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.

Competition or Collaboration?

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

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

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

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

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

No way!

Practicing “Tai Chun”

There is no martial art with the name Tai Chun. I just melted names of two arts to form a new expression:  the first word from Tai Chi (Tai chi in the leadership world -1) and the other from Wing Chun (Wing chun in Leadership; Wing Chun basics 4 Leadership). So, why did I combine those two arts?

For several decades now I have been practicing different martial arts and came to conclusion that at the top level of any martial art there is a very similar if not the same knowledge and performance.

Why is it so?

People like to think we are different. But, what I like to point out is that as people we are all the same. We have almost identical “hardware” (two legs and hands, one body, head …) that moves in the same way. Well, one is taller and the other is heavier etc. but there is no big difference when it comes to how we sit down, walk, eat or fight. We use the same musculatures, joints or/and bones. Our “software” is pretty similar as well (we have fears, we are happy, we are angry …). Our brains work through the ‘same’ neurons and have same regions for processing vision, thoughts, and emotions. Therefore, our thoughts are produced, stored and retrieved in the same manner. And the same goes for our  cerebellum system where our reactions are ‘memorized’ and fired from.

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?

Disciplines of execution

Not long ago I met a young upwardly mobile professional. While discussing his views on management practices his position was clear: the subordinate has to do as he is told by his manager no matter the consequences! I kind of disagree: what if this ‘command’ costs company a bad reputation or money or lost customers. He was clear again: regardless, a subordinate has to follow what he/she’s been told to do! Lower ranked people have, most probably, less experience, less information and no broaden picture about the final goal. I was kind of surprised by such determined stand point, but had to point out that a company is not a military organization (even there some flexibility is possible). If a subordinate cannot execute the order then a manager cannot trust him/her, was his prompt answer.

A bit of a shock for me: from blind obedience to trust issues.

I have been managing and leading different teams in different environments. I do not remember ever expecting my co-workers (not subordinates) to execute blindly what I had ordered. On the contrary, I was trying hard to stimulating their own opinion(s), their own way of doing it but with the notion to take responsibility as well. I still follow what Ken Robinson said: “The role of a creative leader is not to have all of the ideas; it is to create a culture where everyone can have ideas and feel that they’re valued!”

I’m positive that the true threats to humanity are not the Hitlers, the Dahmers and the Mansons but those that blindly obey. As those that order cannot do it by themselves they can achieve it only through the means of obedient people. Therefore, I am strongly against the situation when a person in authority makes a decision or gives a command, that decision or command should be followed without questioning simply because a person in authority gave it.

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.

Coach-ability?

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

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

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

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

Sun Tzu wisdom and Leadership

In my previous posts I have deliberately omitted any connection to well-known book The Art of War by Sun Tzu. This book is one of the seven fundamental Chinese military books: from general Wei Liao Tzu, then Wu Tzu, The Methods of the Sima, Six Secret Teachings, the Three Strategies of Huang Shi Gong San Lue, and finally Questions and Replies (Wen Dui) between Tang Taizong and Li Wei Gong. These seven important military texts of ancient China are called Wu Jing Qi Shu or The Seven Military Classics. The texts were canonized under this name during the eleventh century, and past the Song Dynasty were included in most military encyclopedias.

The Art of War was created in sixth century before our era and contains the rules of warfare, which are grouped into different aspects and collected in 13 chapters. Each chapter is devoted to one aspect of warfare. Outside of China this book has long been regarded as the book of ‘the ultimate’ military wisdom and as the oldest and the most famous product of military strategy and tactics.

Leadership and perfectionism

Perfection!

A word that bursts our imagination in all life areas - business, private, leisure, recreational etc.
What is ‘perfection’? Why do we strive for it?

At the beginning of our Universe, the timeline back 13.7 billion years, the expansion begun from ‘Big Bang’. Some 380.000 years later huge clouds of hydrogen and helium atoms were formed but they had no structure. This sort of cosmic mush, as recent studies show, had some imperfection built in. Because of them we are able to measure just tiny differences in cosmic background temperature today. And tiny differences were enough for the Universe to move on to the next stage of building complexity. First, the stars were born …

It seems that it is the imperfection that generates complexity and change as David Christian describes in his TED talk: “And where you have slightly more complex things, you can get slightly more complex things. And in this way, complexity builds stage by stage”.

Who is the greatest leader of all time and why?

If you ask the question publicly expect nothing less than argumentative and disagreeable discussions.

We may consider leadership politically, historically, from the business prospective and many more aspects and settings.

This topic has been rolling in my mind for a long time now because I am looking for the best leadership practices and also the people performing them. I was amazed by people’s approach to this question on the internet. It has almost nothing to do with leadership but rather about personalities that important people have or had.  You may find ‘answers’ under the titles like ‘XYZ Things the greatest leaders all have in common’,  ‘Who are the greatest leaders of all time?’ or ‘The greatest leader of all’ and similar.

Are they describing basic leadership methodology and then, based on it, show who the great leaders were (are)? No, they are not! Do these articles have anything in common then? Absolutely yes!

Most of the researches are listing what a leader should not lack. See what I wrote in the blog Added value of leadership names or labels: “Is it all about different behaviors, different styles, or just to give a new label in front of the word leadership?” Those articles just state the “names” (mostly applied in western societies while forgetting the other parts of the world) and what those leaders were great for. Some go deeper and explain what leaders contributed to their societies.

How can I change my personality for the better???

In the post Leadership and Charisma I stated that leadership is all about personality. What exactly did I mean?

Merriam-webster dictionary offers a definition of ‘personality’ as:

• the set of emotional qualities, ways of behaving, etc., that makes a person different from other people;
• the condition or fact of relating to a particular person;
• a set of distinctive traits and characteristics.

American Psychological Associations offers a ‘personality’ definition as it refers to individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving. The study of personality focuses on two broad areas – first, understanding individual differences in particular personality characteristics, such as sociability or irritability and second, understanding how the various parts of a person come together as a whole.

Leadership way: Wing Chun or Karate

In my posts Wing Chun basics 4 Leadership and Wing Chun in Leadership I have already explained about Wing Chun principles. They are very well connected with Chinese thoughts and philosophies. They are based on the Yin and Yang principle, meaning soft and hard or motion and stillness, attack and defense—they all come from each other. This may be the most important theory in China.

What about Karate?

It is well known fact that Karate originates from Okinava, Japan. It was developed under the influence of Chinese martial arts, particularly Fujian White Crane which is thought to be the origin of Wing Chun too. It was brought to Okinava in 14th century. Gichin Funakoshi, the founder of Shotokan Karate, is generally credited with having introduced and popularized Karate on the main islands of Japan in 20th century. At the time when the martial art named Karatejutsu (the art of ‘Tang/China dynasty hand’) was renamed, by homophone, into ‘way of the empty hand’ and ‘do’ (road, path, route, way) – Karatedo. As Funakoshi had trained two other popular branches of Okinawan Karate at the time, Shorin-ryu and Shorei-ryu,  influenced by Kendo he assimilated some ideas with regard to distancing and timing into his Shotokan style.

How to (not) energize the team?

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

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

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

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

Leadership and values

In my post on Virtue – Morality – Ethics and leadership I have written down that virtue motivates, morals and ethics constrain.

Most of the times people tend to mix virtue, morals and ethics not having a clear idea which term to use and when. We are asked for an ethical behavior or moral business and at the same time are explained that values have changed in last decades. The subject is doubtlessly too valuable. What is usually missing is an important measurement framing. Why?

Values are our fundamental beliefs. They are the principles we use to define that which is right, good and just. They guide us when we determine right versus wrong, good versus bad. We could name them our standards since we compare or evaluate deeds whether they meet that standard or fall short of it.

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.

Leadership and Mindset

Does a leader need a special mindset to lead?

Gap International consulting firm conducted in-depth interviews with more than 500 global executives to get a sense of a leader's mindset. These interviews revealed that leaders accomplished great things when they envisioned a larger sense of purpose they contribute to. They become more energized and could better motivate followers to keep pushing for results.

Leadership, unlike management, cannot be reduced to a set of skills although many contemporary authors are just doing that (see Labeled leadership). But, while styles of a leader may vary, successful leaders share very similar mindsets. A personality radiating a proper mindset is then a defining factor for an exceptional leadership. Lacking it the leader’s chances of being effective aren't very good. Without a proper mindset a leader could be as well seen as powerful dictator but hardly a well-regarded or accepted person in charge.

The next issue in mindset research is represented by work of Warren Bennis who interviewed great leaders and found out that they all agreed in that leaders are made, not born. But they are made more by themselves than by any external means. This shows that mindset has to be properly attuned.

Pushing hands

What could pushing hands in Tai Chi and leadership have in common?

‘Pushing hands’ or ‘tui shou’ is a two-person training routines in T'ai Chi Ch'uan, one of Chinese martial arts (described in: Tai chi in the leadership world -1. It is a routine where both partners improve sensitivity, psychical and physical abilities.

The exercise comprises of “cooperative” moves of two practitioners, their arms, waist and legs combined are in a circular pattern. During movements each player attempts to be in light contact with the other practitioner’s arms while at the same time remaining in perfect balance. Practitioners are permitted to use their hands to attempt to unbalance the opponent. A practitioner who is pushed or pulled off balance will usually stumbles out of  stable position and has “to reset” the stance to resume the practice. If a balance is lost and the stability could not be immediately regained, a practitioner may be pushed, pulled, thrown or even hit.

In most cases this kind of practice is only a gentle way to ‘compete’ with one another without risk of injury. This “combat” is typically used by beginners who normally exhibit strong egos which should be curbed.  The advanced practitioners know when they’ve lost and what may occur – they have already pasted the threshold of egoism - so they just keep continuing the circular movements even after recognizing ‘the gain’. Pushing hands practice improves relaxation, flexibility, timing, balance, self-control and numerous other qualities. Although there is also a sportier, a more competitive version with much more force used, but we’ll leave it for another story.

Added value of leadership names or labels

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

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

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

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

Labeled leadership

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

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

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

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

Well, do we need so many of them?

Leadership and behaviors

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

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

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

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

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.