Category: Leadership Skills

Introduction to Leadership Development

What is meant by leadership development? In this blog entry leadership development will be discussed as processes for development of leadership capabilities within organizations. This particular submission will focus its overview of leadership development on current trends in the for-profit sector. The primary reason for limiting my entry to the business realm is due to the fact that it’s what I know best. Also, there will be plenty of opportunities to converse on how leadership development practices are employed in other domains, such as academia, government, and non-governmental organizations. And I invite others to share of their experience of this discipline in other contexts. I imagine my co-host Julia will likely have some thoughts on leadership development in the non-profit sector.

Leadership Development Design

The following suggestions are high level and extremely simplified for the sake of some blog brevity. The design of a leadership development processes is slightly more involved than what the following summary might suggest. To start, the design requires an in-depth analysis of the leadership qualities and capabilities an organization requires, now and in the future. These requirements include an understanding of the culture and the type of leaders that tend to thrive in that particular environment. It also involves developing clarity on desired business outcomes and the qualities that an organization anticipates will be required of its leaders to drive these outcomes. Once the desired qualities and capabilities (often classified into competencies) are confirmed, the appropriate leadership development systems and tools can be selected. The majority of leadership development programs include some, if not all, of the following components: mentoring, coaching, assessment, action learning, instruction, and the use of internal leaders as instructors. There also is notable effort being placed on the design of leadership development processes that are more interactive, integrated, globally oriented, and leverage social media technology. These components will be presented in detail in future installments. In the meantime, it would be fitting if anyone wanted to comment on or add to this list.

Keys to Success

In many ways, the key to the design of an effective leadership development process is to assure alignment with the organization’s culture, strategic direction, and the business initiatives considered most critical to future success. Some people might be put off by my not placing more emphasis on individual self-actualization, leadership ethics, and having a positive influence on the world at large. My hope, and intent, is that any development process shall in fact contribute to personal growth (if not transformation), ethical decision making, and a socially responsible outlook. But the best way to assure wide based support and the necessary resources to implement and maintain effective leadership development initiatives is to establish a clear cultural fit and correlation with business imperatives. To this end, there has been concerted effort in recent years to integrate leadership development to human capital systems and develop methods for measuring the impact of the processes on different levels of the business. Of course, the evaluation of impact remains a highly desired, challenging, and somewhat elusive goal for most organizations. The measurement of leadership practices on the bottom line (triple or otherwise) will definitely be discussed further in the near future on this site. But if anyone has any noteworthy perspectives in the topic, feel free to chime in now.

Years ago, I met Thomas J Leonard, the Founder of Coach University.

He introduced the concept of “Tolerations” – those things that annoy you, drain your energy, and hold you back yet can be eliminated from your life.

Tolerations show up in most areas – work, home, school, relationships, equipment, cars and your habits.

Here are some Common Tolerations:

• Office – Piles of papers on your desk, sticky notes all over, computer repairs
• Home – loose door knob, leaky faucet, slow drain, squeaky door, needing paint
• People – those who drain our energy, relationships that aren’t working
• Your habits – not dealing with overwhelm, not exercising, not eating healthy
• Work – not knowing what is expected, not knowing how to deal with change, poor communication

Dealing with Tolerations:

Tolerations are all about energy. Eliminating tolerations will give you more energy for what is important to you. You’ll be happier, more confident and won’t waste time stepping around things.

A great way to deal with tolerations is to write a list. Look around and record what things are draining you. Once you have your list, rank the items – which ones can you change or eliminate right away? This will give you momentum to tackle the ones that are more complex. Intentionally decide which ones you will put on hold. It is OK to “procrastinate with a purpose” but give yourself a timeline.

What tolerations will you eliminate?

For more resources, see the Library topic Personal and Professional Coaching.

I came to the overlapping fields of Leadership Development and Coaching through the stage door. I studied Theatre in college, have a graduate degree in Acting and started my adult life performing in Chicago’s Off-Loop theaters. Like my father in the newspaper business, I’ve grown up right alongside both the coaching profession and the field of “Leadership Studies,” just a few years to old to have discovered them as more viable alternatives for my higher education.

That’s okay.

Sitting beside me at my kitchen table tonight are two books that (in concert with 15 years in the nonprofit trenches and another 6+ as a coach) stand out as pinnacles of my self-styled higher education in leadership. They each connect profoundly, from different perspectives, with my own vision of a meaningful life.

They are:

1. The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow and Marty Linsky, and
2. Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to the Future, by Margaret J. Wheatley.

The first is about purpose, perspective, connection, working outside your comfort zone, listening, risk, experimentation, failure, and trying again.

The second is about listening, connection, purpose, the common good, and hope.

Havel on Hope

Vaclav Havel wrote in Disturbing the Peace, “Hope … is not the same as joy that things are going well, or willingness to invest in enterprises that are obviously headed for early success, but, rather, an ability to work for something because it is good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed. The more unpropitious the situation in which we demonstrate hope, the deeper that hope is. Hope is definitely not same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out. In short, I think that the deepest and most important form of hope, the only one that can keep us above water and urge us to good works, and the only true source of the breathtaking dimension of the human spirit and its efforts, is something we get, as it were, from “elsewhere.” It is also this hope, above all, which gives us the strength to live and continually to try new things, even in conditions that seem as hopeless as ours do, here and now.”

The Hope Theory of Leadership suggests that each of the other theories of leadership is useful in certain situations. And not a single one is useful without the kind of hope, which Havel describes, that lives, and works, and continually tries new things.

Leadership is not leadership without hope. What are your hopes? What will you try? What else?

There is a wide and ever growing variety of theories to explain the concept and practice of leadership. I will provide a brief overview of the more dominant or better known theories. I hope that others will share their thoughts on whether this list neglects any theories of note. In the future we can discuss some of the emerging leadership theories/approaches such as adaptive, authentic, and appreciative. It is important to note that this submission attempts to provide an overview of leadership theories versus models. I view models as attempts to functionalize the more theoretical aspects of leadership and make them easier to put into play by organizations and consultants. This is, in and of itself, an important activity.

Most theories view leadership as grounded in one or more of the following three perspectives: leadership as a process or relationship, leadership as a combination of traits or personality characteristics, or leadership as certain behaviors or, as they are more commonly referred to, leadership skills. In virtually all of the more dominant theories there exist the notions that, at least to some degree, leadership is a process that involves influence with a group of people toward the realization of goals. I will say on the front end that, in my opinion, leadership is a dynamic and complex process, and that much of what is written these days tends to over-simplify this process. My goal here is to provide an overview that keeps things simple, without crossing into over-simplification, and for the most part refraining from any critiquing of the various theories. I will leave that to my fellow bloggers for now.

Trait Theory

This theory postulates that people are either born or not born with the qualities that predispose them to success in leadership roles. That is, that certain inherited qualities, such as personality and cognitive ability, are what underlie effective leadership. There have been hundreds of studies to determine the most important leadership traits, and while there is always going to be some disagreement, intelligence, sociability, and drive (aka determination) are consistently cited as key qualities.

Skills Theory

This theory states that learned knowledge and acquired skills/abilities are significant factors in the practice of effective leadership. Skills theory by no means disavows the connection between inherited traits and the capacity to be an effective leader – it simply argues that learned skills, a developed style, and acquired knowledge, are the real keys to leadership performance. It is of course the belief that skills theory is true that warrants all the effort and resources devoted to leadership training and development

Situational Theory

This theory suggests that different situations require different styles of leadership. That is, to be effective in leadership requires the ability to adapt or adjust one’s style to the circumstances of the situation. The primary factors that determine how to adapt are an assessment of the competence and commitment of a leader’s followers. The assessment of these factors determines if a leader should use a more directive or supportive style.

Contingency Theory

This theory states that a leader’s effectiveness is contingent on how well the leader’s style matches a specific setting or situation. And how, you may ask, is this different from situational theory? In situational the focus is on adapting to the situation, whereas contingency states that effective leadership depends on the degree of fit between a leader’s qualities and style and that of a specific situation or context.

Path-Goal Theory

This theory is about how leaders motivate followers to accomplish identified objectives. It postulates that effective leaders have the ability to improve the motivation of followers by clarifying the paths and removing obstacles to high performance and desired objectives. The underlying beliefs of path-goal theory (grounded in expectancy theory) are that people will be more focused and motivated if they believe they are capable of high performance, believe their effort will result in desired outcomes, and believe their work is worthwhile.

Transformational Theory

This theory states that leadership is the process by which a person engages with others and is able to create a connection that results in increased motivation and morality in both followers and leaders. It is often likened to the theory of charismatic leadership that espouses that leaders with certain qualities, such as confidence, extroversion, and clearly stated values, are best able to motivate followers. The key in transformational leadership is for the leader to be attentive to the needs and motives of followers in an attempt to help them reach their maximum potential. In addition, transformational leadership typically describes how leaders can initiate, develop, and implement important changes in an organization. This theory is often discussed in contrast with transactional leadership.

Transactional Theory

This is a theory that focuses on the exchanges that take place between leaders and followers. It is based in the notion that a leader’s job is to create structures that make it abundantly clear what is expected of his/her followers and also the consequences (i.e. rewards and punishments) for meeting or not meeting these expectations. This theory is often likened to the concept and practice of management and continues to be an extremely common component of many leadership models and organizational structures.

Servant Leadership Theory

This conceptualization of leadership reflects a philosophy that leaders should be servants first. It suggests that leaders must place the needs of followers, customers, and the community ahead of their own interests in order to be effective. The idea of servant leadership has a significant amount of popularity within leadership circles – but it is difficult to describe it as a theory inasmuch as a set of beliefs and values that leaders are encouraged to embrace.

Closing Comments and Questions

I have a bias toward trait, skills, and transformational theories. I am a psychologist and there is no doubt in my mind that people are born with certain qualities. But I am equally sure innate traits inevitably become fully interwoven with a person’s acquired knowledge and skills. And I lean toward transformational theory because of how it views the practice of leadership as, more than anything else, relational interaction.

So how can these theories apply to one’s work? Well, in my work, if I am hired to help an organization select a leader via an assessment process, some of the theories become readily apparent. To start, it is important that the first step in the assessment is a meeting in which the client clarifies the qualities needed for the specific role and paint a picture for me of the organizational culture. By doing this I am able to be look for those qualities, skills, knowledge, to assure finding someone that is a good fit for the job and the culture (Contingency Theory). The assessment process includes tools to measure personality, cognitive abilities, and drive (Trait Theory), adaptability (Situational Theory), and sociability (Transformational Theory). It also involves, through interviews and work simulations, an evaluation of a person’s work-related skills and knowledge of the business (Skills Theory).

So what are your biases? Does theory inform any of your work — knowingly or unkowingly? Maybe you have your own theory of leadership. Let’s hear it.

1. Be clear on your objective:

Most coaches have an area of expertise such as: career, entrepreneurs, life, executives, financial, or branding. Match your goal with the coach’s expertise. Ask the coach about their limitations –do they coach clients with your needs?

2. What are the coach’s qualifications?

Is the coach certified and by what training organization?

3. Background and Experience:

Find out what life/work experience the coach has had. Have they been in situations similar to yours? How many clients have they coached, in what industries and with what results?

4. Cost/Contract:

The fees for coaching vary widely. Be sure to ask about the terms – do you prepay? Is the fee schedule set up by the session, month or program? What is the length of each session? How often will you meet? What if you prepay and decide to discontinue? If the coach uses assessments will there be extra charges? What about travel costs if the coach does not live near you?

5. Test Drive:

Most coaches will offer an initial complimentary session. It is wise to interview at least 3 coaches to help with your selection. Be sure to assess whether their personality aligns with yours.

6. Interview the Coach’s Clients:

Even though coaching is confidential, most coaches have clients that will talk to prospects and share their experience. What were their successes? What did they like and what could have been better? What advice do they have for you?

7. Success Rates:

Find out your expected return on investment. How does the coach measure success? What are some of the coach’s success stories?

8. Finding a Coach:

Word of mouth, online referral services, coaching schools, local chapters of coaching associations and HR departments are ways to find reputable coaches.

9. Face to Face or Virtual:

Decide weather you prefer to coach in person or virtually. Many coaches will do both and offer a combination. Virtual coaching usually consists of phone, email or technology such as Skype.

10. What does the coach do to stay on top of their profession?

How do they stay apprised of industry changes, specialty skills and professional development? How do they apply this to their coaching?

What other tips can you add?

For more resources, see the Library topic Personal and Professional Coaching.

If I think about “Leader” as a job description I get confused. How can anyone “Lead” all the time? How exhausting! A sure recipe for failure! An invitation to the dread-disease BURNOUT. Don’t you at least need to “manage” your own schedule?

What about “Management” as the complete and total sum of what you do each day? UGH. How can we make the world a better place if you just sit (or walk) around and manage?

When it comes to leadership: I want verbs. I want action. I want improvisation. I want intervention. I want the possibility of real change. Rather than “best-practices” let’s see some brand-new-never-been-tried-in-quite-this-way-might-even-fail practices.

Organizations need leadership AND management.

To lead is to take risks on behalf of purpose and the greater good. To manage is to mitigate risk on behalf of the bottom line. A successful organization does both. A successful executive does both. A valuable employee at any level of the organization does both.

Leadership requires the willingness to try something new, the willingness fail once in a while, and the foresight to minimize the impact of your failures.

Management is the every day work. If you already know how to get the results that you want, that’s management. If you have practices in place (i.e. for helping employees feel connected appreciated, cared for and linked to the larger vision of the organization) that’s management. If you have a system in place, you are managing. If you are 90% sure that when you do THIS, the result will be THAT, you are managing.

Jumping off the leadership cliff.

When you step into uncharted territory on behalf of purpose, you are attempting to lead. When you hold steady under criticism, you may be leading. When you invite ideas that conflict with your own, you may be leading. When you assess risk and design low-risk experiments with the end firmly in mind, you are attempting to lead.

After my last blog post, a reader responded with a comment and an important question that this post has done little to answer. (Sorry, Meredith!) She wrote: “ ‘Countless, individual acts of leadership’ – that’s a scary phrase for many who want someone else to tell us what to do. What are some of the acts of leadership that have been tried, what else might there be to try?”

I’ll offer more specifics in future posts. MEANWHILE, please entertain the possibility that my suggestions may never be as valuable as your own answer to these these two questions:

1. What do I care about so much that I am willing to intervene?
2. What is a low-risk experiment that might help the group make progress on what I care about?

Acknowledgement is a coaching skill used to give recognition to the client. It points out the inner traits or characteristics that the client demonstrated in order to accomplish an action. Acknowledgement is important because it can articulate attributes of the client that they may not be aware of. When you acknowledge you empower the client.

Here are some tips to make your acknowledgment powerful:

1. Take your opinion out: Don’t endorse – keep the focus on the client, not on you: Example – “You took big risk.” versus “I support that you took a big risk.”

2. Be specific: Example – “You were determined and persevered in meeting the deadline.” versus “Good job meeting the deadline.”

3. Be judicious: Acknowledgement is special – too much and it loses its powerful impact

4. Look for attributes where the client shines in the situation and point them out, such as:

• Determination
• Perseverance
• Courage
• Focus
• Creative
• Positive
• Organized
• Confident
• Flexible
• Gracious
• Vibrant
• Motivating
• Insightful
• Bold
• Resolve
• Responsible

5. Be genuine: Clients will know when the acknowledgement is honest and truthful.

Who deserves your acknowledgement today?

For more resources, see the Library topic Personal and Professional Coaching.

What is Management?

First of all, after this blog entry, my plan is to avoid drawing a strong distinction, unless absolutely necessary, between leadership and management. The word management means many different things to people. For example, it is sometimes conceptualized as a discipline, as is medicine or engineering. It is also commonly viewed as a set of specific, or not so specific, behaviors. And for many, management is the same thing as the role of manager, which is seen as a certain job level or classification. In referring to it as a discipline, Joan Magretta states that management is the “accumulating body of thought and practice that makes organizations work”. While this is a wonderfully succinct way of describing a vast body of knowledge, I will not be talking about management as a discipline. Although I highly recommend Joan’s book “What Management Is” (2002) for a delightfully easy-to-read overview of the discipline. I will be talking about management as a type of leadership also as a level of leadership (i.e. the manager).

What Happened to Management?

In the era of Dilbert, management and mangers have had a pretty tough time in terms of their credibility and status within western culture. The term “manager” really suffered at the hands of Jack Welch in his early years as CEO at General Electric. This is ironic since Welch was actually a huge proponent and practitioner of what, at that time in the early ‘80s, were core management principles and best practices. But Jack was out to shake GE up and felt that the term “manager” carried too many negative associations within the company. He replaced it with the term ““leader” and help start an era in which this anointed leaders held a special status. Funny enough, although he replaced the word manager with leader, he actually strove to develop at GE the use by leaders of proven management principles. Of course Jack and the good folks at GE were also at the forefront in developing management practices now widely used across industries and generally accepted as best-in-class. But there were many other influences in the loss of luster for those involved in management, such as when the ultimate management guru, Peter Drucker, decided to start using the term “executive” in place of “manager.

Management and Leadership Differences

It is clear to me that people in “managerial” roles are, in fact, in positions of leadership. From an organizational perspective, all managers are leaders, and all leaders, to some extent, are involved in or responsible for certain practices that should be considered management. But, although having stated that management is a type of leadership, there are some important distinctions that I use in my work as a consultant involved with leadership assessment, development, and coaching. The distinctions I make are related primarily to levels of leadership, and the skills, qualities, and knowledge that commonly correspond with success at different levels. This is an important, arguably necessary distinction when and organization is involved in succession planning and developing its leadership “pipeline”. For example, organizations need different abilities and qualities from team members that are individual contributors, in comparison to managers, in comparison to managers of managers, and so on up the functional ladder. My point is, from a practical standpoint it is almost impossible to develop a coherent and effective approach to talent management without delineated levels of leadership — or at least roles.

Why Management?

I think that organizations should acknowledge that managers are, in fact, leaders and critical to the success and sustainability of the business. It has been clearly demonstrated that managers — those that oversee the work of those that do the work — have enormous influence on the goals and bottom-line of an organization. This is because of their central role in ensuring that line staff, for lack of a better term, is engaged and productive at work. There is strong evidence that employees that have a strong sense of connection with their boss, feel appreciated, cared for, and understand how their work fits into the larger vision, are more satisfied and productive. This is more often than not the job of the manager.

What is Management Work?

With regard to specific responsibilities, it is my belief that a significant difference between managers from more “senior leaders” (or senior managers for that matter), is in how managers get things done, the tools they use to things done, and the type of influence they have within an organization. Historically, the term management has referred to individuals engaged in the activities of planning, organizing, leading, and coordinating resources toward the attainment of specific goals. In recent years, and in many organizations, management has come to include a variety of other responsibilities in such areas as talent management, coaching, and change management, to name a few. The specific around the how, tools, and influence of management can be discussed at another time. For now, I would simply like to make a number of other distinctions between managers and the core responsibilities of other, more senior leaders. These core responsibilities are the a) direct involvement in the execution and implementation of business strategy, b) monitoring and measuring of performance and outcomes, and, perhaps most importantly, the c) selecting, developing, and leading (influencing) of the people that do the work

So What?

There is an almost overwhelming amount of available information and opinion on the topics of management, leadership, and management in comparison to leadership. I have provided some information and shared lots of professional and personal opinion. It would be great if others would jump in and engage in the dialogue. I have no-doubt that my co-host, Julia, will have her own interesting and unique response to the topic.

I live in the Kansas Flint Hills. It’s ranch land, no more than 4 people per square mile. (No surprise, then, that I do most of my coaching by telephone.) But we are a community. And we have no shortage of issues requiring leadership.

Leadership is not the same as Authority.

As we blog about definitions of leadership, I urge you to remember that “Leadership” is NOT the same as “Authority.” Let’s toss the word “leader” out of the lexicon. It doesn’t mean anything. The current habit of talking about “leadership positions” confuses things. Authority is a position. You must CHOOSE to lead.

Leadership is an action.

Leadership is an action. Acts of leadership are exceedingly rare.

Here in Chase County, Kansas, as elsewhere in the country, citizens regularly and dutifully step up to fill positions of authority. We have our Mayors, County Commissioners, Chairs of this and Presidents of that. There’s a Fire Chief and a Sheriff. Each church has its Pastor, each school its Principal.

But tonight I’m reminded of our need for leadership. It’s a beautiful spring night, the wind is calm, and bright orange flames slice across the hills outside my kitchen window. It’s FIRE SEASON in the Flint Hills. Tonight, ranching families are doing what they’ve done for so long that most of them would say, “We’ve always done it.”

But this custom of burning every pasture every year (begun in earnest only 30 years ago) is polluting the air as far away as Louisville, Kentucky. It’s destroying habitat for prairie chickens and other native species. The EPA is cracking down and ranchers are hanging on tight to the culture they’ve been raised in.

There is no Prairie Fire Czar with authority enough to dampen the conflict. We don’t need to create another position. No one need be elected or promoted. Finding a solution that the community can live with will require countless, individual acts of leadership.