Is Leadership dead?

In 1943 Nietzsche rocked the Christian and theological establishments with his assertion that "God is dead". A few years later (1952) JB Phillips continued this "rocking" in his book "Your God is Too Small". Once the shock and horror from the establishment had abated, these works (and others like the writings of Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Dietrich Bonheoffer, Paul Tillich etc) lead to many questioning their faith and, for some it lead to a new and deeper understanding of what they believe and why. [More recently, of course, the shock was continued by people such as John Robinson and John Spong]

Is “leadership” dead? Just as Nietzsche, Barth, Bultmann, Bonheoffer, Tillich, Robinson, Spong and others forced the Christian and theological establishments to re-examine their beliefs and concepts, has the time come when we need to seriously reconsider our leadship beliefs and concepts?

No matter what any person’s personal views relating to Julian Assange, the current furore around Wikileaks provides a focus for this question.

When I talk with people at any level of virtually any organisation I invariably hear that the problem they face is “leadership”. (A few years ago it was “communication”.) When I ask for clarification I get a shopping list of issues and concerns such that it would wear out a series of magic wands if they were all to be addressed.

It seems to me that "leadership" now seems to be a catch-all term (a bit like "communication"). That being the case, has the time now come when we should be considering whether the term "leadership" has lost its impact and whether we need to radically rethink the whole concept by moving out of all the traditional concepts like "servant leadership", "situational leadership", “contingency leadership”, “leadership habits” etc that are based on attitudes and behaviours?

In “Third Generation Leadership: how to develop commitment and accountability in the 21^st century” I suggest that the 1980’s brought about a seismic shift in the way leadership operates. I say in that book: “Gen Y finds rigid reporting structures and narrow sources of information to be a foreign concept. Their whole life has been lived in a world of personal computers, mobile phones, the internet, social networking, and the like. They have learned that by using the internet and the search engine of their choice they can find out almost anything about anyone at any time – and some of what they find out will even be accurate! Gen Y has an expectation that information will be readily available and that they will be involved in determining the accuracy and utility of such information.”

I wrote that long before Wikileaks was forefront of international consciousness but recent events demonstrate how accurate I was. “Leadership” as it largely exists today pertains to power and authority. In such an approach the ownership and control of information and knowledge is a very effective power base that can be used for good or evil but, almost always, to further the ambitions and desires of the leadership elite. This is as true in families as it is in organisations and nations. Most of the reaction against Julian Assange and Wikileaks relates not so much to what is being released but the very fact of this power base now being eroded.

If this forces us to reconsider the whole concept of “leadership” perhaps its not totally a bad thing.

I'd love to know what you think. Please make your comments below.

More information about me at

http://www.dglong.com

and at

http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

... and start all over again!

“Failure is a word I don't accept” – John Johnson

Johnson was a “self made man” in the USA who became one of the first Afro Americans to establish a major international business. He attributed his success to the fact that he never allowed external circumstances to dictate how he should feel, think, or act. He saw issues and problems as something to be overcome rather than as things that would destroy him.

The many things I remember from my childhood include a ditty from a movie called, I think, “I love Melville”. It went “Life has its funny little ups and downs, downs and ups, ups and downs” and gave me the impression that its always important to get up and try again after any fall. Those childhood memories also include the words, from I think, another movie “pick yourself up, brush yourself off, and start all over again.”

The end of any year is a time for reflection.

All of us have experienced many things during 2010. Some of these have been the ‘highs’ that we wanted – happy moments and times we consider the successes of the year. For many people these ‘highs’ vastly outnumber the ‘lows’ and, for some, may even mean that the ‘lows’ are forgotten. That’s a nice position to be in.

But for others, right now the ‘lows’ dominate. Just yesterday I was talking to a woman in her 40’s who, very early in the conversation made the comment that she had recently buried a teenage son. I can hardly imagine what this woman and her family must be feeling. Last Friday I heard that a friend from earlier years had lost his business and his home because of international economic factors. I know he will be devastated but making contact with him in order to provide support is proving difficult. Aged in his early 60’s, he’s going to find it hard to start again.

These are extremes. Fortunately most of us won’t have experienced things as devastating as this. But no matter what we have experienced - whether it is the ‘highs’ or the ‘lows’ – the critical thing is how we respond to it.

From my own experience, sometimes it seems as though it is easier to pick yourself up after a really significant “low” than it is after a whole series of smaller “lows”. It’s a bit like the “boiled frog syndrome” – when the temperature rises slowly the cumulative effect isn’t noticed in time to do something about it, but when the temperature rises suddenly the frog escapes and survives.

I wonder what 2010 held for you. More importantly, I wonder how you dealt with whatever happened.

I'd love to know what you think of this. Please make your comments below.

More information about me at http://www.dglong.com and my video blog is at http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

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

How to achieve peak performance

There are 5 critical steps in obtaining peak performance:

1. Don’t expect respect.

2. Don’t think you’ve got the answer

3. Don’t pretend

4. Get out of the way

5. Say “thank you”

Don’t expect respect

One of the earliest lessons I received from my first boss was: “work with your people: don’t expect them to work for you.” What this means is that you cannot expect to be respected and to achieve results simply because you're "the boss". Respect is something you earn and until you have earned the respect of your people there is little or no probability that your unit will achieve peak performance as frequently as may desired.

You don’t have to be liked to be respected and there’s a huge difference between “liking” and “respecting”. You need to be respected.”

The steps to earning this respect are:

Don’t think you’ve got the answer

The first step in obtaining respect is to understand the difference between things that are negotiable and things that are not. When it comes to safety issues like the use of equipment and working conditions, the rules and regulations pertaining to these are designed to minimise the probability of injury or accident to others. Here there is no room for discussion or error.

But other matters are open to discussion. The objectives and strategy might be given from the top and the tactics might come from your immediate boss but the implementation of these in the most effective way usually has reasonable degrees of freedom at an operational level. Draw on the knowledge and experience of your people. In my experience, once people realise that you are genuinely asking for their input, they freely give it. The results then become theirs - not yours alone.

Don’t pretend

The need for integrity and authenticity should always be apparent. Most people in Australia have a very well developed “bullshit detection meter”. They can quickly distinguish between an academic or theoretical solution to a problem and a solution that is based on experience. Learn to make clear the difference between what you have been taught in your education or training and your experience. Then open the issue up for input from them as to what is the optimal way forward. The result should be a blend of knowledge and experience that results in everyone learning from each other and a deepening of trust and respect that will ensure that, when required, things will be done without question and with absolute commitment to the goals, the unit, and each individual. You might be “the boss” but without their commitment you can achieve almost nothing.

Get out of the way

Central to this concept of trust is learning not to micro manage. Your role is to ensure everyone has all of the necessary knowledge and skill to do what is required and to develop the level of commitment that will ensure you achieve what is necessary no matter what the personal cost. You need to be a close-knit unit where if someone sees something needing urgent attention he or she has the power and authority to take action without waiting for you to approve it. This means that, at times, you could be a follower who respects and responds to the knowledge and experience of someone technically junior to you. You can't do the work of your people. You can only do your work and your people need to trust that you will do it. You have to trust them to do their work and together you have to achieve results.

Say thank you

Always acknowledge the contribution of others. It is vital that those who make the contributions get the acknowledgment and reward. Learn to never take credit for the input of others and to ensure that the team’s effort is always recognised.

One thing I know for sure: these 5 things apply everywhere. They are critical to good leadership and they provide the base for Third Generation Leadership.

I'd love to know what you think about this. Please provide your comments below.

More information about me at http://www.dglong.com

What followers need

The research that lead to the concept of Third Generation Leadership showed that there are 4 key things that followers need if they are to provide peak performance - in other words, to do the things that their leaders need them to do in obtaining desired results. These are:

1. The follower needs to feel absolutely safe both physically and emotionally. This means that there can be no bullying, harassment, or discrimination just as much as it means that the highest standards of occupational health and safety standards should apply. When a person feels threatened in any way their attention is directed to avoiding, eliminating, or minimising the effect of the threat and so they are unable to give other activities the engagement required and performance suffers. Any form of threat will reduce long term overall performance even if, in the short term, it achieves results.
   
2. The follower needs to feel respected by his or her leader. Where the follower does not feel respected, this lack of respect is reciprocated and the follower is not committed to giving his or her best to the task at hand - in the worst case scenarios the follower will actively work to denigrate or embarrass the leader. While most leaders are perfectly happy to give conditional respect - in other words, 'do what I want and I will respect you' - the evidence is that only unconditional respect can totally remove all feelings of threat.
   
3. The follower needs to feel listened to by his or her leader. This is clearly related to the concept of unconditional respect. Virtually every consultant with whom I've spoken, as well as from my own experience, knows that people "down the food chain" generally know both what are the issues in any organisation and they can generally tell you pretty sensible ways of addressing these issues. When a leader acts as though he or she has all the answers they invariably limit the ability of people to perform at their best.
   
4. The follower needs to feel believed in by his or her leader. Its the old concept of self fulfilling prophecy. People perform in accordance with the belief shown in them - and this belief shows itself in actions and attitudes rather than in words.

Third Generation Leadership isn't rocket science. Third Generation Leadership is learning how to engage followers with each other as well as with the things that need to be done.

More information available at http://www.dglong.com and at http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

Please let me know what you think about this. Post your comments below.

There's no leadership to be seen yet

I had hoped that, by now, commonsense might prevail and that we might have seen some leadership from both sides of Australian Federal politics. Silly of me I know! It's one of the problems with being an optimist!

 

While I fully understand that some people in politics see it as a game of win-lose power play, there actually is a serious side to all the fun - and I don't mean the huge superannuation payouts and high levels of influence that tend to come after one retires from the political fray - there really is a responsibility to try and create an environment in which succeeding generations can live and prosper.

 

This message seems lost to both parties at the moment.

 

Like many others, I am tired of the game playing. Recently I heard one senior Coalition frontbencher comment that the members of the Liberal and Country parties expected and wanted the Coalition to try and destroy the Government. In the Sydney Morning Herald of Monday September 27, another Coalition frontbencher was reported as laughing when reminded of comments made when both parties were negotiating to become the minority government. An additional comment seemed to indicate that, in this person's mind, subterfuge and dishonesty is ok if it gains the end you desire.

 

Of course, more recently we have had the on-going unedifying fracas between John Howard and Peter Costello - neither of whom come out of it very well.

 

We appear to have degenerated into a country run by "little" people - people who are small in their minds, who have lost sight of the visions that gave us the Snowy Hydro Scheme, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Sydney Opera House, and the tremendous leaps in infrastructure that occurred under governments of all persuasions many years ago. If John Howard could be nicknamed "Little Johnny", then a similar sobriquet could also be applied to "Little Julia" and "Little Tony".

We need leaders with vision - leaders who place their own ambition in a position secondary to the needs of the country. As in the business world where time and again we see long term viability subordinated to short term results, in the political arena we are seeing the desire to score points and obtain power trumping over approaches that will take us into the distant future. We need leaders who develop a commonality of purpose among all groups - a desire to ensure a better world for our grandchildren's grandchildren - and who engage us all in the process.

 

We need Third Generation Leaders for this Third Generation Leadershipo environment. I've had enough of First and Second Generation Leaders in all areas of life.

 

To learn more about Third Generation Leadership go to http://www.youtube.com/user/GreatLeadership3G

 

I'd love to know your thoughts. Please post your comments below.

 

More information about me at http://www.dglong.com

Leaders and Threat

So Tony Blair's memoirs are out. I haven't yet read them but apparently he partly justifies the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by claiming that it was necessary to send the message that attacking the USA would not be tolerated. On the radio yesterday I heard an interview in which Blair went on to say that the greatest threat to world peace was Islamic fundamentalism.

Sounds pretty screwed up to me. Sure as sure can be, it doesn't look or sound like leadership. It sounds far more like the actions of the schoolyard bully and his/her mates who have the attitude we can do what we like and don't you dare touch us.

But Blair is right on one thing. The greatest threat to world peace is fundamentalism - but it doesn't matter whether the label is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. Immediately any person or group claims to be the only purveyor of truth - to be the only way to righteousness and God (no matter how 'God' may be defined) - and makes it clear that they are prepared to use violence (physical, emotional, or mental) in order to achieve their goals we have a problem.

This is the realisation stated by General Petraeus in his condemnation of the plan by the Dove Outreach Centre in Florida to burn copies of the Koran. I suspect that members of the Dove Outreach Centre would see the burning of the Bible as an act of violence and I suspect they would argue for retaliation against anyone who committed what they would see as an act of sacrilege. They have a total right to have such feelings. But equally the Muslim community have the same right to feel affronted and attacked by the burning of the Koran.

Unfortunately the statement by Blair that identifies only Muslim fundamentalism and his comments justifying the invasion of Iraq give the totally wrong message. It is a toxic message - one that gives succour to extremists of other faiths - and by such action exacerbates both the possibility and the probability of violence.

True leadership recognises that the issue is far more complex than the simplistic idea of sending "a message of total clarity to the world" after September 11. True leadership is far more complex than attacking the activities of one extremist group while ignoring or tacitly condoning the activities of other extremist groups. True leadership seeks to deal with the root causes - what Deming (the father of the Quality movement) called the systems causes as opposed to the special causes. And this is something that the past and current activities in Iraq and Afghanistan fail to do.

We need leadership that can deal with the increasing amounts of ambiguity and uncertainty that exist in every arena of life. First and Second Generation Leadership have got us into this mess. We need Third Generation Leadership to get us out of it. A clue to what this might be like can be found at http://www.blog.ottoscharmer.com/?=attentional+violence&submit=GO

Please let me know what you think about this. You can make comments below.

Further information about Doug Long at http://www.dglong.com