Menu

Your title here

Welcome to my site, enjoy your stay!

header photo

blog post

October 13, 2014
Leadership is essential for the sustained success of just about any organization. A terrific leader makes a big difference to his or her organization. Everyone will concur with one of these statements. Specialists in recruiting area mention the need for leaders at all levels, and not just that of the leadership at the very top. It's not without reason that companies like 3M, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Coca Cola; HSBC etc. have known to put in place processes for developing leaders constantly.



Mention this issue, nevertheless, to some line supervisor, or into a sales manager, or any executive in many organizations and you will probably take care of diffident responses.

Direction development -a tactical need?

Many organizations deal with normally the topic of leadership. Cultivating leaders falls in HR domain.

Such leadership development outlays that are based on general notions and only great motives about direction get axed in bad times and get extravagant during times that are great. If having good or great leaders at all levels is a strategic need, as the top companies that are above exhibit and as many leading management specialists assert, why can we see such a stop and go approach?

Why is there disbelief about leadership development programs?

The first reason is that expectations (or great) leaders aren't defined in in ways where the outcomes may be verified as well as operative terms. Leaders are expected to reach' many things. They are expected to turn laggards turn companies, charm customers around, and dazzle media. They're expected to do miracles. These expectancies stay merely wishful thinking. These desired outcomes cannot be employed to supply any clues about gaps in development needs and leadership skills.

Lack of a generic and comprehensive (valid in varied businesses and states) framework for defining leadership means that leadership development effort are scattered and inconsistent. Inconsistency gives bad name to leadership development programs. It is the 2nd reason why leadership development's goals are frequently not met.

The third motive is in the procedures employed for leadership development.

Occasionally the applications include experience or outdoor activities for helping individuals bond better and build better teams. These programs generate 'feel good' effect and in certain cases participants 'return' with their personal action plans. However, in majority of cases they neglect to capitalize in the efforts which have gone in. Leadership coaching must be mentioned by me in the passing. But leadership coaching is inaccessible and overly expensive for many executives and their organizations.

When direction is described in terms of abilities of a person and in terms of what it does, it is simpler to evaluate and develop it.

When leadership abilities defined in the above mentioned style are present at all Team Engagement levels, they impart a distinct ability to an organization. This ability provides a competitive advantage to the business. Organizations with a pipeline of good leaders have competitive advantages over other organizations, even individuals with leaders that are great just at the top.

1. They demand less 'oversight', since they are strongly rooted in values.

2. They are better at preventing disastrous failures.

3. They (the organizations) have the ability to solve problems rapidly and will recover from errors swiftly.

4.The competitive have exceptional horizontal communications. Matters (procedures) go faster.

5. They are usually less occupied with themselves. Therefore themselves have 'time' for outside individuals. (about reminders, error corrections etc are Over 70% of internal communications. They are wasteful)

6. Their staff (indirect) productivity is high.

7. They are excellent at heeding to signals customer complaints, related to quality, shifts in market conditions and client preferences. This results in good and useful bottom-up communication. Top leaders generally own less quantity of blind spots.

8. It is better to roll out applications for strategic shift as well as for enhancing business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Top-down communications improve too.

Anticipations from successful and nice leaders must be set out clearly. The direction development plans should be chosen to develop leadership skills which can be checked in terms that were operative. There is certainly a demand for clarity concerning the above aspects since direction development is a strategic need.

Go Back

Comment