Menu

Your title here

Welcome to my site, enjoy your stay!

blog post

October 12, 2014
Leadership Development, Developing Building Learning Leadership Skills

Leadership is crucial for the continual success Leadership Development of practically any organization. A great leader makes an impact to her or his organization. Everyone will concur with these statements. Specialists in human resources field mention the need for leaders at all levels, and not simply that of the direction towards the top.

Mention this issue, however, into a line manager, or into a sales manager, or any executive in most organizations and you'll most likely cope with responses that are diffident.

Direction development -a need that is strategic?

The topic of direction is dealt with typically by many organizations. Direction is usually understood with regard to personal aspects for example charisma, communication, inspiration, dynamism, toughness, instinct, etc., and not in terms what good leaders can do for their organizations. Developing leaders falls in HR domain. Budgets are framed and outlays are employed with indexes like training hours per worker annually. Whether the great motives behind the training budgets get translated into activities or not, isn't monitored.

Such direction development outlays that are centered on only good goals and general ideas about leadership get excessive during times that are great and get axed in bad times. If having good or great leaders at all levels is a strategic demand, as the above top companies exhibit and as many leading management experts claim, why do we see such a stop and go approach?

Why is there disbelief about leadership development systems?

The first motive is that anticipations from good (or great) leaders are not defined in in manners in which the consequences can be verified and surgical terms. Leaders are expected to reach' many things. They are expected to turn laggards into high performers, turn around companies, allure customers, and dazzle media. They're expected to perform miracles. These anticipations stay just wishful thinking. These desired consequences can not be utilized to provide any clues about gaps in leadership abilities and development needs.

Lack of a generic and complete (valid in varied industries and states) framework for defining leadership means that direction development attempt are scattered and inconsistent. Bad name is given by inconsistency to leadership development plans. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go....) and opposition to every new initiative. This really is the 2nd reason why the objectives of direction development are often not fulfilled.

The next reason is in the strategies used for leadership development.

Occasionally the programs include experience or outdoor activities for helping individuals bond better and build better teams. These programs create 'feel good' effect as well as in some cases participants 'return' with their private action plans. In majority of cases they neglect to capitalize in the efforts that have gone in. Leadership training must be mentioned by me in the passing. In the hands of an expert trainer his leadership skills can be improved by a willing executive radically. But leadership coaching is inaccessible and too expensive for many executives as well as their organizations.

Leadership -a competitive advantage



During my work as a business leader and afterwards as a leadership trainer, I found that it is helpful to define leadership in operative terms. When direction is defined in terms of what it does and in relation to capabilities of an individual, it's much easier to assess and develop it.

When leadership abilities defined in the above mentioned mode exist at all levels, they impart a distinct capability to an organization. Organizations having a pipeline of good leaders have competitive advantages over other organizations, even individuals with leaders that are great only in the top. The competitive advantages are:

1. They demand less 'supervision', as they're firmly rooted in values.

2. They're better at preventing disastrous failures.

3. The competitive (the organizations) have the ability to solve issues quickly and will recover from errors fast.

4.They will have communications that are horizontal that are excellent. Matters (processes) go faster.

5. They tend to be less active with themselves. So themselves have 'time' for outside individuals. (about reminders, error corrections etc are Over 70% of internal communications. They're wasteful)

6.

7. ) and are not bad at heeding to signs associated with quality, customer complaints, shifts in market conditions and client preferences. This contributes to bottom up communication that is useful and nice. Top leaders have a tendency to own less number of blind spots.

8. It's simpler to roll out programs for strategic shift and also for improving business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Great bottom up communications improve top down communications also.

Expectations from good and successful leaders ought to be set out. The direction development programs should be chosen to develop leadership abilities which can be checked in operative terms. There's a need for clarity about the above aspects since direction development is a tactical need.

Go Back

Comment