|
Developing Leaders:
"One-At-A-Time"
Ever
felt confused, challenged or frustrated in choosing the "best" program for
developing leaders in your organization?
Do you lean toward the "intensive care" programs, the "emulation"
programs, the "must read" programs, or the massive "change" programs? Which one is best? Having spent a little
time delivering and/or participating in most of the above over the last 10
years or so, I think the answer might be "it depends", but probably none of the
above.
To
say that the 90's were a consultant's nirvana would be an understatement. Following a major financial correction at
the beginning of the decade, the economy exploded throughout the next eight
years, highlighted by unprecedented growth in corporate revenues, growth and
shareholder value, extraordinary merger and acquisition activity, the
globalization of the economy, and the emergence of the Internet and "the new
economy." Along with these extraordinary economic times came the emergence of
an abundance of en vogue theories, processes, and strategies around the concept
of leadership. For consultants, writers and trainers, leadership development
became a true cottage industry.
Theories abounded on how to become a high performance leader:
-
Institutes, Centers,
and Universities were formed where you flew off to their location, entering as
a mediocre leader. Following this one-week (typically) intensive training
program, you returned to your organization transformed into an extraordinary
leader. But how good were you in the
following quarter?
- Books, books and more
books. You were required to read
the latest book by the leadership Guru of the moment. Do what they say, implement their plan,
and puff, you're great. So many
books, so little time.
- Still other programs
identified organizations for you to emulate. Do what they do, lead the way they lead, and you too, can be
successful. Perhaps, but is their
business like yours? Oh, by the
way, how many of those "excellent" companies are still doing really well?
- You could also invest
millions in massive "change" programs, with a healthy dose of leadership
development built into them. These
"consultant dreams" took years to implement, and before being completed
the target outcomes had changed, but the culture had not. Uh-oh!
So
you say, where did we go wrong? What
did we miss?
All
of the elements mentioned above play a collective role in developing
leaders. However, none on their own are
self-sustaining.
My
view is we overlooked two integral components of Leadership. First and foremost, leadership is personal.
It is dynamic. Effective leadership
directly correlates to the organization being led; its people, clients and
markets served. It's also somewhat
affected by geography. To think one size fits all is naļve. There can be little
retrofitting or cookie cutting. Imposition is a dangerous road to go down.
Secondly,
leaders need two basic skill sets: The first is behavioral in nature, the
second involves business acumen. Obvious you say. Not necessarily. Most
leadership models and their related diagnostics today are built around 25-30
leadership behaviors or competencies.
Many of these are iterations of the others, with similar
definitions. The greatest
differentiators for these instruments are in the size and distribution of their
databases. Most are quality diagnostics for broad-based measurement. But do they fit the leader's business model,
organizational culture, and business strategy? The magic is in the match.
What
are appropriate leadership behaviors for organization A are not necessarily
appropriate for others, in or out of their business sector, geography or
culture. One size does not fit all.
The
same applies for business acumen. Do
leaders of entrepreneurial businesses such as those typified by the "new
economy" require the same business skills as those from beauracratic
organizations such as financial services or utilities? Most likely not. These executives are typically younger, less experienced,
fast-tracked and sales-focused. Their
organizations are flatter, leaner and possess fewer gray hairs. They have not been mentored in business
practices by "stacks" of seasoned managers.
They are "idea people." Their definitions of success are far different
than those of the beaurcrat. Would these individuals benefit from one of the
90's programs?
Developing Leaders "One-At-A-Time"
Having
participated/benefited as a consultant in both broad-based and tailored
programs, there is no doubt in my mind that the success rate in developing
extraordinary leaders one-at-a-time is far greater than in the broad-based
programs. The following are success
factors in leadership development based on my observations from over 10 years
of working with leaders from around the world:
- The more personal and
focused the program, the greater sustained learning.
- The more culturally
specific the program, the greater the sustained learning.
- The more time the
leader spends "practicing" during their development experience, the
greater the sustained learning.
- The more real-life
and less academic the development process is, the greater the learning.
Our
Approach
Our
approach is to tailor programs to the leader's specific and personal needs
within the context of their business.
Our main focus is on helping each leader develop an appropriate personal
style for them - given the corporate environment in which they operate, what
they need to deliver for the organization, what their customers demand, and
their personal aspirations. We play to strengths
and build on the style and personality of each individual to help them maximize
their own potential. Included in this approach are the following design
components:
- We use targeted
diagnostics and feedback systems, mapped specifically to the requirements
of the organization to ensure that our results are measurable.
- We focus individual
leaders on maximizing their impact within their own organizations, and
improving the performance of the teams they lead
- Our programs deal in
business realities, with leaders practicing what they are learning over a
six-month period.
- Best practices are
shared in the context of their business / personal challenges.
Leadership
in the new millennium has never been more challenging. Every move made has enormous consequences,
with the pace of change and transformation daunting at times. Investor expectations and patience has never
been more unforgiving. The ability to
focus and lead, to make the best decisions and inspire people at all levels
will determine the future of the organization led. Effective leadership development, "leadership one-at-a-time" is
essential for leaders to develop the confidence and competence to succeed in
the 21st century, regardless of industry or size.
Dr. Joe DeAngelis is Vice President of Transition
Solutions Leadership and Executive Coaching/Mentoring practice, based in
Wellesley Hills, MA. |