The Essence of Leadership

I was with a group in Missouri this week and this topic came up.  I used this from the Exceptional Leadership book ( Health Administration Press, 2006, Carson F. Dye, & Andrew N. Garman)

A fundamental polarity in the leadership role involves the balance between self-interest – what you do to serve your own needs - and selfless interest – what you do to serve the needs of others (or the needs of an organization).  Balance means that both sets of needs are adequately served.  Too much emphasis on the selfish side, and your influence in the organization may erode, or fail to develop in the first place.  Too much emphasis on the selfless side, and the responsibilities of your role will erode your familial relationships, your health, and your well-being.

Serving the needs of others - oh, that we had more leaders who lead in that manner.

Intrapersonal Skills

Robert Hogan writes, “Intrapersonal skills develop early and have important consequences for career development in adulthood. This domain seems to have three natural components. The first can be described as core self-esteem (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998), emotional security, or perhaps resiliency. People with core self-esteem are self-confident, they have stable, positive moods, they are not easily frustrated or upset, and they bounce back quickly from reversals and disappointments. Persons who lack core self-esteem are self-critical, moody, unhappy, easily frustrated, hard to soothe, and need frequent reassurance and positive feedback. Core self-esteem is easy to measure, which means we can give managers reliable feedback on the subject. Moreover, measures of core self-esteem predict a wide variety of career outcomes, including job satisfaction and performance evaluations, which means clients should pay attention to feedback on this topic.” (Academy of Management Learning and Education March 2003 Robert HOGAN & Rodney Warrenfeltz)

Pay specific attention to the issue of core self-esteem.

Consider leaders who have / are  

• ·         self-confidence
• ·         stable, positive moods
• ·         not easily frustrated or upset
• ·         bounce back quickly from reversals and disappointments

Put bluntly, if you don’t feel pretty good about yourself, you are not going to be an effective leader.

(Note also the reference is to “intrapersonal” not “interpersonal” skills.)

Five Factor Theory of Personality

I found a great link today on the Five Factor Theory. I have been talking to various people lately about the importance of managing selection.  I have become very concerned that too many organizations are using instruments such as the Myers-Briggs (MBTI) and the DiSC for selection.

The fact is there are no correlation studies supporting their use in selection. To get to statistically valid instruments / tests, you must use something like the Hogan Assessments (their HPI or HDS - see www.hoganassessments.com).

Read the followoinjg link by Dr. Maynard Brusman (Consulting Psychologist and Executive Coach)

This is one of the best descriptions I have ever seen of the Five Factor Theory.

http://www.workingresources.com/nss-folder/pdffolder/LeadershipPersonality.pdf

In the next few blogs, I will talk about how this theory relates to selection. 

More on Integrity

Sometimes I love to see what our uniformed world (soldiers, sailors, airmen, firefighters, police) say about leadership.  Here is a great site --

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Aug/MD-TMC-leader-integ101.html

Integrity involves the three R’s:

Respect for self;

Respect for others; and

Responsibility for all your actions.

Integrity - Again!

The word integrity --  comes from the Latin root  “integer.”

Integers were taught to us in math -- they are whole numbers.

Integrity truly means whole, or complete.

So how does that relate to leadership?  

Some definitional phrases ---

Absolute adherence to a strict ethical code

Moral soundness

Honesty

Uprightness

"Say-do" ratio 

Integrity

So I had a question this week -- do exceptional leaders have a higher level of integrity than their followers?

Let's begin with this thought -- the fact is that intergrity has many dimensions. It is not a simple factor of leadership.

I think all readers would agree that high integrity is a given for exceptional leaders. BUT, what about their followers?

Two issues surface here - the first is - what type of followers are required for highly effective leadership? The second is related to the opening question - does it matter what characteristics or traits or competencies the followers have when it comes to the efficacy of leadership?

I think the answer is academic - it really does not matter what followers have. While having highly skilled followers and having followers who may have high integrity may actually make it easier for a leader to be more effective, I would argue that the skills and competencies of leaders and followers can be mutually exclusive.

Give this one some thought.

Flexible Leadership

I had a couple of people ask about the HBR Goleman article.  Here is a summary of the six primary styles of leadership and some brief descriptions. I encourage you to read the entire article. It is one of the better ones on leadership styles.( Leadership That Gets Results - by Daniel Goleman - Harvard Business Review March–April 2000). Here are the styles --  

Coercive Style - Demands immediate compliance

Works best in a crisis, to kick start a turnaround, or with problem employees (impact in the organization is negative).

Authoritative Style- This style mobilizes people toward a vision

Works best when changes require a new vision, or when a clear direction is needed (impact on the organization is usually positive).

Affiliative Style - Creates harmony and builds emotional bonds

Works best to heal rifts in a team or to motivate people during stressful circumstances (impact is positive)

Democratic Style - This style forges consensus through participation

Works best to build buy-in or consensus or to get input from valuable employees ( impact on the organization is positive).

Pacesetting Style - sets high standards for performance

Works best to get quick results from a highly motivated and competent team (impact on the organization is negative).

Coaching Style - Works best to develop people for the future

Works best to help an employee improve performance or develop long-term strengths ( impact on the organization is positive).

Yes There are Still Drill Sergeant Leaders

So, just after being refreshed by a CEOs people skills earlier this week, I was reminded that there are still autocrats in the leadership world. And -- these are not always all older individuals. I was told the story of a younger CEO who is "large and in charge" and constantly directive in his style. 

While I certainly agree with Dan Goleman's article, Leadership That Gets Results (Harvard Business Review March/April 2000), in which he suggests the best leaders are able to display multiple styles including an autocrat style, I still hear and see of this style used as a primary one far too often.

When will leaders become more adept at self reflection

and see themselves as others see them?

Maybe Nothing Counts More Than People Skills

I had a one hour session with a very good CEO today. I walked away thinking, "Nothing counts more than people skills."

What do you think?

Leadership and The Continuing Protests

I remain alarmed over the continuing protests around the country and the globe. I find these different than the protests of the 60's in the US. Those protests had fairly specific end goals in mind (e.g., get out of the Viet Nam war). While many current protesters seem to be "against" banks and capital and Wall Street, there seems to be no purpose and certainly no suggested outcome.

As I wrote in an earlier blog (October 5, 2011), I relate this to the practice of leadership. My concern: leaders are probably included in many of these protesters' definition of greed and corporate corruption. If the so-called "movement" begins to surface inside organizations (whether banks, factories, hospitals, schools, service industry employers, or even churches), leadership will be challenged there as well. Unions have long served to protest and challenge the decisions of leaders through representation, grievances, and contract negotiations. And while I have historically been on the management side of the labor-management relations interface, I have always understood the need in some cases for unions. But this movement is different. The voice of the movement seems to articulate only "it just is not fair" statements. The protesters simply protest without making any concrete suggestions. And many statements I have read sound more like a call for total chaos - "let's just get rid of all leaders because leaders are the ones who have caused all of our problems to begin with." Moreover, the challenges go to the heart of what organizations are all about - essentially, common vision, organizational mission, structure, rules, rewards, and recognition.  

Now more than ever we need our organizations and we need our leaders. And we need leaders to lead large groups of people toward change visions and new missions.

Now, before readers accuse me of painting the picture that organizations and corporations are all pure and above challenge and reproach, let me respond. Enron, Arthur Andersen, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers, and countless others have cheated and denigrated workers and violated common ethics and values. Our government - both parties - is to blame for so much of this lack of confidence in leadership. I think in many ways much of this is caused by the "rationalization" practiced by so many leaders in corporations and in government.

An excellent article from the Academy of Management Executive (2005, Vol. 19, No. 4)available at the following site --http://www.theaveygroup.com/Readings/Chapter%203-%20Ethics%20AME%20Classic.pdf -- gives some background on this.

Leaders - be sure you help all see the common vision, try to hire and enlist those who can share that with you, and do not violate the trust that has been given you to lead. Be prepared - no, welcome - challenge and be ready to explain the rationale for your leadership decisions.