Contact Dr. Green

Author: nuleadership

  • The Era of the Creator

    I sat in the office waiting for a debriefing on my job interview. I didn’t get a management position from this organization. The senior executive spoke to me cordially about me doing a good job. I pressed him for more specifics so that I could improve myself on the next job interview. He candidly mentioned that my outside interest (writing, talkshow appearances, TV interviews) was a distraction to this position. It was apparent that this older gentleman wasn’t ‘feeling my creativity.’ In fact, I felt he didn’t like it. I politely thanked him. I knew I was a marked men his mind due to showcasing my creativity. During this period and in this organization, creativity was not deemed a valuable asset to the organization. 

     

    Over the past eight months, 1.8 million people without jobs left the labor market. In fact, their pessimism was so great that they gave up looking for employment. Hidden beneath these numbers are the underemployed. Tennessee Congressman John Duncan Jr. notes, “Underemployment is probably even higher, with far too many having to work at low-paying jobs for which they are over-qualified.”

     With the unemployment rate continuing to rise, individuals are perplexed as to what is the best decision to make for their careers. If more jobs are needed, it will take organizations that possess the ability of innovation. Given this premise, this discussion examines how managers can infuse their organizations with creativity, thereby surviving and defeating disruptive change.  Organizations must develop their workforce to be a collection of innovators and creators. Gary Hamel, author of Leading the Revolution, notes “Industrial revolutionaries will exploit any protective urge, any hesitancy on the part of the oligarchy…In the nonlinear world, only nonlinear ideas will create new wealth.” 

    Unfortunately, many of today’s managers are not equip to think in nonlinear ways. Their extensive experiences become a liability during disruptive change. As American businesses battle their global competitors with the scientific management strategy, market shares continue to take a downward spiral. Everyday disruptive change breaks down traditional organization strategies. What worked yesterday will not work in this harsh environment. Therefore, organizations move cautiously into the future. Therefore, the nation stares at impending danger.

    However, creativity may be one of the biggest weapons to fend off competitors. Creativity is the process of developing new, uncommon, or unique ideas. It involves a mental process involving the generation of new ideas or concepts, or new associations between existing ideas or concepts. Organizations do not understand how to infuse creativity.

    Creative genius Michael Michalko argues that innovation does not happen by chance: “It [creativity] is not a result of some easily learned magic trick or secret, but a consequence of your intention to be creative and your determination to learn and use creative-thinking strategies.”

    Companies need to determine how they will use innovation as a competitive advantage. In fact, creative people need to work in environments that stimulate, grow, and enhance their abilities. In taking this step, they need to create a culture that supports these gifted individuals by rewarding them and giving them opportunities to growth. When organizations get serious about maximizing their creativity, they will be laying the groundwork for a sustainable future.

    The future is ripe for creators. Sadly, globalization has become a menacing threat to some businesses. Therefore, the major challenge for contemporary institutions is to produce workers who are intelligent, creative, and internationally savvy to handle the challenges of the 21st century. Trend expert Henrik Vejlgaard insists that creative people often set new trends. These create people include poets, authors, actors, architects, singers, and other gifted individuals. High performance organizations across the globe will seek these creative groups out if they want to sustain market advantages and sustain profitability.  

    American humorist Erma Bombeck said, “When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would not have a single bit of talent left, and could say, ‘I used everything you gave me.”  Truly, creative individuals want to fully use their talents and feel appreciate. In contemporary organizations, innovation and creativity often falter as a major priority. Management strategist Stanley Gryskiewicz argues that turbulence associated with change can be a positive force for innovation. In fact, finding innovative ways to jumpstart tomorrow’s engineers is a great concern for businesses that want to remain relevant in the 21st century.

    How do contemporary organizations take steps to infuse creativity in their organizations? What can creative employees submerged in bureaucracies do to sustain their creative juices?

    © 2010 by Daryl D. Green 

     

  • The Future of Diverse Organizations in America

    In the movie Slumdog Millionaire, the life of 18-year old Jamal Malik is revealed. He is an orphan from the slums of Mumbia. Jamal has the opportunity to play India’s version of ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire’; he stands one question away from winning 20 million rupees.

    The movie was dramatic and powerful. It demonstrated the impacts of globalization on diverse cultures in the world.  Although Slumdog Millionaire won eight Academy Awards in 2009, it was a movie mostly invisible to the average American citizen.

    As American businesses expand globally, organizational leaders need to evaluate what diversity will mean in the near future. Many organizations are struggling to understand the meaning of a culturally diverse organization.  Some organizations are further along in implementing diversity strategies than others. Unfortunately, most managers miss what diversity is all about.

    Strategic foresight provides a lens for understanding how to dissect this diverse future. Strategic foresight allows an organization to analyze what has happened or may happen in the environment. Nick Marsh, Mike Mcallum, and Dominique Purcell, authors of Strategic Leadership: The Power of Standing in the Future, explain that the strategic process used in the past is not adequate for today’s disruptive change. They argue that the traditional strategy was designed for the 20th Century Industrial Age.

    However, the Knowledge Age requires a flexible and dynamic strategy. Today, organizations are not confined to fixed boundaries or sectors. They have unlimited resources due to the fact that the key resource is not tangible but intangibles (ideas, knowledge, etc.).  In fact, futurist Richard Thieme maintains that the future is being constrained by technologies. In this New World Order, all organizations like all organisms can be defined as structures of information and energy.

    A diversity strategy isn’t easy to master. Historically, diversity has been mandated though federal laws via equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. It was a forced change that resulted in negative resistance by both managers and employees. In spite of the government’s many operational flaws, it has attempted to broaden the makeup of workforce for several years.

    Clearly, this is a shortsighted approach to organizational strategy when dealing with a multi-cultural marketplace. As recent studies demonstrate, employees want a more meaningful workplace. Diversity is only adding fuel to a fire that is already smoking. Today’s employees don’t want to be a component in a big machine. Employees want to be valued.

    In some cases, technology may impede an objective perspective of different cultures. For example, social media is an increasing communication medium where individuals connect with each other. However, many times individuals’ personal social networks are not diverse along ethnic, gender, racial, or religious lines. Anne Tsui, and Barbara Gutek, demographic gurus, argue individuals within a social group may have a different experience than others from the majority culture in a similar experience.

    Disruptive change can have a profound impact on society. For example, the Industrial Age marked the rise of factories, the increase of urban life, and the growth of unskilled labor for industrial work. Between 1840 and 1920, there was a massive influx of immigrants seeking work. This reality transformed American society. That is why organizations need to understand strategic foresight.

    In 1987, the Hudson Institute published Workforce 2000, which outlined the impending demographic changes for the American workforce. A recent Department of Labor report, Futurework: Trends and Challenges for the Work in the 21st Century, outlined the following future trends:

    • By 2050, minority groups will make-up half of the population
    • Immigrants will account for almost two-thirds of the population
    • One-quarter of the population will be of Hispanic origin
    • Almost one in ten Americans will be of Asian or Pacific Islander decent

    In summary, demographic changes will reshape the future of organizational culture. The old paradigm of “just fit in or get out” will soon become archaic. Let’s hope that America can adequately prepare for these shifts before it is too late.

    Using a strategic foresight perspective for analyzing the year 2050, what may the future hold for American institutions?  What will be the impacts on major sectors such as business, government, education, and other prominent organizations?  What will globalization mean in the future?

     © 2010 by Daryl D. Green

  • Strategy, Change on the Horizon

    In a world of hypercompetitive environments, organizations fight to survive in severe economic conditions. Shareholders replace CEOs like they change defective light bulbs. It is frequent and unpredictable.  In hopes of salvaging the latest struggling organization, executives usually implement quick solutions by cutting costs (which translates to mean people) and attempting to stop the hemorrhaging through technology. Yet, can today’s managers continue to do the same things and expect different results? 

    No! Today’s challenges are calling for a different methodology. Strategic thinking represents a different solution for contemporary managers. Strategic thinking is more than careful planning of the organization’s work. Strategic thinking consists of two components, which are knowledge about the present and foresight about the future. Let’s go deeper.  

     Some managers foolishly rely solely on their experience to read market changes. Yet, the current market isn’t like the past! In many situations, managers are equipped to deal with the predictable.  Change that is either planned or incremental is addressed with a risk management approach. However, disruptive change is the hallmark of today’s markets.

    Disruptive change is sudden and unpredictable. Therefore, experience becomes a liability, not an asset. Organizations, using the old mode of operations, find themselves vulnerable. Established institutions fail. Unknown companies emerge to dominate new sectors. Clayton Christensen, author of Innovative Dilemma, attributes this phenomenon to disruptive innovation.  Therefore, survival depends on understanding the current markets and future trends.

    Strategic leaders are needed in today’s organizations. Charles Handy, author of The Age of Unreason, argues “Discontinuous change requires discontinuous thinking. If the new way of doing things is going to be different from the old, not just an improvement on it, then we shall need to look at everything in a new way.” 

     Watt Wacker, Jim Taylor, and Howard Means, leadership gurus, suggest a visionary leader with the capacity of ‘living in the present’ while ‘living in the future.” Therefore, duality becomes a critical attribute of exemplary organizations.

    Clearly, strategic thinking is different than routine planning of an organization. Unfortunately, some managers are unaware how this process can assist them in being competitive. Strategic thinking can be characterized in the following ways: (a) focusing on important issues, (b) selecting relevant information, (c) recognizing systematic properties (linkages, patterns, etc.), (d) distinguishing causes from effect, (e) maintaining a long-term view, (f) appreciating consequences, (g) generating alternatives, (h) integrating logical with creative, divergent thinking, (i) remaining flexible, and (j) acting during crises.  

    Since contemporary organizations can no longer use outdated methods and cookie cutter solutions in this disruptive environment, managers must reexamine their operations. In fact, leaders must be flexible to sudden market changes. Therefore, effective organizations go beyond detailed planning to strategic thinking.

    At what levels of management would strategic thinking be best utilized? Do you feel that workers should be equipped with some type of training to detect disruptive change in the market?  How can you influence your organization to think strategically?

    © 2010 by Daryl D. Green

  • A Leader’s Attitude Adjustment

    In the movie Remember the Titans, the story follows the integration of two high schools in Virginia. Herman Boone (Denzel Washington) is hired as head football coach in a very emotionally charged situation. At any point, something bad could erupt.  Yet, the movie captures the attitude transformation of the team. The team captain, who was an All-American defensive player, finds himself complaining about the selfishness of another player. Yet, this captain wasn’t supporting the head coach’s philosophy of becoming a successful team. Only when the leaders on the team supported the team strategy did the team start being successful.  

    Good leaders understand the importance of a good attitude in building an effective organization. Everyone loves a winner, but many people forget the struggles to the top. Yet, emerging leaders understand the need for teambuilding and leadership development. In the textbook Contemporary Management, Gareth Jones and Jennifer George make the case for greater emotional intelligence by managers.

    Emotional intelligence (EI) is the ability to understand and manage one’s own mood as well as the mood of others.  They argue that managers will better be able to relate to their employees. Understanding employees as well as customers is a necessity for successful organizations.  Jim Cathcart, sales expert, further suggests that the attitude of a salesperson can make or break a sale. He notes that customers want to know that the salesperson cares about them. Is it different in your industry?

    Given this framework, managers would understand that it does not ay to exhibit a bad attitude with their workers. According to a Carnegie Foundation survey, 85% of an individual’s success in life is attributed to a person’s ability to deal with people and manage his or her self. Therefore, a positive attitude by manages may contribute greatly toward organizational profitability in the long run.

    Great leaders can set the tone for an organization. In fact, leadership expert Dr. Bruce Winston notes that employees want leaders who can move an organization in a positive direction during stormy times.  Furthermore, John C. Maxell, author of The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, argues the significance of a good attitude:

    “If you want outstanding results, you need good people with great talent and awesome attitudes. When attitudes go up, so does the potential of the team.”

    When a selfish person leads an organization, it can have a negative impact on the organization. In fact, a bad attitude can damage the work culture. The results can go well beyond the bottom-line for most corporations.  Therefore, a good attitude does matter, Captain!

     Does your organization support the concept of EI? If not, why?  How do leaders ensure that they have the right attitude for the job?

    © 2010 by Daryl D. Green

  • A Return to Agrarian Leadership

    In order to improve leaders’ value systems, we need to regain the values of agrarian society. Leadership expert Vana Prewitt argues that the current leadership theories are based on modernist assumptions and are out of date with leading today’s postmodern organizations. Given this dilemma, I advocate for a different kind of 21st leadership. 

     Agrarian leadership is defined as a contextual influence that has an impact on subordinates’ attitudes and performance by leaders who are both value and results driven. Agrarian leaders view their followers as critical parts of the socio-technical system. Therefore, technology does not drive the value system of society.

    Before the Industrial Revolution, life was centered on land and labor. Life was simple for the leader in agrarian society. Rural living revolved around the land; owning it was equivalent to self-sufficiency and liberty. Although Americans lived in a tribal structure prior to the Agrarian Era (1650-1849), farming communities operated in a decentralized economy.

    Agrarians exercised a strong spirituality and a deep respect for the environment. There was a genuine concern for neighbors and co-workers. Being a leader was a major responsibility. In fact, farmers were like heroes because of their hard work, contributions to society, independence, and moral standards. A man’s word meant something. With the transition from an agrarian to industrial society, untainted leadership was lost.

    The Industry Revolution meant major changes to the American way of life. Before that period, over 90% of Americans lived rurally. Farmers influenced society. Between 1870 and1900, rural areas doubled and urban areas tripled. Farmers were cautious about these societal changes.

    Industrial managers faced challenges such as generating new efficiencies while expanding operations. Chaos theory was in effect because those managers couldn’t control these organizational changes (both inside and outside). Factory managers lacked a process to motivate the unskilled (former agrarian) workforce. This era created new advances and new problems.

    The Industrial Revolution forever changed agrarian society, primarily due to market economy and technology. Farmers were less self-sufficient and became “economic market” slaves. This created conflict because farmers and industrial society had different values. Farming became more productive, but fewer farmers were needed.

    As a result of these advances, farmers lost their independence, family focus, and societal influence on moral conduct.  For example, some managers found factory workers breaking equipment. Consequently, managers tried to institute positive and negative rewards; these managers used conventional wisdom: “the hungriest man makes the best worker.”  Once again, mankind was moving away from his calling—the land.   

    Therefore, advances in technology do not always equate to a better society. Many techno advocates would argue that technology has provided superior virtues. I beg to differ. First, technology doesn’t automatically improve society. In over 50 years, America has gone from rural to city and from national to international markets. Richard Critchfield, author of Trees, Why Do You Wait: America’s Changing Rural Culture, argues that these advancements have weakened our core values such as family tradition and work ethic.

    Secondly, the disintegration of the agrarian code has destroyed our moral stability. Osha Davidson, author of Broken Heartlands, suggests that technology and the economic prestige of the agricultural system brought a host of social ills such as poverty, depopulation, and soil erosion.

    Finally, we may consider agrarian lifestyle primitive. However, agrarian values shouldn’t be forgotten as good leadership attributes. We continue to advance technology by leaps and bounds while the values of society continue to disintegrate with each innovation.  In society, many leaders exhibit unethical conduct, pursuing wealth. Throughout American history, we see the consequences.

    Do you feel that agrarian leadership is a term that will fit in the Green Economy? Can today’s leaders acquire, develop, or revitalize agrarian values in their leaders in the 21st century? If so, how?

     © 2010 by Daryl D. Green

  • Spotting Unethical Leadership in 2010

     Today, many employees grumble when their leaders discuss being ethical. During the massive economic downturn, many executives got rewarded for underperforming. For example, Fannie Mae’s CEO Michael Williams and Freed CEO Charles Haldeman Jr. were slated to receive up to $6 million each for 2009 despite the companies’ poor performance. Yet, it cost the American taxpayers more than $100 million for these company bailouts. With the continual unethical behavior of several executives, American workers are more cynical about their leaders than ever.

    Ethics plays a critical role in good leadership. Ethics is defined as the code of moral principles that governs the behavior of a person or group according to what is right. Richard Draft, an organization management expert, explains that leaders at the highest management levels develop internal moral standards that can often allow them to break laws if necessary. 

    For many organizations, it is the proverbial “doing as I say and not as I do” for some managers.  Most managers can get away with this philosophy. As businesses continue to falter and competition begins to bear down on the economy, workers are looking for leadership. However, it is virtually impossible to lead an organization if you’re unethical. Unfortunately, it only takes one bad manager to destroy the core values of an organization. Here are some ways to identify an unethical leader:

    This unethical leader…

    1. Leads with a bad attitude
    2. Lies to his followers and peers
    3. Takes advantage of people
    4. Takes personal credit for group accomplishments
    5. Uses politics to gain power in an amoral manner
    6. Does not focus on the common good of the organization
    7. Does not support his followers
    8. Displays a “double-tongued” behavior
    9. Sacrifices his followers for personal gain
    10. Fails to model the way for followers

    Emerging leaders cannot afford to behave unethical. People become less trusting of organizations and people. People, especially leaders, need to act in a manner that sets the example for the rest of the organization. Therefore, it can be concluded that effective leaders must be careful to stay humble and have accountability mechanisms in place so that they won’t hit any ethical mine fields. Organizations can’t afford to wait.

    Can today’s unethical behavior be stopped? If so, how? If not, how can today’s organizations minimize their losses?

  • Uncertain World Needs Good Leadership

    Welcome to the Nu Leadership Revolution! This blog explores the changing workforce and social environment as it relates to emerging leaders.  The status quo will not do! “Nu” represents a change from the old ways of doing things at least for emerging leaders.   

    Our lives continue to unravel as things we believe in disintegrate before our eyes.  Institutions are failing. Personal conduct is at an all time low. Wall Street continues to prosper as Main Street bears the financial hardship for our country.  

    Everyone is impacted–from the executive to the factory worker.  According to the Conference Board research group, only 45% of Americans are satisfied with their work.  This was the lowest level ever recorded by this group over 22 years of researching this area. One major reason cited was that workers do not find their jobs interesting.  In order to be more competitive, organizations need to retool and inspire workers to new levels of performance. Clearly, organizations need good leadership.

    What is needed, however, is a different kind of leader during these times of uncertainty. How can you become a stronger, more effective leader? I feel this revolution will start with a fresh, positive outlook from a new kind of engaging leader. Kevin Kelly, who helped launched Wired Magazine, noted,

    “Wealth in the new regime flows directly from innovation, not optimization; that is, wealth is not gained by perfecting the known, but by imperfectly seizing the unknown.”

    For over 20 years, I have tried to guide and inspire thousands through my lectures, seminars, and columns. As I speak to the issues facing organizations and emerging leaders, I solicit your input and insight.  Therefore, I ask that you join me on a journey towards improved leadership and personal empowerment.

     © 2010 by Daryl D. Green