Poking through 12+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

I was looking for a particular post that tied to one I’m writing for tomorrow, but couldn’t find it. However, I did find three I think worth sharing, because they also apply, albeit indirectly I hope you enjoy them..

Read other Golden Oldies here.

A look at education, especially MBAs.

From a Harvard-educated CEO.

Excellent  article. Very true. It took me years to unlearn what I’d been taught at business school…

From a post about why companies need managers and how to build them.

Good managers aren’t born; they are developed through a learned set of skills combined with the right attitude and culture.

The importance of accurate org charts.

Historically, companies’ reluctance to publish simple, accurate, current org charts has been anchored in a fear that “they”—whether headhunters or competitors—would steal their best and brightest. But when corporate (or managerial) paranoia leads to withholding information making the job more difficult, there’s no need to worry about people being recruited because they’ll be out actively looking!

Image credit: Ron Kroetz

This post is a follow-up to Wally Bock’s leadership critique yesterday — only I wrote it in 2009.

Leader, Manager, Bureaucrat

Frequent readers know that I am not a devotee of Warren Bennis, who famously propagated the idea that leaders and managers are not only different, but that ‘leaders’ are higher on the food chain possessing far more value than the lowly manager.

I have devoted numerous posts to dispelling this attitude, much like Don Quixote tilting at his windmills. (It’s not a new attitude; I’ve had a statue of Quixote and Sancho Panza for years:)

I was discussing this over lunch with several executives and voiced my thought that no manager at any level can function successfully in today’s climate unless they are a leader.

This brought forth a terrific response from one CEO that is well worth sharing.

“A manager who doesn’t lead is a bureaucrat.”

An astute, simple and very accurate statement for people who are, or aspire to be, in charge, no matter of what or at what level, to frame and hang on their walls.

If you don’t want to

• craft and share a vision of what, why and when {whatever} needs to happen and leave the ‘how’ to your team;
• share information openly and willingly;
• take the time to craft communications that can be heard and understood by all;
• help both your company and your team become all that they can be;
• shoulder the responsibility, but give away the credit; and
• think ‘them’ before ‘me’;

then you shouldn’t be in charge.

More on the subject tomorrow, but for more leadership insights today be sure to read the June Leadership Development Carnival.

Flickr image credit: Richard Heyes

Mark Suster is well known in the startup world; he started as an entrepreneur and is now a VC. In a post that ran first at TechCrunch and then at AlwaysOn where I saw it, he talks about the importance of attitude over aptitude in a startup.

Which is ridiculous—not the importance, but the idea that it is somehow more important to a startup.

1. Managers fight to hire the best in any given field, whether software developers, engineers, financial types, salespeople, etc.
2. Managers want the best and brightest and get very offended when told that that isn’t always the best choice.
3. Managers write job descriptions that are laundry wish lists, with little consideration for the real requirements based on the actual work, strengths of the team and room to grow.
4. Managers want more years of experience than the subject has been in existence; this is especially true in software development.
5. Managers kid themselves that people are portable, like cell phone numbers, and will continue performing at peak levels no matter the management style or culture.

Obviously, not all managers, but too many.

Whether you are hiring for a startup or your company has been around for decades, keep these points in mind:

• Talented people perform best when they are challenged;
• hire what you really need (see number 3 above);
• honestly evaluate the environment you are offering (see number 5 above);
• the more variety in previous jobs the better/faster the learning curve; and
• look for the uncut gems and diamonds, instead of chasing the polished stone that turns out to be faux.

Skills can be learned, but trying to change a person’s MAP is a thankless job, not to mention a losing proposition.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedbee/103147140/

Frequent readers know that I am not a devotee of Warren Bennis, who famously propagated the idea that leaders and managers are not only different, but that ‘leaders’ are higher on the food chain possessing far more value than the lowly manager.

I have devoted numerous posts to dispelling this attitude (See series starting here.), much like Don Quixote tilting at his windmills. (It’s not a new attitude; I’ve had a statue of Quixote and Sancho Panza for years:)

I was discussing this over lunch with several executives and voiced my thought that no manager at any level can function successfully in today’s climate unless she is a leader.

This brought forth a terrific response from a CEO that is well worth sharing.

“A manager who doesn’t lead is a bureaucrat.”

An astute, simple and very accurate statement for people who are, or aspire to be, in charge, no matter of what or at what level, to frame and hang on their walls.

If you don’t want to

• craft and share a vision of what, why and when {whatever} needs to happen and leave the ‘how’ to your team;
• share information openly and willingly;
• take the time to craft communications that can be heard and understood by all;
• help both your company and your team become all that they can be;
• shoulder the responsibility, but give away the credit; a
• think ‘them’ before ‘me’;

then you shouldn’t be in charge.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: scriptingnews on flickr

Yesterday, Dave Zinger reviewed a book called The Myth of Multitasking.

Also yesterday, Brenda left a comment on an old (before my time) post on my other blog that led me to a 2001 APA article explaining “executive control.” “[It] involves two distinct, complementary stages: goal shifting (“I want to do this now instead of that”) and rule activation (“I’m turning off the rules for that and turning on the rules for this”). Both stages help people unconsciously switch between tasks.”

The time spent shifting is yet another reason why multitasking is a myth.

All this reminded me of a post I wrote in 2006 that is overdue for republishing right now.

Smart or stupid? Your choice!

Back in early 2003 I read an article in the Wall Street Journal called Multitasking Makes You Stupid and I cheered. Why? Because it’s always nice to have one’s opinion confirmed through scientific study by experts with lots of credentials—especially when most of the people around you are bragging about how well they multitask.

I got to thinking about that and did a bit more searching to see if anything’s changed. There’s one study that looked at gender differences and came to the conclusion that whereas productivity is about equal, women have a slight advantage in accuracy. I’m certainly not claiming I read all 250,000 pages returned on a search using the terms, multitasking study Dr university, but scanning through the first hundred I didn’t notice anything that contradicted what I’ve always thought—multitasking is not productive!

So what’s happened since the original article appeared? More ways to multitask; more managers demanding that their people do it; and more people bragging about their skill at it—more errors, accidents and loss of productivity.

Don’t believe me? Think about

• what it’s like talking to someone who is reading email or doing other computer tasks during the conversation;
• how close you’ve come to creaming someone, or being creamed, while talking on a cell;
• the last time you didn’t notice the sirens ’cause you were listening to an iPod or talking on a cell.

And before you write all this off with the famous “but me” argument ask yourself: are you really that different from the rest of the human race?

For more insights read HBS working Knowledge columnist Stever Robbins (among many others), then read my Think, dream, innovate, and then really think about how you want to run your life!

Then ask yourself, what percentage of the day do you spend multitasking?

Image credit: shdt

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: sekimura

By Wes Ball, author of ­ The Alpha Factor – a revolutionary new look at what really creates market dominance and self-sustaining success. Read all of Wes’ posts here.

Most employees of larger corporations would agree that the majority of the persons they see being moved upward are not leaders.

In many cases, they aren’t even very good managers. They just happen to be willing to stay around and put up with more #*&@ than other people around them.

Is that too harsh? I speak not just from all the research I did into “Alpha” companies for my book, The Alpha Factor, but also from personal experience working for one Fortune 100 and one Fortune 500 company. In most cases, the best (who stick around) eventually do filter to the top, but I have often questioned the process larger companies follow that allows restrictive, managerial personalities to rise so high in the ranks where they can negatively affect so many other people by their focus upon managing more than leading, nurturing, or inspiring.

The result is most often that all the entrepreneurial personalities drift out into the marketplace, when most of them would much rather have been able to practice their innovative thinking within the structure and using the resources of a larger organization.

Ouch?

Your comments—priceless

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

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

As mentioned, today starts a seven part series discussing Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers in light of today’s modern workforce. The series will address two items each day and runs through May 9 (except for Sunday and Wednesday, they have their own agendas).

To give us common ground, I’m using these descriptions of leadership as the basis of my comments, but feel free to disagree. Unfortunately, I haven’t found comparable descriptions of managers—if you know of any please share them—so my thoughts are based on the best managers I’ve read about and known.

I sincerely hope that many of you will weigh in with your own thoughts.

The manager administers; the leader innovates

Given the pressure to raise productivity, reduce attrition, cut costs, encourage a “culture of innovation” and in general do more with less how can a manager manage today’s highly mobile, independent workforce without innovating? Nobody can supply the sheer quantity of innovation needed to thrive in today’s global economy, because there is no way for to be knowledgeable of every process, facet, product, market, etc. that is ripe for innovation.

The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

Copy of what? The nearest leader? Every human has his/her own MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) which is a product of their life experiences and therefore unique; everything they learn is learned through the prism of their MAP. Over the years companies have tried to clone both managers and leaders with little success, while today’s enlightened workforce makes the possibility even more remote.

Your comments—priceless

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