Direction is critical for just about any organization's sustained success. A great leader at top makes a big difference to their organization. Everyone will concur with these statements. Experts in recruiting field mention the need for leaders at all levels, and not only that of the direction at the very very best.
Mention this issue, nevertheless, to a line manager, or into a sales manager, or any executive in many organizations and you'll probably handle responses that are diffident.
Leadership development -a need that is tactical?
Many organizations deal with in a general way the subject of leadership. Leadership is usually understood in terms of personal aspects for example charm, communication, inspiration, dynamism, toughness, instinct, etc., and not in terms what great leaders can do for their organizations. HR domain is fallen in by developing leaders.
Such direction development outlays which are depending on general notions and just great motives about leadership get axed in awful times and get extravagant during great times. If having great or good leaders at all levels is a strategic need, as the above top companies exhibit and as many leading management specialists assert, why can we see this kind of stop and go approach?
Exactly why is there disbelief about leadership development programs?
The very first motive is that expectations from good (or great) leaders aren't defined in operative terms as well as in manners by which the consequences could be checked. Leaders are expected to reach' many things. They're expected to turn laggards into high performers, turn businesses, attraction customers around, and dazzle media. They may be expected to do miracles. These expectancies remain merely wishful thinking. These desired consequences can't be used to provide any clues about gaps in development demands and leadership skills.
Lack of a common and comprehensive (valid in conditions and diverse businesses) framework for defining direction means that direction development effort are scattered and inconsistent in nature. Bad name is given by inconsistency to leadership development programs. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go...) and opposition to every new initiative. That is the next reason why the objectives of direction development are frequently not met.
The third rationale is in the processes taken for leadership development. Leadership development programs rely upon a variety of lectures (e.g. on subjects like team building, communications), case studies, and group exercises (problem solving), and some inspirational talks by top business leaders Team Development or management gurus.
Occasionally the programs contain adventure or outdoor activities for helping folks bond better and build teams that are better. These programs create 'feel good' effect and in certain cases participants 'return' with their personal action plans. In majority of cases they neglect to capitalize on the attempts which have gone in. Leadership training must be mentioned by me in the passing. In the hands of an expert coach a willing executive can enhance his leadership abilities drastically. But leadership coaching is too expensive and inaccessible for most executives as well as their organizations.
During my work as a business leader and later as a leadership trainer, I came across it is useful to define leadership in terms that were operational. When direction is described in terms of capacities of an individual and in terms, it is not more difficult to evaluate and develop it.
When leadership abilities defined in the aforementioned way are not absent at all degrees, they impart a distinct capability to an organization. This ability gives a competitive advantage to the organization. Organizations using a pipeline of leaders that are good have competitive advantages even those with leaders that are great only at the top.
1. They (the organizations) have the ability to solve issues rapidly and will recover from errors fast.
2. They have excellent communications that are horizontal. Things (procedures) move faster.
3. ) and tend to be less occupied with themselves. So ) and have 'time' for outside folks. (mistake corrections etc about reminders, are Over 70% of inner communications. ) and are wasteful)
5. They are not bad at heeding to signs customer complaints related to quality, shifts in market conditions and client preferences. This contributes to bottom up communication that is good and useful. Top leaders often have less amount of blind spots in such organizations.
6. It is better to roll out applications for tactical shift and also for improving business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Good bottom-up communications improve top-down communications too.
7. They require less 'supervision', because they can be strongly rooted in values.
8. They may be better at preventing devastating failures.
Expectancies from nice and effective leaders ought to be set out clearly. The direction development programs needs to be selected to acquire leadership skills that may be confirmed in operative terms. There's a requirement for clarity regarding the above mentioned facets, since direction development is a strategic demand.