Leadership is a topic that has probably had more earnest academic stuff written about it than anything else, libraries would be denuded if all the material was suddenly removed.
Whilst it is dangerous to reduce complicated concepts to a list of bullet points, leadership is really all about behavior, and that can be listed as a series of do’s and don’ts.
This blog from Mike Michalowicz, and the links provided is as good a summary of the dead forests as I have seen.
Writing position descriptions for employees takes up a lot of management time, just another job that has to be done by a date.
If this is the case in your business, you have missed the point, as it is people that make a business, not the other way around.
To me it is pretty clear that in culture of success, a place where people want to work, there is robust leadership in place that achieves a few key outcomes in relation to their most important asset, their employees:
When I gave up smoking some 25 years ago, I did it “cold turkey” albeit after a lot of practice.
It was not easy, but probably not as hard as the industry supplying stop smoking aids would now have you believe.
The single strategy, which I applied with considerable focus was not that I had “given up” smoking, implying some sort of deprivation, but that I had “taken up” non smoking, a far more positive mind set.
The wider implication of this personal experience, is simply that focusing on what you will do, by when, and measuring the outcome, rather than on what you won’t do, is a far more effective way of getting results.
This is equally valid weather it is a personal task of losing a bit of weight (I will go to the gym Monday, Wednesday, Friday before work) or managing the strategic implementation of a major corporation.
Willpower is a bit like a muscle, the more exercise it gets, the better it works.
It seems to me that the government is on the horns of a dilemma.
On one hand, they need to appease the Greens, securing their votes, by introducing a carbon tax, a course of action that seems very sensible in the long run when you consider the weight of scientific evidence.
However, in so doing, Gillard will break what honest John Howard would call a “core promise” not to introduce one, hamstringing her ability to sell such a substantial change, at least without an election where the intention is on the table.
We have a two pace economy, digging stuff up and flogging it is the foundation of current prosperity, but we are no longer making anything, and the current “skills shortage” has little to do with employment levels, but everything to do with the gutting of education, particularly trade skills, over the last 25 years.
Now we are going to gut manufacturing, or what is left of it, with a tax that will do nothing to abate worldwide carbon levels, although it may make those who do not have to produce anything to make a living feel good.
There is some merit in the argument that a tax will stimulate innovation in the development of alternatives, and Australia should be in a good position to leverage the innovation, particularly as regards solar, but that is long term, the pain to manufacturing will be immediate, and I wonder if it is worth the pain, even if a miracle happens, and Gillard et al can sell it, and get re-elected at the same time.
This is what strategy is all about, choices, weighing the relative merits of a range of seemingly mutually exclusive options, determining where the best long term use of limited resources lies, whilst maintaining the current P&L. Posturing will not stand up to scrutiny, it takes intellectual honesty and transparency to make tough decisions and have the stakeholders prepared to support a course of action. Pity there is little of either evident in Canberra, or in the states.
Now we have sorted the carbon management issue, consideration needs to be given to a whole range of other strategic choices in health, education, taxation, Australia’s relationships, immigration, defense, and so on.
We seem to be a bit short on the vision thing!.
This is a story of 2 bosses.
One bloke I worked for over a considerable period in two different corporations never told me exactly what to do. We agreed outcomes and the resources to achieve them, project time frames and milestones, and he was always willing to discuss, encourage, provide council, and play devils advocate, but never directed, but through the conversations, always knew exactly what was going on, and was engaged in the process. This left me with the responsibility for the outcome, and a personal commitment to achieve it.
The second bloke wanted to micro manage activity, providing a continuous stream of “advice” that were in fact instructions, which left me with no feeling of personal responsibility. I had the authority to get stuff done, but little engagement with the outcome beyond staying out of trouble, until we parted in mutual frustration.
This recognition of the differences between authority and responsibility is more than a matter of style, it is the core of leadership, and success.
These terms are often used as synonyms, as managers seek to evolve a culture of inclusion and shared responsibility, but they are markedly different.
Collaboration is essential, and now so much easier given digital the tools to hand, and increased understanding of what motivates and engages individuals, but does not necessarily lead to consensus. Successful enterprises are rarely democracies, but they are very good at nurturing diversity, and hearing all points of view before making decisions, then gaining support for action, even from dissenters, by ensuring “due process” has been followed, which requires an understanding of the purpose of the collaboration, and a buy in to the outcomes.