Featured
Question Of The Month
How important is employee engagement for organisational performance?
John C. Maxwell (an American author, speaker and pastor who primarily focuses on leadership) famously said: “Leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less.” We do not have to look far to see the far-reaching impact leadership decisions can have, for better or worse. I know, as I suspect most people do, the huge impact a leader can have on our careers, growth, health and even our lives, again for better or worse. Yet despite this potentially huge personal, and potentially global, ripple that leaders can have, it is a largely unregulated industry with no behavioural standards and therefore very little accountability for behaviour. In addition, even though there exists a plethora of evidence and case studies that show the benefits and even return on investment (ROI) of values-based leadership, the true adoption of these principles is generally sluggish.
Why Leadership Development Programs Fail
Sidestepping four common mistakes can help companies develop stronger and more capable leaders, save time and money, and boost morale.
For years, organizations have lavished time and money on improving the capabilities of managers and on nurturing new leaders. US companies alone spend almost $14 billion annually on leadership development. Colleges and universities offer hundreds of degree courses on leadership, and the cost of customized leadership-development offerings from a top business school can reach $150,000 a person.
For more information regarding the above, please e-mail events@legitimateleadership.com
Question Of The Month
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How important is employee engagement for organisational performance?
Answer: Legitimate Leadership believes that the most important criterion for sustained organisational performance is the degree to which the will of employees is engaged to go above and beyond in the pursuit of the organisation’s objectives.
For people to contribute in the workplace, more important than either what people have (systems), or know (skills and knowledge), is their willingness.
A person’s willingness to work, more than anything else, is determined by the nature of the relationship he has with his immediate manager and the intent of that manager. Only when the manager’s intent is to give to her people will they be willing. The “give” that she needs to make is highly specific: it is to have a sincere and genuine interest in her people’s welfare and to enable them to realise the best in themselves. To deliver on these two criteria requires a manager to understand what makes each of the people reporting to her tick and to align what care and growth she gives to each of them, according to their individual needs and circumstances.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com
Article: Why Intent Matters
By Dieter Jansen, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
John C. Maxwell (an American author, speaker and pastor who primarily focuses on leadership) famously said: “Leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less.” We do not have to look far to see the far-reaching impact leadership decisions can have, for better or worse. I know, as I suspect most people do, the huge impact a leader can have on our careers, growth, health and even our lives, again for better or worse. Yet despite this potentially huge personal, and potentially global, ripple that leaders can have, it is a largely unregulated industry with no behavioural standards and therefore very little accountability for behaviour. In addition, even though there exists a plethora of evidence and case studies that show the benefits and even return on investment (ROI) of values-based leadership, the true adoption of these principles is generally sluggish.
Why?
The conventional view of leadership rests in phrases like ‘climbing the ladder’, ‘getting to the top’, ‘being in charge’, etc, and is mostly ego-based.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Article: Why Leadership Development Programs Fail
By Pierre Gurdjian, Thomas Halbeisen, and Kevin Lane of global management consulting company McKinsey.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: We agree with the authors on all four of the common mistakes:
- Understanding Context. What is required of leaders (other than an intent to serve through the care and growth of direct reports) is tailoring Legitimate Leadership to their context. This is the reason for Legitimate Leadership, in conjunction with the client organisation, classifying their unique “why” and tailoring any intervention to this before it is launched.
- Decoupling Reflection From Real Work. A fundamental principle of Legitimate Leadership is how to use the task/job to grow the person. Our 12-15 month application process ensures that the tools and insights gleaned from the Application Modules are translated into day-to-day leadership practices. Leaders are required to make shifts in behaviour and practice, are coached, and then held accountable for doing so.
- Understanding Mindsets. There are two prerequisites for change. First, a conviction that there is an alternative and better way to lead. This is achieved through a two-day debate with leaders arguing for a “care and growth” rather than a “command and control” approach to leadership. Second, an understanding that “I am the project, and who needs to change is me, not them”. The leadership profile, which holds up the mirror to leaders on how aligned they currently are against the criteria for legitimate power, is very useful to stimulate changing leaders’ behaviour and practice.
- Failing To Measure Results. We measure the health of leadership/alignment to the care and growth criteria at both the start and end of the intervention: how do direct reports, at the start and the end, perceive their direct manager in terms of care, means, ability and accountability? We also track the impact of these shifts on organisational performance. In a fashion retailer, sales were down over a peak trading period due to recessionary economic conditions, but profit was significantly up due to a focus on implementing standards in stock control, customer engagement and productivity.
THE ARTICLE: Sidestepping four common mistakes can help companies develop stronger and more capable leaders, save time and money, and boost morale.
For years, organizations have lavished time and money on improving the capabilities of managers and on nurturing new leaders. US companies alone spend almost $14 billion annually on leadership development. Colleges and universities offer hundreds of degree courses on leadership, and the cost of customized leadership-development offerings from a top business school can reach $150,000 a person.
Moreover, when upward of 500 executives were asked to rank their top three human-capital priorities, leadership development was included as both a current and a future priority. Almost two thirds of the respondents identified leadership development as their number one concern. Only 7 percent of senior managers polled by a UK business school think that their companies develop global leaders effectively, and around 30 percent of US companies admit that they have failed to exploit their international business opportunities fully because they lack enough leaders with the right capabilities.
We’ve talked with hundreds of chief executives about the struggle, observing both successful initiatives and ones that run into the sand. In the process, we’ve identified four of the most common mistakes. Here we explain some tips to overcome them.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE