“Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man.”

Last year I wrote about the global glass ceiling; today I have seven fascinating articles on corporate women. More of the same—or are things changing?

Kids don’t think so; in fact they’re more pessimistic.

“The percentage of girls who say they believe that today both men and women have an equal chance of getting a leadership position has declined from 35 percent to 24 percent between 2007 and 2008.”

And the guys still seem to have problems if women “get tough” (like them), especially in male-dominated fields.

“Speak lowly and slowly, but smile frequently…This advice…was based on my observation that women must adhere to a narrow band of behavior in order to be effective in mostly male settings.”

WSJ Online republished an article from 2005 looking at the difference between how most women relate to numbers vs. most men and its effect on earnings. Sadly, it hasn’t really changed.

“Female M.B.A.s have a bias to nurturing and team building and male M.B.A.s to a more analytically driven focus on success and independence. My advice is that both should develop more well-rounded skills.”

And then there’s ‘that vision thing’

“Studies show that in almost all measures of executive performance women are equal to or outperform men, with one exception: vision. Ibarra’s review of the 360 degree reviews of nearly 3,000 women revealed that, in general, they were seen as less visionary.”

McKinsey, however, presents a trenchant case (requires free registration) on why women are important, not in terms of political correctness, but to the bottom line.

“The gender gap isn’t just an image problem: our research suggests that it can have real implications for company performance. Some companies have taken effective steps to achieve greater parity.”

But the world turns and times change. When the ruling class screws up big time, people often embrace the opposition.

Iceland’s meltdown is leading to a revolt by the country’s women.

“Icelandic women, however, are more likely to be studying the financial news than the recipes – and more likely to be thinking about how to put right the mess their men have made of the banking system than about cooking them comfort food. … But for a generation of fortysomething women, the havoc is translating into an opportunity to step into the positions vacated by the men blamed for the crisis, and to play a leading role in creating a more balanced economy, which, they argue, should incorporate overtly feminine values.”

And the same attitude is surfacing across Europe.

“John Coates, a researcher at Cambridge University concluded that traders made the highest profits when they had the highest levels of testosterone in their spit. The downside, he said, was that elevated testosterone also led to riskier behavior, a formula for disaster as well as profit.”

What do you think? Would the bankers have played derivative Russian roulette if there had been more women in the in the halls of Wall Street power?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

I received a call from a reader, I’ll call him Doug, (I love calls, you may reach me at 866.335.8054, 9 AM to11 PM Pacific time.) who wanted to know why I kept harping on the need for long-term this and long-term that. He said that he’s 26 and part of “the online generation” and used to “instant gratification.”

We talked for quite awhile and I found him to be intelligent, well-spoken and, in his own way despite what he said, thoughtful—but also impatient.

Influencing others is always stressed as a major trait of leadership—maybe the most important trait. But to lead on any level requires an understanding of the larger picture, along with strategic understanding of what’s coming down the road.

Neither one of those offers much instant anything.

I’m not saying Doug speaks for his entire generation, but in a post last summer I linked to several books and articles discussing changes occurring in brain functions as a result of the digital world.

One of the links is to an essay in the Atlantic Monthly by author Nicholas Carr in which he says, “the net is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation”. He cited other high-powered thinkers and online commentators: what if the way I THINK has changed? asked one. “I’ve lost the capacity to read War and Peace any more,” said another, whose current best effort was to stay with a three or four-paragraph weblog entry.”

Another article talks about Dr. Gary Small, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California, Los Angeles and author of a new book, iBrain, “who cites a Stanford University study that for every hour a person spends on a computer, personal interaction with others drops by 30 minutes.

“With the weakening of the brain’s neural circuitry controlling human contact,” Dr. Small writes, “our social interactions may become awkward, and we tend to misinterpret, and even miss, subtle, non-verbal messages.”

You can think of it along the scale of Asperger’s syndrome, which is a mild form of it, where there’s not social connectiveness and difficulties with eye contact.”

And this isn’t just about the so-called digital generation, “Scans of the more practised internet users [55-78] during those search tasks showed increased activity in the front of the brain, where reasoning, complex decision-making, short-term memory and the processing of sensations and thoughts all originate. … Within five days though, the digital newcomers were showing the same neural activity.”

Along with greed, is it possible that this new style brain affected the people who ran the banks, hedge funds, and other businesses that played fast and loose with your money?

How will these new brains lead as they move into the workforce and the world?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: sxc.hu

I have very smart readers from all over the world. That means a variety of cultures, experiences, politics, attitudes and ages that provide a wide range of MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™).

I’d like to take advantage of that diversity to ask some questions.

I ask them because either I haven’t heard ideas that strike me as solving anything or because I haven’t seen them directly addressed. I honestly want a range of answers, not necessarily ones with which I agree, but a stimulating conversation! To that end I’m offering only the questions, no commentary or opinion.

I hope you’ll treat this post as a conversation among friends, perhaps over a good bottle of wine on a Friday afternoon.

Please add your own queries, whether you want to respond to mine or not.

If it turns out you like this feature we can do others in the future.

• Relatively speaking, how global is the sense of entitlement so visible in certain areas today?

• Can people at any level in an organization drive real cultural change if it goes against the “leader’s” MAP?

• How large a role does ideology play in the business world?

There’s nothing like something free to add an incentive, beyond the bottle of cyber wine, to a good conversation, so I’m going to give away a copy of Divide or Conquer: How Great Teams Turn Conflict Into Strength by Diana McLain Smith to one lucky participant—no matter where you live.

Conversations involve lots of give and take, back and forth, therefore every comment posted will be assigned a number. At midnight February 28, I’ll enter the total numbers into Random.org and announce the winner on this post. So the more you add to the conversation the more chances you have to win. How cool is that?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr and Wesman PR

Dan McCarthy writes a great blog over at Great Leadership; we don’t always agree, but I always learn something from reading him.

He recently wrote one with which I disagree, but I see the same topic over and over, so I thought I’d offer up my two cents on the it.

The post lists “styles of leadership” and the types of people on whom they work best; generally these lists refer to how managers, i.e., bosses, handle their people.

In short, there are four styles of situational leadership

1. Directing Leaders define the roles and tasks of the ‘follower’, and supervise them closely.
2. Coaching Leaders still define roles and tasks, but seeks ideas and suggestions from the follower.
3. Supporting Leaders pass day-to-day decisions, such as task allocation and processes, to the follower.
4. Delegating Leaders are still involved in decisions and problem-solving, but control is with the follower.

and six styles categorized by emotional intelligence competencies

1. Coercive: This “Do what I say” style demands immediate compliance.
2. Authoritative: This style mobilizes people toward a vision.
3. Affiliative: This “people-first” style engenders the creation of emotional bonds and team harmony.
4. Democratic: This style builds consensus through participation.
5. Pacesetting: This style expects excellence and self-direction.
6. Coaching: This style focuses on personal development.

I’m sure you’ve seen this discussed before. Wayne Liew’s question sums up the problem I have with the whole idea of “leadership styles.”

He asked, “In your opinion, is it possible for someone to have all the leadership styles that you have listed above? I know it’s hard but if it is possible, would you recommend someone to focus more on perfecting one of the styles or to branch out?”

As Shakespeare said, “There’s the rub.”

It’s not just that different people require different approaches, but that what Joe needs changes not only based on the situation and subject, but also on where Joe’s head is at that moment.

And the ability to assess all that is what separates those who do from those who try.

Whether you call them leaders, managers, leadagers or something else, the real brilliance isn’t in what their style is it’s in the instant, unconscious ability to evaluate each of their people and proceed in the way that works best at that moment.

My final problem with these labels is that the only time they can be applied is after the fact.

At least I’ve never met a manager who thinks along the lines of “I need to talk to Joe about the widget in his design and I think that my best approach would be affiliative, with a hint of authoritative and a fall back position of democratic, but leaning towards coaching.”

In the long run, I find that people use the styles that are most synergistic with their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™). Of course it’s possible stretch to styles that aren’t comfortable, but to do so requires stretching/changing your MAP or else you risk sounding like a fake.

What about you? What’s your take on leadership styles?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: scx.hu

I have a question for you.

Jean Murray, who writes Small Business Boomers, sent me a link to this story.

“The city of Alexandria, Virginia has hired a professional ethicist to help decide how budget cuts should be made.

The Washington Post reports the ethicists has helped with decisions that include turning apartments built for the mentally ill to temporary housing for the disabled.

Hiring ethicists is not unusual for public hospitals, but seldom has been a practice for local officials who are grappling with difficult budget choices.

When difficult choices have to be made, many see using an ethicist as a moral compass in an effort to do the least harm.”

A friend of Jean’s said, “It sounds to me like a failure in leadership.  These people were elected by the citizens of Alexandria to make the tough decisions, and they want someone else to get them off the hook.”

Do you agree? Should the politicians have made the decision or was it a wiser choice to get input from someone who makes a living being ethical?

Please cast your vote in comments, whether you choose add something else or not.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

Starting last June a college professor, who goes by CandidProf, has been writing a series of posts based on his first hand experiences with students and administrators.

Recently I was asked why I included them in Leadership Turn; it isn’t an education blog and what exactly did the topic have to do with leadership. To be honest the question floored me.

The only thing I can think of that has more to do with leadership than education is parenting.

Both require serious leadership skills, but beyond that their focus, kids, are leadership’s future.

CP is on hiatus for now, but that doesn’t reduce the need to focus on what could become the greatest leadership void ever faced.

Not the positional leaders who posture and strut, but the real leaders who step up in that instant when initiative is required and retire when the situation moves on. In other words, the thousands of regular folks on which every business and society depends—“…leadership is for instances. How people react to the things that happen around them—that’s the crux of life.”

Parents are the first and foremost source of leadership skills, not because they actively teach them, but because ‘monkey see, monkey do’. Unfortunately, as a whole, the job done leaves much to be desired.

Now we’re facing a gift-giving season in the worst economy in decades. You would think this was a great chance to teach children that they can’t have everything; that instant gratification isn’t guaranteed; that they aren’t entitled.

But it’s not happening. In article after article parents, especially moms, say the same thing. That they plan to cut everything—except the kids presents. “I want her to be able to look back and say, ‘Even though they were tough times, my mom was still able to give me stuff.”

Financial experts, such as Michelle Singletary, disagree, “By discussing with them that money is tight, you are admitting that at times you can’t do or get what you want. You are teaching them you can’t spend what you don’t have… Make the choice not to spend if you can’t afford it this year. Love your children like never before, but don’t go shopping out of guilt if you don’t have the cash.”

Even better than the economic lesson, which in itself has great value, you will start your children to understanding that not everything is within their control (or yours); that they aren’t entitled to have their every wish come true; that ‘instant’ isn’t their birthright, ‘gratification’ doesn’t always happen and that they really won’t die if they don’t get <fill in the blank>.

Who’s right? All the sacrificing moms or the minority like Singletary and me?

What do you think?

Your commentsg—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

For a long time now I’ve believed that the L word in all its forms has been abused and corrupted and I’ve haven’t been shy about saying so. Further, I hate words that are defined using variations of themselves. When that happens there is nothing concrete against which to check the meaning of the word or its usage.

I’m also not a lover of people who rant and whine about what’s wrong, but offer no ideas to fix the problem/situation.

So it’s time to start working on solutions.

Perhaps a new acronym would jump-start changing the career slant of ‘leader’.

That way we can offer leadership skills to all, so that they can indeed lead whenever it’s appropriate to the situation—leaders in the instance—instead of anointing a chosen few.

How about POF (person-out-front) to refer to someone at the front of the organization.

Or perhaps it would be better to use upper and lower case for the person in front who may or may not be a Leader, but is a leader.

For example, Richard Fuld is a leader, whereas Lou Gerstner is a Leader.

Of course, that may be worse, since people in those roles already consider themselves ‘special’ and might start thinking of the likeness between god and God.

That’s as far as I’ve gotten, but I’m hoping that y’all, AKA, my brilliant readers, will add your ideas and suggestions.

Together we can make a difference.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: sxc.hu

NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof comments that we finally elected an unabashed intellectual to the Presidency (it’s definitely worth reading), but what resonated more with me was the part that ties so closely with that CandidProf has been telling us.

“We can’t solve our educational challenges when, according to polls, Americans are approximately as likely to believe in flying saucers as in evolution, and when one-fifth of Americans believe that the sun orbits the Earth.

Almost half of young Americans said in a 2006 poll that it was not necessary to know the locations of countries where important news was made. That must be a relief to Sarah Palin, who, according to Fox News, didn’t realize that Africa was a continent rather than a country.”

• I’ve met people who think that the “Middle East” is a country;
• a nurse once explained to me that the war between Serbia and Bosnia wasn’t racial because both sides were Caucasian;
• a business type told me that Arkansas and Kansas were next to each other like North and South Dakota;
• CandidProf says that his students don’t know that round means spherical, so they think the Earth is a disk;
• something like 20% of Americans are functionally illiterate.

I’m actually grateful for Palin’s error because it highlights the level of ignorance that has become acceptable and the condition of education in this country.

I’m not saying that it’s necessarily great in other countries, but I don’t live in them either and they don’t bragg about being the world’s leader.

Perhaps it’s time to turn our focus from being the ‘leader’ in fixing the world’s problems to being the ‘leader’ in fixing our own.

The stupidity exemplified in the No Child Left Behind law that has led to a lowering of already low standards in the name of receiving funding is criminal.

We need educational reform that isn’t test-based, but focuses on real learning including critical thinking and is adequately funded.

Funding that shouldn’t be the problem once we stop spending $70 billion a month on the war—not that I think much of it will go towards education.

The stupidity of parents in brainwashing their kids into believing they are special and entitled to good grades and good jobs merely because they exist is tragic.

This entitlement stupidity is likely to carry on to future generations, unless it gets good and stomped down when it comes in contact with reality.

What ignorance can you add to the list above?

What ideas do you have for combating the problems?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: sxc.hu

 Check out my other WW: be different—show initiative

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit

By Wes Ball. Wes is a strategic innovation consultant and author of The Alpha Factor – a revolutionary new look at what really creates market dominance and self-sustaining success (Westlyn Publishing, 2008) and writes for Leadership turn every Tuesday. See all his posts here. Wes can be reached at www.ballgroup.com.Building future leaders takes creative nurturing, because leaders are both born AND made.  It’s up to us to do the “making” part.

There is a lot of failure on the track to leadership competence.  It’s doubtful any of the leaders I know could have gotten there, if they had not been nurtured through failure.  Even so-called “natural” leaders that have the combination of dominant and influencing personality styles need nurturing to make them successful.

A couple of weeks ago, CandidProf (guest blogger every Thursday) made note of the 2008-2009 standards for grading policy of the Dallas School District.  He expressed some concern about the fact that, in an effort to reduce the high school dropout rate, this school district mandated that teachers give students multiple chances to pass tests, not give any student a “zero” score for any test or assignment (no matter what they did or did not do), and accept overdue assignments with no or minimal penalty.

While the policy seems like an easy one to condemn and seems to embody all the laziness and attitudes of entitlement we see in young persons applying for jobs these days, there are some interesting aspects of this that have application in business leadership development.  Many persons have complained that this kind of approach to education in no way mirrors what those students might encounter in the working world.  The reality, however, is that good management that has as its objective to develop strong leaders does use similar techniques.

The problem may be not so much in the policy itself, but rather in the lack of accountability that this approach seems to provide.  I would go further and say that the real problem is that students are not given any vision for why they need to learn what is being taught.  Every person needs to understand why they must do something painful — and learning can be very painful for children without a proper vision for the future.  Employees also need that kind of vision-casting.   Without a clear vision for why they are required to work harder and learn more, most people will resist.

Every leader I know has been nurtured by a mentor.  Every one has been given the opportunity to fail along with support to understand how to succeed. Everyone has been given the opportunity to make mistakes within defined boundaries, because learning happens best in such an environment.

Within my own company, I made a point of creating mentoring relationships with and among employees.  I continually created opportunities for employees to learn through failure while providing a “safety net” that meant they knew they would not be fired for failure, except in certain areas of behavior or where there was a clear indication that they were not capable of doing the job needed.  They certainly were not put in a position where a failure could irreversibly harm the company, because that would have been bad leadership.  But they were given the chance to experiment with making decisions and even making recommendations to our customers where appropriate to the level that they had proven themselves capable.

I was extremely successful in taking persons with little or no experience and making them not only highly-skilled in the difficult and somewhat obtuse business of strategic innovation consulting, but also capable of leadership of others.  In fact, I discovered that it was far better for me to develop an inexperienced but motivated and qualified person into a leadership role over time than it ever was to hire a person already experienced through another company.  It was far too painful trying to overcome the bad learning that the experienced person had gained somewhere else.

The secret to nurturing and developing these future leaders was simple in concept:

• Give them a vision of what the future could look like for them.
• Give them an “identity” as being part of a great organization that is doing something of real value.
• Give them the basic skills and relational training they needed.
• Provide them with “safe” ways to fail, followed by nurturing learning as to how to succeed next time.
• Encourage them in failure and success.
• Let them grow as quickly as they can take it, always supported by continuing encouragement, nurturing, and training.
• Give them public praise when they have proven themselves of real leadership value.

The results were a highly motivated team that was (by measurements common to our industry) about twice as efficient as the average per salary dollar invested.  They also were a cohesive team that liked each other and liked working there.  And we were able to gain the kinds of clients that even much larger competitors only dreamed of getting.  The biggest problems we had were from experienced persons who thought they should be given the chance to “lead” before they even understood what our company was all about.

So, if you want to develop strong future leaders (or just good employees), I would say the Dallas schools idea is not a bad one; it just requires strong vision-casting, nurturing, and encouragement to make it work.  

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: thanx  CC license