Practice Positive Leadership

“Positive Leadership” doesn’t simply mean the absence of overt negativity. It means remaining purposeful in the face of adversity. While it’s important to acknowledge the obstacles your organisation is facing, don’t dwell on them in meetings or in individual conversations, and don’t bring up bad news before you’ve pointed out one or two things that are going well. Instead of being disappointed by where you are, optimistically focus on where you are going.

Right now, negativity and fear are probably knocking your people off balance. It’s a scientifically proven fact that the nature of our thoughts affects our lives in tangible ways. If you think your best days are behind you, they are. However, if you think your best days are ahead of you, they are. Therefore, it’s time to regroup, refocus and unite your people to create a winning mindset, culture and positive team environment. Remember, culture drives behaviour. You win in the office first. Then you win in the marketplace. With a winning team, you create strength on the inside that can withstand the negativity, naysayers and adversity on the outside.

Practice Positive Leadership

What Leadership Looks Like: Bill Walsh

When most people in the USA - sports fans, at least - think about the late Bill Walsh, they generally think about two things: (1) his creation of the "West Coast" offense, the fast-breaking, field-spreading plays that fundamentally changed football strategy on both sides of the ball; and (2) his three Super Bowl wins at the helm of the San Francisco 49ers during the 1980s.

He was a football icon, no doubt. But in the final analysis, he was really much, much more than that. He was a leader of the highest order, possessing attributes and approaches we can all learn from, regardless of vocation.

Here is an assessment of Bill Walsh and what his legacy as a model leader should encompass:

Intelligence: Without question, Bill Walsh was one of the brightest and most cerebral of NFL coaches. In fact, prior to being hired, some in NFL leadership viewed this as a negative, unsure how his brilliance as a behind-the-scenes strategist would translate into an on-the-field leader. The cynics were proved wrong and his brainpower became a priceless asset during his tenure as head coach at both Stanford and the 49ers.

Innovation: The West Coast offense was, in Clay Christensen's parlance, a "disruptive technology." In a similar vein as the forward pass, the West Coast offense caused competitors to rapidly change their schemes lest they get blown off the field by a high-percentage, fast-scoring offensive strategy. This meant re-fashioning both their offense and their defense, giving the 49ers a sizeable lead that translated into three Super Bowl titles in eight years.

Mentoring: Mr. Walsh was likely the one coach that seeded more future NFL head coaches than any other, creating a "coaching tree" that is hard to believe if you follow professional football. He was also a ground-breaker in promoting the case of minority coaches, including Super Bowl-winning coach Tony Dungy, Dennis Green and Ray Rhodes. He invested in his people and brought the best out of them, remaining involved in their professional and personal lives far beyond their tenure with his teams.

Confidence: Bill Walsh was certainly not cocky, but displayed a confidence in himself that clearly impacted his players and coaches alike. It also helped in recruiting. Who could turn down an approach from Mr. Walsh, whose intellect and on-field success built an already sizeable confidence in himself into an unstoppable force. His confidence was contagious and helped elevate those working with him to a higher level.

Respect: Bill Walsh had respect for his players, his staff, his opponents and the game itself. Notwithstanding the more aggressive techniques of other coaches, he treated his players as intelligent with men who were better motivated by teaching and guidance than by threats and intimidation. He respected the media, answering questions and not lashing out even in the face of defeat. His coaches were treated as integral parts of the system, not simply as cogs in his coaching machine.

Recruitment: He was one of the best judges of talent that ever lived. Whether it was Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Steve Young or many others, his assessment of value and his ability to realise that value in his programme was unparalleled. But none of this would have mattered if the players weren't excited to play for him, giving their all that was critical to the success of his teams. But he had an uncanny sense of which players to field at what time, creating match-up problems that directly contributed to their historic achievement in the most important games.

Just a good guy: Players, fellow coaches, sportswriters... they all liked Bill Walsh. What wasn't there to like? He may not have been an electric guy but he was a good guy, a nice guy, a smart guy, a sometimes funny guy. He just got along with people, people from different walks of life who had their own agendas and motivations. But somehow, he almost always left a good impression that served him well at that moment and beyond.

There is nothing about the elements of Bill Walsh's success that are unique to football. They are applicable to all of us who either are or aspire to be leaders, be they of teams or entire companies.

It it sad that Bill Walsh died such a young man.

What Leadership Looks Like: Bill Walsh

All Leaders Have a Brand

All leaders have a brand. Whether that term is used or not, leaders have an identifiable persona that is a reflection of what they do and how others perceive them. This is their leadership brand.

When it comes to cultivating a leadership brand, look no further than Oprah Winfrey, who recently announced that she would be ending her popular talk show in 2011. In a perceptive analysis, New York Times media columnist David Carr suggests that Winfrey's brand and the key to her longevity is a combination of things she didn't do as well as things that she did do. On the "don't do side," she did not over-merchandise nor take her company public; she kept control of her products and thereby her image, unlike Martha Stewart. On the "do side," she always stayed true to herself. As she told her business partner Gayle King years ago, "I don't know what the future holds but I know who holds it."

The lessons of Oprah's brand are relevant to any leader.

First and foremost, understand that brand is what you develop as well as what others perceive. The balance between reality and perception can be shaky if you are not careful, but as we have seen from Oprah, not impossible.

Here are some lessons for cultivating your own positive leadership brand.

Practice what you preach. It's easy to say, but when the going gets tough, how many supposed leaders disappear into the shadows? Those who lead by example are willing to make tough decisions and be accountable for the consequences. They are also willing to lend a hand to colleagues and direct reports. These are go-to people who work extra hard when necessary. Nothing is stronger than seeing the boss do heavy lifting alongside an employee during crunch time.

Act on principle. This applies to work, where principles determine the quality and attention you deliver, as well as to values, where principles determine behaviour. Employees who see their bosses standing up for the right way of doing things in the face of competition (from inside and outside the organisation) will believe and follow. For example, make certain that employees are compensated (either monetarily or in time off) for overtime and are receiving recognition for jobs well done.

Insist on integrity. When it comes to a leadership brand, integrity is the lever one uses to get things done the right way. That means treating people with respect, regardless of their positions. Act for the benefit of the organisation first and yourself second. Do things that honour the work you do as well as the people who work for you. Talking about integrity is one thing; insisting that you and your colleagues abide by is what matters. Integrity is not reserved for big corporate dealings; it can focus on small things. For example, in tough times, make the choice to fly economy class rather than business class.

Some who read this might be thinking, 'nonsense'! As a leader my job is to lead others not worry about my image. True, but not entirely. Your job as a leader depends upon getting others to follow your lead; they must trust you. Trust is essential to leadership, and a brand — how people perceive you — is critical to encouraging followership.

And there's one final point. Leaders make mistakes. A strong brand, just as a strong sense of self, can aid in a comeback. People will readily forgive a misstep if they believe your intentions were good. This applies not only to mistakes in business judgment but mistakes about people too. If you have done well, but make a bad call about a product or process, or even if you insult a colleague, a strong brand will give you a safety net. As long as you act quickly and make amends, you can restore trust because you have created a legacy of good will.

In short, your brand is a reflection of your credibility. Develop it wisely and nurture it carefully and it will help you create strong bonds of trust with your followers. Any doubt, just ask Oprah.

All Leaders Have a Brand

Charisma vs Character: Style vs Substance : What Kind of Leaders Do We Need in 2010?

The stock market seems slowly on its way to recovering from the financial crisis, but a deep scar from the recession remains.

In the USA, many Americans lack confidence in the nation's leadership to address the challenges the country currently faces. The Harvard Center for Public Leadership's 2009 National Leadership Index reveals that 69% of Americans think there is a leadership crisis in the country. 67% believe that "unless we get better leaders, the United States will decline as a nation."

At the bottom of the index's ranking of confidence in leadership are Wall Street leaders, closely followed by news media, Congressional, and business leaders. It is tempting for leaders to view these dismal results as a public relations issue emanating from the economic downturn. But this is not a PR problem: It's a leadership problem.

We opened this decade with a wave of appalling leadership failures. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling of Enron, Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom, Joseph Nacchio of Qwest, and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco blatantly disregarded the ethical and legal responsibilities entrusted to them by their shareholders. We are closing the decade with another wave of leadership failures. Dick Fuld of Lehman, Alan Schwartz of Bear Stearns, Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide Financial, and Chuck Prince of Citigroup (C) sacrificed financial prudence for the possibility of extraordinary short-term gains. Their decisions obliterated billions of dollars of economic wealth and almost destroyed the world's financial system.

This crisis won't be over until a new generation of leaders emerges that understands that long-term institutional stewardship and maintaining public trust are the two imperatives of 21st century leadership.

Far too many leaders fell into the trap of believing that the purpose of business is to maximise shareholder value and reap personal rewards, rather than serve customers and the society they operate in. However, those that focus primarily on maximising shareholder value—usually with a short-term focus—are more likely to wind up destroying the value they create.

Bill George is a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School, where he has taught leadership since 2004. In this speech he discusses the kind of leaders we need in 2010:




In this conversation with The Washington Post (Embed link), he explains why leaders should be "vulnerable" with followers, even at the risk of losing their jobs and why integrity ('doing the right thing') really matters in business today.

Bill George is the author of Seven Lessons for Leading in Crisis (JB Warren Bennis Series)

Charisma vs Character: Style vs Substance : What Kind of Leaders Do We Need in 2010?

Integrity

In the main the issues behind the more spectacular and well known falls from grace of leaders in the public eye could be grouped under a lack of competence, a lack of support or loyalty from those they sought to lead and a lack or failure of integrity.

Of all of these the last is the most egregious, the most fatal. We so much want our leaders to be unfailingly decent, an obvious or perceived flaw in integrity can be the toxin that kills them off. All of us have a reputation, something we are known for, sometimes different from what we would like to be known for.

At the core of this is the simple but fragile heart, our integrity; always under challenge, under tests both trivial and profound every day of our lives. In business, integrity is just as important as in any of the great public offices.

It is interesting to observe that many of the modern corporate failures in leadership have come from a failure in integrity by the leaders in question or, equally serious, a failure to diligently protect the integrity of the business, on which the owners rely.

Some may argue that this is more a case of incompetence but surely one of the first and fundamental obligations of competent business leadership is above all to protect the reputation and integrity of the business; to that degree the integrity of the business is the integrity of the leader.

During the past couple of decades the business community has seen an exponential increase in compliance-based regulations. These regulations have grown from a raft of incidents where corporations and their leaders behaved poorly, leading to great losses among shareholders. While many of these regulations seem to business to be burdensome and frustrating, their imposition is certainly a logical outcome of some outlandish corporate behaviour in the past. In some ways this framework of regulation can lead to a culture of "integrity by compliance", whereby corporate leaders (boards and chief executives) can increasingly feel that if they abide by the letter of the law (or regulation) then they have behaved with integrity.

The subtle shortcoming is that no system can ever describe the limits of obligation that must be self-imposed on the behaviour of men and women of integrity. And, of course, a business culture that assumes that within the regulatory envelope, anything else goes is obviously flawed.

Integrity

Make the Impossible Possible

Make the Impossible Possible: One Man's Crusade to Inspire Others to Dream Bigger and Achieve the Extraordinary

This is a very special book about a man who has lived, and continues to live, an extraordinary life.

Over the past 30 years, Bill Strickland has helped change the lives of thousands of people through the creation of Manchester Bidwell, a jobs training centre and community arts programme located in Pittsburgh. The centre works with corporations, community leaders, and schools to help give disadvantaged kids and adults the opportunities and tools they need to envision and build a better future:

“We greet them all with the same basic recipe for success: high standards, stiff challenges, a chance to develop unexplored talents, and a message that many of them haven’t heard before – that no matter how difficult the circumstances of their lives may be, no matter how many bad assumptions they’ve made about their chances in life, no matter how well they’ve been taught to rein in their dreams and narrow their aspirations, they have the right, and the potential, to expect to live rich and satisfying lives”

Make the Impossible Possible

Why Every Leader Needs a Coach

In the world of sports there is a natural tendency to respect those who have succeeded on their own. These are the Olympians who have climbed to the summit by sheer strength of will, and raw talent. They have shown us all how to win. They have made it look easy. These are the heroes of the press, and the public. We look at a Sir Chris Hoy or a Rebecca Adlington and marvel at their success.

But, what makes Sir Chris Hoy or Rebecca Adlington so good?

Each has extraordinary talent. Each has tenacity, focus, and perseverance. Even if they did nothing more, each would be considered good athletes in their respective sport. However, each has taken an additional step, a step that has helped them achieve their well earned reputation. Each has a coach.

Why would someone as talented as these players use a coach?

The answer is actually relatively simple. In the heat of the event, neither can be an unbiased judge of how he or she is performing.

The same is true in business and government. In the heat of the boardroom, when the future is clouded by the fog of war, sagging economies, and a need to change the organisation, leaders are not always the best critics of their own performance, or the best judge of how their behaviour is affecting the organisation. A coach who can view the play from the sidelines can be an invaluable ally.

The role of coaching in the business and government world has changed over time. According to a recent article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR):

'Ten years ago, most companies engaged a coach to help fix toxic behaviour at the top. Today, most coaching is about developing the capabilities of high-potential performers.' (Harvard Business Review, January 2009, "What Coaches Can Do for You", Diane Coutu and Carol Kauffman)

In the business and government world, about half of the coaches employed today are focused on the positive side of coaching, developing high-potential talent to assure top corporate performance. Another quarter of all coaches are focusing on strategic issues and organisational dynamics.

For the potential leader or manager seeking to improve and grow, a coach can provide insight into how behaviours are affecting the organisation, an independent assessment of the extent to which change efforts are achieving the desired results, or insight into which new behaviours are or are not working.

However, as the HBR pointed out in an article in 2007, learning and growing takes a significant amount of effort:

'The development of genuine expertise requires struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self-assessment. There are no shortcuts. It will take you at least a decade to achieve expertise, and you will need to invest that time wisely, by engaging in “deliberate” practice—practice that focuses on tasks beyond your current level of competence and comfort. You will need a well-informed coach not only to guide you through deliberate practice but also to help you learn how to coach yourself.' (Harvard Business Review, July-August 2007, "The Making of an Expert", K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely)

(Much of Ericsson's research is based on the world of athletic and artistic high performance - see for example, this 1994 New York Times article - http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/11/science/peak-performance-why-records-fall.html?pagewanted=all ).

Don't expect instant success, and at the same time, expect constant progress. True mastery of of any trade or profession takes time.

Finally, you might find the following very short video of Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, interesting. If Eric Schmidt can benefit from having a coach, so can you.

For further information on the business coaching and mentoring services provided by Positive Leadership, please contact Gavin Hastings (gavin.hastings@positiveleadership.co.uk ).

Why Every Leader Needs a Coach

Why Connectors are the New Influencers

Here is some fascinating insight from Havard Professor, Rosabeth Moss Kanter on how social networking is changing the concept of leadership influence in the 21st century:

'In the world according to Twitter, giving away access to information rewards the giver by building followers. The more followers, the more information comes to the giver to distribute, which in turn builds more followers. The process cannot be commanded or controlled; followers opt in and out as they choose. The results are transparent and purely quantitative; network size is all that matters. Networks of this sort are self-organizing and democratic but without any collective interaction.

The significance of Twitter is yet to be determined; it is a simple, impersonal, and transient application of technology. But very real network effects are a new source of power in and around organizations.

America in the 20th century was called a "society of organizations." Formal hierarchies with clear reporting relationships gave people their position and their power. In the 21st century, America is rapidly becoming a society of networks, even within organizations. Maintenance of organizations as structures is less important than assembling resources to get results, even if the assemblage itself is loose and perishable.

Today, people with power and influence derive their power from their centrality within self-organizing networks that might or might not correspond to any plan on the part of designated leaders. Organization structure in vanguard companies involves multi-directional responsibilities, with an increasing emphasis on horizontal relationships rather than vertical reporting as the center of action that shapes daily tasks and one's portfolio of projects, in order to focus on serving customers and society. Circles of influence replace chains of command, as in the councils and boards at Cisco which draw from many levels to drive new strategies.

Distributed leadership — consisting of many ears to the ground in many places — is more effective than centralized or concentrated leadership.

Fewer people act as power-holders monopolizing information or decision-making, and more people serve as integrators using relationships and persuasion to get things done.

This changes the nature of career success. It is not enough to be technically adept or even to be interpersonally pleasant. Power goes to the "connectors": those people who actively seek relationships and then serve as bridges between and among groups. Their personal contacts are often as important as their formal assignment. In essence, "She who has the best network wins."

Connectors have always been more promotable, even in traditional hierarchies. In my early research in a rigid industrial conglomerate (that has since gone out of business), I saw that women tended to be excluded from top ranks because there were so few women already in top ranks, and being part of peer groups mattered for career advancement. Wherever teamwork across positions is desirable, natural connectors who instinctively reach across divides to form relationships get the plum jobs, on small sports teams as well as in large companies. For example, on the North Carolina women's soccer team, a perennial winner among college teams, Jordan Walker was a team leader because she was a connector who helped other players work together, even though Coach Anson Dorrance called her one of the least athletic players he had ever seen. As for big business, during the Seagate turnaround, Joan Motsinger was asked to head a technical area even though she wasn't a technical expert, because of her business card collection, which made her a network star.

Network stars have social capital — a stockpile of personal relationships with many people whom they regularly connect to one another. Though technology tools are increasingly common to help people find connections, from LinkedIn to Facebook, I find that even the most technology-savvy leaders rely on their own personal networks to find the best resources quickly. The technology is so democratic that the information is considered less reliable. The human networks are what count. In SuperCorp companies with far-flung global operations, personal networks of people that managers have met or worked with are often better sources for key assignments than data bases of resumes. One manager in a high-tech company called this "the old-fashioned way, the knowing people type thing: I know a person who might know a person..."

To be known is to be in the know. This is why connectors with big networks have so much power. They don't need to be the formal boss if they have the connections. Nick Donofrio, former IBM executive vice president, encouraged 90,000 technical people to think of themselves as working for him, even though they did not work directly for him in any formal or official way. He answered hundreds of daily emails personally, counting on this as a major bottom-up source of information about issues and opportunities.

Social capital is often, but not entirely, correlated with length of organizational experience. The other factor is whether the nature of the job encourages getting to know large numbers of people — that is, whether the job involves mobility, a portfolio of varied projects, and participation in initiatives that call for communication across groups.

In short, giving people work that spans boundaries is a way to grow the potential for more connectors, in a nice multiplier effect. But ultimately the power of connectors lies in themselves, not in the stars. It comes from their own willingness to continue making relationships, passing on information, and introducing people to one another.'

Why Connectors are the New Influencers

What It Takes to Be a Remarkable Leader

If you want to uderstand the success of Silicon Valley and the leadership that Valley VC's provide to the world of technology, please watch this fascinating lecture from one of the doyens of the venture capital world, John Doerr:

What It Takes to Be a Remarkable Leader

How a Leader's Emotions Affect Workplace Performance

What if you could change the behaviour of your team or workgroup just by changing how you feel during the day? How about if as a leader, you could actually improve your team’s performance merely by shifting your emotions?

There is evidence that a leader’s emotions can influence others’ emotions. Now, research indicates the effect of a leader’s emotions go one step further. How you feel can impact workgroup performance, for good or ill.

A recent article in the Academy of Management Journal noted that a leader’s emotional tone interacts with the workgroup environment in specific ways which either improve or inhibit team performance.

The key to how your emotional attitudes will affect others lies in what type of environment you are working in. Angry leaders in low stress environments tend to see a positive performance result when they display anger. Workgroup members are most often able to identify the source of the anger as relating to poor performance and become motivated to work harder.

An interesting thing happens when deadlines loom, or the environment becomes stressful. Under such conditions, team members are much less likely to be able to differentiate the angry response as independent of the environment. They end up taking offense at the display of anger and become less motivated to perform for the manager’s or team’s benefit.

This is tricky stuff. Why? Because it means that managers must be able to read the environment accurately, and manage their own emotional displays intentionally - not always an easy thing to do, especially when stakes are high. When to be hard-nosed and when to be supportive become important factors influencing how well your team does.

Note that this doesn’t mean you have to display a happy attitude all the time. In fact, in situations where the stakes are low, sometimes your display of frustration will motivate folks to work harder. If you are going to display displeasure though, you need to be careful and intentional. Here are some guidelines.

Check your emotions at the door. Easier said than done, right? The first step to effectively managing your emotions is to become aware of them. Are you angry, frustrated, sad? Or are you excited and happy? The key is to identify these before the team interaction so you don’t need to act on them.

Read the environment. A key contributing factor to the performance variation regarding a leader’s emotional display is the environmental influence. Is your team having a light day and relaxing even though there is a project on the table? Or is there an immediate deadline essential to success? Is the team relaxed or stressed?

As best you can, act intentionally. Emotions can be highly influential of our behaviour. However, if you have paused to consider your own emotional state, and then taken the time to consider the environment, you can then make an intentional emotional shift. The team that is relaxing may respond to a stern lecture. The team under stress will likely respond better to a happy, supportive chat.

While this appears to be a simple three step process, it is considerably more difficult than it seems. This type of behaviour requires a high degree of emotional and social intelligence - and some good learning, training and practice.

This research isn’t condoning angry outbursts in a work setting. We need to be respectful and considerate with our colleagues. However, in our view, a positive leadership style will trump punishment and consequences over the long term in any organisation.

Knowing your own emotional state and the emotional environment of your team provide useful data you have about how your team is likely to respond and perform at different times. Teams are powerful precisely because they are interactive and interdependent, not only in their work but in their emotional and social domains as well. As a leader, you have a great opportunity - and responsibility - to guide these interactions for the benefit of your organisation.

How a Leader's Emotions Affect Workplace Performance

Why Ants Are Great Team Players

“Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role.”  Dave Brailsford, Team Sky

For more on how Team Sky is building a winning team, see - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article6922458.ece

Why Ants Are Great Team Players

Making Tough Decisions

Leaders often need to make hard decisions.

As one client said “by the time something reaches my desk, that means it’s really hard. Because if it were easy, somebody else would have made the decision and somebody else would have solved it. So typically, if something’s in my folder, it means that you’ve got some very big, difficult, sticky, contradictory issues to be wrestled with.”

Yes, it can be lonely at the top. But it doesn’t always have to be. There are times when a leader may want to involve others in the decision making process.

There are five ways a leader can do this. None of them are “right” or “wrong” – it all depends on the degree of involvement required and how quick the decision needs to be made:

1. Tell

“I want to inform you of a decision I’ve made and give you an opportunity to ask any questions.”

2. Test

“I’m thinking of choosing option A to solve the problem – what do you think?”

3. Sell

“I’m thinking of choosing option A to solve our problem – let me convince you why I think it’s a good option.”

4. Consult

“I need to select an option, and would like your input on which to choose.”

5. Consensus

“We need to make a decision, and I’d like us to make the decision together.”

If a decision needs to be made right away – and little involvement is needed, then the “Tell” method is perfectly appropriate. Examples of when this method might be used include emergencies or trivial matters, where the leader does not want to waste everyone’s time.

Generally though, the more buy-in needed, the more time it usually takes to make a decision.

There are pros and cons for each option. Obviously, the ones requiring less involvement are faster. However, with little involvement, there is little buy-in and commitment, and a missed opportunity to incorporate multiple perspectives.

Again, each of these options has it’s time and place. The important thing is for a leader to be clear with the group which option is being used. This helps set the right expectations and informs people how they need to prepare. When a leader bounces back and forth between options and doesn’t tell the group, it confuses and frustrates the team – as well as the leader.

Consensus will provide the highest degree of involvement, collaboration, and commitment. However, if mismanaged, attempting to reach a consensus decision can turn into the meeting from hell.

Making Tough Decisions

Are Leaders Made or Born: Hard Work vs Talent

Are Leaders Made or Born: Hard Work vs Talent

What do M&S and Chelsea Have in Common?

What do M&S and Chelsea have in common?



Jeff Randall gives you the answer in his piece in today's Daily Telegraph -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/6664637/If-Britains-got-talent-why-are-we-being-run-by-foreigners.html

Here's how he concludes his commentary on why, if Britain's got talent, we are now being run by foreigners!

'But here's a thought. If, contrary to jingoistic intuition, an influx of foreign management is really a boon to Britain, why stop there? Why not clear out the muppets who are running British politics and replace them, too, with imported talent? The Canadians have done an impressive job in cutting massive deficits, how about their poaching their leader? Just imagine – we could trade Gordon Brown for Stephen Harper. It seems like a good deal to me.'

What do M&S and Chelsea Have in Common?

Building a 'Leaderful' Team

Dr. Richard Ian "Ric" Charlesworth, M.D., was on the Australian hockey team for five Olympic Games, two of them as captain. He was also part of the team that won the World Cup in 1986. For more than a decade, many considered him the world's best hockey player. After his playing career ended, he went on to be head coach of the Australian women's hockey team, which under him won almost every top hockey contest in the world, including the Champion's Trophy, the World Cup, the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games.

As a coach he has been a revolutionary in his way of building winning organisations, by developing what he calls the "leaderful team," in which every player is prepared, technically and psychologically, to step up to lead--or to step back to support, as needed. The idea is to maximise the potential contribution of every team member in a way never before attempted in sport.

Forbes magazine recently interviewed Ric Charlesworth in two sessions: "How Hierarchies Do Harm" and "How You Can Develop A Leaderful Team" :

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/16/charlesworth-hierarchy-hockey-leadership-ceonetwork-managing.html?partner=leadership_newsletter

and

http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/23/charlesworth-hierarchy-leaderful-leadership-ceonetwork-managing.html?partner=leadership_newsletter

The articles are well worth reading.

Building a 'Leaderful' Team

Links Between the Lack of Positive Leadership and Stress in the Workplace

A recent study (2009) into 'The Impact of Managerial Leadership on Stress and Health Amongst Employees' by Anna Nyberg of the Karolinska Institutet (Stockholm) reported that:

“… significant associations were found between Dictatorial leadership and lack of Positive leadership on the one hand, and long-lasting stress, emotional exhaustion, deteriorated SRH [self-reported general health], and the risk of leaving the workplace due to poor health or for unemployment on the other hand.”

For more, see - http://diss.kib.ki.se/2009/978-91-7409-614-9/thesis.pdf

Links Between the Lack of Positive Leadership and Stress in the Workplace

Thanksgiving Thank You's

In the spirit of Thanksgiving, we would like to share with you the benefits and power of two simple words. THANK YOU.

They are two words that have the power to transform our health, happiness, athletic performance and success. Research shows that grateful people are happier and more likely to maintain good friendships. A state of gratitude, according to research by the Institute of HeartMath, also improves the heart's rhythmic functioning, which helps us to reduce stress, think more clearly under pressure and heal physically. It's actually physiologically impossible to be stressed and thankful at the same time. When you are grateful you flood your body and brain with emotions and endorphins that uplift and energise you rather than the stress hormones that drain you.

Gratitude and appreciation are also essential for a healthy work environment. In fact, the number one reason why people leave their jobs is because they don't feel appreciated. A simple thank you and a show of appreciation can make all the difference.

Gratitude is like muscle. The more we do with it the stronger it gets.

In this spirit here are 4 ways to practice Thanksgiving every day of the year.

1. Take a Daily Thank You Walk - Take a simple 10-minute walk each day and say out loud what you are thankful for. This will set you up for a positive day.

2. Meal Time Thank You's - On Thanksgiving, or just at dinner with your friends and family, go around the table and have each person, including the children, say what they are thankful for.

3. Gratitude Visit - Martin Seligman, Ph.D., the father of positive psychology, suggests that we write a letter expressing our gratitude to someone. Then we visit this person and read them the letter. His research shows that people who do this are measurably happier and less depressed a month later.

4. Say Thank You at Work - Doug Conant, the CEO of Campbell Soup, has written over 16,000 thank you notes to his employees and energised the company in the process. Energise and engage your colleagues and team by letting them know you are grateful for them and their work. And don’t forget to say thank you to your clients and customers too.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving Thank You's

Expressing Gratitude for Your Colleagues

“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Thanksgiving is a time to reflect on those things for which we are most grateful. And as a leader you know that it is important to express your gratitude - not only on key holidays - but regularly when the situation warrants. Although a simple “Thank You” can go a long way, you should always be on the lookout for additional opportunities to show your colleagues just how much you appreciate them and their daily contributions.

Here are a few suggestions of practical ways that you can express your gratitude for your colleagues:

Provide public praise for a job well done. Whenever a colleague performs exceptionally well, you should always acknowledge their accomplishments and celebrate their successes in front of their colleagues. To do so shows just how extraordinary the performance was and how much you appreciate the outstanding effort.

Offer to cover when a day off is needed. Do you have a colleague who has been working at maximum capacity? Show your appreciation (and your compassion) by offering to cover while he/she takes a much-needed break.

Lend a helping hand in return. Whenever a colleague helps you with an assigned project or lightens your administrative load by taking on additional tasks, thank them and then take action to find a way to reciprocate.

Give your undivided time and attention. Individuals feel most appreciated when their thoughts and opinions are heard and acknowledged. Show your gratitude by carving time out of your schedule to get to know your colleagues and provide them with your full focus and attention.

Present opportunities for growth and development. Show your colleagues that you appreciate and care about them by seeking out ways to help them learn and grow. Can you delegate an assignment that would provide a new learning experience? Do you know of a training programme that would expand their technical knowledge? A great way to show gratitude to your colleagues is to personally invest in their success.

As you look forward to Thanksgiving, take a look around you and ask yourself what you can do to express your gratitude to your colleagues. Seize the moment and show your colleagues how much you appreciate them and their continuous contributions.

Expressing Gratitude for Your Colleagues

Leadership Lessons from the past 18 months

The economic crisis and the entanglement of so many trusted financial-services firms have shaken our confidence in business leadership. The failure of expectations has been widespread, severe, and rapid. That discredits past leadership practices — but what will replace them?

The quickest impact on leadership in business will probably be felt at the board of directors level. Driven by fear of the risks that have been exposed, board leaders will start by changing their own behaviours. Directors want more visibility into corporate practices and risks, and more data to directly verify more dimensions of corporate performance. They feel their positions are much more on the line, and they are starting to ask for the staff and capabilities to do more checking up, probing more deeply even in areas historically left to management.

Boards will revise formal governance structures, adjust team composition, and reconsider the personality and skills of the people placed in top positions. As always, they will respond to prevailing interpretations of recent history. In seeking a new form of leadership, boards will start with the oldest truths: Those in authority must have foresight, and they must lead by example. They must motivate and inspire on a moral basis, through aspiration as well as rewards and punishments. It is precisely this calm, considered, and ethical leadership, required to lead large numbers of people when the economy is tough, that seems to have been in such short supply recently.

Guided by their boards, many institutions will recommit to public responsibility. Trust and simplicity will become major selling points. Enterprises in banking or in business in general industry that can command greater trust or offer closer connections with their customers will enjoy substantial opportunities.

Many companies will also need to find structures and processes, both formal and informal, that challenge thinking and retain productive dissent. The leadership team form will be left intact, but its potential will be tapped in new ways. Teams will be populated with more diverse personalities, whose challenge will be to work together to set some new directions and renew moral leadership while paying closer attention to day-to-day execution.

These leadership team members will have to learn to recognise the power of the unknowable. We have found out the hard way that conceptual financial models, which seemed for a time to provide a new means of rapid growth, can actually obscure the underlying realities of the economic system. We now have some catching up to do as we recognise the failure of these models to comprehend and control the complexity and interdependence of our world. Leaders in financial services might do better if they understood that we human beings are all limited, that our best course is to accept that we are intrinsically prone to get things wrong, that we need to keep our wits about us, and that to succeed in the arcane world of finance, we need most of all to stay grounded in day-to-day reality.

We must promote leaders for whom doubt and uncertainty are simply a part of the human condition, not the enemy of action or a sign of weakness. They must tolerate questioning and doubt within their own organisations, and apply it productively themselves. We must make it an organisational habit to regularly challenge even what seems to be most obviously true, to remain open to different types of data, especially including direct experiential and “feet on the street” observations.

The makeup and management of executive teams may have to change. The evidence is clear that the most productive teams contain diverse people. Teams composed of people from a range of backgrounds outperform teams composed entirely of the so-called best and brightest, for example. And those who shrink from conflict or believe that only harmonious teams can be effective will also disapprove of the kind of open dissent that encourages better leadership and decision making. That is a different definition of productive teamwork than has been applied in the past.

If people recognise this, we should see improvements in the organisation and management of executive teams and boards. In composing teams, boards will tend to favour a diversity of characteristics, and they should guard against the drift toward homogenisation.

This type of governance structure is made even more necessary by the fact that only 25 percent of new ceo's today come from outside the company. Consequently, the outsider’s perspective is not coming from top executives. Many corporate leaders will thus need organisational innovations that provide visibility and challenge to management at quite detailed levels. The financial control function at most companies is an excellent and well-established example; this oversight arrangement can be extended to other corporate functions.

The most successful leaders of these newly transformed organisations will do one more thing distinctively well. They will set the overall purpose and mission of the organisation, not just its strategy. Indeed, they will often concentrate on corporate purpose or mission, leaving strategies to the executive team. We already know that companies with an articulated purpose that goes beyond simply the expediency of “making more money” have fared much better in the downturn. They will also fare better in the recovery. But this will depend on the temperament of leadership. If we are fortunate, the leaders who emerge this time will be honest, robust, and farsighted enough that their prevailing style will last for some time.

Leadership Lessons from the past 18 months

New Leadership Study Focuses on People-Led Economy

The demands of our new economy and opportunities to succeed will be much greater for business leaders who understand and foster a "people-led approach" in their organisations, according to a new study by the Forum for People Performance Management and Measurement.

The study, 'Leadership and the Performance of People in Organizations: Enriching Employees and Connecting People', points out that today's leaders must take into account the erosion of trust in management over the last few years and the changes in a workforce that is using technology to form personal connections both beyond - and within - the workplace.

"These enhanced connections should result in what the study's researchers call a 'constituent-based approach to leadership,'" says Michelle M. Smith, Forum president. "This approach successfully balances the needs of employees, consumers, shareholders and the community at large and ensures that their needs are met in an authentic and transparent manner."

Practicing a people-centred management and leadership style can pay off handsomely. According to the Forum study, companies practicing this approach have seen positive bottom line results in which value emerges for every constituent. They refer to this as the Human Value Connection.

The Forum for People Performance Management and Measurement (http://www.performanceforum.org/ ) is a research center within the Medill Integrated Marketing Communications graduate program at Northwestern University. A central objective of the Forum is to develop and disseminate knowledge about communications, motivation and management so that businesses can better design, implement and manage Employee Engagement initiatives inside and outside the organisation.

New Leadership Study Focuses on People-Led Economy

5 Ways to Manage Like a CEO

1.Focus on critical, trouble areas and leave everything else alone. Successful CEOs have learned to rapidly determine when a direct report or functional area is in trouble. Then, with laser-like precision, they go to work on determining what’s wrong and resolving the issue with all due haste. Because of the focus required, too many problem areas can spell trouble, which leads us to the next point.

2.Hire functional experts who are also solid, upcoming managers. The order and choice of words is critical here. You can mentor capable, upcoming managers, but you probably can’t teach them a functional expertise, nor should you or will you have the time. If they’re not eminently capable, you can end up with multiple critical simultaneous problems, which could be job or even career-ending.

3.Business comes first. Business and customers always, always, always come first. Now, that doesn’t mean you let morale get out of control or internal processes fall apart, but you must recognise that the primary function of the business is business, and that means customers and sales. Any manager who doesn’t get that is doomed to mediocrity and stagnation.

4.Manage up. A critical function of any manager is to provide his boss with what she needs to succeed, and in a manner that fosters a compatible and mutually beneficial relationship. And frankly, that goes for peers, too. If you sense your boss and peers are not getting what they need from you, meet one-on-one and ask. Successful CEOs work with their boards and other key stakeholders the same way.

5.Help to “manage the company.” This is a critical mindset that can make all the difference in your career. If you have a strong silo mentality - my group is all that matters - you will never move up. But if you always remember that one of your priorities is to help “manage the company,” then your chances are great increased. Why? That mindset gives you a broader perspective that will indeed help the company and be positively perceived by peers and executive management.

5 Ways to Manage Like a CEO

Leadership Lessons from the Military - For Women

1.Lead as you are. Some women think they have to act macho or talk in a deep voice. Forget it. The troops will appreciate it more if you behave like yourself.

2.Avoid emotional outbursts. As one drill instructor put it: “Save the drama for yo’ mama.” Never, ever cry at work.

3.Set higher standards for yourself than for others.

4.Don’t apologise for something that’s not your fault. Example: Never say “I’m sorry” when you interrupt a meeting. Say “Excuse me.” And when you do screw up, say you’re sorry once.

Leadership Lessons from the Military - For Women

So Whatever Happened to Command-and-Control Leadership?

One former RBS employee said the previous ceo had 'created a culture of fear.' New ceo Stephen Hester has a different and clear vision for the bank: "I have set out to drive very clearly a spirit of openness, transparency, disclosure, of blunt-speaking, thoughtfulness, and empowerment.."  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8218043.stm

Is it any wonder that the RBS (pre October 2008) has become a seminal case study in poor leadership?

Fear is not a motivating factor. You might be able to get a little bit more out of someone in the short term, but you will completely erode your business and your culture in the long term. You’re going to lose all your good people. You’re not going to have people tell you the truth, and it becomes the tradition.

Command and control leadership is not culturally relevant anymore. Even if you look at generations who are coming up, the idea that you need somebody to tell you what to do and not think for yourself — that’s not today's culture. With that sort of manager or ceo, you’re not going to keep intelligent, inspired talent, because they want some form of entrepreneurial environment to be able to exercise their talent. Leaders need to challenge colleagues to be able to do that, not tell them to do something 'my way', especially when they might be able to do it better! Also, all organisations are significantly diverse today. Command-and-control isn’t the kind of corporate culture people want to be in anymore.

So Whatever Happened to Command-and-Control Leadership?

68 Rules? No, Just 3 Are Enough

William D. Green, chairman and ceo of Accenture explains:

'I once sat through a three-day training session in our company, and this was for new managers, very capable people who were ready for a big step up. I counted, over three days, 68 things that we told them they needed to do to be successful, everything from how you coach and mentor, your annual reviews, filling out these forms, all this stuff.

And I got up to close the session, and I’m thinking about how it isn’t possible for these people to remember all this. So I said there are three things that matter. The first is competence — just being good at what you do, whatever it is, and focusing on the job you have, not on the job you think you want to have.

The second one is confidence. People want to know what you think. So you have to have enough desirable self-confidence to articulate a point of view.

The third thing is caring. Nothing today is about one individual. This is all about the team, and in the end, this is about giving a damn about your customers, your company, the people around you, and recognising that the people around you are the ones who make you look good.

When young people are looking for clarity — this is a huge, complex global company, and they wonder how to navigate their way through it — I just tell them that.'

For more, see - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/business/22corner.html?pagewanted=1&ref=business

68 Rules? No, Just 3 Are Enough