Do You Believe in Transformational Leadership?

Transformational leaders try to develop their followers’ full potential (e.g., Bass, 1985; Johnson & Dipboye, 2008); therefore, followers tend to feel that their organization is effective and that it can provide future opportunity and development. As such, it is expected that followers will be more likely to stay in the organization because they are satisfying their needs for self-categorization/self-identity, and they have a sense of being unique from other members in society. Organizational identification is therefore likely to be strengthened.

 

Wang and Huang state in a 2009 article, that “in the last few decades, within the field of leadership, transformational leadership behaviour has come to represent the most effective form of close engagement between leaders and followers that motivates the latter to perform beyond their transactional agreements. Robbins (2001) defined transformational leaders as, leaders who provide individualised consideration and intellectual stimulation, and who possess charisma,” (p.381).

It was the late Bernard Bass (founding editor of the leadership quarterly journal) who back in 1990 attributed four behavioural characteristics to a transformational leader: charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. It was only later, in 2003, when John Antonakis, Bruce Avolio and Nagaraj Sivasubramaniam replaced the characteristic of charisma with, what they termed, idealised influence.

Wang and Huang (2009) remind us that “a leader only possesses idealised influence if his or her followers seek to identify with, and want to emulate, him of her. This type of leader is admired, respected and trusted.” Further, “transformational leaders behave in ways that;

1) Motivate and inspire their followers by providing meaningful challenges;
2) Encourage followers to envision attractive future states, which they can ultimately envision for themselves; and
3) Aim to expand their followers efforts in terms of innovativeness and creativity by questioning assumptions, reframing problems and approaching old problems in new ways;” (p.381).

Research has also linked transformational leadership with levels of emotional intelligence. Where, for example, Wang and Huang mention that “emotional intelligence is an emerging topic within psychological, educational and management research, and that it was Daniel Goldman back in 1995 who suggested that the best predictor of who eventually emerges as a leader is based on emotional intelligence (EI), which includes abilities such as;

Self-Awareness;
Self-Management;
Self-Motivation;
Empathy; and
Social Skills.”

 

John Ryan from the Center of Creative Leadership mentions that "as we explore what's new and meaningful on the frontiers of leadership development, we do know this: the context in which leadership happens is changing every day in every sector. We are living in a VUCA world: one characterized by Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity and will be for years to come. In a dizzying swirl of socio-political upheaval, natural disasters and volatile business markets, many of us stay awake at night wondering if our skills and knowledge are enough to see us through tomorrow or the next quarter. Seeing farther than that is even more daunting and yet we have to keep searching."

The findings from Wang and Huang’s study “indicate that leaders exhibit more transformational leadership behaviour when they have the ability to perform self-emotional appraisals; others’ emotional appraisals; regulation of emotions and constructive use of emotions. Their findings support the view that emotional intelligence is an important variable for understanding and predicting transformational behaviour. Their results also contribute further evidence that transformational leadership influences not only individual level consequences, but also group level consequences,” (p.389).

 

Genuine transformational leaders possess great referent and inspirational power (Bass, 1985) which enables them to gain the respect, admiration, and trust of their followers. They are also seen as role models who exert significant and positive influence on followers that creates a sense of meaningfulness (Bass, 1985). Employees who experience a greater sense of meaning from their work are likely to feel more empowered (Spreitzer, 1995) and proud of being a member of the organization, and thereby enhance their identification with the organization (Koberg et al., 1999).

 

In their HBR article from 2012 Boris Groysberg and Michael Slind highlight that “smart leaders today engage with employees in a way that resembles an ordinary person-to-person conversation more than it does a series of commands from on high. Furthermore, they initiate practices and foster cultural norms that instill a conversational sensibility throughout their organizations. Chief among the benefits of this approach is that it allows a large or growing company to function like a small one. By talking with employees, rather than simply issuing orders, leaders can retain or recapture some of the qualities that encourage operational flexibility, high levels of employee engagement, and tight strategic alignment.”

In the last few years transformational leadership has become one of the dominant leadership theories and applications for successful organisational development. Occasionally as a leader, it’s worth stepping back and asking; are you a leader who is admired, respected and trusted by your followers and your peers – do people in your organisation strive to be like you? An honest reflection will help you understand the difference between just being in a leadership position and actually being an effective transformational leader.

References:

Groysberg, B. and Slind, M. (2012). Leadership is a Conversation. Harvard Business Review. July.

 

Ryan, J.R. (2012). What's next for leadership? 5 big ideas. Center for Creative Leadership Annual Report, 2011-2012.

 

Yung-Shui Wang and Tung-Chun Huang. (2009). The Relationship of Transformational Leadership with Group Cohesiveness and Emotional Intelligence. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal; Vol. 37, Issue 3, p.379-392.

 

Zhu, W., Sosik, J.J., Riggio, R.E., and Yang, B. (2012). Relationships between Transformational and Active Transactional Leadership and Followers’ Organizational Identification: The Role of Psychological Empowerment. Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. p.186-212.

Are You a Company Man?

The pressure of work varies from occupation to occupation – some are more relaxed than others in respect of the hours of intensity that are required. I remember when I moved into the consulting sector in my late 20’s having to work 16 hour days at times, especially when we were analyzing a potential client before the ‘project pitch’. It was exhilarating and exhausting at the same time – yet I have no regrets for the intensity, it was required at that particular time and I learnt so much at the same time.

 

Fortunately it wasn’t ‘constant’ and to some extent there was a work life balance over time – and as you ‘earned your stripes’ in the industry from a ‘grunt’ (as us new consultants were called) climbing the ladder to project manager and above, the intensity shifted from ‘hours’ to ‘strategic output and relationship building’. So there is a time and a place for ‘intensity’ in some industries, within the career life-cycle.

 

Yet in some other industries there seems to be a slight contradiction between the concept of finding that ‘work life balance’ and how some organizations ‘drive’ their employees. Erin Reid and Lakshmi Ramarajan mention in their 2016 article how “tales of time-hungry organizations – from Silicon Valley to Wall Street and from London to Hong Kong – abound. Managers routinely overload their subordinates, contact them outside of business hours, and make last minute requests for additional work. To satisfy those demand, employees arrive early, stay late, pull all-nighters, work weekends, and remain tied to their electronic devices 24/7. And those who are unable – or unwilling – to respond, typically get penalized,” (p.86).

 

This is the ‘new’ world we live in. Since the financial crisis job security has been a key concern for most employees. The financial crisis brought with it a constant stream of job losses, which hurt the life’s of hundreds of thousands of people around the globe, where many have never recovered. The new demands put on employees are based on the simple principle that if you’re not prepared to do it – there are hundreds of people ready to take your place. So fit in or ship out.

 

Reid and Ramarajan suggest that “many people manage the pressure to be fully devoted to work by simply giving in and conforming. Indeed, at one consulting firm among the companies we studied, 43% of those people interviewed fell into this group. In their quest to succeed on the job, ‘accepters’ prioritize their work identities and sacrifice or significantly suppress other meaningful aspects of who they are. People we spoke to across professions told us, somewhat ruefully, of giving up dreams of being civically engaged, running marathons, or getting deeply involved in their family lives,” (p.87).

 

But this group have another secret – they’re not motivated to go beyond the basics. They will do their job – work the crazy hours and sacrifice their personal life – but they won’t be committed to the organization or be innovators and influencers. They look forward to the day they can either find a better job or safe enough to get their life back.

 

Reid and Ramarajan mention “another strategy employed by another group of workers is to devote time to non-work activities – but under the organizations radar. At the consulting firm (mentioned above) 27% of the studies participants fell into this group. These people were ‘passing’ – a term originally used by sociologist Erving Goffman to describe how people try to hide personal characteristics that might stigmatize them and subject them to discrimination. Consultants who were successful at passing as ideal workers received performance ratings that were just as high as those given to peers who genuinely embraced the 24/7 culture, and colleagues perceived them as being ‘always on’,” (p. 87.)

 

What’s sad about this group is that they are living a lie and apparently getting away with it. There’s nothing healthy about this group – to themselves or the organization – though both probably see this as a win-win, it’s actually a lose-lose as integrity and transparency have gone right out of the window. They are passing themselves off as company men or women – yet devoting time to non-work activities without being noticed. They will ‘sell’ this game playing as a survival tactic, but if you sacrifice integrity for survival in business, what have you really accomplished and what type of person have you become.

 

Yet Reid and Ramarajan highlight how “not everyone wants to ‘pass’ – or can play the game of passing – and some who initially revert to ‘passing’ grow frustrated with this strategy over time. These people cope by openly sharing other parts of their lives and by asking for changes to the structure of their work, such as reduced schedules and other formal accommodations. At the consulting firm, 30% of those interviewed pursued this strategy – identified as ‘revealing’. Although it’s often assumed that those who resist the pressure to be ideal workers are primarily women with families, we have not encountered enormous gender differences in our research. Data from the consulting firm showed that fewer than half of the women were ‘revealers,’ while more than a quarter of men were,” (p.88).

 

Employees should be able to be ‘revealers’ at any organization – as the concept of revealing links with the concept of transparency. This is the kind of organization culture leaders used to strive for – but it seems that standards are dropping in this regard. It’s in an organizations interests to offer an environment that supports a fair work-life balance; because if you do the rewards are best for everyone. The employee is motivated, more healthy, focused and energized and the organizations reaps these rewards through increased commitment, innovation, productivity and optimized sustainable growth.

 

Reid and Ramarajan found, for example, that “most organizations leave it to the employees to set boundaries between their work and non-work lives – often with the best intentions. When Netflix offered unlimited time off, for example, managers thought they were treating their people like ‘grown-ups.’ But proving complete freedom can heighten employees’ fears that their choices will signal a lack of commitment. Without clear direction, many employees simply default to the ideal-worker expectation, suppressing the need to live more balanced lives,” (p.90).

 

Sudden change can often be viewed with suspicion by employees. If a tough organization suddenly offers unlimited time off – the employee’s natural reaction is to wonder what the catch is. Are they trying to see who’s not committed to the organization and then the next thing you know they are downsizing and you’re the first one asked to pack your desk and leave. Organizations have to have a genuine trusting and transparent culture before you can start offering unlimited time-off. Change has to be managed, especially when trying to change from a distrusting to a trusting culture – it will take a long time and must be approached small steps at a time.

 

Reid and Ramarajan conclude by highlighting how “the pressure to be an ideal worker is at an all-time high, but so are the costs to both individuals and their employees. Moreover, the experiences of those who are able to pass as ideal workers suggest superhuman dedication may not always be necessary for organizational success. By valuing all aspects of people’s identities, rewarding work output instead of work time, and taking steps to protect employees’ personal lives, leaders can begin to unravel the ideal-worker myth that has become woven into the fabric of their organizations. And that will enhance employees’ resilience, their creativity, and their satisfaction on the job,” (p.90).

 

References:

 

Reid, E. and Ramarajan, L. (2016). Managing the High Intensity Workplace. Harvard Business School, June, p.84-90.

Is a Positive Organizational Culture Important?

Organizations have cultures that define them. In years past organizations would actually spend time trying to create a positive organizational culture that helped ensure employee satisfaction which then, in turn, positively supported optimal organizational performance.

 

It was recognised as a simple mathematical equation – a positive culture = a positive employee experience = optimal performance in the short and long term for the company.

 

The positive employee experience meant so many things to organizations. (1) That they could attract and retain the best talent; (2) that their culture encouraged, not least, inspiration and innovation amongst its employees; (3) they would have ‘natural’ leaders who would support their teams success (i.e. the employees are self-motivated to continuously improve individual and organizational performance); and (4) the culture would create positive energy that would be felt inside and outside of the organization, as the organizational culture supported not just their employees but their family lives as well.

 

Now in 2017 this concept of a positive organizational culture seems more of a legendary myth than reality on the ground – where for some reason the concept of organizational culture seems to be viewed dimly as if being concerned about it is a sign of a weak leader. Where in fact not being concerned about your culture is not only the sign of a weak leader, but a naive one as well.

 

Whether you believe in organizational culture and/or believe you can change it for the good – the fact is every organization has one. Sadly, in many cases today it seems that there are different views on culture within the same organisation – where leaders are often in blind denial about the culture they have created.

 

This type of ‘blind’ leadership will believe that they run a tight ship – directing their employees to achieve the goals they want to achieve. Innovation is considered ‘mutiny’ if it isn’t innovation from the top. Innovation from anywhere else is viewed as dissent and disrespectful behaviour towards the leadership elite – which over a short period of time drowns out all forms of innovative thinking from the mass of employees at the coal face, who actually are the only people who really know what the real problems are – and could offer solutions if only someone within the leadership would be prepared to get over their own ego and listen.

 

This leadership is command and control based – employees are simply there to serve their purpose, retention is ‘nice’ but not essential, employees can easily be replaced by other warm bodies desperate for employment, who will do as they are told to ensure they can put food on the table back home.

 

In fact these kind of employees are perfect as they will do as they are told and won’t make intelligent suggestions that may show up the incumbent leadership – who usually have been over-promoted for their ‘yes sir’ mentality, rather than their leadership experience and knowledge. Within these misdirected organizations there is usually a sad, negative culture of double standards – one set of rules for the leadership and another for the slaves, sorry that should be employees. Isn’t this the kind of culture that exists in dictatorships?

 

Organizational culture is important and should be something organizations focus on in the 21st Century – the benefits are actually huge for everyone involved. It takes a great leader with great insight and vision to see the benefits; and to be honest an idiot not to see it.

 

Although shareholders are often only short term focused these days – even for them, picking an organization with a genuine positive culture will pay-off more than an organization that has a negative culture; and for those looking for those long term sustainable returns, organizational culture is everything – or should be.

 

Sadly, as with ‘customer service’, experiencing positive organizational cultures are so rare in today’s world many employees have given up on the belief that they can or do exist anymore – but they do and they can; and it doesn’t take fairy dust to create them.

 

Leaders have become so myopic that too many focus inwardly on themselves and ‘how they look’ rather than embracing true leadership and creating structures that are self-driven, transparent and areas of true excellence.

 

We need academics and most importantly owners of businesses to draw a line in the sand now and invest the time and energy into their respective corporate cultures – it will be one of the best investments that they have ever made.

How Often Do You Receive Performance Feedback?

In an article in this month’s Harvard Business Review Lori Goler, Janelle Gale and Adam Grant mention how “performance reviews are awkward. They’re biased. They stick us in boxes and leave us waiting far too long for feedback. It’s no surprise that by the end of 2015, at least 30 of the Fortune 500 companies had ditched performance evaluations altogether,” (p.92).

 

I don’t fully agree with their comment about the link between feedback and performance reviews – as I think they are mutually exclusive and that whatever your approach to performance reviews, feedback shouldn’t be something you have to wait ‘far too long for’ and should be a regular event occurring on a weekly/monthly basis where the employee sits with their immediate boss on an one-on-one basis for a honest and forthright discussion about what’s going well; what isn’t (if anything); areas where improvement could be made (which might lead to development needs) and what’s going to happen in the next ‘period’ of time.

 

Feedback is different to ‘acknowledgement’ where acknowledgement is or should be immediate following a ‘job well done’ and where feedback is a more formal regular event. Feedback isn’t just the responsibility of leaders, it’s also the responsibility of employees to seek feedback – so if you aren’t getting feedback on a regular basis it’s your responsibility to ask for it.

 

What’s true is where Goler, Gale and Grant highlight how “as researchers pointed out in a recent debate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ‘Performance is always rated in some manner.’ If you don’t have formal evaluations, ratings will be hidden in a black box.” In today’s world we are rating ‘things’ all the time, virtually instantly, and ‘performance’ isn’t any different. But how we ‘rate’ and what we do with this ‘rating’ defines good leaders, from poor leaders (and good organisations from bad ones). If you don’t have formal evaluations then you shouldn’t be hiding your ‘tendency’ to rate in a black box – you should be totally transparent with your ‘black box’ and this is done through regular transparent feedback. ‘Black box’ mentalities lead to distrust and demotivation within the team, where there is no chance of honest feedback taking place and employees find themselves in a ‘toxic’ environment.

 

Goler, Gale and Grant mention how “we all want performance evaluations to be fair. That isn’t always the outcome, but as more than 9,000 managers and employees reported in a global survey by CEB, not having evaluations is worse. Every organization has people who are unhappy with their bonuses or disappointed that they weren’t promoted. But research has long shown that when the process is fair, employees are more willing to accept undesirable outcomes. A fair process exists when evaluators are credible and motivated to get it right, and employees have a voice. Without evaluations, people are left in the dark about who is gauging their contributions and how.”

 

The reality is that performance evaluations simply aren’t ‘genuine’ performance evaluations if they aren’t honest and transparent. All the talk about ‘black boxes’ etc doesn’t belong in the same sentence as performance evaluations; and it’s because they now seem to appear in the same sentence that performance reviews have become misunderstood and gained a bad reputation – but it isn’t the concept of performance reviews that is bad, it’s the people that have misused them for decades that have made them bad.

 

Goler, Gale and Grant highlight how “at Facebook, to mitigate bias and to do things systematically, we start by having peers write evaluations. They share them not just with managers but also, in most cases, with one another – which reflects the company’s core values of openness and transparency. Then decisions are made about performance: Managers sit together and discuss their reports face-to-face, defending and championing, debating and deliberating, and incorporating peer feedback. Here the goal is to minimize the ‘idiosyncratic rater effect’ – also known as personal opinion. People aren’t unduly punished when individual managers are hard graders or unfairly rewarded when they’re easy graders.”

 

Two of the authors of the article are from Facebook, Lori Goler and Janelle Gale and though it’s good that they are trying to use performance reviews effectively, it’s sad that they think they need their own ‘theory’ to mitigate ‘bias’ – as there have been tips and tricks on how to mitigate performance review bias for decades. One of the simplest, wasn’t to rate performance on an annual basis in the first place it was to give regular reviews based on a ‘management by objectives’ approach. This professional approach meant that ‘performance reviews’ linked with regular ‘feedback sessions’ to form a constant review of performance that didn’t leave employees in any doubt about how they were doing; and became a seamless ‘performance review’ that left employees motivated, engaged and inspired to over-achieve against their objectives on a continuous basis.

 

Goler, Gale and Grant state that “many companies that are abandoning performance evaluations are moving to real-time feedback systems. That is an excellent way to help people repeat their successes and learn from their failures. But it doesn’t help them – or the organization – gauge how they’re doing overall.” Again I have to totally disagree with their statement that ‘it doesn’t help them gauge how they’re doing overall’ and to me the statement sadly shows a misunderstanding about managing performance, reviewing performance and the art of ‘feedback’. Done correctly there is no doubt in the employees mind about ‘how they’re doing overall’ – and it’s scary that a company like Facebook could be so confused and misinformed about what regular performance feedback is all about.

 

The most important aspects of ‘great’ performance feedback is that;

 

It should be a regular, formal process.

 

Leaders and employees should be ‘trained’ in how to give and receive feedback – a skill that is rarely taught and hence where many of the problems start;

 

Feedback is specific, constructive and makes a real impact;

 

Feedback is genuine and honest, discussed in a ‘safe’ environment - which only exists in great organisations, with great leadership and a strong culture of transparency;

 

Feedback is based on specific objectives that leads to performance improvement and development needs as and when necessary;

 

The employee learns how to receive feedback in a constructive and not a defensive way; and to seek clarification from the feedback in a positive way, that makes a difference to their performance.

 

If you give regular feedback in the right way, you won’t need to only ‘rate’ your employees once a year; as through regular, honest feedback all your employees will be performing at their optimal level of performance balanced between the organisations ‘present and future needs’ – it’s a genuine win-win for everyone. So let’s take this opportunity to go back to basics; teach our leaders and employee’s how to give and receive feedback; and get back to giving regular, honest feedback to our employees – it will make a huge difference to the employees and the organisation.

 

 

Reference:

 

Goler, L., Gale, J. and Grant, A. (2016). Let’s Not Kill Performance Evaluations Yet. HBR, November, p.90-94.

Are You Image Focused?

Your personal brand is your unique competitive advantage which is a precious commodity in today’s highly competitive business world; and your brand is significantly affected by your perceived image out in the big wide world. It doesn’t matter where you are on the career ladder or what skills and experience you have – unless you have somehow saved enough money for your brand not too matter anymore, how you ‘promote’ yourself and how you let others promote you will have a significant short-term and long-term impact on your perceived image by others – and hence impact your dreams and aspirations on a business and personal level.

 

As HBS professor Laura Morgan Roberts sees it, if you aren't managing your own professional image, others are; "people are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace," she says. "It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish."

 

The art of developing our own brand is something that is lacking in many educational and business environments. Yet considering how important your image is in optimizing your potential future – the art of personal image and brand building should be a part of a teenager’s basic education from 16 years old at the very latest.

 

Professor Roberts highlights how “in the increasingly diverse, twenty-first century workplace, people face a number of complex challenges to creating a positive professional image. They often experience a significant incongruence between their desired professional image and their perceived professional image. In short, they are not perceived in the manner they desire; instead, their undesired professional image may be more closely aligned with how their key constituents actually perceive them. Members of negatively stereotyped identity groups may experience an additional form of identity threat known as ‘devaluation.’ Identity devaluation occurs when negative attributions about your social identity group(s) undermine key constituents' perceptions of your competence, character, or commitment. For example, African American men are stereotyped as being less intelligent and more likely to engage in criminal behavior than Caucasian men. Asian Americans are stereotyped as technically competent, but lacking in the social skills required to lead effectively. Working mothers are stereotyped as being less committed to their profession and less loyal to their employing organizations. All of these stereotypes pose obstacles for creating a positive professional image.”

 

The world has become a very critical and hypocritical place as we try to learn to come to terms with living our lives in such a public arena. The beauty about the human race used to be our unique individuality and yet this can feel like a curse in this new social-media focused world with people making blind judgements based on their own, often ignorant, ‘beliefs’ without even pausing to understand the situation and the facts. It’s quite scary just how quickly people are prepared to make huge assumptions and judge complete strangers based on as little information as a simple photo or set of words.

 

Professor Roberts reminds us that “even positive stereotypes can pose a challenge for creating a positive professional image if someone is perceived as being unable to live up to favorable expectations of their social identity group(s). For example, clients may question the qualifications of a freshly minted MBA who is representing a prominent strategic consulting firm. Similarly, female medical students and residents are often mistaken for nurses or orderlies and challenged by patients who do not believe they are legitimate physicians.”

 

She goes on to add that “In order to create a positive professional image, impression management must effectively accomplish two tasks: build credibility and maintain authenticity. When you present yourself in a manner that is both true to self and valued and believed by others, impression management can yield a host of favorable outcomes for you, your team, and your organization. On the other hand, when you present yourself in an inauthentic and non-credible manner, you are likely to undermine your health, relationships, and performance.”

 

30 years ago unless you were some form of celebrity or very successful business person, you were pretty much anonymous outside of your personal and business circle of friends and colleagues. You just had to worry about your ‘local’ image, which was pretty much in your hands to control. Probably 30 years ago people actually wished they could ‘market’ themselves more easily on a global scale, though it seems that we have gone from one extreme to the other.

 

In today’s business world “people attempt to build credibility and maintain authenticity simultaneously, but they must negotiate the tension that can arise between the two. Your ‘true self,’ or authentic self-portrayal, will not always be consistent with your key constituents' expectations for professional competence and character. Building credibility can involve being who others want you to be, gaining social approval and professional benefits, and leveraging your strengths. If you suppress or contradict your personal values or identity characteristics for the sake of meeting societal expectations for professionalism, you might receive certain professional benefits, but you might compromise other psychological, relational, and organizational outcomes.”

 

The desire to be noticed and be part of the ‘social media community’ must be tempered by the need to manage your personal image, both in the short and long term, to the extent that you feel in control of your ‘projected message’ allowing you to market yourself more effectively – which should be one of the core benefits of social media.

 

Professor Roberts concludes by reminding us that “first, you must realize that if you aren't managing your own professional image, someone else is. People are constantly observing your behavior and forming theories about your competence, character, and commitment, which are rapidly disseminated throughout your workplace. It is only wise to add your voice in framing others' theories about who you are and what you can accomplish. Be the author of your own identity. Take a strategic, proactive approach to managing your image.”

 

 

References:

 

Roberts, L.M. (2005). Creating a Positive Professional Image. Harvard Business Review, June [http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/creating-a-positive-professional-image]

How Will Future Generations View and Plan Their Careers?

The world is changing fast. It wasn’t that long ago that lifetime employment was a genuine reality for many; sons following in their father’s footsteps. This may not have been the most lucrative career, but you were pretty certain that you would have a job for life; and during this same period interest rates encouraged people to save for retirement, where you could actually get a reasonable return on a basic savings account. But in the early 21st century neither are on the short-term radar for the future – so what does this mean for future generations and what advice should parents be giving their children.

 

Just getting a solid education these days puts a youngster in debt right from the start – often with no guarantee of a job; and this is in first world countries like the US and the UK. Universities have become businesses looking to make short term profit, rather than institutions trying to match ‘local’ and ‘global’ manpower needs in different disciplines.

 

At the same time too many large organisations are abusing basic corporate governance requirements to make that extra buck for their shareholders. The recent scandal of VW cheating on the calculating and reporting of data on their vehicle emissions; quickly followed by Mitsubishi is another example of corporate greed; which seems to have become the rule rather than the exception. A further case in point being the banking sector; where we now see banks around the world cutting staff in the thousands after operating some shady deals prior to and during the financial crisis.  

 

So how and what should we teach the next generation to be street smart when it comes to their career planning?

 

There’s nothing wrong with a college or university education if (1) you know what you are getting yourself into from a financial perspective and (2) the subject and institution you choose will give you a ‘step-up’ onto the job and career ladder. Only kids from wealthy families can consider just doing a degree for the ‘fun of it’ in the future; and even in this case it’s pretty irresponsible of the wealthy parents to encourage it.

 

So what to do? There’s a strong agreement these days for becoming skilled in either a profession or a trade. But if you decide to go through the university route without a guarantee of employment afterwards, it’s worth having a solid ‘plan b’ in place that you can fall back on.

 

In fact with employment no longer being guaranteed it’s worth every young person having a ‘plan b’ career up their sleeves, where they know that they can always earn some form of a living regardless of what’s happening in the business world around them.

 

First, future generations should try to get as much ‘business’ exposure as possible during their school years – taking on holiday jobs, in both the profit and non-profit sector. It doesn’t matter if this is hard, manual labour or basic ‘station fill’ jobs – what it does is makes the kid aware of what work is like and all about. Where they learn as much from the job as they do from the peers they are working with.

 

Second, parents should encourage future generations to learn a trade that they can either focus on as a career; or as their ‘plan b’ to fall back on if and when they need too. This could be learning a trade in areas such as plumbing; electrical repairs/installation; construction; brick/stone masonry; carpentry; welding; etc. Having a fall back ‘skill’ will give you that confidence and assurance that you’ll always be able to earn some kind of living should you ever find yourself struggling to find employment and this is very smart thinking in today’s world.

 

Thirdly, become qualified in a hobby or sport that you love - this could be by becoming qualified as a personal trainer; or a coach in your favourite sport; a diving, skiing or surfing instructor – there are so many areas where you can combine a fall back qualification with something you love. You may not earn a fortune if you have to fall back on this as your main income stream – but at least you’ll be earning something while you hunt for that dream job. It also has a positive psychological effect on the individual, at a time when it’s easy for the job loss and subsequent job search to have a negative impact on ones wellbeing.

 

Finally if you have a love for languages then become fluent in one (or more) and you’ll always be able to act as a translator or a language teacher if your career suddenly suffers.

 

I’m not sure who’s teaching today’s younger generation how to plan to survive going forward in their lives. In some elements of communities around the world there seems to be an entitlement mentality – where some of today’s youth feel it’s their governments responsibility to give them a job – and not just any job, but a job they actually enjoy – and if the government can’t do that, then they should provide them with some form of social welfare so they can live without any really worry. This hypothesis is doomed to failure and sadly those that suffer are the youth. Is it all their fault – I’m not convinced it is. They see and read about ‘fat cat’ business men and politicians ripping off the very people they are supposed to be supporting – and probably feel that life is unfair and that they should be given a break too.

 

Sadly victim mentalities aren’t what the world needs to grow and prosper. ‘We’ have a lot of work to do going forward into the future – not just creating jobs, but ensuring there is access to enough water etc, as the population continue to grow across the world. So what the world is experiencing now is just the tip of the iceberg in respect of what the future holds.

 

In fact we knew 50 years ago that technology would make some jobs redundant or less human intensive – and yet there doesn’t seem to have been any real, clever forward manpower planning to strategize about how we create enough work for first world, let alone third world, populations – where citizens can at least earn a living wage.

 

Until we have politicians and top business leaders who can think beyond the moment – we need to encourage and teach our youth basic survival skills in the current global economy. As until there is real change it will not just be survival of the fittest but survival of the smartest – and with that in mind everyone should have a fall back ‘plan b’ career that they can fall back on and earn some money – should they find themselves without a job.

Why Do We Make Leadership So Complicated?

If you’ve worked for different bosses or moved jobs in your career to date, then it’s likely you’ll have your own idea what defines a good (and bad) leader for you, as well as all the categories in between. Then if you talk to friends and colleagues about what defines a great leader for them you’re likely to get similar responses;

 

They motivate me;

They listen to me;

They set the example;

They inspire me;

They have empathy;

They are fair;

They communicate well (and often);

They are transparent and trustworthy;

 

They’ll be other key attributes as well – but the list is pretty consistent across all demographic groups.

 

So, if the list of attributes is easy to collate and not that difficult to interpret; why is there a problem in finding and developing effective leaders?

 

It seems that our own individual desire to commercialize all elements of business is also our worst enemy for simplifying business and making positive progress in many areas, including leadership development. If you Google ‘Leadership Development’ you’ll get 107 million results – yep that’s 107,000,000. If you Google ‘Leadership Courses’ you’ll get 325,000,000 results and if you Google ‘What is Leadership’ you’ll be presented with 477,000,000 results.

 

You’d like to think that the 477 million results answering the basic question ‘What is Leadership’ would simply be ‘one answer/definition’ repeated 477 million times – but it’s not. So if we can’t decide what leadership actually is anymore, how can we hope to develop consistent, effective leadership? And what message are we giving to the up and coming generations who are our future leaders, who aren’t even in their career cycle yet – but are influenced by what they see and hear as they look for inspiration and direction.

 

If you look at the contents of many leadership programs offered by some of the top academic institutions around the world, you’ll find them offering modules that no longer focus on the core elements of leadership – motivating and inspiring people – but are more around peripheral business issues like negotiation skills; or aligning strategy and sales (a module in the leadership best practices course at Harvard).

 

It’s not that these peripheral modules don’t have a place in a leadership program for people in sales for example – it’s that these programs no longer look at the ‘people’ element and how to inspire and motivate them; or good communication skills; or empathy; or any of the key attributes people mention when talking about a great leader.

 

So if were not teaching or talking about the people side of leadership anymore, is it any wonder that there is this widening and confusing lack of a single definition as to what leadership actually is – and worse still, any wonder that leaders do not know how to inspire and motivate their people?

 

In fact it appears that all the things that leadership isn’t about – power, position, and hypocrisy – are being practiced more and more – and worse still, this is being accepted as effective leadership as long as the results are there.

 

This negative impact on effective leadership is heightened by the fact that ‘we’ seem to forget both history and the basics so quickly. History has shown that power will get results, but it also shows that power won’t get the best sustainable results for your organization.

 

Two of the major blocks as to why leadership won’t change for the better in many organizations any time soon are because;

 

Bad leaders will always develop and promote further bad leadership, regardless of results and their exposure to ‘effective leadership’ development programs – because they are addicted to the power that comes with the role;

 

And in the large multi-national organizations, bad leadership exists in the ranks because these people know how to play the corporate game and create a protective structure around themselves, very similar to a ‘mafia’ set-up – where anyone who poses a threat to their power base, is dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

 

The failure to develop great leaders rests firmly with corporate boards and major stakeholders. Boards that genuinely want to improve their leadership, first of all need to identify where the poor and bad leadership exists; and that isn’t going to be achieved by asking the leaders themselves; it’s only going to be achieved through managing by walking around. It will require patience as they build trust with their employees at all levels in the organization – and once the trust is built, they will quickly learn where their leadership problems are. Then as they quickly find the source of poor leadership, their response should be swift and firm, giving a clear message to the organization what kind of leadership is acceptable.

 

They then need to go back to basics and have a leadership development program from cradle to grave – that ensures a constant pool of excellent leaders at all levels within the organization.

 

The danger with the dilution and uncertainty around what effective leadership is really all about, is that ‘people’ lose sight of what the ‘rule’ should be and start to accept poor leadership as the ‘norm’ – once this becomes embedded in organizational cultures then the likelihood of genuine effective leadership on the job becomes nothing more than a ‘dream’ – and the disillusionment becomes the new reality.

 

It requires all of us that care about effective leadership to stop ‘fighting’ amongst ourselves with respect to things like what ‘effective leadership’ should be called or how it is defined – and just become ‘visible’ examples of what great leadership is all about.

 

The world is changing fast and we need to be careful that we don’t sit by as genuine effective leadership is diluted before our eyes effecting and impacting generations to come. Political leadership no longer sets an example of effective leadership and has become nothing more than media controlled entertainment; academic leadership has become so profit focused that it’s now business first and being an effective learning establishment second; and business leadership is sliding down the slope to create a new norm for accepting, what should be unacceptable poor leadership behavior that will take generations to reverse, if we don’t act soon.

 

Effective leadership is not difficult – it’s about inspiring and motivating people to achieve specific goals and in the process optimize their own potential. It requires the recruitment of the right people at the outset, the development of the right culture and then consistently being a role model of an effective leader, accepting that different situations require different leadership styles to optimize the inspiration and motivation of the employee.