Learning to Lead

Herminia Ibarra , Professor of Organizational Behavior, and Faculty Director of the INSEAD Leadership Initiative, contests that we learn to lead in relationship, by becoming a part of a community and network of leaders, but what we preach, however, is very different.   Let's draw some inferences by considering a few schools of thought: Situational leadership, — originally conceived as the antidote to the great man theories of leadership. The situational school brought us the notion of "fit:" person to situation and leader to follower. The original version said the situation makes the leader. The simpler version we retained says something else altogether, that good leaders choose among the leadership styles or change strategies in their repertoire the one that best matches their current situation.    Discover your strengths — another great example of a one-sided and static focus on personal attributes that make people effective leaders. According to this theory, we can categorize ourselves according to a number of themes and clusters of themes that describe our strengths; once identified, they help us make decisions about what situation best match us. Practice — From Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated we learn about the magic rule of 10,000 hours. Bill Gates, we are told, became a computer wiz because he had access to an early computer and was able to clock the requisite number of hours. Putting in the hours, not innate talent, makes the leader.   Prof. Ibarra's research on how effective managers make the transition to bigger, broader leadership roles and cements their contribution to the growth and transformation of their organization, incorporates 4 key enablers: o    Motivate the transition to leadership. When asked to do things that don't come naturally, we implicitly ask ourselves "am I the sort of person who behaves this way?" "Do I want to be that sort of person?". When managers' identification is rooted in functional groups or expert communities, the answers are negative when it comes to leadership, and thus it is no surprise that they do not sustain the arduous practice it takes to develop as leaders. On the other hand, when they identify with recognized leaders, learning to lead is motivated by the desire to become a member of a valued group. o    Make the "competencies" come alive. One of the difficult things about learning to lead is distinguishing between "what" (content knowledge) and "how to" (process knowledge). We may know, for example, that "sensing external trends" is a critical competency in forging a strategic direction, and we may also want to become more like the leaders we know who are very good at that. But, how does one actually learn to strategize? In a successful learning cycle, role models, peer groups and communities of practice motivate change by changing our reference point on what is desirable and possible, and then once motivated, providing tacit knowledge on how to do it. o    Experiment from the outside in. Many aspiring leaders struggle to stretch their leadership within their current organization and roles. Caught in between delivery pressures and outdated views of their capacities, they more quickly or easily find roles outside the organization that allow them to lead. Their new activities, in professional organizations, clubs, informal advisory and so on, create external identities that they eventually internalize. o    Build external support & networks to sustain change. Often it is hard to get support for change from old mentors, bosses or trusted colleagues. They may have good intentions but maintain of what we can and should do that are based in the past and not the future. People and groups, on the fringe of our existing networks help us push off in new directions while providing the secure base in which change can take hold, one of the reasons why learning methods like peer coaching are so powerful.   O2ibm

Visit this group

Thinking Ahead as a True Leader

The ability to 'think ahead' and plan a strategy, implies keeping in touch with employee opinions, technological advances and market trends that will help shape your vision - to be shared. Leaders, by definition, must have followers that aspire to the leader’s vision. Once you’ve  'thought ahead' into the future, you need to communicate your vision with conviction and confidence, as to inspire, energize and unite your team. A leader must be capable of shaping internal politics that will support performance improvement initiatives. During times of change, uncertainty and fear reign supreme. As a result, leaders confronting strategic and organizational change, have to manage communication effectively. As a leader, you have to portray a compelling vision for the future, while implementing change.  Processes that build a shared vision of the future, create positive coalitions, and allow open expression of competing views will prepare people for the change. Motivating people to peak performance is a must of  leadership. But how can you unleash the full individual emotional commitment and collective potential of your people so that they achieve higher levels of performance? Generating emotional energy and commitment takes time and effort, as to ensure that the right balance between achieving the task, building the team and  sustaining morale.

O2ibm

Visit this group

Three Key Questions to Foster Competitive Advantage

James Heskett, a Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus, at Harvard Business School, examined the degree to which strategy, execution, and culture contribute to organizational success, via 3 key questions that reflect all aspects of competitive sucess:

 





1. If your organization's performance (operating income) = 100%, roughly what percentage is accounted for by the quality of the organization's strategy (clients we target; products, services and results we offer; the way we organize and compensate people, etc.) vs. the quality of the organization's execution of its strategy (the quality of our people, work, processes, decisions, etc.)?

2. If your organization's strategy = 100%, roughly what proportion of its effectiveness is dependent upon and accounted for by the organization's culture (widely-shared values, beliefs, behaviors, rites and rituals, etc.)?

3. If the execution of your organization's strategy = 100%, roughly what proportion of its effectiveness is dependent upon and accounted for by the organization's culture?

The questions reflect all aspects of competitive success.
What do you think?