There are many ways to consider leadership’s future and I often focus on schools and education (not the same thing) and kids—who are the leaders, actual and positional, tomorrow.

But there is another view of leadership’s future worth considering and that is of leadership as an industry, as opposed to an action or description.

Make no mistake, leadership, directly and indirectly, is definitely an industry.

Consider the standard definition of ‘industry’: A category used to describe a company’s primary business activity, usually determined by the largest source of a company’s revenues.

From individual coaches to major consultants and every size in-between, thousands of people earn their daily bread and pay their mortgages with money made through their activities in the leadership industry. Even those who aren’t paid in money are earning something, whether it’s enhanced reputation, a way to spread their opinions/beliefs, an ego boost or something still more esoteric.

I’m not saying that this is a bad thing or a good thing, but it is a thing worth noting.

In a previous post I warned of the need to digest and tweak expert information as opposed to swallowing it whole and this is even more important when it comes to leadership, considering the vast volume of it and the media’s constant focus and insistence that it is leadership that separates the winners and losers.

Even if you subscribe to that idea you need to develop a definition that is relevant to your world and stands the test of time, not some offered up by the industry.

Leadership terms are casually thrown around, applied by some to any and every action that a person does, may do or should do and by others only to the actions/words of those in positional leadership roles.

Perhaps these two points are worth accepting, although I’m sure many will disagree with me,

1. Leadership is an industry in which people, directly or indirectly, earn their living.
2. Leadership information comes in a multiplicity of forms and the quality varies widely.

Accepting these two ideas results in one conclusion: like investing information, leadership information should be digested, internalized and tweaked for your individual needs at both that point in your life and in your future.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hikingartist/4582034468/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

In a recent post Steve Roesler asks this question “Is your organization deliberate about identifying–up front–people who have the heart to learn about themselves and the humility to make changes accordingly?” and ends with this summary comment, “A well-bred head lights up a single office. A smart heart lights up the organization.”

I believe that a “smart heart” goes beyond the changes required for personal growth.

Whether you are a manager, aspiring leader or team member a smart heart will advance you in any arena.

It is the quality that draws people to you; it makes people want you on their team; it assures people that you have their best interests in mind; a smart heart goes hand-in-hand with trustworthiness.

Faking a smart heart for an interview might get you hired, but faking isn’t sustainable. People aren’t stupid and the truth will out.

Think about it.

Then go and light up your world.

Image credit: Svadilfari on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nauright/2714309718/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

The most overused and abused words in almost any language are ‘lead’ and its close cousins ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’.

People are constantly exhorted to “step up and be leaders” and to “cultivate leadership skills” and therein lies my difficulty.

I googled a number of places and here is a partial list of leadership traits; I’m sure you can add many more.

Do you see the same problem I see?

Ignoring how they are interpreted, these are the traits that allow people to be decent human beings, no matter what they do in life.

Of course, the interpretation is colored by ideology and MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™), sometimes so highly colored that a person on the ‘other side’ won’t recognize them—politics and religion are two areas where this is most obvious—but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.

If you prefer to see developing these and other ‘leadership traits’ as laying the basis for your emerging as a leader that’s fine, as long as the development isn’t contingent on your advancement to a certain position.

Ever wonder if there is one trait beyond all others that leaders of all kinds have and is obvious in every situation?

Join me Thursday for the answer.

Image credit: lepiaf.geo on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

When you’ve coached or written a blog for years you can find yourself answering the same questions over and over, but that’s OK. I’d rather have you drop me a line or use the chat box in the right frame than search for something and become frustrated.

And that’s what happened last night about 10:30.

“Ken” pinged me and asked if I remembered a post that talked about compensation and used a stool as an analogy for the company. He said he’d read it a few years ago and wanted it as part of a presentation for his boss.

No Problem. I’ve used that analogy with clients for years and in posts three times. After I gave Ken the URL he said I should post it again.

I agreed, but added a bit to cover the current situation.

Success is like a 3-legged stool—

Customers / equity-holders / employees

If one leg becomes too long, the stool tips over!

Taking care of the first two is a given, whereas taking care of employees seems to be based on the labor market.

If the market is hot, people are showered with money and perks, as the market cools, so does employee care.

Yes, you can buy people and you can replace people, but it’s very expensive.

In the kind of tough economic times we’re going through people understand when there are no raises and even when their compensation is cut to avoid a layoff.

But if that treatment extends only to workers and lower management, while executive compensation and perks continue, you can count on a steady exodus as business improves.

When the market is tight and companies are throwing cash, stock and perks right and left it’s the wise manager who remembers that people who join for money/stock/perks will leave for more money/stock/perks.

If instead management chooses to

• do the right thing,
• treat people fairly,
• give them interesting work,
• enable their growth, and
• satisfy most of their intangible hot buttons

employees will be

• more productive,
• innovative,
• engaged,
• committed,
• caring,
• happier, and
• healthier.

What more can any boss/company ask?

Image credit: Steve Heath on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Hat tip to Dan McCarthy who cites a study by Deloitte and asks whether best practices are reality or illusion.

Their research shows that luck alone can account for above average corporate performance for many years.

I haven’t read the study, but I did read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: The Story of Success and there is a lot to be said for luck.

Not the kind of luck that wins a lottery, but the “right time, right place” kind.

I saw it first hand during my 20+ years headhunting. When the economy was hot and talent scarce anybody could (and did) become recruiters because companies were so desperate they hired almost every warm body that even vaguely fit the opening.

During the expansion of the nineties, what percentage of a stock rising was skill and how much market serendipity? By the same token how much of the rise was leadership skill and how much a market that not only lifted all boats, but also responded with outsize euphoria to anything that sounded good?

This applies just as much to individuals.

I’m not saying that skill isn’t important or that it won’t offset many factors, but so is timing.

The problem is that you can’t choose when you are born or what the economy will be like when you reach the corner office or get that great promotion; you can only do your best with the situation in which you find yourself.

So when you do look to others for pointers and best practices, be sure that the economy and their circumstances are the same as yours or at least parallel enough to be worthwhile.

Think about it.

Image credit: TheBusyBrain on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Do you have the courage to hire people with quirks? Those who are unconventional or have unconventional experience for the position? Will you hire someone who is flawed in some way?

Would you hire a ‘cracked pot’ for your team?

An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.

One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.

At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.

For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.

Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.

But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.

After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.

“I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house”‘

The old woman smiled, “Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot’s side?”

“That’s because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them.

For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.

Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.”

Managed correctly, appreciated instead of tolerated or, worse, homogenized, the idiosyncrasies of your team, the unusual backgrounds, your cracked pots, are what push productivity, juice creativity and drive innovation across the board.

And often it’s another’s management failure that gives you the opportunity to increase the strength of your team.

So cherish the pots you already have and never hesitate to hire another.

Image credit: Blind Grasshopper on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

How do you feel when you read something presented as a unique insight into a subject and it turns out to be the same old tire stuff that you’ve seen for years?

That’s how I felt when I read The Coming Leadership Gap: What You Can Do About It by John Ryan, president of the Center for Creative Leadership.

I’ve been hearing the term ‘leadership gap’ for years, yet Ryan writes that his company just coined it.

Based on our [global] survey, there are four skills that executives all over the world believe will be most important just five years from now: leading people, strategic planning, inspiring commitment, and managing change.

Most important starting 2015?

Good grief, I haven’t done a survey, but I’d say those four skills have been important for decades hundreds of years, more actually.

I’m sure Attila the Hun found them critical when he conquered the known world. In fact, odds are that they were on the mind of the first Cro-Magnon clan chieftain when he fought his neighbor.

Pity our poor world when the people running global enterprise think they have five years before they need to master these skills.

One of the comments was especially perceptive; in part it said,

Various management gurus from the 1950’s have said the same thing over and over again. Yet despite this each generation of corporate leaders repeat the mistakes off their predecessors in that they fail to invest in leadership and management development. I believe the answer lies firstly in a change of mindset. –John Coxon

Now we are getting somewhere.

It’s MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™); it’s always been MAP and it will always be MAP that is the problem—or the solution.

Before and after 2015 it will be the executives and managers who get it; who understand that these skills need to be embedded in the company’s DNA; they are not CEO skills, but core competency requirements to thrive in the 21^st Century.

Image credit: hikingartist.com on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

Sports has long been used as an analogy to various business practices—the best sales training film I ever saw was done by Vince Lombardi explaining how selling was akin to the plays in football.

But using good business practices to motivate a sports team isn’t heard of as much, except when it comes to ‘leadership’, a subject that, in its current ascendancy, annoys me no end.

A couple of years ago I read a post by Mike Kavis in which he focused on how Giants’ coach Tom Coughlin turned around his own career and his team using best practice leadership techniques.

“He listened to the constructive criticism of his bosses and players and decided to make some changes. What he found was that his vision was not fully understood by all of the players on the team. So he formed a leadership committee made up of various players on the team who could help him clearly communicate the vision. Better yet, he let the players select the leadership team. Since the players participated in forming the leadership team, it gave them a sense of ownership in the process…”

The creation of the leadership team accomplished the following:

• Clear understanding of team’s vision
• Participation in overall strategy
• Constant feedback
• Clear communication
• Accountability
• Buy-in
• Shared goals
• Clearly defined roles and responsibilities

And a Super Bowl trophy, I might add.

In his summary of what happened, Mike says, “If you want people to change, first change yourself.” which gave me a chuckle, not because it’s inaccurate, but because it’s so true that it’s the tag line of my company—To change what they do, change how you think.

A winning team is the goal of every person ever put in charge of an endeavor.

“Coughlin had a very rigid methodology that he followed to a T. It wasn’t working but he kept following it because it worked when he was with the Jaguars several years ago. By listening to his players, he made some minor tweaks to his methodology and the team responded.”

Those who are truly successful understand the importance of putting their egos in their respective pockets in order to listen and change themselves as needed.

The rest will continue to go their merry way, listening to no one, issuing edicts, and complaining when their people don’t buy-in or perform.

Image credit: heathbrandon on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content

“Clint” used the ‘Chat with Miki” box in the right-hand frame to ask me this question.

Have you ever heard this?  “People usually won’t change until the pain of NOT changing exceeds the pain of changing.”

Since this is a pretty common idea I thought I’d share my ideas with everybody.

I’ve heard this and many variations of it over the years, especially when applied to the workplace where it becomes a form of management by threat

For example, if your company or boss decides on a change and people’s jobs hinge on that change, they will change.

The problem is that they will also disengage at some level, maybe a little, but sometimes a lot. Not always obviously, but over time it will show in lower productivity, less creativity and, eventually, higher turnover.

Clint then asked if I thought that vested self-interest could be used instead of increasing the pain.

The answer is absolutely.

VSI is the perfect opposite to increased pain.

By rethinking a desired action, such as change, and presenting it in terms of its value to employees you can trip the VSI switch—but not if it’s a con.

As I’ve said a million times, people are not stupid; if the desired action is not really in their best interests there is nothing you can do that will convince them. VSI will still kick in, but the result will be resume polishing, lots of LinkedIn action and conversations with recruiters.

Clint decided that by using vested self-interest he could reduce the pain of changing. He plans to connect his organization’s goals to his people’s goals, which will effectively reduce the pain and increase the likelihood that they will do what he needs them to do—painlessly.

Handy little item my chat box. Try it, I’m usually here.

Image credit: nkzs on sxc.hu

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Sphere: Related Content