Coaching Churches

I remember speaking at a national conference on the subject of Leadership for 21^st Century.  The major point of my presentation was the need to shift from a positional leadership model to a participative one.

The feedback after both of my sessions confirmed everything I have been reading and experiencing on this subject.  The consensus is there is very little honest and clear communication taking place between key leaders and their teams on an ongoing basis.

The challenge for most corporations today is that the majority of senior management positions are filled by baby boomer age leaders who know primarily a positional leadership model.  They were trained that way academically and that is the only system that has been a part of their entire career.

The new workforce is made up of Generation X and Millennial employees that have an entirely different world view that impacts how they view their career and life in general.   They are highly motivated and want to be a part of an interactive team where they can actively participate in the process of leadership.

If we do not provide the critical situational leadership skills that both new generations need then we are creating unnecessarily a leadership cultural war that can destroy morale and diminish productivity.  The result of any lack of relevant training is that the older generation think the younger ones are too aggressive and the younger ones are convinced that the old guard will simply not let go and delegate.

I have become an expert over the years at giving a conditional apology.  The first part of the statement of regret is usually close but then comes the rational reason why I did the wrong things.  My motives have also been an ongoing issue, to relive the awkward situation far more than genuine remorse for my offensive behavior.  This HBR post is an excellent read:

“It’s hard to admit our transgressions — to look someone in the eye and offer a sincere apology. But apologies are essential for repairing relationships in the workplace. They show that you value the relationship and that other person’s point of view.”

Read More …

This by far is one of the most important principles identified by John Maxwell in the realm of leadership.  The simple definition of the law is that a leader’s potential is determined by those closest to them.

As any organization continues to grow the leader cannot continue to spend equal time with every person on staff because of time constraints alone.  This means that eventually the majority of a leader’s time will be need to be spent with the top 20% of their leadership team.

It is a proven leadership principle that they in turn will produce at least 80% of the desired results because of the scope of their impact throughout the entire organization.  The leader is incredibly dependent upon this inner circle because they are responsible for providing the best information possible upward for decision making and they are also responsible for the downward execution of all planning.

Leaders of large organizations should still spend some time managing by walking around and maintain some personal contact with all levels of staff.  However, the purpose of this interaction is for personal encouragement and visibility and not for problem solving and day to day decision making.  The leader can be involved to some degree with everyone but they must invest themselves only in the inner circle because they are the key to continued growth and outstanding performance.

When hiring any new employee you can ultimately place all of the criteria you are evaluating into the two major categories of character and competency.  In the old days of the Industrial Age model of hiring the priority was given to job competency over personal character.

The process was started with a specific job description and then you would try to find a person with an educational and experience background that matched that job assignment.  Their character was a factor but just not the main one.

In the new Information Age character has now clearly moved to the top of the list.  Today you find the right person that will be a good fit for your team and over time you know they will find their right seat on the bus.

Jack Welch had three major things he was looking for at General Electric with all new executives.  Two of these criteria related to character and only one to competency.

The first test was integrity because he wanted to know they would keep their word and tell the truth.

The second test was for intelligence because it takes smart people to compete in today’s complex global economy.

The third test was for personal maturity which means they can handle the stress and setbacks with equal parts of joy and humility.

The major reason for this significant shift in hiring priorities is that people now have to know how to work well in a highly participative environment.  In this culture the mutual goals of the group are the target and not just personal success.

Everyone must have the mindset that what matters is that we succeed regardless of who gets the credit.  Competency will always play a part in the hiring decision but today personal character clearly separates the winners from the losers.

In my opinion the best organizational leadership book that has been written is Good to Great by Jim Collins.  It proves beyond any doubt some things we have always know about effective leadership but he discovers some key principles that fly in the face of everything we have been taught in the past.

One thing that is really not new but clearly prioritized in his book is the importance of character in the life of any leader.  Character ensures that the motives of the leader are always focused on what is best for the people they are leading and not for themselves.

The most significant myth that this book destroys about great leaders is that they all must be very outgoing cheerleader type personalities and that they have to lead with an authoritarian dictatorial style to be effective.

According to Collins, “Level 5 leaders display a compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated.  In contrast, two thirds of the comparison companies had leaders with gargantuan personal egos that contributed to the demise or continued mediocrity of the company.”

This personality type should never be mistaken for laid back soft leaders who don’t have the strength to make the hard calls.  As a matter of fact they combine humility with an incredible strong will to make sure the right things are getting done.  If they have to they would fire their mother if that is what was necessary for the long term benefit of the organization.

They also give credit to others when things are going well and when they are not they assume personal responsibility.  This combination of personal humility and professional will make for the type of leader anyone would want to follow.