Leading others in the quality of CEO, managing partner or team leader is not the most complicated thing in the world, but there are two key paradoxical issues : first – one can only learn to be a leader while being one, and second – the higher the top, the lonelier it is there.
Yes, they teach management at business schools and at numerous courses. This is good business, no doubt. And after all, time spent in business schools might be a good investment for developing social capital. You meet great, inspiring people, including the faculty, at best business schools. These relationships come handy later. Still, most top executives will tell you that up to 70% of their managerial competencies has been developed on the job, gaining experience from one’s own successes and failures. So to become a great leader, one has to learn by being one.
An executive spends most of his/her time with others. Often encouraging and coaching others, talking about their challenges, fears, problems and questions. At the same time he can hardly be open about his own issues with anyone. It is a lonely role.
It is common to say that one can learn from his experiences. But the experience is not the thing that teaches us. It is us who interpret the experience, tell ourselves what happened. Learning takes place only in case one understands what happened. But human mind is built in clever way to avoid unpleasant conclusions, however obvious these might be to others. That means – it is easy to avoid learning, especially if feedback is biased, like it is the case with leaders. Best way to understanding the experiences is through explaining it to someone, talking it through with someone else who is able to understand and empathies and is no part of the picture in any way. So the coach is an outsider, who is also able to get inside your skin – understand what client thinks and feel how he feels, not being part of the systems the client is involved. It is a huge benefit, if the coach is not from the client’s organization and neither of the client’s personal circles of family and friends. Coach is trained to reflect his understanding back in a way that helps client to see oneself with the eyes of other people. That’s what coach does and no peers, relatives, or friends can do.
Executive coaching is a development process for executives happening in one-to-one or group interaction with the client – either executive or a team – with a trained professional in clearly defined professional setting and time frame. It is a structured intervention that both parties recognize and perceive as such and happens regularly during an agreed period of time. Professional coach has clear understanding about his method and proved qualification for this. The client’s interests and needs are primary in the process, even if the fee is paid by the organization, usually personified in a sponsor – superior to the manager or the person who has the authority to the decision for hiring a coach. Sometimes the expectations, terms and objectives are specified in an agreement between the three parties – coach, client and sponsor.

Tõnis Arro
Executive coach and search consultant

Interesting article but I would lika to add some comments:

A god leaders whos oraganization is characterised by mutual trust and confidence has all his organizion to talk and discuss with in contrast to a boss who feels unsure, knows everything and manages his co-workers via orders, control and supervision.
Tõive Kivikas

Kommentera

En stor amerikansk undersökning listar mardrömschefernas tio sämsta egenskaper.

Det är inte den rosenrasande chefen som pionröd i ansiktet läxar upp anställda offentligt som är värst. Den aggressivt dåliga chefstilen utgör bara tjugo procent av de beteenden som definierar de sämsta cheferna. Ofta handlar det snarare om något betydligt mer svårupptäckt. Undersökningen presenterad i Harvard Business Review visar att det inte handlar så mycket om vad en chef gör utan snarare vad han eller hon inte gör samt en kombination av flera dåliga egenskaper som utgör en riktigt dålig chef.

Det är de amerikanska ledarskapsutvecklarna Jack Zenger och Joseph Folkman som har analyserat beteendet hos 30?000 chefer. 300 000 av chefernas underlydande, kollegor och högre chefer har deltagit i utvärderingen. Det är deras svar som ligger till grund för listan på de tio sämsta chefsegenskaperna som här presenteras i fallande ordning, från den mest till den minst förödande.

1. 1.Oförmåga att kunna inspirera och entusiasmera. Att vara oinspirerande och passiv är den mest återkommande egenskapen hos de misslyckade cheferna i undersökningen.
2. 2.Acceptans av medelmåttliga resultat där det krävts utmärkta. De sämre cheferna accepterar sämre resultat än de bättre cheferna.
3. 3.Avsaknad av visioner och inriktning. De dåliga cheferna har en grumlig bild av framtiden. De vet inte vilken väg de ska ta och är (inte helt oväntat) dåliga på att kommunicera ut vad de vill.
4. 4.Oförmåga att kunna samarbeta och vara en lagspelare. Dåliga chefer undviker sina kollegor och misslyckas att utveckla några goda relationer med dem. De sämsta ser arbetet som en tävling och sina kollegor som motståndare.
5. 5Att inte leva som man lär. Att som chef säga en sak och göra en annan är ett säkert sätt att förlora förtroendet hos kollegorna. De värsta av den här typen chefer är de som får med sig andra i sitt beteende och på så sätt hotar hela organisationen.
6. 6.Oförmåga att kunna förbättra sig och lära sig från sina misstag. En kombination av arrogans och självbelåtenhet får de sämsta cheferna att tro att de inte längre behöver utvecklas. Nära förbundet med den vanföreställningen ligger oförmågan att kunna lära sig från sina misstag.
7. 7.förmåga att förnya eller förändra sig. Oavsett om motviljan till nya idéer beror på bristande fantasi eller rädsla går denna dåliga chefsegenskap hand i hand med oförmågan att kunna ta in förslag från andra.
8. 8.Oförmåga att kunna utveckla andra. Helt upptagna av sig själva är de här dåliga cheferna ointresserade av såväl sina underordnade som av avdelningens långsiktiga framgång.
9. 9.Dålig social kompetens. De skriker och förringar antingen av illvilja eller av tölpaktig okänslighet. Men chefernas dåliga sociala kompetens manifesteras även ofta i saker de inte gör. Det handlar lika mycket om att de inte lyssnar, inte ställer frågor eller försöker nå ut till andra. Att de inte berömmer eller på annat sätt premierar ett bra resultat.
10. 10.Dåligt omdöme som leder till dåliga beslut. De fattar fel beslut på grund av att de inte förstår fakta eller analyserar omständigheterna rätt.

Kommentera

Article|McKinsey Quarterly

Sidestepping four common mistakes can help companies develop stronger and more capable leaders, save time and money, and boost morale.

January 2014 | byPierre Gurdjian, Thomas Halbeisen, and Kevin Lane

For years, organizations have lavished time and money on improving the capabilities of managers and on nurturing new leaders. US companies alone spend almost $14 billion annually on leadership development.¹ 1.Laci Loew and Karen O’Leonard, Leadership Development Factbook 2012: Benchmarks and Trends in U.S. Leadership Development, Bersin by Deloitte, July 2012, bersin.com. Colleges and universities offer hundreds of degree courses on leadership, and the cost of customized leadership-development offerings from a top business school can reach $150,000 a person.

Moreover, when upward of 500 executives were asked to rank their top three human-capital priorities, leadership development was included as both a current and a future priority. Almost two-thirds of the respondents identified leadership development as their number-one concern.² 2.See The State of Human Capital 2012—False Summit: Why the Human Capital Function Still Has Far to Go, a joint report from The Conference Board and McKinsey, October 2012. Only 7 percent of senior managers polled by a UK business school think that their companies develop global leaders effectively,³ 3.Matthew Gitsham et al., Developing the Global Leader of Tomorrow, Ashridge Business School, July 2009, ashridge.org.uk. and around 30 percent of US companies admit that they have failed to exploit their international business opportunities fully because they lack enough leaders with the right capabilities.⁴ 4.Pankaj Ghemawat, “Developing global leaders,” McKinsey Quarterly, June 2012.

We’ve talked with hundreds of chief executives about the struggle, observing both successful initiatives and ones that run into the sand. In the process, we’ve identified four of the most common mistakes. Here we explain some tips to overcome them. Together, they suggest ways for companies to get more from their leadership-development efforts—and ultimately their leaders—as these organizations face challenges ranging from the next demanding phase of globalization to disruptive technological change and continued macroeconomic uncertainty.

Läs mer om denna artikel »

Kommentera

On Forbes: Leadership & Management, Dec 2013. Glenn Llopis, Contributor

As the world mourns the loss of Nelson Mandela and commemorates his greatness as a leader, we would do well to remember that one of the many hallmarks of his leadership was trust. The greatest leaders in the world gravitated toward Mr. Mandela because he was genuinely trustworthy and his purpose was to support peace, prosperity and unity not only in South Africa – but throughout the world.   Mandela was able to lead people in ways that many find impossible to do. As he famously said, “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”

Unfortunately, trust is in rare supply these days.  People are having trouble trusting each other, according to an AP-GfK poll conducted in November 2013, which found that Americans are suspicious of each other in their everyday encounters.   Only one-third of Americans say most people can be trusted – down from half who felt that way in 1972, when the General Social Survey first asked the question.  Forty years later, in 2013, a record high of nearly two-thirds says “you can’t be too careful” in dealing with people.

This same sentiment can be carried over into the workplace, where employees want their leaders to be more trustworthy and transparent.   Employees have grown tired of unexpected outcomes resulting from the lack of preparation.  They want to be informed of any change management efforts before – not after the fact.   Employees desire to know what is expected of them and be given the opportunity to reinvent themselves, rather than be told they are not qualified for new roles and responsibilities and can no longer execute their functions successfully.

Leaders are challenged between informing their employees of the entire truth and holding back certain realities so as not to unnecessarily scare   people or lose top-talent.   More and more leaders today are being placed into uncomfortable moral dilemmas because they are attempting to salvage their own jobs while trying to maintain the trust and loyalty of their employees.

The growing tensions between leaders and their employees are creating productivity challenges as uncertainty becomes the new normal in the workplace.  Furthermore, leaders are beginning to lose control of their own identities and effectiveness as their employees begin to lose trust in their intentions because of hidden agendas and political maneuvering – casting clouds of doubt over their futures.

Employees just want the truth.  They have learned that the old ways of doing things just don’t apply (as much) anymore and more than ever they need their leaders to have their backs.  Unfortunately, many leaders are operating in survival mode and don’t have the sphere of influence they once had; without leaders to sponsor and mentor them, high-potential employees must now figure out the changing terrain on their own.

Here are seven early warning signs to look out for so you can course-correct when employees are having trouble trusting their leaders:

Läs mer om denna artikel »

Kommentera