Leadership is the art of influencing people, which requires delegation to be effective. Delegation is the art or process of assigning specific duties and responsibilities to subordinates in an organization. Delegation comes in different forms and leaders must be familiar with these forms in order to make good delegation decisions.

One such form is what I call general delegation, which means leaders delegate responsibilities as a way of training the next generation of leaders in their organizations. This delegation is important because it helps preserve the mission and vision of the organization. Another form is crisis delegation, where the leaders delegate duties and responsibilities to subordinates when a crisis, such as when a leader is absent from the organization for a prolonged time (e.g hospitalized or attending to a sick relative). Therefore, leaders must delegate responsibilities and duties during times of crisis in order for the organization to continue operating. It is important to remember that, with the delegation of duties, the leader who delegates is still responsible and accountable for the delegated duties. Any mistakes or errors committed by subordinates when carrying out the delegated duties still rest with that leader.

When leaders delegate some of their responsibilities and duties, they benefit in some ways from the process. First, delegating tasks removes some of the duties from the leaders; subordinates perform these duties so leaders can concentrate in areas where the organization will benefit most, like the negotiation of contracts that benefit the whole organization. Second, by delegating tasks leaders can groom future leaders because subordinates will learn how the organization works at a higher level; when it is time for the subordinate to take over, they will have already learned the necessary skills for the positions. Third, delegation, when done properly, will raise the morale of subordinates in the organization because it will show them that the leadership believes that they can be trusted to do delegated work. Fourth, proper delegation also improves trust between subordinates and leadership which tends to lead to a cohesive organization. Fifth, when duties are delegated to subordinates, efficiency increases because duties are given to people whose skills match the delegated duties, thereby freeing time for the leader to concentrate on other important duties of the organization. For example, there is no reason for a leader to be keeping daily records of who is reporting to work when that work can be done by subordinates with expressed instructions to report the progress back to the leader.

Delegation is not always easy for some leaders; there are many reasons as to why they fear to do it. First, they are afraid of being outshined by the subordinates who performs the delegated work well. Because of this, leaders find it difficult to delegate. Second, some leaders fear that they will not be recognized for the work done by the subordinates and, thus, refuse to delegate. Recognition is important for moving up the leadership ladders in some organizations. Third, some leaders refuse to delegate because they fear that they will lose the trained subordinate to a rival organization that might use that subordinate to compete with the leader’s organization. Fourth, some leaders fear to delegate because they feel that something important has been removed from their responsibilities. As a result, they keep all their duties. Fifth, some leaders in organizations develop preconceived ideas about subordinates that prevents them from delegating duties and responsibilities to them. It is a sad situation, but it happens in some organizations and hinders the cohesiveness of the organization. In the long term, such thinking affects productivity. Sixth, the fear of being exposed as a leader who does not understand his/her job can cause a leader to limit the delegation of duties until he/she acquires the competence needed in the position. No leader wants to be exposed by subordinates for not understanding how the organization runs. Seventh, in some organizations, there is a shortage of staff shortage, so leaders keep all duties and responsibilities that pertain to their jobs. Eighth, some leaders fear that if they delegate responsibilities and duties to subordinates, they will lose control of them because they will know too much of what goes on in the organization, causing top leadership to ignores directives from the leader. What this kind of leader forgets is that those delegated duties eventually land on his/her desk for approval, which means such fear is unfounded. Ninth, in some organizations staff tend to be lazy, which makes leaders not want to delegate some of their responsibilities to them out of fear that they will not manage those duties well. Finally, inadequate training of staff also tends to make leaders fear delegating some responsibilities to subordinates because they think they will not do the delegated duties as per the instructions given.

To be effective in the delegation of duties and responsibilities leaders must do the following. First, they must give clear instructions on what should be done for the delegated duties and, when they are completed, to whom to report. Second, leaders must avoid over delegating their responsibilities because they might be perceived as over relying on the subordinates for the accomplishment of organizational duties. It might also affect the performance of subordinates. Third, leaders must always praise their subordinates when they successfully complete the delegated duties and tasks. Such praise tends to boost subordinates’ morale at the work place, thereby increasing productivity. Fourth, micro-managing the subordinates when duties and responsibilities have been delegated will increase mistrust because the subordinates will think that the leader does not have confidence in them to complete the assigned tasks. Therefore, leaders must at all times avoid micro-managing the subordinates to whom they delegate responsibilities and instead should monitor them from a far. Fifth, effective delegation requires leaders to provide adequate information on the duties and responsibilities of the delegated positions so that the subordinates will perform the duties efficiently. Sixth, when delegating duties, leaders must ensure that subordinates do not fear anything will happen to them if the delegated duties are not performed at an acceptable level. They must reassure subordinates that the failure to reach the acceptable level will be a teachable moment for them to improve as they repeat the same duties. Removing the fear will encourage subordinates to perform well without the fear of retribution. Seventh, for leaders to know how subordinates are doing in their delegated duties and responsibilities, they should always request feedback from them in order to monitor their progress. In requesting feedback, the leaders will know when corrections are needed or where more resources are required for better performance of the delegated duties and responsibilities. Finally, before duties are actually delegated, subordinates must be trained on them. Without proper training, subordinates will be hesitant to take up delegated responsibilities due to a fear of failure.

As a social function, delegation is based on the trust that leaders have in their subordinates that they will accomplish the delegated duties successfully. Yet it remains a calculated risk, as delegation does not guarantee success on the delegated duties. On the other hand, for leaders to be successful and effective in running organizations efficiently, delegation is necessary. Without delegation, leaders might be overwhelmed by duties that might be done well by subordinates’, thereby freeing time for them to concentrate on other duties that might benefit the organization.

*Image courtesy of Stuart Miles / freedigitalphotos.net

“Today, no leader can afford to be indifferent to the challenge of engaging employees in the work of creating the future. Engagement may have been optional in the past, but it's pretty much the whole game today.”  ~Gary Hamel

According to a 2014 Gallup poll less than one-third (31.5%) of U.S. workers were engaged in their jobs in 2014. While that is up from the previous year and the highest since Gallup began tracking engagement, the flip side is that the majority of employees are not engaged and according to the poll 14.5% were “actively disengaged”.

The Gallup poll went on to say that the highest engagement was amongst managers and executive officers and had increased over 2013 from 34.7% to 38.4%. This means that 61.6% are either not engaged or actively disengaged. So what is the effect of this disengagement on front line employees?

A 2013 survey by recruitment agency Staffbay.com found that 87.2% of employees wanted to leave their current role within 12 months and a study by Harris Interactive indicated that 74% of people would consider leaving their job.  While these studies were done in 2013 they are still relevant considering the economy and job market is considerably better now than it was then. It is important to also keep in mind that talented employees are always in demand and those are the ones who will leave first.

Where does manager engagement fit into this picture? If we look at the Staffbay survey, 52.6% of their respondents said they would leave because they did not trust their boss. A CareerBuilder survey said that 37% had poor opinions of their boss, and a recent Gallup study reported that about 50% of the more than 7K surveyed said they left a job “to get away from their manager.” Clearly there is a problem with today’s management, but what is the solution?

Identify & Select

“I think that if you ask what's made us successful, it's because we've been fortunate enough to identify, in a number of cases, great people early. Then we throw all the resources behind them and are aligned with them.”  ~Dan Levitan

Poor or bad managers cost companies billions because they directly impact employee engagement and turnover. The first problem is that companies tend to select individuals to manage instead of lead. Anyone can be a manager, but being a leader takes a completely different skillset. Getting the work done and making the numbers are important but they are not the end all be all because those costs are easy to measure. What is harder to measure is the lost potential productivity by employees who are disengaged by their poor manager and the staggering cost of turnover. Instead of selecting managers based solely on their ability to get the work done or make the “numbers”,  companies need to define what skills make for good leaders and select based on a mix.

Train & Develop

“You can work really hard, but if you're not training in the right way you're not going to improve and get to the level that you want to.” ~Michael Chang

Once the individual with the right mix of leadership and management skill is identified and hired the work must continue with robust training and development.  Too often, after hiring a manager the individual left to their own devices and then senior management wonders why they have so many problems or their great hire failed. It cannot be assumed just because someone knows how to land the sale they know how to lead other people. Leadership is learned and if a person has never had good leadership they can’t be expected to know what it looks like. New managers need to have a structured process to develop them into strong leaders.

Accountability

“Accountability breeds response-ability.” ~Stephen Covey

It seems simple but it holding people accountable seems to be one of the biggest challenges for organizations because accountability really starts with setting clear expectations. Setting clear expectations involves more than just stating what you want the end result to be, it also involves clarifying the how, when, and what happens if the expectation is not met. Finally it involves actually following through and holding the individual accountable. This should be truer for leaders as they set the example for everyone else.

Metrics

“Not everything that can be measured matters and not everything that matters can be measured.” ~Einstein

Metrics are important but only if value and action comes from them.  Something must be done with the data that is collected. Their tends to be two extremes when it comes to metrics, either nothing is being measured and thus opportunities for improvement and re-alignment are being missed, or everything is being counted but nothing is being done with the data because there is either too much or it has just become an exercise in collection for collections sake.

When it comes to leadership metrics the first step is to define what counts and then separate them from other business metrics like financials etc.  The second step is to define how they will be used. Here it is important not to fall in the trap of collecting data for collections sake but actually using it.

 Results

All of these things should yield results in the form of employee retention and satisfaction. Those things will in turn result in greater productivity and a better bottom line. It all starts with identifying the right leaders. Develop them so that they are actively engaged. Expect them to set the right example. Establish metrics that count and hold them accountable.

*Image courtesy of cooldesign/freedigitalphotos.net

On June 18,1940, Winston Churchill, the newly elected British Prime minister, addressed the House of Commons regarding the Battle of France and the impending Battle of Britain. The United States would not enter into the war for another six months, leaving Britain to stand alone against the Nazi war machine. Churchill’s speech was not only intended to address the House, but was also broadcast on the BBC to the British public. Many have considered this to be one of the greatest speeches ever given in the English language. What is it about this speech that makes it so powerful?

The Great Visionary

In order to study the importance of this speech, we must study the events which had occurred leading up to it. Only two weeks prior to Churchill’s speech, the British navy, along with a fleet of private fishing boats, completed the evacuation of British, French and Commonwealth troops from Dunkirk before they were utterly crushed by the advancing Nazi forces. Only having held the office of Prime Minister for six weeks, Churchill needed to calm, inspire and motivate not only the British military, but the people as well. So as we look at the speech, I will attempt to break down the speech into some key elements he used to achieve his goal.

Throughout most of the 36 minute speech, Churchill spoke very directly and very logically about the events in France. He opens the speech by placing blame for the “colossal military disaster” (Churchill, 1940) squarely on the French High Command, but holds in a more subtle way, the House of Commons and the Parliament at fault as well. At the same time, he tells the British people that he does not want to dwell on this, but must look to the future. In fact he speaks of the future several times during the course of the speech. “Of this I am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future” (Churchill, 1940). To this he immediately follows up with facts and figures regarding the number of troops rescued from the shores of Dunkirk, including British, Canadian and French troops. In fact, during most of the speech he refers to facts and figures regarding their ability to defend the Island from any possibility of invasion. During the entire speech, Churchill always spoke in truthful yet positive terms, then telling the British people that it is business as usual, “Those who are not called up, or else are employed during the vast business of munitions production in all its branches-and their ramifications are innumerable-will serve their country best by remaining at their ordinary work until they receive their summons.” (Churchill, 1940). At its heart, one can see the British wartime slogan “Keep Calm and Chive On”. During his address, Churchill never tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the British people by diminishing the strength of the German military forces, but also insisting that Britain will prevail. When placing Churchill into the role of a modern business leader, Caroline Longstaffe writes “Churchill’s approach would be firstly to explain the current realities, then inspire the team by offering them a vision for how things could be, then tell them how to achieve this and finally mobilize them into action” (Longstaffe, 2005).

The Great Orator

Winston Churchill was a visionary leader, of that there is no doubt. To be a great leader, he also had to be a great communicator.  He had not only a keen grasp of the English language, but understood how to deliver his message. If one looks at the final typed transcript of the speech and how it is setup, it is written in a blank verse format, with five-line paragraphs of indented type, “a form the Churchill Archives Center's director, Allen Packwood, compared to the Old Testament Book of Psalms, regarded by many literary scholars as one of the seminal influences, with Shakespeare, on Churchill's literary and rhetorical style” (Burns, 2010). One can read the words, but this does not compare to listening to Churchill himself give the speech. To listen to the tempo and rhythm he uses, perhaps calculated to calm the people. Even though this is dire news, it is given so as to not incite panic in the British people. One important thing to note as it pertains to leadership communication is that, like all of his speeches, he wrote this speech. Unlike modern politicians, there were no speech writers during this period. The words are his, and because of this, he believes his words and is sincere in his message. In order to convey a positive ethos, a leader must be sincere, using their own words, style and tone to convey their message, even if that message is not necessarily a good one.

A Man of Purpose

Sir Winston Churchill’s Finest Hour speech had vision, which he conveys to the House of Commons and the British people with a sincerity that all leaders should strive for. Along with those qualities, his speech also had purpose.  In the final four sentences, Churchill states, “Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, "This was their finest hour” (Churchill, 1940). He makes no bones about what failure means, but that if everyone does their part, the Empire will endure. Those future historians will look back and say that despite overwhelming odds, Britain prevailed. She prevailed because her people never lost hope, kept calm and chived on. All leaders, whether in the corporate world or the political arena, should aspire to this kind of honesty and sincerity.

References

Burns, John F. (2010, June 18) Seventy Years Later, Churchill's 'Finest Hour' Yields Insights. The New York Times, p A8(L).

Churchill, Winson (1940, June 18), Finest Hour Speech, Address to the House of Commons, London England

Longstaffe, Caroline (2005) Winston Churchill, a leader from history or an inspiration for the future? Industrial and Commercial Training 37(2/3), 80-83

Many managers believe that it is enough to show up and be seen, but then this is why I refer to them as managers and not leaders. Leadership require more than just showing up, it requires engagement; but if a manager doesn’t know what engagement looks like chances are they are missing opportunities to move from manager to leader.

In a recent GALLUP article by Randall Beck and Jim Harter, they state that only 30% of U.S. employees are engaged and cite managers for being the primary cause. While every manager may not be a great leader it would be remiss to assume they don’t want to be and it is more likely that they don’t know how to be a great leader.

So what is a manager to do? Here are 5 simple things they can start doing right away to be more engaged.

 1. Say good morning. When is the last time you walked around and said good morning to all of your employees? It seems simple, and it is, yet many leaders come in and head straight for their office. If you can do it every day great, if not, try for once a week. If you say “Good morning, have a great day.” It will have an amazing effect on your employees.

 2. Recognize and Compliment. Don’t assume your employees know they are doing a good job; tell them! Look for opportunities to recognize the contributions your employees make to the organization and not just the big ones, the small ones count too. Remember, no news is not always good news.

3. Meet one on one. If there is one thing you need to start doing if you’re not already is to meet with your employee’s one on one. Have them schedule 15-30 minutes with you weekly, bi-weekly or monthly. Make the time about them, not you by always asking questions like: What are you working on; what are your roadblocks, what can I do for you; what should I stop doing. 

4. Walk around and ask questions. I don’t mean “what are you working on” or “what the status of X project is”, ask questions to make a personal connection. “How was your weekend ”,“How are your kids/spouse/significant other”. Leaders need to be seen and that lends itself to making personal connections with your employees. As with number one, you may not be able to do it every day but you should do it at least once a week. Put it on your calendar.

 5. Listen more, talk less. You cannot speak and listen at the same time, listening takes effort and focus. Apply this to 1-4 and you will be well on your way to better engagement with your employees.

Remember that if you want to have engaged employees you have to be an engaged leader. The more engaged you are with them, the more engaged they will be and the less likely they are to leave you and the organization.

*Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Introduction

Organizations around the world have experienced far-reaching and powerful transformation in the last decade, including ups and downs that present challenges for the modern leader. These include the constant change in information technology, global competition, and the demand for flexibility and speed at the point of need for a sustainable advantage.[1] Regardless of the degree of change that an organization must react to, the ability to think successfully in the future tense requires a common framework within the organization. What does this mean to organizations in the future? It means that the successful 21^st century organization must be designed for success at all levels: individual, group, and organization. This article will examine how the components of individual, group, and organization can empower organizations to successfully configure structures, processes, reward systems, and people practices and policies.[2]

The Individual

It has been estimated that 80% of the jobs available in the USA within 20 years will be based on one’s intellectual capabilities.^[3] Therefore, the days of societies turning primarily to CEOs, generals, bishops, and other senior leaders for knowledge will shift across the entire organizational structure. James identifies a number of intellectual competences, certain skills that everyone must have, to know what the future will look like. Not in any specific order, these are the skills you will need: new lens view, strategic foresight, harnessing the power of myths, speed, knowledge of the past to predict the future, and doing more with less[4]

An example of the nature of intelligence in relation to certain skills required in 21^st century organizations is seen in the organizational design of Hewlett Packard in France and IBM in London. Both organizations created clubs that compensate you to join, but to maintain your membership you have to keep your skills current and continue producing revenue.[5]

Higher education is a critical indicator of one’s intellectual capabilities. In fact, never before has the role of organizational design depended so profoundly on the acquisition of higher education. From a global viewpoint, in China and Japan over half the undergraduates receive their degrees in engineering and science. That compares to 32% in America.[6] A weak education system equates to weak innovations, solutions, and intellectual capabilities required to create an effective organization capable of achieving the business strategy. In view of the global importance of higher education to organizational design, this educational imbalance stands as a clear message to 21^st century American organizations: the ability to obtain and employ intelligence will be the new source of wealth.[7]

The Group

Currently, there is a great interest in the study of organizational teams. This attention is in response to the competitive challenges and organizational needs of a flexible and adaptable organizational design for today, tomorrow, and the future. Groups, not individuals, are the ideal building blocks around which 21^st century organizations should strategize.[8] According to Jenewein and Morhart, there are three principles for properly shaping organizational design around groups: (1) personnel management: finding the right team members (2) leadership: putting the team first (3) team culture: courage to do the unconventional.[9]

American society was built on the value of individual achievement. Today, for example, we have generation X that has been raised in an environment of individual achievement with such things as most valuable player in sports, competitive video gaming, television game show winners, and other ways of recognizing individual achievement. People do not relish channeling their individual identity to that of the group.[10] 

However, in the context of 21^st century organizations’ desire for a team-oriented organizational design, collaboration is valued over competition. Organizations welcome a smooth process in a team setting.[11] For example, when Boeing’s organizational design was at a crossroads, management decided that they would focus on transforming to a team-based organization. These changes included the creation of self-managing work teams based on their function and not their individual titles. As a result, the Boeing 717 project was a major success, and a new team-based culture was established.[12]

The Organization

The ability of an organization to see the entire landscape for a strategic advantage is the principle of a good organizational design. From this strategic viewpoint, the organization recognizes important patterns in its design for success. The span of organizational design has evolved, but no other design activity is more important to 21^st century organizations than the element of continuous flexibility.[13]

 Flexibility is the organization’s ability to react to the constantly changing business world. One approach that Snull used to explain the art and science of applying flexibility in a constantly changing business world emerged directly out of the context of structure. He suggests that as organizations achieve success, their winning structure becomes embedded into the process, and the only way to stay clear of ad hoc changes is a flexible design.[14] This is achieved by being leaner, closer to the action, staying focused, allowing equality of power, and holding a portfolio of options for an uncertain future. For instance, when Chevron issued a “best practices resource map” to their employees detailing innovations and contact information for the responsible people, new groups developed sparking learning, innovation, and flexibility.[15] The key to a sustainable advantage in 21^st century organizations is to include flexibility, but not to the extent that the design is not stable.

Conclusion

Certainly there are differences among individuals, groups, and organizations. Placed in similar situations, each will act differently. However, there are certain fundamental consistencies that are applicable to 21^st century organizations. These fundamental consistencies (individuals, groups, and organizations) are extremely important to the organizational design because they generate predictability. The ideal situation is a balanced methodology between individuals, groups, and organizations within the organizational design. Organizations that do not continually develop their skills with flexibility will be threatened by agile competition willing to do so with no hesitation. The role of organizational design in the 21^st century is being transformed, and everyone must be prepared to support it.        

Bibliography

Englehardt, Charles, and Peter Simmons. “Organizational Flexibility for a Changing World.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 23, no. 3 (2002): 113-21.

Galbraith, Jay, Diane Downey, and Amy Kates. Designing Dynamic Organizations. New York, NY: American Management Association, 2002.

Handy, Charles. The Age of Paradox. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.

James, Jennifer. “Thinking in the Future Tense.” Industrial and Commercial Training 30, no. 7 (1996): 28-32.

Jenewein, Wolfgang, and Felicitas Morhart. “Navigating Toward Team Success.” Team Performance Management 14, no. 1/2 (2008): 102-8.

Lewis, Pamela, Stephen Goodman, and Patricia Fandt. Management: Challenges for Tomorrow's Leaders. 4th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western, 2004.

Pina, Mary, Ana Martinez, and Luis Martinez. “Teams in Organizations: A Review on Team Effectiveness.” Team Performance Management 14, no. 1/2 (2008): 7-21.

Robbins, Stephen. Organizational Behavior. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Sirias, Danilo, H.B. Karp, and Timothy Brotherton. “Comparing the Levels of Individualism/Collectivism between Baby Boomers and Generation X: Implications for Teamwork.” Management Research News 30, no. 10 (2007): 749-61.

Yankelovich, Daniel. “Ferment and Change: Higher Education in 2015.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 52, no. 14 (2005).

The demands on leaders can be many and they are often pulled in multiple directions at once. Having employees that work for you helps you to get things done and takes some of the burden off, but it also brings with it a great responsibility and new set of expectations and needs. Employees need things from their leaders and it is not just more work.
 

Here are six things that I believe all employees need their leaders to be.
 

Honest

Everyone wants to know where they stand and how they are doing. If things are great sing their praises; if things aren’t great let them know. No one likes surprises and or wants to have to guess. Feedback is an ongoing activity not just a once a year activity that occurs with annual reviews or when there are complaints.

You may not be able to tell your employees everything but be as honest and transparent as you can and if you can’t share information let them know why. Why goes a long way.
 

A Communicator

Going hand in hand with honesty you need to be a communicator and able to provide feedback, information and direction. Employees want to know what is going on, what is coming up, what to expect and what is expected of them. Information is everything and no one wants to feel like they are in the dark.
 

Committed

Obviously you have to be committed to the business and organizations goals but it doesn’t end there; you have to be committed to your team and people individually.

You have to set the direction for your team and be committed to it while balancing the goals of the organization and aspirations of your team members all while being committed to helping them achieve them.
 

Positive

The workplace can easily become negative. Remember we spend more time with the people we work with than our own family so there is bound to be some strife. Work can also be hard, that is why it is called work.

Deadlines, demands and sheer volume will take its toll. You need to remember that your employees are people; they have lives outside of the office and no matter how we all try to separate the two, when things are hard in our personal lives it makes it hard in our professional life as well. Try to know and understand what your employees are faced with and potentially going through.

The key is to be able to take a positive approach to working through things and not letting negativity permeate the workplace.
 

Confident

Employees want you to be confident; even if you don’t feel confident you need to project confidence. Knowing that the person at the helm can steer the ship or at least believes they can, instills confidence in the crew.  Everyone knows leaders don’t have all the answers and can’t solve all the problems but if they know you have the confidence to try and find the answers and help solve the problems it will instill confidence in them. This leads us to the last thing on my list.
 

Inspirational

We all want to be inspired but inspiration does not always come easy; a fire needs a spark. We all have to do those things that we would rather not do, but what makes that easier knowing you get to do the things you really enjoy.

Find out what your employee’s strengths are then leverage them.  Also find out what their goals and aspirations are, encourage them and help them however you can.  Take a genuine interest in them beyond just being their boss. No one wants to feel like they are just a means to an end.
 

Finally remember that your employees are always looking at the way you handle things and how you lead. Let your leadership be inspirational because you may be helping to create future leaders. 
 

Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Strategic Thinking

Gaining traction in 2015 is more than just being in the game, but adjusting organizational mindset and culture to perform better this year while concurrently advancing their organizations to the future is not unprecedented.  Strategic leaders use an array of techniques to lead, manage, and innovate in their organizations. But advancing a concept beyond kitchen table pontification or the board conference room sessions requires strategic leadership, strategic planning, but more importantly strategic thinking. Strategic thinking refers to cognitive processes required for the collection, interpretation, generation, and evaluation of information and ideas that shape an organization’s sustainable competitive advantage (Hughes & Beatty, 2005).  Strategic thinking is an intrinsic process whereby a person discerns, envisions, and formulates his ideas into the components necessary to accomplish a notable task.
 

Think of it this way: There is a “soft side” as well as a “hard side” to strategic leadership and strategic thinking. In general, the hard side of strategic thinking involves the kind of rigorous analytical tools and techniques taught in business schools. But strategic thinking has a softer side that is also a vital part of understanding and developing strategy, vision and values, culture and climate. The word softer does not imply weakness but rather includes those qualitative thinking skills that are held in opposition to hard-minded-qualitative rigor (Hughes & Beatty, 2005).
 

The top management team at Apple demonstrated a successful track record of strategic thinking in innovation and technology.  Kluyver and Pearce (2012) highlight Apple as one of the most innovative companies in the world.  In a survey of executives around the world for Business Week, Apple has been ranked at the top of the most innovative companies rankings since 2005 (Einhorn & Arndt, 2010).  Strategic thinking focuses on finding and developing unique opportunities to create value by enabling a provocative and creative dialogue among people who can affect an organization’s direction (CFAR, 2001). 
 

Strategic Planning

Although strategic thinking and strategic planning work well together, they each possess unique attributes. Yukl (2012) describes strategic planning as being facilitated by a comprehensive, objective evaluation of current performance in relation to strategic objectives and compared to the performance of competition. Whereas strategic thinking serves as the input to strategic planning; good strategic thinking uncovers potential opportunities for creating value and challenges assumptions about a company’s value proposition, so that when the plan is created, it targets these opportunities (CFAR, 2001).  According to Almani and Esfaghansary (2011), strategic thinking is different from strategic planning because strategic planning seeks the one best way to devise and implement strategies that  would that enhance the competitiveness of an organization or unit within it.  Strategic thinking serves as the central ‘ingredient’ in preparing for any task.  The point being made is strategic thinking begins with exploration of the environment, an intuitive, visual, creative process that results in a combination of emerging themes, issues, patterns, connections, and opportunities (Sanders, 1998), whereby strategic planning is the creation of a unique position involving a distinct set of activities (Montgomery, 2012).
 

Strategic Leadership

As we examine the attributes of strategic thinking, it has two major components: insight about the present and foresight about the future (Sanders, 1998). Traditionally, successful leaders are carried by style, driven by motivation, or interlace in leadership style and motivation as a powerful source to make things happen. When we consider what it means to be a leader in the twenty-first century and how leaders will impact the major changes that lie ahead, strategic thinking is an influential capability. The focus of strategic leadership rest in individuals and team who think, act, and influence in ways that promote the sustainable competitive advantage of the organization (Hughes & Betty, 2005).  We use the term strategic leadership because it connotes management of an overall enterprise, not just a small unit; it also implies substantive decision-making responsibilities, beyond the interpersonal and relational aspects usually associate with leadership (Finkelstein et al, 2009).  According to Finkelstein et al, the global furniture company IKEA would not look the way it does today if not for the philosophy and values of its founder and long-time CEO, Ingvar Kamprad.  Wayne Gretzky, recognized as the world’s best hockey player, says that the key to his success is that he doesn’t skate toward the puck, but instead tries to anticipate where it’s going and get there ahead of it (Sanders, 1998).  The same thing could be said about great leaders, they anticipate where change is going and make sure their organizations get there first (Sanders, 1998).
 

5 Keys to Remember to Transform into a Strategic Thinker

Hughes and Beatty (2005) asserts one of the challenges to developing your strategic thinking id that historically organizations have tended not to encourage and reinforce the two complimentary sides of strategic thinking with anything like equality.  Cultivate your strategic thinking in 2013 with a conscious effort to tap the aspects of strategic thinking (Hughes & Beatty, 2005):
 

1. Scanning – involves assessing where the organization is. This involves examining the organization’s current strategic situation, and it includes an analysis of the opportunities and threats in the industry as well as the strengths and weaknesses inside the organization (Hughes & Beatty, 2005).
 

2. Visioning – represents a view of what the organization (or a department, group, or other unit) can and should become. Andy Stanley (1999) suggests vision weaves passion, motivation, direction, and purpose into the fabric of the leader’s daily life.
 

3.  Reframing – involves the ability to see things differently, including new ways of thinking about an organization’s strategic challenges and basic capabilities (Hughes & Beatty, 2005).  It involves questioning or restating the implicit beliefs and assumptions that are often granted by organizational members (Hughes & Beatty, 2005).
 

4.  Systems Thinking – Effective strategic thinkers are able to discern the interrelationships among different variables in a complex situation (Hughes & Beatty, 2005). The basic premise of systems thinking is to habitually review the best logical approach to all situations, current and future (Hughes & Beatty, 2005).
 

5.  Focus – Aubrey Malphurs (2013) advises that “focus” literally means to focus your attention on a specific interest or activity, see clearly with an objective or object in mind or pay particular attention to a place or thing.  Focus for a leader (at any level) looks something like: building a plan to remain focused on, delegating the tasks related to the plan and encouraging those around you to do things with an eye always on the goal; this way…everyone will be focused (Malphurs, 2013).

Conclusion

No matter how much the world continues to change, the strategic thinker will be the key player in organizations around the world.  Adopting strategic thinking as a lifestyle leadership attribute will serve leaders as an attuned compass that will facilitate their journey into leading people and organizations down the road through the future.  Strategic thinkers are continually wanted to assist organizations with managing challenges, progressing beyond its current status, innovation, and the competitive advantage in their industry. 
 

About the Author

J. K. Smith is an independent consultant and doctoral student at Regent University’s School of Business and Leadership. He earned a M.A. from Liberty University, a B.S. from Excelsior College, and a B.A. from Southwestern College. He is a decorated combat veteran and retired from the U.S. Army.

Email: julism1@mail.regent.edu

*Image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

“To win in the marketplace, you must first win in the workplace.” – Doug Conant

The wave of globalization in various aspects of business has created a need for global leaders with the ability to create agile, change-ready environments in the business world.  Strategic leaders are to be competent and knowledgeable to identify avenues of change that will foster a competitive advantage in their spheres of influence.  Strategic leaders can influence decisions that affect the growth or demise of companies, organizations, or nations. One effective trend is influencing and changing organizational culture in global business environments.

As organizations move from domestic environments to global environments, new, crucial skills emerge in the marketplace.  The skill of changing toxic organizational culture places a demand on global leaders to create and maintain organizations effectively for business success. Influencing, blueprinting, and implementing strategies that change an organization’s toxic culture is an important skill set for global leaders to possess, in order to successfully manage the daily activities of global organizations.

Organizational Culture Defined

“The thing I have learned at IBM is that culture is everything.” – Louis Gerstner

According to Smircich (1983), organizational culture is the set of meaning that give an organization its own ethos, or distinctive character, which is expressed in patterns of belief, activity, language and other symbolic forms through which organization members both create and sustain their view of the world and image of themselves in the world. [1] In addition, culture is shaped by values and beliefs that affect the way people work together organizationally. In today’s organizations, toxic culture can undermine the movement of an entire organization. The need to create a blueprint for change can be a complex undertaking. As Schein (2010) points out, when leaders try to change the behavior of followers, resistance to change can surface. [2] In addition, departments can be involved in turf wars and communication problems/misunderstanding can pollute the organization.

The culture and values of an organization is a life driving force that influences the way organizations function along with how the people in the organization behave. Organizational culture can be likened to the bloodstream.  When the bloodstream is cleansed, oxygen is resident.  On the other hand, a dirty bloodstream symbolizes an abundance of waste or carbon dioxide.  The same holds true for organizational culture.  An organizational culture can either be fluid with movement that produces success and productivity or have a toxicity level that promotes dysfunction in the organization. Transforming a toxic organizational culture requires leaders to assess and evaluate the toxicity of the culture that is already in existence. 

In assessing and evaluating the toxicity of an organization’s culture, leaders must be change agents that shift their cultural lenses to observe, discern, detect, and identify ways in which an organization’s culture can be aligned and changed.  In observing and discerning the tangible and intangible cultural elements imbedded in toxic cultures, leaders can implement a blueprint with strategies for change needed to enhance organizational performance.

The Three Levels of Culture

“If you have been trying to make changes in how your organization works, you need to find out how the existing culture aids or hinders you.” – Edgar Schein

Toxic organizational culture must be analyzed at several different levels.  Schein (2010) explains that the levels range from the very tangible overt manifestations that can be seen and felt to the deeply embedded, unconscious, basic assumptions that define the very essence of culture [3]. Understanding the dimensions of culture is essential for leaders to lead the changing of toxic culture. In addition, when blueprinting change strategies for toxic cultures, leaders must entertain the following questions to build strategy:

• How does the organization view its values in light of the toxicity of the culture?
   
• What are areas of importance within the organization culturally?
   
• What is the guiding force(s) of the toxicity?

Leaders can obtain answers to those questions by gauging the three levels of culture. Much like a flower garden, there are times to evaluate and prune the root systems of various plants to encourage beautiful plants and flowers. That said, it is important to note that a toxic culture needs pruning of their values to bring cohesion. Similarly, the pruning of a toxic culture will improve leadership expectations and increase organizational synergy and growth.  Hultman and Gellerman (2002) assert that values must be largely shared in order for an organization to forge a direction leading to success. [4] The three major dimensions of cultural analysis are:

• Artifacts
   
• Espoused Beliefs
   
• Basic Underlying Assumptions

Artifacts

Artifacts are known as the surface level of an organization’s culture because they are easily recognizable.  They are visible organizational structures and processes such as the visible products, architecture, language, technology, style, emotional displays, published values, and rituals and ceremonies. [5] This translates into what employees wear to work, how furniture and offices are arranged, and how employees work and treat one another.

Espoused Beliefs

Espoused beliefs are the values, ideals, goals, strategies and philosophies that impact the deeper levels of organizational culture.  An example of this would be an organization that is structured upon the foundational values of integrity, trust, commitment, and dedication to be corporately responsible for the environment. [6]

Basic Underlying Assumptions

Schein (2010) notes that basic underlying assumptions are the unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings that influence how cultural situations are handled. [7] An example of this would be the rules and policies that are developed within the organizational culture.

These cultural levels all build upon each other as drivers of success in an organization. Understanding the guiding forces of these three cultural levels enables leaders to assess the climate of the organization, as well as the macro and micro cultures operating within the organization.  When leaders embark on building their organizational blueprints, understanding all cultural dynamics of their organization enables them to recognize the difference between positive and toxic culture.  How well a leader can discern either culture will help them get rid of toxicity to build a healthier culture and organization.  Leaders should consider these questions when assessing the toxicity of their organizational cultures:

• What changes can be made to shift the organization back on track to achieve its vision?
   
• What changes can be made organizationally to achieve higher output of productivity and morale?
   
• How can I shift the culture to create a synergistic culture that fosters change in all areas of the organization?

Toxic Culture – Signs and Symptoms to Consider

“Change almost never fails because it’s too early.  It almost always fails because it’s too late.” – Seth Godin

A toxic culture can be lethal to an organization, its employees, and its overall success in the global marketplace.  When toxic organizational culture trumps positive organizational culture, leaders should perform an intervention to detox their organizations to stop the downward spiraling effects on culture and values.  Toxic culture is an organizational ‘virus’ that can spread throughout the organization, undermining its reputation and success.  Leaders must function as organizational physicians to detect the signs and symptoms of viruses that are toxic to organizational atmospheres.  Signs and symptoms of disruptive toxic behaviors take the form of impropriety, interpersonal mistreatment, and disruptive behavior. [8] Other signs and symptoms are gossip, rumors, cliquish behavior, double standards for leadership, and organizational inconsistencies.

These toxic behaviors can also spread as a virus in the form of yelling or raising of one’s voice, abusive language, berating in front of peers, condescension, insults, passive hostility, shaming, turf wars, silos, and team sabotage. [9] These toxic viruses stunt growth and organizational momentum toward organizational goals.

“So much of what we call management consists in making it difficult for people to work.”– Peter Drucker

As the toxic viruses move to paralyze the organizational culture, behavior of toxic employees and other leaders can begin to affect the organization.  It is paramount for organizational change to be addressed before cultural viruses and diseases become even more cancerous to the organization. Signs and symptoms of toxic employees and leaders can affect culture by damaging morale, diverting people’s energy from productive work, damaging cooperation and knowledge sharing, impairing hiring and retention of the best people, and making poor business decisions. [10]

In addition, the behavior of toxic employees and leaders can be destructive to a company’s social capital, trust, and relationships within an organization that enable people to work together effectively. [11] Leaders must be cognizant of these changes that decrease organization vulnerability that can flatline the organization. When these behaviors go unchecked, these organization issues erode the culture.

Toxic cultures in organizations create dissonance that calls for leaders to step in with strategies of change as prescriptions to eradicate the viruses for positive organizational culture. Leaders must be well-versed in understanding cultural nuances in their organizations that create viruses that inherently pull down the culture of organizations. Leaders, operating as defibrillators, can give a jolt to the culture of their organizations, sustaining their life for cultural changes that will produce high performance in the global marketplace.

It’s in Your Court – Changing Toxic Organizational Culture into a Positive Culture

“Companies often underestimate the role that managers and staff play in transformation efforts. By communicating with them too late or inconsistently, senior executives end up alienating the people who are most affected by the changes.”

–       Harold Sirkin, Perry Keenan, and Alan Jackson

In today’s organizations, there is a need for leaders that lead and collaborate with others to change toxic cultures into positive organizational culture. Bawany (2014) notes that the heart of the leadership challenge for today’s leaders is learning how to lead in cultural situations of toxicity, volatility and uncertainty in globalized environments. [12] Leadership is an art and a science that continually evolves, changes form, and requires creativity.  

Leadership is all about leaders possessing the ability to culturally shift organizations, while impacting and influencing others to engage them towards achieving results for cultural change and organizational success. [13] Once cultural toxicity is understood and detected by leaders, it is then time for leaders to create cultural changes that create a new beginning organizationally.  Edward Lawler (2006) notes that leaders should not think of change as aberration anymore, but rather think of change as a dynamic stability where leaders can anticipate and be ready for change. [14] That said, leaders as change agents, must in position to plan, blueprint, and implement change strategies to reduce toxicity levels for implementation of positive culture. 

For starters, one key to help dissipate toxicity in cultures is for leaders to communicate their plans of change to their employees.  This will reduce alienation and encourage engagement and buy-in from employees as leaders work to shift the toxicity levels to normal levels for positive organizational culture. Employees need to see clear advantages for both the company and themselves and how their contributions are a valued part of the overall initiative. [15] At the same time, leaders must model the desired cultural beliefs, practices, customs, and behaviors that support the culture change for employees to follow.

Leaders must be courageous to make change and innovation of culture possible.  Courage is vital to challenge conventional thinking and envision new possibilities. [16] When leaders act courageous, it creates courageousness in their followers.  Toxicity is exchanged with a more positive cultural flow when leaders lead courageously.  In a positive organizational culture, courageous leaders foster an environment where people can collaborate in the decision-making process to strategically shift culture of the organization as it becomes more nimble, entrepreneurial, and aligned with positive values. [17]

Another key for leaders to culturally shift their organizations’ culture from toxicity to positivity is to inspire and unite their followers. Strategic leaders have a great responsibility to create and maintain an organizational culture that creates a spirit of community. According to Kouzes & Posner (2012), inspiring leaders understand that promoting a culture of community fuels the sense of unity essential for retaining and motivating today’s workforce. [18] The process of creating community helps leaders to ensure that their followers feel that they belong to something greater than themselves, while working together toward a common cause. [19] In addition to building strong community to foster a desired culture, toxicity dissipates because leaders develop collaborative goals and cooperative relationship with their followers. [20] The leader/follower relationship creates an atmosphere of collaboration, where everyone involved wins.

As cultural change is implemented, challenges can arise that act as barriers to the cultural shift. To achieve a successful cultural shift, along with organizational success, challenge is the opportunity for greatness, innovation, and movement that turns a toxic culture into a positive culture for growth. [21] Russell (2014) explains that leaders challenge processes in organizations by generating new ideas to fuel growth. [22] Strategic leaders can increase innovation, effectiveness, and efficiency for new cultural ideas by creating a climate that embraces challenges.

It takes time for change to implemented, as well as encountering mistakes when implementing change. Leaders that are not moved by challenges teach their followers to be resilient as change is implemented from one culture to another.

Lastly, to ward against future toxicity, an area of opportunity for leaders is utilizing strategic foresight to forecast futuristic cultural moves. Leaders should be strategic foresight thought leaders that scan horizons for future cultural moves that can either be positive or negative to organizational culture.  Leaders that spot futuristic strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats to future cultural moves can be leveraged and accessed to build relevant future cultural moves that can be implementation for growth.

Conclusion

Today’s organizations need to be agile, change-ready environments in the global economy. Healthy organizational cultures are essential to cultivate these type of organizations. In order for leaders to plan, blueprint, and implement successful cultural shifts, they must understand the dynamics of culture. When leaders seek to shift toxic cultures, they must understand the cultural levels of artifacts, espoused beliefs, and shared assumptions to successfully build positive organizational cultures. Once cultural dynamics are understood, leaders can recognize and gauge the signs and symptoms of toxic culture. It is critical for leaders to support cultural change by leading by example to model cultural values in their organizations. Leaders can work diligently and effectively to shift organizational cultures. It is then that leaders can provide solutions for positive cultures that produce organizational culture that breed success.

About the Author

Nikki Walker is a thought leader, strategist, and organizational change agent. She earned a BA in Business/Accounting from Virginia Wesleyan and an MBA from Strayer University. She provides coaching, consulting, and instruction to businesses and ministries in areas of leadership and organizational development. In addition, she is currently pursuing a doctorate in Strategic Leadership at Regent University.

 *Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

References

1. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358.
2. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4. Hultman, K., & Gellerman, W. (2002). Balancing individual and organizational values: Walking the tightrope to success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
5. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Holloway, E.& Kusy, M. (2010). Detox your workplace. Marketing Health Services, 30(3), 24-27.
9. Holloway, E.& Kusy, M. (2010). Detox your workplace. Marketing Health Services, 30(3), 24-27.
10. Lubit, R.H. (2004). Coping with toxic managers, subordinates and other difficult people, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
11. Lubit, R.H. (2004). Coping with toxic managers, subordinates and other difficult people, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
12. Bawany, S. (2014). Building high performance organizations. Leadership Excellence, 3(11), 46-47.
13. Bawany, S. (2014). Building high performance organizations. Leadership Excellence, 3(11), 46-47.
14. Lawler, E. (2006). Achieving strategic excellence: An assessment of human resource organizations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15. Stewart, H. (2014). Executing on change. Training & Development, 41(5), 24.
16. Levine, S.R. (2014). Courage is critical to ceo success. Credit Union Times, 25(3), 5.
17. Levine, S.R. (2014). Courage is critical to ceo success. Credit Union Times, 25(3), 5.
18. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21. Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22. Russell, D. (2014). Creating a climate for innovation.  Leadership Excellence, 31(7), 25-26.

"It's not just work, it's an Adventure! There are 250,000 U.S. service members stationed overseas. What did the military do to assist them as they entered a foreign land and what can corporate America learn from it?"

Going Global? With over 70 percent of the world’s purchasing power outside of the United States, more and more U.S. companies are jumping on the bandwagon.[1]The reality of opening or moving a business to another country is that it can be a daunting task.

Language barriers, cultural nuances, government regulations, politics and more all contribute to the challenge of going global.  Some American companies who overseas efforts have gone down in flames because they neglected some of these issues include Coca-Cola, Microsoft, and DaimlerChrysler.[2]Although they recovered, it was not without frustration, missed opportunities, and billions in sales.[3]How can your organization avoid some of these pitfalls? A good place to start is by examining how you handle your most valuable assets when going global - your people.

The U.S. military began setting up permanent bases in foreign countries in 1903 when the first overseas base was established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. By 2010, there were 662 U.S. military bases in 38 foreign countries.[4] These bases range in size from over 50,000 Americans to less than ten. Countless service members and their families have made the move to a new country and many lessons were learned throughout the decades. This article will examine some of those “lessons learned” to see if there are pitfalls or best practices U.S. businesses desiring to make the move overseas can learn from.

Who Should Go?

 Living and working in a foreign country can be an exciting prospect for anyone. However, through experience, the military has discovered even if someone wants to take an overseas assignment not everyone is cut out for it. As a preventive measure, the Navy, like the other services, has developed a detailed screening process which service members and their families must complete prior to heading out for that new adventure. First the service member must be qualified to perform the work. Beyond that, before an overseas assignment is finalized, the service member is screened for an acceptable level of physical fitness, performance, discipline issues, financial stability, individual and family characteristics, and drug and alcohol issues. If someone is taking their family, those family members must also be considered. Family members are screened to ensure no special medical, dental, community or educational requirements exist which may not be available at the duty station and could place undue stress on a service member and their family. The military has found when mismatches like these occur there can be significant costs to both the organization and the family. Consequences include increased absences from work, poor quality of life, unplanned expenditures, and service members and their families being sent home before the end of their tour.[5]

Making a Smooth Move

Once screening is passed, it is time to get ready for the actual move. Moving to a foreign country can be a daunting experience for anyone but especially if a company is just establishing a presence there. Are visas required, how do personal belongings/furnishings get there, what parts of the city are not safe to live in, are there English speaking schools, what is the cost of living, is temporary housing available and where, what medical facilities are available – the answers to these questions and more should be provided to any employees before they leave. In this regard, the U.S. Navy tries to ensure success for service members and families moving overseas is by providing an Overseas Transfer Workshops for family members 12 years old and above. During the workshop information is provided on moving household goods and cars, financial planning, travel arrangements, legal documents which should be completed or hand carried vice shipped, pet quarantine requirements, country information, passports, and more.[6] How-to guides and checklists are provided to facilitate the many details which must be handled for the move. Personal security and culture shock are also discussed during the workshop. Welcome aboard packages are provided to service members and families which include information about the new country such as places to visit, monetary exchanges, shopping, transportation options, schools, important phone numbers, and where to find help if needed.

Straight from the Source

Since moving to a new country and culture can be overwhelming, the U.S. military has developed sponsor programs which allow service members to hear the “real deal” from someone who is already there. If there is an established presence in a country, service members are assigned a sponsor to help them before and upon their arrival at the duty station. Sponsors contact the service member and guide them through the move process, and help orientate them to the new location and culture.  Additionally, large foreign duty stations have Family Service Centers to assist service members and their families. Depending on their size, they can provide assistance in job searches for a spouse and information on churches and religious services,   childcare, continued education, afterschool care, volunteer opportunities, social activities, medical and dental facilities, and more. Some duty stations with families also provide sponsor programs for children from seven to eighteen who are matched by age, gender, hobbies, etc. This has been found helpful in reducing anxiety for children moving to a new country and culture.   

Culture Matters

Not understanding the culture of a country different from the United States almost guarantees failure. The military learned this during the Vietnam War when the U.S. tried fighting a conventional war. The communist insurgents fought the only way they knew how using guerilla warfare. As the Americans approached, they withdrew and waited for them to pass by.[7] This cultural misunderstanding contributed to lengthening an already costly war in money and lives. On a more tactical level, after the U.S. Army went into the Middle East, they discovered the OK sign was considered an obscenity to Afghans and the thumbs-up sign was offensive to Egyptians.[8] Obviously, these are some lessons corporate America would rather learn from others rather than discover personally!

Like the other services, today the U.S. Army takes culture issues seriously. The Army wants their soldiers to possess a cross-cultural competency to include cultural learning and cultural agility. Experts have reported cultural learning enables people to quickly gain an understanding of the socio-cultural context of operations and cultural agility provides the ability to respond effectively in situations of cultural diversity.[9] The Army Learning Concept for 2015 calls for a blended approach of social and contextual learning with guided traditional learning to develop cross-cultural competencies through continuous learning over a soldier’s career.[10] Currently, before a soldier deploys to a specific area they are provided what has been called “cultural training on steroids” which includes anthropology, language, heritage, history, and cultural no-nos.[11] The goal is for the soldiers to be able to “form relationships, build trust, communicate, and collaborate with people of greatly different backgrounds.”[12]

As the military has learned, cross-cultural training and education can be invaluable to corporate personnel sent overseas to work and yet many organizations fail to provide it. Sometimes companies are unaware of available resources or feel it is not necessary especially when dealing with another Western culture or English speaking country.[13] Other times, employees feel they don’t need it or with all the pressures of moving overseas, this training falls off their plate. The U.S. State Department has long recognized the importance of cross-cultural training and encourages corporations going overseas to take advantage of it by listing reputable sources of non-governmental training on their website.[14] Additionally, the State Department website has detailed information on embassies, country profiles, political issues, security issues, economics, transnational issues, and more. Other helpful websites available on cultural issues include the Central Intelligence Agency’s World FactBook and the Hofstede Centre’s National Culture Dimensions. All information on these websites can be sorted by country and in the case of the Hofstede website two countries cultural dimensions can be compared and contrasted.

How do you say…?

Although English is considered the universal language of business, there are times when not speaking a language can become a definite disadvantage.[15] Within the military, commanders leading troops overseas have suggested a soldier’s ability to speak the local language is just as important as his skills with a rifle.[16] Learning a new culture becomes much easier when the local language is understood. However, because learning a new language such as Pasto or Dari is difficult and there are few native speakers in the military, commanders have experienced much frustration.[17] To combat this, the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) offers military members over two dozen languages in a resident program and through immersion programs. Included in the language training are cultural considerations for the each country. Similar to the CIA and Hofstede websites, DLIFLC provides numerous language and cultural resources on their website which can be sorted by country and do not require any special access. Included are helpful briefings, tutorials, pamphlets, and “cheat sheets” on language survival kits, language pronunciation, cultural orientations, myths and folklores, country perspectives, and more. [18]

When expanding into other nations, corporate leaders should plan what language skills are needed at each level in order to communicate effectively with the local workforce. Given the time it takes to learn a new language or find native speakers, these requirements need to be identified early. Fortunately today there are many resources, such as Rosetta Stone, in addition to those already highlighted to help businesses going overseas.    

Lessons Learned from the World’s Mightiest Military

Through the decades, the U.S. military has uncovered several keys lessons which today’s leaders can use to their advantage when going global:

1. The costs of sending the wrong person or family member overseas can be enormous both to the organization and the people involved. In order to increase the chances of success, employees and, to some extent, their family members should go through a review or screening process to ensure there are no existing circumstances which could prove problematic in a foreign setting.
    
2. The actual process of moving overseas is complicated in the best circumstances. Providing employees with detailed “how-to” information or guides on getting passports or visas, making travel arrangements, moving household goods, finding lodging and transportation, and such will lessen delays, frustrations, and unnecessary costs. Providing this information through workshops or seminars will allow questions to be answered on the spot and allow for sharing other helpful tips.
    
3. Establishing a sponsor program where employees are matched with another employee already in the foreign country can facilitate a smoother transition. Having a sponsor to bounce questions off can help employees avoid false starts and ease apprehensions.
    
4. Avoiding culture shock is another key to a smooth transition. This is done by preparing employees and their families for the cultural differences they will encounter instead of them having to learn it the hard way. Providing employees with formal cultural training and awareness on the country they are heading to can facilitate assimilation and help avoid awkward situations.
    
5. Addressing language issues early on can provide employees with an advantage upon arrival and prevent unnecessary misunderstandings. Although most people cannot quickly learn a new language, providing them with key phrases and learning resources will make the transition easier.
    
6. Companies and corporations should also take advantage of the wealth of information on almost every country in the world which is available on the internet via the websites identified within this article and elsewhere.         

Conclusion

Going global can be an exciting time for a company or corporation, but it can also be fraught with difficulties and pitfalls. The U.S. Armed Forces has over 100 years of experience in sending people into foreign lands and establishing a presence there. Through the years, the military has noted their mistakes and what things facilitated a smooth move overseas for service members. Those things which worked were formalized into programs and policies which now guide overseas transfers. Screening service members and their families and providing them with information on what they need to accomplish before they go, how to get there, and what they will find there saves time, money, and frustrations for both the service member and the organization. Each company or corporation which enters the global market will have issues to address which are specific to their industry. However, when moving Americans overseas, many of the issues are universal to any organization. Corporate leaders going global would do well to look to the military to avoid some of the landmines discussed herein. After all, this is not the first time the military has stepped on landmines, it would be a shame if no one learned from their sacrifice!

Additional Resources

Preparing the Battlefield!

These resources provide information on culture, language tips, myths and folklore, politics, economics, security concerns, country perspectives, and more.

• http://travel.state.gov/content/travel/english.html

• http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html

• https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

• http://famdliflc.lingnet.org/productList.aspx?v=language

About the Author  

 Captain Jeanne McDonnell (ret.) served on active duty for over 25 years. Assignments included command of Naval Support Activity Norfolk and Transient Personnel Unit Norfolk, and service on the Joint Staff, the Navy Staff, Commander Surface Warfare Atlantic Staff, and Joint Forces Staff College. She is currently pursuing a doctorate in Strategic Leadership at Regent University.

*Image courtesy of Vichaya Kiatying-Angsulee at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

"There is no substitute for competence. ~ Ayn Rand"

Leadership quality continues to be questionable based upon the demonstration of competence or the lack thereof.[1] The fact that a person is in a leadership position does not mean he or she is an effective leader. Research however, has established that competency-based human resources can be developed to acquire critical competencies required for outstanding performance and establish credibility as an expertly, competent leader. Cultivation of critical competencies in the field of leadership requires opportunity, capability and commitment.[2] The competent leader is described as one who embraces the leadership role and possesses or cultivates the knowledge, skills and competencies (KSCs) relevant to the leadership position. This individual also, decisively commits to utilize acquired competencies in his or her leader role.
 

Likewise, the question of competence in the realm of coaching is an ongoing issue of debate. The fact that a person operates in the role of a coach, does not presuppose he or she is an effective, competent coach. The Coaching Association of Canada believes that a competent coach is one who has the appropriate knowledge, skills, and attitude to do the job effectively. John Krulic contends,
 

Good coaches must have a sound knowledge of coaching principles. They must understand the principles that apply to learning, training within a sport environment, and human development. They must understand the sport, its techniques, strategies, and tactics. And they need an understanding of athletes and their individual characteristics. This knowledge doesn’t automatically come from participating in a sport for 20 years. Qualified coaches need to be trained to recognize and understand these important principles and to apply them on the field.[3]

An evaluation of this contention reveals three elements: knowledge of coaching principles, an understanding of the principles that apply to human development, and an understanding of the techniques, strategies and tactics associated with the sport. Krulic’s contention suggests a competent coach must develop the capacity to integrate various elements of knowledge, skill and competence. 
 

The phrase a ‘competent’ leader is an all-encompassing description of one’s talent as “described by his or her values, vision, personal philosophy, knowledge, competencies, life, career stage, interests and style” as well his or her general ability to perform in a superior fashion.[4] Table 1. The Core Competency Matrix provides varying KSCs identified as core to the coaching profession stemming from early applications of coaching in sports to current business performance, to human development.
 

Research scientist in the field of organizational behavior and scholar Boyatzis’ (2008), identified three differentiating competencies, which builds upon the aforementioned thresholds to distinguish superior performers from average performers:
 

• Cognitive intelligence competencies – characterized by strategic thinking and pattern recognition.
   
• Emotional intelligence competencies – self-awareness and self-management.
   
• Social intelligence competences – social awareness and relationship management.

He further contends competencies are a behavioral approach to cognitive, emotional and social intelligence.[5] The term competent therefore, is a designation conferred upon an individual for having achieved and maintained a qualifying standard of excellence demonstrated behaviorally.
 

The application of this behavioral approach in the coaching context draws upon the integration of skill, character, and intellect. Therefore, to be designated as a competent coaching practitioner or leader, suggests evidence of a demonstrated standard of superior [coaching] performance. The question then becomes, how is this standard defined? An accompanying question might be how is this standard achieved? The litmus test for a competent coaching leader requires consideration of three questions:
 

1. What am I observing and feeling? Observing and feeling are functions of the social and emotional domains. These two intelligence domains help create awareness to what is actively occurring and the emotional impact this action has on the client as well as the coach.
    
2. What do I know? What information do I possess? Memory and perception are functions of cognitive intelligence. They aid in the retrieval and processing of information based upon the current environment.
    
3. What skills and abilities am I equipped with to address this situation? The identification of KSCs involves the mental integration process to induce brain activity in all three intels

The reflection process required in contemplation of these three questions, initiates higher thinking processes from cognitive, emotional and social intelligence competencies.
 

Cognition involves the mental capacity and aptitude to explore and assimilate unconventional practices into a situation to maximize the coachee’s experience and enhance learning. The integrative nature of cognitive intelligence promotes instantaneous idea generation. Instantaneous idea generation is the result of unconscious cognitive processing of perception, memory, learning, thought, and language.[6] The ability to connect in a positive manner is a function of the emotional intelligence domain. Emotional intelligence (EI or EQ) consists of self-awareness and emotional management. It involves the capacity to perceive emotions, assimilate emotion-related feelings, understand the information of those emotions, and manage them.[7]
 

An EI competency underlies the successful creation and enduring maintenance of a coaching relationship. EI skillsets equip a leader with the ability to develop synchronous relationships and positively influence others. A synchronous relationship is further developed and maintained through the development of social intelligence competencies.
 

Social intelligence provides the capacity to exercise wisdom when cultivating relationships as well as the ability to act wise in relationships. SI focuses on effective relationship management. Relationship has been shown to be the best predictor of outcome.[8] One’s ability to create an environment characterized by harmony is the result of high social awareness and relationship management skills. Boyatzis (2008a) contends a social intelligence competency is the ability to recognize, understand, and use emotional information about others that leads to or causes effective superior performance.[9]

The following case study illustrates the intentional and purposeful integration of these multiple intelligence capabilities during a coachable moment with a client. “A coachable moment is defined as an opportunity when a person is most susceptible to make the transition into a place of higher learning and deeper thought. These opportunities are brief moments in time used to create awareness and move a client forward.”[10]

Case Study: A Coachable Moment

A colleague approached me and expressed an interest in entering into a coaching relationship. She however, could not find time in her schedule for a formal appointment. This colleague and I spent recreational time together exercising. With her permission, I therefore suggested we utilize some of our exercise time to engage the coaching process. She had a cornucopia of ideas but could not focus on one particular idea or prioritize them. Upon executing the skill of inquiry, we begin to discuss each individual idea and its feasibility. The brainstorming process helped her to contextualize her ideas. By suggesting she consider realistic target dates, it wasn’t long before she began seizing opportunities. One of her business ideas began as a therapeutic outlet, but is now thriving and completely self-sustaining.
 

As a result of engaging the 3-question litmus test, I was able to employ conventional coaching processes during an unconventional, coachable moment to help my client identify ideal outcomes and move toward goal accomplishment. Despite the suggestion to incorporate informal coaching sessions into the recreational time spent together, the coaching conversations were unplanned and occurred naturally. Upon sensing a readiness in my client to address her unrealized dreams, I would transition into a coaching mode drawing her into a coaching conversation with me. A competent coaching leader must develop the capability to effectively and seamlessly integrate cognitive, emotional and social intelligence competencies and execute appropriate KSCs in a manner whereby the coachee feels helped.
 

Competency Development

Commander Wesley Clark is quoted as stating, “I’ve never met an effective leader who was not aware of his [or her, emphasis added] talents and working to sharpen them.”[11] It is virtually impossible to enhance one’s KSCs without awareness. Albeit, one may not have a ‘natural’ aptitude in a specific area, it is however, possible to cultivate a ‘nurtured’ aptitude in developmental areas. Competence is a cognitive intelligence competency demonstrated by specific behavior. This attribute denotes a one’s ability to perform the responsibilities required to effectively manage the processes associated with the related job function.
 

Within the context of this research project, competence is explored on two dimensions: technical expertise and cognitive ability. Technical expertise thereby, refers to skills, abilities, knowledge and techniques obtained through training and psychometric certifications. Cognitive ability [mental aptitude] is defined as the leader’s ability to acquire, comprehend and apply new knowledge or skill.
 

Technical expertise also referred to as hard skills, define a person’s skill set, and ability to perform a certain type of task or activity. The development of distinguishing competencies to produce superior performance requires ongoing cultivation of advanced skillsets. Strategies to enhance one’s coaching competence include:
 

• Research innovative practices in leadership and coaching.
   
• Continually assess current skill level.
   
• Set growth goals to update and expand leadership toolkit.
   
• Obtain advanced training and certifications.
   
• Train, practice, evaluate.
   
• Integrate multiple skill sets.
   
• Cultivate a coaching leadership style.
   

Threshold competence consists of basic procedural knowledge and deductive reasoning, whereas a distinguishing competence is the result of advanced cognitive functions such as systems thinking and pattern recognition.[12]

The mental aptitude [cognitive ability] dimension of competence includes personality type, leadership style, coaching style, motive, and value systems; these are elements, which influence the quality of human interaction. These cognitive based skills, classified as soft skills, involve the personal attributes that define the quality of an individual’s interactions, job performance, and career prospects. Strategies to strengthen the mental aptitude dimension include:
 

1. Experience the experience –personally engage in psychometric tools.
    
2. Nurture your self-perspective – Gather feedback from colleagues, peers, family and friends.
    
3.  Know thyself – Evaluate assessment data and feedback to become self-aware.
    
4. Complete the Coaching Motivation Instrument (CMI) – Evaluate your motivation to coach or lead.

Mental aptitude informs a leader’s ability to build trust, establish rapport, determine coach-client fitness, identify one’s strengths and weaknesses, and understand how his or her particular style of communication is perceived.[13] Competence is comprised of both technical skill and cognitive ability; it is the result of Level-One integration of hard skill and soft skill sets. Level-One integration describes the coordination activity between the mental aptitude component and the cognitive ability domain.
 

Psychologist Daniel Goleman pioneered an emotional intelligence model based upon what he describes as personal competence. The cynosure in personal competence is self-awareness and the ability to manage one’s own emotions and behaviors. Personal competence engages principles of experiential learning and self- evaluation to increase one’s capacity to effectively manage personal behavior. This EI framework, (shown in Figure 9) is comprised of three elements:
 

1. Self-awareness – knowing one’s internal states, preferences, strengths and weaknesses.
    
2. Self-management – managing one’s internal states, impulses and behavior.
    
3. Motivation – emotional tendencies that guide or facilitate goal attainment.[14]

Goleman (2006b) asserts an emotional competence is a learned capability based upon emotional intelligence and results in outstanding performance.[15] Strategies to enhance EI talent include:
 

• Acknowledgement and Acceptance Principle – Recognize emotion is a vital part of life.
   
• Catcher’s Mitt Technique- Embrace emotion.
   
• Emotional Label – Identify the feeling(s).
   
• Emoticon Tool – Connect with emotion. Assess against your personal values and determine how to use emotion to move you where you need to go.
   
• Moments of Silence – Invoke silence to observe emotion and evaluate feelings.

These strategies provide a platform to acknowledge, accept, embrace, identify, connect with, repurpose, observe, and evaluate emotion to facilitate purposeful and productive management of one’s feelings and enhance one’s EI competency.
 

The EI competency underlies the successful creation and enduring maintenance of a coaching relationship. The key behaviors that characterize the EI competency include trustworthiness, care and compassion, equality, active listening, conscious engagement, respect, belief in individuals and individual abilities. These key behaviors are attributes associated with compassion.[16]

Compassion includes an intellectual understanding of the meaning of someone else’s circumstance and a desire to relieve suffering or increase happiness.[17]  Compassion necessitates coordination of competencies from the EI and mental aptitude intelligence centers. This intentional comingling of competencies illustrates the Level-Two integrative process. Compassion further characterizes the development of a caring, coaching relationship when the coach is emotionally in sync with the coachee and committed to his or her success.[18]

The focus of social competence is the ability to recognize emotional responses in others and effectively manage these relationships. Skill building in the social competence dimension will strengthen your understanding of others and increase the ease in which you are able to manage relationships.[19] The social awareness skill measures your ability to discern other people’s emotions and empathize with their perspectives. Relationship management involves the integration of your awareness to your own emotions and the emotions of others. It also facilitates the development of strategies to effectively communicate and interact with others.
 

Suggested strategies to increase your social intelligence quotient include:
 

• Environmental scanning – what are the social norms within the environment.
   
• Develop sensory perception sensitivity – what feelings are permeating within the environment.
   
• Enhance observation techniques – how do the people in your social sphere interact with one another, with you?
   
• Embrace silence – become attuned to silent messages.
   
• Nurture your insight – continuously engage in assessments and activities to develop social intelligence skills.

Social intelligence competencies are composed of capacities [i.e., concern and caring], as well as non-cognitive abilities [i.e., empathy and synchrony] and focuses on the interactive dimension of relationships. Effective relational management is an outcome of commitment. Commitment is demonstrated through acts, which symbolize dependability, loyalty, sincerity, inspiration, wisdom, honesty, and trustworthiness.[20] Commitment involves coordination between emotional intelligence, social intelligence and cognitive processes and illustrates the interaction that occurs at Level-Three integration.
 

An integrated framework composed of cognitive, emotional, and social intelligence competencies postulates a theoretical structure linking both soft skill and technical competencies in a theory of action and performance.[21] A competent coach integrates cognitive abilities with emotional and social skillsets to enhance the coaching experience and increase the client’s probability to improve his or her performance. Through integration skill sets become disciplines, disciplines become a way of life.
 

Conclusion

Competence is the qualifying characteristic, which distinguishes mediocre leaders from superior performing leaders. Competence characterizes your personal and professional DNA—it becomes an expression of who you are, much the same way as a brand identifies an organization. Although a leader may not possess a ‘natural’ ability or capability, it is however, possible to cultivate a ‘nurtured’ skill set. The integration process progresses in 3-steps to facilitate competency development in cognitive, emotional and social intelligence:
 

• Level - One: Integration of technical skill and cognitive ability.
   
• Level - Two: Coordination between the Emotional Intel and mental aptitude.
   
• Level - Three: Internal transmissions stimulate interaction between the Emotional and Social Intels and the Cognitive domain.

This integrated framework links soft skill capabilities with technical competence to develop a theory of action and performance. Generally, competence is examined as a specific attribute or trait, which is demonstrable through one's behavior. Lance Berger however, further describes competence as “a reliable, measurable, enduring characteristic [emphasis added] of a person that causes and statistically predicts a level of performance.[22]

Demonstrated competence defines who the leader is ‘individually’ and is illustrated by what the leader does and how. Competence validates a leader’s ability to lead effectively. Because leadership is about relationship, a leader must possess an innate ability to connect, inspire, create vision and lead the way. Coaching is the substrate used to populate soft skills with technical skills in a collective environment. Coaching is effective because it is a relational process. Research in organizational behavior suggests development of cognitive, emotional, and social intelligence competencies result in enhanced leadership performance and improves the relationship management process. The competent (coaching) leader not only embraces the leadership role but also cultivates a coaching style of leadership to encourage superior personal, professional and organizational performance.

*Image courtesy of ddpavumba at FreeDigitalPhotos.net 

Bibliography

Albarracin, Erick. "Research Paper: The 10 Practices of Effective Coaching: The Development of the Coaching Practice Inventory (CPI)." International Coach Academy. May 17, 2013. www. coachcampus.com (accessed July 12, 2014).

Bertolin, Diane. "Developing Compassion to Help Improve Daily Life." March 22, 2014. http://dianebertolin.com (accessed August 11, 2014).

Bowes, Barbara. The DNA of High Performance-How Competencies Drive Success. June 9, 2013. www.cpjworld.com (accessed August 8, 2014).
 

Boyatzis, Richard. ""Competencies in the 21st Century."." Journal of Management Development ( (www.emeraldinsight.com),), 2008.
 

Boyatzis, Richard. "Beyond Competence: The Choice to be a Leader." Human Resource Management Review (JAI Press, Inc.) 3, no. 1 (1993): 1-14.
 

—. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1982.
 

Boyatzis, Richard, and Saatcioglu Argun. "A 20-year view of trying to develop emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence competencies in graduate management education." Journal of Management Development (Emerald Group Publishing, Ltd.) 27, no. 1 (2008b): 92-108.
 

Boyatzis, Richard, Melvin L. Smith, Ellen Van Oosten, and Woolford. "Developing Resonant Leaders through Emotional Intelligence, Vision and Coaching." Organizational Dynamics (Science) 42 (December 2013): 17-24.
 

Bradberry, Travis, and Jean Greaves. The emotional intelligence quickbook: everything you need to know to put your EQ to work. New York, NY: Fireside, 2005.
 

Buckner, Stacey. Feelings or Characteristics that Colors Represent. 1999-2014. www.ehow.com (accessed June 5, 2014).
 

Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Dell, 2006a.
 

—. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Dell, 2006b.
 

Haan, Erik, and Charlotte Sills. "The Relational Turn in Executive Coaching." Journal of Management Development (http://www.emeraldinsight.com) 29, no. 1 (October 2013).
 

Kihlstrom, John F. "Cognition, Unconscious Processes." Science Magazine (www.sciencemag.org) 237 (2007): 1445-1452.
 

Kimsey-House, Henry, Karen Kimsey-House, Phillip Sandahl, and Laura Whitworth. Co-Active Coaching: Changing Business Transforming Lives. 3. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey, 2011.
 

Krulic, John. What is a competent coach? n.d. http://www.rcaa.org (accessed October 9, 2013).
 

Mayer, John, David Caruso, and Peter Salovey. "Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for an Intelligence." Intelligence (Elsevier Science, Inc.) 27, no. 4 (2000): 267-298.
 

Passmore, Jonathan. Psychometrics in Coaching: Using Psychological and Psychometric Tools for Development. Edited by Jonathan Passmore. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page Limited, 2012.
 

Rath, Tom, and Barry Conchie. Strengths Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow? New York, NY: GALLUP Press, 2008.
 

Wallace, Blanche. The Significance of the Coaching Conversation. General Council of Assemblies of God. May 1, 2014c. www.enrichmentjournal.ag.org (accessed June 5, 2014).

About the Author

Dr. Blanche Wallace is a Leadership Coach and Director of the Dynamic Strategic Leadership Coaching Group. She holds certifications as a Growth Coach, Coach Trainer and Executive Leadership Coach. She is a leadership consultant and conference speaker. Dr. Wallace is also the author and designer of two coaching models and has conducted numerous workshops and seminars for church groups, nonprofit organizations, and State organizations. For training or speaking engagements contact Dr. Wallace at:
 

Email: dslcoaching@gmail.com