore for managers but very few, if any, for a true Leader . Business Schools can only discuss the historic importance of Leadership with examples circumstantial ,situational and theoretical but cannot forecast nor specify HOW students will perform as leaders in the workplace nor spend time assessing their Personality traits [MMPI/Myers-Briggs et al] in order to point them in the right direction . A good leader [Winston Churchill] will lead his followers to a logical objective to the greater good of the followers and be de-select
ed as leader when the circumstances change .
culture. Successful and effective leaders create culture that reward merit, performance and authenticity. Unsuccessful and manipulative leaders create culture that discourage honesty, ethics and talent, and reward inauthentic people, superficial appearance and unfair practices.
I think fulfilling promise has itself become great challenge for leaders. There are leaders who often make promise to deliver result and hence create good impression. Before people come to know reality, leaders get promotion. This is prevalent practices in the Public sector organizations where seniority supersedes performance and merit. Today, leaders need to show integrity. Leadership Integrity seems to be cascading. Financial success based on numbers has become performance indicators but there are non- financial efforts that lead to financial success. Financial success cannot justify efforts and means. So, effort and means that justify financial success is the real success. Leaders should ensure to see both side of financial and non-financial measure to appraise success. Leaders need to create and integrate feelings towards organizational dream. When they are able to do that, even impossible goal becomes easy.
I would like to quote examples of two companies to understand success. Satyam computers and Citi bank: Satyam was one of the most successful companies, because truth came to light. Similarly Citi bank is termed as a successful company; whereas it is known for maximum number of employees lay off. Looking at the practices of both companies, we can say that they are financially successful but it is clear that their means and effort to achieve that not been right fair and people centric. Had its practices been employee, social and organizational centric, it would have been more sustainable, respected and reputed ones.
The financial success of the leadership industry, given no empirical proof of success, could perhaps be the industry's ability to present to current business leaders, boards, and shareholders what is in reality a perceived benefit; a wishing desire for such training to be a benefit. Could the phenomenon be a proof of George Soros' notion of reflexivity?
ut you? Is that person really enhancing your worth and life? Leaders care about people first, things second. Why? Because they know if they are real leaders, they will not have to demand service...you will be willing to follow them because you know in the end it will benefit all.
I have seen all varieties of training and the bottom line always remains...jerks usually stay jerks and clothe their behavior as some form of leadership. Good managers usually stay managers but have difficulty dealing with people. Natural leaders develop into better leaders if given the opportunity. If not, they usually move on.