LEADING THOUGHTS

Augustine O. Agho (Indiana-Purdue U) administered  a three-page questionnaire to a sample of 302 senior executives. He wanted to determine what they thought were the distinguishing characteristics of effective leaders and followers. Survey says. . .

Ranking for Leaders
1. Honesty/integrity
2. Forward looking
3. Competent
4. Inspiring
5. Intelligent
6. Fair-minded
7. Courageous
8. Dependable
9. Imaginative
10. Straightforward

Ranking for Followers
1. Honesty/integrity
2. Competent
3. Dependable
4. Cooperative
5. Loyal
6. Intelligent
7. Supportive
8. Mature
9. Caring
10. Straightforward

Interesting that the executives did not think that leaders needed to be caring or supportive. How does this compare to your list?

“Perspectives of Senior-Level Executives on Effective Followership and Leadership,” by Augustine O. Agho; Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis; Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (Vol. 16 No. 2, Nov. 2009, 159-166)

The UK-based CIPD just released a report designed to stir interest in the benefits of organizational “shared sense of purpose.” CIPD defines shared purpose as an organization’s “identity and ‘the golden thread’ to which its strategy should be aligned.”

In a CIPD survey of 3,000 UK employees (May 2009), just under half said they experience a strong sense of shared purpose at work compared to 28 percent who certainly do not.

Based on this survey data and a literature review, CIPD researchers list six factors that drive a strong sense of shared purpose.

1. An invigorating organizational purpose
This goes beyond making money or making shareholders happy. The strongest driver is “creating a better world for customers, stakeholders, or society” (as long as the organization can deliver, of course).

2. Effective leadership
These are leaders who actively develop shared purpose and mobilize people’s energy, often through the use of storytelling.

3. A compelling vision and strategy
“Both vision and strategy need to be grounded in clear goals to be achieved and employees need to understand how their roles contribute to delivering those goals.” Don’t forget to celebrate progress toward achieving those goals.

4. A meaningful employee voice in decisions
Employees need to be consulted and to feel they have opportunities to be involved in making decisions.

5. Effective performance management
Employees need to understand what’s expected of them and receive clear feedback and coaching from their boss.

6. Common practices
Common practices, such as the adoption of a shared approach to quality, can break down functional and physical boundaries.

The CIPD report includes a “shared purpose in practice” case study of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

To download a copy of the report, go here or email me at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: mrlerone

In case you need convincing, here is a compelling reason to pray that your boss is self confident and up to the task: researchers studying powerful managers have found a link between self-perceived incompetence and aggression.

In a paper published in Psychological Science, Nathanael J. Fast (U Southern California) and Serena Chen (U California, Berkeley) report on four studies showing that power paired with self-perceived incompetence leads to aggression, and that this response is driven by feelings of “ego defensiveness.”

Incompetence alone does not lead to aggression; it is only when mixed with power that behaviour turns volatile. Power increases the degree to which individuals feel that they need to be competent, the researchers write, both in order to hold onto their power and to fulfill the demands and expectations that come with their high-power roles.

Now, if you are on the receiving end and think you can calm the manager-beast with heaping spoonfuls of flattery, think again. The researchers write: “It is both interesting and ironic to note that such flattery, although perhaps affirming to the ego, may contribute to the incompetent power holder’s ultimate demise—by causing the power holder to lose touch with reality.”

Factoid: According to Workplace Bullying Institute and Zogby International, 37 percent of American workers have been bullied at work, primarily having been sabotaged, yelled at, or belittled by their bosses.

“When the Boss Feels Inadequate”, by Nathanael J. Fast and Serena Chen; Psychological Science (Vol. 20, No. 11, pp. 1406-1413, 2009)

If you cannot find this paper in your local library, email me for a copy: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: mouton.rebelle

Jim Clifton, Chairman and CEO of Gallup, says process improvement (Six Sigma, lean-management, and the like) was “the last big leadership evolution.” “Now companies are structured to do a magnificent job with that kind of data,” he says in an interview with Gallup Management Journal. “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.”

The next big idea, Clifton says, is for leaders to have an in-depth understanding of “states of mind” of their constituencies, which he describes as “their will to work, their will to live, their will to revolt, their will to follow you.” And it means understanding their emotions: how much stress your constituency feels about money, trying to get to work, or dealing with over-bearing supervisors.

That understanding has to be based not on anecdotes and gut feel but on behavioural economics and mathematics. According to Clifton, if you can quantify states of mind, you can better understand the emotions that cause behavior. An example: “Remember when everyone thought Middle Eastern Muslims hated Western freedoms? That’s dead wrong, according to our research. Freedom is one of the things they admire most about the West. It’s the politics they don’t like.”

Sounds a bit like an advertorial for the services of Gallup, though his call for greater rigor in decision making is fair comment. For the full interview, go here.

photo credit: majorlycool

In this video interview with The McKinsey Quarterly (biz journal of McKinsey & Company), Stanford U Professor Robert Sutton talks about how, in tough economic times, leaders/supervisors experience the “toxic tandem.” On the one hand, people in power tend to be oblivious to the needs and actions of people with less power. On the other, subordinates are hyper vigilant; they closely watch the boss for cues and clues as to what is really going down (“Am I next on the chopping block?”).

I presented the ideas to a group of executives. And this guy walks up to me and he starts describing his executive vice president and how one of the secretaries walked up to him and said, “When are the layoffs going be?” And he says, “What?” And then she went to explain. She said, “Well, it’s an ‘interesting shoes’ day for you.”

What this guy has a reputation of doing is he can’t look people in the eye when he’s upset about stuff, so he would always be looking at his shoes. They were saying, “The boss is having ‘interesting shoes’ day.” So from just the fact the guy walked around not looking anybody in the eye, she went straight up to him. So that to me is a pretty good sign he was oblivious to that, right?

The antidote for the toxic tandem, says Sutton, is prediction, understanding, control, and compassion. “Prediction”: Give assurance where you can and don’t overpromise. “Understand”: Make the effort to clearly communicate  the situation in ways that people will understand. “Control”: Give people a measure of control over the way layoffs happen. And “compassion”?: Have a heart, buddy.

As for dealing with the psyche of those who survive layoffs, Sutton says the key is fairness. “When they see that it’s fair,,” he says, “they are more likely to stay loyal, suffer less psychological damage, and also feel more guilty and work even harder to help you.”

Link to Bob Sutton’s excellent blog

I see a bun fight brewing. The target: “servant leadership.”

Coined by Robert Greenleaf in a seminal 1970 essay, servant leadership refers to leaders who serve their fellow workers, helping them to develop as “healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous” individuals who become servants themselves. Judging by buzz alone, servant leadership is growing in popularity. Its proponents say servant leaders boost the motivation and morality of their followers and position their organizations as values-based, innovative, and committed to internal and external service.

Flummadiddle, says Jon Aarum Andersen (Lilllehammer University College, Norway). Writing in Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Andersen takes a hard-boiled management view of servant leadership and finds it wanting. Here’s why:

Lack of rigor. There is no generally accepted definition of servant leadership: is it a behavioural pattern or a personality trait? Consequently there is no empirical measurement of whether or not managers are servant leaders. “As for an instrument measuring the degree of servant leadership,” Andersen writes, “we still do not know how much ‘servility’ a leader must exhibit in order to be or to be seen as a servant-leader.”

Confused priorities. For servant leaders, followers and their needs are the first concern. What about the organization and its needs? “Managers are hired to contribute to organisational goal attainment. These goals can only be attained by having subordinates (not followers) solving tasks that lead to productivity and effectiveness. Leadership has to do with the systematic influence on other people so that they solve tasks related to the pursuit of organisational goals.”

Low mojo. Servant leaders score high on humility and empathy but low in need for power. According to Andersen, an established body of research shows that managers with a high need for power are more effective than others. Ergo, servant leaders are wired to be relatively ineffective.

Phone lines are open: Your thoughts?

When a Servant-Leader Comes Knocking . . ., Jon Aarum Andersen; Leadership & Organization Development Journal (Vol. 30 No. 1, 2009, pp. 4-15)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: Pulpolux !!!

Here is a 10-minute clip from a Harvard Business Press interview with executive coach Gill Corkindale. Corkindale talks about how to identify and deal with alpha personalities. Of particular interest: the unique traits of alpha females (at 2:15), how to manage alpha leaders (at 6:30), and how to lead alpha subordinates (at 8:30). Watch your back!