Leadership by virtue: Organizational culture

Showing posts with label Organizational culture. Show all posts

Cultivating a Culture of Leadership: Strategies for Success

Leadership is a vital element in any successful organization. To cultivate a culture of strong leadership, employers must focus on developing environment and strategies that not only inspire their current leaders, but also reach out to potential leaders in the workforce.

Leadership development is not a one-time event; it takes a long-term, consistent commitment and permanent improvements to ensure that leadership skills are effectively nurtured and developed. Here are some important strategies for cultivating a culture of leadership:

1. Establish Clear Goals & Expectations: A key factor in cultivating a culture of leadership is to provide clear goals and expectations that the organization is following. Leaders need to know what results are expected and what support is provided to achieve them. Doing so provides a sense of direction and purpose, inspiring potential leaders to strive for excellence.

2. Invest in Training Programs: Investing in training and development programs for potential, new or current leaders is essential for cultivating a culture of leadership. These programs can provide employees with the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively lead teams and manage projects. By investing in such programs, employers also demonstrate their commitment to the growth and development of their leadership skills.

3. Recognize & Reward Leadership: Acknowledge and reward strong leadership. Publicly recognize and reward leaders who exemplify leadership qualities, such as taking initiative, problem-solving, and encouraging collaboration. This sends a strong message that leadership is valued and appreciated within the organization.

4. Foster Communication & Collaboration: Foster communication and collaboration between leaders and employees by encouraging team building activities, such as group lunches, retreats, and outings. This helps to create a positive workplace culture and enhances collaboration among members of the leadership team.

5. Encourage Learning: Lastly, create an environment that encourages learning. This can be done by providing learning opportunities and resources such as seminars and workshops specifically focused on leadership development. Additionally, employers should provide flexible work schedules to allow for personal development activities like taking classes or reading books on leadership.

By applying the strategies outlined above, employers can create a culture of strong leadership within their organization. This will not only help to foster and nurture current leaders, but also reach out to potential leaders in the workforce. Investing in leadership development programs, recognizing and rewarding successful leaders, fostering communication and collaboration among team members, and encouraging learning activities are all essential elements in cultivating a culture of leadership.

By taking the time to implement these strategies and truly commit to cultivating a culture of strong leadership, employers can create an environment that supports and rewards success. Doing so can result in a more productive, collaborative, and successful organization.

Challenges of Leadership in the Digital Age: leading Millennials

The digital age has posed a distinctive set of challenges for leaders in today’s workplace. While technology has changed the way that organizations function, digital age has also shifted the expectations of employees, particularly those of the Millennial generation. Leaders must be prepared to adjust their tactic to leading and motivating this new generation of workers.

Millennials are the first generation to grow up with technology at their fingertips. Therefore, they have become comfortable to the luxury and speed of digital communication, and they expect their workplace to reflect the same suitability. They do not want to be bogged down by bureaucracy or manual processes. They want to work in an environment where decisions are made quickly and technology is integrated throughout the organization.

Leaders must also understand the changing values of Millennials. This generation is driven to pursuit and to make a positive impact in the world, so they want to work for organizations that reflect their values. They are motivated by money although values are first in their mind and if they are not respected, they just leave. They prioritize work/life balance and seek out opportunities to have great times and to develop their skills. They want to be recognized and rewarded for their efforts, and they want to be given the tools and resources to succeed.

Leaders must be able to recognize and respond to those needs of Millennials to ensure their participation and stay with the organization. This means making sure employees have access to enjoyable working environment with the latest technology and platforms to help them be productive and efficient. Leaders must also be able to provide meaningful, consistent and fulfilling feedback to help those employees develop their skills. Finally, leaders must be able to create a culture of recognition and reward to motivate Millennials employees.

Seems that leadership in the digital age is no easy task, but it still can be done. Leaders must be willing to adjust their approach to leading and motivating this new generation of workers in order to remain in organization and help them to grow. By understanding the needs and values of Millennials and providing the necessary leadership, environment, tools and resources, leaders can ensure their organizations continue being competitive in the digital world.

Insecurity drains the life out of employees

Not long ago a majority of workers worked for the same company for 20, 30 or more years. It was a normal occurrence. At the time many of my friends were asking me how can I shift so much and so easily from one employer to another? That was easy enough, since nothing was “pushing me” out of a company except my curiosity and new, different challenges. Same as today? No, not the same here. Those were different times and different society back then.

In 2014 Hewlett-Packard only eliminated 34,000 jobs, while JP Morgan Chase has cut 20,000 from its workforce and JC Penney and Sprint announced cuts … In '70s and '80s, not so long ago, a modification of labor market began and we were able to observe anti-worker policies forming up. Nowadays a new business model (not so new any more) is disentangling the ties between employers and employees, fueling the perception that it is good to have employment flexibility.

In today’s business spheres where results of globalization, outsourcing, contracting, downsizing, recession and even natural disasters are all together killing ‘a job security’, how does one deal with such uncertainties?

It is well known that people can deal with short bursts of pressure pretty good, but that chronic uncertainty throws them in a vicious cycle of stress and fear. According to the research done by Stuart Whitaker at the University of Cumbria, having an insecure job has a more damaging impact on people's health than actually losing a job.

When we do not know whether we’ll have a job next year or, even worse, next week, how do we plan the life? Could we consider a loan to buy a house, start family or save for college or save for retirement? In the face of job insecurity, thoughts like these bring only panic and more pressure. Can we still spend with easiness if we are so insecure for the jobs we have?

When people fear that the world around them will fall apart, when our future becomes foggy, when feelings of powerlessness paralyze us, we tend to start to flip out. We pile on more work than we can handle, we are afraid to take sick leaves. Some people start to function on drugs, coffee, cigarettes, alcohol and other substances. We drop everything that is good for us – we stop to care for our physical well-being, we stop practicing, we do not have fun with friends or have and enjoy vacations and so on.

Employee Engagement

I’ve read a lot of articles stating and arguing that the engaged workforce can create competitive advantage. The prime question here is how to engage people?

An engaged employee is ‘a person who is fully involved in, and enthusiastic about, his or her work’.

Now, try to find out from a truthful top executive how many engaged people work in his company and you would probably get an answer ‘about half of them or less’.

Should top executives be concerned about that?

In my post Leadership and “happy” organization I wrote: there is a Gallup-poll of a 1.5 million sampling, and the result is: 30% of employees are happy with their managers, 20% are not, and 50% have disengaged themselves in having any feelings at all. This is when employees show up for work, did what they are told to do, and, at the end of their shift, go home; the same routine would be repeated the next day.

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?

Leadership Development

In my post Are Leaders Born or Made? I expressed my belief that the best leaders have some preconditions but they learn later on how to lead. By getting a leading position it should never be the end stage of learning and changing phase: to be (stay) in shape and understand the working environment constant learning and developing is what is needed and necessary.
When we already occupy a position of a leader what more should we learn, what competences should we develop and how do we do that?

Most leaders (I should rather use the term managers) begin and end their learning process by visiting MBA programs and maybe some additional courses. Unfortunately, traditional management practices (taught in a typical MBA program) are usually not very helpful in the field of innovation process (read more: Leading a team). Innovations foster any kind of development that is much needed in the very competitive business environment of nowadays therefore innovation is the key to success for any leader.

Any organization’s future success depends on identifying and evolution of the next generation’s leaders. Organizations that fail to do that sooner or later experience a loss of its high-potential talent that is usually at the time already in short supply. In a study by Laci Loew and Karen O’Leonard, Leadership Development Factbook 2012: Benchmarks and Trends in U.S. Leadership Development (July 2012) was acknowledged that US companies alone spend almost $14 billion on leadership development annually.

Why do then so many companies ignore proper leadership development? Is it because companies too often demand a wish list of ambiguous qualities like creativity and innovation that fail to align with organizational needs? Or is it due to assumption that ‘one size fits all’ and that the same group of skills or style of leadership is appropriate regardless of the strategy, organizational culture, or leader mandate?

Avoid or not office politics inside the company?

Politics are as old as civilization is. We are all aware of that. The fascination with politics increased in the 16th century when Machiavelli wrote thesis on how to acquire and retain power The Prince.

The question is if politics are meant only for politicians? To be used only at a state (region, city) level? Or are there underlying politics going also in many other fields, say also in organizations?
We know there are. Some of you may have heard or experienced this: ‘There's too much wrangling, gaming and maneuvering going on – I just hate this organizational politicking?’

There are very few employees and even less top managers immune to gossip, having their ideas stolen or being set up by others who want their jobs or statuses.

Very rarely employees or senior managers are reluctant to take part in what is called political games, because most people want to advance their careers or ideas, have job security, earn more and get more recognition.

The term office politics often has a negative connotation. On the other hand the brute truth and reality is that to ensure your own success or your ideas or projects you must navigate the minefield of office politics.

“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.

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.

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?

Leo Tolstoy, the Russian novelist, said “Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”

In the business consultancy everybody talks about managing change and change management. Consultants are offering a set of processes, tools and mechanisms or structures intend to perform and keep whichever change effort under control. But if we look at all of those tools, they’re trying to push through these changes, we get plethora techniques to minimize disruptions, i.e., keep things under control during and after changes have been implemented. Thusly the legitimate question is “Do these tools work as they should?” The answer to that is in my post: Management practices and tools that just “don’t work” and until today I haven’t changed it yet.

But what about “change leadership”?

Change leadership has its own demands. It requires a different mindset than change management and focuses mainly on an extra set of capabilities in order to lead an organization to a new place. It’s more about having a big vision. It’s more about empowering employees and not introducing new management techniques.

An outstanding Leadership for cross cultural team(s)

(Continues from Atypical views on Leadership – 1)

As the organization grows larger and more complex, management at the top begin to lead and decide less by firsthand experience, but more and more on heavily processed data. From their position they rarely see the business flowing in the same way as do the people down in production or on the sales floor. Four decades ago, IBM tried to unify corporate culture in its subsidiaries all over the world. Geert Hofstede carried out a world-wide survey on employee values. The result was very informative and demonstrative. There were other researchers of the same topic too. A common conclusion of all those studies is that “we are definitely different”.

Back to Adam Smith. He characterized economy as three orders in society: those who live by the rent, by their labor, and by the profits. Joseph Schumpeter described economy also as three-folded: monetary, interests, and value theory within a natural-law perspective. And they were not alone in dividing economy in three parts. One does not need to be an outstanding expert to deduct: a (free) market, which by definition is something imaginary, can be perceived as a Holy Ghost; a (private) property, which equals to omnipotence – the God; and a labor, which can be linked to a sacrifice for higher capital gains – Jesus Christ. Is then the economy just a new “global religion” with all needed attributes? If you remove fundamental attribute of any religion -“trust”- from all economics factors, what do you get? A meltdown of today currencies, companies values, stock markets … Or choose a next attribute – “permanent growth” of profits which is in collision with all natural laws (even Universe is limited). The focal point of economy driven capitalism paradigm is the accumulation of capital or wealth. It propels uncontrollably, destroying the natural environment and exploitation of resources beyond recovery. There is also no room for other ‘opinions’ than economic measures that drive our lives today. Is this a kind of a “medieval” way of thinking?

I came across an article discussing “What Leadership Will Look Like In 20 Years” by Rick Smith. He discusses six major shifts he believes will mark how the most effective leaders will behave in twenty years. Reading the list I was kind of disappointed that future of leadership is pretty much the same as today with minor, technical, changes. Not that I’m good in predicting a future (who is?) but I would like to challenge you with my thoughts and brief explanation on what I think about our future leadership issues.

It is not a technology that will be the driver any more. The technological doctrine present today will be upgraded with social subjects /dimensions/ that are today missing especially within a business context. Due to technology evolution in semantic web in future the focus would be shifted from today's “right questions” to more complicated topics. It will be important to have a proper education to know how to interpret answers, data, information instantly gotten over the Internet.

I've learned that the verb “to manage” comes from the Italian maneggiare (to handle, especially tools), which derives from the Latin word manus (hand). So I've searched dictionaries and Internet and come with broader definitions of the meaning of the word:

The Free dictionary:

To direct or control the use of; handle: manage a complex machine tool
To direct the affairs or interests of: manage a company; an agency that manages performers

The Merriam Webster:

To have control of (something, such as a business, department, sports team, etc.)

The Dictionary.com :

To dominate or influence (a person) by tact, flattery, or artifice: He manages the child with exemplary skill.
To handle, direct, govern, or control in action or use: She managed the boat efficiently.

Leadership and conflict

Searching for a good definition of a conflict I found on Internet:

a conflict is a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one,
a state of mind in which a person experiences a clash of opposing feelings or needs,
a fight, battle or war, or struggle, especially a prolonged struggle; strife
a psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies,
a state of opposition between ideas, interests, etc; disagreement or controversy.

Therefore, a conflict is inevitable natural occurrence; it is a part of our experience demonstrating that we all have our respective ideas. Also at workplace a conflict is an integral part of leadership and management process. Definitively, if all conflicts were erased from the workplace, there would be a feeling of unease, because the atmosphere might appear a bit too sterile and unrealistic. In literature there are different types of conflict(s):

Intrapersonal conflict occurs within an individual,
Interpersonal conflict refers to a conflict between two individuals,
Intragroup conflict is a type of conflict that happens among individuals within a team and
Intergroup conflict takes place when a misunderstanding arises among different teams within an organization.
Grouping them, literature suggests that at workplace there are (only) two types of conflict: healthy and un-constructive. So, it is said that a healthy conflict can benefit a business and leads to a more innovative, inclusive and learning mind-set around disputes.

Leadership and succession

“A person who does not worry about the future will shortly start to worry about the present” is an ancient Chinese proverb.

Unfortunately, still rare occurrence is leadership succession which is and should be too important to ignore.

A company CEO is irrevocably gone. Who will take his position? Or, the top executive is attracted by your competition. Is there anyone new ready to fill the role? What would you do: you may end up with an empty C-suite or, even worse, get an under qualified person to fill the job because simply there is no one better to take it over.

Transition period in the top management position may present quite hazardous times for companies. If the previous CEO has had significant and sound results a worry about his successor’s ability to maintain the same momentum will inevitably arise. To avoid a future crisis in leadership succession there should be developed and implemented plan for leadership succession beforehand. This should cover planned process of leadership transition but also the unplanned ones. Important functions will thusly in large amount continue uninterrupted.

Increasingly large and globally integrated companies take leadership development and CEO succession extremely seriously. In one study of more than 200 CEO successions the researchers found out that in contender succession turnover among senior executives has a positive effect on a company’s profitability but in an outsider succession it has a negative impact. So, companies face two ways to fill the empty position: with internal process of development of a specific candidate or hire externally and choose the best free one on the market.

Leaders and Self confidence

Why, if self-confidence is so important in nearly all aspects of our lives, do so many people struggle with it?

A child playing with the father who throws him in the air: does a child laugh and ask for more? Then, when a child is high above your head you ask him “Would you be a star fighter pilot?” Child won't hesitate to say yes! However, why then most adults are so fearful of choosing a career that could provide them a professional satisfaction and leave those they are not satisfied with? Is it because of a vicious circle in which people who lack self-confidence can find it difficult to become successful and consequently self-confident?

In martial arts, when you face the opponent your level of self-confidence is shown in many ways: by your posture, your movements, your reactions, your behavior during the combat, your body language and your verbal language (if you speak, what you say etc.). Everything reflects your (lack of) confidence. If you hesitate, you lose. A well-known truth is that self-confident people inspire confidence and/or respect in others.

Inspiring the confidence in others is one of the key ways in which a leadership process perpetuates. A leadership is all about having the confidence to make decisions, to show to your followers the vision, to communicate good and bad news, to inspire others. If someone is afraid to make and commit to a decision, all of the communication and empowerment in the world won't make any good to get confident.

Leadership “style”

What kind of style a good leadership reflects? Can it be defined uniformly? Is it in fact a style or is it personality? Both or something else?

Questions that fire up discussions, writings, blogs, books …

Alexander the Great, Mao Zedong, Mandela, Hitler, Gandhi, Che Guevara, Abraham Lincoln, Genghis Khan, Napoleon Bonaparte, all were leaders. Some of them were charismatic, all of them influential, some fierce and some inspirational. What attracted people to follow them? Was it their leadership quality that attracted masses, or their actions made them the leaders? They were definitely heroes or anti-heroes. They all failed many times, yet they were remembered for their greatness. Failures are soon forgotten, greatness will always be remembered.

Most western books describe and define leadership process with explanation of the way the leader exercises and manifests his leadership process. Thusly, they try to combine them into the most common leadership styles: laissez-faire, democratic or participative, charismatic, bureaucratic, and autocratic. We all know that nobody complies in full with only one style, but the prevailing one is then assigned to that leader. Due to this, the researchers identify subtypes to those five main leadership styles, such as strategic leadership, team leadership, facilitating leadership. Even further distinct divisions about leadership are made based on influence styles, such as cross-cultural leadership and coaching. Some authors characterize leadership as people-oriented or relations-oriented, for instance, servant, task oriented, transactional or transformational leadership. Others classify leadership characterized by situation, such as emergent leadership style, innovative, visionary, command and control, and again also transformational leadership. There is a plethora of definitions of styles and how leaders exercise the leadership process over subordinates. But does this really explain what a leader is and what his style is?

Virtue - driven company

What YOU put up with is what YOU have to live with!

Modern corporate culture

Although companies today dispose of all kinds of employee assessment systems, the employees are still managed by managers rather than lead by leaders. Being treated as a cost, even expendable or hopeless, the staff, normally, acts in the same way.

Banks or financial service companies analyze the companies’ performance. For the writing of “the analyst reports” normally young people, freshly out of the school, are used. The report which mostly does not make any significant sense is then solely used by management as a base to steer the staff and processes the way they always wished but were ‘afraid’ to do. So we begin to work to live rather than live to work.

I might also say that in companies “a terrible job” is done when screening and matching people to tasks. Thousands of low level employees are hired but not empowered to actually change anything even in their own field of expertise for which they were hired. Their work is just to do the job (execute higher level decisions). Companies do not dispose of a long term plan to keep best people engaged; they don’t reward them for exceptional actions. No incentive is provided to those that are willing to be innovative. The incentive, if at all, is meant for those that do fewer errors and are willing to compel to the system. The employees are not empowered to solve problems. They are required to rather avoid them (by punished errors). Thusly, companies create a symptom of “someone else's problem”, certainly not my problem, not my responsibility.

In the companies that are not just managed but being lead by true leaders the employees come first and are encouraged to stand up and do it differently.

Blurb of the book:

Interwoven around the leadership process, corporate challenges and martial arts this book brings the reader along to "listen in" on the day to day developments, struggles and challenges.

The reader is shown from a first-person perspective the internal refinement of a leadership process based on non-Western approach. The main character, brought up in Europe and therefore used to Western "cultural background noise" although practicing Chinese martial arts, has to learn and understand the differences brought by Far East principles if he wants to grasp leadership from a different angle ...

The book has eighteen (18) chapters. Chapters one to five are dedicated to the background setting and the evolution of the story and characters; Chapters six to nine are devoted to open different approaches and mentality that is coming from Far East and Martial arts philosophy and in parallel gradually introducing difficulties in leadership process and (miss)understanding of those Far East concepts; final Chapter eighteen is dedicated to merge those Far East and Martial arts concepts and philosophies with "known" Western ones and thus opening a new entanglement approach proposed with the use of the Leadership by Virtue.

A video review:

Jaro Berce has poured in the “Leadership by Virtue” his passion, knowledge, and wisdom. It is an exceptional view of blending eastern and western thinking and practices; it is thought provoking, an eye opener, challenging and more.

The book “Leadership by Virtue” by Jaro Berce is not just a novel, but a tremendous learning experience (by Pamela Jill Rapley).