Peter Senge, MIT professor and author of The Fifth Discipline, said:

 “No one in the past 30 years has had a more profound impact on thinking about leadership than Robert Greenleaf.” 

 Robert Greenleaf, author of the classic series of essays on the theme “the servant as leader,” was a powerful advocate of mentoring.  In The Power of Servant Leadership, edited by Larry Spears, Robert Greenleaf proposed that there are psychic rewards to be gained by oldsters who take the time and trouble to mentor the young to become servant-leaders.

  He stated, “What could bring more satisfaction to oldsters than helping some of the young to become servant-leaders?” (page 54)

 

As an oldster himself at the time of his writing, he saw the need for a more caring society, but had little confidence that many of the leaders of his generation would actually meet the challenge.  He was definitely not persuaded that much progress toward a caring society would “be initiated by those who are now established as leaders.”  He stated that he did “not expect much” from his contemporaries. (page 53)

 

Robert Greenleaf saw that once an individual rose to a position of power and influence with a nonservant mindset, it would probably take a metanoia (a profound transformation or conversion) to change such a leader into a true servant-leader.  He stated:

 

“For the older ones among us who are ‘in charge,’ nothing short of a ‘peak’ experience, like religious conversion…seems to have much chance of converting a confirmed nonservant into an affirmative servant.” (page 23)

 

Although many influential leaders consider themselves effective mentors and servant-leaders, the fruits often do not bear this out.  Often the person who is energized and inspired to be an able mentor of the young is not a person of great formal power and influence.  In fact, a very successful mentor is likely to be one who has not risen to the top within his or her organization, but has remained in a lower level position in order to have greater access to young people.

 

Superiors may consider these effective mentors as oddballs.  This is because such persons may not want to conform to the organization’s culture and rise to a position of prominence.  Many organizational cultures place little value on truly growing people and helping young people internalize a lifestyle of service.  You can see this in academia, where senior faculty may pay lip service to mentoring junior faculty and students, but in reality there is a spirit of competition and a “scarcity mentality” driven by self-interest.  Institutional rewards often go to those most driven by such self-interest, rather than recognizing and rewarding those who are highly effective mentors.

 

Able mentors often prefer to spend their time and energy preparing and inspiring the next generation to become effective mentors and servant-leaders.  They see their mentees as those who will become the builders of more serving institutions in the future.  These visionary mentors are often very talented at growing people.  They are driven by a vision of the future.  They believe that there is tremendous psychic reward in giving themselves to make a difference in the lives of others.

 

Robert Greenleaf provided this striking example in an address he made to a gathering of university students: (page 102– The Power of Servant Leadership)

 

“Thomas Jefferson had such a mentor in George Wythe, the Williamsburg lawyer under whom Jefferson apprenticed.  Without the influence of George Wythe, there might not have been a Jefferson to write The Declaration of Independence or draft the statutes in Virginia that shaped the Constitution.  He might have settled for the role of eccentric Virginia scholar.  Find such a mentor if you can.”

 

 

Comments to: hbaker@leadingtoday.org

 

 

About the author:

 

Dr. Howard Baker is Director of Education for INSPIRE! Learning Systems.  He holds a B.S. in Management from Samford University, a Master of Accounting (MAcc) from the University of Southern California and a Ph.D. in Information Systems from the University of Texas at Arlington.  He has been a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) since 1989.  He is an adjunct professor in both Business Administration and Public Administration at the University of Texas at Tyler.  Dr. Baker is a lifetime charter member of weLEAD and the founding editor of the weLEADInLearning web site’s E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership located atwww.weleadinlearning.org.  His weLEAD email address is hbaker@leadingtoday.org.

Are rules and red tape really necessary? Some companies have rules for everything from holidays to bathroom breaks. Does your company have a policy for when it’s appropriate to create a rule? Most companies don’t; instead they create one whenever an issue comes up that affects operations. This is an ad-hoc approach based on the fear that things can and will go wrong.

 

Too many rules and you end up spending all your time enforcing them. This creates a lot of work. Some people argue that rules add structure. A certain amount of structure creates freedom because guidelines liberate people and make them more productive. However, most companies place too much emphasis on structure and not enough on their people.

 

The Pitfalls of Rules

 

1) Applying the same rules to everyone can cause resentment. Different people have special circumstances. If these are ignored, people feel ignored;

2) too many rules create an atmosphere of prohibition. Employees learn not to rely on their own judgment. Instead of thinking on their feet and taking risks, they use the rules as their fall back position;

3) if it’s not in the rulebook, they may not do it;

4) relying on stale rules deprives employees of their creativity;

5) rules create more rules, which create a lot of administration and, in the long run, are very costly;

6) usually rules spill over onto customers. Soon, if someone wants to buy from your company they must first study and abide by the rules. They could just go somewhere else;

7) too many rules communicate a lack of trust in employees;

8) rules create an attitude. Employees mimic this attitude and it affects how they deal with suppliers and customers. For example, the company has strict policy about payment terms. So employees continually bang customers over the head with payment terms. They are just doing their job;

9) rules affect the atmosphere employees work in and customers buy from. Everyone has had the experience of walking into a store to be greeted with signs like, “Do not touch!” or “You break it you pay”. Imagine being invited into someone’s’ home and seeing signs like these. Would you be eager to come back?

10) managers become parole officers enforcing rules. They get so caught up in who did what wrong, they forget to lead and end up babysitting.

 

How Rules are Set

 

How are rules set? Usually an employee does something undesirable, so management creates a policy and punishes everyone. Actually rules are set this way in every facet of the company. Consider this example: a few customer cheques bounce, so the company sets a policy of accepting no personal cheques. It’s hard to estimate how much lost business is directly related to this new policy.

 Rules are also set strategically. A company has a certain objective so they create rules to make sure it happens. Instead, why not empower employees to achieve goals, versus punishing them with more rules?

 

Power Comes from People

 

Effective managers know power comes from people. The manager’s role is not to have power over people by enforcing rules, but to support and coordinate employees’ efforts. This may be a complete attitude shift for some managers who are used to being in charge.

 In most companies, the manager is also expected to be the leader. They can most effectively lead by empowering employees to use their own judgment and skills to benefit the company. Can you trust people to do their job without all the rules and controls? Yes. Most people do the right thing when left to their own judgment. If you tell employees what to do, they will automatically do it your way without calling on their own creativity and judgment. After awhile this creates a stale work environment. Instead of being alive with creative ideas flowing, people dutifully do their jobs.

 

Stop Relying on Rules

 

How to stop relying on rules? Empower employees to solve problems on their own, making them a part of the solution. Get them asking, “What is the best way to handle this?” Then, provide them with the resources and support to do it. For example, let’s say it was taking employees too long to go through their email every day. Instead of creating a policy that limits the time spent picking up email, ask employees, “How can we use our email system more effectively?” Let them come up with the solution. Being a part of the solution makes employees more accountable, creating much less paperwork and formality.

 

For larger organizations it’s more difficult to put the power in people. It takes a tremendous amount of trust. So start slowly. Let employees you know you can trust rely on their own judgment and solve problems on their own.. Go through different work scenarios and ask, “ Can we substitute the rules in this situation for individual judgment? “ Even if employees can’t be involved in setting rules, let them be a part of their implementation. For example, a new policy may be that we want all “accounts receivables” collected within 30 days. Who is going to make this happen? Employees of course. So involve employees in the implementation (how can we collect our accounts quicker?) Employees will be the best judge of this information. Some of their clients have special circumstances that will require a unique approach.

 

Finally, always make sure that employees know WHY a rule is created. Not only for their own good but because often rules get in the way of helping a customer and employees need to be able to explain why.

 

The level of accountability appropriate for your organization depends on how much control you feel comfortable giving employees. There is a right mix and balance for every organization

 

Final Words

 

Decide how and when you will set rules. Instead of setting them ad hoc whenever it seems necessary, decide in advance when and where it is appropriate. For example, rules are often necessary for routine things where, otherwise, everyone would do it differently every time, causing chaos. If something comes up that you think requires rules to be developed, ask, “How many people does this directly affect? Will this rule help us deal with future situations or is it just creating more paperwork? Is this something that we can empower employees to deal with themselves and use their own judgment? How can I involve all people who are affected by this policy?”

 

Be careful where you set rules, they may come back and haunt you.

 

Comments to: ido@idoinspire.com

 

About the author:

 

Jody Urquhart, a popular speaker and writer, is recognized in Canada, the United States and Europe, She has presented her signature topic, Joy of Work, to 65 organizations last year alone. Her monthly column on the same subject appears in over fifty trade journals. Jody is also an associate speaker for the Individual Development Organization in Vancouver where she works with Bill Clennan, the Dean of Canadian Speakers.

 

Jody holds diplomas in Professional Speaking and Writing from Mount Royal College and in Management and Marketing from the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology. She studied Management for three years at the University of Calgary. Her business experience includes management positions in both the banking and retail industries. Jody is a proud member of the Canadian Association of Professional Speakers and holds the distinction of being one of its founding board members. Jody is the author of the book “ALL WORK & NO SAY TAKES THE PASSION AWAY”. To order your copy, or to discuss having Jody speak at your next meeting, feel free to email her at ido@idoinspire.com

Teamwork, Productivity and Creativity. We have long paid these particular leadership concepts a lot of lip service, never more so than now, as insurance companies, banks, communications companies and hospitals struggle to do more with less. Alliances and mergers, for example, so prominent in today's business setting, are the very essence of teamwork. But there is a big gap between talking about this kind of leadership, learning the skills…and living it.

 

Well intentioned chief executive officers ask themselves: "I've set up incentives for creative problem-solving, used specific measures in assessing performance, initiated training in team approaches, yet I'm still not seeing an impact on my bottom line. What am I overlooking?"

 

More often than not, the answer is….their own behavior. For several decades, executives have sought to improve performance, especially that of their staff; but what about their own performance? Why is it so difficult to make changes?

 

First, many decision makers do not have an appropriate understanding of how to recognize and measure leadership performance. Secondly, the right behavior is not rewarded. Executives know they can and should improve their own behavior, but are not held accountable for achieving these improvements. Nor are these changes rewarded. When performance is tied to achieving results and executives are rewarded for these changes, only then will changes occur.

 

How can we Measure Leadership Performance?

 

Leaders treat people with care and respect. They are people willing to take risks to improve a situation, and seek creative solutions along the way. Frequently they are the quiet success stories that are rarely spotlighted.

 

Leadership can be measured and rewarded using the leadership performance criteria of Teamwork, Productivity and Creativity. Let's examine this Performance Management process briefly.

 

Measure and Reward Teamwork

 

Be a caring friend: Leadership begins with Teamwork, and teamwork begins with caring and respect. Start simply. Have fun together. Get to know each other. Become friends. Do what you can to help each other, whether it be a colleague, staff member, customer or supplier.

 

Example: An unidentified $2.88 charge continued to be billed on the AT&T/Qwest telephone bill, month after month. During a call to AT&T, the customer questioned this overdue charge, and refused to pay until it was explained. The representative listened carefully, put the customer on hold while she contacted the local carrier, came back on the line, explained the delay and asked for patience. When she returned, she requested that the customer call the local carrier and explained why she could not help further.

 

The Qwest (local carrier) representative listened to the customer's story and took the initiative to erase the past due balance, stating that it was more trouble to find the source of the problem. A win-win agreement was achieved.

 

Therefore key points are:

Process: Negotiating process
Measure: An agreement
Result: Win-win
Reward: Praise

 

Be respectful and build communication bridges: Learn how to speak respectfully and avoid roadblocks. Some roadblocks include: giving orders ("Don't write like that"), belittling ("That's silly"), reassuring ("You'll get over it"), denying ("You can't still be angry"), or giving solutions ("This is how you should handle it"). The effect of these roadblocks is that people learn not to come to you with their problems.

 

Example: Melissa, eight years old, was adopted from the streets of Calcutta, India in 1988. When she arrived in America, she spoke no English, had never been to school, and had lied and stolen to survive. Over the next five years, I loved and parented her as best I knew.

 

During her first year of school, her confidence and successes developed. In the following years, she commented that she 'didn't like school' and eventually refused to attend. By the time she was 12 in 1993, her behavior worsened. She ran away from home and school.

 

How could I build trust and influence the then-withdrawn Melissa to share her thoughts and feelings? The key to success was "getting acquainted", the second step of the negotiating process. I was determined to treat the now-teen Melissa with dignity, respect and tolerance. Instead of: "Put on your coat", I explained, "The forecast is for snow. You might think about…"

 

When I forgot to use this approach, she became defiant. I admitted my own mistakes, was patient with her mistakes, suggested alternative behavior and reasons why, and praised our smallest achievements. Most important were the humor, talks and laughs we shared. Gradually she shared her feelings and problems were resolved.

 

In corporate management, this function is known as counseling, mentoring, and building trust through fun, sharing and humor.

 

Therefore key points are:

Process: Negotiating process
Measure: Getting acquainted (talking)
Result: Understanding
Reward: Praise, fun

 

As a suggestion, make teamwork part of your performance criteria, and measure yourself by attempting to achieve an agreement though the process of negotiating-- illustrated by a handshake, a kind word, a smile, a hug or something in writing, and rewarded by praise or fun. Talking in terms of explanations, descriptions, experiences, and humor is the basis of developing relationships.

 

Measure and Reward Productivity

 

First let's examine what we mean by productivity, since it can represent different things to many people. Productivity includes structured processes, and knowing and understanding such processes; and specific productivity techniques and tools, including streamlining and simplicity.

 

The common processes in the managing function include planning, designing (life cycle), negotiating, and creating. The planning process, for example, has a specific set of steps, each of which results in a written document. These documents--which also serve as measures of quality--generally include:

 

* Organization charts which identify function and sometimes the name of one responsible person
* Work breakdown structures which break down the work to be done into systematic tree-like structures
* Schedules, both master and detailed
* Requirements.

 

Various types of reviews and tests are quality measures of the design-build life cycle which is integrated within the planning cycle. Nested within the latter is the writing cycle since most, if not all, of management and planning efforts result in a document of some kind. These processes are integrated, occur frequently, and constantly cycle.

 

Learn the Correct Processes: Some common processes in management include: the planning and controls process, known by various names; the life cycle or design-build process; the writing process; the creativity process; and the negotiating process. These are the same whether one builds airplanes, runs a hospital, or manages a bank. The difference is in tailoring.

 

Example: During the beginning of a facility relocation project at The Boeing Company, team members had limited understanding of the project and were unclear about details of work to be done and team member responsibilities.

 

A statement of work, or a project description document, was developed and used as a discussion document during the kick-off meeting to introduce the major details of the project to the team members. This document served to increase common understanding and minimized miscommunication by the project team.

 

Therefore key points are:

Process: Planning process
Measure: Statement of work
Result: Improved understanding
Reward: Praise

 

As a suggestion, make productivity (including processes) part of your performance criteria and reward yourself for learning and using the right process measures.

 

Measure and Reward Simplicity

 

Examples of some productivity tools and techniques include: mind-mapping, doing all the same function at one time, being selective with perfection, putting it in writing, having more than one use for something, streamlining and simplicity. Not surprisingly, everywhere people speak of their frustration with complexity-- complexity in writing, methods, excessively large teams, duplicate resources. Then, why not measure and reward simplicity?

 

Example: At The Boeing Company, a supervisor simplified the training schedules, eliminated abbreviations to improve clarity and communication, reduced schedules to one format, used an easier graphics software tool, enabling the preparation of schedules in under one hour instead of two days, and surfaced numerous existing meeting rooms that were available for use and were previously unused. This eliminated the problem of double-booking meeting/training rooms.

 

Therefore key points are:

 

Process: Writing process
Measure: Something written, clearly and simply
Result: Increased understanding, efficiency
Reward: Praise, personal growth

 

As a suggestion, make productivity (including simplicity) part of your performance criteria and reward yourself for all types of productivity. Examples of simplicity in productivity might include the size of a document, the clarity of writing, the size of teams, the number of resources used, and the types of rewards offered.

 

Measure and Reward Creativity

 

A leader could be defined as a person:

 

- willing to take risks
- who is productive, efficient and has personal standards
- who is a caring, respectful team player.

 

Leadership is not the same as management, and has nothing to do with status or title. Anyone can be a leader, if they have the courage to make changes.

 

Be creative and take risks. Admitting/forgiving mistakes build trust.

 

In the trial and error process of making improvements, leaders must take risks, be kind, tolerant, and admit (and forgive) their own mistakes. Lewis Lehr, former chairman and chief executive officer of 3M Corporation states: "I am tempted to say that innovation at 3M works in spite of top management".

 

Example: When the once- rebellious Melissa was asked what contributed to her willingness to be creative in terms of cooking and tasting new foods, developing school reports, and making creative gifts, she commented: "It was 'talking', in terms of explanations, demonstrations, and praise, and that it is all right for us to make mistakes because that is how we learn".

 

Therefore key points are:

 

Process: Creativity process
Measure: An idea
Result: Achievement
Reward: Fun, praise

 

As a suggestion, make creativity part of your performance criteria and reward yourself for all types of creativity and results. Admitting and sharing mistakes build trust. Creativity, humor, and fun reduce tension, promote trust, and help build friendships in the journey towards teamwork. Reward yourself with something fun when you achieve your own goals.

 

Assessing and Rewarding Our Own Performance

 

Many organizations and executives are seeking ISO certification and Baldrige criteria performance assessments to determine how well their corporations are doing in terms of quality. While quality seems to vary, the area that most needs strengthening is leadership.

 

What's the answer? Consider using a leadership performance criteria that will discourage bureaucracy, cronyism and empire building, and measure your own performance. Reward yourself for your achievements. Explore using simple, yet fun rewards such as time off, free time, favorite work, fun, praise and recognition. If you find it difficult to reward yourself and have fun, perhaps you might start working on changing your own behavior.

 

Large staff and budgets erode morale. When there is a performance management system in place that rewards executives for teamwork, productivity and creativity-- and top managers exemplify this in their own personal practices--organizations will surely succeed. And learning teamwork by having fun and building trust is the best place to start.

 

Comments to: jtcarr@leadershipcriteria.com

Visit Leadership Criteria Website

 

BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE

 

*Image courtesy of Ambro/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

One Leader's Perspective...

 

If you study the subject of leadership at one of our fine educational institutions or read many books on the subject of leadership, you will eventually come across the term “contingency theory” or situational leadership. In the past, most researchers believed in a “one best way” or universal approach to leadership.

Many also held the opinion that leaders were those who simply had the “right stuff” to lead others. This right stuff was defined as commitment, strength, vision and often charisma. Of course, one hundred years ago many assumed that great leaders were simply “born” to lead and the “right stuff” was unavailable to others! Within the past 40 years, two avid supporters of the best way theory or universal leadership approach have been Robert Blake and Jane Moulton. Their books, training programs and articles have taught that a single leadership style is the right approach for all situations.

 

Blake and Moulton created a two-dimensional “managerial grid” that has become a classic way to diagram the best way or universal approach model. This grid diagrams two basic dimensions of an effective leader. They are the concern for results (task) and concern for people. This managerial grid model has a numerical rating for each cell depending on the degree or amount of concern a manager demonstrates for results and for people. These two “concerns” are considered to be independent of each other. The ideal is considered a 9.9-oriented manager who integrates a high concern for both the task and people to produce outstanding performance. Apparently, unlike physical beauty or gymnastic skill, leadership is incapable of achieving a perfect 10! The original grid concept appeared in 1961 and has been modified into the 1990’s. In a survey performed by the National Industrial Conference Board, this grid was mentioned as one of the most frequently identified behavioral science approaches to management.

 

However, as other researchers studied farther, a different model was developed that viewed good leadership as contingent upon the given situation or environment. The best way or universal model was criticized by those who recognized that good leadership often adapts with the situation. Widely varying circumstances typically require different qualities of leadership. These became known as contingency theories. Two respected researchers by the names of Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard established a contingency theory known as situational leadership. They also created a managerial grid similar to Blake and Molton, since two of its dimensions also included results (tasks) and people.

 

Paul Hersey then merged the relationship between behavior tasks and people into a four-cell chart that reveals four distinct leadership styles… directing (telling)… coaching (selling)…supporting (participating) and delegating. Hersey and Blanchard believe a manager may effectively use any of the four styles depending on the “readiness level” or “maturity” of the subordinates (Hersey, 1984). For example, a manager whose subordinates are unable and unwilling to do a good job would demonstrate leadership by directing (telling) them what and how to do the task. So according to this theory when the leader is demonstrating a directing (telling) leadership style, they are providing high direction and low support.

 

However, this contingency theory has also been under assault by researchers. Continued studies have cast doubts on its validity. As Bolman and Deal point out, “If, for example, managers give unwilling and unable subordinates high direction and low support, what would cause their motivation to improve?” Other problems with this theory include no task structure variables. Also, the concept of follower “maturity” is not well defined and is therefore open to interpretation. Many other contingency theories have arisen and all have supporters and detractors about either the relevance or quality of research associated with them. Leadership thinker James O’Toole opines, “Yet, evidence mounts that contingency, or situational, leadership is ineffective. All around we see the signs of failure: the depressing social and organizational indicators that point to the inability of leaders to bring about constructive change.” So the debate continues regarding the “best way theory” and various “contingency” theories. There is also presently a global leadership (GLOBE) project in progress since 1993. It involves a sampling of over 15,000 leaders from 779 organizations in 62 various cultures from around the globe. It enlists the help of 170 co-investigators to help in the research. The goal of the project is to find out what really makes for effective leadership. 

 

It is for these reasons that Bolman and Deal offer yet a different approach to leadership they call reframing leadership. They offer four images of leadership that include structural, human resource, political and symbolic viewpoints. Each of these images potentially extend effective or ineffective leadership styles! They believe that “each of the frames offers a distinctive image of the leadership process. Depending on leader and circumstance, each can lead to compelling and constructive leadership, but none is right for all times and seasons.”

 

So what is the conclusion? Is there a universal or one best way approach to leadership? Or is the best approach contingent upon the present situation? I am afraid that like most areas of leadership research, this subject will be open to debate and confusion for some time to come. This is just one example of why many people find the subject of leadership a complex and perplexing study. Sometimes it is hard to get most researchers to agree to a definition of what “leadership” actually is! But we should not allow the confusion and inconclusive research to frustrate us in our attempt to practice it in our daily lives.

 

Regarding the “one best way” or universal theory verses the contingency theories; we need to understand a basic truth. Yes, leadership does require different approaches and methods for different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Allow me to provide some examples. A leader may need to use a different set of skills to motivate individuals who have “tenure” or are protected by a union in contrast to temporary or part time employees. Often leaders may use different traits when working in the private sector when compared to the public sector. The leadership skills needed to motivate followers who are unskilled and alienated are different than for a group who are highly skilled and deeply motivated. Because of cultural differences, the role of police chief may require different leadership skills in the United States than in China. Exhibiting leadership to a group of executives is often different than leading the mailroom staff. Recently I had a conversation with a prominent social advocate and political leader in the state of New Jersey. She told me one of the most difficult tasks she has ever encountered was to attempt to build a consensus among a room full of other influential leaders and executives. This situation called upon her to use a unique set of leadership skills since they all wanted to be the most influential and to lead!

 

However, situational leadership has too often been used as an excuse for situation ethics. Some high-powered managers who have been given appropriate nicknames such as “chainsaw” or “the hatchet” have used the premise of situational leadership or contingency theory as an excuse for instant disposal of workers due to “losses” or an “economic downturn”. Yes, I realize and accept that there are times when the workforce absolutely must be reduced. Unfortunately the cycle of growth and contraction are part of the economic system we have in the western world. The question is how this worker reduction is accomplished and how these individuals are treated. Many of these workers were highly committed people who did everything that was asked of them! Some have worked for decades under one new CEO after another, who immediately incorporated their own new “priority of the month club”. Many of these people endured years of personal career sacrifice and additional workload only to be disposed of when “chainsaw” decided to let another group of “unessential” personnel go! Perhaps what is most pathetic is what occurs when the myopic corporate board finally decides its time to let “chainsaw” go because he or she has devastated the once proud organization and its culture. It is usually done with a million-dollar “severance agreement” and a plaque for appreciation of “dedicated” service.

 

Does the “one best way” or universal approach have any application? It absolutely does and this question brings us to an important subject regarding truly effective leadership. Researcher Gary Yukl makes the following comment about the “one best way” or universal model created by Blake and Mouton. He states, “The universal feature of their theory is the value orientation used by a high-high manager to select appropriate behavior, not a particular pattern of high-high behavior that is applied automatically in all situations.” Yukl is correctly stating here that he believes the universal aspect of Blake and Moulton’s theory relates to the values behavior of the leader and not necessarily to the skills or traits a leader may use. There is always a best way to treat people under any circumstance. That is with respect, fairness and dignity.

 

For example, even if you must reprimand or correct an indignant worker you can do it privately and respectfully. There is always a “best way” to handle a coworker if they are being “let go” due to poor economic circumstances or even incompetence. That is with compassion and a sincere interest in their future. Even if you must change an existing culture or ask others to sacrifice important gains, you can do it with a deep sense of appreciation for their past efforts and commitment to the organization. In the same vein, the “best way” is to always encourage and motivate others from the heart whether they are able, unable, willing or unwilling to do a task! The same thing applies to learning. The best way for a leader to encourage a “learning organization” is to promote the value of knowledge and reward learning in any situation or environment. Yes, some leadership behaviors are universal because they are built upon an ethical foundation of respect and high regard for people! Why are these values universal? Because smart leaders know that people are their greatest natural resource and people treated with dignity, care and genuine concern are the most productive. People who are properly motivated, encouraged, trained and appreciated will far out perform others who are disrespected, discouraged, neglected or abused. In the 21st century, this is the competitive edge.

 

In conclusion, the “best way” or universal aspect of leadership theory is valid in regards to right values and ethics. People should never be viewed as disposable or unimportant. An effective leader must treat all employees or followers with the heartfelt values reflected in the “golden rule”, including respect, dignity and a genuine concern for the individual. This requires an investment in time and resources, even if they are limited. But this is an investment in your most powerful asset…your people! Do it right and it pays large dividends by engendering a healthy culture, increased productivity and higher levels of commitment.

 

Conversely, leadership does require different approaches, methods, skills and tasks for different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Yes, these approaches, skills and tasks are indeed contingent upon the present situation the leader experiences. But, understanding this legitimate need for situational leadership should never be used as a motive or excuse to mistreat or casually discard other people. Today organizations must exist to serve their stakeholders, and that not only includes their customers, but also their employees. Any organization today that doesn’t get this essential point may ultimately have their product or service displayed in the Smithsonian Institute…right next to buggy whip manufacturers!

Comments to: gthomas@leadingtoday.org

Motivating others is at the heart of leadership and organizational success. Before we discuss motivation, we need to understand the proper symbiotic relationship between people and organizations. First of all organizations should exist to serve human needs and not the other way around. Organizations and people need each other.

Employees need careers, opportunities, satisfaction and fulfilling work. Organizations need the energy, ideas and talent of its people. When the environment between the organization and individual is poor, one or both will suffer and become victims! The eventual result will be that either certain individuals will be exploited or they will exploit the organization.

 

With this foundation in mind we can see that leaders seek to nurture an organizational culture where work is productive, energizing and mutually rewarding. To motivate people we need to also understand their basic needs. Psychologist Abraham Maslow created an influential theory to group human needs into five basic categories. These needs are hierarchical and begin with lower or basic needs. As these lower needs are met and satisfied, individuals are motivated by higher needs. The five basic categories begin with physiological needs like water, food, air and physical health. As this need is achieved an individual would seek a higher need for safety from danger or threat. Next is the need for belongingness and love through personal relationships with other people. As this need is met one is then motivated by esteem, the feeling of being valued and respected. Finally, Maslow defined the highest need as self-actualization or the need to develop oneself to our fullest potential. Since Maslow published his “hierarchy of needs”, others have also introduced various theories to explain human needs. All of these theories confirm the complex nature of human motivation.

 

Researcher Chris Argyris discovered a basic conflict between human personality and the way typical organizations are managed and structured. He determined that managers or bosses tend to control people at the lower levels and this produces dependence and passivity, which are in conflict with the real needs of human beings. Many organizations attempt to restrain workers through the creation of mechanized jobs, tight controls and more directives resulting in frustration. Argyris identified six ways workers respond to these frustrations.

 

1. They withdraw…through chronic absenteeism or simply by quitting.
2. They stay on the job but psychologically withdraw by becoming passive, indifferent and apathetic.
3. They resist by reducing output, or by deception, sabotage or featherbedding.
4. They try to climb the hierarchy to escape to a better job.
5. They form groups like labor unions to redress a power imbalance.
6. They socialize their children to believe that work is unrewarding and opportunities for advancement are slim.

 

For many of us we have personally experienced or felt at least some of these frustrations. So what is motivation? It is the ability to provide an incentive or reason to compel others into action or a commitment.

 

How can a leader motivate others? It starts with the core value that employees are an investment and not a cost. The old model of management was that people are basically lazy, passive, have little ambition, resist change and must be treated like children. This dysfunctional management approach created generations of frustrated workers who reacted and worked exactly like they were treated. The leadership model of management realizes that people are the most valuable resource of an organization and typically its greatest untapped resource!

 

With this basic value, leaders establish a philosophy of an enhanced human resource strategy. They seek to hire the right people and reward them well. They provide a reasonable sense of job security, promote from within the organization whenever possible, budget generously to train and educate workers, share the wealth of the organization, and provide autonomy and participation. However, there is still one unique trait that sets leaders apart from others regarding human motivation. Leaders recognize that a “one size fits all” approach does not work in motivating most workers. Each person has individual and personal needs. When these are discovered and fulfilled, the human potential of each worker can be maximized.

 

For example, some individuals are primarily motivated by money, though this has proven to be a short-term motivator. Others are motivated by being part of a team or something bigger than themselves. Others are motivated by continual challenge. Others need constant praise. The point is that all people are different and your leadership goal should be to help each individual to meet their own needs as well as the organizations needs. In reality, helping individuals achieve their personal needs is the most powerful motivator and will result in successful organizational accomplishment. A leadership perspective recognizes the personal contribution of each worker as a source of his or her highest motivation. Each individual has enormous creative power and is a steward of change, problem solving and progress. The very first step in motivating others is to give them respect, dignity and praise for their efforts!

 

For weLEAD, this is Greg Thomas reminding you that it was Eleanor Roosevelt who once said, “When you cease to make a contribution, you begin to die.”

*Image courtesy of KROMKRATHOG/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Question:

"I know that many times I have to remind employees to put principles above personalities. That we are here to work on a project and the fact that you may dislike a co worker should not come into play.

But sometimes that is easier said than done. How do you deal with employees who want to have a confrontation instead of a conversation. Unfortunately, dismissing one or removing one from the team is not an option."

 

Answer:  Primarily, never forget that we lead people! We don't lead organizations… but people. The

word "organization" is a created term to refer to a group of individual  people who have a shared

interest or purpose. We may work for an organization, or serve an organization, but ultimately it is people we are leading. The reason I mention this is that many authors and consultants speak of rebuilding or changing organizations as if they are dealing with a single individual. In truth, if we are interested in growing or changing an organization, we must change the people, one-by-one, who collectively are the organization.

 

I am a firm believer in the principle of “cause and effect.” This problem you describe exists because our historical business culture rewarded competition within the workplace environment. People were rewarded and promoted for making their co-workers look inept and inferior to them. The people who traditionally got ahead were the “politicians” who worked hard to diminish the value of everyone else in order to make themselves look loyal and valuable to the organization. Confrontation was viewed as an admirable trait that showed everyone who was “in-charge” and was potential managerial or executive material.

 

When this kind of a culture exists, a large part of everyone’s positive mental and emotional resources are wasted playing “got-ya” in an effort to allow the egos of some to make themselves appear superior to others. This problem has been modeled in government, business, and many religious organizations for hundreds of years.

 

Culture is never an easy thing to change. It takes time, energy and persistence. But, here are some things you can do.

 

1.  Lead by example. Don’t participate or play the game of “got-ya.” When this is done in your presence, let it be known by your look and gestures that you are not impressed by this kind of self-absorbed behavior. Whatever you do… don’t laugh at putdowns, or do anything that openly or even subtly encourages this kind of behavior. If it continues…

 

2.  When an individual does this in a group, or to you personally, say with a smile on your face, “Greg, this kind of an attitude is not important or relevant. The question we should be addressing is what is wrong, not focusing on who is wrong.”

 

If the behavior continues make statements like, “This approach of making everything personal is not helpful to our team. I would appreciate it if we could focus on genuine problems and not the people you differ with. If it continues…

 

3.  You need to address this issue “one-on-one.” No one ever said that leadership is easy. Sometimes you must address issues head-on, and for the sake of the organization you need to be frank and pointed. Let the person know that their behavior is not professional, mature or productive in the workplace. To see how to correct a co-worker effectively read this leadership tip.

 

4.  If it continues… there are a number of options you need to consider. Is there another supervisor or executive who can also approach this individual with a similar message to reinforce what you said? Are the individual’s contributions so important that everyone else can endure his or her behavior? Is the behavior so divisive and harmful to productivity that the person needs to be employed elsewhere? If you get to this point, these are serious questions that must be answered. 

 

If you are a manager or supervisor never… ever… promote a person who demonstrates this kind of behavior. If you do, it sends a loud message throughout the organization that being a jerk who criticizes and confronts everyone else is what it takes to get ahead in this company. Be assured of this fact. You will inadvertently reinforce a culture of negativity and politics in the organization and this is destructive. If the person is extremely talented and otherwise promotable, let them know that it is this trait that is holding them back. Document it on their annual review.

 

If you address this problem with skill, patience and dignity you may help that person to see how harmful their behavior really is. The truth is they are very insecure and lack a real sense of self-worth! They mask this to the world by confrontational behavior. You may help this individual grow to another level and at least modify their attitude and behavior. But remember that you can’t change their behavior… you can only point out to them how they come across and hurt others. Only they can change themselves.

 

 

 

If you have a challenging question you would like our consultant to discuss, please email your question here. We will be happy to keep your question anonymously.

 

 

* The advice and counsel offered by the consultant is based on the limited information provided by the questioner. No two situations are exactly the same, and the consultant makes every effort to provide helpful and educational counsel based on the information supplied.

 

About the author:

 

Greg has an extensive thirty-five years experience in public speaking and has spoken to hundreds of audiences worldwide. Greg has a Master of Arts degree in Leadership from Bellevue University, where he also has served as an adjunct professor teaching courses in business management and leadership since 2002. His first book, 52 Leadership Tips (That Will Change How You Lead Others) was published in 2006 by WingSpan Press. His second book, Making Life's Puzzle Pieces Fit was published in March 2009. Both are available at amazon.com. Greg is also the president of Leadership Excellence, Ltd and a Managing Partner of the Leadership Management Institute. Leadership Excellence, Ltd. effectively builds individuals and organizations to reach their highest potential through enhanced productivity and personal development using a number of proven programs. He is also the president and founder of weLEAD Incorporated.

 

 

This material is copyright protected. No part of this document may be reproduced, in any form or by any means without permission from weLEAD Incorporated. Copyright waiver may be acquired at the weLEAD website.

In just about any book on management or leadership and you will eventually come across the term ecosystems. It may not sound very exciting but is essential in understanding the complexity of modern organizations!  The concept of ecosystems in an organization stems from a biological model. In nature, an ecological community coexists together within its environment. Many things can affect the ecosystem. For example, conflicts between species can influence an ecosystem. The introduction of an outside species can alter or change an ecosystem. Moore uses this analogy to define a business ecosystem as "an economic community supported by a foundation of interacting organizations and individuals." This is in concert with an understanding of general systems theory. The bottom line is that otherorganizations and institutions within our society do influence today's businesses and their environment. Rapid changes in science, technology, knowledge and changing social norms compound these influences.

 

Galagan defines a business ecosystem as a "system in which companies work cooperatively or competitively to support new products, satisfy customers, and create the next round of innovation in key market segments." I believe the five competitive forces as presented by Michael Porter help to define at least part of an ecosystem we face in the business community. These forces shape and influence competition within most industries. They are:

 

1)      The risk of new entry by potential competitors

2)      The degree of rivalry among established companies

3)      The bargaining power of the buyers

4)      The bargaining power of the suppliers

5)      The threat of substitute products

 

These many competitive influences make the role of leadership more complex and challenging. It is important to understand the linkage between an organization as an ecosystem and leadership strategy. I will discuss what I believe are major linkage qualities.

 

A leader attempts to motivate other workers into action toward a goal or various goals. Leaders can do this by providing vision, and explaining how the purpose of each activity is designed to dovetail into the larger picture of an overall strategy. In other words, their role in the organization is important and valued by the entire organization. Providing direction by conveying a clear vision of what is necessary to get a task completed and how to proceed in that direction is vital. Acquiring and using your analytical skills is essential since an ecosystem can change quickly. Culture also plays a major role in the linkage between ecosystems and leadership strategy. An organization’s goals and values will be under constant attack both internally and externally. Its culture must be cohesive to withstand negative pressures and influences from many directions. Leadership strategy must include the objective of gaining and sustaining the active support of the organization's people and resources.

 

Complementing sound internal analysis is the creation of an effective feedback loop structure. You need to know how decisions and actions are affecting various parts of the organization. A superior feedback system is essential to success. In an open system, the external environment intermingles with the internal environment. Jennings and Zandbergen comment that a system functions properly "when a variety of negative and positive feedback loops are in place." However, they admit a problem exists for the leader. The problem is that these "effects through feedback may take a long time or be indirect." In other words, the effects may take place in only one area of the ecosystem before they are felt elsewhere. As Hill & Jones emphasize, the feedback loop should indicate to leaders that strategic planning is an ongoing process. The execution of a strategy must be monitored to effectively gauge if activities and objectives are being achieved. Furthermore, Hill & Jones add that as the feedback loop passes back to the corporate level it "should be fed into the next round of strategy formulation and implementation."  Rummler contends that organizational outputsare produced through processes. Using the analogy of an "x-ray", he stresses that critical performance variables include "job responsibilities and standards, job design, feedback, rewards and training."

 

Good leaders must provide motivation by rallying the willingness of subordinates to work toward the corporate goals and objectives. Rewards rather than punishments should almost always be used to achieve this within the organization.  Developing a mutual trust and respect for each other, including the organization’s shared values, enhances this motivating principle. Another linkage is both honesty and openness in communication.  Many leaders will find that sustaining continued effectiveness might be very difficult. Many subordinates may have been successful for many years, almost to the point of being taken for granted. A sudden change in the ecosystem may necessitate a change in strategy and this may cause confusion or discouragement among formerly contented workers. Understanding an ecosystem teaches us that we must continually grow, adapt, change, and become stronger to survive. Dealing with rapid change is difficult. Nevertheless, we must never be satisfied with our current level of achievement. Often a new leaders first job is to create an integratedattitude that fosters cooperation, harmony and effective results among the stakeholders.

 

I believe strategic planning is essential for success in any modern organization. Here are some of the reasons why. Strategic planning provides a vision of the organization’s goals and mission. It analyzes the external environment to identify threats and opportunities for the organization. The strategic planning process helps the organization to select strategies to build on its own strengths, and correct or minimize its weaknesses. This allows the organization to take advantage of external opportunities and to counter external threats. This process can assist the organization in creating a strategy implementation process that designs appropriate structures and control systems to put its chosenstrategy into action. If we don’t chose and implement our own strategy, we will become a victim of someone else’s!

 

In contrast, the lack of strategic planning places the organization's future at risk for failure. It often times will lack a clear delineation of its goals and mission. It is not prepared for external threats to the organization and is not often prepared to take advantage of opportunities. It does not often recognize its own strengths and weaknesses and is not in a position to select strategies to deal with these important internal matters. The end result of no real organizational strategy or a misguided strategy will most likely lead to failure. In essence, the lack of a leadership strategy places the organization in the role of a victim in a changing ecosystem. Using an analogy from nature, who wins when a slow moving caterpillar walks into the path of a preying mantis?

 

Another important linkage is the example of ethics demonstrated by the leadership of an organization. Hill & Jones place the importance of values in a succinct manner. "The values of a company state how managers within the company intend to conduct themselves, how they intend to do business, and what kind of a business they want to build." This is true for both modern business and the military. Business decisions do have an ethical component that can effect strategy! Hill & Jones continue by stating that "the purpose of business ethics is not so much to teach the difference between right and wrong as it is to give people the tools for dealing with moral complexity, tools that they can use to identify and think through the moral implications of strategic decisions". More than ever, in a rapidly evolving ecosystem, leaders must deal with complex moral decisions that do have an impact on the organization's strategy.

 

Regarding ethics, a leadership strategy should attempt to establish a climate that emphasizes the importance of ethics. Creation of this climate should include three steps. First, top managers or officers must use their leadership role to incorporate an ethical dimension into the values they want to stress. Secondly, for a business, these ethical values should be incorporated in the company's mission statement. For the modern military, it is incorporated in a code of conduct. Third, these ethical values must be endorsed and respected. A sound leadership strategy should include incentivesystems that highlight the importance of respecting and acting upon ethical values in strategic decision-making.

 

The linkage between an organization as an ecosystem and an effective leadership strategy is a process. A leader can shape an organization’s culture in many ways. The leader’s personal influence can be demonstrated as part of a strategic leadership team and modeled individually. This influence can occur primarily through a combination of socialization tactics. These can include unique myths, stories, rites, ceremonies, and organizational rewards. Leadership strategy should encourage an adaptive culture that allows for innovation and rewards initiative for lower and middle-level managers. This can result in a greater ability to exploit new opportunities. A leader also understands that excellent organizations create an incentive system that motivates and reinforces desired behaviors. Rewards for individuals may include piecework plans, commission systems, bonus plans and promotion. Rewards for groupsmay include a group-based bonus system, profit sharing system, employee stock option plan and organizational bonus systems. By the way, don’t forget the most basic need all of us need in the workplace. It is respect, dignity and appreciation for a job well done!

 

A good leadership strategy should make an investment in the business to become a learning organization. Learning organizations are those that are structured to learn rapidly and use additional knowledge to become even more effective. In this environment the desire to learn is encouraged and proper resources are allocated for training and education. The values of learning are embedded into the culture. A leader's strategy can encourage a culture that accepts reasonable risk taking by cultivating values that tell subordinates they should perform their jobs in creative and innovative ways. Leadership can have a powerful impact on an organization’s culture. John Masters, the President of Canadian Hunter has stated, “Leadership committed to excellence, the proposition of team work, team support by management and values are essential to team management”.

 

In conclusion, the effective linkage of an ecosystem and leadership can be difficult. A leader must recognize there are numerous environmental influences and attempt to control them. The leader must gain an expansive knowledge of human psychological, social and physiological needs. The leader must understand the broad spectrum of organizational development. This is a lot to require from any one individual or small group of individuals! For this reason, I believe this linkage should be a sharedleadership approach tapping into the skills and talents of many.

 

 

About the Author:

Frederick Weiss has over 20 years of management experience including 14 years at an executive level.  Mr. Weiss is the Vice President of Finance & Administration at Vita-Mix Corporation, a privately owned manufacturing company.  He has been a driving force in changing the culture of Vita-Mix from a small-family-leadership style to a professionally managed company during its growth from $5 million to over $60 million.

 

 

References:

Galagan, P. (1997) Strategic planning is back. Training and Development, Vol. 51, 04-01-1997

Hartwick Classic Leadership Cases (1993). Strange Days in the Oil Patch.

Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute, pp. 23-24

Hill, C. & Jones, G. (1998). Strategic Management. (4th Ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jennings, P., &  Zandbergen, P. (1995)  Ecologically sustainable organizations: an institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, 10-01-1995, pp. 1015.

Leadership In Organizations. (1988). Gordon City Park, NY: Avery Publishing Group, Inc.

Moore, J. (1996) The Death of Competition. (1st Ed.) NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Porter, M. (1998) Competitive Strategy. NY: The Free Press

Rummler, G. (1996) Redesigning the organization and making it work. CMA Magazine, Vol. 70, 06-01-1996, pp. 29

Taylor, R. & Rosenbach, W. (1994). Military Leadership. (3rd Ed.) Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LESSON 1

"Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off."

Good leadership involves responsibility to the welfare of the group, which means that some people will get angry at your actions and decisions.  It's inevitable, if you're honorable. Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity: you'll avoid the tough decisions, you'll avoid confronting the people who need to be confronted, and you'll avoid offering differential rewards based on differential performance because some people might get upset.  Ironically, by procrastinating on the difficult choices, by trying not to get anyone mad, and by treating everyone equally "nicely" regardless of their contributions, you'll simply ensure that the only people you'll wind up angering are the most creative and productive people in the organization.

LESSON 2

"The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them.  They have either lost confidence that you can help  them or concluded that youdo not care.  Either case is a failure of leadership."

 

If this were a litmus test, the majority of CEOs would fail.  One, they build so many barriers to upward communication that the very idea of someone lower in the hierarchy looking up to the leader for help is ludicrous.  Two, the corporate culture they foster often defines asking for help as weakness or failure, so people cover up their gaps, and the organization suffers accordingly.

{br]

Real leaders make themselves accessible and available.  They show concern for the efforts and challenges faced by underlings, even as they demand high standards.  Accordingly, they are more likely to create an environment where problem analysis replaces blame.

LESSON 3

"Don't be buffaloed by experts and elites.  Experts often possess more data than judgment.  Elites can become so inbred that they produce hemophiliacs who bleed to death as soon as they are nicked by the real world."

Small companies and start-ups don't have the time for analytically detached experts.  They don't have the money to subsidize lofty elites, either.  The president answers the phone and drives the truck when necessary; everyone on the payroll visibly produces and contributes to bottom-line results or they're history.  But as companies get bigger, they often forget who "brought them to the dance": things like all-hands involvement, egalitarianism, informality, market intimacy, daring, risk, speed, agility.  Policies that emanate from ivory towers often have an adverse impact on the people out in the field who are fighting the wars or bringing in the revenues.  Real leaders are vigilant, and combative, in the face of these trends.

 One Leaders Perspective

 

 

 

If you study the subject of leadership at one of our fine educational institutions or read many books on the subject of leadership, you will eventually come across the term “contingency theory” or situational leadership. In the past, most researchers believed in a “one best way” or universal approach to leadership. Many also held the opinion that leaders were those who simply had the “right stuff” to lead others. This right stuff was defined as commitment, strength, vision and often charisma. Of course, one hundred years ago many assumed that great leaders were simply “born” to lead and the “right stuff” was unavailable to others! Within the past 40 years, two avid supporters of the best way theory or universal leadership approach have been Robert Blake and Jane Moulton. Their books, training programs and articles have taught that a single leadership style is the right approach for all situations.

 

Blake and Moulton created a two-dimensional “managerial grid” that has become a classic way to diagram the best way or universal approach model. This grid diagrams two basic dimensions of an effective leader. They are the concern for results (task) and concern for people. This managerial grid model has a numerical rating for each cell depending on the degree or amount of concern a manager demonstrates for results and for people. These two “concerns” are considered to be independent of each other. The ideal is considered a 9.9-oriented manager who integrates a high concern for both the task and people to produce outstanding performance. Apparently, unlike physical beauty or gymnastic skill, leadership is incapable of achieving a perfect 10! The original grid concept appeared in 1961 and has been modified into the 1990’s. In a survey performed by the National Industrial Conference Board, this grid was mentioned as one of the most frequently identified behavioral science approaches to management.

 

However, as other researchers studied farther, a different model was developed that viewed good leadership as contingent upon the given situation or environment. The best way or universal model was criticized by those who recognized that good leadership often adapts with the situation. Widely varying circumstances typically require different qualities of leadership. These became known as contingency theories. Two respected researchers by the names of Paul Hersey and Kenneth Blanchard established a contingency theory known as situational leadership. They also created a managerial grid similar to Blake and Molton, since two of its dimensions also included results (tasks) and people.

 

Paul Hersey then merged the relationship between behavior tasks and people into a four-cell chart that reveals four distinct leadership styles… directing (telling)… coaching (selling)…supporting (participating) and delegating. Hersey and Blanchard believe a manager may effectively use any of the four styles depending on the “readiness level” or “maturity” of the subordinates (Hersey, 1984). For example, a manager whose subordinates are unable and unwilling to do a good job would demonstrate leadership by directing (telling) them what and how to do the task. So according to this theory when the leader is demonstrating a directing(telling) leadership style, they are providing high direction and low support.

 

However, this contingency theory has also been under assault by researchers. Continued studies have cast doubts on its validity. As Bolman and Deal point out, “If, for example, managers give unwilling and unable subordinates high direction and low support, what would cause their motivation to improve?” Other problems with this theory include no task structure variables. Also, the concept of follower “maturity” is not well defined and is therefore open to interpretation. Many other contingency theories have arisen and all have supporters and detractors about either the relevance or quality of research associated with them. Leadership thinker James O’Toole opines, “Yet, evidence mounts that contingency, or situational, leadership is ineffective. All around we see the signs of failure: the depressing social and organizational indicators that point to the inability of leaders to bring about constructive change.” So the debate continues regarding the “best way theory” and various “contingency” theories. There is also presently a global leadership (GLOBE) project in progress since 1993. It involves a sampling of over 15,000 leaders from 779 organizations in 62 various cultures from around the globe. It enlists the help of 170 co-investigators to help in the research. The goal of the project is to find out what really makes for effective leadership.http://mgmt3.ucalgary.ca/web/globe.nsf/pages/publications

 

It is for these reasons that Bolman and Deal offer yet a different approach to leadership they call reframing leadership. They offer four images of leadership that include structural, human resource, political and symbolic viewpoints. Each of these images potentially extend effective or ineffective leadership styles! They believe that “each of the frames offers a distinctive image of the leadership process. Depending on leader and circumstance, each can lead to compelling and constructive leadership, but none is right for all times and seasons.”

 

So what is the conclusion? Is there a universal or one best way approach to leadership? Or is the best approach contingent upon the present situation? I am afraid that like most areas of leadership research, this subject will be open to debate and confusion for some time to come. This is just one example of why many people find the subject of leadership a complex and perplexing study. Sometimes it is hard to get most researchers to agree to a definition of what “leadership” actually is! But we should not allow the confusion and inconclusive research to frustrate us in our attempt to practice it in our daily lives.

 

Regarding the “one best way” or universal theory verses the contingency theories; we need to understand a basic truth. Yes, leadership does require different approaches and methods for different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Allow me to provide some examples. A leader may need to use a different set of skills to motivate individuals who have “tenure” or are protected by a union in contrast to temporary or part time employees. Often leaders may use different traits when working in the private sector when compared to the public sector. The leadership skills needed to motivate followers who are unskilled and alienated are different than for a group who are highly skilled and deeply motivated. Because of cultural differences, the role of police chief may require different leadership skills in the United States than in China. Exhibiting leadership to a group of executives is often different than leading the mailroom staff. Recently I had a conversation with a prominent social advocate and political leader in the state of New Jersey. She told me one of the most difficult tasks she has ever encountered was to attempt to build a consensus among a room full of other influential leaders and executives. This situation called upon her to use a unique set of leadership skills since they all wanted to be the most influential and to lead! 

 

However, situational leadership has too often been used as an excuse for situation ethics. Some high-powered managers who have been given appropriate nicknames such as “chainsaw” or “the hatchet” have used the premise of situational leadership or contingency theory as an excuse for instant disposal of workers due to “losses” or an “economic downturn”.  Yes, I realize and accept that there are times when the workforce absolutely must be reduced. Unfortunately the cycle of growth and contraction are part of the economic system we have in the western world. The question is how this worker reduction is accomplished and how these individuals are treated. Many of these workers were highly committed people who did everything that was asked of them! Some have worked for decades under one new CEO after another, who immediately incorporated their own new “priority of the month club”. Many of these people endured years of personal career sacrifice and additional workload only to be disposed of when “chainsaw” decided to let another group of “unessential” personnel go! Perhaps what is most pathetic is what occurs when the myopic corporate board finally decides its time to let “chainsaw” go because he or she has devastated the once proud organization and its culture. It is usually done with a million-dollar “severance agreement” and a plaque for appreciation of “dedicated” service.

 

Does the “one best way” or universal approach have any application? It absolutely does and this question brings us to an important subject regarding truly effective leadership. Researcher Gary Yukl makes the following comment about the “one best way” or universal model created by Blake and Mouton. He states, “The universal feature of their theory is the value orientation used by a high-high manager to select appropriate behavior, not a particular pattern of high-high behavior that is applied automatically in all situations.”  Yukl is correctly stating here that he believes the universal aspect of Blake and Moulton’s theory relates to the values behavior of the leader and not necessarily to the skills or traits a leader may use. There is always a best way to treat people under any circumstance. That is with respect, fairness and dignity.

 

For example, even if you must reprimand or correct an indignant worker you can do it privately and respectfully. There is always a “best way” to handle a coworker if they are being “let go” due to poor economic circumstances or even incompetence. That is with compassion and a sincere interest in their future. Even if you must change an existing culture or ask others to sacrifice important gains, you can do it with a deep sense of appreciation for their past efforts and commitment to the organization. In the same vein, the “best way” is to always encourage and motivate others from the heart whether they are able, unable, willing or unwilling to do a task! The same thing applies to learning. The best way for a leader to encourage a “learning organization” is to promote the value of knowledge and reward learning in any situation or environment. Yes, some leadership behaviors are universal because they are built upon an ethical foundation of respect and high regard for people! Why are these values universal? Because smart leaders know that people are their greatest natural resource and people treated with dignity, care and genuine concern are the most productive. People who are properly motivated, encouraged, trained and appreciated will far out perform others who are disrespected, discouraged, neglected or abused. In the 21^st century, this is the competitive edge.

 

In conclusion, the “best way” or universal aspect of leadership theory is valid in regards to right values and ethics. People should never be viewed as disposable or unimportant. An effective leader must treat all employees or followers with the heartfelt values reflected in the “golden rule”, including respect, dignity and a genuine concern for the individual. This requires an investment in time and resources, even if they are limited. But this is an investment in your most powerful asset…your people! Do it right and it pays large dividends by engendering a healthy culture, increased productivity and higher levels of commitment.

 

Conversely, leadership does require different approaches, methods, skills and tasks for different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Yes, these approaches, skills and tasks are indeed contingent upon the present situation the leader experiences. But, understanding this legitimate need for situational leadership should never be used as a motive or excuse to mistreat or casually discard other people. Today organizations must exist to serve their stakeholders, and that not only includes their customers, but also their employees. Any organization today that doesn’t get this essential point may ultimately have their product or service displayed in the Smithsonian Institute…right next to buggy whip manufacturers!

 

 

Comments to: gthomas@leadingtoday.org

 

 

About the author:

 

Greg has over 20 years of sales and marketing experience within the electrical distribution industry. Some of his positions have included being a National Sales Manager, National Marketing Manager and for the past 9 years that of Regional Sales Manager.  He also has extensive experience in public speaking and has written articles for various publications. In August of 2000, Greg completed his studies for a Master of Arts degree in Leadership from Bellevue University. He is the founder of weLEAD Incorporated.

 

References:

 

 

Blake, R. and Mouton, J.S., (1969) Building a Dynamic Corporation Through Grid Organizational Development.

Reading: Mass., Addison-Wesley

 

Blake, R and Mouton, J.S, (1985) Managerial Grid III. Houston, Tx., Gulf

 

Bolman, L. and Deal, T., (1977) Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

 

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H., (1977) The Management of Organizational Behavior (3^rd ed.), Upper Saddle River:

N.J., Prentice Hall

 

O’Toole, J. (1995) Leading Change – Overcoming the Ideology of Comfort and the Tyranny of Custom

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers

 

Yukl, G. (1998) Leadership in Organizations (4^th ed.), Upper Saddle River: N.J., Prentice Hall

 

http://cbae.nmsu.edu/~dboje/teaching/338/situation_and_contingency.htm

 

Climbing aboard the innovation train involves far more than finding a connection point and taking a simple, casual, short-term ride to the next station. Organizations that truly want to embark on the path to innovation must be prepared for a complex, dynamic journey; and they need to be committed for the long term. The notions of creativity and innovation may seem simple enough; however, the engines of innovation trains engage many crucial, integrated parts that work together in harmony. Between the engine and the caboose are a whole variety of different rail cars and containers, carrying all kinds of cargo. Stations need to be built, schedules need to be made, destinations need to be identified, tickets need to be sold, and people will need to have a reason for getting on board.

 

This article uses the metaphor of a train ride towards the future to give a clearer picture of what the innovation train might look like. It demonstrates where some of the stops along the way might be, brings ideas to life, and explains how the journey might be made more interesting and productive. You won’t have to strap on your seat belts for most of the ride, but by the end, you might want to hold on tighter while maintaining a flexible grip: the ride might get bumpy, and you may find yourself needing to shift positions as you put these ideas into practice. And don’t be surprised if the train moves faster and faster as we get closer to the future. That is just the way the innovation train works. So, put away any preconceived notions that you have, open up your mind to some new ideas, and come along for the ride.

 

Backdrop

 

As Stanley Gryskiewicz, author of Positive Turbulence: Developing Climates for Creativity, Innovation, and Renewal, pointed out, “the workplace is in such a state of flux that even those who never experienced the placidity of the 1950s find it hard to keep up.” He also noted that the pace of change is rapidly accelerating and that organizations can’t afford to wait on consumers or fall behind the competition. The “Partnership for 21st Century Skills,” which advocates readiness for each student, also acknowledges the need for innovation in today’s global economy. They and their members facilitate the process by providing tools and resources that combine “four Cs” with “the three Rs.” In addition to reading, writing, and arithmetic, today’s requirements include “critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration, and creativity and innovation.” So, from the start, it is important to recognize that the time to begin building innovation into one’s organizational model is now.

 

One important consideration is that innovation can’t flourish unless it develops in accommodating environments. Stanley Gryskiewicz suggested that it is possible to harness the turbulence of dramatic, relentless change by establishing energetic and creative cultures. Like Michael Michalko, who wrote Thinkertoys: A Handbook of Creative-thinking Techniques and Cracking Creativity: The Secrets of Creative Genius, Gryskiewicz noted that creativity and innovation don’t need to be random. They can be encouraged and cultivated to provide strategic advantage. Doing so, however, should involve getting cycles of creativity and innovation into the DNA of the organization, which means that organizational vision, mission, purpose, and strategic objectives need to be linked somehow to the innovation train. Values, organizational culture, and organizational design all play a role in establishing, encouraging, and supporting an environment where innovation can flourish. They also help to keep the innovation train on track.

 

Another important consideration is that innovation doesn’t need to come only from within an organization or industry. James Utterback, who authored Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, noted that “innovations have not come from the industry leaders as much as from outsiders.” There are at least two lessons to be learned from this revelation: (1) don’t just look internally for great ideas, and (2) develop and implement them before the competition has an opportunity to do so. In addition, it won’t hurt to have a plan for when the competition responds, because it most likely will—and sooner than later if the innovation is really worthwhile. Coupled with this idea is the fact that technologies have multiple roles in the innovation cycle. New technological innovations are discovered, and then people find innovative ways to apply them. This can also have a tertiary impact as growth in new applications creates demand for products, services, and support.

 

One last consideration before climbing aboard the innovation train is that innovations aren’t only generated in the science and technology sectors. As Julie Hare pointed out in an article she wrote for Campus Review, humanities, arts, and social sciences also play a role in comprehensive innovation systems. Furthermore, the process of generating ideas and then having them adopted, supported, and implemented takes synergy. Stated differently, the process of innovation is a collective effort that cuts across multiple disciplines and engages multiple people.

 

In an interview with Chuck Frey, Robert Tucker of The Innovation Resource noted that innovation is:

 

“an all-enterprise imperative….a systematic process of discovering, selecting and implementing ideas that add value, differentiate and ignite growth. Your company’s next breakthrough might not be a new product at all. It might come from entering a new market, or otherwise changing your business model. It could come from the logistics department or the payroll department or - gasp - human resources.”

 

Engines of Innovation

 

A casual review of literature and a little research on the internet reveals that one could easily argue the engines of innovation are research universities, industry research activities, or even the government. Some people might also argue that small businesses are the engines of innovation. However, this article takes a broader perspective that focuses on individuals. Doing so establishes a basis for the argument that creative individuals and creative thinking techniques are the primary engines of innovation—not organizations.

 

Although creative people with creative ideas are the engines of innovation, these people need an accommodating environment for creativity and innovation to flourish. What’s more, there needs to be a support mechanism for advancing and implementing ideas. That takes financial resources and emotional support. One could even say that organizations need to provide the rail cars on the innovation train with climate control.

 

Transport

 

With a conventional train, cars are coupled together physically and follow along sequentially. Rail cars haul freight as often as people. However, on the innovation train, passenger cars are the key because ideas are the real freight: they are light in weight, but they have a powerful impact. On the innovation train, people ride in train cars that can be all over the world. The innovation train parallel processes information both simultaneously and around the clock. Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps, who wrote about virtual teams, noted that virtual structures require communication and information systems to keep people connected. Furthermore, these engines of information don’t just show up at the front of the train. Great ideas can show up anywhere in the organization, but they won’t get heard without an accommodating culture.

 

Values, Culture, and Organizational Environment

 

A good place to start when looking for examples of accommodating organizational environments is in organizations with successful organizational change efforts. Authors of books on change, like James O’Toole, John Kotter, and Christopher Head, recommend values-based leadership, an organized process with action plans, and a systemic approach to facilitating high performance. However, for innovation to truly flourish, more is needed. In addition to common values, shared purpose, and organized comprehensive approaches, authors on innovation such as Stanley Gryskiewicz, Michael Michalko, Gary Hamel, and James Utterback claim that organizations need a design and culture that is adaptable, encourages reasonable experimentation, is conducive to learning, and is willing to experience some failures along the way.

 

Gary Yukl, in his book on organizational leadership, described some of the characteristics of a learning organization: “values of innovation, experimentation, flexibility, and initiative are firmly embedded in the culture and reflected in the reward and appraisal system.” Cameron and Quinn, who authored Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, described a culture of adhocracy to accommodate the need for responding to “the hyperturbulent, ever-accelerating conditions that increasingly typify the organizational world of the twenty-first century.” They described a culture that is adaptable, flexible, and creative “where uncertainty, ambiguity, and information overload are typical.”

 

Another description of what an innovative corporate culture might look like comes from Gary Hamel, who wrote Leading the Revolution: How to Thrive in Turbulent Times by Making Innovation a Way of Life. Hamel’s “design rules for innovation” can be summarized as follows:

 

1. Unreasonable expectations
2. Elastic business definition
3. A cause, not a business
4. New voices
5. A market for innovation
6. Low-risk experimentation
7. Cellular division
8. Connectivity

Hamel goes on to suggest activism and four other “equally important components:” innovation skills, innovation metrics, information technology, and management processes. Although he acknowledges that eureka moments can’t be pre-programmed, he does believe that “nonlinear innovation can be legitimized, fostered, celebrated, and rewarded.” It can also be thwarted by a variety of factors.

 

Thwarting Innovation

 

Michalko noted that a variety of mechanisms can thwart innovative behaviors:

 

• Giving up after the first acceptable answer is found
• Static inertia, preventing change until it may be too late
• Seeing and thinking only what others do
• Not questioning the status quo or asking curious questions
• Working in silos

 

A guest post in Silicon Valley Watcher written by Sue Lebeck noted that “Laws and regulations, including tax policy, accounting rules and intellectual property rights are critical to support an innovation-friendly environment. Government policies have not kept up with the realities of innovating in a global economy; often they actively, if unintentionally, work against our ability to compete.” Clearly, a regulatory environment where policies have the potential to control intellectual property, incentives, and the complexity of business operations has the potential to thwart innovation. Even when these inhibiting factors aren’t dominant, individuals will still need to find ways to be creative and hasten the innovation process. Earlier in this article, people were identified as the primary engines of innovation, but some people are far more creative than others. So, what makes these creative people different than those who lack creativity?

 

Creative Individuals, Creative Thinking, and Positive Attitudes

 

Michalko pointed out that vital statistics, data, and intelligence quotients don’t explain creative genius: “creativity is not the same thing as intelligence.” In contrast to using limited past experiences, creative people look for new and different ways to resolve problems. As Michalko noted, creative geniuses generate “a rich diversity of alternatives and conjectures,” suggesting that how they think is far more important than what they are thinking about. Ultimately, thinking strategies and creative thinking techniques seem to hold the clues to generating creative solutions and novel ideas for resolving new problems or finding new opportunities. So, what establishes one’s potential for creativity and innovation?

 

Michalko claimed that “your business attitude determines your potential for innovation, creativity, even genius, and success in your field.” How people respond to change and stress is critical! He also noted that a positive self-image and creative behaviors are essential: people who see themselves as a subject instead of an object are more likely to be less inhibited and more creative. Since attitudes and behaviors are influenced by the choices people make, Michalko suggested that “creativity is decided by what we choose to do or what we refuse to do.” Therefore, people who wish to be more creative should attempt to control the limiting factors in their lives and begin to practice creative thinking techniques.

 

Train Stations for the Innovation Train

 

In this article, train stations for the innovation train represent the various activities that facilitate the innovation process. This begins by getting the right people on board at the beginning of the trip. Jim Collins emphasized the importance of this action in Good to Great when he noted that getting “the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus)” occurred before “figuring out where to drive it.” Then planning becomes an important part of the process.

 

In addition to finding people who have the skills and qualifications for organizational roles, it is important that organizations value diversity when hiring new people. As Gryskiewicz stated, “The single most important strategy for enhancing creativity in teams is deliberately building in cross-fertilization by selecting members with a broad range of skills and backgrounds.” Although a diverse group of people are likely to generate a broader set of ideas, it is important to focus when looking for new ideas and innovation.

 

Having goals and ranking the potential benefits of resolving various challenges both play important roles in identification of worthwhile business problems and selection of the right challenges. Michalko noted that people should determine what their goals are before looking for new ideas because identification of worthwhile business problems requires purpose. Only then can problems be converted into worthwhile opportunities. Because there are many ways to define, view, communicate, translate, work with, and resolve problems, it makes sense to approach problems from various angles and on multiple levels.

 

Michalko related that “by coining your challenge as broadly as possible, you put yourself on the top of the mountain from which you can view all possible approaches to the top.” He then suggested stretching the challenge by asking why. Squeezing the challenge by asking who, what, when, where, how, and why questions can also instigate enlightenment on sub-problems, encourage greater creativity, and lead to more innovative solutions. Once challenges are identified and prioritized, they should be accepted and centered, suggesting that a commitment to generating productive ideas for resolution is necessary.

 

Idea generation involves a variety of techniques: some of them for individuals and some of them for groups. Michalko pointed out that individuals can improve their creativity through “seeing what no one else is seeing” by adopting new perspectives, restructuring problems, taking new approaches, and looking for multiple solutions. He also recommended visualization techniques for displaying information in visual and spatial terms as well as verbal and numerical. Other strategies that he suggested facilitate “thinking what no one else is thinking.” These strategies include “thinking fluently” with large quantities of ideas, “making novel combinations” to construct new options and opportunities, “connecting the unconnected” to establish new relationships, “looking at the other side” to create new forms, “finding what you’re not looking for” through avoidance of preconceptions, and “awakening the collaborative spirit” to stimulate the collective intelligence of a group of people. This last strategy requires effective dialogue; clear, unassuming thinking; and honesty. One effective technique for creative group thinking is brainstorming. Regardless of which strategies or techniques are used, Michalko notes that practicing them is the best way to obtain positive results.

 

Once people are thinking creatively, it is important to get them to the next station: working creatively with others. Gryskiewicz pointed out that “teams by their very nature are breeding grounds for firecracker brainstorming.” He listed the following characteristics: “maintaining a diverse membership, including members from different functional divisions, incorporating complementary personality styles, rotating in new members, bringing in outside experts, promoting intensity, creating deadlines, focusing on the solution, directing intensity, encouraging frequent interactions, holding daily staff meetings, setting aside informal meeting spaces, using technology, creating virtual teams, using group decision-making software, maintaining team effectiveness, avoiding uniformity, avoiding tunnel vision, and preventing isolation.” These “strategies for developing positive turbulence in teams” can facilitate the process of creatively harnessing the power of change and developing an accommodating environment for “creativity, innovation, and renewal.”

 

Pressing on the Throttle

 

The final station on this run brings us full circle to where we began our journey; only now, the pace quickens. The concepts developed throughout this article ultimately need to be linked to vision, mission, purpose, and strategic objectives, while maintaining core values and an accommodating environment for innovation. With the dynamics of radical change in the 21^st century, strategies and organizational designs can change very quickly, making all of these issues more complex—and more relevant.

 

Just last year, an article in the Bangkok Post noted that Information Architected Inc.’s global innovation survey “found that 17 out of 20 managers agree that innovation management is critical….Yet 51% of the companies participating in the survey have no formalized innovation management practice.” Half the participants noted a lack of systematic innovation processes and “a lack of innovation resources, leadership and adequate funding.” Though the majority of respondents acknowledged a need for actively managing innovation, only about a fourth of the organizations had taken specific actions over the previous two years.

 

I guess it is possible that your organization might be sheltered from the ambiguities and vagaries of change in the 21^st century: only you know what challenges your organization faces. Nevertheless, my guess is that you’ll be much better off if you climb aboard the innovation train. Recessionary pressures are surely affecting CEO perspectives towards innovation, and the additional pressure to perform has surely increased interest in successful innovation. However, that additional pressure has also increased CEO interest in having existing projects produce. So, I would like to conclude this article with one final recommendation: don’t be caught sleeping in the caboose!

 

About the author:

Tom Hollinger is the recent founder of Leadership Learning Initiatives: a coaching and consulting practice focusing on communication, leadership, organizational development, and change management. As a life-long learner, Mr. Hollinger has completed a BBA and an MBA from the Pennsylvania State University, a Master of Arts in Organizational Leadership from Regent University, a Certificate in Biblical Studies from the Institute of Biblical Studies, and a Certificate in Human Resource Management from the Harrisburg Area Community College.  He is currently completing a Doctorate in Strategic Leadership at Regent University.