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’.

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.

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.

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?

Humble or Agile Leadership

So far I have explored several types of leadership and what constitutes them. This post I dedicate to another two leadership styles that, considering their terms, could not have anything in common.

The first is ‘humble leadership’. In the dictionary humble means ‘having or showing a modest or low estimate of one's own importance.’ Well, hard to imagine a leader that has low estimate of his/her importance and leads well. But let’s see how different sources define it:

• ‘humility means being honest’ - why then do we have two words? 
• a study on ‘humble leadership’ states that “when employees observed altruistic or selfless behavior in their managers … they were more likely to report feeling included in their work teams.” OK, I’m not to repeat again and again that management is not leadership, but would still point out that a leader that has emotions would surely have the same results. It is not about humbleness but emotions –Goleman would probably agree.
• another research found out ‘that managers who exhibit traits of humility—such as seeking feedback and focusing on the needs of others—resulted in better employee engagement and job performance.’ 
• Feedback is definitively not correlated with humility but rather with empathy and professionalism. 
• the important attributes that a ‘humble leader’ has to have are: engage in dialogue, not debates; admit mistakes; embrace uncertainty and accept ambiguity; be open to others’ opinions; let people do their jobs; be balanced; secure and recognize. The very same attributes we have already seen in other styles of leadership.

Transformational Leadership

My quest for different types of leadership brought ‘transformational leadership’ to my attention. The concept was initially introduced by James MacGregor Burns, a US presidential biographer, to be defined as "leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level of morality and motivation".

‘Transformational leadership’ is described as:

• a type of leadership style that can inspire positive changes in those who follow;
• a role model for followers;
• puts passion and energy into everything;
• inspires, sets clear goals, high expectations and "walks the walk";
• does not only challenge the status quo but also encourage creativity among followers;
• offers support, recognition and encouragement to individual followers;
• stirs the emotions of people and gets people to look beyond their self-interest
• those kind of leaders have a clear vision and are able to articulate it to followers;
• always visible and will stand up to be counted rather than hide behind their troops;
• able to prevent employees from being excessively reliant on their bosses;
• take and provide feedback;
• those leaders are good communicators;
• cultivating staff  to feel empowered and self-guided.

Rather a long list but, if you’ve read my previous posts Servant leadership, Authentic leadership, Change leadership and  Charismatic Leadership, you have already detected some notions of parallelism in all those “different” kinds of leadership.  On those I’ll dedicate one of my future blog posts.

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.

Change leadership

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.

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.

Atypical views on Leadership - 1

An outstanding Leadership for cross cultural team(s)

Have you met a person that was thinking in a completely different way to yours? What kind of impression does it leave on you? Do you dismiss it immediately, or you find it worthy, erroneous  …? 

For me it is exciting, definitely because my life path is somehow atypical, too. In our core we people are similar no matter where we come from. Not long ago I had a TEDx talk about the human behavior that surpasses “the cultural background noise” – “the noise” that accompanies us throughout our life and normally influences our values, ethics and morals, mentally and subconsciously. Unfortunately, this kind of reasoning I find that is still missing in common stances and leadership practices. Let me try to show some examples which are going to be based on atypical views.

From the management’s perspective, managers perform tasks, manage people and do business. Accordingly, there are numerous methodologies and tools helping to manage business and people: Just In Time Production, Kobayashi’s 20 keys, Six Sigma, Business Process Reengineering … to name some. In business environment, do all these methodologies and tools really come out the way we need them to? Current economic and financial situation makes us doubt it. If these tools were as efficient and as great as claimed, then we should not see companies struggling and vanishing. Why it is then so?

Leadership attitude

In last two posts I have written about the difference between two, many times interchanged, organizational functions that are necessary to any organization: management (To manage people) and leadership (To lead people). As there is more to both of them, here I’d like to share with you some more of my views on leadership attitudes, the ones that I consider important.

Many of you will agree that leadership is more about who the leader is than what he/she is actually doing. Therefore, we may assume that the attitude is important when influencing, impacting and leading people.

To manage people

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 time management

“Please call my secretary for a meeting – she knows when I’m busy” is often heard from an important CEO?

If you yourself do not manage your time, how are you able to manage the time of the people you lead?

To develop a time management skill means to become aware of how one uses his time. William Penn said: “Time is what we want most, but what we use worst.” And yes, there never seems to be enough time, unless you're the one that serve the time. Nothing can replace a time wasted, it can never be regained. Time management is a resource in organizing, prioritizing, and succeeding in what and how you perform.

A leader is burdened by numerous things almost always with limited time resources. Just worrying about time limitations and putting off or postponing may lead to indecision and consequently inefficiency. Due time pressure you resort to implement instead of analyze first. In leadership inefficiency occurs when unrealistic time estimates are made. Most of the time is lost due to issues resulting from poor organizational skills. This leads to ineffective meetings and finish with a leader micro-managing. The latter is also supported by failing to delegate tasks and performances. Many bad leaders are also not so strong in planning. They have not a clear idea about prioritizing, standardizing, or implementing organizational policies and procedures. They rather tend to deal with urgent tasks and thusly postpone the important ones till they become urgent (see my blog: Cause and consequence / Urgent and important).

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.

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.

Education, tools and leadership

There are numerous programs, schools and methodologies helping to understand and learn how to manage business and people:  different master of business administration (MBA) schools with their own programs and almost abundant methodologies and tools they teach their students.  Unfortunately no one ever learns whatsoever about e.g.: ecology at an MBA or in their programs. Unethical business and environmental practices of some MBA students are uncovered consistently.

Responsibility across the broadest spectrum of society is vitally important to the future of the global economy. Having said that the key question in today's business environment still remains: do all those programs, methodologies and tools really come out the way we need them to?

The biggest issue to introduce all of the different programs every couple of years or so is mostly based on the matter that companies are entirely dismissing experience if you do not have a degree. This is short sighted and even negligent but attractive  to those that want higher salary, better career opportunities or better consolidated business network. The second matter is that different methodologies and tools get sold to C-level as a silver bullet that is going to fix all of their issues, problems and will bring out the solutions.

But to probe even deeper - it is not the methodologies or the tools that bring solutions or break problems. They are good and they work when they are just frameworks to organize efforts. The important and mostly overlooked aspect of application of methodologies and tools is: they need to be based on the business needs, culture of organization and should be properly trimmed to benefit from using them.

MARSocial copetition: Leadership by Virtue

My book excerpt from “Leadership by Virtue” available on AMAZON.COM (Chapter 6, pages 117-120 of 539 p.) is entered into the Marsocial.com Author of the Year Competition                        Please Click the link and like, shares it. Thank you.

As for Shifu’s words, Tara asks Ben if he has seen a monster

 Culture sophistication of employees pressures on realization of decisions

 Leadership cannot really be taught. It can only be learned. (Harold S. Geneen)

The words “If you do not handle your time, how can you manage the time of the people you lead” from yesterday evening echoed in my ears through the night. And still now I cannot forget them. It is very true, and I feel that I need some guidance about how to overcome these rapidly evolving events that are consuming me and my energy. Drinking tea in my office and shuffling through my e-mail, I just cannot get rid of Shifu’s words. Where is the key that will unlock the doors that will allow all the negative energy accumulated in these two companies to exit? It seems to me that even an exceptional martial artist could not fight through all this piled-up problems.

I don’t even hear it when Gemini enters with the report I asked for about all those subsidiary companies and our ex-employees working in them mostly for FixCom. She starts to explain the background and the concerns she has if we cancelled contracts with companies right now. I agree with her and ask her if she can prepare a plan to pass important services to a new company smoothly and then to pass other less important services that are not our core business and do not bring high value added on to those companies. The plan should include the costs and people involved, and we can have preliminary discussion about it today at the merge meeting. I inform her that we will have this on the agenda of our first directors’ board meeting in two weeks.

Fedor enters with a smile on his face. This should be a good sign. And it is.
“Hi, Ben. I have the papers with me.”
“Make it good news, please.”
“It is. We finally entered all the data yesterday evening and tested them with the new SW module. This morning we cleaned the errors and ran them again through the system and the results are here.”
“That is great, and I should apologize for being rude to you yesterday.” It is a relief to say these words that I truly mean. Finally, a positive effect offering me proof that I’m steering the problems correctly.
“No problem. I understand the pressure on you, and we did not help you much to overcome them. Would you like to see the results?”
“Yes please, but first let us call Dylan too.”
“I already informed him, and he is on his way up here.”
Dylan arrives a few minutes later, and we have a long presentation and Fedor’s explanation of the data. It is half past nine when we are through, and I shock them by saying, “Would you mind if I leave now and you two carry out the meeting?”
“Something more important?”
“In some ways, you could say yes. But please can you inform me about the results afterward?”
“Is she young?” was Fedor’s provocative question.

Interested? READ MORE HERE.

Related articles

• MARSocial: Out of this World Income Opportunity for Writers, Artists and Visionaries

Consultant - Coach

There is quite a selection of titles for people offering services to businesses such as: adviser, consultant, mentor, coach. In the last two decades in organizations business coaching has become increasingly popular to assist executives, managers, and employees in their personal and professional growth. How and what makes us decide that in particular case if we need a business consultant or a business coach?

As both, coaching and consulting process, are built on trust and confidentiality to differentiate them one can pose the following questions:

• Do they question and listen?
• Do they spend most of the time talking?
• Do they offer alternatives and let you make the choice?
• Do they tell you what to do?
• Do they think they know all of the answers?
• Do they appear to ask the right questions?
• Do you learn from them?
• Do you end up wiser or not?

The above questions help, but to determine which business service you actually need, more description is needed.