I wanted to hit a home run on my last blog entry and wanted to think of a charismatic, passionate, inspiring leader that everyone reading this could agree with. Then I wanted my last entry to be about a person that has truly inspired me in their leadership style. Finally, I realized there was one person that did both of these things - Robin Klapper.
That name will never be on any Fortune 500 list, nor Forbes story. It probably doesn't even ring a bell to you - but Robin Klapper is my mother, and will always be the most influential leader I have ever known. The sad thing is I never even realized the impact she had on me until taking this class.
My mom died four years ago, and that will go down as one of the most traumatic moments of my life. However, from that day forward I realize so much of how I live my life and make decisions is based on the foundations that she gave me. Losing her at a young age taught me to grow up much quicker than I wanted to; and it also forced me to reevaluate how I live my life and the principles I use every day. Little did I know until now, it also helped shape how I view myself as a leader.
My mom taught me one thing early in life that I think a lot of elite leaders no longer remember - treat other people how you would want to be treated. A lot of leaders get caught up in their own agendas and the rat race and forget this simple rule. Another thing I learned from my mom early on was if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all. Extrapolated into adult terms, a leader should always be mindful that the people that are their subordinates might draw a salary, but at the end of the day we're all "volunteers" in a free society. Any workers can leave a job at any time - and leaders should treat them with proper respect and to not berated or harass them as workers should be treated as valued assets.
I learned leadership lessons from my mom as I got older that I also use as a a leader now. I am always truthful and honest, even if it's not always the most popular thing people want to hear. Along those same lines, my mom also taught me to do the right thing, not the thing people want you to do. To be an effective leader you need to be able to stick to your guns and do what you think is the best, and not be tempted by outside influences.
The last lesson my mom taught me about being a leader is when she got cancer. Don't take anything for granted! Every day is special, and should be lived to it's fullest. Don't wallow when you get dealt a bad hand - fight your battles head on. This is the most critical lesson I learned from her about leadership style. There are no excuses in life. Even if you have cancer, you have to get up every single day and be the absolute best person that you can be.
I'd like to think somewhere my mom would be proud of the leader, and the person, I have become in the past four years.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Fool me twice - shame on me!
In an article today from Fortune magazine (http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/18/news/economy/executive_pay.fortune/index.htm), a hot button topic is talked about again - executive pay.
This is something that just can't seem to stay out of the news, especially with a Wall Street Journal report that in 2008, Sanjay Jha, the new co-CEO of Motorola received $104 million in compensation. How can a number that astronomically large still exist in these financial times, even if most if it is based on stock options? In 1929, Eugene Grace, the president of Bethlehem Steel, made the most money in the nation. He earned, which in 2009 dollars equals $20.5 million. Clearly Jha makes even five times more than that, adjusting for inflation.
There was a large cry about pay for executive after the financial horrors of the Great Depression. In 1936, Fortune asked in a national survey," Do you think that in general the officials of large corporations are paid too much or too little for the work they do?" 55% of the respondents said the officials were paid "too much." I don't think you could find 45% of people today to think that CEO's are paid too little.
When you ask most people what they think of when they hear CEO and compensation, this image comes to mind. The CEO gets paid too much, and they get it regardless of whether they truly deserve it or not:
We are hopeful that this recession is about to end, and the GDP of the country can begin to grow again. The worry is that executive pay will fall back to it's old traps - where Boards "reward" CEO's and other top level managers with large compensation packages, regardless of the results they have actually produced. It is worrisome to think we as a country could fall back into our same shortcomings, which helped put us in this financial mess that we just had.
In order for companies to not only survive now, but survive in the long run, the leaders there need to remember that now is not the time to fall back on bad habits. They can't freely rewards themselves and board members outrageous salaries, or else we will be right back where we were the past 18-24 months. Leaders need to take the reigns and decide how they want to define their culture. They need to focus on results, and the bottom line (and high pay will affect the bottom line). Leaders now more than ever need to help employees reach their greatest potential. That will be hard to do when the CEO is making 150% more than the employee they are trying to inspire.
The companies that are still around survived this financial Darwinian test. But now is no time to just rest on those laurels. Companies need terrific leadership to continue to steer the ship. One thing these leaders need to remember is the negative PR, both internally and externally, they will have to face if they go back to old compensation models. The best leaders will fully grasps the new nature of corporate ownership and focus on economic performance for everyone - not just their own paycheck.
Friday, November 6, 2009
He just keeps doing a great Job(s)
In an article posted yesterday on www.cnn.com, there was a story about Fortune magazine naming Steve Jobs CEO of the decade. This story shows just what a remarkable leader Jobs is, and how he has been able to constantly reinvent himself and the industries he works in.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/04/technology/steve_jobs_ceo_decade.fortune/index.htm
"It's often noted that he's a showman, a born salesman, a magician who creates a famed reality-distortion field, a tyrannical perfectionist. It's totally accurate, of course, and the descriptions contribute to his legend." This is a quote from the story that sums up Jobs perfectly. He helped create Apple in 1976 and helped it grow in the 1980's, then got forced out, only to return and help revolutionize the computer and technology industries now. Most entrepreneurs that wind up leading an industry are part of the wave of people creating the industries. In Jobs' case, he joined existing industries such as music, movies, and cell phones, and wound up dominating them.
The article talks about how Jobs was part of remaking four businesses during his career, which makes his trademark line "one more thing" seem that much more appropriate. What makes Jobs' companies so amazing is that almost everyone knows about them (and him) and how successful they are - even people that aren't technologically savvy or follow the business markets closely.
"Jobs is all about business. He may not pay attention to customer research, but he works slavishly to make products customers will buy." This is another quote that shows what makes Jobs so successful. He is a tireless work-aholic (he had a liver transplant and was back working within a year) who " is a visionary, but he's grounded in reality too, closely monitoring Apple's various operational and market metrics. He isn't motivated by money," says friend Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Rather, Jobs is understandably driven by a visceral ardor for Apple, his first love and the vehicle through which he can be both an arbiter of cool and a force for changing the world.
Apple was worth about $5 billion in 2000, before this latest boom of a "digital lifestyle" strategy. The company is now worth $170 billion, and is more valuable than even Google. All of that occur ed in one decade, as Jobs returned to the fore-front of visibility for the company.
Jobs saved the company from the verge of bankruptcy by leading a successful organizational transformation. When he took over in 1997, Jobs completed the hiring of a new management team, which included several executives from his previous company. Those new hires would form the nucleus of the Jobs brain trust for nearly 10 years. The first product they put out was the highly successful iMac, which helped move the company in the right direction both in terms of product line and cash flow.
His close attention to every detail is what makes the company so successful. He's involved in details you wouldn't think a CEO would be involved in," says Ken Segall, a former Chiat/Day creative director who has worked with Apple on and off for years. Jobs commissioned the iconic "Think different" campaign, says Segall, well before any of Apple's new products were introduced -- or even described to the ad team. "He'd say, 'The third word in the fourth paragraph isn't right. You might want to think about that one.' "
Fortunately, Jobs' health seems to have stabalized, and he is back leading Apple again. Having a charismatic, intelligent, and dedicated leader like Jobs around should keep this company thriving and growing for many years to come.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/04/technology/steve_jobs_ceo_decade.fortune/index.htm
"It's often noted that he's a showman, a born salesman, a magician who creates a famed reality-distortion field, a tyrannical perfectionist. It's totally accurate, of course, and the descriptions contribute to his legend." This is a quote from the story that sums up Jobs perfectly. He helped create Apple in 1976 and helped it grow in the 1980's, then got forced out, only to return and help revolutionize the computer and technology industries now. Most entrepreneurs that wind up leading an industry are part of the wave of people creating the industries. In Jobs' case, he joined existing industries such as music, movies, and cell phones, and wound up dominating them.
The article talks about how Jobs was part of remaking four businesses during his career, which makes his trademark line "one more thing" seem that much more appropriate. What makes Jobs' companies so amazing is that almost everyone knows about them (and him) and how successful they are - even people that aren't technologically savvy or follow the business markets closely.
"Jobs is all about business. He may not pay attention to customer research, but he works slavishly to make products customers will buy." This is another quote that shows what makes Jobs so successful. He is a tireless work-aholic (he had a liver transplant and was back working within a year) who " is a visionary, but he's grounded in reality too, closely monitoring Apple's various operational and market metrics. He isn't motivated by money," says friend Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle Rather, Jobs is understandably driven by a visceral ardor for Apple, his first love and the vehicle through which he can be both an arbiter of cool and a force for changing the world.
Apple was worth about $5 billion in 2000, before this latest boom of a "digital lifestyle" strategy. The company is now worth $170 billion, and is more valuable than even Google. All of that occur ed in one decade, as Jobs returned to the fore-front of visibility for the company.
Jobs saved the company from the verge of bankruptcy by leading a successful organizational transformation. When he took over in 1997, Jobs completed the hiring of a new management team, which included several executives from his previous company. Those new hires would form the nucleus of the Jobs brain trust for nearly 10 years. The first product they put out was the highly successful iMac, which helped move the company in the right direction both in terms of product line and cash flow.
His close attention to every detail is what makes the company so successful. He's involved in details you wouldn't think a CEO would be involved in," says Ken Segall, a former Chiat/Day creative director who has worked with Apple on and off for years. Jobs commissioned the iconic "Think different" campaign, says Segall, well before any of Apple's new products were introduced -- or even described to the ad team. "He'd say, 'The third word in the fourth paragraph isn't right. You might want to think about that one.' "
Fortunately, Jobs' health seems to have stabalized, and he is back leading Apple again. Having a charismatic, intelligent, and dedicated leader like Jobs around should keep this company thriving and growing for many years to come.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
You have to lead with YOUR heart
I found Louis Gerstner, Jr's Who Says Elephants Can't Dance to be one of the best books on leadership I've ever encountered. Gerstner clearly had a lot of obstacles and history to overcome in order to save IBM. When he left his post nine years later (the longest CEO tenure of any person that didn't have the last name Watson), he truly did leave the company better than he found it. While it was an interesting read all the way through, there were some parts that he put towards the end of the book that I found the most interesting, and will remember the most as I begin my foray into professional leadership positions.
By the way - Elephants can dance in a literal sense as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGSFJpFL8JY
I got the most out of the chapter where Gerstner talks about leadership being personal. He talks about how crucial it is to be visible. So many leaders fall into the trap of meetings and closed door sessions, that they forget to get up occasionally and check on the workers that are producing every day for the company. I like how he talks about rolling up your sleeves when things get tough, and not hiding behind the actions of other staff members. At the end of the day, everything falls on the CEO. It would be a bad idea to sink or swim as a leader without personally interacting with your subordinates every chance you get. And this extends not only to people in the company, but also your customers, competitors, and business associates.
The most important thing that was brought up is to lead effectively, "you must treat every employee as someone who deserves to understand what's going on in the enterprise" This means don't hide behind other people when the going gets tough. This means be as open and as transparent as possible (to an extent of course) and remember why you are in place to be the leader of the company to begin with.
Finally, I like how Gerstener talked about how important it is to have passion about your company. I learned here that this is truly the single most important thing in a leader. You can be book smart, street smart, a good negotiator, shrewd, ice in your veins, etc. Without having a passion for what you do and the company you work for, there is no chance of ever being a successful leader. I will take this lesson everywhere I go. Hard work and dedication is important. A mastery of your industry, as well as good people skills, are crucial to succeed. But without passion, you can't accomplish much as a leader. I never really thought of that until hearing it from Gerstner. As he said, we all want to win, win, win. Without the passion to be the best, it's hard to accomplish anything else as the leader of a company.
By the way - Elephants can dance in a literal sense as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGSFJpFL8JY
I got the most out of the chapter where Gerstner talks about leadership being personal. He talks about how crucial it is to be visible. So many leaders fall into the trap of meetings and closed door sessions, that they forget to get up occasionally and check on the workers that are producing every day for the company. I like how he talks about rolling up your sleeves when things get tough, and not hiding behind the actions of other staff members. At the end of the day, everything falls on the CEO. It would be a bad idea to sink or swim as a leader without personally interacting with your subordinates every chance you get. And this extends not only to people in the company, but also your customers, competitors, and business associates.
The most important thing that was brought up is to lead effectively, "you must treat every employee as someone who deserves to understand what's going on in the enterprise" This means don't hide behind other people when the going gets tough. This means be as open and as transparent as possible (to an extent of course) and remember why you are in place to be the leader of the company to begin with.
Finally, I like how Gerstener talked about how important it is to have passion about your company. I learned here that this is truly the single most important thing in a leader. You can be book smart, street smart, a good negotiator, shrewd, ice in your veins, etc. Without having a passion for what you do and the company you work for, there is no chance of ever being a successful leader. I will take this lesson everywhere I go. Hard work and dedication is important. A mastery of your industry, as well as good people skills, are crucial to succeed. But without passion, you can't accomplish much as a leader. I never really thought of that until hearing it from Gerstner. As he said, we all want to win, win, win. Without the passion to be the best, it's hard to accomplish anything else as the leader of a company.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Failure = Not being able to change
There is no doubt that the key to a healthy and successful company is the ability to adapt and change when needed. Having the hubris to think that your company is on top and will always be on top is the biggest mistake the leader of a company can make. That type of arrogance is what lead to financial problems for IBM in the 1990's and the Big 3 Detroit automakers in the current economic climate. Leaders need to realize that past success does not guarantee future results.
It is fair to say that when a company fails, ultimately the blame of that failure falls on the CEO and Board of Directors. Those people are in place to lead the company, and when something goes wrong - regardless of any internal or external factors - the blame falls on them. The Process of Change is a vial, yet difficult path, that organizations must follow when things need to be altered for the overall health of the company.
There are different changes that need to be implemented based on if the problems are internal to the company, or part of the external environment. A good leader needs to be ahead of the curve when making these changes. I like how Louis Gerstner, Jr. told his employees at IBM that he wanted them to "Move fast. If we make mistakes, let them be because we are too fast rather than too slow." Granted Gerstner had to do that because he didn't have time to figure out everything in a slow and precise manor as IBM was hemorrhaging money, but I like that leadership model.
I think the hardest thing for a leader to recognize is when exterior factors are a problem for their business. A good leader can notice when problem are happening in-house; a great leader can sense the changing of the guard in the external market and quickly adapt to it before things spiral out of control for the company. In order to combat changing factors in the external climate, there are several things that are crucial, and the ones that I find the most important came from last night's Powerpoint presentation.
The first thing that needs to be done to create change is re engineering existing work processes. If the company is succeeding internally but there are obstacles in the external market, there is no reason to break up and change the company too much. However, it is important to restructure as needed to fend off the competition. Another thing that needs to be done is expanding (or contracting out) work locations. External factors are a good time to reevaluate how internal processes are working and being handled, and if there are some processes that would work better in another area (or eliminated all together). Finally, it is crucial for the leadership to stress integrating a customer-service based approach. Ironically, this rated the lowest when organizations responded how they handle the process of change. In my opinion having elite customer service is a great way to have differentiation in the market place. When external factors such as new competitors, new technologies, a recession, etc. occur, the one constant that a company can fall back on is having the best customer service in the industry. It might not be something to easily accomplish, but it is something that every company can strive to do to the best of their abilities.
As a leader, it's imperative to respond with the listed changes when your company is in need of re-inventing itself before things get too bad - and there is no company to lead anymore.
It is fair to say that when a company fails, ultimately the blame of that failure falls on the CEO and Board of Directors. Those people are in place to lead the company, and when something goes wrong - regardless of any internal or external factors - the blame falls on them. The Process of Change is a vial, yet difficult path, that organizations must follow when things need to be altered for the overall health of the company.
There are different changes that need to be implemented based on if the problems are internal to the company, or part of the external environment. A good leader needs to be ahead of the curve when making these changes. I like how Louis Gerstner, Jr. told his employees at IBM that he wanted them to "Move fast. If we make mistakes, let them be because we are too fast rather than too slow." Granted Gerstner had to do that because he didn't have time to figure out everything in a slow and precise manor as IBM was hemorrhaging money, but I like that leadership model.
I think the hardest thing for a leader to recognize is when exterior factors are a problem for their business. A good leader can notice when problem are happening in-house; a great leader can sense the changing of the guard in the external market and quickly adapt to it before things spiral out of control for the company. In order to combat changing factors in the external climate, there are several things that are crucial, and the ones that I find the most important came from last night's Powerpoint presentation.
The first thing that needs to be done to create change is re engineering existing work processes. If the company is succeeding internally but there are obstacles in the external market, there is no reason to break up and change the company too much. However, it is important to restructure as needed to fend off the competition. Another thing that needs to be done is expanding (or contracting out) work locations. External factors are a good time to reevaluate how internal processes are working and being handled, and if there are some processes that would work better in another area (or eliminated all together). Finally, it is crucial for the leadership to stress integrating a customer-service based approach. Ironically, this rated the lowest when organizations responded how they handle the process of change. In my opinion having elite customer service is a great way to have differentiation in the market place. When external factors such as new competitors, new technologies, a recession, etc. occur, the one constant that a company can fall back on is having the best customer service in the industry. It might not be something to easily accomplish, but it is something that every company can strive to do to the best of their abilities.
As a leader, it's imperative to respond with the listed changes when your company is in need of re-inventing itself before things get too bad - and there is no company to lead anymore.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
True leadership under fire
Often there is so much hyperbole thrown around in our everyday lives that go back to wars and battles. We take it for granted when we say we want to "kill the other team" or "I'm so mad I could shoot so-and-so in the face." Business leaders are guilty of these tactics too, talking about destroying the competition, taking suicide missions, etc.
One of the best examples of someone going too far is this rant from former Miami Hurricane player Kellen Winslow, Jr. in November of 2003 - the 8th month of the Iraq war and the second year of the war in Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82BPA5QAaQ
We like the idea sometimes of our sports stars or business leaders talking about "going to battle" and what type of leadership is needed to come out victorious. However, we sometimes forget that there are millions of Americans fighting for our freedom every single day, who truly need excellent leadership not only to win, but to stay alive every day. There might be no more important leader than a person commanding a military unit. The quick thinking, tough, and pressure filled decision making of these commanders can be the difference between life and death. Nothing is more serious than that.
My line of thought for this entry comes from an article in the Ocotber 10th Newsweek where Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, described how people constantly offer him ideas for fixing that country's problems. McChrystal is in charge of the command of operations in a war that is beginning it's 8th year this past week. In the article, McChrystal mentioned a strategy that people have asked him about called "Chaosistan". The definition of this according to McChrystal is that it's advised letting Afghanistan become a "Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside."
McChrystal doesn't truly believe in this line of reasoning, but has now become associated with it after mentioning it. That is what happens when you are a leader; any comment that you make and can be traced back to your name is part of your file of quotes or ideas. There is no off the record comments or brainstorming ideas when you are a leader, especially in the military. Every nuance or thought you have is scrutinized and dissected. This is also the case with the president of a country. Everybody wants to know what you think about everything and every moment. Every time you speak as a leader in that spotlight, your ideas and thoughts are out there for everyone to see.
For General McChrystal, his daily decisions affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of American service men and women. While the CEO of GM would be fired if sales slipped, and the politician that does a bad job could be voted out of office if there aren't desirable results, only a military leader truly has the day-to-day livelihood of their constituents to care over. That is why it takes a truly special leader, and a person, to be a military commander on the front lines every single day.
One of the best examples of someone going too far is this rant from former Miami Hurricane player Kellen Winslow, Jr. in November of 2003 - the 8th month of the Iraq war and the second year of the war in Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I82BPA5QAaQ
We like the idea sometimes of our sports stars or business leaders talking about "going to battle" and what type of leadership is needed to come out victorious. However, we sometimes forget that there are millions of Americans fighting for our freedom every single day, who truly need excellent leadership not only to win, but to stay alive every day. There might be no more important leader than a person commanding a military unit. The quick thinking, tough, and pressure filled decision making of these commanders can be the difference between life and death. Nothing is more serious than that.
My line of thought for this entry comes from an article in the Ocotber 10th Newsweek where Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, described how people constantly offer him ideas for fixing that country's problems. McChrystal is in charge of the command of operations in a war that is beginning it's 8th year this past week. In the article, McChrystal mentioned a strategy that people have asked him about called "Chaosistan". The definition of this according to McChrystal is that it's advised letting Afghanistan become a "Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside."
McChrystal doesn't truly believe in this line of reasoning, but has now become associated with it after mentioning it. That is what happens when you are a leader; any comment that you make and can be traced back to your name is part of your file of quotes or ideas. There is no off the record comments or brainstorming ideas when you are a leader, especially in the military. Every nuance or thought you have is scrutinized and dissected. This is also the case with the president of a country. Everybody wants to know what you think about everything and every moment. Every time you speak as a leader in that spotlight, your ideas and thoughts are out there for everyone to see.
For General McChrystal, his daily decisions affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of American service men and women. While the CEO of GM would be fired if sales slipped, and the politician that does a bad job could be voted out of office if there aren't desirable results, only a military leader truly has the day-to-day livelihood of their constituents to care over. That is why it takes a truly special leader, and a person, to be a military commander on the front lines every single day.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Just Move Over Baby
I try and stay away from sports talk on this blog so people will realize that I have a deeper set of interests than just athletic related stuff. However, this seems like the perfect time to bring the sports world into some thoughts that I had. As talked about in class last night, there has been a lot of discussion at Florida State about replacing Bobby Bowden - the man who single handily took Florida State from a former all-girls school into an elite national program during his tenure. From 1987-2000, FSU finished the year as one of the top four football teams in the country every single year, which is an amazing feat. During that time the Noles won two national titles, played for several others, and would have played for even more if they could have recruited an average kicker that could hit a field goal against Miami. Bobby Bowden is Florida State football, and it could be argued, is Florida State University too.
When I got home last night I continued watching a five part series on the old AFL that is on Showtime. Last night's episode had a heavy feature on Al Davis, the charismatic owner of the Oakland Raiders.
Al Davis took over the Raiders after they went 9-33 over the previous 3 years (a 3-11 average record). His first year they went 10-4, and was named AFL coach of the year. As a coach, GM, and owner, Davis presided over three Super Bowl titles, and numerous successful years. Al Davis is the face of the Ra
iders more so than the me pirate logo they have on their helmets:
As a kid I never really warmed up to the Raiders, but I loved Florida State football. Deion Sanders was my favorite player in the NFL, and my uncle was an alum and used to watch games with me. Growing up in Long Island around a bunch of Notre Dame fans made me like FSU even more since it was different than everyone else. I will never forget watching this game in 1993 - this might be the best intro to a college football game ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cipJq3ZHuuQ
Now to my main point after a ramble about FSU and the Raiders. Both teams are nationally known and discussed. There is no gray area with these teams - people either love them or hate them ("Free Shoes University" is what rival coach Steve Spurrier called FSU after an incident at a Foot Locker). Florida State and the Raiders were both nothing before Bobby Bowden and Al Davis joined them. These men created a mystique and aura around both teams that can never be duplicated. However, both teams have fallen on hard times recently. FSU has lost five straight to rival Florida and has won the ACC once since the conference expanded in 2004. The Raiders lost the Super Bowl after the 2002 season, and have proceeded to have double digit losing seasons every year since.
How do you tell a legend it's time to move over? I don't know if you can. It's nice to have a succession plan in place for when production slips in any industry, but it seems a little harder in the sports world. Bowden has a successor in place, but he's not graciously passing the torch to him; Davis doesn't have a stated one. Bowden and Davis couldn't be more different on the surface. Davis was born into a wealthy Jewish family and lived in Brooklyn who has spent his entire adult life in California; Bowden was a sickly child raised in a devoutly Christian household in Birmingham and resides in Norther Florida. But these men share one common trait that most great leaders do. It takes a special person to be the CEO of a major company, or the head of a football team. The skill set that is needed to achieve at this high level includes a degree of narcissism and a bit of an inflated ego. Those characteristics are needed to achieve at the highest level.
When things are going well for a company or a football team, those traits are deemed as an asset. Being able to have surpreme confidence in your abilities and being able to tune out outside distraction is what makes a CEO or a football coach a great leader when things are rolling along nicely. However when some speed bumps or detours start to pop up and things begin to slide a little, those traits also make it hard for the leaders to recognize the current downfalls they are experiencing.
Another downfall when you've been on top for so long is that you always think you have time to turn things around. Davis turned 80 this past July 4, and Bowden will be 80 one month from today. The time isn't there for these two to just "weather the storm" and continue to lead once things improve. This is a what have you done for me lately society more than it has ever been before. Both Davis and Bowden would be fired by any peer teams for the results they've had for the past seven years. However, they both believe they've earned the right to leave on their own terms. It's hard to argue both men are excellent leaders at their profession. These men have both proven for decades just how truly great they are as leaders - but they both can't master the last thing they can truly do as a leader - gracefully stepping aside for the sake of the teams that they love. Unfortunately, I don't think either man will leave on their terms, which will make their ultimate dismissals that much more emotionally charged.
The next great leader of Florida State football and the Oakland Raiders will get an early test of how strong their mettle and convictions are. That is because that person will have the unenviable task of removing Bobby Bowden and Al Davis from the position of power they've had for decades, and are not ready to give up. That is because unfortunately neither man is likely to look themselves in the mirror and realize it's time for them to do the ultimate thing a leader can do, yet most aren't able to - walk away from the top of the mountain before being pushed down the side of it.
When I got home last night I continued watching a five part series on the old AFL that is on Showtime. Last night's episode had a heavy feature on Al Davis, the charismatic owner of the Oakland Raiders.
Al Davis took over the Raiders after they went 9-33 over the previous 3 years (a 3-11 average record). His first year they went 10-4, and was named AFL coach of the year. As a coach, GM, and owner, Davis presided over three Super Bowl titles, and numerous successful years. Al Davis is the face of the Ra
iders more so than the me pirate logo they have on their helmets:As a kid I never really warmed up to the Raiders, but I loved Florida State football. Deion Sanders was my favorite player in the NFL, and my uncle was an alum and used to watch games with me. Growing up in Long Island around a bunch of Notre Dame fans made me like FSU even more since it was different than everyone else. I will never forget watching this game in 1993 - this might be the best intro to a college football game ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cipJq3ZHuuQ
Now to my main point after a ramble about FSU and the Raiders. Both teams are nationally known and discussed. There is no gray area with these teams - people either love them or hate them ("Free Shoes University" is what rival coach Steve Spurrier called FSU after an incident at a Foot Locker). Florida State and the Raiders were both nothing before Bobby Bowden and Al Davis joined them. These men created a mystique and aura around both teams that can never be duplicated. However, both teams have fallen on hard times recently. FSU has lost five straight to rival Florida and has won the ACC once since the conference expanded in 2004. The Raiders lost the Super Bowl after the 2002 season, and have proceeded to have double digit losing seasons every year since.
How do you tell a legend it's time to move over? I don't know if you can. It's nice to have a succession plan in place for when production slips in any industry, but it seems a little harder in the sports world. Bowden has a successor in place, but he's not graciously passing the torch to him; Davis doesn't have a stated one. Bowden and Davis couldn't be more different on the surface. Davis was born into a wealthy Jewish family and lived in Brooklyn who has spent his entire adult life in California; Bowden was a sickly child raised in a devoutly Christian household in Birmingham and resides in Norther Florida. But these men share one common trait that most great leaders do. It takes a special person to be the CEO of a major company, or the head of a football team. The skill set that is needed to achieve at this high level includes a degree of narcissism and a bit of an inflated ego. Those characteristics are needed to achieve at the highest level.
When things are going well for a company or a football team, those traits are deemed as an asset. Being able to have surpreme confidence in your abilities and being able to tune out outside distraction is what makes a CEO or a football coach a great leader when things are rolling along nicely. However when some speed bumps or detours start to pop up and things begin to slide a little, those traits also make it hard for the leaders to recognize the current downfalls they are experiencing.
Another downfall when you've been on top for so long is that you always think you have time to turn things around. Davis turned 80 this past July 4, and Bowden will be 80 one month from today. The time isn't there for these two to just "weather the storm" and continue to lead once things improve. This is a what have you done for me lately society more than it has ever been before. Both Davis and Bowden would be fired by any peer teams for the results they've had for the past seven years. However, they both believe they've earned the right to leave on their own terms. It's hard to argue both men are excellent leaders at their profession. These men have both proven for decades just how truly great they are as leaders - but they both can't master the last thing they can truly do as a leader - gracefully stepping aside for the sake of the teams that they love. Unfortunately, I don't think either man will leave on their terms, which will make their ultimate dismissals that much more emotionally charged.
The next great leader of Florida State football and the Oakland Raiders will get an early test of how strong their mettle and convictions are. That is because that person will have the unenviable task of removing Bobby Bowden and Al Davis from the position of power they've had for decades, and are not ready to give up. That is because unfortunately neither man is likely to look themselves in the mirror and realize it's time for them to do the ultimate thing a leader can do, yet most aren't able to - walk away from the top of the mountain before being pushed down the side of it.
Friday, October 2, 2009
False Start - 5 yard penalty?
When people think of hip, hot technology, Apple appliances usually are at the forefront of those things being discussed - iPhones, iPods, Mac workbooks, etc. It wasn't all that long ago that Dell was the leader in computer sales in this country and at the forefront of people's minds when thinking of technology.
Who can forget these annoying, yet addicting commercials - "Dude, You're Getting a Dell..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spa_l_12cIw
Dell has been dying a slow death in the last few years. In the recent Forbes magazine (Oct 5 issue) there is a story about how Dell is fighting its reputation as a maker of bland utility computers. Dell is not at the forefront of most people's minds when they are trying to buy a fun and exciting computer. The company abandoned it's desktop computer factory in Round Rock, TX in 2008; this was after Dell lost 15% of its worldwide share after having 18% of the worldwide personal computer business in 2004.
Stephen F. Schuckenbrock (wow that must have been a hard last name to learn to spell in elementary school) is the president of Dell's large enterprises division. He is working with company founder Michael Dell (who returned to the CEO role in 2007) on the Latitude Z, a slick and hip business laptop aimed at business executives, lawyers, and other upper class clientele. Dell is plunging into the high end laptop production line after laptop sales recently surpassed desktop sales, and are banking that corporations are ready to spend money again, hopeful that the recession is over.
I like the leadership idea Dell and Schuckenbrock are taking. They need to take calculated risks to turn around Dell. I like that they are establishing their brand identity with the high end segment of the market. They know this recession can't last forever, and when it is over, corporations will be the first ones to start spending. They are hopeful that time is now, and I like how they are gambling on this to reinvent the company. However, I wonder if there is some recklessness to this idea. To me, this seems like a prime example of anchor leadership. Adaptive work does demand experimentation. Nobody has thought yet to market laptops with all the bells and whistles the upper middle class business person will have no problem paying for.
The leadership at Dell is looking at themselves to see what they can do to bring the company back to the front-burner in people's minds, and are trying to make the proper changes to survive. Some might say this is a ready-fire-aim approach; I would agree that it is. The leaders at Dell believe the recession is over, and they are ready to aggressively offer their new line of laptops. They want to be the first to the marketplace with this technology, and aren't really interested in making sure that the recession is over before doing this. I like the guts and fortitude it takes to make a decision like this. Time will tell it it was the right one to save Dell.
If Dell is wrong, this quick jump on the market might result in the company retreading anymore - just like the offensive linemen who sets his team back 5 yards when he is in such a rush to move to block the on-coming pass defender.
Who can forget these annoying, yet addicting commercials - "Dude, You're Getting a Dell..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Spa_l_12cIw
Dell has been dying a slow death in the last few years. In the recent Forbes magazine (Oct 5 issue) there is a story about how Dell is fighting its reputation as a maker of bland utility computers. Dell is not at the forefront of most people's minds when they are trying to buy a fun and exciting computer. The company abandoned it's desktop computer factory in Round Rock, TX in 2008; this was after Dell lost 15% of its worldwide share after having 18% of the worldwide personal computer business in 2004.
Stephen F. Schuckenbrock (wow that must have been a hard last name to learn to spell in elementary school) is the president of Dell's large enterprises division. He is working with company founder Michael Dell (who returned to the CEO role in 2007) on the Latitude Z, a slick and hip business laptop aimed at business executives, lawyers, and other upper class clientele. Dell is plunging into the high end laptop production line after laptop sales recently surpassed desktop sales, and are banking that corporations are ready to spend money again, hopeful that the recession is over.
I like the leadership idea Dell and Schuckenbrock are taking. They need to take calculated risks to turn around Dell. I like that they are establishing their brand identity with the high end segment of the market. They know this recession can't last forever, and when it is over, corporations will be the first ones to start spending. They are hopeful that time is now, and I like how they are gambling on this to reinvent the company. However, I wonder if there is some recklessness to this idea. To me, this seems like a prime example of anchor leadership. Adaptive work does demand experimentation. Nobody has thought yet to market laptops with all the bells and whistles the upper middle class business person will have no problem paying for.
The leadership at Dell is looking at themselves to see what they can do to bring the company back to the front-burner in people's minds, and are trying to make the proper changes to survive. Some might say this is a ready-fire-aim approach; I would agree that it is. The leaders at Dell believe the recession is over, and they are ready to aggressively offer their new line of laptops. They want to be the first to the marketplace with this technology, and aren't really interested in making sure that the recession is over before doing this. I like the guts and fortitude it takes to make a decision like this. Time will tell it it was the right one to save Dell.
If Dell is wrong, this quick jump on the market might result in the company retreading anymore - just like the offensive linemen who sets his team back 5 yards when he is in such a rush to move to block the on-coming pass defender.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Why is it always closed when I want a chicken sandwich?!?
It never failed in college. I would go on a fun 3 day weekend road trip to visit some friends or a place I've never been before. We'd leave nice and early on Friday and do what college kids do that weekend, and then leave to head back to Bloomington Sunday night.
Without fail, almost every time I was cruising on I-65, or I-70, or I-74 there would be this wonderful sign that would suck me in like a vacuum:
Without fail, almost every time I was cruising on I-65, or I-70, or I-74 there would be this wonderful sign that would suck me in like a vacuum:
YES!!! After a long weekend, I would finally get to stop and get a chicken sandwich and a milkshake, and it's one exit away. I'd get off the highway, follow the little blue sign to either the left or the right 0.7 miles, turn, and then oh crap....mother$%^&%$!!! Chick fil-A was closed.
It would get me every time; I would always forget that I couldn't get my chicken sandwich and milkshake on a Sunday. Ever since S. Truett Cathy found the company in 1967, the restaurants have been closed on Sundays. I knew that it had something to do with religious reasons, but I never considered to think more about it. I would just always get mad when I pulled off of the highway and the place was closed.
If you are a big Chick fil-A fan like I am, you should definitely read about the company at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A
It would get me every time; I would always forget that I couldn't get my chicken sandwich and milkshake on a Sunday. Ever since S. Truett Cathy found the company in 1967, the restaurants have been closed on Sundays. I knew that it had something to do with religious reasons, but I never considered to think more about it. I would just always get mad when I pulled off of the highway and the place was closed.
If you are a big Chick fil-A fan like I am, you should definitely read about the company at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A
S. Truett Cathy was a devout Southern Baptist - I am about as far of a polar opposite on that spectrum as someone could be. While I don't agree with his religious philosophies personally, I can respect the fact that this ideal has been part of the company from it's founding until today. I have talked in previous blogs about how life is too short - it needs to be enjoyed more. I agree with the philosophy that people should "work hard and play hard". But I feel like sometimes people forget the latter part of that ideal.
I can appreciate a leader having enough strength in their beliefs and convictions to continue this ideal that has carried on for multiple decades. When I would get mad during those long road trips to see the CLOSED sign on the Chick fil-A door when I'd arrive, I now have learned that minor inconvenience for me was actually an intelligent loss of business for the company. The leaders and management have decided to remain closed for 14% of the week due to the values and conviction that they have. At 88 years old, S. Truett Cathy still has the value that it's important to have all stores closed on Sundays, and that value supersedes the temptation to have the stores open and make money those days.
There are other examples of intelligent loss of business that are well documented. Ukrop's also closes on Sundays, and chooses not to serve alcohol. Many counties around the country have chosen to remain as "dry counties" and not sell alcohol. TV and radio stations will often avoid running controversial ads that could put the media outlet in a bad light.
Making money is important. A majority of people in the business world would even say the bottom line is the most important thing - everything else be damned. It is certainly respectable when a leader still has the gumption to have an intelligent loss of business instead of chasing the almighty dollar. A lot of times having this philosophy correlates with the brand of the company. The brand is the most important thing to understand in an organization, so it is vital that these ideas lie up.
Friday, September 11, 2009
We learn about leaders when the stakes are the highest
After taking the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test for the first time, I was interested to see what I could learn about the results I got back. The test told me I am a ISFJ; I thought that summed me up pretty well. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that while I think that test was pretty spot on with my leadership abilities, that summary only works under nice, normal conditions. But what about when the pressure is turned up and results are needed immediately?
I think all leaders have two types of personalities - their day to day operations one, and their "their is a fire lit under my a** and I need to lead and get things done RIGHT NOW". In order to be a great leader, you need to be able to be effective in both situations. You need to sometimes place the MBTI test to the side and roll up the sleeves and get things done when surprises sneak up on you.
I was trying to think of an example where a leader was thrust into an uneasy spot and had to show true excellence under trying circumstances. Then I woke up this morning and realized that today is 9/11 - 8 years since the tragedies that occurred in NYC, DC, and W. Pennsylvania. As a native New Yorkers, the events of 9/11/01 will always be burned into my memory as a sad and tragic day. While the day mostly brings about bad feelings, I will always remember the leadership and resolve of NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani during the moments after the World Trade Center collapsed.
There is no training manual or leadership course that can prepare someone for the stunning and swift horror that was carried out eight years ago today. However, Giuliani rose to the occasion be keeping all New Yorkers (and by extension the country, and the world) calm and orderly. His reaction to this tragedy was to step up and be the absolute best he could be. Just look at the confidence he exulted moments after this massacre occurred:
I think all leaders have two types of personalities - their day to day operations one, and their "their is a fire lit under my a** and I need to lead and get things done RIGHT NOW". In order to be a great leader, you need to be able to be effective in both situations. You need to sometimes place the MBTI test to the side and roll up the sleeves and get things done when surprises sneak up on you.
I was trying to think of an example where a leader was thrust into an uneasy spot and had to show true excellence under trying circumstances. Then I woke up this morning and realized that today is 9/11 - 8 years since the tragedies that occurred in NYC, DC, and W. Pennsylvania. As a native New Yorkers, the events of 9/11/01 will always be burned into my memory as a sad and tragic day. While the day mostly brings about bad feelings, I will always remember the leadership and resolve of NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani during the moments after the World Trade Center collapsed.
There is no training manual or leadership course that can prepare someone for the stunning and swift horror that was carried out eight years ago today. However, Giuliani rose to the occasion be keeping all New Yorkers (and by extension the country, and the world) calm and orderly. His reaction to this tragedy was to step up and be the absolute best he could be. Just look at the confidence he exulted moments after this massacre occurred:
Rudy Giuliani was a leader's leader that day. Nobody really knew what that he had that extra gear to kick his leadership to until he was faced head on with such a tragic event. The MBTI test could tell him what kind of leader he is when he sits down in a climate controlled room with no distractions and submits his answers. But his true leadership qualities came out in that moment of horror when he became "The countries mayor."
On the other side of the spectrum was the lack of leadership shown by President Bush during this same generation-changing moment. While Rudy Giuliani was showing what a great leader he was and how he could handle this crisis, President Bush conveyed the total opposite in his actions - freezing up while reading to school children in Florida.
9/11 is a day we need to always remember and honor for as long as we live. For many people, it is something that they think about every single day as they lost loved ones. But there were some lessons learned in leadership that day that I think show that sometimes leadership is more than just theories. When circumstances are their darkest, people look to their leaders for help and guidance. And the leadership shown that day by the mayor of NYC and the president of the US showed their stark differences in leadership under strife. This isn't a political discussion - both Giuliani and Bush are Republicans - but shows that while both men are clearly political leaders, their actions under duress could not have been more different.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
We have one life to live - so let's not worry about having that extra Ferrari that we'll never have enough time to even drive!
We have one life that we get to live, so we may as well enjoy it to the fullest. Sure money is important, and we all need enough to live comfortably on – have some savings, pay for our kids to go to college, tuck some money away for the occasional cruise or trip to Vegas. I mean, look how much fun these people are having!
With that being said, how much money does a person (or family truly need). It goes back to my original point that life is too short. Is it worth it to make $1 million plus a year, but have to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and never have the opportunity to see your kids play little league or even have time to take your wife out for a nice dinner once in a while? Work-life balance is very important to me. That is why I want to work in a culture that supports and appreciates my desire to both work hard, but also play hard when I can. To work at a place like that, a leader needs to be in place that respects that you need to live your life outside of work too. We’re all going to spend at least 1/3rd of our lives at work (because we all work “40-hour work weeks” wink wink). Why not find a place that makes those 8 hours a day a pleasure, and not an experience that will leave you with ulcers?
If you had a choice to work for one of these two people, which looks like it would be a more enjoyable experience?
OR
Again – we have one life to live. Why should we dread going to work every day and wait to be berated by the yelling leader type? Why should we live our lives in fear and tremble every time we see our boss in the hallway. The only two reasons I could think of are money and security. I can’t argue with the security part of the argument. If you have a job in this economy, you have to do whatever it takes to keep it; if that means tolerating a yelling and screaming boss, those are the breaks. But when things are more stable with the economy, why spend your life being yelled at and screamed at by your leader on a daily basis. Money is important, but not that important. And if you’re working in a job with a boss whose leading style is fear, and you’re not making a lot of money, then you DEFINITELY need to find somewhere else to work.
Find a place to work that is fun and challenges you to be your best every single day. There are plenty of leaders like the woman pictured above, who are there to inspire you, nurture you, and be a rock for you. Working at a place like that will make you much happier in life than making a few extra dollars. Remember – we spend 1/3rd of our life at work, if not more. Why not make it an experience to enjoy not spend the other 2/3rd of your life worrying about having a dreadful boss.
It’s a purely fictional character, but how happy would we be to have Michal Scott, the boss from The Office (the best show on TV in my opinion) as our leader. He might not be the most shrew person in the world, but he loves his employees, and always keeps things interesting!
With that being said, how much money does a person (or family truly need). It goes back to my original point that life is too short. Is it worth it to make $1 million plus a year, but have to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and never have the opportunity to see your kids play little league or even have time to take your wife out for a nice dinner once in a while? Work-life balance is very important to me. That is why I want to work in a culture that supports and appreciates my desire to both work hard, but also play hard when I can. To work at a place like that, a leader needs to be in place that respects that you need to live your life outside of work too. We’re all going to spend at least 1/3rd of our lives at work (because we all work “40-hour work weeks” wink wink). Why not find a place that makes those 8 hours a day a pleasure, and not an experience that will leave you with ulcers?
If you had a choice to work for one of these two people, which looks like it would be a more enjoyable experience?
OR
Again – we have one life to live. Why should we dread going to work every day and wait to be berated by the yelling leader type? Why should we live our lives in fear and tremble every time we see our boss in the hallway. The only two reasons I could think of are money and security. I can’t argue with the security part of the argument. If you have a job in this economy, you have to do whatever it takes to keep it; if that means tolerating a yelling and screaming boss, those are the breaks. But when things are more stable with the economy, why spend your life being yelled at and screamed at by your leader on a daily basis. Money is important, but not that important. And if you’re working in a job with a boss whose leading style is fear, and you’re not making a lot of money, then you DEFINITELY need to find somewhere else to work.
Find a place to work that is fun and challenges you to be your best every single day. There are plenty of leaders like the woman pictured above, who are there to inspire you, nurture you, and be a rock for you. Working at a place like that will make you much happier in life than making a few extra dollars. Remember – we spend 1/3rd of our life at work, if not more. Why not make it an experience to enjoy not spend the other 2/3rd of your life worrying about having a dreadful boss.
It’s a purely fictional character, but how happy would we be to have Michal Scott, the boss from The Office (the best show on TV in my opinion) as our leader. He might not be the most shrew person in the world, but he loves his employees, and always keeps things interesting!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Leaders need to be seen to be heard
In The Leadership Challenge, Max De Pree, former chairman and CEO of Herman Miller told a story about his infant granddaughter being born premature. The nurse told him and his wife to make sure every single day to lovingly rub and interact with baby Zoe to help nurture her and give her the love and support that she needed to overcome the difficulties ahead of her. De Pree found from this experience that "at the core of becoming a leader is the need to always connect one's voice to one's touch". I think there is something to be said about leaders making sure to still have personal interactions with people in the company every single day. Leaders need to clarify their values and express themselves, and sometimes that’s hard to do via a memo, email, or teleconference. We as a society need to get back to having personal discussions and relaying our passions to an audience, not an email chain.
The reading in The Leadership Challenge talks about how important it is for a leader to find their own voice in the first place. Leaders using canned phrases, boring jargon, or words that aren’t theirs but someone else’s can cause them to lose all credibility. It’s hard to inspire people with your own words without having a personal interaction with them. You can’t see the passion and dedication of certain non-verbal’s over an office email.
After the recent passing of Senator Ted Kennedy (by the way, how does the birth name Edward Moore become shortened to ‘Ted’?) I was reminded of this speech given by his older brother, John, at his presidential inauguration. This speech was delivered 21 years before I was born, yet when I watch it, I see a man who knows it is his time to be a leader, and he’s putting his stamp on the exact way he plans to carry out being an inspiring leader. You can see the importance of the message that he is delivering by the passion he has.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY
It's important to incorporate leadership traits of famous people we admire, but to many of us these are larger than life type of people. In my opinion it's more vital to take the strengths and weaknesses of leaders we know on a personal level more. While we are intrigued with people like MLK and Ghandi, to many of us they are just people we see archive clips of or read about....we can gain more insight on leadership from people we really know and work with all of our lives - teachers, principals, clergy, bosses, family, etc. This goes back to the interactions that are needed to truly lead. We see these people in our lives. We get to see with our own eyes the things they do that make them truly great and inspirational leaders to us.
One more thing brought up in the reading that I found interesting was this quote: "It's not enough for leaders to deliver a rousing speech or talk about lofty ideals or a promising future. Constituents are more deeply moved by deeds.” Leaders can't say that they need to have workers fully committed to their jobs, but then skip out on Friday afternoon for a round of golf. They can't say belt tightening needs to be done - and then take a private jet or stay in a fancy hotel. People see these action too, and react based on what they see their leaders doing. Leaders need to have action back up their words. Employees want leaders with strong character. They want to know the people that they work for are upstanding and noble. Gordon Gecko said greed is good -and for some people that might be the way they live their lives - but most people want to work for people that they know have their best intentions at heart.
"The leaders we personally admire are rich sources of information about our own values and beliefs". This was a final thought from the reading that I found interesting. I'm personally not in a true leadership position right now. I have oversight over some workers, but I don't truly have any leadership responsibilities. However, I know what I've learned and liked from leaders that I would like to implement when I am a leader...conversely, I also know what I don't like about some of the leaders I've encountered, and hope to do some things differently than they do.
The one thing more than anything that I will make sure to do when I am a leader is to interact with my employees all the time. If something can be done in person instead of over an email, I will go that extra mile. I want them to see me put on my workout clothes and move a large piece of furniture if it needs to be done. I want to shake their hands and slap them on the back after a job well done. Little things like that inspire people, and make them see they have a leader who is truly there for them, and understands the value of hard work and daily interactions.
The reading in The Leadership Challenge talks about how important it is for a leader to find their own voice in the first place. Leaders using canned phrases, boring jargon, or words that aren’t theirs but someone else’s can cause them to lose all credibility. It’s hard to inspire people with your own words without having a personal interaction with them. You can’t see the passion and dedication of certain non-verbal’s over an office email.
After the recent passing of Senator Ted Kennedy (by the way, how does the birth name Edward Moore become shortened to ‘Ted’?) I was reminded of this speech given by his older brother, John, at his presidential inauguration. This speech was delivered 21 years before I was born, yet when I watch it, I see a man who knows it is his time to be a leader, and he’s putting his stamp on the exact way he plans to carry out being an inspiring leader. You can see the importance of the message that he is delivering by the passion he has.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY
It's important to incorporate leadership traits of famous people we admire, but to many of us these are larger than life type of people. In my opinion it's more vital to take the strengths and weaknesses of leaders we know on a personal level more. While we are intrigued with people like MLK and Ghandi, to many of us they are just people we see archive clips of or read about....we can gain more insight on leadership from people we really know and work with all of our lives - teachers, principals, clergy, bosses, family, etc. This goes back to the interactions that are needed to truly lead. We see these people in our lives. We get to see with our own eyes the things they do that make them truly great and inspirational leaders to us.
One more thing brought up in the reading that I found interesting was this quote: "It's not enough for leaders to deliver a rousing speech or talk about lofty ideals or a promising future. Constituents are more deeply moved by deeds.” Leaders can't say that they need to have workers fully committed to their jobs, but then skip out on Friday afternoon for a round of golf. They can't say belt tightening needs to be done - and then take a private jet or stay in a fancy hotel. People see these action too, and react based on what they see their leaders doing. Leaders need to have action back up their words. Employees want leaders with strong character. They want to know the people that they work for are upstanding and noble. Gordon Gecko said greed is good -and for some people that might be the way they live their lives - but most people want to work for people that they know have their best intentions at heart.
"The leaders we personally admire are rich sources of information about our own values and beliefs". This was a final thought from the reading that I found interesting. I'm personally not in a true leadership position right now. I have oversight over some workers, but I don't truly have any leadership responsibilities. However, I know what I've learned and liked from leaders that I would like to implement when I am a leader...conversely, I also know what I don't like about some of the leaders I've encountered, and hope to do some things differently than they do.
The one thing more than anything that I will make sure to do when I am a leader is to interact with my employees all the time. If something can be done in person instead of over an email, I will go that extra mile. I want them to see me put on my workout clothes and move a large piece of furniture if it needs to be done. I want to shake their hands and slap them on the back after a job well done. Little things like that inspire people, and make them see they have a leader who is truly there for them, and understands the value of hard work and daily interactions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)