Greetings,
A recent story on Google got me thinking about the state of our profession. In the story by Business Insider titled "Internally, Google Knows It Has an Innovation Problem", they discuss the key differences between Google and Instagr.am and their respective abilities to innovate. While the overall story made a number of key points, the one that caught my attention was this one...
"Google can’t keep its teams small enough. Instagram was started by two guys who rented a table at DogPatchLabs in Pier 38 (the first time I met the Instagr.am team was when Rocky and I did this video on Dogpatch Labs). The exec I was talking with said Google Wave had more than 30 people on the team. He had done his own startup and knew the man-month myth. For every person you add to a team, he said, iteration speed goes down. He told me a story of how Larry Ellison actually got efficiencies from teams. If a team wasn’t productive, he’d come every couple of weeks and say “let me help you out.” What did he do? He took away another person until the team started shipping and stopped having unproductive meetings."
The story of Ellison and his approach to innovation seems counter-intuitive as the author points out...it does to me, but I want you to think to some point in your past. Were you ever on an important HR team that was really attacking an important problem in the organization and feel like it was too big to make decisions or...yes...innovate? I have...
The recent 2010 IBM Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) Study identified three key areas requiring attention.
1. Cultivating creative leaders.
2. Mobilizing for speed and flexibility.
3. Capitalizing on collective intelligence.
All three of these focus areas will rely heavily on the ability of HR to innovate itself at a pace that keeps up with the global changes taking place. But a key question for HR is are we too big to innovate? Are we so focused on tactical and operational that it inhibits creativity and innovation in HR? I discussed this in July when talking about an HR Skunk Works approach.
My perspective is HR may be too "big" because it is burdened with a "little" thinking approach. A report from the Korn/Ferry Institute titled "Business Today Demands a Comprehensive Talent Strategy. Can HR Deliver?" argues that HR leaders need to be more strategic. To do that, then HR needs to build the right competencies for itself. The report specifically states the following:
"Developing Strategic HR Leaders - Strategic capability includes a number of competencies: business acumen; strategic agility; problem solving; perspective; and the ability to deal with ambiguity, to learn “on the fly,” to manage innovation and creativity, and to make quality decisions on complex issues that have long-term consequences."
The key for HR to innovate and meet customer needs in the future...find the right people and put them in charge! Find the right kind of people early in their HR careers...and nurture them!
Then it won't matter how big HR is in the future...
Nuff said!
Cheers,
Keith
Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Are CEOs and CHROs Aligned on Leadership?
Greetings,
So an interesting question that I pose. On the outside it seems a no brainer. CEOs have a business strategy and they know that the need leaders to enable the strategy in the organization. CHROs know that they need to deliver leaders through recruiting and development that can execute the business strategy. Yet here we are in 2010 and we find the appearance of misalignment...so let's review the bidding.
In 2008, IBM's CEO Study titled "Enterprise of the Future" laid out five key areas for consideration that organizations needed to be successful. These areas included Hungry for Change, Innovative Beyond Customer Imagination, Globally Integrated, Disruptive by Nature, and Genuine, Not Just Generous. There was a realization in this study that organizations needed a new breed of leaders. This was made explicit in the 2010 study. In May, IBM's Global CEO Study was released titled "Capitalizing on Complexity." In the study, CEOs identified "creative leadership" as a core need of their organizations in the future. This quote from the study shares some of the implicit thinking behind creative leadership...
"Creativity is often defined as the ability to bring into existence something new or different, but CEOs elaborated. Creativity is the basis for “disruptive innovation and continuous re-invention,” a Professional Services CEO in the United States told us. And this requires bold, breakthrough thinking. Leaders, they said, must be ready to upset the status quo even if it is successful. They must be comfortable with and committed to ongoing experimentation."
Then in October 2010 comes IBM's Global Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) study titled "Working Beyond Borders." In it, CHROs continued to indicate the importance of developing leaders in the organization as captured in this piece from the study...
"Building an organization with flexibility and dexterity requires leadership with the creativity to adapt to a constantly changing environment. These leaders must be able to negotiate through a maze of differing cultures, complex inter-generational dynamics and varied communication styles...Creative leaders share a set of common characteristics that help them innovatively lead their organizations. They challenge every element of the business model to realize untapped opportunities and improve operational efficiency. Leaders grow their businesses through the exploration, selection and execution of diverse, even unconventional, ideas about the potential of new markets. They leverage new communication styles to motivate talent and reinvent relationships, both internally and across the supply chain, to create collaborative productivity. They focus on the bigger picture — the global marketplace — and how to lithely optimize the collective skills of their organizations."
So there appears to be alignment in the need for creative leaders or at least that CHROs read the CEO study. But then 2 of every 3 CHROs admit their organizations are ineffective at developing future leaders (See the attached graphic from the IBM Global CHRO Study). That is surprising (IBM thought so as well)...
So taking a different perspective based upon the CHRO study is important, because admitting that we are ineffective at leadership development has ramifications. First we are saying that the estimated $9.5B per year we are spending on leadership development is being wasted. Second we are saying that what is most important to CEOs we are not good at doing for them. Are these the messages we want to communicate to our bosses and organizations? Kind of doubt it, but that is how it came out...
Are CHROs and their teams ineffective at building leaders? Probably not...In an earlier post here titled "Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage" I raised the aspect that academic research had problems, for a variety of reasons, in linking leadership to organizational performance and by default leadership development programs have the same challenge.
So how do we adjust and meet expectations? For starters, as Human Capital Management (HCM) leaders we have to get serious about defining leadership capabilities needed to execute the business strategy and workforce analytics needed to measure whether we are being successful. In fact, the effort put towards measuring the impact leadership development should equal the effort we put into leadership development itself. Without the key metrics, we are unable to determine impact or make adjustments in leadership development programs...this is critical to changing the perspective we have set for the organizations we serve.
Nuff said...
Cheers,
Keith
Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/
Sunday, October 17, 2010
I'm Looking for Great Leadership...Not Just Effective Leadership...
Greetings,
The role of leadership in organizations is recognized as a critical need for their evolution. This has become even more important in a world so complex and volatile as the one we operate in now. CEOs taking part in IBM’s 2010 Global CEO Study titled “Capitalizing on Complexity” admitted the following:
“In our past three global CEO studies, CEOs consistently said that coping with change was their most pressing challenge. In 2010, our conversations identified a new primary challenge: complexity. CEOs told us they operate in a world that is substantially more volatile, uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that incremental changes are no longer sufficient in a world that is operating in fundamentally different ways…Today’s complexity is only expected to rise, and more than half of CEOs doubt their ability to manage it. Seventy-nine percent of CEOs anticipate even greater complexity ahead.”
Yet, our current leadership model is hurting our ability to deal in a world loaded with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity…a VUCA world. I recently read a blog post by Ted Coine on his 21st-Century Business blog. In his blog titled “Management is War? Make That Was.” Ted discussed the role of World War II in creating our current organizational structures in the private and public sectors. Watch HBO shows like “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific” and you will see it…command-and-control leadership. People with experience and capability are put in positions of authority to get goals accomplished. Whether storming beaches or taking a town one house and street at a time…the great thing about command-and-control leadership in World War II is it got results. Missions were achieved and the war won…But according to Ted it has created challenges and an overall inability to leverage the talent in our organizations as noted in his comments below….
“Here's the thing, though: top-down leadership creates vast waste of human talent. It motivates us to do what the big boss orders, but it also turns off our inner drive to exceed when no one's watching, or monitoring, or counting one acute measurement of our output.
Order your people around, and they'll do the bare minimum to keep their jobs. Measure their performance by the numbers, and they'll give you those numbers - and very little more. Think for them, and they'll stop thinking for themselves - they'll stop thinking for you, for your company.”
The importance of leadership has never been more important in our country than it is now. Yet, we find ourselves wanting for great leadership. This was recently brought home for me when the Partnership for Public Service announced its 2010 Best Places to Work rankings for the Federal government.
While many factors are considered in the overall index ranking for organizations...the key factor shaping how employees see their workplace, for the fifth time in a row, was effective leadership. Much of what you would expect is rolled into determining the grades for this category. The survey asked about the ability of senior leaders and supervisors to generate motivation, commitment, opportunities for employees to lead and developmental opportunities. Scores for the largest Federal departments and agencies varied from 73.5 at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Who was recognized as the #1 place to work in Federal government) to 46.5 at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But there is something deeper as Ted Coine sees from his perspective of the private sector that is even more prevalent in the public sector.
When you look at scores for large Federal organizations in "Effective Leadership"...It's kind of sad...for the top 28 organizations with scores it averaged out to the following overall grades for "Effective Leadership" in the Federal government since 2007:
2010 - 55
2009 - 53.2
2007 - 51.7
While there has been improvement in the average scores since 2007, even if you grade on a significant curve...a 55 is a failing score (Let’s be honest…the 73.5 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission scored is just average). These kinds of scores speak to what can only be seen as a leadership gap not because people are leaving positions, but because they are in them!
So why don't we have more of it in the Federal government? Could be any number of reasons. My experience and perspective tell me this...in top-down driven, bureaucratic organizations where the working environment is about rules, standards, process and tasks driving organizational activities, senior leaders and supervisors are more like a boss than a leader. I discussed this in a previous blog post on my DNA of Human Capital blog titled "Is Your Boss Your Leader?" There is a big difference between the two and what benefits they bring to an organization. Leaders inspire people engagement and drive innovation and results by leveraging talent in the public sector and not wasting it. In the future, Federal government organizations will need great leadership and not just effective leadership to create and fuel the kind of results that efficiently manage resources and effectively achieve results that drive the United States. The kind of great leadership that is transformational...The American citizen requires no less.
Cheers,
Keith
The role of leadership in organizations is recognized as a critical need for their evolution. This has become even more important in a world so complex and volatile as the one we operate in now. CEOs taking part in IBM’s 2010 Global CEO Study titled “Capitalizing on Complexity” admitted the following:
“In our past three global CEO studies, CEOs consistently said that coping with change was their most pressing challenge. In 2010, our conversations identified a new primary challenge: complexity. CEOs told us they operate in a world that is substantially more volatile, uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that incremental changes are no longer sufficient in a world that is operating in fundamentally different ways…Today’s complexity is only expected to rise, and more than half of CEOs doubt their ability to manage it. Seventy-nine percent of CEOs anticipate even greater complexity ahead.”
Yet, our current leadership model is hurting our ability to deal in a world loaded with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity…a VUCA world. I recently read a blog post by Ted Coine on his 21st-Century Business blog. In his blog titled “Management is War? Make That Was.” Ted discussed the role of World War II in creating our current organizational structures in the private and public sectors. Watch HBO shows like “Band of Brothers” and “The Pacific” and you will see it…command-and-control leadership. People with experience and capability are put in positions of authority to get goals accomplished. Whether storming beaches or taking a town one house and street at a time…the great thing about command-and-control leadership in World War II is it got results. Missions were achieved and the war won…But according to Ted it has created challenges and an overall inability to leverage the talent in our organizations as noted in his comments below….
“Here's the thing, though: top-down leadership creates vast waste of human talent. It motivates us to do what the big boss orders, but it also turns off our inner drive to exceed when no one's watching, or monitoring, or counting one acute measurement of our output.
Order your people around, and they'll do the bare minimum to keep their jobs. Measure their performance by the numbers, and they'll give you those numbers - and very little more. Think for them, and they'll stop thinking for themselves - they'll stop thinking for you, for your company.”
The importance of leadership has never been more important in our country than it is now. Yet, we find ourselves wanting for great leadership. This was recently brought home for me when the Partnership for Public Service announced its 2010 Best Places to Work rankings for the Federal government.
While many factors are considered in the overall index ranking for organizations...the key factor shaping how employees see their workplace, for the fifth time in a row, was effective leadership. Much of what you would expect is rolled into determining the grades for this category. The survey asked about the ability of senior leaders and supervisors to generate motivation, commitment, opportunities for employees to lead and developmental opportunities. Scores for the largest Federal departments and agencies varied from 73.5 at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Who was recognized as the #1 place to work in Federal government) to 46.5 at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But there is something deeper as Ted Coine sees from his perspective of the private sector that is even more prevalent in the public sector.
When you look at scores for large Federal organizations in "Effective Leadership"...It's kind of sad...for the top 28 organizations with scores it averaged out to the following overall grades for "Effective Leadership" in the Federal government since 2007:
2010 - 55
2009 - 53.2
2007 - 51.7
While there has been improvement in the average scores since 2007, even if you grade on a significant curve...a 55 is a failing score (Let’s be honest…the 73.5 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission scored is just average). These kinds of scores speak to what can only be seen as a leadership gap not because people are leaving positions, but because they are in them!
So why don't we have more of it in the Federal government? Could be any number of reasons. My experience and perspective tell me this...in top-down driven, bureaucratic organizations where the working environment is about rules, standards, process and tasks driving organizational activities, senior leaders and supervisors are more like a boss than a leader. I discussed this in a previous blog post on my DNA of Human Capital blog titled "Is Your Boss Your Leader?" There is a big difference between the two and what benefits they bring to an organization. Leaders inspire people engagement and drive innovation and results by leveraging talent in the public sector and not wasting it. In the future, Federal government organizations will need great leadership and not just effective leadership to create and fuel the kind of results that efficiently manage resources and effectively achieve results that drive the United States. The kind of great leadership that is transformational...The American citizen requires no less.
Cheers,
Keith
Monday, October 11, 2010
Flexible Human Capital Response Options...
Greetings,
The world is filled with volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) as I have discussed several times. This kind of environment makes agility and adaptability a premium in being able to deal with this environment and prevent what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "Black Swan Events." Taleb's theory "refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences."
The United States Intelligence Community (IC) and military understand the importance of trying to identify Black Swan events early and prepare plans that allow commanders Flexible Deterrent Options (FDO) in the deployment of available forces. These show of force operations usually involve the build-up or deployment of forces, an increase in readiness and level of activity. The concept of Adaptive Planning provides the following:
"The adaptive planning concept calls for development of a range of options during deliberate planning that can be adapted to a crisis as it develops. Where the crisis builds slowly enough to allow, appropriate responses made in a timely fashion can deter further escalation or even diffuse the situation to avoid or limit conflict. Where such options fail to deter or there is not time to execute options, a stronger response may be required to protect vital interests. The eventuality of attack without prior warning must also be considered."
So in understanding this approach and why it is used in the Department of Defense, I turn to Human Capital Management(HCM). The current economic environment has created challenges in looking at strategy as a "long-term" need. In some respects during the initial stages of the financial meltdown...strategy was emerging on a weekly basis in many organizations. In that context, it was difficult for HCM to be proactive and support the business and really precipitated reactive tendencies.
So this provides the context for application of adaptive planning in creating flexible human capital response options (FHCRO) in private and public sector organizations. HCM leaders must start by getting into the organizations strategic planning cycle. Playing a proactive role in this process by understanding the organizations short-, mid-, or long-term strategy allows for defining the human capital capabilities (knowledge and skills) required to execute the business strategy. This however, is just to start...to create FHCROs, HCM leaders should conduct scenario planning sessions that seek to identify the most and least likely human capital situations aligned to the strategy. This allows thinking about potential Black Swan events and their effect on the organization's human capital.
By combining scenario planning and business requirements definition, the HCM leader can develop a series of tailored FHCROs that are agile and adaptable enough to adjust to quickly changing events. Because in the future...organizations that can adjust the fastest to VUCA environments will be the ones best positioned to excel.
Cheers,
Keith
Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/
The world is filled with volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) as I have discussed several times. This kind of environment makes agility and adaptability a premium in being able to deal with this environment and prevent what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "Black Swan Events." Taleb's theory "refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences."
The United States Intelligence Community (IC) and military understand the importance of trying to identify Black Swan events early and prepare plans that allow commanders Flexible Deterrent Options (FDO) in the deployment of available forces. These show of force operations usually involve the build-up or deployment of forces, an increase in readiness and level of activity. The concept of Adaptive Planning provides the following:
"The adaptive planning concept calls for development of a range of options during deliberate planning that can be adapted to a crisis as it develops. Where the crisis builds slowly enough to allow, appropriate responses made in a timely fashion can deter further escalation or even diffuse the situation to avoid or limit conflict. Where such options fail to deter or there is not time to execute options, a stronger response may be required to protect vital interests. The eventuality of attack without prior warning must also be considered."
So in understanding this approach and why it is used in the Department of Defense, I turn to Human Capital Management(HCM). The current economic environment has created challenges in looking at strategy as a "long-term" need. In some respects during the initial stages of the financial meltdown...strategy was emerging on a weekly basis in many organizations. In that context, it was difficult for HCM to be proactive and support the business and really precipitated reactive tendencies.
So this provides the context for application of adaptive planning in creating flexible human capital response options (FHCRO) in private and public sector organizations. HCM leaders must start by getting into the organizations strategic planning cycle. Playing a proactive role in this process by understanding the organizations short-, mid-, or long-term strategy allows for defining the human capital capabilities (knowledge and skills) required to execute the business strategy. This however, is just to start...to create FHCROs, HCM leaders should conduct scenario planning sessions that seek to identify the most and least likely human capital situations aligned to the strategy. This allows thinking about potential Black Swan events and their effect on the organization's human capital.
By combining scenario planning and business requirements definition, the HCM leader can develop a series of tailored FHCROs that are agile and adaptable enough to adjust to quickly changing events. Because in the future...organizations that can adjust the fastest to VUCA environments will be the ones best positioned to excel.
Cheers,
Keith
Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Leadership and Organizational Performance...Lack of Linkage...
Greetings,
So imagine my surprise last week as I started my Doctorate of Education program at Wharton and the UPenn Graduate School of Education when the creator of the Executive Program in Work-Based Learning Leadership, Dr. Doug Lynch, stated that there is a lack of academic research linking leadership to organizational performance. As a lifelong learner, I was curious about this statement, so I started looking at what research is there and was amazed…
It is a common belief…maybe in this case an assumption…that effective leadership is key to organizations. Think of any number of great organizations like GE, Cisco, Google, etc. and you immediately think of great leaders. Yet, the research can’t make a connection. Most research has focused on the different leadership paradigms like differences of visionary and transactional leadership styles in organizations. For example, it has always been believed that visionary leaders played a larger role in organizations than transactional leaders…but because of research limitations the findings are not clear. One study by Fenwick Feng Jing and Gayle C. Avery of Macquarie University in Australia titled “Missing Links in Understanding the Relationship between Leadership and Organizational Performance” states the following:
“No clear picture has emerged about the relationship between leadership and organizational performance. Despite increased research into the leadership-performance relationship, many problems and gaps remain in existing studies. There is a lack of integration concerning the relationship between leadership and performance, a narrow set of variables has been used in previous studies, and context and levels have been ignored. Therefore, there is a need for clarification.”
Another key challenge in linking leadership to organizational performance is the issue of performance measures itself. The same study by Jing and Avery states:
“One problem relates to the quality of performance measurement. When selecting the measurements of performance, previous researchers have employed either financial measurements or non-financial measurements, rather than employing both kinds of measures in order to enhance the validity of the research. They have neglected the interrelationship between financial performance and customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction. This provides a narrow measurement of performance that may not have appropriately evaluated the sought-after performance effects appropriately. Thus, both financial measurements and non-financial measurements of performance are essential in order to enhance research validity.”
The implications to the profession of Human Capital Management (HCM) and development are significant. If there is no academic research to directly correlate leadership styles to organizational performance, then there can be no linkage of leadership development programs to organizational performance. According to Bersin and associates 2009 High-Impact Leadership Development study, it assesses that leadership development is a $9.5 billion industry. That is a ton of cash to be spending on something and not know whether it is having the intended impact on the organization.
Of course, many organizations make use of anecdotal evidence that leadership development is having the intended impact. One private sector organization uses the number of new $1 billion businesses generated by action learning projects (ALP) during its leadership development programs. But as Bradley Hall states in his book “The New Human Capital Strategy,” our focus should not be on world-class leadership development programs, but world-class leadership capabilities. Because leadership capabilities should be driving organizational performance as we have seen…Even as I lead my organizations leadership development capabilities, I can’t tell you whether organizational performance is improving or even changing! Again…lots of assumptions and anecdotal evidence is being used across the HCM space in many respects.
I think it is important to understand the relationship, or in this case the potential lack of a relationship between leadership and organizational performance. Our organizations, and in particular, HCM leaders and their organizations should be engaging with the academic community to enable research that helps understand what we assume as a linkage between leadership and organizational performance. If we are unable to understand the linkage and the role that leadership development most obviously plays in our organizations…then we can’t leverage it to its full potential.
Nuff Said…
Cheers,
Keith
Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/
Monday, September 6, 2010
Is Your Boss Your Leader?
Greetings,
As most of you, I have had many different supervisors over the last 25+ years. During my time in the Navy, I got a new supervisor every 1-3 years because of rotations in and out of the organization. My experience during that time would be very similar to those of you reading today...it is fairly easy to segregate the great from the not-so-great leaders...that ratio is probably in some cases 1-to-100.
In my time as a Naval Intelligence officer, we had a tool that was called the "Alpha Roster." The Alpha Roster was something of a planning tool that listed all of the Naval Intelligence officers, their current command/unit, and when they were due to rotate to a new job. While its intended purpose was for career planning purposes...it also had another...it provided a way to track those not-so-great leaders to ensure you didn't end up even in the same geographic region with them again. In many respects, those these supervisors were in leadership positions...they were really my boss and not my leader.
How does this story relate to the topic? I think there is a significant difference between bosses and leaders...While your boss can be your leader...that doesn't happen nearly as often as your boss never being your leader.
There are a number of great perspectives on what makes great leaders standout from people that are playing your boss. The Faster Times Fred Wilson recently posted on "The Three Things CEOs Do." In the post a Venture Capitalist shares what CEOs do and importance on organizations...
"A CEO does only three things. Sets the overall vision and strategy of the company and communicates it to all stakeholders. Recruits, hires, and retains the very best talent for the company. Makes sure there is always enough cash in the bank."
While this seems simplistic, the first attribute is a critical component in differences between bosses and leaders. Rosalyn Carter, wife of former President Jimmy Carter, once shared her perspective on just the difference between leaders and great leaders.
“A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.”
This quote gets to the Venture Capitalist comments on what CEOs do...in this case great leaders have to set a vision of the future and get the organization and its culture to move to this new proposed future.
Bosses have their role to play...detail-oriented, efficiency focused, standards, risk management, and process driven (Let me clarify that this is my view of bosses). There are of course much more negative attributes of people I lump into the "boss" category that we have all seen and said to ourselves..."That is not the way to lead and I am not going to do that when I am a leader"...I focus on more of what I see from bosses. These "boss" attributes lead to results that can move organizations, teams, and individuals to new levels, but at the end of the day...these things do little to inspire or enhance employee engagement.
To be the great leader that Rosalyn Carter discusses...you have to create a future shared vision for the team and/or organization, communicate clearly and effectively, inspire trust and openness, create a culture of innovation and disruption and how the team working collaboratively can achieve results.
Great leaders with these abilities are talent magnets...drawing people to them and their organization because they see a new and potential future that this talent can play a part in creating...Like the Venture Capitalist discusses as the number two thing that CEOs do. This is why companies like Apple, Cisco and IBM draw great talent to their organizations.
So...as you sit around today contemplating this blog post...think to your past supervisors or your current set and ask the question...
Is your boss your leader...your great leader?
Cheers,
Keith
As most of you, I have had many different supervisors over the last 25+ years. During my time in the Navy, I got a new supervisor every 1-3 years because of rotations in and out of the organization. My experience during that time would be very similar to those of you reading today...it is fairly easy to segregate the great from the not-so-great leaders...that ratio is probably in some cases 1-to-100.
In my time as a Naval Intelligence officer, we had a tool that was called the "Alpha Roster." The Alpha Roster was something of a planning tool that listed all of the Naval Intelligence officers, their current command/unit, and when they were due to rotate to a new job. While its intended purpose was for career planning purposes...it also had another...it provided a way to track those not-so-great leaders to ensure you didn't end up even in the same geographic region with them again. In many respects, those these supervisors were in leadership positions...they were really my boss and not my leader.
How does this story relate to the topic? I think there is a significant difference between bosses and leaders...While your boss can be your leader...that doesn't happen nearly as often as your boss never being your leader.
There are a number of great perspectives on what makes great leaders standout from people that are playing your boss. The Faster Times Fred Wilson recently posted on "The Three Things CEOs Do." In the post a Venture Capitalist shares what CEOs do and importance on organizations...
"A CEO does only three things. Sets the overall vision and strategy of the company and communicates it to all stakeholders. Recruits, hires, and retains the very best talent for the company. Makes sure there is always enough cash in the bank."
While this seems simplistic, the first attribute is a critical component in differences between bosses and leaders. Rosalyn Carter, wife of former President Jimmy Carter, once shared her perspective on just the difference between leaders and great leaders.
“A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go, but ought to be.”
This quote gets to the Venture Capitalist comments on what CEOs do...in this case great leaders have to set a vision of the future and get the organization and its culture to move to this new proposed future.
Bosses have their role to play...detail-oriented, efficiency focused, standards, risk management, and process driven (Let me clarify that this is my view of bosses). There are of course much more negative attributes of people I lump into the "boss" category that we have all seen and said to ourselves..."That is not the way to lead and I am not going to do that when I am a leader"...I focus on more of what I see from bosses. These "boss" attributes lead to results that can move organizations, teams, and individuals to new levels, but at the end of the day...these things do little to inspire or enhance employee engagement.
To be the great leader that Rosalyn Carter discusses...you have to create a future shared vision for the team and/or organization, communicate clearly and effectively, inspire trust and openness, create a culture of innovation and disruption and how the team working collaboratively can achieve results.
Great leaders with these abilities are talent magnets...drawing people to them and their organization because they see a new and potential future that this talent can play a part in creating...Like the Venture Capitalist discusses as the number two thing that CEOs do. This is why companies like Apple, Cisco and IBM draw great talent to their organizations.
So...as you sit around today contemplating this blog post...think to your past supervisors or your current set and ask the question...
Is your boss your leader...your great leader?
Cheers,
Keith
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Clarity Agents and Chaos Double Agents...You Need Them...
Greetings,
A good friend shared with me the perspective of someone he knew as we spoke about leadership. The quote went something like this...
"Leaders create clarity from chaos and create chaos when there is clarity."
That is a profound statement and really sets the tone for what great transformational leaders are and should be about in their organization. Our organizations are going through massive swings in volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity...the VUCA world I have discussed in prior blogs. A great transformational leader is able to embrace what is happening in a VUCA world and turn it from challenge to opportunity for them and their team and organization. To do that requuires someone that can see through the fog and move the team in the right direction to achieve results that are impactful. These leaders take the chaos of the VUCA world and add clarity to it...become a Clarity Agent...This allows understanding within your team and sets the tone for accomplishing those things that are most important to business or mission impact.
In 2006-2010, as we merged the Defense Intelligence Agency's learning capabilities with those of 12 global Combatant Commands, my team and I were in VUCA trying to create clarity from chaos in some respects. All felt they were unique and requiring tailored support, training, and opportunities. But by setting a strategic vision to align learning, communicating that vision and executing a cross-organizational plan, we were able to make the transition smoothly in a global environment.
The more interesting side of the equation is creating chaos when there is clarity. So why would you want to do that? Why have a Chaos Double Agent?
The enemy of improvement in performance and enabling the ability to innovate is being comfortable and allowing the status quo to maintain. In the future, successful organizations will be defined by leaders that are disruptive and creative. These leaders will have a sixth sense about the why and when of change. In a VUCA world, leaders with this vision and skill will define their organizations success. The ability to create chaos from the inside-out or outside-in depending on the contextual environment will be a key skill.
Bottomline...You need this kind of leader on your team and in your organization. You need to grab them and cherish them and covet what they can bring. The current environment that we are all operating in is likely to continue...Having Clarity Agents and Chaos Double Agents is the key to success.
Cheers,
Keith
Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/
A good friend shared with me the perspective of someone he knew as we spoke about leadership. The quote went something like this...
"Leaders create clarity from chaos and create chaos when there is clarity."
That is a profound statement and really sets the tone for what great transformational leaders are and should be about in their organization. Our organizations are going through massive swings in volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity...the VUCA world I have discussed in prior blogs. A great transformational leader is able to embrace what is happening in a VUCA world and turn it from challenge to opportunity for them and their team and organization. To do that requuires someone that can see through the fog and move the team in the right direction to achieve results that are impactful. These leaders take the chaos of the VUCA world and add clarity to it...become a Clarity Agent...This allows understanding within your team and sets the tone for accomplishing those things that are most important to business or mission impact.
In 2006-2010, as we merged the Defense Intelligence Agency's learning capabilities with those of 12 global Combatant Commands, my team and I were in VUCA trying to create clarity from chaos in some respects. All felt they were unique and requiring tailored support, training, and opportunities. But by setting a strategic vision to align learning, communicating that vision and executing a cross-organizational plan, we were able to make the transition smoothly in a global environment.
The more interesting side of the equation is creating chaos when there is clarity. So why would you want to do that? Why have a Chaos Double Agent?
The enemy of improvement in performance and enabling the ability to innovate is being comfortable and allowing the status quo to maintain. In the future, successful organizations will be defined by leaders that are disruptive and creative. These leaders will have a sixth sense about the why and when of change. In a VUCA world, leaders with this vision and skill will define their organizations success. The ability to create chaos from the inside-out or outside-in depending on the contextual environment will be a key skill.
Bottomline...You need this kind of leader on your team and in your organization. You need to grab them and cherish them and covet what they can bring. The current environment that we are all operating in is likely to continue...Having Clarity Agents and Chaos Double Agents is the key to success.
Cheers,
Keith
Twitter: JKeithDunbar
Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jkeithdunbar
DNA of Human Capital: http://dna-of-humancapital.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
