Comments

I like the riff. As for you Tom, in your own company, how have you measured up to this criteria? I would give myself a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. But no more than that.

Posted by David Porter at June 15, 2009 1:58 PM

Tom - I like the riff and I would go further. I see it as more than evaluation for promotion. This should be the norm for any leader at any time. In fact I’ve long advocate we get rid of the term ‘managing people’ – I have never liked it. We need to bin outdated language and remove the pretentiousness of ‘managing people.’ My good friend Brian Ward of Affinity Consulting puts it this way – “Lead people, manage things.” I find it patronising in 2009 if anyone believes we ‘manage’ anyone any more – people manage themselves for crying out loud! I believe they always have. That’s my rant over for the week - Phew I feel better now .. pass the pills nurse :- )

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 15, 2009 3:31 PM

Tom, this riff is not just A core issue in evaluation of leadership, I think it is quite likely THE core issue. As you know, I am a big advocate of 360 Degree Feedback. I believe in evaluation by higher-ups, peers, and those whose development you oversee. Possibly the most important question to ask a person about the people above them is "How well have they promoted and supported your development, growth, and leadership skills?"

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 15, 2009 4:49 PM

I recently read an article on Fiat in business Week or Fortune on Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne. He was quoted as saying "My job as CEO is not to make business decisions, it is to push managers to be leaders." Absolutely!

I had the opportunity to work on the staff of our wing's senior leadership team for 10 years. During that period many Commanders came and went but each was focused intently on developing the skills and capacity of their subordinate Commanders to achieve great results. In the zero mistake world of military leadership, it's in large part how each survived to move on and up to the next level of command. It has always been something I focused on be it as a leader or a trainer...developing folks to achieve their personal and professional potential is job one!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at June 15, 2009 8:28 PM

There's a rant about the "Me Me Me" culture on another post that, IMHO, would be far better deployed here. There's too many people focused on me and not enough on others.

I love Tom's interview question but I'd like to add another one, along the lines of: "How have you handled the maverick in your organisation? What have you done to give this guy cover from the flack that mavericks attract and what did he do with the headroom you gave him? How does the organisation react to mavericks now?"

Posted by Mark JF at June 16, 2009 2:18 AM

Mark - I appreciate your words. In many organizations the perceived trouble maker gets the boot or alienation at the least. Regarding the Me Me Me culture, unfortunately it seems pervasive these days and should probably be considered in every post.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 16, 2009 6:20 AM

Mark JF, well said!

Posted by tom peters at June 16, 2009 6:30 AM

Very interesting topic. Jack Welch placed the head of HR as the second in charge of a company. What would you like to have the highest quality of? Equipment, location, reporting....or people?

Business is easy, unless there are people involved. It is critical to realize they are the ones that require the most attention. They are the company.

Good riff.

Posted by Patrick Bergen at June 16, 2009 6:44 AM

"Business is easy, unless there are people involved."

I love this! It's so true!

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 16, 2009 7:21 AM

Love it! As an American military officer, I concur that our annual performance assessment's generally don't incorporate the most significant stuff I do in any given day/month/year. All too often, the focus is on dollars and days saved, rather than on people we influence, help and guide.

I think you nailed it as usual, Tom. Leaders really are supposed to be in the mentorship business, the business of helping the people around them to develop, grow and increase their ability to make a difference. That's what I try to focus on anyway, whether it gets me promoted or not...

Posted by Dan Ward at June 16, 2009 7:29 AM

I agree that people development is the most important thing a leader can accomplish, but I don't think it is the only thing. As I see it, key skills also include effective hiring, feedback and praise, communication, and governance. Additionally, I think everyone has a role to play in strategy development. The 'top boss' needs to establish a vision and make strategic decisions, even when the strategic options are developed and recommended by the folks working for him.

Posted by JP at June 16, 2009 8:11 AM

TP – I love your riff! People matter. And if we really believe this, their development is essential. I also love the simplicity of identifying and isolating the nature of the development. Some years ago when I was having some difficulties in leading a difficult team, a very astute brother, a licensed minister and senior banking executive, said to me: "Judith, identify and isolate the behavior of the group. You will recognize in your team members something you have experienced, are experiencing or probably will experience. You will then be able to lead more effectively." I have never forgotten this, as it was so essential to my personal development and that of my team. The beauty of the post is the simplicity of recognizing and working through the development process systematically. Human development is a process, one that interweaves the personal and professional.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 16, 2009 8:27 AM

Tom, I almost always find myself nodding in agreement with your posts, but not in this case (at least not fully).

The part I have a problem with is this:

"It's not the boss' role, for instance, to make strategy."

I've got the inside dope on many floundering organizations, both large and small, and it is precisely because the "boss" has not "made strategy" that their people are fearful and frozen; afraid to innovate for the future.

I strongly agree with John Kotter on this one:

"Leaders establish the vision for the future and set the strategy for getting there."

Hey, you asked. :) Thoughts?

Posted by Tom Asacker at June 16, 2009 12:39 PM

"... it is precisely because the "boss" has not "made strategy" that their people are fearful and frozen; afraid to innovate for the future."

You make a good point here, T.A., but I'd add the caveat that the troops need to be involved in formulating that strategy to some degree. "People tend to support that which they helped to create" is one of my favorite and most useful thought tools. I see it as the boss handing them a map and compass and perhaps poking a push-pin in the map and saying "This is where I want to see us go. How can we get from here to there?" But definitely involve the team in building the strategy for getting there if you want them to walk, run, row, swim, or fly from here to there.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 16, 2009 1:16 PM

Tom A – good to see you – hope you are well. It’s a fascinating point you raise and in my experience the troops do usually want to see clarity of thought and decisiveness from leaders about where the hell we are going. I do tend to agree with Dan that any strategy will be best designed and implemented by involvement of the folks doing the work. The leader can/should set the vision and the stakes in the ground but achieving it is the job of everyone. I don’t think a leader can move everyone to an objective very effectively without involving them quite a lot.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 16, 2009 1:32 PM

Trevor and Tom A, I just had a stupid mental image pop up. Captain of a battleship. He's wearing a life preserver attached to the bow of the ship by a hundred yards of heavy, water-logged rope. He's swimming like hell trying to PULL the ship across the Atlantic, while every single member of the crew is up on deck, swabbing, scraping, polishing and painting to make the ship look good.

"What's that Captain? Hard to hear you way back here. We'll tow you back in closer so we can hear you better... Sorry, Sir, but there's nobody on board with orders or training to start 'er up. The anchor sure is looking good though. Hmmm? I wonder what happens if I push this button? [clank, clank, clank, SPLLLAAASSSHHH] Sorry, Cap'n. Damn, I wonder if they make you walk the plank for getting the Captain's uniform all bloody???"

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 16, 2009 2:02 PM

How about the leader establishes the "what" and the troops assist with the "how"? Herb Kelleher said it best years ago for Southwest Airlines - "We have a strategy, it's called getting stuff done!" Too many orgs create a $50,000 process to solve a $25 problem. Action carries with it power. It's the leader's responsibility to set the strategy and the tone and GET IT IMPLEMENTED RAPIDLY! Too many strategies die in the swamps on the way to the battlefield.

Posted by David Porter at June 16, 2009 2:34 PM

"Too many strategies die in the swamps on the way to the battlefield."

So right David - often because there is too much complexity and far too little simplicity.

Posted by Trevor Gay at June 16, 2009 2:41 PM

Thanks for the follow up responses folks (hi Trevor), and I certainly agree with you all; engagement and involvement is key. But to Dan's point, it is up to the leader to set the strategy AND the tone. how to order viagra online

Herb Kelleher is a prefect example. Despite the fact the his people insisted that Herb not pull out of Denver during a billing dispute, Herb made a strategic decision to leave.

And Steve Jobs has over ruled his people on multiple occasions. But he does so to stay true to Apple's (his) strategic vision.

Due to the complexity and speed of change of today's marketplace, the distinction between the "what" of strategy and the "how" are becoming blurred. I, for one, believe that it's the leader's job to keep it clear AND to keep it moving.

Posted by Tom Asacker at June 16, 2009 2:59 PM

It seems to me very important in this what and how strategy to include when. Timing is everything. It is not only important what and how a thing is done but when it is done. This can make the difference. It also seems to me that we are always sitting around waiting for a leader to arise--sort of like the Republican party--instead of just getting in there and making something happen, offering solutions from the many. The essential voices will rise. Leaders are important for decision-making and direction, but many times direction does not come from the leaders but from the crowd. Listen.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 16, 2009 3:17 PM

Judith, I agree direction does often come from the crowd.

viagra wholesale uk

Tom states in the article that the crowd usually gains this knowledge from some leader. This is extremely impotant so that your employees and mentees can achieve accomplishments as great as yours and hopefully surpass them. The passing down of knowledge is the greatest gift a seasoned proffesional has to offer.

As a college student I recognized the best way to succeed is to study past leaders and want to help other college students obtain the same information I am looking for. That is why I am currently developing a website that takes articles from professionals in every field. This knowledge has so much value to the future leaders.

Posted by Ryan Freed at June 16, 2009 3:30 PM

Ryan - Reading your comment evoked a resounding yes! In our helping we also learn so much. For many many years now I have actively set out to be of assistance in some small way every day, not only to be of help to others but to be helped through my doing. I shall look for your comments more here. Thank you. When will the website be up?

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 16, 2009 3:44 PM

generic viagra without prescription in australia

I don't think the boss has to set the strategy but it is essential that he is seen to set the key strategic goals.

IMO, the setting of this goal should be a collegiate affair. By definition, this will generate differences of opinion: maybe fundamental, maybe just different shades of grey. The important thing is the debate. This will expose people to different opinions, values, methods etc. What the leader needs to do is to ensure the team develops a strategy that will achieve these goals in the right way, i.e. that's true to what the business stands for. But the leader must also be prepared to intervene if he thinks that the strategy doesn't reflect the right way to achieve the goals.

It's a difficult balancing act.

Posted by Mark JF at June 16, 2009 4:35 PM

"... it is up to the leader to set the strategy AND the tone." I can certainly live with that idea being the case in some instances, though not all, just as what I describe is not feasible 100% of the time either.

Kelleher is also a good example of those relatively rare occasions when timing is so "of the essence" that the leader is forced to make a decision and go with it, accompanied by an explanation as to why. Communication is everything. In the majority of situations I've witnessed and studied, however, I will maintain that including the team in every possible step of the process is critical to buy-in and implementation.

Direction and tone simply handed down from on high typically gets you compliance at best; whereas, setting both with the the participation of the team gets you more support and dedication.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 16, 2009 4:39 PM

"It's a difficult balancing act."

Mark JF, well put. You also get into situations where the founder of the company (for example) started with a specific objective in mind. While ideally that objective is part of the culture and agreed upon by all from the day they joined the team, it is possible that the focus has shifted (due to market forces, individual team member ideas, or other influences) and it feels as though things are out of control due to lack of clarity. This is where the skills and reputation of the leader (founder?) can really get tested.

If the leader has a good reputation and good rapport with the team, it might be easy for him to say "This is where I feel we really need to be going and why..." and have little or no problem garnering the support of the team. On the other hand, dictatorial or heavy-handed senior executives can run into a lot of interference and even passive-aggressive behavior, especially if the climate is highly charged with politics and dissension. Environments like that are almost always a serious challenge when situations calling for refocusing or shifting direction arise.

It's a loose control vs. tight control balancing act. In reality, the most workable solutions usually end up falling somewhere closer to the middle of that continuum than to either extreme.

Monarchy vs. anarchy. Neither extreme has a history of working well. If there is a solution on the shelf, it's usually against neither of those bookends. Business is really no different, given that organizations often tend to look structurally and functionally like a cross section of the culture they develop within.

Posted by Dan Gunter at June 16, 2009 4:55 PM

Judith, Agreed, it makes you better as a person as well. It also is very satisfying knowing you could help others achieve greatness.

The website is up and running, www.emergingtiro.com or just click on my name. The introduction talks about how you're greatest legacy is the knowledge you leave for your employees. We have a bunch of authors and keep acquiring more. Would you be interesting in writing an article?

Posted by Ryan Freed at June 17, 2009 9:35 AM

Ryan - Thank you for the link. You have a really good site. I really like the tone and diverse categories. "The Mountain Story" and "Quote of the Week" are great.

"If they had told me I was the janitor and would have to mop up and clean the toilets after the show in order to play, I probably would have done it."

-- Bruce Springsteen

It would be my pleasure to contribute an article. I've even been considering writing some short short business stories with all the drama and lessons of professional life from my many experiences. Perhaps your site will be the first appearance of one.

Thanks for the offer. I'll pop you a note soon.

Posted by Judith Ellis at June 17, 2009 12:26 PM

Hi Tom,

I would love the "general" himself being the part of this conversation. Does he know about the blog / website. Would love to see his views on this. No one from Delhi seminar seem to be conversing here!!!?

Ujwal

Posted by ujwal pradhan at June 17, 2009 11:27 PM

Dave, thanks for the input and the quote. Yes, I don't agree with those managers self-focused only. Good comments! Thnaks.

Posted by Andres Agostini (Andy) at June 19, 2009 8:49 PM