Guest Blogger: The Leadership Theory Lack

/ nuleadership / 19 Comments

Airport bookstores are crowded with books on leadership, and each one seems to promote a “leadership lack.” They’ll each begin with phrases like “The most pressing issue in organizations is that leaders lack integrity…or empathy…or strategy…or even humor. These books continue by laying out the author’s simple framework for developing the perfect leader. On and on the dialogue goes to the point where readers become be confused because the 21 Unassailable Edicts of Leadership are different than the Seven Routines of Really Efficient Leaders.  It would be a poor move to add to this confusion. With this in mind, we will admit that we do not believe our “leadership lack” to be the most pressing issue in organizations, just the easiest to fix.

Leaders lack an understanding of leadership theory.

These airport leadership books provide decent advice that is easily digestible. And because it is easily digestible, leaders continue to gorge themselves on it until there is very little room left for real, solid theory. Most see theory as complex and hard to digest. When leaders think about leadership or organizational theory, they think back to the 400+ page textbook they had to buy in business school. “Seems like quite an undertaking,” leaders think. So they cheerfully hand their money to the cashier and board the plane with the latest, pocket-sized “leadership” book.

Leaders lack an understanding of leadership theory because it isn’t presented in pocket-sized form.

But leadership theory isn’t some kind of rocket surgery. Attaining a true understanding of theory isn’t difficult, if it’s presented right. We’ll survey the major leadership theories. Our intent is to present them in the same easily digestible, pocket-sized form as the airport bestsellers.

Why Theory?

During WWII, Allied bomber losses were high, so high that the British Air Ministry undertook a rigorous analysis in hopes of finding a solution. Their engineers set out to eyeball every bomber they could, gathering data on each bullet hole. After analyzing the results, engineers decided to reinforce the areas that had the highest concentrations of holes with armor plating.

It didn’t work.

Perplexed, the engineers assumed that the extra plating had made the planes too heavy, and that the difficulty in handling the planes was offsetting the protection of the armor plating.

Enter Abraham Wald.

Wald, a mathematician, suggested that they simply put extra armor plating where the bullet holes weren’t. The idea was simple: if the planes are returning with bullet holes, obviously those areas can be struck without causing the planes to crash. The planes that weren’t returning, Wald theorized, are the ones that are getting hit in different areas. The engineers’ error was so significant, statisticians decided to name it: survivorship bias (the tendency to include only successes in statistical analysis). Any time you only examine just the successes, you will skew the results.

If we return to the airport bookstore in our minds, we see the shelves littered with survivorship bias. We love reading about successes. That’s why books by celebrity CEOs and leadership gurus are among the best sellers of any list. We’d much rather read about the brilliant company leader who started working out of his garage and ended up dominating the industry. However, when this is all we consume about leadership, we succumb to survivorship bias. While a celebrity CEO may reveal the secrets he used to climb to the top, how are we to know they work in every situation?

This is where theory comes in.

Leadership and organizational theories are constructed and tested by examining not just the successes but also the failures. Good and bad leaders, successful and failing change efforts, all get included in the analysis and the resulting theories spare us from our survivorship bias. If we want to grow into outstanding leaders, we must know how and when to utilize the knowledge provided by the existing body of leadership research.

Good leaders focus on where the bullet holes are; great leaders consider where they aren’t.

Please provide comments on this timely topic.

ABOUT THE GUEST BLOGGER

David Burkus is the editor of LeaderLab, a community of resources dedicated to promoting the practice of leadership theory. He is a consultant, a speaker and an adjunct professor of business at several universities. He can be reached at david@davidburkus.com.

Leadership Attraction

/ nuleadership / 25 Comments

Many individuals are reluctant to admit that a person’s appearance may influence how others perceive them as a leader. Let’s take a trip back to the future.

Spanning nearly two years, the 2008 presidential campaign was historical on several fronts. It was the longest presidential campaign and the most expensive in history. It was the first time that two US senators would run against each other and New York Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton was the first serious woman presidential candidate and Senator Barak Obama was the first African American nominated by a major party for president.

However, the Republican Party had a share of history also. The Republican ticket consisted of Arizona Senator John McCain, who sought to become the oldest person elected president to a first term in America, and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who was to become the first woman vice president candidate for the Republican Party. On November 4, 2008, Obama became the first African American to become president.  Did Trait Theory play a part in his strategy?

Leadership characteristics are important factors in the presidency that many pragmatists dismiss. Trait Theory suggests that certain individuals possess special innate qualities that make them the preferred leader. Qualities, such as height, intelligence, extroversion, and other noble traits are components of Trait Theory (See Table 7.1 in Impending Danger). Focusing on the 2008 elections, some would argue that both McCain and Obama possessed leadership qualities and support Trait Theory. However, the question must be posed ‘Which candidate best benefited from the outward perception of what a leader should look like?”

First, physical characteristics are what most individuals see first. In this presidential election, some of the physical traits included height, age, and race. Some people have identified strong physical characteristics as a perquisite for leadership selection. This application can easily be seen in athletics and activities that require great physical ability. Obama hovered over McCain in terms of physical stature. Obama was thought to be 6 feet 1 inch while McCain was 5 feet 9 inches. Obama, being tall and sturdy, would overshadow a much shorter and frail McCain. In many people’s minds, the election was much more about optics than content in some cases.

For example, the presidential debates also demonstrated showmanship. Political organizers worried how their candidates would be viewed by the voters. Therefore, the style of the debate was always a strategic consideration for the McCain camp. This reality was a major concern to McCain’s campaign because of the public perception. Obama was noticeably taller. Two of the three presidential debates in the fall were seated debates, perhaps to neutralize Obama’s height advantage.

Race was the mysterious factor in the election. There was no consensus on the role of race with some experts concluding race would have a significant impact (the Bradley effect) while others predicted that Obama’s race would aid his candidacy given the guilt, sympathy, and compensatory factors for the legacy of racism.

 According to a CNN Exit Poll (16,000 participants) of the presidential election, twice as many of those polled said age was an important factor in their vote as those who indicated race. Specifically, 78% went for Obama to 21% for McCain among voters who thought age was important. However, individuals who said race was an important factor voted 55% to 44% in favor of Obama. However, Obama also was the winner for people who said race was not important.

Second, intrinsic character attributes were also a significant factor. Most people admitted that Obama had star power. He was able to bring record number of crowds to his rallies. Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell supported Obama which broke ranks from his Republican Party: “He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure.”

Yet, both candidates attempted to frame their opponent in a character framework. Feeding on the perceived eloquence of Obama, McCain’s strategy was to paint Obama as a celebrity and elitist. Additionally, McCain tried to use Obama’s articulate speech and his charisma with his followers as void of any substance. Obama had his own method for framing McCain. Obama attempted to portray McCain as the third-term of President Bush.

Last, political strategists sought out ways to best showcase their candidate while highlighting any character flaws in the opposition. The results showed that voter perception counts. Obama was viewed as the agent of change while McCain was viewed as part of the current establishment. Given the fact that Obama won every major demographic in the election, Trait Theory may have played a role in the outcome of the election.

Does having good looks really matter in our PC culture? If so, why?  Is there any value in applying Trait Theory to 21st Century organizations?

© 2011 by Daryl D. Green

A Knowledge Revolution

/ nuleadership / 24 Comments

Sadly, many managers operate under a Tayloristic philosophy where managers “know it all” and followers are only subordinates with little insight or experience. Managers are smarter; therefore, they “lord” over their workers. However, advanced communication technologies and vast access to information by workers make this approach outdated.  As we are bombarded with data and information frequently, manage information becomes critical. The backbone of this transformation is knowledge workers. 

Knowledge management (KM) relates to an organization’s ability to systematically capture, organize, and store information. When dealing with KM issues, many people focus on intellectual capital or technology issues, rather than the human element. Dr. Jay Liebowitz, author of Addressing the Human Capital Crisis in the Federal Government, argues that knowledge management should be a critical element in an organization’s human capital strategy.

He further noted the cohesiveness of these terms. In an organization, human capital is derived from the “brain power” of fellow employees. This knowledge transfer is done in an organization in several ways, such as lessons learned, best practices, and culture. Therefore, knowledge management and human capital strategies should be tailored to the specific organization.

As a rule, an organization’s knowledge and capability depends primarily on its human and social capital. Knowledge workers create and capture information for the management of knowledge. This situation occurs because today’s workers are more informed than previous generations. However, knowledge workers are driven by different motivational factors than traditional workers.

 

Many executives are more concerned with managing resources and work processes than dealing with people. In fact, people become just another product to manage in a hectic environment. Yet, Christina Maslach and Michael Leiter suggest that the current organizational paradigm represents the dehumanization of today’s workers. Therefore, today’s managers cannot afford to manage and motivate workers in the same fashion; they must apply new approaches of leadership in order to inspire today’s knowledge workers.

What can US organizations do to maximize the usage of this knowledge workforce?

© 2011 by Daryl D. Green

The Power of Influence

/ nuleadership / 29 Comments

Introduction

In the 1990’s movie “Goodfellas,” we witness how individuals can rapidly move up the power chain through influence. In fact, it is an all-time classic gangster movie. Goodfellas grossed over $46.8 million domestically and received many national awards and reviews.

Here’s the synopsis. Henry Hill (Ray Liotte) grew up with a vision of a Mafia lifestyle. It was a dream that would garnish him wealth, power, and influence. Henry aggressively worked toward this ambition. He would become successful. Once a small time gangster, Henry became a major player; he participated in a major robbery with Jimmy Conway (Robert De Nero) and Tommy De Vito (Joe Pesci). His two partners managed to kill off everyone else involved in the robbery and slowly advance the hierarchy of the Mob. Henry had finally gotten the power and influence he craved along with other intended consequences.

Today, many managers tend to operate like gorillas in power.  People in organizations tend to follow the person in power, not necessarily the best thinkers. This is called the Alpha Principle.  Harry Beckwith, marketing author, states that most organizations operate like apes. He notes, “The alphas dictate what the group does and thinks. 

But are alphas better at decision making?  Not necessarily. Alphas are just better at getting and keeping power.”  Poorly skilled managers cause a lot of unnecessary stress to families because they don’t understand how to treat people.  Employees then bring it home to their families, thereby creating more problems. In this discussion, we will examine how individual workers can gain more influence in their organizations.

Levels of Power

There are a variety of ways influences can obtain influence in contemporary organizations.  In fact, leadership is a combination of power and influence.  Leader can be defined as the ability to influence, guide, and direct others.  Leaders get people to do things they wouldn’t normally do alone.  Power is a key component of leadership.  Power is the ability of a person in an organization to influence others to accomplish a desired outcome.  In most organizations power often evolves into the domination of others. 

Given this dynamic of organizations, managers need to understand their organizations. James Gibson, John Ivancevich, James Donelly, Jr., and Robert Konopaske, author of Organizations, argue that individuals need to understand how organizations operate.  In many organizations, there is a power struggle.  Power relates to the ability to get others to do what one wants them to do.  Given this framework, five interpersonal bases of power can be summarized as legitimate power, reward, coercive, referent, and expert power. 

In legitimate power, a person’s ability to influence others is given by being in a position of power. In fact, the person’s influence is authorized by his title in the organization.  There is little an individual can do if they do not possess this legitimate in changing the way things are done.  Coercive and reward power are based on the same premise; it is a person’s ability to reward or punish the behavior of others.

In fact, these sources of power are often used to support the use of legitimate power. Therefore, if you are not in a position to apply coercive or reward power, gaining influence in a contemporary organization may prove to be too difficult.  The above items are considered organizational power.

When individuals do not have title in an organization, they should be strategic in gaining more influence in the organization. The two major factors are referent and expert power. Referent power is based on a person’s charisma due to the personality or style of behavior.

Gibson, Ivancevich, Donelly, and Konopaske maintain that the strength of a person’s charisma is an indication of a person’s referent power. This power can be effective in leading others to make better decisions. People will at least listen to you because they instinctively trust you as a leader. Unfortunately, not everyone has that type of a magnetic personality.

Expert power is the power to influence others based on special expertise.  Even when an individual may have low rank in an organization, expert power makes the individual invaluable. Expert power can relate to administrative, technical, or other personal attributes. It goes to the Law of Scarcity.  Therefore, the most difficult a person is to replace, the greater the individual’s power in the organization. Individuals can gain this power in several ways.

First, a person can learn about the organization’s needs or deficiencies and seek to fill this knowledge gap.  For example, a small consulting firm may lacks the skills to promote itself. An employee with this ability could provide this additional service to this organization. Thus, the employee gains power. Second, employees can take additional training and obtain special certifications which can assist the organization in achieving its mission.

Third, individuals can become an authority in an area and become a hot commodity.  In fact, a person who can train, teach, lecture, and write on a particular subject can gain influence in his or her organization as well as outside of the organization. Finally, gaining expert power may not propel you into the next manager level. However, it will give you great influence in your organization as well as the community. Therefore, your influence becomes mobile and makes you more competitive in the marketplace.

 

Conclusion

As businesses fight to stay alive in the changing marketplace, there is an increasing need for effective leaders. Gaining influence becomes a premium for emerging leaders. Dale Carnegie, author of How to Win Friends Influence and Influence People, argued the importance of influencing others:

“You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.”

The article demonstrated that there are a variety of power types in most organizations.  Unfortunately, some manager’s fear their losing power and are unwilling to share decision-making. Yet, entrusting good employees to make good decisions is a catalysis for creating high performance teams. Learning how to influence others is critical. Individuals do not have to be the boss in order to possess power in the organization.

However, not everyone has leadership persona. Referent power is derived from personal characteristics that employees admire.  But—empowerment increases employee morale.  Some people don’t understand the merits of satisfied employees on the bottom line.  Sadly, many people cannot distinguish a manager from a leader. Yet, leadership is all about gaining influence, regardless of the organizational level.

How can individuals gain influence with social media and other new technologies? Are there any ways to garnish more influence?

 © 2011 by Daryl D. Green

Creativity for Survival

/ nuleadership / 18 Comments

 

It is 2020. Knowledge management and information gathering dominate the world. Therefore, he who owns and controls information is king. Globalization has made labor cheaper and abundant. Yet, the critical assets are inno-thinkers. They are the lifeblood of society.

With the majority of engineers coming from China and India in 2020, American companies lose their innovative edge in the marketplace. Many historians point to 2008 when US engineering schools did nothing to wave off the international threat. Some hoped things would change. Yet, the future remains uncertain for engineering in America.

As America marches to a different drummer, it finds there is an impending danger ahead. While globalization has become a menacing threat to some businesses, the major challenge for traditional academic institutions is to produce engineers who are intelligent, creative, and internationally savvy to handle the challenges of the 21st century. However, only 2% of the general public associate engineering with creativity according to Harris Poll sponsored by the American Association of Engineering Societies and IEEE-USA. In managerial decision-making, creativity involves the ability of a manager to discover novel ideas as possible alternative courses of action for the organization to use in solving a particular problem.

The lack of creativity by today’s engineers becomes critical as more businesses look for technical workers for the future workforce. According to a survey conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 63% of American business leaders said college graduates are not prepared for the global environment. From a market-oriented perspective, organizational leaders must be concerned with the present downward trend of American engineering schools in producing innovative students.

 Academia must overcome several potential barriers that when transforming engineering schools to centers of innovation.  Currently, there are 346 universities approved by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the national organization that sets standards for engineering schools. Although scientists and engineers make up only 5% of the United States population, they generate up to 50% of the Gross Domestic Product.

Sadly, fewer American students are earning degrees in engineering and science. This situation is creating a national crisis for businesses looking for innovation and creativity from the nation’s finest.

In 2004, the United States graduated roughly 70,000 undergraduate engineers while other countries such as China (600,000) and India (350,000) were graduating more engineers. Traditionally, educators attribute the high attrition rate of individuals leaving engineering majors to their inability to cope with the intrinsic hardness of technical majors and do not view it as a major problem.

However, criticism of faculty pedagogy, together with those of curriculum design and student practices, constitutes the largest group of problems for students leaving technical majors.

Demographic changes also continue to shape the realities of engineering schools. Non-traditional universities are leveraging diversity as a competitive advantage while many traditional schools are not.

Thus, the demographic changes of more women, minorities, and low income students have created social pressure on engineering schools to find other pipeline sources than the traditional sources.

In order to the fierce realities of globalization, engineering schools need to shift their strategy toward a creativity focus. Technological and cultural influences are demanding new creative solutions. Many institutional leaders operate engineering schools in a manner that suggests that innovation happens by chance. Michael Michalko, author of Thinkertoys, argues that creativity is not an accident. In fact, it must be an organization intention to foster creative-thinking strategies.

Many times engineering students lose sight of creativity and focus solely on the technical aspects of engineering. A liberal arts education provides an exchange of fresh ideas and an expansion of the creative mind.

Researcher Gary Berg argues that higher education needs to balance applied and liberal arts curricula in order to be effective. Therefore, a new approach to learning is needed in engineering schools. In tomorrow’s universities, collaborative building will be in high demand.

Unfortunately, many times faculty members discourage engineering students from acquiring a broader educational experience. Therefore, engineering schools become a place where students are inhibited from growing creatively.

Twenty-first century leaders in engineering departments must address the needs of students in becoming creative if they hope to take advantage of future opportunities in hypercompetitive environments. Some people wonder if these schools can change.

What challenges and obstacles prevent traditional institutions from producing creative engineers? How do domestic universities transition themselves into incubators of multinational innovation?

© 2011 by Daryl D. Green

Guest Blogger: Importance of motivating employees in development of organization

/ nuleadership / 22 Comments

Motivation is important for employees in business development because it inspires and encourages people to achieve success. Moreover, in today’s economy and competitive world, especially for the knowledge and finance based companies like a debt management company, motivation is of great importance. People go to a debt management company for debt settlement programs. In dealing with debt a person loses all his confidence and motivation. Now, if he talks to a motivated person he will gain optimism and start living is life cheerfully. The business will be a successful one too.

Motivation – It helps in development of a company

Motivation can have a positive effect on the output of your business and concerns both quantity and quality of your performance. Quality which is related to efficiency increases with motivation. So, if your business relies heavily on efficiency, increase motivation among your staffs. If your employees lack the motivation to produce completed products or efficient services to meet the demand of the customers, then you may face problems.

No matter how efficient your technology and equipments may be, still your staffs are more important in running your business. Rather with the growth in importance of technology, the importance of employees has increased too.

Advantages of motivating your staff

Some of the advantages of motivating your staff are:

  1. Higher level of staff retention, thereby leading to reduction in the recruitment costs
  2. Increasing the levels of productivity for your company
  3. Increase in innovativeness and creativity
  4. Increase in profits
  5. Reputation will grow amongst your potential employees, suppliers and customers

How to motivate your staff

In order to motivate your staff and increase their efficiency:

  1. Provide a clear vision of what your business stands for and where you want it to see
  2. Communicate the values and priorities across the organization
  3. Make sure that the work is challenging, with variation sin the tasks
  4. Build work specific teams and see that the team members co-operate with each other
  5. Provide for high-quality training and development like encouragement to study further to achieve professional qualifications
  6. Try to establish a friendly and collaborative work environment – an open door culture where managers are easily approachable. Also, make sure to communicate with your employees on a regular basis as and when needed
  7. Incorporate flexible working practices and also maintain fairness at the workplace mainly in regards to promoting equality and diversity among the staff
  8. You should also ask for feedback either in person or through staff surveys, on what employees feel about their work, the support they get, and the improvements that they think will help the business
  9. Incorporate rewarding employees for their good work and competitive intelligence.

Employees may get more motivated to work if they perfectly understand how they are important to the organization and what their primary purpose is. Thus, providing clear vision on the organization’s purpose is important. You need to know if your employees really have a clear idea about your organization’s principles, priorities, and your company’s mission. However, not all people are motivated by the same thing. So, through the surveys try to find out the diversification among your employees. You can also introduce stress relief sessions for your employees.

All these together can work towards motivating the employees to work efficiently and thus you will be able to run a successful and profitable business. In addition, you will also have to remember that motivating your employees should start from motivating yourself first. If you love the job you are doing, you will be able to make your employees understand the importance of the work. Thus, you will be able to motivate your people and you will become a successful business leader.

About the Guest Blogger:  This article is contributed by Emily Jones, an IAPDA Certified Debt Arbitrator working with Oak View Law Group.

Please feel free to comment on this topic.

Globalization Upon Us

/ nuleadership / 27 Comments

American children sing “We are the world,” but the world does not listen. Children in Iran burn American flags. Children in Iraq throw stones at American soldiers. Children in China write hateful essays about the “evil” American ways. American politicians attempt to spin how third world countries embrace Western ways while the terrorist alert is heightened to acknowledge another international threat. Increased globalization has elevated the risk at the domestic and international levels for US government military and civilian personnel.

According to the Forrester Research, approximately 3.3 million U.S. jobs and $136 billion in wages could be moved overseas to countries like India and China by 2015. Therefore, many organizations will need to change their strategies in order to meet the international challenges ahead.

Let’s look into the future. Many developing countries will continue to grow strongly over the next decade. In fact, these countries steadily shift to consumer-led growth instead of export-led growth.  The dollar spirals downward and foreign currency goes upward.  China and India have added millions to their labor force creating products as well as outsourcing their services abroad at a fraction of what American workers can provide. 

These upstart countries are positioning themselves to become the next Super Power.  For example, China passed Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. According to the World Bank estimates, China could surpass the US by 2020. China’s gross domestic product (GDP) spreads across 1.3 billion people ($3,600 per person) while the US GDP covers a smaller population ($42,000 per person). Yet, China will continue to fuel the world’s economy due to its thirst for raw materials and products in order to meet its own demand.

Globalization continues to transform our organizations.  Today, many American businesses have a global focus.  The S&P 500 companies now generate 46% of their profits outside the US. In fact, some of the largest companies are higher.  For example, Coca-Cola has become a very successful brand abroad, with operations in 206 countries.  Over 80% of the company’s revenue comes from abroad.  Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent explains, “We are a global company that happens to be headquartered in Atlanta. 

Do the math!  American businesses are headed offshore for increased profitability.  Companies gain from this foreign exodus the benefits of accessing more lucrative markets, new technologies, easy credit, and quality, cheap labor. When American businesses cut jobs, it has impacted the standard of living for today’s families.

Columnist Fareed Zakaria highlights the dilemma: “Capital and technology are mobile; labor isn’t….And this is a country with one of the highest wages in the world, because it is one of the richest countries in the world. That makes it difficult for the American middle-class worker to benefit from technology and global growth in the same way that countries do.” 

Economist pundits and political opportunists paint globalization as the best thing since sliced bread yet hide the realities of global competition from the general public. The forecasted outlook for the full-time worker is bleak. Clearly, technology and outsourcing are making the contingent (temporary) and other forms of flexible labor (independent contractors, on-call workers, temporary help agency, part-time, and contract workers) a reality for future employment opportunities.

As a matter of fact, Charles Handy theorized that unemployed or spare workers would create their own new work in the future. Business executives express little moral remorse as they keep American workers at bay.  Therefore, a different type of U.S. business model will need to be developed for global competition in the near future.

How do US organizations compete globally with the realities of outsourcing and create an American labor force that is clearly energized and motivated in the process?  What will happen to the quality of life for the middle class as global averages impact American wages?

 © 2011 by Daryl D. Green

 

The Baby Boomer Bow

/ nuleadership / 25 Comments

The clock keeps on ticking as many Baby Boomers consider retirement.  If many retire, it will leave a huge void in leadership for most organizations. With the rocky rollercoaster ride of the stock market, Baby Boomers don’t enjoy life as much because of the decrease in their disposable income. Some individuals have the extra burden of caring for parents, children, and even grandparents.  

These realities of life keep Baby Boomers working well beyond their anticipated retirement. Andy Hines, the director of Customer Projects at the Social Technologies, predicts that Baby Boomers will refine the meaning of retirement and notes, “U.S. Baby Boomers are choosing post-work lifestyles that don’t resemble the stereotype of the quaint, restful senior citizen.” In fact, Baby Boomers are the top leaders of most organizations and will find it difficult to separate themselves from their positions of power and influence.

Other observers believe that Baby Boomers will leave graciously and pass the baton to the next generation of leaders. I have my own doubts about the outcome. Columnist Daniel Kadlec wrote a USA Today article, “‘Me Generation’” becomes ‘We Generation,’” about the virtue of this Baby Boomer transformation. A Department of Labor report, “Futurework: Trends and Challenges for the Work in the 21st Century,” reveals that this rapid demographic shift will impact the future dynamics of organizations.

 Yet, many seasoned experts, who are primarily Baby Boomers, downplay the impact of the younger generation. This observation goes to the heart of the “Me Generation.” Based on my past career experience, many of these individuals will struggle to relinquish power and influence over their organizations. Therefore, we must wait to see if this generation follows through on these claims.

Are Baby Boomers now transformed into “We Generation” leaders? Clearly, the storyline is incomplete because we do not understand how Baby Boomers will respond to these future changes. Unlike hard science, futurism provides a window of many possibilities. Some people paint a smooth transition of power for the Baby Boomer generation. Others don’t! What if Baby Boom managers refuse to relinquish their positions and neglect the development of future leaders?  Therefore,  many different scenarios will continue to play out in various settings and industries.

 

Will organizations be able to cope with a massive exodus of Baby Boomers? Can Baby Boomers leave authority and title behind since these things so easily defined many of them?

 © 2011 by Daryl D. Green

Impending Danger

/ nuleadership / 31 Comments

 

The start of a new year brings new hopes and aspirations. Sadly, it could signal another year of the same mindset.  With a new U.S. Congress in place, many taxpayers see the same old partisan politics. Yet, the serious conditions of our nations require shared vision and cooperation.  Our nation reached a notorious milestone with the government debt at all-time high of $14 trillion. 

If a visitor from outer space came to America, the alien would probably discern that most citizens believe that the US government system is ineffective, the employees incompetent, and the system broken. Clearly, our federal government possesses significant structural weaknesses and problems. However, the federal government workforce is highly competent and talented. Yet, my experience demonstrates that the dearth of good leadership is the biggest problem in the federal government.

I should know much about this situation. I have worked in the federal government over 20 years.  In fact, I have conducted extensive research on organizational effectiveness in the public sector.  Dr. Gary Roberts (Interim Dean of the School of Government) and I have spent several years on the issues facing the government sector. Some of this research was captured in our new book, Impending Danger.  The book analyzes the current problems in the federal system and explains why a new paradigm, in leadership and structure, is necessary.

With growing discontent with government officials and the intrusion of big government into personal affairs, Americans are demanding something different. Therefore, government leaders must recognize that many Americans are unsatisfied with the status quo. This outright anger and outrage speaks to individuals not getting their voices heard by political leaders. This revelation may signal a significant flaw in elected and appointed federal leadership.

What market drivers will change how the federal government operates and how do you infuse a different type of leadership beyond partisan politics?

© 2011 by Daryl D. Green

 

A Process Mindset

/ nuleadership / 22 Comments

If you want to research how to be a successful NBA franchise, you need to review the history of the Los Angeles Lakers. Yet, it is the run in the 1980s that is most intriguing to me as an organization.  With the retirement of Jerry West and Wilt Chambertain  in the 1970s, many people probably wrote them off.  Even with acquiring 7 footer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the Lakers couldn’t duplicate their past success.

However, the Lakers started building the framework for a future success. This process included selecting a young 6-9 point guard from Michigan State named Earvin “Magic” Johnson in the NBA draft.  With visionary coach Pat Riley, the franchise surrounded their 7 footer with much talent, including James Worthy, Spencer Haywood, Michael Cooper, and Jamaal Wilkes.

However, winning required All Star talent to become role players and swallow their egos so that they could win as a team, instead of individuals. This process thinking was successful. The 1980s Lakers, known as ‘Showtime” due to their electrifying performances, won five championships in a nine year span, including beating their rivals, the Celtics, several times in key games. Like the Lakers, organizations need a process for success.

If I could be a fly on the wall during student evaluations, I know my students would note that Professor Green is overly obsessed with process thinking. In fact, I even have a process for naming files for submission.  In a world that often promotes free thinking and spontaneity, some folks may believe that process thinking is too rigid to be used in an uncertain future.  On the contrary, having a process-oriented mindset will help organizations navigate the future. In this discussion, we will explore how a process mindset provides a competitive advantage during this economic crisis.

Being  process-orient is important in today hypercompetitive environment. High performance organizations in America understand that excellence does not happen by chance. Understanding one’s processes is vital. A process can be defined as “any activity or group of activities that takes an input, adds values to it, and provides to an internal or external customer.  Some of America’s shine across the globe has been taken for granted the small things in operations. 

H. James Harrington, author of Process Improvement notes, “We have taken a fine worldwide reputation and destroyed….We lost the important customer advantage, and each day our reputation worsens because our competition is improving more rapidly than we are.”  J. Davidson Frame, author of the New Project Management, further argues that organizations must evolve their processes. Frame notes, “Thus models contribute to the management of complexity by reducing the requirement for understanding a process in all of its details. They permit people to focus on the consequences of actions without having to understand their intricacies.”  Therefore, having a process mindset will have a greater impact on an organization’s effectiveness in the near future.

How can organizations more effectively utilize a process-oriented mindset in order to better compete in the future?

© 2011 by Daryl D. Green