Essential Qualities for Today's Leader

Against the backdrop of an ever-changing global business environment and unstable economic conditions, it's no longer sufficient for leaders to embrace the status quo. Today's executives need to use a more holistic approach to build a business.

Organizations used to rely on the knowledge, experience and expertise of their leaders to provide a competitive advantage. In today's fast-paced business environment, however, leaders must possess the wherewithal to deal with more dynamic scenarios.

"The organization has to lead change, rapid change. The environment is changing - someone's inventing something before you expect it or something is collapsing in front of your eyes: How do you respond?" said Pontish Yeramyan, founder and CEO of Gap International, a global management consulting company.

"It's becoming much more important to deal with change and creativity and innovation and speed and nimbleness," she said. "Those are part of producing the results; you have to pay attention to those factors."

Certain factors have required the role of the executive to evolve over time, Yeramyan explained.

"The role [of an executive leader] - as in always having to produce results, performing superbly, that kind of thing - hasn't changed," she said. "[However,] the environment is changing; therefore obviously it is adding more complexity and other things to take into account and therefore forcing evolution."

For one, today's leaders have to contend with an increasingly competitive global environment.

"Internally, organizations are a lot more complex, a lot more not just matrix, they're multi-matrix, " she said. For instance, Yeramyan said recently she read how an individual was expected to report to not one, but five bosses and found it challenging to align the objectives of all five.

Another quality required of the 21st-century business leader is the ability to think more strategically and to be able to look at the big picture.

"A strategy that is designed [with the big picture in mind] must be holistic, touching every aspect of the organization, including employees, customers, [and] consumers, and integrate all internal and external stakeholders, " Yeramyan said. "Viewing the strategy of the organization in a way that covers the entire enterprise gives richer and ultimately quicker decisions that impact the current performance of the business."

Leaders also need to be more authentic and to show their authenticity because this will enable them to more easily institutionalize organizational changes.

"The more real and vulnerable leaders are about what they see, the changes they want to make and the challenges they face, the more people will identify themselves with the leader and the more willing they will be to adopt change," she said.

Leaders also must foster a genuine commitment to develop others.

"[This is] internally creating the environment where people can grow, so there's the whole well-being [aspect] rather than buying expertise [or just] using people for their experience and expertise," she said.

Further, in the current economic environment, it's commonplace for employees to work harder and longer hours than they normally would, and leaders can help make it more meaningful.

"If they're working hard, they might as well have it make a bigger difference [than] just producing more money and making people rich," she said. "It's not just enough to be [concerned] about the stakeholders and being profitable and making the bottom line bigger - that's just the ticket to the dance. It's bigger than that - caring about the environment, having a larger purpose so the company makes a difference."

[About the Author: Deanna Hartley is an associate editor for Talent Management magazine.]

What defines your success

Last year… on an occasion where a very successful company's CEO was speaking in a seminar… he was repeatedly trying to convey a message to all the students of prestigious college… "What you do is not an important thing… How well you do your work is more important… that is what defines your success" Many of the students raised queries regarding the same statement… as some of these students were not convinced with this statement. The students said… only some professions are chosen ones. Some students said… they only wanted to chose what they think is a great career ahead. Some… wanted to say… only if it is a good company… they will join it… because that is what will give them a better tomorrow. CEO was not able to understand how to convince the students that… it is their hard work that counts and not any other factor…that can take to fame. He wanted to tell them…some people land up in the place they want to be…some people have to accept what they are doing… But… no matter what you are doing…it is only how well you do the task… matters in the end. He thought for a while…and immediately……told all the students…that he has a picture to mail them… That will explain to them…what exactly he wanted to convey in his message…he took all the emails…and then immediately that night…emailed them this photograph… which tell every one what was in his mind. TRUE… you give your best to whatever you do… You will get the best out of it. You should deserve… Before you desire Jonty Rhodes He was a national hockey player and hockey was his passion He was the hockey goal keeper for south african team. He had to chose cricket because he was forced to do so… Will that stop him from reaching to fame NEVER! He is the best… and people only know him as the best Moral : Dont ruin your career giving your self excuses that perhaps this is not where you wanted to land up.Try to focuss and enhance your capabilities in whatever you have in front of yourself.

"Impossible is Nothing"

10 Ways to Establish Accountability in Your Organization

In the world of business, achieving high performance is difficult without accountability throughout the organization. Contrary to popular belief, accountability is not intended to generate fear by blaming people for making mistakes. Rather, accountability means that people are truly committed to helping each other be successful by keeping promises and agreements.

Simply put, when B is non-existent in an organization, communications break down, assigning blame becomes the norm, and non-performers are virtually ignored. However, these situations can be prevented in an environment of accountability, even with company downsizing or rightsizing initiatives. In addition, improving morale, maximizing operating performance, and increasing profitability is more attainable in an accountable organization. Here are 10 ways to create an environment of accountability in your organization.

1. Set Clear Expectations.

By setting clear performance expectations and goals that are mutually agreed upon, you will reduce any confusion and misinterpretations. For the most part, expectations need to be documented, rather than verbalized to eliminate any opinions about non-performance.

2. Share Information.

Accurate, frequent and factual information needs to be shared on an on-going basis. By keeping your people informed, prevents any miscues or people getting blindsided. Sadly, some businesses put their people on a “need to know basis” which only hinders performance and de-motivates the people.

3. Deal with Conflict.

Undoubtedly, conflict will arise requiring it to be dealt with promptly and directly with the person or persons involved. Utilizing this approach is more effective than sidebar conversations deciding who is right or wrong, assessing blame, or even avoiding the situation entirely.

4. Address Non-Performers.

Without question, people need to be told that poor performance is unacceptable and corrective action, including follow-up, needs to be implemented. Allowing people to perform poorly, without addressing the situation, will eventually infect hard-working top performers. Consequently, everyone loses by carrying a poor performer, including the individual.

5. Measure Results.

Not surprisingly, it would be very difficult to know who was winning an athletic game if there was no scoreboard. In the same manner, measuring the results of individuals and teams, in order to let them know how they are doing is critical. As a result, this will make people aware of their successes and any necessary change in direction.

6. Focus on Processes.

For better results, focus more on processes and procedures, rather than the behavior of the people. If you want to change or influence behavior, it is usually easier to change or modify the process. More often than not, the process is the root cause—not the people.

7. Coach More.

Provide guidance to individuals that need to make a change, but don’t necessarily know the process to do so. These individuals differ from non-performers, since they have the desire and willingness to change. So often, people that are struggling are left to fend for themselves, because people are either too busy, or just not interested in helping them.

8.Be Proactive.

Take a proactive approach in developing people and continuously improving systems. By doing so, increases the strength and capability of the organization for long term needs. In contrast, operating reactively as a normal course of business can cause chaos and mental drain that can dilute accountability throughout the organization. .

9. Be Open and Honest.

Share your feelings with the people by letting them know that you care about them and that you appreciate their contributions. After all, the people in the organization are the value-adders and should not have to guess about where they stand. Besides, at a minimum, this will reduce any myths or rumors that can erode morale.

10. Follow-Up on Commitments.

Make sure that you follow-up on your promises to ensure consistency and, more importantly, people can rely on your word. Too many unkept promises are one of the surest ways to derail an accountable organization. However, if a promise can’t be delivered, than it is critical to let people know as soon as possible

HOW TO BOUNCE BACK FROM ADVERSITY ?

FEAR IS THE BIGGEST OBSTCLE IN LIFE – MOTHER TERESA

Psychological resilence is the capacity to respond quickly and constructively to crises. But resilence can behard to muster for many reasons. Fear, anger and confusion can paralyse us after a severe setback. Assigning blame ratherthan generating solutions is an all-too-human tendency. Worse yet, those to whom we turn for consel may offer us exactly the wrong kind of advice.

Decades of research in psychology, on topics including hardiness, learned helplessness, coping and the correlation between cognitive style and health, confirms that each of us has a distinct, consistent pattern of thinking about life’s twists and turns a pattern which most of us are largely unaware. It may be an unconscious reflex to look backward from traumatic incidents to explain what just happened. Such analysis can be useful, certainly but only up to the point where strong negative emotions start to p;revent our moving on.

We believe that managers can build high levels of resilence in themselves and their teams by taking charge of how they think about adversity. Resilent managers move quickly from analysis to a plan of action (and reaction). After the onset of adversity, they shift from cause-oriented thinking to response-oriented thinking and their focus is strictly forward.

When Adversity strikes:

Most of us go with our gut when something bad happens. Deeply ingrained habits and beliefs sap our energy and keep us from acting constructively. People commonly fall into one of two emotional traps. One is deflation. Someone who has marched steadily through a string of success can easily come to feel like a hero, able to fix any problem singlehandedly. A traumatic event can snap that person back to reality. Even for the les heroic among us, adversity can touch off intense bursts of negative emotion as is a dark cloud had settled behind our eyes, as one manager described it. We may feel disappointed in ourselves or others, mistreated and dispirited, even besieged.

The other emotional trap is victimization. Many of us assume the role of a helpless bystander in the face of an adverse event. “Those people” have put us in an unfortunate position, we tell ourselves (and others) again and again. We dismiss both criticism and helpful suggestions from others and go out of our way to affirm that we are right, everyone else is wrong, and noone understands us. Meanwhile, self-doubt may creep in, making us feel hopelessly constrained by circumstances.

Highly accomplished managers are confronting, in rapid succession, challenges the likes of which they have never seen before a world wide economic crisis, the globalization of business, the rise of new technologies, deep demographic shifts. Feeling discouraged and helpless, they turn away from the problem and unfortunately, from people who might be able to help. Even if these managers went to their bosses for guidance, they would most likely receive inadequate coaching. That is because most supervisors, riding their own long wave of hard-won successes, lack the empathy to intervene effectively. They may not know how to counsel direct reports they feel are not quite as talented as they were at escaping the shadow of defeat. They may be so well accustomed to handling adversity in ways that minimize their psychological stress that they don’t recognize their own bad habits.

THE CAPACITYT FOR RESILENCE:

Independent studies in psychology and our own observations suggest that the ability to bounce back from adversity hinges on uncovering and untangling one’s implicit beliefs about it and shifting how one responds.

Most of us, when we experience a difficult episode, make quick assumptions about its causes, magnitude, consequences and duration. We instantly decide, for example, whether it was inevitable, a function of forces beyond our control, or whether we could somehow have prevented it. Managers need to shift from this kind of reflexive thinking to “active’ thinking about how best to respond, asking themselves what aspects they can control, what impact they can have, and how the breadth and duration of the crisis might be contained. Three types of questions can help them make this shift.

Specifying questions help managers identify ways to intervene; the more specific the answers , the better. Visualising questions help shift their attention away from the adverse event and toward a more positive outcome. Collaborating questions push them to reach out to others – not for affirmation or commiseration but for joint problem solving. Each type of question can clarify each of the four lenses of resilent thinking.

Taken together, the four sets make up the reslience regimen.

A CHANGE IN MIND-SET:

To strengthen their reslience, managers need to shift from reflexive, cause-oriented thinking to active, response-oriented thinking.

Answering the questions:

CAUSE-ORIENTED THINKING	RESPONSE-ORIENTED THINKING
Control – was this adverse event, inevitable, or could I have prevented it ?	What features of the situation can I (even potentially) improve ?
Impact: Did I cause the adverse event, or did it result from external forces ?	What sort of positive impact can I personally have on what happens next ?
Breadth: Is the underlying cause of this event specific to it or more widespread ?

CHANGE AND THE MANAGER

Organisations and their managers must recognize that change, in itself, is not necessarily a problem. The problem more often than not is less than competent management of the change situation. Why is this the case ? Possible, and many pratcising managers would concur, the problem is related to managers’ growing inability to appropriately develop and reinforce their role and purpose within complex, dynamic and challenging organizations. This problem can be compounded by failing to address and adapt working environments in the face of impending change: the organization exhibits inertia which in turn leads to the direct targeting of working practices for change. According to Burns change is now an ever-present feature of organizational life, at both an operational and strategic level. Managers must realize that one cannot separate strategic change management from organizational strategy, both must work in tandem. The importance of the human side of change cannot be underestimated, one must identify and manage the potential sources and causes of potential resistance and ensure that “motivators” are built into new processes and structures.

COMPETENCY AND CHANGE:

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s organizations, both national and international have striven to develop sustainable advantage in both volatile and competitive operating environments. Those that have survived, and/or developed, have often found that the creative and market driven management of their human resources can produce the much needed competitive “cushion”. This is not surprising. People manage change, and well-managed people manage change more effectively. Buchanan and Hucynski identify the key managerial competence of both the 1990s and 2000s as being the ability to handle change, which in turn creates an increasing demand for the development of associated competencies. This once again places change at the centre of today’s managerial competency framework. Change leaders are seen as being a key feature in organizations. They both set the tone and are indeed part of it, they create and live within the social dynamics of the enterprise placing change at the heart of the organization

Managing change is a multi-disciplinary activity. Those responsible, whatever their designation, must possess, or have access to a wide range of skills, resources support, and knowledge, for example:

- Communication skills are essential and must be applied both within and outside the managing team

- Maintaining motivation and providing leadership to all concerned

- The ability to facilitate and orchestrate group and individual activities is crucial

- Negotiation and influencing skills are invaluable

- It is essential that both planning and control procedures are employed

- The ability to manage on all planes, upward, downward and within the peer group must be acquired

- Knowledge of and the facility to influence the rationale for change is essential

The list of competencies, or attributes, could be further subdivided, or indeed extended, as there is no such thing as a standard change event

CHANGE AND THE HUMAN RESOURCE:

Organisations over the past few decades have been moving towards flatter, leaner and more responsive structures. This has undoubtedly made many of them more efficient, in terms of their resource utilization and more effective in terms of their responsiveness to market demands. Technology has played a major role in ensuring that a coherent business approach and managerial performance can be maintained from a reduced resource base. The key to success in such moves has been the mobilization of the human resource. The revolution in organization design has been achieved by creating responsive working environments which emphasise the need to cooperate across and within functions; focus on service and quality, and search for holistic and integrated responses to trigger events; while encouraging participation, ownership and shared accountability

Will the 2000s be any different ? One would expect not. Managers and the organizations they serve will continue to strive to remain competitive in an increasingly global and complex market place. They will achieve sustainable growth only by embracing the power of communications technology, developing devolved supply chains and strategic alliances, and maximizing the return they receive from their accumulated knowledge base-their human capital. The knowledge they seek to exploit will be embedded across their supply chain and the barriers will be many, but ultimately success will depend upon their ability to tap into the human resource and release the potential. As ever the 2000s will place the leadership and the human resource, in particular their alignment with organizational vision and strategy at the heart of successful change management. Employees must be on “top form” and this can be achieved by considering their well being, stress levels, motivation and organizational loyalty. In today’s complex and challenging environment only by considering the employees “well-being” will organizations ensure productivity and alignment of interests during periods of change.

Responsibilities increase as the team matures and gains confidence. Teams are being asked to participate in the process of innovation and change, employers are seeking, and ensuring that they get, enhanced performance through greater involvement and empowerment.

For the manager this has led to an increasing emphasis being placed on project and teamwork, communications, customer awareness, auditing and quality procedures. The need to supervise, provide individual direction, motivate and control has diminished. Managers and leaders are being asked to facilitate events rather than direct; share responsibility and accountability rather than shoulder the burden; shape behaviours while building trust; and, develop and administer participative planning and control systems that build capacity.

There may be a danger that managers, amidst all this activity, lose track of their key responsibility and reason for being there in the first place. Managers are there to ensure that both they, and the processes and activities, for which they are responsible, add value to the organization as a whole. Managers of the twenty-first century are busy; they face challenging operating environments, multiple tasks and cross-functional responsibilities. In addition, they are increasingly encouraged to empower others and facilitate success. Ford and Greer suggest that we now may be in a situation in which organizations are failing to fully utilize traditional formal controls when managing change. It is becoming less clear who is actually responsible for adding value. Is it the organization as a whole? Is it systems ? Is it a combination ? Is it the manager ?

Successful change requires adherence to three key managerial rules – the holy trinity. The religious metaphor is merely intended to convey the importance of adhering to the rules. Those at the centre of significant change events must “buy in” to the process, without of course losing their objectivity , and believe with passion in the course of action about to be undertaken. If they don’t approach their task with commitment others are unlikely to be convinced, resulting in apathy and discord. Senior Management’s role in ensuring visible commitment and direction is pivotal. It is their role to set the tone and show belief

All so often the process, or the activities associated with a change, assume more importance than the change itself. It is often far easier to “talk good game” and plan for a future event than to focus the mind on ensuring successful implementation. The first rule of the “trinity”, maintain your focus, highlights the need to address such questions as: Why are we changing and what do we expect in return ? It takes effort to maintain the focus in a dynamic managerial and business environment. Attention and commitment will diminish as time elapses. Interest can be maintained by forcing the pace, organizing special interest events, recognize the core management team, employing “creative” communications strategies, and above all else ensuring continued senior management support.

No less important than maintaining focus within the “trinity” is the second rule of role awareness. Understanding the nature of the term “value added” assists not only in clarifying managerial roles but also in maintaining the focus. Change for change’s sake seldom results in any meaningful improvements. Change is costly, disruptive and potentially dangerous; it would be unwise to embark on the journey without first establishing that success would be both probable and beneficial.

The third rule of the “trinity”, maintain your goal, may seem obvious but it is often overlooked. Given that both the focus is maintained and roles remain clear, why raise the issue of goals ? The effective development and achievement of business strategies, as described in numerous texts, depends upon successful implementation, which in turn is dependent upon the effective management of the resulting change. Focus and roles apply to the change at hand, but by considering goals the discrete change is placed in the wider context of policy and strategy. There is little point adding value to a system that is at odds with the strategic direction of the enterprise, or in maintaining focus on a target set between moving “goal posts”. Change, whether strategic, tactical or operational, must be set in the context of general corporate strategy.

+++

Excepted from CHANGE MANAGEMENT – a guide to effective implementation by Robert A Paton and James McCalman.

CHANGE MANAGEMENT

A few years ago, British Rail had a real fall off in business. Looking for marketing answers, they went searching for a new advertising agency – one that could deliver an Ad campaign that would bring their customers back.

When the British Rail Executives went to the offices of a prominent London Ad agency to discuss their needs, they were met by a very rude receptionist who insisted that they wait.

Finally, an unkept person led them to a conference room – a dirty, scruffy room cluttered with plates of stale food. The Executives were again left to wait. A few agency people drifted in and out of the room, basically ignoring the Executives who grew impatient by the minute. When the Executives tried to ask what was going on, the agency people brushed them off and went about their work.

Eventually, the Executives had enough. As they angrily started to get up, completely disgusted with the way thy had been treated, one of the agency people finally showed up.

“Gentlemen”, he said, “your treatment here at our Agency is not typical of how we treat our clients – in fact, we have gone out of our way to stage this meeting for you. We have behaved this way to point out to you what it is like to be a customer of British Rail. Your real problem at British Rail is not your advertising, it is your people. We suggest you let us address your employee attitude problem before we attempt to change your advertising.”

The British Rail Executives were shocked – but the agency got the account. The agency had the remarkable conviction to point out the problem because it knew exactly what needed to change.

As Yogi Berra once said:

“Before we build a better mousetrap;, we need to find out if there are any mice out there”

COMPASSION

A plump little girl and a thin little bird

Were out in the meadows together.

‘How cold that poor little bird must be

Without any clothes like mine’, said she,

‘Although it is sunshiny weather’.

‘A nice little girl is that’, said he,

‘But oh how cold she must be, for see

She hasn’t a single feather

So each shivered to think of the other poor thing,

Although it was sunshiny weather.