|
|||||||
 |
|||||||
| - In This Issue: |
|
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Readers' Issues: | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
-
|
|||||||||||
|
Flex Time Learning to be flexible in any situation can be the key to effective leadership. The situational leadership model assumes that the biggest mistake most managers make is using the same leadership style with everyone. For instance, leaders may delegate too much authority to an employee who isn't ready or able to handle it. Or, they may micromanage an employee who would perform better if left alone. Situational leadership promises to help managers figure out where their followers are, then match their leadership styles to the appropriate level. "Situational leadership introduces a diagnostic process to leadership," says Dewey Johnson, a professor of management at California State University, who, along with Paul Hersey, a management professor at Ohio State University and management guru Ken Blanchard, co-wrote Management of Organizational Behavior. "That is a big plus." |
|||||||||||
|
"Getting Things Done" The Power of the Next-Action Decision For those with the responsibility of leadership, accomplishing more is often a never ending challenge. And with this in mind, Business Week ran a series of excerpts from David Allen's book of practical tips and philosophical guidance on the art of stress-free productivity. In this final excerpt, Allen outlines the importance of figuring out the "next action." He explains ways to make decisions when things show up, rather than waiting until they blow up. He envisions a world in which no meeting or discussion will end, and no interaction cease, without a clear determination of whether or not some action is needed -- and if it is, what it will be, or at least who has responsibility for it. Feedback from senior executives has shown that installing "What's the next action?" as an operational standard in their organizations was transformative in terms of measurable performance output. It changed their culture permanently and significantly for the better. Why? Because the question forces clarity, accountability, productivity, and empowerment. <click here to read the full Business Week excerpt...>
|
|||||||||||
|
——————————-
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
-
 - |
|||||||||||
|
To unsubscribe from our mailing
list, click the link at the bottom left of this page. Or simply
reply to this message with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
|
|||||||||||
|
The Perils Of Building A Consensus Sometimes, while trying to build a consensus among the members of their management team, leaders get needlessly bogged down. Does the following situation sound familiar?
A management team discusses an important issue and then postpones
a decision because one or two members of the team don't agree with
a Often this occurs because the leader - trying to be more inclusive, or trying to foster a higher level of commitment to a particular course of action - decides to make decisions by getting buy-in from everyone! We think it's useful for all managers and leaders to be very clear about what the term "consensus" means. Dr. Richard Rianoshek and Mickey Connolly of Conversant.net have done a lot of work in the area of helping managers get better at collaborating with one another. They point out that etymologically, "consensus" means, "to feel together" or "to sense together". One could even stretch it to "to think together".It does not mean that everybody has to agree. When everybody has to agree, then essentially, everybody has a veto. Given the increasing rate of change, they conclude that you definitely do not want everyone having a veto. All it takes is a dissenting voice from someone who is not directly related to the important issue of the day, or someone who is having a particularly bad week, or not seeing what everybody else is seeing and decision making grinds to a halt; an organization can become stuck. Giving people input can be a great idea; but once people have had a chance to provide their input, effective leaders introduce closure in a timely fashion. A management team may then vote…but the votes of the managers who will be responsible for implementing the decision or the managers who will ultimately be held accountable for the outcomes should "weigh" more than the votes of the other members of the team. Effective leaders realize that people need to be heard; but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone has a veto. They establish a definition of consensus that involves everyone providing input with the ultimate decision resting with the senior managers who are at the locus of authority and responsibility on the particular issue in question. The final key piece of a definition of consensus involves an agreement that everyone will go along with, and support the group's decision regardless of whether they agree or not. As Connolly and Rianoshek have said, and I paraphrase: treat consensus as thinking together, not total agreement. In our conversations, let's not require that we all agree; let's enable, empower and entrust the right combination of expertise and accountability to receive all of our input and make the best choice. <by Peter Buchanan, Management-Transitions Ltd.> Resource Review: He begins with the skill "thinking gray" which is the foundation for being, what he terms, a contrarian leader. The essence of thinking gray is to refrain from forming an opinion about an important matter until you've heard all of the relevant facts and arguments or until the circumstances force you to make a decision. Most people utilize what Sample terms "binary thinking" - that is immediately classifying everything in terms of black or white, right or wrong, true or false. But binary thinking can lead to disaster and he discusses the three primary dangers to binary thinking: forming an opinion before it is necessary to do so; flip-flopping on a decision; and succumbing to the tendency of herd-mentality thinking. He then goes on to discuss the concept of "thinking free" - that is free from all prior constraints. A close relative of thinking out of the box, thinking free essentially throws the box away. He also cautions against the congenital nay Sayers as one of the greatest hurdles to thinking free. Rather than imagine how a new idea might work, they focus on all of the reasons that it won't work. |
| - |
|
|
He classifies leaders whose thinking are constrained within well worn ruts, who are governed by their passions and prejudices, who can't think either free or gray as anachronistic and ineffective as the dinosaur. Sample then extends the "gray" concept to the skill of listening, provides advice on to whom you should listen, how to listen to everyone and still maintain the hierarchy as well as how to know when to stop listening. He even provides insight into listening to experts. " As someone who has spent a great deal of time working both as an expert and as a leader, I would agree with Warren Bennis that it's essential for an expert to be a "deep specialist" and for a leader to be a "deep generalist." The expert's role is to offer greater insight than the leader has in one or a small number of areas, while the leader's role is to be sufficiently broad so as to be able to integrate the advice of several experts into a coherent course of action." And if you're looking for inspiration and to understand human nature, he makes a case for making the time and turning to the classic works. He posits that failing to make conscious choices about what to read is one of the worst things a leader can do. Sample's approach to decision making can be summarized in two general rules: Never make a decision yourself that can be reasonably delegated to a lieutenant and never make a decision today that can be reasonably put off until tomorrow. Sample distinguishes between good leadership and effective leadership by introducing the concept of morality and shows why it's important for good leaders to be able to face up to the really difficult moral choices. Contrarian leaders, he maintains, have the ability to know what hill they're willing to die on and know how to make tough moral decisions. In his model, contrarian leaders hire those stronger than themselves, strive for diversity and know the difference between 'being' president and 'doing' president. He concludes with Sample's 70/30 Formula for Leadership - to wit, under ideal conditions up to 30 percent of a leader's time can be spent on really substantive matters, and no more than 70 percent of his time should be spent reacting to, or presiding over, trivial, routine or ephemeral matters. A corollary to the formula is that people who need a higher percentage of substance in their lives should stay away from top leadership positions. In summary, The Contrarian's Guide To Leadership is a read worth the investment. |
|
- |
particular
point of view. Two weeks later, team members find their frustration
levels rising as they rehash the same issue. Things seem to be stuck
and people feel that nothing much is getting done.
unconventional perspective on what it takes to be a great leader.