The other day I was asked for my views about political, business, and religious leadership both worldwide and in Australia. I replied that it was hard to find any - there is plenty of power and authority; there is plenty of command and control; there is plenty of talk - but precious little leadership.
Back in the mid 1990's I conducted a number of surveys in Australia, New Zealand, and South East Asia to ascertain who and why people considered to be leaders. I then interviewed 15 of these and the result was my book Leaders, Diamond or Cubic Zirconia? (1998). In the introduction to that book I make the comment "I am not making any judgement as to whether or not any or all [of those listed] are "diamonds or cubic zirconia". That is a conclusion that must be drawn by the reader."
Today I am far less circumspect. As said at the start - I see precious little leadership today no matter what is the arena in which I look for it.
Over the past 20 or so years we have seen flashes of political leadership - then Australian Prime Minister John Howard's response to the Port Arthur Massacre and his driving through of gun control and current Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard's recent driving through of the pollution levy are good examples. But these flashes are few and far between. In the main we have the unedifying sight of political point scoring and power plays masquerading as "leadership". The party in power (whether in Australia or anywhere else) wants to remain in power and the opposition parties want to take over so anything goes no matter what is really best in the long term for the world, the country, or the populace.
Business, religious, social etc "leadership" is little different. Leadership in these areas seems to be primarily about numbers - market share, revenues, "value" etc (although these may actually be expressed through using one or another synonym) and in enhancing the personal and positional power and influence of those in charge. CEO's and executives seem to act as though they have forgotten that, in reality, they are every bit as much "employees" as are those in entry level positions. This is often seen by the seeking and accepting huge remuneration packages for themselves while fighting against remuneration increases for lower levels and/or otherwise taking action that adversely impacts the well-being and life quality of "employees". Most religious leaders, despite their words, seem to be far too often primarily concerned about narrow sectarian issues and show little or no real concern for refugees, the disadvantaged, and those outside of their immediate area of pastoral responsibility. And so I could continue.
Cubic zirconia abounds!
When I was researching for my latest book my surveys asked a wide range of people for their understanding of leadership. The messages I got back can be summarised as : "a leader is someone who I can trust and respect and who enables me to get things done and who, in the process, inspires me to do my best and to achieve results."
As I replied to my questioner, there is plenty of power and authority; there is plenty of command and control; there is plenty of talk - but precious little leadership. And that's a tragedy.
What do you think?
More about me at http://www.dglong.com
Showing posts with label facilitative leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label facilitative leadership. Show all posts
Friday, December 2, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Dawn of Something New
The start of any new year always brings with it a sense of a need for change – for something different. I guess that’s why so many of us make New Year’s resolutions – we want things to be different, in a positive way, from what has happened in the preceding year.
Two major events marked the start of 2011 for me.
On the evening of Sunday January 2 there was a major storm in Sydney, Australia. Our family was sitting around chatting when a bolt of lightning hit the house. Simultaneously there was a very loud “bang” a kaleidoscope of colours, and a smell of something having been burned. We were very lucky. Apart from the loss of some minor electronic equipment and the loss of internet access, there was no damage. It took us quite a while, however, before the adrenaline eased and we again felt normal.
The second event occurred a few days later. An overseas friend was scheduled to be married on January 5. His father had been ill for some time and on the morning of January 5 I received a message from him: “Dad … passed away a couple of hours ago. We are making arrangements for his funeral now.”
These two events highlighted for me the fact that, no matter what changes we may consider necessary and no matter what changes we might want to happen, sometimes change is brought about by circumstances totally beyond our control. The change caused by the lightning – the need for a new facsimile machine and the temporary loss of the internet connection – was minor, a very short-term irritant, and easily dealt with. The change my friend experienced – the loss of a much loved father and the need to postpone a wedding – was intensely personal and will have long-term impact on him and his immediate family.
The lightning strike has caused no change in my behaviour or that of my family. Something happened and, at the time, it appeared to be quite major. In fact it was trivial and was no impetus for change. The death of my friend’s father is different. No matter what, he and his family will experience long-term impact and their lives will never again be quite the same.
Over my years of facilitating change in individuals and organisations I have become increasingly aware of some truths relating to change:
1. It’s not whether or not something happens to us that is important, it’s how we react to this event that is important.
2. There is no absolute imperative to change. Unless and until an individual or an organisation “wants” to change, nothing will really happen. Of course there may be some cosmetic difference or there may be some immediate reaction to something that has happened, but overall the status quo will remain.
I was again reminded of these truths when I read the following: “Most leadership strategies are doomed to failure from the outset. Leaders instigating changes are often like gardeners standing over their plants and imploring them: ‘Grow! Try harder! You can do it!’ No gardener tries to convince a plant to ‘want’ to grow: if the seed does not have the potential to grow, there’s nothing anyone can do to make a difference.” Peter Senge, The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organisations, 1999, Broadway Business, New York.
January 2011 is the start of something new. Change is in the air. Perhaps we need to think a little about what makes us contemplate change as well as our role in facilitating any change that is required.
I’d love to know what you think about this. Please make your comments below.
More about me at http://www.dglong.com
Thursday, November 25, 2010
A Battle for the Mind
“If you believe you can,
or
if you believe you can’t …
Either way you are right!”
I came across this quotation recently and thought it warranted further consideration.
It is, of course, very true.
Almost every person is born with virtually unlimited potential in terms of their ability to develop. Not everyone can be (or wants to be) an elite athlete or a Nobel Prize winner, but almost anyone can mature to be the person that he or she wants to be. The problem is that, in many cases, this maturing is negatively impacted by our self-talk. And much self talk arises out of feedback we experience.
Unfortunately many of us have learned disappointment and failure. Growing up our parents, teachers, and other important influences told us “you can’t do that” – and too often punished us when we tried! At work we were told “it’s not your role to think. Just do as I tell you!” And so our attempts to be creative or to innovate were crushed and we learned not to try. Even when we knew processes and results could be improved, we learned to say nothing and to “fit in” if we wanted to get on or even just wanted to remain employed.
While it is true that, ultimately, each of us is responsible for the choices and decisions we make and it is equally true that we each have a significant impact on whether or not we achieve whatever it is we consider “success”, it is also true that the type of leadership we have received and the type of leadership we provide has a very real impact – either positively or negatively.
First Generation Leadership and Second Generation Leadership were pretty comfortable with followers experiencing learned helplessness. Where the emphasis was on compliance or conformance it was disconcerting and a threat to have followers who were thinking for themselves – after all, they might challenge the status quo and that could affect me.
Third Generation Leadership operates in a different mind space.
A Third Generation Leader wants people to think and to question. A Third Generation Leader knows that peak performance of an individual, a unit, or an organisation is only possible when everyone is fully engaged with their tasks and those around them. A Third Generation Leader knows that he or she doesn’t have all the answers – and, in fact, may not have many answers at all. But a Third Generation Leader knows that time and again the answers to problems and issues encountered are to be found in the collective wisdom and thinking of everyone involved. In order to harness this collective wisdom, a Third Generation Leader knows that it is essential to create an environment in which the battle for the mind is won by “I believe I can”.
And that requires a different sort of feedback and lots of encouragement.
Please let me know what you think of this. Make your comments below.
More information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com.
More information about Third Generation Leadership at http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Problem with Feedback
I have spent much of this week working with the management team of an organisation with a long and proud history of service to the community. One of the key issues we have been confronting relates to the giving and receiving of feedback to younger people. They have been finding that their traditional ways of doing this need changing.
Feedback is interesting. When I play golf I receive feedback on my stroke immediately after the clubhead hits the ball. Of course I can't change anything at that point and the ball will continue on whatever direction and trajectory I have given it, but I am given information that enables me to make decisions as to whether or not I should make some changes. In the workplace there are some situations like that but, in a vast number of instances, it is necessary for other people to provide me with the feedback that will allow me to decide what if any changes in my behaviour are necessary.
The issue then becomes one of how this feedback is given. And this is the issue my client faces.
In the societal approaches of the past, this wasn't really a problem - which doesn't mean that it was done well - because those more senior to you in an organisation were generally heeded some attention when they spoke. Our society had a world view that said if you were older or in a more senior position then you were to receive respect and your authority was not to be questioned.
This is no longer the case.
In today's world it is increasingly clear that respect has to be earned: it is not automatically given. In today's world it is increasingly clear that authority can quickly be lost if the person giving feedback makes a mistake - and the almost instant availability of information by phone or internet makes it almost certain that any such errors will be quickly discovered - and if the person giving feedback isn't respected or hasn't engaged with the people involved then the probability of someone actively seeking out errors is high.
Which means that if, as a supervisor, manager, leader or whatever you need to learn facilitate engagement of people with both the work that they do and with you as a person. Its not easy.
More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com
Feedback is interesting. When I play golf I receive feedback on my stroke immediately after the clubhead hits the ball. Of course I can't change anything at that point and the ball will continue on whatever direction and trajectory I have given it, but I am given information that enables me to make decisions as to whether or not I should make some changes. In the workplace there are some situations like that but, in a vast number of instances, it is necessary for other people to provide me with the feedback that will allow me to decide what if any changes in my behaviour are necessary.
The issue then becomes one of how this feedback is given. And this is the issue my client faces.
In the societal approaches of the past, this wasn't really a problem - which doesn't mean that it was done well - because those more senior to you in an organisation were generally heeded some attention when they spoke. Our society had a world view that said if you were older or in a more senior position then you were to receive respect and your authority was not to be questioned.
This is no longer the case.
In today's world it is increasingly clear that respect has to be earned: it is not automatically given. In today's world it is increasingly clear that authority can quickly be lost if the person giving feedback makes a mistake - and the almost instant availability of information by phone or internet makes it almost certain that any such errors will be quickly discovered - and if the person giving feedback isn't respected or hasn't engaged with the people involved then the probability of someone actively seeking out errors is high.
Which means that if, as a supervisor, manager, leader or whatever you need to learn facilitate engagement of people with both the work that they do and with you as a person. Its not easy.
More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Festina Lente !! (Urgent or Important?)
From my very long ago days of doing Latin at school, I seem to remember the phrase "festina lente" as meaning "hasten slowly" or "more hurry less speed". (I may, of course, be wrong in my recollection and, if I am, I'm sure someone will correct me!!)
I thought of this today because of a couple of events.
First I listened to an interview on Australia's ABC FM radio in which the person being interviewed was telling of his commitment to increasing literacy in third world countries. He explained that, now, they are opening a new library somewhere in a third world country every 4 or 5 hours. An incredible rate given that it is only about 10 years since he first became aware of the issue and committed himself to action. He said that he was an action-orientated person who looked for solutions rather than dwelling on problems. But he also pointed out that from first realising the size of the problem to actually getting things properly moving was about a year. Since then things have grown rapidly. Festina lente !
Second I was approached by someone who is trying to get a new business up and running. She is worried about the need for positive cash flow (aren't we all!!) and has been running around everywhere trying to get business. The result is that she has lost focus on what she really wants to achieve and runs the risk of failing because of confusion regarding priorities. We discussed how taking a step back and refocusing then moving forward in a planned approach would actually help her achieve desired results far more effectively than scattering her energies across a broad range of things.
Its the old question of deciding between "what is urgent" and "what is important". Too often we concentrate on "what is urgent" with the result that "what is important" never gets done and we wind up with time management problems, quality problems, staffing problems, and all the rest.
Part of creating an environment in which everyone can be successful - ie part of leadership - is recognising and applying the need for "festina lente" !
More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com/
I thought of this today because of a couple of events.
First I listened to an interview on Australia's ABC FM radio in which the person being interviewed was telling of his commitment to increasing literacy in third world countries. He explained that, now, they are opening a new library somewhere in a third world country every 4 or 5 hours. An incredible rate given that it is only about 10 years since he first became aware of the issue and committed himself to action. He said that he was an action-orientated person who looked for solutions rather than dwelling on problems. But he also pointed out that from first realising the size of the problem to actually getting things properly moving was about a year. Since then things have grown rapidly. Festina lente !
Second I was approached by someone who is trying to get a new business up and running. She is worried about the need for positive cash flow (aren't we all!!) and has been running around everywhere trying to get business. The result is that she has lost focus on what she really wants to achieve and runs the risk of failing because of confusion regarding priorities. We discussed how taking a step back and refocusing then moving forward in a planned approach would actually help her achieve desired results far more effectively than scattering her energies across a broad range of things.
Its the old question of deciding between "what is urgent" and "what is important". Too often we concentrate on "what is urgent" with the result that "what is important" never gets done and we wind up with time management problems, quality problems, staffing problems, and all the rest.
Part of creating an environment in which everyone can be successful - ie part of leadership - is recognising and applying the need for "festina lente" !
More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com/
Friday, December 4, 2009
Effective Leadership?
In July 2009, the Society for Knowledge Economics published a report titled: Workplaces of the Future. In this they quoted a report from Gallup Consulting stating that, in Australia, around 80% of people are "not fully engaged at work" and that this was costing Australian businesses some $33Billion a year.
In November 2009, the Australian Government released the results of an international benchmarking study comparing Australian practices with the rest of the world. This report showed that Australia compared favourably in relation to performance and operations management but was less effective at people management. (http://www.innovation.gov.au/General/Corporate/Pages/ManagementmattersinAustralia,aspx)
The recent turmoil in the Australian Parliamentary Liberal Party and the NSW Labor Party are prominent illustrations of the problems associated with a failure to lead organisations in such a way that people are engaged. They illustrate a type of leadership, unfortunately all too common, in which there is no real attempt to create an environment in which people can be successful. The result is dysfunctional organisations which cater for factional interests and in which individual agendas take precedence over organisational priorities - and, in these examples, over national and state interests as well.
Group 8 Management's work in the education field (http://www.gr8education.com) has shown that schools can be transformed when teachers engage students both personally and with content. For this to happen, the leadership team in the school needs to create a culture in which everyone feels safe and in which there is unconditional respect for every person - in other words, people can distinguish between "the person" who is always acceptable and "the behaviour" which may not be always acceptable. When this happens, academic results rise and antisocial behaviour reduces.
In my work of re-creating leaders and organisations, facilitating engagement of everyone involved is critical. As the Gallup Consulting Report makes clear, this has very significant economic benefits for the organisation - and tremendous personal benefits for the individual.
More information about Doug Long and how I can help you at http://www.dglong.com
In November 2009, the Australian Government released the results of an international benchmarking study comparing Australian practices with the rest of the world. This report showed that Australia compared favourably in relation to performance and operations management but was less effective at people management. (http://www.innovation.gov.au/General/Corporate/Pages/ManagementmattersinAustralia,aspx)
The recent turmoil in the Australian Parliamentary Liberal Party and the NSW Labor Party are prominent illustrations of the problems associated with a failure to lead organisations in such a way that people are engaged. They illustrate a type of leadership, unfortunately all too common, in which there is no real attempt to create an environment in which people can be successful. The result is dysfunctional organisations which cater for factional interests and in which individual agendas take precedence over organisational priorities - and, in these examples, over national and state interests as well.
Group 8 Management's work in the education field (http://www.gr8education.com) has shown that schools can be transformed when teachers engage students both personally and with content. For this to happen, the leadership team in the school needs to create a culture in which everyone feels safe and in which there is unconditional respect for every person - in other words, people can distinguish between "the person" who is always acceptable and "the behaviour" which may not be always acceptable. When this happens, academic results rise and antisocial behaviour reduces.
In my work of re-creating leaders and organisations, facilitating engagement of everyone involved is critical. As the Gallup Consulting Report makes clear, this has very significant economic benefits for the organisation - and tremendous personal benefits for the individual.
More information about Doug Long and how I can help you at http://www.dglong.com
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
When Leadership Fails
The current disarray in the Liberal Party of Australia illustrates the problems that occur when a leader fails to fulfil one of his or her most critical functions.
In my mentoring of leaders I stress a lesson learned by me many years ago: unless a leader develops at least 2 (and preferably 3) people who are able to step in when the leadership becomes vacant for any reason, that leader has failed. The true measure of whether or not a leader is successful depends on what happens to the organisation after he or she is promoted or moves on. If the unit or organisation degenerates into chaos then, no matter what happened during his or her incumbency, the leader has failed.
Over the years I have seen this scenario reenacted time and again. Think of the businesses that grew and returned good dividends and stock prices under one CEO, only to be broken up within a short time of a "strong leader" leaving - for those of us old enough to remember, IT&T under Harold Geneen is but one example. Of course political examples when a party leader retires or is "retired" are even more frequent.
One of the problems we face today is that, all too often, success is measured by the wrong things. If a person is perceived to have fame, power and/or wealth then they are portrayed as being "success stories". The cult of personality or power takes precedence over long term effective and successful leadership. This is readily seen by a simple examination of people to whom the media afford high visibility - many of them have done little or nothing for the betterment of any organisation let alone of our world. Such a scenario encourages "leaders" to be ego driven and to place more emphasis on "how" they are perceived rather than that for "what" they have done to grow their organisations or to improve things around them. The result can be an emphasis on style rather than on substance - we get "show ponies" rather "race winners".
As a mentor, I challenge the people with whom I work to answer the following questions:
In my mentoring of leaders I stress a lesson learned by me many years ago: unless a leader develops at least 2 (and preferably 3) people who are able to step in when the leadership becomes vacant for any reason, that leader has failed. The true measure of whether or not a leader is successful depends on what happens to the organisation after he or she is promoted or moves on. If the unit or organisation degenerates into chaos then, no matter what happened during his or her incumbency, the leader has failed.
Over the years I have seen this scenario reenacted time and again. Think of the businesses that grew and returned good dividends and stock prices under one CEO, only to be broken up within a short time of a "strong leader" leaving - for those of us old enough to remember, IT&T under Harold Geneen is but one example. Of course political examples when a party leader retires or is "retired" are even more frequent.
One of the problems we face today is that, all too often, success is measured by the wrong things. If a person is perceived to have fame, power and/or wealth then they are portrayed as being "success stories". The cult of personality or power takes precedence over long term effective and successful leadership. This is readily seen by a simple examination of people to whom the media afford high visibility - many of them have done little or nothing for the betterment of any organisation let alone of our world. Such a scenario encourages "leaders" to be ego driven and to place more emphasis on "how" they are perceived rather than that for "what" they have done to grow their organisations or to improve things around them. The result can be an emphasis on style rather than on substance - we get "show ponies" rather "race winners".
As a mentor, I challenge the people with whom I work to answer the following questions:
- What is your vision - in other words, what is the ideal state for your organisation in, say 10 years?
- What are your compass bearings - in other words, what are the very specific strategies and objectives you have set for the next 2, 5, and 7 years?
- What are the current capabilities of your organisation?
- What are the capabilities needed in your organisation for your dream to be realised?
- What do you need to do in order for these additional capabilities to exist?
- Who are the people you are developing in your organisation so that these capabilities can be optimised?
- How effectively are you communicating all the above to those involved?
You might like to answer these for yourself. They are keys to creating an environment in which people are set up for success.
More information about Doug Long and how I may be able to help you at http://www.dglong.com
Monday, November 16, 2009
Responsible leadership
Recently one of my golfing partners queried whether leadership being the process of creating an environment in which everyone can be successful meant that a leader should be "all things to all people" - in other words should a leader seek to be liked rather than to achieve results.
God forbid!
Over this past weekend, the Premier of New South Wales (Australia) made some changes to his Cabinet. This was not an automatic process - in order to do this he needed to first obtain authority from the NSW Labor Party Conference as, up till then, most of the real control was exercised by various party lobby/influence groups.
I am not commenting on the political rights and wrongs of any process of any party and neither am I seeking to make any political statement. However this action illustrates a key aspect of "leadership creates an environment in which everyone can be successful". Prior to this, no matter what the Premier may have wanted to do in order to maximise the probability of success, his hands were tied by a culture that needed change. Almost immediately after the Conference had agreed to the change in practice, he sought and obtained the resignations of at least two Ministers.
While it is true that a leader must work with the people who are in his or her organisation, the leader (and the leadership overall) have a prime responsibility to achieve desired results. In so doing they will have best chance of success if they can harness the energies of every person and have them all working together towards a common goal in which they all have a vested interest. However achieving desired results can require some very tough decisions up to and inclusive of the need sometimes to remove people who are perceived to be persistent non-performers or disruptive influences from either their role or from the organisation. A leader must not avoid such issues because failure to address them will have a debilitating impact on everyone else in the organisation as well as impacting on how the organisation is perceived to its customers/clients and other stakeholders.
The critical thing for a leader is not whether or not such speople should be moved or be dismissed: it is why it is done and how it is done. The implementation of such actions by pretext and/or "constructive dismissal" to justify one's own prejudices or discomfort at being held accountable or being challenged by alternative opinions is never warranted.
There are organisations whose current CEOs have career backgrounds that include working for someone who would not tolerate dissent or discussion that challenged his opinions - he was the "my mind's made up: don't confuse me with the facts" sort of person. These CEOs have been strongly influenced by this experience and they seem to operate in the same way. My observation is that such organisations experience high staff turnover (especially at senior levels) and the general feeling of people is that their CEO is manipulative and ineffective. There is a strong feeling that they mistake bullying and power for leadership.
Mentoring and coaching can help leaders become more effective and can facilitate their growth to effective people who genuinely create environments in which success is normal rather than being a random variable.
Fortunately here are a number of very good mentors and coaches available from a wide variety of sources. All you have to do is to contact them for an initial discussion.
More information about Douglas G Long at http://www.dglong.com
God forbid!
Over this past weekend, the Premier of New South Wales (Australia) made some changes to his Cabinet. This was not an automatic process - in order to do this he needed to first obtain authority from the NSW Labor Party Conference as, up till then, most of the real control was exercised by various party lobby/influence groups.
I am not commenting on the political rights and wrongs of any process of any party and neither am I seeking to make any political statement. However this action illustrates a key aspect of "leadership creates an environment in which everyone can be successful". Prior to this, no matter what the Premier may have wanted to do in order to maximise the probability of success, his hands were tied by a culture that needed change. Almost immediately after the Conference had agreed to the change in practice, he sought and obtained the resignations of at least two Ministers.
While it is true that a leader must work with the people who are in his or her organisation, the leader (and the leadership overall) have a prime responsibility to achieve desired results. In so doing they will have best chance of success if they can harness the energies of every person and have them all working together towards a common goal in which they all have a vested interest. However achieving desired results can require some very tough decisions up to and inclusive of the need sometimes to remove people who are perceived to be persistent non-performers or disruptive influences from either their role or from the organisation. A leader must not avoid such issues because failure to address them will have a debilitating impact on everyone else in the organisation as well as impacting on how the organisation is perceived to its customers/clients and other stakeholders.
The critical thing for a leader is not whether or not such speople should be moved or be dismissed: it is why it is done and how it is done. The implementation of such actions by pretext and/or "constructive dismissal" to justify one's own prejudices or discomfort at being held accountable or being challenged by alternative opinions is never warranted.
There are organisations whose current CEOs have career backgrounds that include working for someone who would not tolerate dissent or discussion that challenged his opinions - he was the "my mind's made up: don't confuse me with the facts" sort of person. These CEOs have been strongly influenced by this experience and they seem to operate in the same way. My observation is that such organisations experience high staff turnover (especially at senior levels) and the general feeling of people is that their CEO is manipulative and ineffective. There is a strong feeling that they mistake bullying and power for leadership.
Mentoring and coaching can help leaders become more effective and can facilitate their growth to effective people who genuinely create environments in which success is normal rather than being a random variable.
Fortunately here are a number of very good mentors and coaches available from a wide variety of sources. All you have to do is to contact them for an initial discussion.
More information about Douglas G Long at http://www.dglong.com
Friday, November 13, 2009
Re-creating the organisation
Back in September 2007 The McKinsey Quarterly ran an article entitled "Anatomy of a healthy corporation." It argued that there were 5 key characteristics - resilience, execution, alignment, renewal, and complementarity. Since then, of course, we have had the global financial crisis. While all these are essential, I believe that there are times when they have a hierarchical relationship with certain characteristics being more important than others.
Resilience was clearly the key for the past couple of years. Corporations and other organisations that have survived the gfc to this point without relying on government bailouts or guarantees have certainly shown resilience. These organisations have battled through by making both strategic and tactical changes depending on what their environment was doing. I expect that most of these will now be able to move forward. I'm not so convinced about those that received government handouts and/or guarantees - from what I can see it is still "business as usual" for many of these (particularly in the financial sector) and I see no real indication that necessary changes have been made. Sadly this may mean that yesterday's mistakes may well occur again.
Today I believe that the key characteristic is renewal.
A key aspect of renewal is the ability to harness the energies of everyone in the organisation so that ideas can be generated and change can occur with the support of everyone involved. This requires leadership - but not the sort of leadership that is generally promulgated by the populist press. It needs true leadership - that which creates and sustains an environment for success (individual and organisational) for everyone involved. The starting point for that is a renewed vision of what the organisation can and should be.
What renewal is needed in your organisation?
What are you doing about it?
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
Resilience was clearly the key for the past couple of years. Corporations and other organisations that have survived the gfc to this point without relying on government bailouts or guarantees have certainly shown resilience. These organisations have battled through by making both strategic and tactical changes depending on what their environment was doing. I expect that most of these will now be able to move forward. I'm not so convinced about those that received government handouts and/or guarantees - from what I can see it is still "business as usual" for many of these (particularly in the financial sector) and I see no real indication that necessary changes have been made. Sadly this may mean that yesterday's mistakes may well occur again.
Today I believe that the key characteristic is renewal.
A key aspect of renewal is the ability to harness the energies of everyone in the organisation so that ideas can be generated and change can occur with the support of everyone involved. This requires leadership - but not the sort of leadership that is generally promulgated by the populist press. It needs true leadership - that which creates and sustains an environment for success (individual and organisational) for everyone involved. The starting point for that is a renewed vision of what the organisation can and should be.
What renewal is needed in your organisation?
What are you doing about it?
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Mentoring For Re-creation
Harry Lubansky of Melbourne who sent me this photo taken a few months after Victoria's terrible bush fires last year, makes the point that sometimes Australian bush doesn't regenerate - the fire is so intense that the trees are totally destroyed. In these cases nothing can be done and regeneration is not possible. Those people I knew who committed suicide (blog: The Re-Creating Organisation) obviously felt that the devastation they had experienced made it impossible to go on - nothing short of a total tragedy for everyone involved including friends.
I have been working for several years with some of the CEO's and executives I mentor. Prior to the GFC our discussions centred on normal leadership issues relating to healthy organisations operating in a positive environment. As the GFC loomed and then hit, our discussions turned to understanding how these events would affect operations; to strategies for survival with minimum negative impact on all stakeholders; to "holding the line"; to moving forward. Like the bush that is now regenerating, these were healthy organisations with CEO's who knew they needed support and were prepared to use it.
In my experience, mentoring can help in the re-creation process only when those being mentored are willing to be totally open about the issues they are facing and, simultaneously, they have a belief that these issues can be dealt with. I believe it was John Saunders, founder of The Terrace Tower Group, who used to say: "He who has life has hope. He who has hope has everything."
Is re-creation needed where you are? What issues are you facing - both personally and in your organisation? Do you believe that these can be dealt with? What help are you getting as you seek to deal with them?
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com/
Monday, November 2, 2009
Re-creating leaders and organisations - not a "phoenix"
A few weeks ago we lost our older and much loved Belgian Shepherd to cancer. It was the second time cancer has hit our family or pets. In talking with friends, virtually everyone I know has been affected by cancer in a family member or a pet or, like us, in both.
I am not an oncologist and I have no real knowledge of oncology but, from a recent TV documentary, I understand that at least some cancer cells are normal body cells that refuse to die when they should. Instead of allowing natural events to take their course, these are cells that become feral and so create problems.
Some people have asked me whether a re-created organisation is the same as a phoenix organisation. The answer is a resounding "NO!"
A phoenix organisation, at least in Australia, is one in which the owners have run the organisation in such a way that it eventually fails and, while the owners do very nicely, the organisation's creditors lose out totally. In the meantime the owners "laugh all the way to the bank". Once the washing up is completed, the owners start a new business in the same industry - very often from the same premises - and repeat the cycle. Only the name is different. To my mind this phoenix approach is malignant and akin to the cells that create cancer.
A re-created organisation is totally different.
Outside my window is a magnificent bougainvillea. Now, in the spring, it is bursting with colour but only a few weeks ago it was a barren cluster of grey-brown twigs and branches. it had been alive all winter but had nothing to show for any effort the plant may have been making - it was in survival mode.
This provides a metaphor for the re-created organisation.
A re-created organisation is a basically healthy organisation that needs to rethink what it is doing and how it does it. It is an organisation that has, in effect, been dormant for some time - lots of effort but no results - and is now seeking a new way forward.
What I love most about re-creating leaders and organisations is that I can bring them out of winter and into spring.
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
I am not an oncologist and I have no real knowledge of oncology but, from a recent TV documentary, I understand that at least some cancer cells are normal body cells that refuse to die when they should. Instead of allowing natural events to take their course, these are cells that become feral and so create problems.
Some people have asked me whether a re-created organisation is the same as a phoenix organisation. The answer is a resounding "NO!"
A phoenix organisation, at least in Australia, is one in which the owners have run the organisation in such a way that it eventually fails and, while the owners do very nicely, the organisation's creditors lose out totally. In the meantime the owners "laugh all the way to the bank". Once the washing up is completed, the owners start a new business in the same industry - very often from the same premises - and repeat the cycle. Only the name is different. To my mind this phoenix approach is malignant and akin to the cells that create cancer.
A re-created organisation is totally different.
Outside my window is a magnificent bougainvillea. Now, in the spring, it is bursting with colour but only a few weeks ago it was a barren cluster of grey-brown twigs and branches. it had been alive all winter but had nothing to show for any effort the plant may have been making - it was in survival mode.
This provides a metaphor for the re-created organisation.
A re-created organisation is a basically healthy organisation that needs to rethink what it is doing and how it does it. It is an organisation that has, in effect, been dormant for some time - lots of effort but no results - and is now seeking a new way forward.
What I love most about re-creating leaders and organisations is that I can bring them out of winter and into spring.
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
What sort of model is the leader?
A month or so back I was invited to the annual general meeting of an organisation involved in community service work. During the course of the meeting the chairman stood up and harangued the members about their lack of involvement in providing various services. He accused the majority of members of inadequate commitment to the cause and, in effect, told them that they needed to change their ways.
Later I discussed this with the person who had invited me there. I was told that the very people who were being accused of lack of commitment were those who provided most of the money for the organisation to operate. Further, it was explained to me, a key factor in their doing very little else than provide money was the fact that the chairman had managed to alienate most of the members by his dictatorial behaviour. The feeling was that the chairman was seeking only those things that made him look good - he was not really interested in the organisation. Later I discovered that, not surprisingly, the rest of the leadership team exhibited similar behaviours - or they left for a new organisation.
The organisation in question has a leadership problem.
Traditionally the leader has been the one who is at the forefront of those being led. He or she is the one who knows where to go then sets the pace. The leader is the one who is seen first and after whom everyone else follows.
We see this in many areas. In business we describe those who are in top management as “business leaders”. We talk of those who are in front of the competitors as being “market leaders”. We talk of our politicians as being “national leaders”. In military and paramilitary organisations we speak of officers as being “leaders”. In almost every facet of life it is those who are in controlling positions who are referred to as “leaders” - the leader is invariably seen as being in the role of “master”
But is this necessarily leadership? And, if it is leadership, is it the sort of leadership that is appropriate today?
My research indicates that today the world is looking for leaders who:
* ensure they don't alienate their people no matter where in the organisation they may be - not just their direct reports
* are authoritative without being authoritarian
* have vision - know who they are and where they are going
* can communicate this vision to everyone who will listen
* are trustworthy and have personal integrity
* practice what they preach
* respect other people and their views rather than simply imposing the leader’s views on all around
* make it possible for others to achieve results
It is this sort of leadership that we need in all areas of society today - especially as we recover from the global financial crisis.
What are the leaders, and what is the leadership, like in your organisation?
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
Later I discussed this with the person who had invited me there. I was told that the very people who were being accused of lack of commitment were those who provided most of the money for the organisation to operate. Further, it was explained to me, a key factor in their doing very little else than provide money was the fact that the chairman had managed to alienate most of the members by his dictatorial behaviour. The feeling was that the chairman was seeking only those things that made him look good - he was not really interested in the organisation. Later I discovered that, not surprisingly, the rest of the leadership team exhibited similar behaviours - or they left for a new organisation.
The organisation in question has a leadership problem.
Traditionally the leader has been the one who is at the forefront of those being led. He or she is the one who knows where to go then sets the pace. The leader is the one who is seen first and after whom everyone else follows.
We see this in many areas. In business we describe those who are in top management as “business leaders”. We talk of those who are in front of the competitors as being “market leaders”. We talk of our politicians as being “national leaders”. In military and paramilitary organisations we speak of officers as being “leaders”. In almost every facet of life it is those who are in controlling positions who are referred to as “leaders” - the leader is invariably seen as being in the role of “master”
But is this necessarily leadership? And, if it is leadership, is it the sort of leadership that is appropriate today?
My research indicates that today the world is looking for leaders who:
* ensure they don't alienate their people no matter where in the organisation they may be - not just their direct reports
* are authoritative without being authoritarian
* have vision - know who they are and where they are going
* can communicate this vision to everyone who will listen
* are trustworthy and have personal integrity
* practice what they preach
* respect other people and their views rather than simply imposing the leader’s views on all around
* make it possible for others to achieve results
It is this sort of leadership that we need in all areas of society today - especially as we recover from the global financial crisis.
What are the leaders, and what is the leadership, like in your organisation?
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
Friday, October 16, 2009
Leaders develop people
When first I arrived in Australia, I was unsure about where to settle so I drove taxis in Melbourne for about a year. Very educational - I learned a lot about people.
One Friday evening I had a fare from Tullamarine Airport to the Dandenong Ranges – a “good fare”. On the way the passenger and I got talking. He was CEO of a company in Sydney during the week and returned home to Melbourne for weekends. He was looking to fill a vacancy and, after quizzing me about myself, the trip turned into a recruitment interview – it turned out that my background was perfectly suited to meet his needs. Two days later, on Monday morning, I commenced working with him.
Peter was a leader.
Like every other good leader I have observed or with whom I have been associated, Peter was genuinely interested in other people and in seeing them grow. Where appropriate and possible he sought to help facilitate that growth. It was as a direct result of his influence that, a few years later, I returned to university, obtained my PhD and moved on.
It’s now more than 30 years since Peter got into my cab and set in train a process that changed my life. I lost contact with him some time ago as we both moved around the world, yet his influence and my gratitude have remained.
Think of the people who have had a very real and positive influence on your life.
Who are they?
When did it happen?
What did they do that made such an influence?
What sort of an influence are you having on those around you – not only those with whom you have a formal leadership role – but on everyone – perhaps even a taxi driver?
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
One Friday evening I had a fare from Tullamarine Airport to the Dandenong Ranges – a “good fare”. On the way the passenger and I got talking. He was CEO of a company in Sydney during the week and returned home to Melbourne for weekends. He was looking to fill a vacancy and, after quizzing me about myself, the trip turned into a recruitment interview – it turned out that my background was perfectly suited to meet his needs. Two days later, on Monday morning, I commenced working with him.
Peter was a leader.
Like every other good leader I have observed or with whom I have been associated, Peter was genuinely interested in other people and in seeing them grow. Where appropriate and possible he sought to help facilitate that growth. It was as a direct result of his influence that, a few years later, I returned to university, obtained my PhD and moved on.
It’s now more than 30 years since Peter got into my cab and set in train a process that changed my life. I lost contact with him some time ago as we both moved around the world, yet his influence and my gratitude have remained.
Think of the people who have had a very real and positive influence on your life.
Who are they?
When did it happen?
What did they do that made such an influence?
What sort of an influence are you having on those around you – not only those with whom you have a formal leadership role – but on everyone – perhaps even a taxi driver?
More information about Douglas Long at http://www.dglong.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
