Tag Archives: Churchill

Introduction

During the 1990s, the topic of leadership took on new meaning and interest in organizations. As with many business fads (e.g. total quality management, business process reengineering, and knowledge management), the numbers of articles and books on leadership exploded to serve the insatiable appetites of business people, HR practitioners, and the public in general. Interest in the field of management diminished, while people explored such topics as spiritual leadership; the learning organization concept and its implications for shared leadership; women as leaders; lessons from such notable individuals as Gandhi, Thatcher and Churchill; and Native teachings.

While the plethora of new books and articles on leadership has contributed in an important way to raising the level of awareness and understanding on the subject, it has also created confusion, and perhaps more importantly, relegated management as a discipline to the back burner. It is only in the past decade where some prominent thinkers and writers have begun to stress the importance of management practices in organizations and the need to integrate this discipline with that of leadership development. While the two are distinct, they are nevertheless interrelated.

In a period of discontinuous change (that change is not smooth but rather comes in unpredictable bursts), the interlinking of management and leadership development is extremely important. No longer can organizations afford to address the two fields as separate silos. Instead, a systems approach is required to ensure that an organization’s managers develop good management practices and solid leadership abilities. Combined, the two fields will ensure that those in management positions are able to deal with discontinuous change, and that their staff possess the necessary competencies to learn continuously, explore opportunities, innovate, and serve clients to the highest degree possible.

The Question

Before an organization jumps into developing a management and leadership development model, it is essential that the question be asked: who is a leader in the organization? Is leadership specific to management positions? If so, then leadership is positional in the organizational hierarchy. Or is leadership seen by senior management as being more inclusive, in which employees throughout the organization are encouraged to develop their leadership abilities?

This is a key question to pose because it creates a common vocabulary and set of expectations in an organization. From this will emerge a culture that is defined on how leadership is perceived and practiced.

The issue of leadership versus management development becomes a moot point if leadership in an organization is defined as being the domain of management. As we will see below, approaching the two fields as separate entities only further deepens the rift between them, contributing to misunderstandings throughout an organization, the ineffective use of training funds, and limited progress in creating effective managerial leaders.

If an organization chooses the path of participative leadership, as it recreates its corporate culture, the challenge will be how to create a model that reflects both management and leadership development. For employees in management positions, there is a rapidly growing need to have an approach (or program) that embraces both management and leadership competencies. For aspiring managers, these employees need to be factored into the process. The urgency for this is rising as the existing management cadre begins to retire in large numbers over the next few years. Those seeking to move into management are the succession pool, and hence require sustained attention in terms of their developmental needs.

For employees who do not aspire to be managers, or who will not progress to this level, the added challenge is how to encourage their leadership development, in the context of their participating more in decision-making and in taking more initiative. This assumes that senior management wishes to support the creation of a ‘leaderful’ organization because of the benefits this would bring.

The next section looks at what a number of leading thinkers are saying on management and leadership.

Management versus Leadership

The relationship between leadership and management has been described by Kotter (2001) as “…two distinctive and complementary systems of action.” While each field has its own unique characteristics and functions, both are essential for managers if they are to operate successfully in complex organizations that are subject to continuous change. To focus on leadership development may produce strong leaders, but the consequence will be weak management. And the converse is true. How to combine strong leadership and strong management, so that there is balance, is the real challenge.

Similarly, Drucker (1998) sees the interrelationship between the two. He does not believe that management and leadership can be separated. He states it is “…nonsense*as much nonsense as separating management from entrepreneurship. Those are part and parcel of the same job. They are different to be sure, but only as different as the right hand from the left or the nose from the mouth. They belong to the same body.”

A third perspective is that of Henry Mintzberg, noted for his early empirical work on what managers do. In an interview with CBC’s Ideas in 1999, he explained that managers “…sit between their organizations and the outside world….they manage information in order to encourage people to take action.” Where does leadership fit in his perspectives on organizations? The long lists of attributes and characteristics of leaders leads Mintzberg to state: “…Superman’s abilities are modest in comparison. We list everything imaginable.” For Mintzberg, good leaders are candid, open, honest, and share information with people.

From this brief review of what three leading management thinkers have expressed, one outcome facing organizations with respect to their leadership climate may be described as follows: When an individual enters an organization that is functioning well, one is able to sense it. Some call this the “smell of the place”. It becomes very apparent in this type of organizational climate that there is abundant energy present, and that this energy is focused. People enjoy going to work everyday because they understand where they fit into the organization’s vision and what their roles and responsibilities are. They are committed.

This is the challenge, therefore, of weaving together the roles of management and leadership so that they form a coherent whole, with respect to how the works get done in organizations. But what can we say about the key distinctions and complementarities between management and leadership?

Management & Leadership as Functions

Increasingly, managers must deal with complexity in their organizations and the surrounding environment. In the absence of good management practices, organizations fall into chaos, which in turn threatens their survival. Thus, one can say that management brings order to organizations and consistency to their products and services. Leadership, in contrast, involves coping with change. In a world experiencing economic and societal turbulence, this key feature of leadership is becoming increasingly valuable to organizations.

These two features, coping with complexity and change, shape the functions of management and leadership. In the real world, therefore, managers have three essential tasks to perform. First, they must determine the work that needs to be done by their staff. Second, to accomplish this work people must work laterally, often forming networks. Managers are conduits to ensuring that this occurs. And third, they must ensure that the work gets done properly and on time.

Management and leadership, while both addressing these tasks, approach them from different perspectives.

Planning

Planning, budgeting, and resource allocation are activities initiated through the management function in an effort to address the issue of complexity. As a management process, planning is about producing orderly results, not about change. Leadership, on the other hand, involves creating a vision to chart a course for the organization. As part of this process, strategies are developed to initiate and sustain the needed changes to stay focused on the vision. How this is done is critical to helping move an organization towards its vision.

Organizing

To reach its goals, management organizes and hires. This involves creating an organizational structure, including a set of job descriptions, that will enable the organization to achieve these goals. Through this process of organizing and staffing, management develops delegation authorities and monitoring systems. It also creates communication plans to ensure that employees understand what is taking place.

But the management function needs the opposing hand of leadership to assist it, namely in aligning people. Communication becomes a critical activity here, especially in regard to ensuring that all employees understand the vision.

Controlling

Management must also ensure that the plan is achieved, and it is does this through controlling and problem-solving. Monitoring plays an important role here. In contrast, leadership requires that people are motivated and inspired to work towards a vision, despite setbacks and unforeseen problems.

What does this mean for Management/Leadership Development?

This paper has shown that while management and leadership do indeed possess some distinct differences, there is also a complementarity that is emerging. The growth in knowledge work and the expectations of workers (e.g., Generation Y) are strongly influencing how both leadership and management are practices. Work still needs to be planned, organized, directed, coordinated, monitored, etc. But the context is changing rapidly, both from an externally driven, discontinuous change perspective, and from within – the values people possess and what motivates and inspires them.

How organizations approach management and leadership development is critical to their eventual success, let alone their long-term survival. And as noted at the outset, one of the first questions that must be asked is “How do we define leadership in our organization?”

References

Drucker, Peter. (Sept. 1998). Feature Interview with Peter Drucker. Training & Development Magazine.
Kotter, John. (Reprint Dec. 2001) What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review. pp. 85-87.
Mintzberg, Henry. In Conversation. CBC Ideas. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1999.

James Taggart has been a student of leadership for over 15 years, and devoted over a decade to applied work in leadership development, organizational learning, and team building. As a thought leader, he has initiated and led several change management projects. He has also worked as an economist for many years, conducting applied research into labour market issues; carrying out policy research in the areas of science, technology and innovation; and initiating projects focused on industrial competitiveness.

In addition to bachelor and master degrees in economics from the University of New Brunswick, Jim holds an executive master degree from Royal Roads University in Victoria. His master’s thesis was on the topic of shared leadership.

Jim invites you to visit his leadership website: Changing Winds.com

Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/James_Taggart/340737

Leadership

How to Run a Leadership Activity

March 2, 2008 MYORBITX

The big buzz in the Learning and Development community is about Leadership development. “If only we could train good leaders,” goes the argument, “we could be beat the world”

This belief is so well ingrained that hardly anyone stops to question it. But when you step back for a second, there are a number of huge questions. For example:

1. If leaders need training, who trained Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin?

2. If leaders can be easily trained, why are there any followers (which begs the question :)

3. What is so great about being a leader anyway?

4. If everyone understands how to lead, doesn’t that cause a problem when followers are led badly?

We all know good leaders. We knew them when we were in the playground; and when they conceived a mischief, we followed. We probably tried our first clandestine cigarette at the behest of a leader and pursued our childhood interests at their bidding too. So it is clear that leadership qualities are not only apparent from a young age but are an important part of our development.

So why do we think that we need to train leaders? Well for several reasons. Firstly, although leadership may be an innate talent, like all natural gifts, if it is not channelled correctly, bad habits develop and blossoming potential can go unrealized. Secondly, there is more need for leadership than there are candidates. Playground leaders may go on to military careers or become high flyers in the world of big business, but they are not likely to end up running a small social services unit in an out of the way provincial town.

Finally, leaders need to be part of a team, and for the team to function efficiently, the led need to know the ground rules so that they can serve effectively. So having concluded that leadership training is both necessary and desirable, how can it be organized?

The jumping off point for any training course is, and has to be, formal instruction in the theory and principles of leadership. There are just three ways of doing this.

1. Books. There are literally hundred of texts on leadership. Most of the business schools also provide free podcasts and webinars. The eager student can soak up any number of treatises on various leadership systems and processes but be cautious.

Some of the best writing is outdated and doesn’t meet with modern management ideas. Many of the academic pieces are useful but based on case studies at the very peak of leadership experience and thus divorced from practical reality. While books are an essential resource, they are only satisfactory as a reference and as part of more focussed study.

2. Courses. There may not be as many courses as there are books but it feels that way. Regardless of your discipline, geography academic background or vocational sector, there will be a leadership course bespoked to your needs and packaged to meet your requirements. Although many of these courses will be tailored to your industry by an experienced practitioner; in the end, the leadership system, process or methodology taught will be as much a matter of personal preference of the trainer as it will be reflective of any best practice. In reality there are hundreds of leadership models.

All will be based on observation and research and will have some applicability, but there is no “right” or “wrong” system. All a course does is highlight one particular approach and provide the basis for consistency amongst those that attend.

3. Practical Experience. The sure fire way of developing leadership skills is to practice. If under the leader’s leadership, the outcome is “success” then he or she needs to capture the behaviours that led to that success. And if it was failure, then behaviours need to be modified and tried again. Which is why coaching and mentoring are so effective.

But of course, while practical experience may be very desirable, it can also be expensive and risky. So how can organizations who want to imbue leadership qualities provide the opportunity to practice in a safe environment which allows emerging leaders to make their mistakes and learn from them?

Although I tire of hearing clients say that their business is “different”, the truth is that no enterprise is identical to any other. Just as every person is an individual, so every organization reflects the individuals in it in terms of history, culture, systems, processes and resources. There may be common characteristics that may mark out a leader in a company but there is no absolute answer.

Organizations have to develop training regimes that suit their own purpose. Regardless of how this is achieved, the starting point will nearly always be a process, model or philosophy that expresses the culture of “how ‘leadership’ gets done around here.”

Whilst there is no doubt that formal courses have an important role to play in defining a common understanding of, and approach to leadership, in the final analysis, the practical element of developing leadership skills must be an internal process. Although not necessarily universally recognized or accepted, many leadership approaches are based on a six stage model:

1. History: How did we get to where we are?

2. Situation: What’s going on right now?

3. Forecast: What will happen if we don’t change?

4. Vision: Where do we want to go?

5. Strategy: How do we use our resources to meet our objectives?

6. Implementation: Timetable, actions & responsibilities

This model suggests that in order to be successful, the leader has to ask six basic questions:

A. Where do we want to be?

B. Where are we coming from?

C. Where are we heading if we keep going as now?

D. Where are we now?

E. By when do we want to be there?

F. How will we get there and what do we need?

By following this approach the leader can structure his team, deploy his resources and provide support, guidance and information that will get the team there.

Continue reading →

Leadership

Turn Your Speech Into A Leadership Talk

December 26, 2004 MYORBITX

My experience working with thousands of leaders world wide for the past two decades teaches me that most leaders are screwing up their careers.

On a daily basis, these leaders are getting the wrong results or the right results in the wrong ways.

Interestingly, they themselves are choosing to fail. They’re actively sabotaging their own careers.

Leaders commit this sabotage for a simple reason: They make the fatal mistake of choosing to communicate with presentations and speeches — not leadership talks.

In terms of boosting one’s career, the difference between the two methods of leadership communication is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.

Speeches/presentations primarily communicate information. Leadership talks, on the other hand, not only communicate information, they do more: They establish a deep, human emotional connection with the audience.

Why is the later connection necessary in leadership?

Look at it this way: Leaders do nothing more important than get results. There are generally two ways that leaders get results: They can order people to go from point A to point B; or they can have people WANT TO go from A to B.

Clearly, leaders who can instill “want to” in people, who motivate those people, are much more effective than leaders who can’t or won’t.

And the best way to instill “want to” is not simply to relate to people as if they are information receptacles but to relate to them on a deep, human, emotional way.

And you do it with leadership talks.

Here are a few examples of leadership talks.

When Churchill said, “We will fight on the beaches … ” That was a leadership talk.

When Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you … ” that was a leadership talk.

When Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” That was a leadership talk.

You can come up with a lot of examples too. Go back to those moments when the words of a leader inspired people to take ardent action, and you’ve probably put your finger on an authentic leadership talk.

Mind you, I’m not just talking about great leaders of history. I’m also talking about the leaders in your organizations. After all, leaders speak 15 to 20 times a day: everything from formal speeches to informal chats. When those interactions are leadership talks, not just speeches or presentations, the effectiveness of those leaders is dramatically increased.

How do we put together leadership talks? It’s not easy. Mastering leadership talks takes a rigorous application of many specific processes. As Clement Atlee said of that great master of leadership talks, Winston Churchill, “Winston spent the best years of his life preparing his impromptu talks.”

Churchill, Kennedy, Reagan and others who were masters at giving leadership talks didn’t actually call their communications “leadership talks”, but they must have been conscious to some degree of the processes one must employ in putting a leadership talk together.

Here’s how to start. If you plan to give a leadership talk, there are three questions you should ask. If you answer “no” to any one of those questions, you can’t give one. You may be able to give a speech or presentation, but certainly not a leadership talk.

(1) DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS?
Winston Churchill said, “We must face the facts or they’ll stab us in the back.”

When you are trying to motivate people, the real facts are THEIR facts, their reality.

Their reality is composed of their needs. In many cases, their needs have nothing to do with your needs.

Most leaders don’t get this. They think that their own needs, their organization’s needs, are reality. That’s okay if you’re into ordering. As an order leader, you only need work with your reality. You simply have to tell people to get the job done. You don’t have to know where they’re coming from. But if you want to motivate them, you must work within their reality, not yours.

I call it “playing the game in the people’s home park”. There is no other way to motivate them consistently. If you insist on playing the game in your park, you’ll be disappointed in the motivational outcome.

(2) CAN YOU BRING DEEP BELIEF TO WHAT YOU’RE SAYING?
Nobody wants to follow a leader who doesn’t believe the job can get done. If you can’t feel it, they won’t do it.

But though you yourself must “want to” when it comes to the challenge you face, your motivation isn’t the point. It’s simply a given. If you’re not motivated, you shouldn’t be leading.

Here’s the point: Can you TRANSFER your motivation to the people so they become as motivated as you are?

I call it THE MOTIVATIONAL TRANSFER, and it is one of the least understood and most important leadership determinants of all.

There are three ways you can make the transfer happen.

* CONVEY INFORMATION. Often, this is enough to get people motivated. For instance, many people have quit smoking because of information on the harmful effects of the habit

* MAKE SENSE. To be motivated, people must understand the rationality behind your challenge. Re: smoking: People have been motivated to quit because the information makes sense.

* TRANSMIT EXPERIENCE. This entails having the leader’s experience become the people’s experience. This can be the most effective method of all, for when the speaker’s experience becomes the audience’s experience, a deep sharing of emotions and ideas, a communing, can take place.

There are plenty of presentation and speech courses devoted to the first two methods, so I won’t talk about those.

Here’s a few thoughts on the third method. Generally speaking, humans learn in two ways: by acquiring intellectual understanding and through experience. In our schooling, the former predominates, but it is the latter which is most powerful in terms of inducing a deep sharing of emotions and ideas; for our experiences, which can be life’s teachings, often lead us to profound awareness and purposeful action.