Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
Leadership is crucial for the sustained success of any organization. A terrific leader at top makes an impact to her or his organization. One of these statements will be concurred with by everyone. Specialists in hr field mention the need for leaders at all levels, and not that of the leadership at the very top. It's not without reason that companies like 3M, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Coca Cola; HSBC etc. have known to set in place procedures for developing leaders always.

Mention this issue, nevertheless, to a sales manager, or to a line supervisor, or any executive in many organizations and you'll probably take care of diffident answers.

Leadership development -a need that is tactical?

The subject of leadership is dealt with typically by many organizations. Cultivating leaders falls in HR domain.

Such leadership development outlays that are depending on just great goals and general notions about direction get excessive during times that are good and get axed in poor times. If having great or good leaders at all levels is a tactical demand, as the above top firms exhibit and as many leading management experts claim, why can we see such a stop and go strategy?

Exactly why is there skepticism about leadership development programs?

The first rationale is that anticipations from good (or great) leaders usually are not defined in operative terms and in ways where the consequences can be checked. Leaders are expected to achieve' many things. They may be expected to turn laggards into high performers, turn companies, attraction customers around, and dazzle media. They can be expected to do miracles. These expectancies remain just wishful thinking. These desired outcomes can not be used to supply any hints about differences in leadership skills and development demands.

Absence of a common and complete (valid in conditions and diverse industries) framework for defining direction means that direction development effort are inconsistent in nature and scattered. Bad name is given by inconsistency to leadership development plans. Here is the 2nd reason why the objectives of direction development are often not met.

The next rationale is in the methods employed for leadership development. Leadership development programs rely upon a combination of lectures (e.g. on subjects like team building, communications), case studies, and group activities (problem solving), and some inspirational talks by top business leaders or management gurus.

Sometimes the programs include experience or outdoor activities for helping people bond better and build better teams. These programs create 'feel good' effect and in some instances participants 'return' with their personal action plans. But in majority of cases they fail to capitalize in the attempts which have gone in. Leadership coaching must be mentioned by me in the passing. In the hands of an expert trainer a willing executive can enhance his leadership skills dramatically. But leadership coaching is overly expensive and inaccessible for many executives and their organizations.

Leadership -a competitive advantage

During my work as a business leader and after as a leadership trainer, I found that it's helpful to define leadership in terms that were operational. When direction is defined in terms of capacities of a person and in terms of what it does, it's not more difficult to evaluate and develop it.

They impart a distinctive ability to an organization, when leadership abilities defined in the above way are found at all degrees. Organizations having a pipeline of leaders that are good have competitive advantages over other organizations, even those with leaders that are great only in the top. The competitive advantages are:

1. The competitive (the organizations) may recover from mistakes rapidly and are able to solve problems rapidly.

2. They will have exceptional communications that are horizontal. Matters (procedures) go faster.

3. ) and are generally less busy with themselves. Hence they have 'time' for outside folks. (Over 70% of inner communications are error corrections etc about reminders,. They're wasteful)

4. Their staff (indirect) productivity is high.

5. They're proficient at heeding to signals customer complaints associated with quality, shifts in market conditions and executive coaching london customer preferences. This contributes to bottom-up communication that is good and useful. Top leaders tend to own less number of blind spots.

6. It's simpler to roll out applications for strategic shift as well as for enhancing business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Good bottom-up communications improve communications that are top down too.

7. They demand less 'oversight', as they're strongly rooted in values.

8. They are better at preventing catastrophic failures.

Expectations from productive and good leaders must be set out clearly. The direction development programs should be chosen to acquire leadership abilities that can be verified in terms that were operative. Since direction development is a strategic demand, there exists a requirement for clarity concerning the above mentioned facets.

Tags: Business

Don't be the product, buy the product!