‘Leader’ is a word that’s bandied about with reckless abandon, but it is the only word that’s available that carries a fairly universal meaning.
That said, I have several leadership links I think you’ll find interesting.
First, from American Express’ Open Forum, 10 excellent examples of real business leadership. Some refer to companies, others to people, none will take you long to read. And if the story resonates you can always google more in-depth information.
Next is a fascinating analysis from Newsweek that looks at the pros and cons of business executives as politicians. It’s a timely article considering how many are throwing their hats in the ring.
Finally, whether you consider yourself a leader, or just someone who enjoys helping others excel, you’ll find lots of good ideas at LeaderTalk where Becky Robinson has a round up of posts discussing the importance of, and ways to, develop people from some of the smartest coaches around—including me.
Recently Dan McCarthy asked if there was a leadership crisis or is it a branding issue and I’ve been stewing ever since. (Please take a moment to read the post and the discussion.)
I’ve been stewing not so much because I disagree with Dan’s individual points, but because I disagree with the whole leadership-for-the-chosen-few attitude prevalent since the end of WWII.More than that, I am vehemently against the leader-as-a-silver-bullet school of thought.
The extent of this attitude has become glaringly apparent and the Presidential election is the highest profile example.
Yes, I voted for Obama, but not with any expectation that he could take office and resolve the global economic crisis, provide an abundance of high-paying jobs and reverse outsourcing, end our involvement in the wars and provide universal healthcare during his first year—or even his first four years.
There is no human being on the planet who could have accomplished any one, let alone all, of those goals.Hero-leaders, god-like leaders, God-as-leader—none are going to lead us anywhere because none is universally acceptable.
And it is time to stop looking to others to clean up our messes.
Real change starts as a grass roots effort, not as the vision of a larger-than-life figure with a title that is more like a target.
But we love to have a scapegoat; someone to shoulder the responsibility and take the blame for an effort doesn’t work—and that we can laud in the event that it does.
Remember when financial writers talked about share prices and compared 2005 prices to their pre dot bomb highs?
I think that comparing leaders/managers who functioned brilliantly during an up economy to those are performing now is just as ridiculous—there is no similarity between running a company in 1999 or 2006 and now.
Just as importantly, I believe we have a crisis in ‘followers’, both the actions and the brand.
Initiative is expected in the select ‘high potential’ few, but if you aren’t in that group initiative is often shot down. So, by de facto definition, followers are lower; a lesser breed from which to expect little more than compliance.
When high potential is identified early “late bloomers” are often nipped in the bud—or leave to flower somewhere else.
Developing and rewarding initiative, no matter the source, helps build leadership into a core competency throughout the organization.
That, in turn, builds strong, thinking followers and positions the company to thrive no matter what.
Your comments—priceless Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
You’ve heard of Cesar Millan, the “Dog Whisperer,” but the item in the article that grabbed me was a quote from another article by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker article that “quoted scientists and dance experts analyzing how Mr. Millan’s bearing instills confidence. The conclusion: his fluid movement communicates authenticity better than words could.”
Sadly, the authenticity conveyed by the fluid movements of Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff and a host of recent “leaders” proves that authenticity isn’t always the best yardstick.
People are much like dogs, although the words used to describe their reactions are different.
We talk about dogs and other animals ‘sensing’ things; we accept that children have a kind of built-in radar that makes them pull away from fakes and evil-doers.
Adults insist on giving benefit-of-doubt to either their thinking or their gut, which means they frequently get burned.
I’m not saying that we should ignore the rational thinking in favor or instincts or vice versa; rather we should tune in to both equally and include them in our evaluation.
If there is anything we should learn from the people who brought us to the current economic point, it is that our judgment needs to encompass all the data we can accumulate and that we should ruthlessly strip out any assumptions.
We’ve always been told that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck, but these days it may be a hunter with a great robotic decoy.
That’s right, guys, you are obsolescent whether you realize it or not.
At least, that’s the conclusion that seems to be offered on a post at Bizzy Women, based in part on job loss stats from Peter Coy’s 2008 Business Week article and also quotes heavily from Harvard psychologist Dan Kindlon’sAlpha Girls. (Klindon also wrote Raising Cain and Too Much of a Good Thing.)
Granted that women gained 300,000 jobs between November, 2007 and April, 2008 while men lost nearly 700,000, but the stats aren’t straight across.
“Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care. … Manufacturing is over 70% male and construction is about 88% male. Meanwhile the growing education and health services sector is 77% female. The government sector, which has remained strong, is 57% female. The securities business, which is filled with high-paying jobs, is likely to be the next sector to get whacked—and more than 60% of its workers are men.”
Securities was more than whacked, it was decimated.
The problem I have with the idea that “The new economy is largely dominated by young women who have unique skills, not by men who have been taught to follow the rules.”
Unfortunately, the jobs being created are mostly in health and education areas—not the most lucrative positions. And as Coy points out, “the “female” economy can’t stay strong for long if the “male” economy weakens too much.”
The great majority of families need both incomes to thrive and, in many cases, it takes both to just survive.
Yes, more women than men are attending college, but perhaps that’s because more resources have been poured into developing women; that isn’t bad, but it does screw the numbers. (This is especially obvious when you look at the differences between black girls and boys.)
These predictions also assume that men can’t/won’t change, current and future generations of males will be the same and experience will play no role over the next 20 or so years, which I find ridiculous.
But the biggest problem I have with the idea that women will rule is the same problem I’ve had for decades as minority groups, whether designated by gender, race, sexual orientation or whatever, have improved their situation.
Not the improvement, I’m all for that, but the desire to dominate.
When I was living in San Francisco I knew from personal experience that the most disenfranchised group in terms of political power, social services, educational help or general assistance were middle age, white, single, straight females.
Sadly, I find that equality isn’t the driving force—”do unto others as they did unto us” is.
Leaders, with a few industry exceptions, have noticed that the economy is in trouble (duh), but they still seem to think that their people don’t know the facts (double duh).
Sadly, too many bosses, from Fortune 100 companies to mom and pop-owned small businesses, are clamping down, saying nothing, running scared, freezing, blustering, or some combination thereof.
The way to deal with bad news is directly, openly and honestly.
Even when you have to lay off this axiom applies; in fact, it’s the only way that gives your company any chance of emerging with the rest of your workforce intact and productive.
Here are six basics to keep uppermost in your mind—Whether they are comfortable or not!
Bad news must be communicated—just like good news.
Employees aren’t dumb—they know something bad is happening—and if they’re not explicitly told what it is, rumors will make any difficulty a catastrophe and a catastrophe a death knell.
Management must be explicit about the ultimate potential consequences. In a situation that’s unfolding, such as the current economic crisis, when no one knows what’s ultimate or can predict when it will change, frequent updates are effective.
Everyone hates uncertainty, which is all you have to offer at present. Analyzing and then explaining the worst case outcome as well as what you’re doing to counter it and how your people can contribute goes a long way to stabilizing people and gaining their buy-in to your plans.
Successful plans are dependent on how well they are communicated, which is what determines employee buy-in; if you choose the delusional approach of minimizing the situation then you should expect minimal results.
Share the outcome of your thinking, whatever it is—layoffs, plant closures, project cancellations, etc. If you don’t trust your people with the information your problems are even more serious than you realize.
Any solution to a crisis must be seen as fair, reasonable, and businesslike. If management’s reaction is illogical, petty, slipshod, unrealistic, draconian or any combination of these, then it’s likely employees will conclude the ship is about to sink and leap off.
People understand that difficult situations demand difficult remedies, and they appreciate that management must at times step up to harsh challenges. But if solutions are irrationally or whimsically applied, they become a demoralizing factor, increasing the difficulties that people encounter in trying to do their jobs.
Finally, you should always attempt to find a positive note to leave with employees. Everyone already knows that things are bad; it’s your job to find a potentially favorable course of action.
Just remember, you hired your people for their brains, so don’t expect them to suddenly go dumb. Employees easily spot propaganda masquerading as a solution. Predicting an impossibly favorable outcome will not only demean management, it can also result in a lawsuit.
A couple of weeks ago, Steven Pearlstein said, “Their leadership failure was a big part of the story of how we got into this mess…a number of executives have complained that this indictment is both too broad and too harsh. Given what was known at the time and the competitive and legal pressures that come to bear in these situations, they believe their actions and judgments were reasonable.”
“I didn’t know…” is America’s favorite excuse, although it won’t hold up in a court of law; ignorantia legis neminem excusat (ignorance of the law excuses no one) dates back to Roman times.
The operative word is ‘know’ and, unfortunately, there’s a lot of latitude in what one chooses to know.
People don’t know anything that
disagrees with their ideology or world-view;
is presented by the opposition or those with whom they disagree;
conflicts with their personal goals/agenda; or is
inconvenient or annoying.
The irony is that Wall Street’s leaders really didn’t know—for all the above reasons.
If you truly want to lead—yourself, your family, a company or any other organization—than it’s your responsibility to not just listen, but also to hear past all those reasons.
We’ll talk more about how to do this in tomorrow’s Ducks In A Row post.
Of course, parents should encourage their children to grow, but this type of thing furthers the myth of what to look for in those who become ‘leaders’, while those without these traits are destined for a lesser role in life.
“…raise your child to be a winner, a leader and a success rather than another member of the dull rat race.”
The ‘leader’ to which the post and follow-up links refer is the person out front with the big pay package, as opposed to plain, hard-working solid citizens—I guess they’re the afore mentioned dull members.
Leadership isn’t a set of skills, it’s how you think and live.
And while it may be your pleasure to see your children excel, it’s your parental leadership responsibility to help them do it.
5 ways for parents to lead
Teach your children to love reading books. Books offer every person a world of hard knowledge and imagination stimulants.
Don’t make things easy for them, especially in school. A poor grade merits neither a rant at the kid or the teacher, rather it requires your effort to understand the difficulty—tough homework isn’t it—and assistance to find ways to improve.
Don’t fight your kids’ battles. People grow by overcoming difficulties, so be supportive and available to help, but don’t do it for them. Obviously, the exception is bullying, which should never be tolerated.
Set age/maturity appropriate boundaries within which decisions are up to them without interference or advice; this gives kids the luxury of making mistakes and learning from them.
Don’t live vicariously through your children. Their hopes, dreams, fears and worries should be of their own making, not foisted on them, whether actively or passively.
By the way, if you follow the links in the post I mentioned you’ll find it’s a sales pitch for a Christian leadership course.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the road to hell isn’t paved with good intentions; it’s paved with ”leaders with intentions”—good, bad or indifferent.
I figured this out based on media coverage of leaders. After all, have you ever seen a media treatment of a follower?
Media co-opted ‘leader’ and ‘leadership’ decades ago and increasingly diluted the meaning until it disappeared.
Along with dilution, the media gave those they termed leaders the same treatment that was previously reserved for extraordinary athletes, celebrities and rock stars.
In doing so they created the monstrous, indestructible, uncontrollable ego found in every leader who bought into their hype; and reflected in compensation packages more fit for royalty than for business people.
And in case you haven’t noticed, you can find many of those massive egos in (surprise, surprise) investment banking, hedge funds, insurance and other sectors of financial services. But you knew that.
In fact, ego-mania has percolated throughout all industries, with little consideration for the size of the organization or its mission.
Further, in throwing the leader term around so loosely the media helped enlarge politicians’ already super-sized egos still more and extended the ego franchise to religious heads.
Not only are those egos super-sized, they also seem to be bulletproof.
How many of these ‘leaders’ have actually taken responsibility for what they’ve caused?
Have you seen them apologizing for their share of bringing down the global economy? Did I miss it? Boy, I hope you Tivoed it for posterity.
But the media’s gone pretty silent on the subject; lauding corporate heads seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. But dodos aren’t the only extinct bird, the phoenix is, too. And like the phoenix, media leadership hype will rise again just as soon as we all forget—which, unfortunately, we will and that’s a historically proven fact.
By the way, I’m not the only one; Jim Stroup noticed the silence, too, only from a different perspective.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
Recently Dan McCarthy asked if there was a 
You’ve heard of 
. (Klindon also wrote Raising Cain and Too Much of a Good Thing.)
Granted that women gained 300,000 jobs between November, 2007 and April, 2008 while men lost nearly 700,000, but the stats aren’t straight across.
Leaders, with a few industry exceptions, have noticed that the economy is in trouble (duh), but they still seem to think that their people don’t know the facts (double duh).
A couple of weeks ago, 
I figured this out based on media coverage of leaders. After all, have you ever seen a media treatment of a follower?
