Winston Churchill said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; and an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
You can’t have opportunity without opposition, whether it is internal or external. Part of being successful in life is learning to pass the test of opposition. You’ve heard it said, “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” But in reality, most just give up. The true test of a winner is how they handle the tough times.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Never in the field of commercial business has so much been damaged, for so many, by so few.” The failure of expectations has been widespread, severe, and rapid. Clearly, our previous approach to leadership will be discredited—but what will replace it?
A return to principled leadership. The kind we admire. The kind we tell stories about. People have been thinking and writing about this kind of leadership for 3,000 years. Deep in our cultural cellars there is a forgotten vintage of thinking that must be resurrected to lubricate the rebuilding of our economy.
The old truths, and important ones, suggest that to lead, leaders must have foresight, and they must lead by example. They must motivate and inspire on a moral basis, through aspiration as well as rewards and punishments. It is precisely this calm, considered, and ethical leadership, required to lead and inspire large numbers of people when the economics are tough, that seems in such short supply today.
Take a few moments to read Richard Raulson’s complete article, “Leadership Lessons and the Economic Crisis: Where We’ve Come From and Where We’re Headed.”
Great leaders make sense.
By that I mean two things. First, they actively seek to understand the world. They construct meaning, interpret events, connect dots, analyze situations, and explore what to do about it all. Like people working on a jigsaw puzzle, they turn the pieces around and around until they fit.
Second, sense-making leaders take the time to explain, not just to inspire. They know how to communicate their logic and they can tell a story about it, so that people say, "Yes, I get it. That makes sense." President Franklin Roosevelt's famous fireside chats were a superb example of sense-making leadership, and displayed the kind of communication and response that occurs when the facts are marshaled in service of clear meaning.
In the midst of all the economic and emotional confusion being experienced right now, does your leadership make sense?
Here are excerpts from a GALLUP Management Journal interview with Jim Clifton, Gallup's chairman and CEO, on the fading impact of “process improvement” and the need to move into a new state-of-mind driven approach to leadership. In Clifton’s opinion, the old ways of doing business won't work anymore. The men and women who will conquer this new world will be the ones who best understand their constituencies' state of mind. ( I underlined a few KEY points.)
Q: Before you talk about the next generation of leadership, what was the last generation of leadership?
A: Process improvement was the last big leadership evolution. General Electric's leadership is a good example -- they did Six Sigma perfectly. Jack Welch was the king of process innovation. But when Jeff Immelt took over, he had a problem -- there was nothing left for him to Six Sigma.
That's true for everybody. In America, Europe, Japan, most of the benefits have been squeezed out of process improvement and neoclassical economics. That's one of the problems Wall Street is facing -- investors have exactly the same data and methodology from neoclassical economics, but it no longer differentiates anything.
I'm not shortchanging neoclassical economics; that and process improvements worked really well for a while. Why did Japan rise up out of nowhere to dominate the world? Well, one big reason was the influence of quality guru Dr. Edwards Deming. He led with his next-generation leadership idea, and Japan seized on it first. It worked. Implementing that kind of thinking was very good for our company too. We immediately made more money; we immediately were more productive.
Now companies are structured to do a magnificent job with that kind of data. But it's absolutely not enough anymore. There hasn't been a big idea for leadership in 25 years, nothing that shows the huge sweet spots and pushes the big advancements. Now we need the next generation of leadership, because we've maxed out everything else. There aren't many competitive advantages left in process improvement. People have done everything they can do with neoclassical economics. You can lean-management, Six Sigma, and TQM your company to death.The next evolution of leadership requires a change.
The next evolution of leadership, the next big idea, will be leading with an in-depth understanding of states of mind rather than with an in-depth understanding of financial statements. That's where the low-hanging fruit is. Innovation, talent, and entrepreneurship are what matter most to leaders now. Those are the areas new leadership must master, because those are the areas that will drive growth in the new economy.
Q: So why will leaders who can quantify states of mind be the winners in this new world?
A: Because those leaders will be the ones with the information -- the data -- that's needed to solve the world's biggest problems. Here's an example: Many people think money is the solution to every problem. Problems like education, security, job creation, and well-being can be solved, but leaders are using the wrong tools to solve them. Mostly, they're just throwing money at them. Leaders can double productivity if they spend enough on it, but it's not sustainable. Eventually, they run out of things to spend money on -- or money to spend -- and improvement stops, then starts trending down.
In the world we're competing in now, solving problems isn't about spending money. It's about understanding and managing ideas and talent -- and states of mind. That's where the new leadership breakthroughs will be. Leaders who can quantify states of mind and make decisions about their constituencies based on that information are the ones who will lead the world.
Q: What's the business value of quantifying states of mind?
A: Remember, in the global marketplace, you can get anything from anywhere at the price you want -- or close to it. And that negates competition based on price or quality, and it makes states of mind much more important. It raises the bar on understanding how and why people behave the way they do.
Q: Such as workers and customers?
A: Exactly. When leaders have choices to make, they can't base them solely on price or quality. They now must make decisions based on their workers' and customers' states of mind. In the old days, a business leader could be really successful by mastering accounting. Nothing works without perfect accounting, of course, but accounting is not a leader's job anymore. Leaders have to push that function to their staff.
Now leaders need to calibrate their strategies not just against the old neoclassical economic data but also against a new institution of behavioral economic data that quantifies the role of human nature in their constituencies. This requires a whole new way to lead.
-- Interviewed by Jennifer Robison
“The courage of self-examination can lead to heightened self-awareness that results in leadership actions that benefit not only the leader but the entire organization. Courage is essential in looking inward, as is holding yourself accountable for what you see.” – John Baldoni
“Your time is limited so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of other peoples thinking. Don’t let the noise of others opinions drown out your own inner voice and most important have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.” - Steve Jobs
A recent Labor Department report showed that US productivity soared at 9.5% pace in third quarter -- more than four times the average productivity growth rate of the past quarter-century. Although fewer workers are working fewer hours, companies still saw a drastic increase in output. And with lower employment costs, reaped healthy profits.
Economists I heard hailed the statistic as a beginning sign of economic health and the capacity of workers to get more done.
Certainly with the economy in near shambles, and over 500,000 weekly unemployment claims being made, employees that still have work are working harder than ever – under the constant feeling of risk for their own jobs or businesses.
I’m all for productivity (I’m personally a HUGE fan of it!). But these recent numbers remind me more of the scene from the movie Schindler’s List when a Nazi Officer demanded (at gunpoint) that a Jewish worker perform a task in a specific – and very aggressive – time frame. The Jewish worker feverishly pulled it off, beating the clock by a fraction of a second, only to has his previous productivity evaluated on the basis of that do-or-die situation. Obviously, he came up short.
That we can drastically increase performance when pressed is a testimony to our human abilities. But just like a sprinter, we cannot keep the fast pace up for long distances. Sustainable productivity growth requires a sustainable pace.
Studies show that fewer than one-in-five employees utilize their strengths at work. What might happen if you increased that percentage to 40% or 60% or even 100%! Imagine the possibilities!
Improving upon our weaknesses simply moves us to mediocrity, not strength. When we discover and build strengths, we awaken and engage the absolute best in people.
Building leaders, teams, and organizations that are truly strengths-based is a must for organization’s that desire to truly thrive – no matter their size or industry. Organizations that build a strengths-based culture, and create internal processes that drive strengths:
Stop concentrating on your weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Start unleashing the power of your organization’s strengths today!
There exists a phenomenon in organizations that has always fascinated me: An organization almost always takes on the personality of its leader. Other than the rare exception, the strengths and weaknesses of the leader inevitably become the strengths and weaknesses of the team or organization.
Don't believe me? The try this little exercise. On a piece of paper, write down the greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses of your team or organization. On another piece of paper, write down the greatest strengths and weaknesses of the top decision maker for your team or organization – whether it is you or someone else. When you compare the lists, you’ll be amazed at how similar they are!
Because of how much power and influence he or she has, the leader of a team or organization decides what behavior is rewarded and what behavior is not rewarded in that organization. Those who choose to remain in the organization must conform to the leader's preferences in order to succeed personally.
Example #1: A President is acutely aware of every aspect and facet of his operation. He establishes clear and inviolable rules for everything, is very cost conscious, and even monitors whether his Vice Presidents are at work by 8 a.m. and whether they leave before 5 p.m.
His greatest personal strength is attention to detail, and his greatest personal weakness is failure to see the big picture, or "majoring in the minors." His organization is very profitable for a while, but profits begin to disappear over time because of a lack of investment in people and infrastructure to compete in a rapidly changing world.
Example #2: A well-liked and driven CEO places a premium on constantly generating radically new ideas for the business. Her organization boasts all manner of brainstorming meetings and input groups, and there is always a veritable plethora (perhaps even a cornucopia) of rushed and sometimes conflicting new initiatives underway.
Her greatest personal strengths are charisma and creativity, and her greatest personal weakness is insufficient focus. Her organization generally does well, but suffers regular financial setbacks from trying to be "all things to all people" and from pursuing unprofitable ventures that are not sufficiently analyzed beforehand.
Can it be avoided? If so, what can you do about it? Here are three actions to balance your own leadership strengths and weaknesses:
Read the post from Terry Dockery.
I’m taking a poll of organizational leaders. The question: “As an organizational leader, what are you most concerned about right now?”
Click here to give your input.
