The Art of Effective Leadership: Strategies for Success

 

Leadership is an art. It is the ability to inspire, motivate, and direct people in order to achieve a common goal. Good leaders must have the right combination of traits, skills, and knowledge to be successful. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to leadership, there are certain strategies that can help leaders become more effective in their roles.

First, good leaders must possess strong communication skills. They must be able to clearly communicate their vision, set expectations, and provide feedback. Good leaders should also be able to recognize and encourage the development of individual strengths and talents.

Second, good leaders need to be organized and have good problem-solving skills. They should be able to quickly identify problems, develop solutions, and delegate tasks. A good leader should also have the ability to stay focused on the desired outcome, despite the obstacles that may arise.

Third, effective leaders must understand the importance of collaboration. They should be able to bring people together to work towards a common goal and be able to motivate and inspire their team. Good leaders should also understand the power of diversity and be willing to learn from different backgrounds and perspectives.

Fourth, effective leaders must have the ability to inspire trust. They must be trustworthy and consistent in their decisions and actions. A good leader should also be able to create an environment where people feel safe to express themselves without fear of reprisal.

Finally, effective leaders must be willing to take risks. They should be willing to try new strategies and approaches to reach their desired objectives. A good leader should also be able to recognize and learn from their mistakes and successes.

By following these steps, leaders can become more effective in their roles and better able to motivate and inspire their team. Effective leadership is an art, and it takes time and practice to master. However, with dedication and the right combination of traits, skills, and knowledge, anyone can become an effective leader.

Challenges of Leadership in the Digital Age: leading Post-Millennials

 

As todays organizations adjust to the new digital landscape, the challenges of leadership have never been greater. With the rise of post-Millennials in the workplace, leaders must be prepared to navigate these complex challenges and create an environment that is favorable to success.

We have witness last decades how the digital tools has changed the way organizations operate and the types of skills and competencies are necessary for successful leadership. In the past, leadership was centered on traditional skills such as vision sharing, solving potential future problem(s), communication, and decision-making. However, today, leaders must be able to use more than only technology and data to effectively lead their teams. Leaders must be able to adapt to employees’ working culture changes, environmental pressure, what role technology is playing and be comfortable with leading in a virtual environment.

Leaders must also be prepared to deal with the unique challenges that come with managing post-Millennials. Therefore, they should possess necessity to understand the power of social media and the importance of cultivating relationships. Post-Millennials are more connected than ever before, and leaders must be able to engage with them on social media platforms. Post-Millennials have different expectations in terms of flexible working hours, transparency, feedback, and autonomy. To maintain organizational goals and work flow, todays leaders must be able to meet those expectations of post-Millennials workforce.

The prerequisite of today’s leadership is to have a strong understanding of data analytics and the ability to use big data to drive decisions. With the rapid advances in technology, the correct and up-to-date data is becoming increasingly important in decision making. Leaders must be able to interpret and use data to steer the organization properly and effectively.

The digital age has transformed the way organizations operate and the challenges of leading today so different workforce and understand their values have never been greater. In order to successfully lead post-Millennials, leaders must possess a unique set of skills and competencies. They must be able to use technology and data, be connected in virtual environment, understand the power of social media, and be prepared to deal with the unique challenges associated with managing post-Millennials that are the rising workforce. With these skills and competencies, leaders can ensure that their organizations are well-positioned to succeed in competitive environment full of technology, changes, virtuality and communications.

The Art of Leadership: Martial Arts Strategies

 

Are you looking to improve your leadership skills and gain a competitive edge in business and life? Look no further than the principles and practices of martial arts. They offer a unique set of tools and strategies that can help you become a more valuable leader.

One of the key benefits of martial arts is the emphasis on physical training and discipline. Through rigorous training and practice, martial arts can help you develop the focus, concentration, and mental fortitude needed to excel in leadership roles. By learning to prioritize tasks and stay focused under pressure, you can make better decisions and lead your team with greater confidence.

Martial arts also teach emotional discipline, which is essential for leadership. By learning to control your reactions to difficult situations, you can remain calm and composed in the face of challenges, and make rational decisions that benefit your organization. This emotional resilience can also help you navigate the difficulties of business and inspire confidence in your team.

In addition to physical and emotional discipline, martial arts promote respect for oneself and others. By showing respect, you can create an atmosphere of trust and cooperation in your organization, which is essential for effective leadership. As a leader, you must be able to inspire and motivate your team to do their best work, and respect is a crucial ingredient in building that relationship.

Developing leadership skills takes time and experience, but incorporating martial arts strategies can set you on the right path to success. By practicing physical and emotional discipline, fostering trust, showing respect, and building self-confidence, you can earn the respect and admiration of your colleagues and build a successful leadership career.

To start integrating martial arts principles into your leadership style, consider attending martial arts classes, joining a martial arts community, or studying martial arts philosophy. By taking action and actively seeking to improve your leadership skills, you can set yourself up for success in both your personal and professional life.

In conclusion, martial arts offer a unique set of tools and strategies that can help you become a more effective and successful leader. By developing physical and emotional discipline, fostering respect, and building self-confidence, you can earn the trust and admiration of your colleagues and build a successful leadership career. So why not take the first step today and explore the world of martial arts? It just might be the key to unlocking your full leadership potential.

Things Agility Can Teach Us About Leadership

More and more we hear about ‘agility’ in project management, agility leadership, agility in martial arts and canine agility …

What exactly is agility?

Dog’s agility, easiest to explain, is a competitive sport in which a dog is directed through obstacles in a course that is timed and watched for accuracy. Easy that one!?

Let’s frame what is ‘agile project management’ - it refers to iterative and incremental method of managing the design and to build activities in a project with aim to provide new product or service in a highly flexible and interactive manner. A bit harder?

Further, we find that agility training is fundamental to any (great) martial artist as well. In martial arts it is definitely true that some genetics play an important role in the development of agility; nevertheless, with the adequate practice anybody can improve his/her agility. That’s understandable.

Going even deeper to define agility we meet the use of the word ‘agility’ in leadership, too. What does it mean? Leadership agility is a mastery competency needed for sustained success in today’s complex, fast-paced, business environment. Such a leader has the ability and/or agility to operate in any manner and to think and react in a number of different ways. Does this sound more complicated?

Seeing very different connotations and the use of the same term, let’s pose a question – “How could we suggest a common denominator and explain it?”

Why ownership matters?

I was reading the article The Seven Deadly Sins of Economic Liberalism a friend of mine Lucas Juan Manuel kindly sent to me. The article describes private ownership that generates wealth as:

Economic liberalism triggers a socio-economic system based mainly on financial speculation jointly with inappropriate economic measures and structural/social reforms.  Let’s take Euro area as an example.  The EU implemented painful austerity measures in order to reduce the high level of government debt in many country members.  But it was, and still is, a wrongly-conceived austerity

There are many ‘enterprises and entrepreneurs’ arising from political clientelism (crony-ism and patronage), and those kind of enterprises and entrepreneurs do not generate wealth and prosperity in our societies because they are not competitive.  This kind of capitalism is deeply disappointing for the real entrepreneurial spirit (genuine enterprises).

 In this way, wealth, well-being and prosperity are being concentrated in the hands of a few and the income gap between a country's richest and poorest people enlarges dramatically. “Obviously, this way of capitalism is inherent to political corruption and prevents equal opportunities in the economic and social spheres.”

Although somehow hidden, ownership nevertheless matters in all the above described topics. There are different approaches to ownership of a property. The question is whether all of them are sustainable for the advancement of a society as a whole?

Let’s define different ownerships and their (potential) effects.

‘Personal ownership’ is where assets and property is belonging to an individual, also known as individual ownership. Contrary, the ‘collective ownership’ assets and property belongs to a collective body of people who control their use and collect the proceeds of their operation. Very similar is ‘common ownership’ (or non-ownership) where assets and property are held in common by all members of society. Any country owns property (‘state ownership’) where assets are state owned or owned by certain state agency consequently having jurisdiction over in terms of use. And finally, assets owned by a government or a state and available for public use to all their constituents are called ‘public property’.

Steps to Turn Control into Delegation

In my blog ‘Can Obedience nurture Trust?’ my thoughts were about shifting from blind obedience to trust. Control and delegation are a part of the same story. Let’s challenge them here now.

Control is the act or power of controlling or regulating people's behavior … or to exercise restraint or direction over; to dominate. All responsibility is with a control-holder.

History has repeatedly shown how problematic is to effectively restrain power from someone once it has been granted to if a strong system of control, checks and balances is in place. People tend to – when given control or power – exercise them far beyond the legal, actually given, authority. Such anomalies are not excluded in business.

What is Delegation?

To delegate means to give to another person a task or duty or activity meanwhile retaining responsibility for the outcome. The latter is the key since while delegating, you are still responsible for the outcome!

So, where lays the difference between the two if responsibility still remains in the same hands?

Well, control, as we have seen, can be misused when delegate hardly.

How Would a Leader Rock With Fun

Does fun have anything to do in leadership?

Did ever happen to you when you were still young that out of nothing (or for something that today would not even notice) you burst out laughing loud in a classroom? Did other mates follow?

Grown up, have you ever been in a situation when you could not stop laughing even you are aware it is not appropriate time/place? Probably, you have not.

And if it happened to you, you very likely tried to hold back and hush up knowing that the sound of (roaring) laughter is far more contagious than any cough, sniffle, or sneeze. Therefore, laugh should not interrupt the important meeting or should it?

How many times have you heard the phrase ‘work and fun’? So, do we have fun at work or we work for fun …?

The heresy?

It is well known that when we laugh we change physiologically and psychically. We stretch muscles throughout our face and as well our body, our pulse and blood pressure go up, we breathe faster sending more oxygen to our organs and tissues. Maciej Buchowski, a researcher from Vanderbilt University, conducted a small study and found out that laughter appears to burn calories, too.

In the post Best Ways to Relax Successfully I was talking how relaxation lowers stress. Laugh was purposely not mentioned as you have to have fun to do what was written in previously mentioned post. Increased stress is associated with decreased immune system. A good, hearty laugh relieves physical tension and stress.

Without any study behind I can argue that most people do not equate ‘work & fun’ together. Furthermore, as shows The Employee Engagement we are further and further distancing from engaged employees. The disengaged majority of employees probably wish it could be true to have fun at work but they have never really experienced it or been allowed to have it. And, by not allowing it, what a failure to raise productivity, development and much more. Studies demonstrate that when people are having fun at work, employee turnover is reduced. And not only turnover …

Now, think for just a moment. Think about your personal experience: when last did you have some fun and after felt more energized, focused, willing and able to get more things done?

Competition or Collaboration?

There is always a dilemma how to get better results: by fostering competition or collaboration between employees for the executions of organizational tasks.

The humanity from the dawn had to collaborate in order to have bigger chance for survival, so I would (always) vote for collaboration. Our basic communication tool (language) provided two main issues for the success: learning and passing the knowledge and the second is explaining or danger warning to other members of the pack.

On the other hand competition was, throughout our history, a driving force that continued moving humanity forward. It is most evident from the conflicts between tribes or societies. Imperialism, known from ancient times, is about economic expansion by grabbing defenseless countries (like Alexander the Great or/and Genghis Khan). Looting the countries for raw materials by forcing the labor to later force them to buy expensive manufactured goods is also accompanying humanity from dawns. But this competing attitude helped in driving developments that improved many aspects of life, and is continuing to do so. What else is globalization?

Definitely, conflicts were and are still part of our environment. And for them you need collaboration (again): to start or to solve them. But, on the smaller scale, could scientists in e.g. CERN compete with each other and still produce the same results as they do – or do they collaborate?

Continuing the struggle of thinking which one – collaboration or competition – yields better results, I would again like to say that it is collaboration: compare teamwork against solo or egocentric behavior of a player on the football terrain. Unfortunately, today we are often forgetting team play and are only competing with each other, against countries, environment… and not really understanding that there is no win for us while doing so. I think that for the progress towards a better world we should principally collaborate with one another and not compete against one another. Could this then be the ultimate goal?

No way!

Can Obedience nurture Trust?

Someone told me that blind obedience nurtures trust (my post Disciplines of execution). Let me elaborate this a little more.

I was told once that obedience is the basic issue to foster trust in organizational structure!

I was kind of surprised by such unilateral thinking and explanation of the working environment and could not figure out where from this way of thinking comes. In all my years of working experience I never thought that obedience can or may nurture trust. Just the opposite: I believe that obedience is a one way communication. And trust is definitively a two way issue.

Let me review what I have already written about to clear my position on the subject.

In the post Loyalty at work I stressed that in strictly traditionally hierarchical organizations (companies or even countries) there is only one way of implementing the will or preferences of the leader or owner - it is called a command!

Well I can argue that even in such hierarchical organizations at different incidents employees should always be (are) treated with respect. It is the obligation of the organization to see that individual leaders or managers do not abuse their power or mistreat their subordinates.

In another post Leadership and trust I expressed that trust is vital and is one of the fundamentals of any kind of cooperation between two living beings! I can definitely claim that it is very difficult to expect the trust in leaders that are practically squeezing last drops of effort out of employees with a command.

If we look even on broader scope – our environment – my post To trust the Capital? goes even beyond trust of any living being: can we trust the systems we are implementing and having as the only solution today?

“Milking” – a new way of getting information from applicants?

Have you ever been through a hiring interview process?

If yes, what were your experiences: positive or negative?

There is not a lot of talk about it but abusive hiring processes is reality and cost organizations millions of dollars by turning possible customers into lifelong ‘haters’. Not long ago I've read that: the impact of a poor ‘candidate experience’ is uncalculated, unreported, and not discussed, making it quite possibly one of the largest ‘hidden costs’ facing modern organizations (by Dr. John Sullivan) but companies are never the less doing it.

Why?

There are millions of people searching for their jobs. Employers use different tactics to select between applicants. What I found lately is a tactic where prosperous new employee should prepare presentation (e.g. to board members) with one of employee from hiring organization. It is presented on an interview discussion that new hire could get the position only if presentation would be a fit for the board. The only connection between a position in a new company and a candidate is this employee fellow. So the employee is all sweet and kind and asking tons of questions and diligence in writing what a candidate says. Company employee squeezes applicant from different angles and asks to prepare special scenarios and data. It is an additional knowledge, experiences and possible different thinking that is asked from candidate.

Coach-ability?

Being a teacher and author of the book on leadership my interest was picked up by the article 'Why Leaders Are Easier to Coach than Followers?' published in HBR.  I believe that learning or coaching is something that anybody would like to do. Acquiring new knowledge, learn or improve oneself is something that stipulates survival in the Nature.

The article says “Recent research from PsychTests, however, reveals that followers may not be as compliant as we assume. In a study that measured individuals’ openness to coaching, PsychTests discovered that people who identify as followers are actually less open to coaching than people who identify as either leaders or adapters”. There is a graph within the supporting the claim that in all measured aspects followers performed the worst.

In the research three groups were studied: adapters, leaders and followers. I recognized last two groups but had a problem with the first one – adapters. In the article I’ve learnt that adapters are employees who are versatile, can both lead and follow, and are open to feedback and learning. This is a surprise: what are adapters if they cover both other groups. I cannot see leaders that cannot adapt to environment and change due to required situation (I wrote about this in Sun Tzu wisdom and Leadership). What about followers? Do they not adapt to work, rules and leaders? Both, leaders and followers, are usually most of the time outside their comfort zone when performing their ‘day-to-day’ work, so adaptation is crucial to them.

Why, then, there is another (the third) group?

How to (not) energize the team?

How can a leader create a positive energy and still energize the team even when he is not present or feeling hopeless, angry and demotivated?

I should mention that leading people is not a herding livestock as may be too often in many organizations.

Long ago I had a boss who did precisely that. On our regular staff meetings his “normal” manner was to yell at us. Whoever did not perform according to his way of thinking was immediately rebuked. Once, when we were all gathered together, he started with the account department manager and kept on with his offensive manners from “victim to victim”. Instead of helping to clear or solve the situations he kept accusing people of incompetency.  When it was my turn I stopped him by asking “Hey, we are not stock that you yell on us?”

My question provoked a complete silence and a big surprised shock on my boss’ face. In the moment he regained composure he began to yell even louder. I stood up saying that if he does not change the manner I am leaving the meeting. The answer to that was just another hit: “If you leave the meeting you do not need to return any more!” So I left. A big surprise and shock for others and even bigger for him. My coworkers were more afraid for me than I was while I was leaving the room. Not yet far down the corridor I heard my boss’s voice “Come back immediately!” I kept going to my office. The accountant manager was right behind me telling me to immediately return before I was fired. After a few thoughts I said “I would love to see on which grounds” and sat at my desk.

Leading a team

What comes to mind at the term “team leading?”

If what comes to mind is: define and articulate the objectives and measures; get the right people on — and off — the bus; demonstrate to the team that you are invested in the success; make decisions; if you aren't asking people to do something, they won’t do it - you definitely  come from MBA program.

Ask notable innovation leaders what they think about traditional management practices (those taught in a typical MBA program) and you’ll likely get some pretty strong reactions. Intuit co-founder Scott Cook “When MBAs come to us, we have to retrain them fundamentally -nothing they've learned will help them succeed at innovation” wrote Nathan Furr and Jeffrey H. Dyer in their HBR December 2014 issue article “LEADING YOUR TEAM INTO THE UnKNOWN.”

In my previous blogs I've already proved several times over that leadership is not an easy task. It takes all of your personality and more. Team members need to have a sense of who you are. As a leader you are building relationships with your team members. That means you should behave “appropriately” and show your values, the way you think, how you make decisions, what your definition of success is, how you measure performance, how you expect them to work, and you have to gain their trust in your leading. Yes, you need to gain authority, but it is also important to trust the team with control over their work. A leader who gives his power to others can be more influential and motivating than the one that doesn't. When you empower someone, you're actually demonstrating that you trust.

Added value of leadership names or labels

In my previous post Labeled leadership I described some name labeled styles of leadership and argued that there should  always be more than one style used when leading. In this post I’d like to summarize my quest of different names, i.e. labels, given to leadership and my point of view why this is happening.

Let me wrap up my thoughts on the subject of ‘leadership naming/labeling’, i.e. different leadership styles that keep up coming in last couple of decades.

To better understand my points, allow me to present some important “ingredients” that remarkable leaders should possess. In previous posts on the topic I've described some examples of different constituents of leadership: Leadership and Charisma, EGO and Leadership?, Leadership and influence, Leadership and emotions, Inspiring others. All these frame the whole plethora of important views on leadership process. I have separately portrayed different “substances” necessary in leadership.

What then is a good leadership? Is it all about different behavior, different styles, or how to name label in front of leadership? Could it be that a good leadership is just one of those qualities that you recognize when you see it, but is so difficult to describe?

Labeled leadership

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Shakespeare).

Giving names or labels to differentiate leadership styles today is a huge business of how to invent and make up names and buzzwords from what should be part of normal human relationships between leaders and followers.

In my search for different leadership styles I was astounded by the fact that most of the times there is a unification of two important, but different, roles: management and leadership. In my blogs: Leader vs. manager, To manage people, To lead people I have already explained the issue and am not going to repeat it here again.

I am astonished that there are more than 20 different styles for just naming ‘different’ leadership approaches. Of some of them I have written in previous posts (Servant leadership, Authentic leadership, Charismatic Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Participative Leadership, Humble or Agile Leadership so here I’d like just to mention some more “styles” that are floating around: autocratic, coaching, laissez faire, quiet, situational, visionary, transactional.

Well, do we need so many of them?

Leadership and behaviors

This post I dedicate to certain behaviors of a leader that mostly all of us should be familiar with. The greatest challenge lays almost always in how to recognize and distinguish them. We may assert that “ill” manner of behavior creates poor business culture (e.g. Enron, Lehman Bros, etc.) which leads to poor business performance and output. But what kind of a manner is “ill behavior”?  Ever heard of badmouthing colleagues, taking credit for other people’s work, lying about skills and experience or hiding mistakes, cutting corners?

Leaders today talk a lot about loyalty, retention, business values, of empowering employees, changes in compensation structures to gain flexibility in work schedules, of team building etc. as behaviors needed for great performance of employee. This raises a question whether in any relationship the behavior is completely reciprocal? I don’t believe so, because one party always wields more power over the other. The example may be obvious already in US: workers these days are all multitasking and happy to have the job. They are certainly not going to complain if they work 10 to 12 hours per day without being paid for the extra time.

Some of us may have already experienced a so called ‘sleeping management’ that suddenly wakes up and demands to do ‘now’ for a work to be done ‘yesterday’.

Can such behavior bring or increase loyalty and engagement in the workplace? In a positive corporate culture extra work is a signal to hire extra personnel or part timer or maybe improve planning and performance approach.

Authentic leadership

In the post ‘Servant leadership’ I touched the meaning of added attribute(s) to the word ‘leadership’. Let me continue the subject with another example.

‘Authentic leadership’ puts an important stress on building leader’s legitimacy through honest relationships with followers (their input is appreciated) and is built on the ethical foundation thusly being able to improve individual and team performance (from: Wiki).

Authenticity has been explored throughout history, already in times of Greek philosophers. The ‘Authentic Leadership’ book written by Bill George in 2003 got the highest level of acceptance as part of a modern management science.

Loyalty at work

In working environment have you ever wondered about:

• Does a mutual feeling of trust within the organization increase productivity and commitment to set goals?
• Why can’t you handle an employee that frequently appears to undermine your authority or sabotage your projects?
• What is wrong when you entrust to employee and still, because of him, in team there is no teamwork attitude?

Most of the times the answer to the above questions is about loyalty: the quality of “faithfulness” to you as a leader or your principles, your country, organization, work, your vision, your superiors and subordinates.

Loyalty is a two-way street. Majority understands it as being loyal to those above forgetting those below. But, a leader depends on team. All of them should be committed, productive and reliable so that the entire department, company or country could be successful.

Does holacracy need leadership?

Though it's been around for a decade, the holacracy doesn't have much of a track record... it is pushed by tech companies like Tony Hsieh Zappos as ‘the hot management trend for 2014’.

A noun ‘-ocracy’ or ‘-cracy’ means a government / governance by a particular sort of people or according to a particular principle: democracy (by the people); meritocracy (by people with the most ability) and a ‘holo-’ is a prefix added to the start of a word meaning ‘whole’, ‘entire’. In the book The Ghost in the Machine Arthur Koestler argued that literally everything in our world, from chemistry to biology (atoms to molecules to cells to organisms), life forms, or even our cells that form an organ and organs form our body and society are nested hierarchies of entities, which, for lack of any existing word, he called ‘holons’.

In organization holacracy is the concept of self-directed work teams. In business environment it is a rather new management practice that is floating around like ‘lean (manufacturing) organization’, ‘distributed authority’, ‘agile organization’, ‘Six Sigma excellence’ in times organizations need different structures and governance to get top competitive advantages. It differentiates from other practices by being perceived as (new) ‘open allocation’ management structures that (mostly) eliminate bosses.

Unfortunately, the notion that holacracy is non-hierarchical proved as a nonsense. Brian Robertson (Ternary Software) introduced holacracy to the world through a 2007 article as the idea how to put a lot of emphasis on consensual, democratic decision-making and getting everyone’s opinion. He defined it as a set of inward-looking hierarchical mechanisms that connect the teams or work circles. Then, a vertical hierarchy between those circles is still required within the organization. Instructions, information, decisions and guidance on how something has to be done should correspond to the purpose of doing business and is passed from above circle to the below one. Hence a hierarchy stands.

Leadership: More Intelligence or Emotions

Should a leader use mostly intelligence or should the emotions be primary in dealing with people, decision making…?

Some of the definitions of intelligence say:

• Merriam-Webster: the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations; the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.
• Dictionary.com: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
• The free dictionary: The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge; capacity for learning, reasoning, and understanding; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

And emotions are defined as:

• Merriam-Webster: a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body.
• Dictionary.com: any strong agitation of the feelings actuated by experiencing love, hate, fear, etc., and usually accompanied by certain physiological changes, as increased heartbeat or respiration, and often overt manifestation, as crying or shaking.
• The free dictionary: A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love.