Ken almost always partners with someone new for each book. Then they collaborate and write an incredible, and short, fiction book that teaches powerful messages in a enjoyable and memorable way.
If you are unfamiliar with the terms, I have no doubt you are familiar with the concepts. There are 2 primary ways to lead and manage people, and most of us have a history with both. The first is often known as Directive, Top down, Authoritative, "my way or the highway", "I am the boss so I make the decisions", etc. Often this method is used by people that think they are smarter than their subordinates or are busy "self serving" their own interests. Typically the subordinates do as they are told to keep their jobs (provide their hands), however they often withdraw their creativity, passion, energy, head and heart to the minimal acceptable level.
The alternative is known as Supportive, Collaborative, Servant Leadership, etc. In this paradigm the Mgr, Spvr, Leader, etc's primary role is to set SMART expectations, guide and enable. They understand that the only way to maximize success and truly get 100+% out of the followers / partners is to win their hearts, and then their heads and hands. This is especially critical in our current knowledge based economy.
Ken and Mark propose the following:
- See the Future
- Engage and Develop Others
- Reinvent Continuously
- Value Results and Relationships
- Embody the Values
Second, you need to recruit and select the right people for the right job. Then you need to do whatever it takes to engage their hearts, heads and hands.
Third, you must be willing to continuously ask how am I learning and growing as a leader? What am I doing to promote the same in others? Are we working to reinvent the systems and processes? Are we reinventing the organizational structure when it is necessary?
Fourth, you need to focus on both getting results and developing excellent relationships. Both are critical to be successful over the long term.
Fifth, you must walk the talk if you want people to trust and follow you !!!!
As always, read the book because they explain it much better. Second, do you think my belief "that Servant Leadership is super" is mistaken because it is too soft and impractical !!! Or is it the only way to compete effectively in our rapidly changing business, social and political environment !!! Thoughts and comments encouraged !!! (Ref Type X, Y, Z)
12 comments:
I think effective leadership often requires different styles and approaches in different contexts.
I agree that when dealing with young, untrained or unfamiliar employees, a more top down approach is required for awhile until they understand the culture, general expectations, etc. However I still believe that a Spvr, Mgr, Leader, etc who trains/engages the employee will be much more effective if they maintain a perspective that they are their to help the new employee become a productive team member. Not that the employee is a pawn to be ordered about...
And with experienced and knowledgeable employees, when would directive make sense as a general management technique? I understand that on specific topics, the leader must make the final call for the group. (with or without consensus)
As for politicians, I think they should always remember to serve and not be self serving... Something they seem to have a hard time doing.
Tell us some more about your different styles, approaches and contexts.
Every situation is different.
For example, how does a manager deal with experienced and knowledgeable employees, which very often translates in a young manager, without that much experience and knowledge, dealing with a lot of old timers and perhaps time servers who may be very set in their ways? By listening to every one and moan about how great things were in the old days? Or simply issuing a directive saying the new way is the things are going to be?
I whole heartedly agree that there are a few difficult "time servers" out there. However after having worked as a supervisor for ~5 years and after running 50+ project/work teams, I have rarely found anyone that does not want to improve things or make things simpler. People typically want their group, dept, company, etc to be successful. Maybe I have been blessed by good recruiting, hiring and termination practices.
The trick has usually been my working to understand their perspective, goals and constraints. Then helping them relate to the teams goals and eliminate their constraints. However this has to start with my humility, and seeking to understand and serve.
By the way, sometimes things end badly and I need to escalate or dictate issues. Thankfully this is rarely ... Unfortunately at these times the team ceases to function as well because we lose the "heart" of that individual.
"I have rarely found anyone that does not want to improve things or make things simpler."
But what do you do when corporate policy isn't really to improve things, particular to lower quality? At least as perceived by those experienced and knowledgeable employees?
I think that is a symptom of Corp Mgmt that has forgotten that their job is to serve the customers by serving their employees. It is unfortunate when this happens. Some recent examples likely include GM, Chrysler, etc. They lost their humility and the baseball bat swung. To bad a lot of innocent bystanders were in the way also.
The graphic for Servant Leadership is an inverted pyramid with the CEO on the bottom and the customers on top... Thereby indicating that everyones job is to "Serve" the customer and each level that is closer to the customer.
Of course, this needs to be balanced with profitability.
Managers work for other managers, and actual customers can be awfully remote. Way too often, goals for upper level management are defined in terms of short term success. The results can be seen by what happened last year, when a lot of managers made themselves extremely rich while bankrupting their companies, and destroying the economy.
I think you have now tread onto a related, yet different topic. Some of those leaders definitely became self serving and focused on only the stakeholders that owned stock... Also, some definitely forgot their business ethics and societal responsibilities.
Of course, our opinions differ on what caused the economic down turn... I think it was much closer to home. Just look at the freely chosen debt load of many Americans. Or all the American's who demanded incredible returns from their investments. Therefore they were willing to invest in hedge funds, ponzi schemes, and dumped any fund, stock or investment that did not payback NOW !!!
I believe the saying goes: "We reap what we sew".
Something I've seen happening with all the downsizing is growing ranks of managerial "foremen." Like a dock foreman who often gets his hands dirty with the cargo, a Network Manager is now expected to do his share of the wiring.
The high level thinking you chronicle is more for general managers than line managers or working supervisors. But treating people well is a key at all these levels.
"I think it was much closer to home. Just look at the freely chosen debt load of many Americans. Or all the American's who demanded incredible returns from their investments."
The problem is that is very hard politically to tell people they can't afford to buy a home. When the fact is most of those people can. Most people are making their payments just fine. As for demanding incredible returns on their investment, I understand the dilemma. We created a system of corporate governance where doing the wrong thing got people promoted and the right thing got them fired. But it wasn't the investors who created that system, it was those corporate managers.
In terms of corporate ownership, fiduciary obligations go only one way. Management owes it's stockholders the duty to operate the assets entrusted to them competently and in the interest of the owners of the business. The owners owe management nothing except what is determined by contract. When corporations fail, it may or may not be management's fault, but it is never the shareholder's fault.
"Never" is a pretty rare event. I think I will disagree. And since the Board consists of and represents the Owners, I would say that quite often the "Owners" have brought down the company. Especially since they choose the management.
Now, help me understand how the investors did not set up the Corp governance? The investors are mostly US citizens, and the Government they elected setup the laws and oversight. It seems the investors strongly influence the laws and the company management.
On top of this, many sell any stock that does not consistently
provide short term results. And if the stock drops low enough, the citizen chosen laws allow for hostile buy outs.
It seems we have given the Mgmt the carrot and the stick... No wonder they sometimes make bad and short sighted choices.
By the way, you do realize that foreclosures are at historical highs. Seems many folks could not make those payments. (many on upscale homes)
"And since the Board consists of and represents the Owners, I would say that quite often the "Owners" have brought down the company."
As a rule, corporate boards are an extension of management. The notion that shareholders have any influence at all on how a company is run is purely fiction. And that's mostly as it should be. Shareholders aren't in a position to manage complex enterprises. That's what they hire management for.
"help me understand how the investors did not set up the Corp governance?"
Long ago, some set of investors may have set up a given corporate structure, but once they did they quickly lost control of the corporation. And those investors might not be on the scene either, since they may have subsequently sold their stock and moved on.
"It seems the investors strongly influence the laws and the company management."
Corporate managers who are able to hire lobbyists to influence the legislative process have vastly more power.
"On top of this, many sell any stock that does not consistently
provide short term results. And if the stock drops low enough, the citizen chosen laws allow for hostile buy outs."
That isn't an excuse for making decisions that are contrary to the interests of the shareholders. There are no such excuses, at least not valid ones. Why should a manager care if the company is bought out? Because he might lose his job? If he makes a decision on that basis, he is putting his interests ahead of the shareholders, a violation of his fiduciary duty.
"By the way, you do realize that foreclosures are at historical highs. Seems many folks could not make those payments. (many on upscale homes)."
There is no denying banks and other loan originators made risky loans. But whose fault is that? Assuming the borrower didn't commit fraud in the application, the loan originator was in the best position to evaluate the risk. That's what they are supposed to be good at. The fact is loan originators made risky loans for out of self interest, hurting both their business, and their borrowers.
Post a Comment