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.

Storytelling tool in leadership

What is the perfect tool to connect with, inspire or motivate another? If you are trying to sell something, present it, give a speech or you are just the audience, the difference between interesting and boring is storytelling.

Stories are changing the way we think, act, and feel and can capture our imaginations, illustrate our ideas, arouse our passions, and inspire us. If a story is well told it can create an intense, personal connection between the audience, the idea and the teller. Think just how you have been listening to them as a child.

What exactly is a good storytelling - the art of using communication: verbal, tone and also gesture to tell components and metaphors of a story to an audience? Throughout human history stories were the actual building blocks of knowledge and by teaching them we learned to anticipate the possible consequences. Stories formed the foundation for memorizing events, persons or other data and to learn about them. That is why we could say that stories connect us with past, present, and future...

Could this tool be used in a business environment to form the foundations of a different workplace culture where hard facts failed to? Could this tool communicate and connect employees, customers, partners, suppliers, colleagues, and more?

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.

Participative Leadership

When I first encountered the term “participative leadership” I was kind of puzzled. What kind of a leader cannot or does not participate? Is it possible to lead at all without participation?

The search offered some answers on the topic, nevertheless I was amazed that most authors won’t distinguish two important but different roles, managers and leaders: “… as it is within the managers' whim to give or deny control…” or “…in the participative leadership style, effective managers solicit input from subordinates …”.  Participative leadership pertains to leaders, doesn't it? (see: Leader vs. manager).

Another statement “a participative leader, rather than taking autocratic decisions, seeks to involve other people in the process” was pretty much familiar - the same definition was ascribed to charismatic leadership (Charismatic Leadership).

Among many more publications about participative leadership I came across the definition “… the leader turns to the team for input, ideas and observations instead of making all decision on his or her own.”  Well, can a leader really lead without inputs from his team? I sincerely doubt it.

Dualism vs. Yin-Yang

Can Western dualism be compared to Yin and Yang?

We are probably all aware that René Descartes was a major figure in seventeenth-century European continental rationalism. His most famous expression was/is ‘Cogito ergo sum,’( in French: ‘Je pense, donc je suis’) or in English: ‘I think, therefore I am’  ‘I am thinking, therefore I exist’ or ‘I do think, therefore I do exist.’ He definitely shaped or better defined Western polarization culture’s thinking.

Descartes defined the roots of Western dualism in ‘Description of the human body’ and the ‘Passions of the soul’ in which he advised that the body functions like a machine. In contradiction to the body, the mind or soul was described as a non-material object that lacks extension and motion and does not follow the laws of nature. This form of dualism or duality has a problem when one proposes that the mind controls the body and that the body can also influence otherwise rational mind. 

The dualism, as a philosophical matter, is then transferred to all themes such as good-bad, heaven-hell, day-night, left-right, man-woman, etc. This polarization is very strict and does not allow any big or small interconnection and/or interdependency. This kind of thinking was strongly supported by prevailing religion in Western hemisphere at the time.

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.

Charismatic Leadership

In my quest of different types of leadership I came across BusinessDictionary.com’s definition of ‘charismatic leader’:

“The guidance provided to an organization by one or more individuals seen as heroic or inspiring and who have therefore been granted the organizational power to make dramatic changes and extract extraordinary performance levels from its staff. For example, a business manager imbued with charismatic leadership could be enlisted to orchestrate a turnaround or launch a new product line.”

Well, my first dilemma within this definition is how one can mix up two different roles, namely business management and leadership (see: Leader vs. manager). Although both are needed in an organization they are not interchangeable. Next, in post “Leadership and Charisma” I wrote that  it is not about the definition of a bad/good leader, it is about how he or she should behave and what she or he should aim for to be the successful one. Therefore, the question is not about charisma but rather about what kind of personality has a good leader?

Lesson of Leadership by Biba

To post on the first day of a new year – a challenge in a way. But what else is a leadership if not that too?

Last year was a great year full of changes, challenges and a big loss too. After eleven years of being with us we lost our dog Biba. We've found her in a shelter and since the first moment she made an inseparable and very significant part of our family accompanying us wherever the path took us. She’s always been a very happy dog ready for any kind of action no matter the time, weather conditions or circumstances.

She taught our kids the responsibility for another living being. Yes, it was her doing to teach and to keep watch of our home and ‘our pack.’ She taught all of us how to be happy each and every day, she taught us what a real compassion means, she was watchful and mindful of all and she took her responsibilities with great care.

Inspiring others

For a leader a crucial tool to lead well is to ‘inspire’. I have already covered a difference between managers and leaders (see post: Leader vs. manager). Both roles are important in any organization and they are mostly not even interchangeable. A manager has plenty  management tools to make people work. What about leader?

In the TED talk on ‘How great leaders inspire action’ Simon Sinek said: “We follow those who lead, not for them, but for ourselves. And it’s those who start with ‘why’ that have the ability to inspire those around them or find others who inspire them”.

How can one inspire others to do what has been previously envisioned?

For sure, a good leader is a good example and he ‘walks the talk’. People are disconnected from working environment when they feel they are not considered or if they are suppressed instead of encouraged and challenged (more in Leadership and “happy” organization post). A leader has to display  his experience but has to appear vulnerable at the same time. You remember how inspired you were in your youth when somebody  told you a story? So, as a leader, why not use the storytelling instead of commanding? All great leaders from the past used it.

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.

Multicultural environment and leadership

In situations when you have to introduce yourself where do you usually place your family name: in front of a given one or behind it? Do you call other people by their first name? Koreans for example remain largely as ‘people with no given names’. We often say ‘my’ school or ‘my’ office or ‘my’ country; the Japanese people say ‘our’ school or ‘our’ office or ‘our’ country and even ‘our husband’? In Western culture we use ‘Hi,’ ‘Thank you,’ ‘You’re welcome,’ or ‘I’m sorry’. In China the same is preferably expressed by eye contacts or body gestures. When eating with friends do you share dishes or does each of you have your own plate just for yourself?

Above are just some cultural differences that you may see when visiting the countries around the globe. For a short visit some mistakes are not significant but if you are in the position to lead a multicultural team also these mistakes may influence the job outcome.

For me the most important is that you “understand” the differences. Next important issue is that you have to ‘be aware of’ your ‘cultural background noise’ as I’ve talked about in my TEDx talk. A cultural background noise may be blocking your vision on others’ cultural issues. If you surpass it you are prepared to accept and change.

Hundred posts

WOW – when I started to write this blog hundred seemed a long time away. I even haven’t had a clue what topics to write about in first few posts. And now, this one reaches the number one hundred!

It took me a year and a half. It was not an easy time. Sometimes the day of posting was approaching and my mind was still not set on a topic, sometimes I had a topic but the thoughts could not be formulated to my satisfaction. There were “technical” problems, too, when I was spending time in places with no internet connection. How to write and not repeat myself too much? Sometimes other engagements took precedence. Other times the stuffiness of writing was taking over. But in all this time a lot of experience was gathered which helped me to overcome all the obstacles and arrive at this point.

At the beginning I set my mind to follow the path of “being different” in approach to leadership: I structured the blog posts in five categories which  are not arbitrary but rather serve the purpose of the content I was writing about.

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.

Yin & Yang in Leadership

Yin and Yang is a brilliant symbol and a superb allegory approach to describe excellence in leadership. Let me point out some of the possible applications already posted in my blogs. In the post “IQ & EQ for Leaders” I've written about the importance of “intelligence and emotional quotients” to the leadership. For a leader it is crucial to find a proper mixture of EQ and IQ substances to achieve correct methods/processes that deliver desired results. It is not enough to possess one or the other, the same as in Yin and Yang concept. Another blog “Virtue – Morality – Ethics and leadership” I claimed that virtue motivates, morals and ethics constrain. The last two represent an ego which could be one of the biggest barriers for people to work together effectively (EGO and Leadership?) in multicultural organizations that are spread around the globe. Again here we have two opposite things in leadership that “conflict” with each other.

But Yin and Yang is much more than mere opposites.

Servant leadership

The servant leadership philosophy and/or a set of leadership practices have been expressed and described in many ways. There is a notion that a servant leadership is an age-old concept, a term loosely used to suggest that a leader’s primary role is to “serve” employees. On the other instances the notion is around the concept of an imaginary inverted pyramid organization in which top executives ‘report’ downward to lower levels.

The author of the term is Robert Greenleaf.  He described it in his paper ‘The Servant as Leader’ (1970): “The servant leader is a servant first … It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve and serve first. Then a conscious choice brings the aspiration to lead …”

Most authors in favor of servant leadership today explain the term as one of the best approaches to leading. They describe it as a method that consists of some activities and qualities a leader should possess or do: he/she values everyone’s contributions; listens; cultivates a culture of trust; understands and empathizes with others; helps people with a life and not only work issues; encourages; thinks and behaves as ‘you’ and not ‘me’; relies on persuasion (seeks to convince others), rather than authority; builds community; focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people / employees and the communities to which they belong.

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.

Entrepreneurship and Leadership

Does a leader need to have entrepreneurship knowledge and/or attitude?

In my times I was an entrepreneur as well as a leader. It didn't take much to figure that those two roles have both: differences and similarities which are evident from the behaviors, in the strategies and achievements across a wide range of settings.

Summarizing the differences they fall into some of the categories:

• an entrepreneur builds a vehicle; a leader builds a superhighway on which it travels;
• an entrepreneur gets excited about innovative ideas; a leader creates creative work environments and supports brilliant ways to get things done;
• a leader keeps promises; an entrepreneur is excited by opportunities and may not always consider the time and effort it takes to follow through on their promises;
• a leader values and develops personal relationships at all levels; an entrepreneurs often tends to jeopardize important relationships for an idea to come through;
• an entrepreneur dances with failure; a leader with vision, strategy and policy tries to avoid failures;
• an entrepreneur mostly feels comfortable being alone in his/her mission; a leader attracts and develops the followers to lead.

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 and Martial Arts – Anything in Common?

The globalization process has an impact on all of us and almost everything we do. It impacts the environment and consequently the way how organizations are structured, teams lead and managed. People work together and embody a variety of personalities, as well as a range of ways of doing things. A modern leader is supposed to grasp all of it to lead forward and to predict behaviors, but never to give or take offence due to misunderstanding the cultural issues.

Can such an old wisdom that is hidden in martial arts philosophy point to the culturally independent way in the leadership? Why, precisely, martial arts? Because martial arts do not differentiate! Being thought all over the globe philosophy remains the same regardless of personal believes, skin color, gender, ability …

Effortless leadership

In the Nature everything seems to be done effortlessly, or with the smallest effort, the same that is genuinely used in martial arts. Nature, in spite of dealing with extremely huge things and events, conserves ‘energy’ e.g. big tree growth with little ‘effort’, the seas do not get tired of waving, birds fly with ease, an ant can hold 100 times its weight and appears to carry it effortlessly. The same principle is used in martial arts: in a fight there is simply not enough time to recuperate unwisely spent energy. You tire, you lose.

Overexertion is damaging also in the leadership process: to spend more energy that is needed is often harmful not only because it represents a physical and intellectual hindrance. When things are done effortlessly the impression is that everything runs smoothly and harmoniously, there is no stopping, no fuss, no dissatisfaction. Most importantly, all and everything is achieved without resorting to give orders or spend time on extensive persuasion. A well led team should not be a battlefield of egos. In teamwork there is no place for individual ‘victories’ or ‘defeats’.

For more please read at: http://www.toddnielsen.com/international-leadership-blogathon/leadership-virtue-martial-arts/

Related articles

• Leadership By Virtue ~ book trailer
• Tai Chi Quan Leadership
• Learning Leadership from Martial Arts - III

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 - 2

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?

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?

The future of leadership

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.

Ancient knowledge about leadership

Last post about “Different views on leadership” discussed the differences between Western and Eastern leadership views. In searching for those dissimilarities I came across text from Spring and Autumn - Warring States, chapter Yao Yue describing discussion between Confucius and his apprentice Zi Zhang. Discussion is obviously focused on a leadership principles and attitudes:

Zi Zhang asked Confucius: "In what way should a person in authority act in order that he may conduct government properly?"

The Master replied: "Let him honor the five excellent, and banish away the four bad, things; then may he conduct government properly."

Zi then said: "What is meant by the five excellent things?"

The Master: "When the person in authority is beneficent without great expenditure; when he lays tasks on the people without their repining; when he pursues what he desires without being covetous; when he maintains a dignified ease without being proud; when he is majestic without being fierce."

Zi: "What is meant by being beneficent without great expenditure?"

The Master replied: "When the person in authority makes more beneficial to the people the things from which they naturally derive benefit; -- is not this being beneficent without great expenditure? When he chooses the labors which are proper, and makes them labor on them, who will repine? When his desires are set on benevolent government, and he secures it, who will accuse him of covetousness? Whether he has to do with many people or few, or with things great or small, he does not dare to indicate any disrespect - is not this to maintain a dignified ease without any pride? He adjusts his clothes and cap, and throws a dignity into his looks, so that, thus dignified, he is looked at with awe - is not this to be majestic without being fierce?"

Zi then asked: "What is meant by the four bad things?"

Different views on leadership

There are probably more studies, articles and books on “how to lead a team and building a team” than you can ever read. Therefore, I’m not going to or daring to repeat the same matters. But I would rather post a challenge - “Have you ever been a part of an international /inter-cultural team”?

If yes, what kind of experience did you get? Where there any obstacles to leadership, any misunderstanding because of different perceptions of team members coming from different cultural background? Well, I had had such an opportunity to work in and lead a multicultural environment.

In this post I would like to show and compare western approaches to team leading with eastern ones. They are so different in styles and philosophies that it is interesting to demonstrate and to share them with you.

West mostly always describes “five/seven/ten… keys to leading a team”. You are probably very much accustomed with them and have read about those as well as other instructions dealing with leading, team and expected characteristics of a leader. Most of the time authors offer some of the great (repeated) suggestions and topics shown below which are then further appropriately elaborated into strong rooted believes of properness:

• Keep things in perspective / define the purpose of the team; 
• Establish team objectives / focus on results and productivity; 
• Keep the team focused / align people with the stuff they are good at or passionate about; 
• Get the right people on-and-off the bus / demonstrate your commitment; 
• Be a team player or allow others to shine / a leader must mobilize team members; 
• Leading by example means following rules / leader cannot exempt himself from the rules; 
• Leaders people will follow are accountable and trustworthy / leaders of teams take the responsibility; 
• Characteristics of a successful leadership is to trust your people -- and let them know it;
• Don’t provide all the answers -- make your employees think; 
• etc.

For more please read at: http://peopledevelopmentmagazine.com/leading-with-virtue-not-beliefs/.

Related articles

• Become A Great Leader By Using These Leadership Tips!
• Leadership Tips And Advice Direct From The Pros

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 lead people

Have you heard of many great managers of the past? Probably much less than about great leaders. That is why “to manage” and “to lead” are two distinguishing roles. They are both needed in society and organizations.

The verb “to lead” has a great history down to the philosophical writings from Plato's Republic to Plutarch's Lives in which he explored the question “What qualities distinguish an individual as a leader?” In one of my previous posts “China’s history and culture impacting Leadership – 1” (and following ) I've written about the Far East’ perception on leadership. And what internet has to say about the verb “to lead”?

The Free dictionary 

• To show the way to by going in advance
• To go first as a guide.

MerriamWebster 

• To direct on a course or in a direction
• To guide someone or something along a way.

Dictionary.com 

• To go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort: to lead a group on a cross-country hike
• To take the initiative; begin.

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.

Martial arts solution to conflict

In previous post Leadership and conflict I've explained what conflict is, the types of conflict and how to resolve them as a leader. In this post I would add my additional thoughts on the subject from a different angle of view.

Martial arts are mostly thought of as being violent. At the beginning of each enrolment year there come those that want to fight. They see martial arts as a solution to their way of solving conflicts on streets, in bars or other locations. They feel that they will be “equipped” with better tooling and can turn the outcome of the conflict in their favor.

The main question is: “Is that so?”

There are two ways to answer this question that may mislead the answer to just one direction: the direction in which one is able only to fight back.

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.

Tai chi in the leadership world – 2

In the previous post (Tai chi in the leadership world – 1) I've written about basics and fundamentals of the wide and profound wisdom of Tai Chi. By the end I have indicated some ways to use it in leadership. In this post I would like to expose some essentials of Tai Chi that may be an advantage also in leadership.

To empirically learn so-called internal martial art aspects of Tai Chi one begins with Tui shou or pushing hands (see post: Pushing hands and Virtue). Pushing hands is a distinctive Tai Chi practice very similar to Chi shou (sticking hands) used in Wing Chun (see post: Wing Chun basics and Wing Chun and leadership). The latter is more combative while pushing hands is less aggressive and more oriented to using opponent’s energy. With pushing hands the endurance needed in a contest is developed. The method softens stances, movements, and stiffness of a whole body. You need to be perceptive of your partner. Pushing hands diminish your natural instinct of resisting force with force enabling to correctly respond to the external stimuli: your body simply yields to force and redirects it. It is a Yin and Yang or strong and soft principle that governs pushing hands. With age we tend to become inflexible and our reactions jerky, as often obvious when (if) we slip and plunge to the floor. Kids are still much more natural in the same situations just collapse softly or roll, like usually lucky drunk person.

Pushing hands method is extremely good for a person with a big ego too (see post: Ego and Leadership) as it covers our senses and therefore conceals our reactions. A person should be very relaxed, stable in the proper stance that allows moving back and front, left and right, up and down. All thoughts should be wiped and nothing expected. When opponent’s action comes, you react naturally.

Tai chi in the leadership world -1

In my post Tai Chi Quan Leadership I have given you some historical information and points to be used in leadership process from Tai Chi. In this and the next post I’d like to share with you some of my experiences and knowledge that I have gained by practicing Tai Chi. I will conclude with another set of views on how to transfer them to leadership.

Yoga is known as a still meditation technique as opposed to Tai Chi, which is a moving one. As opposite to India where food and temperatures could allow yoga Tai Chi in China evolved differently but with the deep, profound and meaningful theory.

Many of you think of Tai Chi as an exercise normally practiced by older people. You have probably seen it as such practiced in Chinese parks. It looks so benevolent and an easy practice and is probably a reason why it rarely attracts young people to begin practicing it. Very few people see Tai Chi as a martial art that can be very efficiently used to protect life. Some blame for it can be put on numerous schools where Tai Chi is practiced just as a type of coordinated movements with health improvement in mind. It is a type of Tai Chi learning by practicing form(s) only. Bare hand practice is just one of various aspects of Tai Chi. Still available practice may use sword, saber, spear and staff, up to ball, and ruler. It is also true that some of training with those tools is not worldwide spread as there are very few masters who still know and practice them.

The bare handed Tai Chi is a set of eight hand movements and five leg movements. Hence it is sometimes called the thirteen techniques. The eight fundamental Tai Chi hand movements are: warding off, rolling back, pressing, pushing, spreading, taking, elbowing, and leaning.  The five fundamental leg movements are: moving forward, moving back, moving to the left, moving to the right, and remaining in the center.

Tai Chi and all Chinese martial arts are not something that a person could grab instantaneously. They are meant as a lifelong learning and developing and definitely not something to grasp or understand immediately or even learn in the first hour. It took me more than ten years to do the form alone. I still may need a suggestion or external help.

Observer’s influence and Leadership

If asked whether you like physics most or many of you would probably answer “no”.

In next few paragraphs I would like to show you that it is quite an interesting field that can be used and applied in real life and definitively in leadership too. I will begin with a kind of  ‘strange’ theory that demonstrates “observer’s influence” on what is observed.

The Werner Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that the act of observation interferes with what is being observed. He defined that the position and momentum of a particle cannot be simultaneously measured with arbitrarily high precision. More precisely the position is determined less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. This is even more relevant in dealing with human and organizational systems. But there is a difference. In human and organizational systems, the object of observation is aware of being observed and can react depending on the situation and perceived purpose of the observation. This can compound the challenges of leadership.

There is definitively a version of the Heisenberg principle that works in leadership area. If a leader is present and steers things, they function differently than when he is present and doesn’t steer, or even when he is not present. Of course, it seems to work better when a leader is present. But shouldn't a leadership be about followers doing right things even when a leader is not present?