Are Washington DC politics harming our ability to lead effectively?

I was on the phone with a CEO today who said that these were the toughest times he had seen. He said that leadership is more challenging now than ever before. His major concerns? (1) the fast pace of society; (2) the negativity coming out of Washington DC; and (3) the pressure to do more with less. 

Interestingly, as I thought about this, I concluded that for issue number one, some good old-fashioned time management is in order; for issue number three, some process engineering and LEAN / Six Sigma could help; but, for issue number four, I am at a loss. 

My question – to what extent is the nonsense in Washington DC by both parties impacting our ability to effectively lead? 

Perhaps I have become too political in this particular blog post. Sorry.

The Younger Generation Are Just Fine

Bonjour

Just back from a nice trip to France. During part of the trip, we stayed 5 nights at a newer Paris hotel that was staffed almost exclusively by associates in their 20's. Their attention to service was great and their feeling of being a part of a team was so clear to see. I must admit that at times while teaching leadership workshops, I tire of hearing those who say, "The members of the younger generation just do not have the same work ethic and values that we have." I saw no evidence of it these past two weeks.

Excitement. Shared mission and vision. Feeling a part of a team. Leadership, that's it.

One More Time - Traits

Another thought about trait theory – quite frankly, it is easy to show that certain individuals who do not possess certain traits that are reputed to be part of effective leadership nonetheless are still effective leaders.  Another way to look at this is consider the fact that traits alone do not drive effective leadership – but, if they are present, it becomes easier for leaders to be successful.  Essentially, individuals who are extroverted are more likely to be successful as leaders.

And iun fact, there are several traits such as extroversion that often are hallmarks of effective leaders. Most lists would contain (a) the desire to lead, (b) drive, (c) integrity, (d) self-confidence, and (e) intelligence.

Perhaps if you have followed my prior posts on trait theories, it may now sound as if I am retracting my earlier position. I am not. The point I am trying to make though is that individuals should not rely solely upon a list of traits to try to grow as leaders. Instead, those wanting to be more effective leaders must (a) nconsider the contingency nature of what they do as leaders and (b) focus on the specific competencies or skills sets required to lead.

Trait Theory - Are Leaders Born To Lead?

One of the major problems with trait theory is that it suggests that people are born with certain traits or qualities that make them effective leaders. Clearly, as an individual who believes strongly in leadership development, I would reject this outright. Once again, I use the example of a person who is, essentially from birth, highly social and interactive with others. It is a given that more effective leaders are able to exhibit strong social interactive skills and that individuals who possess this tendency “naturally” have more leadership opportunities. But that does not mean that an introverted person cannot practice highly interactive skills. This introverted person may not have the social tendency come as easily and as naturally but it can be present. 

In similar manner, a person who is described as very honest could learn to be deceitful and a person who is described as deceitful could learn to be honest.  Many of our propensities are influenced by multiple factors as we interact with others. 

This I believe – leaders can be developed. Leaders can learn skills that comprise effective leadership and those skills can be enhanced and improved. For some, because of factors that are hereditary in nature, those skills may be more easily learned and practiced. However, the bottom line conclusion is that if trait theory indicates that leaders are born, I must reject it as an absolute principle.

Trait Theory Hit a Nerve

Well, interesting - I received two emails that would indicate I hit a nerve with my post criticizing the trait theory of leadership.

Essentially, the comments made to me were: 

• Are you suggesting that the trait theory is worthless?
• Aren’t traits just competencies - and I know you push the use of competencies?
• What’s wrong with being loyal, trustworthy, brave, etc.?

OK, let’s begin to answer these questions.  However, note that this will take more than a single post. Bear with me over the next few weeks as I provide insight into the trait theory.

But let me begin with the proviso that I do not think the study of the trait theory is a waste of time. My primary concern with the trait theory is that it relegates leadership to a single dimension – and that is a gross over simplification. Leadership is quite complex, difficult to fully define, and even more difficult to quantify in an empirical manner.

I believe there is an art to leadership as well as a science. I also believe that some aspects of leadership are inborn while others can be learned. I also strongly believe that internal values drive external leadership behavior.

With that in mind, continue to check in for more discourse on the trait theory.

If It Was Just That Simple

I could not resist this post - today, on a very popular website appeared an article, called Trait Leadership, (not really the title - instead I changed it to avoid targeting the specific website), essentially purporting to be the guide to effective leadership. The article is drawn from several so-called leadership experts (none of whom is an academic nor a well known leadership author) and the central message of the article is that certain traits drive effective leadership. Also known as the "trustworthy, loyal, brave, honest and true" viewpoint, trait theories are not backed by research facts. Unfortunately, the practice of using a list of traits to describe good leadership simply does not suggest that effective leadership will occur. Solid studies dating back to the 1940's have consistently shown that there is no correlation whatsoever between traits and effective leadership. A pioneer in leadership, Ralph Stogdill, clearly proved that there were no universal traits that consistently drove effective leadership. The fact is that trait leadership theories do not hold water. Tragically, internet articles like this one today perpetuate these falsehoods.

Leadership is far too complex to yield to a list of behavioral traits. Trait theory entirely ignores the significant evidence that much of leadership is contingent upon situations and followers. 

I would encourage to be cautious when reading these popular blips on the internet. If you are truly interested in the study and practice of leadership, be certain that you are digesting evidence-based leadership literature.

Work Ethic

I just saw this blog and I was struck by its relevance --

http://blog.growingleaders.com/leadership/how-does-a-leader-build-a-work-ethic-in-a-recent-graduate/

Interestingly, in practically every executive search I conduct, the hiring authority(ies) always express as one of their required traits/attributes for their leaders are those who have excellent work ethics. By this, I have always felt that the meaning of this had to do with long work hours, "going the extra mile" in getting a job done, diligence, conscientiousness, thoroughness, and practicing some amount of self-denial.

Yet we read so much about trying to maintain a proper work-life balance. I am told by my adult children that their generation has chosen not to observe a work ethic like my generation has done. Perhaps that is true but i still have to raise the question - "To what extent is a strong work ethic a key variable in leadership success?"

I will plan to discuss work ethic in more detail in future blogs.

(Sidebar note - I was very impressed by Dr. Tim Elmore's site - I encourage you to take  a look.)

The "Say - Do" Ratio

Leaders would gain great reputations if they had a higher "say - do" ratio. How often do you "do" what you "say" you will do?

The Disposable Worker?

I do not often review current articles in this blog but this one truly caught my attention. As a former human resources executive and now as an executive recruiter, I often think about the conflict between trying to create a highly engaged workforce and needing to manage labor costs.

The Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2011, carried several articles on the the lack of hiring in the current economy. Not only is the governmental / political party mess to blame, but the need to stay flexible with labor costs also has a significant impact on hiring and retention. But the following comment really struck me as a concern when trying to maintain a highly engaged employee workforce:

"Executives call it "structural cost reduction" or "flexibility." Northwestern University economist Robert Gordon calls it the rise of "the disposable worker," shorthand for a push by businesses to cut labor costs wherever they can, to an almost unprecedented degree."

The disposable worker -- What a difficult balance - between labor cost management and ensuing loyalty and engagement with the workforce.

Personality and Leadership

I have been thinking once again on the topic of personality and its application to leadership.  I view personality from two perspectives – one from the internal viewpoint, or that which is on the inside of people that makes them who they are (values, beliefs, principles, etc.) and drives their behavior; and the second, from the external viewpoint, or from the perspective of what is observed (actual behavior). 

To summarize:

Personality from the inside, or the view defined in terms of a person’s identity: 

• ·         This is how a person sees oneself and decides to present to others
• ·         Based on hopes, dreams, and aspirations
• ·         But – it is difficult to measure and difficult to study
• ·         And – it is not always reflected in behaviors

Personality from the outside, or an observer’s view of a person – which is that person’s reputation:

• ·         It can be defined in terms of traits (e.g., calm, ambitious, careful, gregarious, etc.)
• ·         Reflects how a person’s behavior has been evaluated after repeated interactions with others
• ·         Importantly, it can be used to predict a person’s performance
• ·         It is easy to study -- job performance is based on an observer’s perspectives

Leaders have distinct identities and distinct reputations. The key in evaluating leaders is determining each of these two factors and using them to assess fit with a specific job and culture.