Nicolas Carr's “The Big Switch” is a must read for those in the business world. It starts with a simple and profound thesis: Computing is turning into a utility and the effects of this transition will ultimately change society as completely as the advent of cheap electricity did.
If you accept this thesis as being true, it leads to a series of likely conclusions. I will pick just five for your consideration.
1. Once utility computing services mature, the idea of getting rid of your PC will become much more attractive.
2. In the long run, the IT Department is unlikely to survive (as we know it today).
3. Anyone employed by a business whose product or service can be distributed in digital form may be at risk.
4. The arrival of the universal computing grid portends a very different kind of economic realignment. Rather than concentrating wealth in the hands of a small number of companies, it may concentrate wealth in the hands of a small number of individuals, eroding the middle class and widening the divide between haves and have-nots.
5. Computerization puts many American wage-earners in a double bind; it reduces the demand for their jobs even as it expands the supply of workers ready and able to perform them.
If any of these conclusions interest you (and they should), you need to read this book.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0-5): 4.5
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Lessons Learned from CEO Transitions
It happened again last week. On my first day back from vacation, I walked into the Monday morning Senior Leadership Team meeting and learned that our CEO had turned in his resignation. This announcement meant that I will now be working for my fourth CEO in just eleven months! Least you think that our company is in financial trouble, you need to know that: our sales are growing, we are profitable, we are the market leader in two of our three lines of business, and we have arguably one of the best brand recognitions in the environmental services space. So this blog entry is not about what one can learn in the midst of downsizing an organization or managing an IT department in the midst of chaos. Rather, it is about what I am learning in the midst of repetitive changes in who sits in the CEO chair. While there are many lessons that can (and have been learned), let me share just three of the more pertinent:
1. Seize the Initiative and Never Relinquish It
With any CEO change, the CIO will have to re-introduce themselves, prove themselves, and/or re-justify themselves. That re-introduction includes your position, your Department, your strategy, your past accomplishments, your past failures, and your present challenges. That is why you must seize the initiative and never relinquish it. Do not allow others in the organization (Board members, fellow reports to the CEO, etc.) to “define” yourself or your Department. Make a strong “first” impression with the new CEO. Provide him/her with a notebook. This notebook should provide an overview of the Department, its accomplishments, its strategy, and its spend (amongst other things). Emphasize how IT is working with the Business to increase revenues, decrease expenses, increase efficiency, and diminish risks. Make sure that the CEO sees you as being a strategy leader and not a technology leader. Make sure that they see you are part of the “solution” and not part of the problem.
2. The Value of Alliances
In nature, lone wolves live shorter lives than those who belong to a pack. Allying with others increases your influence with the new CEO and protects your back side. Remember (as Bob Lewis writes in “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”) that your peers are either allies, neutrals, or opponents. As such, you always need to: 1) maximize the number of allies, 2) convert as many neutrals to allies as possible, 3) convert as many opponents to neutrals as possible, and 4) avoid turning any opponents into enemies. Those investments will pay huge dividends during these times of CEO transition.
3. Focus on the Task at Hand
It is very easy during a CEO transition to freeze and await new marching orders. Don’t! Focus on the task at hand. Your war will not be won by strategy alone. Your war will be won by hard, desperate, hand-to-hand fighting. Make sure that you keep the engine room running, the car operating on eight cylinders, or whatever analogy you prefer. Avoid major conflicts in the form of quarrels and arguments. You simply don’t have time for it. Everywhere you go, at every conceivable opportunity, reaffirm, reassert, and remind everyone that you are keeping your eye on the ball (another one of those analogies).
1. Seize the Initiative and Never Relinquish It
With any CEO change, the CIO will have to re-introduce themselves, prove themselves, and/or re-justify themselves. That re-introduction includes your position, your Department, your strategy, your past accomplishments, your past failures, and your present challenges. That is why you must seize the initiative and never relinquish it. Do not allow others in the organization (Board members, fellow reports to the CEO, etc.) to “define” yourself or your Department. Make a strong “first” impression with the new CEO. Provide him/her with a notebook. This notebook should provide an overview of the Department, its accomplishments, its strategy, and its spend (amongst other things). Emphasize how IT is working with the Business to increase revenues, decrease expenses, increase efficiency, and diminish risks. Make sure that the CEO sees you as being a strategy leader and not a technology leader. Make sure that they see you are part of the “solution” and not part of the problem.
2. The Value of Alliances
In nature, lone wolves live shorter lives than those who belong to a pack. Allying with others increases your influence with the new CEO and protects your back side. Remember (as Bob Lewis writes in “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”) that your peers are either allies, neutrals, or opponents. As such, you always need to: 1) maximize the number of allies, 2) convert as many neutrals to allies as possible, 3) convert as many opponents to neutrals as possible, and 4) avoid turning any opponents into enemies. Those investments will pay huge dividends during these times of CEO transition.
3. Focus on the Task at Hand
It is very easy during a CEO transition to freeze and await new marching orders. Don’t! Focus on the task at hand. Your war will not be won by strategy alone. Your war will be won by hard, desperate, hand-to-hand fighting. Make sure that you keep the engine room running, the car operating on eight cylinders, or whatever analogy you prefer. Avoid major conflicts in the form of quarrels and arguments. You simply don’t have time for it. Everywhere you go, at every conceivable opportunity, reaffirm, reassert, and remind everyone that you are keeping your eye on the ball (another one of those analogies).
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Back to Basics
Back to Basics
For IT Leaders
1. The Principle of Servanthood [1]
o Do you seek to serve or to be served?
o Self-promotion (pride) and self-protection (fear) are the reigning motivations that dominate the leadership landscape.
o Shackleton practiced the principle of servanthood.
o He chose to serve rather than to be served.
o Are you a servant leader or a self-serving leader?
2. The Principle of Influence [2]
o True leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned.
o It can’t be mandated. It must be earned.
o Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.
o Shackleton was a true leader.
o He chose to influence rather than to demand.
o Maxwell writes: “He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is only taking a walk.”
3. The Principle of First Hand Knowledge [3]
o Quality leadership means that you get out of the office and circulate among the “troops.”
o This type of contact gave Shackleton the first-hand knowledge he needed to make informed, accurate decisions without having to rely solely on the word of others.
o He learned how his people would respond in any given situation; who would have a tendency to get the job done on his own, or be more likely to procrastinate and delay, who could be counted on in an emergency and who couldn’t, who were the brighter, more able, more committed people, who shared his strong sense of ethics and values.
o He also wanted his subordinates to get to know him, so they would know how he would respond in any given situation, what he wanted, demanded, and needed. If they knew what he would do, they could make their own decisions without asking him for direction, thereby avoiding delay and inactivity.
o The principle of first hand knowledge is simply the process of stepping out and interacting with people, of establishing human contact.
4. The Principle of Empowerment [2]
o Teddy Roosevelt writes: “The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
o Shackleton assigned men certain responsibilities and rarely overruled them.
o When a leader can’t or wont’ empower others, he/she creates barriers within the organization that people cannot overcome.
5. The Principle of Persuasion [3]
o Good leaders persuade rather than coerce.
o Shackleton chose to work with and through people.
o He attempted to gain commitment from individuals through openness, empowerment, and coaching. He provided as much support as he possibly could.
o Leadership, by definition, omits the use of coercive power. When a leader begins to coerce his followers, he’s essentially abandoning leadership and embracing dictatorship.
6. The Principle of Timing [2]
o Great leaders recognize that when to lead is as important as what to do and where to go.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the wrong time leads to disaster.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the wrong time brings resistance.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the right time is a mistake.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the right time results in success.
7. The Principle of Credit [3]
o Good leaders always give credit where credit is due. Conversely, good leaders accept responsibility when things go wrong.
o When a subordinate did a good job, Shackleton praised, complimented and rewarded the individual. On the other hand, he shouldered responsibility when mistakes were made.
o Jim Collins writes: “When things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask: ‘What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be.’”
Endnotes
[1] Ken Blanchard, “Lead like Jesus”
[2] John Maxwell, “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership”
[3] Donald Phillips, “Lincoln on Leadership”
[4] Bob Lewis, “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”
For IT Leaders
1. The Principle of Servanthood [1]
o Do you seek to serve or to be served?
o Self-promotion (pride) and self-protection (fear) are the reigning motivations that dominate the leadership landscape.
o Shackleton practiced the principle of servanthood.
o He chose to serve rather than to be served.
o Are you a servant leader or a self-serving leader?
2. The Principle of Influence [2]
o True leadership cannot be awarded, appointed, or assigned.
o It can’t be mandated. It must be earned.
o Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.
o Shackleton was a true leader.
o He chose to influence rather than to demand.
o Maxwell writes: “He who thinks he leads, but has no followers, is only taking a walk.”
3. The Principle of First Hand Knowledge [3]
o Quality leadership means that you get out of the office and circulate among the “troops.”
o This type of contact gave Shackleton the first-hand knowledge he needed to make informed, accurate decisions without having to rely solely on the word of others.
o He learned how his people would respond in any given situation; who would have a tendency to get the job done on his own, or be more likely to procrastinate and delay, who could be counted on in an emergency and who couldn’t, who were the brighter, more able, more committed people, who shared his strong sense of ethics and values.
o He also wanted his subordinates to get to know him, so they would know how he would respond in any given situation, what he wanted, demanded, and needed. If they knew what he would do, they could make their own decisions without asking him for direction, thereby avoiding delay and inactivity.
o The principle of first hand knowledge is simply the process of stepping out and interacting with people, of establishing human contact.
4. The Principle of Empowerment [2]
o Teddy Roosevelt writes: “The best leader is the one who has sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self-restraint enough to keep from meddling with them while they do it.”
o Shackleton assigned men certain responsibilities and rarely overruled them.
o When a leader can’t or wont’ empower others, he/she creates barriers within the organization that people cannot overcome.
5. The Principle of Persuasion [3]
o Good leaders persuade rather than coerce.
o Shackleton chose to work with and through people.
o He attempted to gain commitment from individuals through openness, empowerment, and coaching. He provided as much support as he possibly could.
o Leadership, by definition, omits the use of coercive power. When a leader begins to coerce his followers, he’s essentially abandoning leadership and embracing dictatorship.
6. The Principle of Timing [2]
o Great leaders recognize that when to lead is as important as what to do and where to go.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the wrong time leads to disaster.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the wrong time brings resistance.
o Shackleton knew that the wrong action at the right time is a mistake.
o Shackleton knew that the right action at the right time results in success.
7. The Principle of Credit [3]
o Good leaders always give credit where credit is due. Conversely, good leaders accept responsibility when things go wrong.
o When a subordinate did a good job, Shackleton praised, complimented and rewarded the individual. On the other hand, he shouldered responsibility when mistakes were made.
o Jim Collins writes: “When things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask: ‘What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be.’”
Endnotes
[1] Ken Blanchard, “Lead like Jesus”
[2] John Maxwell, “The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership”
[3] Donald Phillips, “Lincoln on Leadership”
[4] Bob Lewis, “A Manifesto for 21st Century Information Technology”
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Transformational Servant Leadership -- Forces
Forces
Having considered the foundation and facets of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its forces (or strengths). Transformational servant leadership is really just a version of servant leadership that is transformational. That is, it imbibes the strengths of servant leadership while overcoming its weaknesses. Like servant leadership, it shares the following strengths:
o Both inspire others to follow.
o Both have high ethical standards.
o Both have a sense of egalitarianism.
o Both practice coaching/mentoring.
o Both have a concern for the needs of others.
o Both are effective in communicating expectations.
o Both engender trust. These forms of leadership require that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example.
o Both build confidence in those that work underneath them (SL – in how they are cared and treated; TL – as a foundation for accepting radical organizational change)
Transformational servant leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of servant leadership. This includes:
o Broadening and elevating (Bass, 1990b) the interests of their employees beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
o Providing more initiative/risk-taking to revitalize processes. The servant-leader model does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success. In transformational leadership, on the other hand, the leader's initiative is strongly associated with risk taking as the necessary element of future success, as well as with the willingness to switch to the more effective practices and systems (or revitalizing organizational processes).
o Arouses and changes followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52).
o Avoids slow consensus and leverages acquired trust to expedite required changes.
o Creates an “empowered dynamic culture” (whereas servant leadership leads to a “spiritual generative culture"). Under the Servant Leader model, the leader's motivation to lead arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism. In other words, the leader's belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led. All members of the organization have equal rights to vision, respect, and information. The leader's role is to facilitate the emergence of a community within the organization. In our opinion, the leader has a trustee role, one in which individual growth and development are goals in and of themselves. The key leader drivers, as shown in Figure 1, are valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity and sharing leadership. Possible impacts of these drivers could be: higher skilled people, more ethical people, better communicators, strong interpersonal relationships, creation of shared visions, and clear goals. It is argued here that these outcomes in conjunction with the leader initiatives that produce them create the spiritual generative culture. A spiritually generative culture is one in which members are focuses on the personal growth of themselves and others, and the organizational systems that facilitate that growth. It is further suggested that, while this culture is satisfying to organizational members, it results in followers who are passive to the external environment and unlikely to want to upset internal conditions which might require substantive changes in the status quo but is conducive to generating internal personal growth. The Transformational Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational leader is motivated by a sense of mission to recreate the organization to survive in a challenging external environment. The transformational leader's motivation base has a more macro focus. Individual growth and development are not unimportant but must be related to the organization's success in the external environment. Under the transformational leader model, as seen in Figure 1, the main leader initiatives are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. These initiatives lead to: role modeling, high ethical standards, concern for the needs of others, communication of expectations, shared visions, innovations, risk taking, and questioning of practices and systems. Together with the leader initiatives, this leader approach produces the empowered dynamic culture. Organizational members in this type of organization not only have high skills but also have high expectations placed upon them. The leader models high performance. A reading of the descriptions of servant leadership reveals no calls for risk taking and innovation, while this is a key element in a transformed organization. Clearly some of the outcomes of the transformational model are similar to the spiritual generative culture. For example, the call for high ethical standards and concern for the individual are apparent in both. It could be suggested, however, that in servant leadership one arises from a belief in human dignity as a primary organization goal; while in the transformational organization these virtues are valued because to be successful the organization as a whole depends on a strong "virtuous" foundation. In Figure 1, both models of leadership are included in a chain of relationships. Contextual forces and/or situational factors would define the leader's motivation in these relationships. As stated earlier, applications of the servant leadership concept include not-for-profit and community leadership organizations where the environment can be characterized by low dynamism and slow change processes, relative to many modern business environments that face global competition. In the low dynamism situation, a leader's motivation "to serve first" is effective. The "black box" of an organizational system will interpret the leader's philosophy and resulting initiatives into a culture that we would describe as generative and spiritual. This type of culture works on creation of a harmonized, cooperative internal environment where spiritual awareness and growth represent the core values of an organization. Such a culture is likely to be more passive in introducing changes and more persistent in preserving its status quo. Given the specifics of an appropriate external environment, an organization with servant leadership based culture will succeed. In the case of transformational leadership, the external environment is usually more dynamic and challenging, thus requiring quick decisions and correct reactions. Here a leader's motivation is to lead first, to get an organization into the shape necessary to adapt effectively to external requirements. Leader initiatives are designed to place strong emphasis on inspiration and intellectual stimulation of every member in organization. It is suggested the resulting organizational culture is the projection of a leader's behavior through organizational communication and reward systems, and is characterized as empowering and innovative, dynamic, and receptive to possible changes. We would argue that the servant leadership model works better in a more stable external environment and serves evolutionary development purposes, whereas transformational leadership is the model for organizations facing intense external pressure where revolutionary change is a necessity for survival. Here, the importance of the time factor comes into play. Servant leadership stresses collaboration and integrity, where communication and persuasion skills become extremely important. Decision-making processes involve most of the organizational members and generally results in consensus. The time factor is not considered crucial, which allows for groups to make mutually acceptable decisions. Transformational leadership, in contrast, gives the leader some initiative in decision making, for example, to take a certain risks or to drop obsolete practices. This, however, does not guarantee that the decision made will be completely accepted by followers, but the charismatic influence and inspirational power of a leader will support the faith in the correctness of a leader's actions. Thus, the time factor is accounted for in the transformational leadership model.
o Motivates individuals and organizations to, for example, follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221). Through these sorts of means, transformational leaders encourage their followers to imagine and contribute to the development of attractive, alternative futures (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208).
o Tying individual growth/development to organizational success.
Merging servant leadership with transformation leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of transformational leadership. For example, it:
o Avoids the possibility of dictatorial behavior by the leader. A key criticism of transformation leadership is it’s potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders can choose to motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends.
o Lets us treat even difficult people with such respect that we help them feel worthwhile. People do not typically invest their trust in someone who makes them feel invisible or insignificant.
o Leaves us open to what others can teach us, no matter what their station in life. As a result we learn and develop wisdom more quickly, because we let everyone be our mentor.
Having considered the foundation and facets of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its forces (or strengths). Transformational servant leadership is really just a version of servant leadership that is transformational. That is, it imbibes the strengths of servant leadership while overcoming its weaknesses. Like servant leadership, it shares the following strengths:
o Both inspire others to follow.
o Both have high ethical standards.
o Both have a sense of egalitarianism.
o Both practice coaching/mentoring.
o Both have a concern for the needs of others.
o Both are effective in communicating expectations.
o Both engender trust. These forms of leadership require that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example.
o Both build confidence in those that work underneath them (SL – in how they are cared and treated; TL – as a foundation for accepting radical organizational change)
Transformational servant leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of servant leadership. This includes:
o Broadening and elevating (Bass, 1990b) the interests of their employees beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
o Providing more initiative/risk-taking to revitalize processes. The servant-leader model does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success. In transformational leadership, on the other hand, the leader's initiative is strongly associated with risk taking as the necessary element of future success, as well as with the willingness to switch to the more effective practices and systems (or revitalizing organizational processes).
o Arouses and changes followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52).
o Avoids slow consensus and leverages acquired trust to expedite required changes.
o Creates an “empowered dynamic culture” (whereas servant leadership leads to a “spiritual generative culture"). Under the Servant Leader model, the leader's motivation to lead arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism. In other words, the leader's belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led. All members of the organization have equal rights to vision, respect, and information. The leader's role is to facilitate the emergence of a community within the organization. In our opinion, the leader has a trustee role, one in which individual growth and development are goals in and of themselves. The key leader drivers, as shown in Figure 1, are valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity and sharing leadership. Possible impacts of these drivers could be: higher skilled people, more ethical people, better communicators, strong interpersonal relationships, creation of shared visions, and clear goals. It is argued here that these outcomes in conjunction with the leader initiatives that produce them create the spiritual generative culture. A spiritually generative culture is one in which members are focuses on the personal growth of themselves and others, and the organizational systems that facilitate that growth. It is further suggested that, while this culture is satisfying to organizational members, it results in followers who are passive to the external environment and unlikely to want to upset internal conditions which might require substantive changes in the status quo but is conducive to generating internal personal growth. The Transformational Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational leader is motivated by a sense of mission to recreate the organization to survive in a challenging external environment. The transformational leader's motivation base has a more macro focus. Individual growth and development are not unimportant but must be related to the organization's success in the external environment. Under the transformational leader model, as seen in Figure 1, the main leader initiatives are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. These initiatives lead to: role modeling, high ethical standards, concern for the needs of others, communication of expectations, shared visions, innovations, risk taking, and questioning of practices and systems. Together with the leader initiatives, this leader approach produces the empowered dynamic culture. Organizational members in this type of organization not only have high skills but also have high expectations placed upon them. The leader models high performance. A reading of the descriptions of servant leadership reveals no calls for risk taking and innovation, while this is a key element in a transformed organization. Clearly some of the outcomes of the transformational model are similar to the spiritual generative culture. For example, the call for high ethical standards and concern for the individual are apparent in both. It could be suggested, however, that in servant leadership one arises from a belief in human dignity as a primary organization goal; while in the transformational organization these virtues are valued because to be successful the organization as a whole depends on a strong "virtuous" foundation. In Figure 1, both models of leadership are included in a chain of relationships. Contextual forces and/or situational factors would define the leader's motivation in these relationships. As stated earlier, applications of the servant leadership concept include not-for-profit and community leadership organizations where the environment can be characterized by low dynamism and slow change processes, relative to many modern business environments that face global competition. In the low dynamism situation, a leader's motivation "to serve first" is effective. The "black box" of an organizational system will interpret the leader's philosophy and resulting initiatives into a culture that we would describe as generative and spiritual. This type of culture works on creation of a harmonized, cooperative internal environment where spiritual awareness and growth represent the core values of an organization. Such a culture is likely to be more passive in introducing changes and more persistent in preserving its status quo. Given the specifics of an appropriate external environment, an organization with servant leadership based culture will succeed. In the case of transformational leadership, the external environment is usually more dynamic and challenging, thus requiring quick decisions and correct reactions. Here a leader's motivation is to lead first, to get an organization into the shape necessary to adapt effectively to external requirements. Leader initiatives are designed to place strong emphasis on inspiration and intellectual stimulation of every member in organization. It is suggested the resulting organizational culture is the projection of a leader's behavior through organizational communication and reward systems, and is characterized as empowering and innovative, dynamic, and receptive to possible changes. We would argue that the servant leadership model works better in a more stable external environment and serves evolutionary development purposes, whereas transformational leadership is the model for organizations facing intense external pressure where revolutionary change is a necessity for survival. Here, the importance of the time factor comes into play. Servant leadership stresses collaboration and integrity, where communication and persuasion skills become extremely important. Decision-making processes involve most of the organizational members and generally results in consensus. The time factor is not considered crucial, which allows for groups to make mutually acceptable decisions. Transformational leadership, in contrast, gives the leader some initiative in decision making, for example, to take a certain risks or to drop obsolete practices. This, however, does not guarantee that the decision made will be completely accepted by followers, but the charismatic influence and inspirational power of a leader will support the faith in the correctness of a leader's actions. Thus, the time factor is accounted for in the transformational leadership model.
o Motivates individuals and organizations to, for example, follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221). Through these sorts of means, transformational leaders encourage their followers to imagine and contribute to the development of attractive, alternative futures (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208).
o Tying individual growth/development to organizational success.
Merging servant leadership with transformation leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of transformational leadership. For example, it:
o Avoids the possibility of dictatorial behavior by the leader. A key criticism of transformation leadership is it’s potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders can choose to motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends.
o Lets us treat even difficult people with such respect that we help them feel worthwhile. People do not typically invest their trust in someone who makes them feel invisible or insignificant.
o Leaves us open to what others can teach us, no matter what their station in life. As a result we learn and develop wisdom more quickly, because we let everyone be our mentor.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Book Review: Love is the Killer App
Tim Sanders makes the bold suggestion that business success can best be achieved by becoming a “lovecat.” Sanders defines the love business as “the act of intelligently and sensibly sharing your intangibles with your bizpartners.” Those intangibles are our knowledge, our network, and our compassion. By knowledge he means everything you have learned and everything you continue to learn. By network he means your entire web of relationships. By compassion he means that personal quality that machines can never possess – the human ability to reach out with warmth, whether through eye contact, physical touch, or words.
I wish I had read the book back when it was first published in 2002. Because many of the lessons he learned, I learned the hard way in the past years. I can strongly endorse the practical advice he provides as much of what I have been doing for the past 12 months agrees with his advice. I would challenge each of you to seriously apply his advice of “intelligently and sensibly sharing” your knowledge, network, and compassion with your business partners. Pick up the book and learn numerous ways that he “intelligently and sensibly” shares his intangibles with his business partners.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 3
I wish I had read the book back when it was first published in 2002. Because many of the lessons he learned, I learned the hard way in the past years. I can strongly endorse the practical advice he provides as much of what I have been doing for the past 12 months agrees with his advice. I would challenge each of you to seriously apply his advice of “intelligently and sensibly sharing” your knowledge, network, and compassion with your business partners. Pick up the book and learn numerous ways that he “intelligently and sensibly” shares his intangibles with his business partners.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 3
Book Review: Winners Never Cheat
“Circumstances may change but your values shouldn’t.” So begins the introduction to Huntsman’s book – “Winners Never Cheat.” Huntsman updated and re-issued this book to address the ethical lapses that he saw during the most recent economic downturn. The book makes a strident appeal for all business persons (and businesses) to maintain the highest ethical standards. He sets forth how one has learned these standards, how one knows right from wrong, how one overcomes the temptations to ignore these standards, and a variety of suggestions (surround yourself with ethical team members, operate the business as if they’re family owned, etc.) to increase the likelihood that the standards will be adhered to. Huntsman provides many real-life examples of the benefits and costs of maintaining the highest standards. The book is a very easy read and worth considering for a companion on a plane flight.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Transformational Servant Leadership -- Facets
Having considered the foundation of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its facets. It is a transformational journey that encompasses (borrowing a framework from Blanchard and Hodges, 2005):
o The motivation of the heart
o The perspective of the head
o The behavior of the hands
o The practice of habits
Let us quickly look at each of these facets.
1. The Motivation of the Heart
Most leadership books and seminars focus on the leader’s behavior and try to improve his/her leadership style and methods. That is, they attempt to change leadership from the outside. That objective is misguided. Effective leadership starts on the inside. It is a heart issue. If one does not get the heart right, then we simply won’t ever become transformational servant leaders.
The primary question you have to ask yourself is: “Am I a servant leader or a self-serving leader?” That is, “Do you seek to serve or be served?” Self-serving leaders never bring themselves to subjugate their own needs to the greater ambition of something larger and more lasting than themselves. Work will always be first and foremost of what they get – fame, fortune, power, adulation, etc. Work will never be about what they build, create and contribute. Secondly, self-serving leaders do not invest in succession planning. They view such an investment as a threat. Finally, self-serving leaders think they should lead and others should follow.
Transformational servant leaders, on the other hand, have a completely different motivation. They view their leadership as an awesome responsibility that affords them a position of trust and stewardship to take care of those entrusted to them – their staff and the company they work for. They build, create, and contribute to something that is larger and more lasting than themselves. Finally, they realize they came into the world with nothing and will leave with nothing.
Jim Collins mentioned this “heart” in his seminal work -- “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't.” In this book, Collins examined companies that went from good to great by sustaining 15-year cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, and after a transition point, cumulative returns at least three times the market over the next 15 years. Among the many characteristics that distinguished these companies from others is that they all had leaders that directed their ego away from themselves to the larger goal of leading their company to greatness.
2. The Perspective of the Head
The journey of transformational servant leader starts in the heart with motivation and intent. Then it travels through the head, which is the leaders’ belief systems and perspective on the role of the leader. Transformational servant leaders have a specific point of view related to themselves and to others.
o View of Self
A transformational servant leader, first, dies to himself/herself. They sacrifice themselves to a higher good or yield to a legitimate authority. Quite often it means doing what you don’t want to do. Sometimes it means going down with the ship so that others may live. Second, they realize that the beginning of followership is getting to zero. That is, it is realizing that you don’t know everything and open yourself to the possibility of being remade into something more (Donnithorne, 1993). Third, a transformational servant leader is capable of performing a self-analysis in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. They “know” their mistakes, but see them not as failures, but as learning opportunities.
o View of Others
A transformational servant leader also has a specific point of view related to others. They believe everyone has dignity. Everyone is a child of God. Everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves to be elevated. Secondly, they do not consider themselves to be superior to those underneath their authority. Thirdly, they avoid the trap of being proud for getting to where they are at. They know that they didn’t get themselves here. They know that others helped them, encouraged them and assisted them to get to where they are now.
3. The Behavior of the Hands
That which is in the heart and in the head, must be practiced. Your motivations and beliefs must affect your actions. What are some examples of how one can “practice” transformational servant leadership?
o Invite feedback. One of the operative principles of coaching is giving feedback. Managers need to turn the tables on themselves and invite their employees to give them feedback, too. But before they can do this, they must spade the ground. Asking for feedback from subordinates without proper preparation is akin to pulling a knife on them. Of course they will tell you what you want to hear. Leaders must make it safe for their people to offer criticism as well as advice. When done properly, it builds trust.
o Encourage dissent. Part of feedback is dissent, a disagreement with the central point of view. For leaders, dissent is a good gut-check as well as a lesson in humility. As with feedback, when you make it safe for people to voice a discordant note, you get other points of view. Accept dissent as a form of humility.
o Temper authority. Power comes with rank but you don't have to pull it to make it work for you. You can encourage others to make decisions by delegating authority and responsibility. Encourage your people to write their own performance objectives and set team goals. Allow them to make decisions. Your authority comes in the form of imposing order and discipline.
o Acknowledge what others do. Few have said it better than legendary Alabama coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant. "If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it. That's all it takes to get people to win football games for you." Practice that attitude always, especially when things are not going well, and your team will rally together because they want you to succeed. In short, humility breeds humility.
o Turn failures into lessons. Mistakes give rise to the need for humility. Instead of trying to cover mistakes up, leaders need to publicize them. Not for the sake of retribution, but for the sake of education. According to the Wall Street Journal, Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company, took a second look at a cancer drug that had failed in human trials. Researchers at Lilly understand that the scientific method involves a degree of trial and error as well as failure analysis. The result is that mistakes can be turned into successes; the failed drug was modified and is now used to treat another form of cancer.
o Expect humility in others. Humility breeds humility. A good example of this practice is a Buddhist monastery. There all the monks work in support of the community and in pursuit of a oneness with their humanity and their spirituality. A sense of personal humility is a key to self-understanding that in turn leads to greater awareness of the wholeness of life. In other words, if you show humility, you can ask and expect others on your team to do the same.
o Demonstrate confidence. Too much humility can erode self-esteem. Ego is essential to leadership because it breeds self-confidence. If anything, leaders must demonstrate confidence, a sense that they can do the job. What leaders need to realize is humility need not be oppositional to confidence but rather supportive of it. Confidence is not simply about self, but can grow to embrace the entire team. That is, leaders can, and should, feel more confident knowing they have the support and the resources of others with which to do the job. And if the team is not right, then it is the leader's job to make it so through job training, personal development and augmentation of people with other skills.
o Don’t be first. First is not necessarily a bad thing, however being first can come across as competitive, self promoting or demoting of others. None of those things are common for a humble person. In a group or workplace, if you don’t be first to speak, participate or get involved, you give others a chance to be first. This can be very humbling for several reasons. You may see that others have better or smarter ideas than you had in the first place, you’re not the only one capable of the task or message and that you aren’t necessarily needed as much as you would like to think you are. These are very humbling realizations so if want to learn to be more humble, next time you have a chance to be first, don’t!
Jim Collins supports this truth in his best-selling leadership book Good to Great. According to Collins, when things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests, and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask, What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be?
o The motivation of the heart
o The perspective of the head
o The behavior of the hands
o The practice of habits
Let us quickly look at each of these facets.
1. The Motivation of the Heart
Most leadership books and seminars focus on the leader’s behavior and try to improve his/her leadership style and methods. That is, they attempt to change leadership from the outside. That objective is misguided. Effective leadership starts on the inside. It is a heart issue. If one does not get the heart right, then we simply won’t ever become transformational servant leaders.
The primary question you have to ask yourself is: “Am I a servant leader or a self-serving leader?” That is, “Do you seek to serve or be served?” Self-serving leaders never bring themselves to subjugate their own needs to the greater ambition of something larger and more lasting than themselves. Work will always be first and foremost of what they get – fame, fortune, power, adulation, etc. Work will never be about what they build, create and contribute. Secondly, self-serving leaders do not invest in succession planning. They view such an investment as a threat. Finally, self-serving leaders think they should lead and others should follow.
Transformational servant leaders, on the other hand, have a completely different motivation. They view their leadership as an awesome responsibility that affords them a position of trust and stewardship to take care of those entrusted to them – their staff and the company they work for. They build, create, and contribute to something that is larger and more lasting than themselves. Finally, they realize they came into the world with nothing and will leave with nothing.
Jim Collins mentioned this “heart” in his seminal work -- “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't.” In this book, Collins examined companies that went from good to great by sustaining 15-year cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, and after a transition point, cumulative returns at least three times the market over the next 15 years. Among the many characteristics that distinguished these companies from others is that they all had leaders that directed their ego away from themselves to the larger goal of leading their company to greatness.
2. The Perspective of the Head
The journey of transformational servant leader starts in the heart with motivation and intent. Then it travels through the head, which is the leaders’ belief systems and perspective on the role of the leader. Transformational servant leaders have a specific point of view related to themselves and to others.
o View of Self
A transformational servant leader, first, dies to himself/herself. They sacrifice themselves to a higher good or yield to a legitimate authority. Quite often it means doing what you don’t want to do. Sometimes it means going down with the ship so that others may live. Second, they realize that the beginning of followership is getting to zero. That is, it is realizing that you don’t know everything and open yourself to the possibility of being remade into something more (Donnithorne, 1993). Third, a transformational servant leader is capable of performing a self-analysis in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. They “know” their mistakes, but see them not as failures, but as learning opportunities.
o View of Others
A transformational servant leader also has a specific point of view related to others. They believe everyone has dignity. Everyone is a child of God. Everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves to be elevated. Secondly, they do not consider themselves to be superior to those underneath their authority. Thirdly, they avoid the trap of being proud for getting to where they are at. They know that they didn’t get themselves here. They know that others helped them, encouraged them and assisted them to get to where they are now.
3. The Behavior of the Hands
That which is in the heart and in the head, must be practiced. Your motivations and beliefs must affect your actions. What are some examples of how one can “practice” transformational servant leadership?
o Invite feedback. One of the operative principles of coaching is giving feedback. Managers need to turn the tables on themselves and invite their employees to give them feedback, too. But before they can do this, they must spade the ground. Asking for feedback from subordinates without proper preparation is akin to pulling a knife on them. Of course they will tell you what you want to hear. Leaders must make it safe for their people to offer criticism as well as advice. When done properly, it builds trust.
o Encourage dissent. Part of feedback is dissent, a disagreement with the central point of view. For leaders, dissent is a good gut-check as well as a lesson in humility. As with feedback, when you make it safe for people to voice a discordant note, you get other points of view. Accept dissent as a form of humility.
o Temper authority. Power comes with rank but you don't have to pull it to make it work for you. You can encourage others to make decisions by delegating authority and responsibility. Encourage your people to write their own performance objectives and set team goals. Allow them to make decisions. Your authority comes in the form of imposing order and discipline.
o Acknowledge what others do. Few have said it better than legendary Alabama coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant. "If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it. That's all it takes to get people to win football games for you." Practice that attitude always, especially when things are not going well, and your team will rally together because they want you to succeed. In short, humility breeds humility.
o Turn failures into lessons. Mistakes give rise to the need for humility. Instead of trying to cover mistakes up, leaders need to publicize them. Not for the sake of retribution, but for the sake of education. According to the Wall Street Journal, Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company, took a second look at a cancer drug that had failed in human trials. Researchers at Lilly understand that the scientific method involves a degree of trial and error as well as failure analysis. The result is that mistakes can be turned into successes; the failed drug was modified and is now used to treat another form of cancer.
o Expect humility in others. Humility breeds humility. A good example of this practice is a Buddhist monastery. There all the monks work in support of the community and in pursuit of a oneness with their humanity and their spirituality. A sense of personal humility is a key to self-understanding that in turn leads to greater awareness of the wholeness of life. In other words, if you show humility, you can ask and expect others on your team to do the same.
o Demonstrate confidence. Too much humility can erode self-esteem. Ego is essential to leadership because it breeds self-confidence. If anything, leaders must demonstrate confidence, a sense that they can do the job. What leaders need to realize is humility need not be oppositional to confidence but rather supportive of it. Confidence is not simply about self, but can grow to embrace the entire team. That is, leaders can, and should, feel more confident knowing they have the support and the resources of others with which to do the job. And if the team is not right, then it is the leader's job to make it so through job training, personal development and augmentation of people with other skills.
o Don’t be first. First is not necessarily a bad thing, however being first can come across as competitive, self promoting or demoting of others. None of those things are common for a humble person. In a group or workplace, if you don’t be first to speak, participate or get involved, you give others a chance to be first. This can be very humbling for several reasons. You may see that others have better or smarter ideas than you had in the first place, you’re not the only one capable of the task or message and that you aren’t necessarily needed as much as you would like to think you are. These are very humbling realizations so if want to learn to be more humble, next time you have a chance to be first, don’t!
Jim Collins supports this truth in his best-selling leadership book Good to Great. According to Collins, when things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests, and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask, What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)