Innovation through creative leadership
Innovation is connected to inspiration. That is a statistical fact. Frankly, we were a bit surprised at the strong link between the two. We never would have predicted it. But in every organization that we studied, this factor jumped out. There is obviously something about a leader’s encouraging innovation that has an extremely powerful impact on people. People are jazzed by the opportunity to participate in new and exciting activities. http://ift.tt/2cRzoy1What the leader did was create not only an environment in which people felt free to bring in fresh ideas, but, even better, an environment in which injecting new points of view was both strongly encouraged and expected. Many of us have encountered the leader who finds a variety of reasons to resist any new ideas that come from someone else. They’ve been jokingly described as “abominable no-men.” (We quickly acknowledge that some women deserve that description as well.) In some cases, it is because the leader likes things just as they are now. Much like the dread of buying a new pair of shoes that will be stiff and uncomfortable and require giving up the comfort of a well-broken-in older pair, the contemplation of new processes, new products, or new people can be disquieting. In other cases, this attitude appears to be driven by pride or arrogance. The logic (or illogic) trail goes something like this: I’m the boss. Good ideas should come from me. I didn’t think of it, so therefore it can’t be a good idea. Worse yet, if I accept a subordinate’s idea, someone in the organization might think my subordinate should be the boss. That is even more unacceptable, so obviously I cannot accept this idea. Whatever the reason, leaders who resist ideas that don’t come from themselves are all too prevalent in organizations. WHAT THE CREATIVE LEADER SEEKS TO CREATEA Dynamic Culture and EnvironmentConsider two working environments.The first is extremely static. Things don’t ever appear to change. The paint on the walls never changes. The office furniture never changes. The way paperwork is processed is identical to the way it was processed five years ago. People come in exactly on time, and they leave exactly on time. There are no sounds of laughter in the halls. Instead, the tone feels like a library of yesteryear. Everything is businesslike and buttoned-down. People appear to hibernate in their cubicles. The manager stays in her office, and staff members occasionally go in to discuss some matter they feel they can’t decide alone.The second environment is virtually the opposite. The new manager walks around the office and frequently asks about ways to do things better. Nothing seems off limits. He gives positive reinforcement for what is happening, and periodically asks, “Why do we need this form?” “What’s the reason for this procedure?” “Have you considered any other ways of tracking customer usage of this product?” The tone of these questions is true curiosity, never accusatory. As project teams are created, office furniture is moved around, and people end up in new offices or cubicles in order to be nearer the people they work with. Several informal discussions take place, occasionally punctuated with loud laughter. Offices are decorated with personal objects and pictures obviously drawn by the employees’ children. There is a tangible feeling of excitement that permeates people’s activities. In which environment would you be more inspired? (Yes, we agree. That’s almost a silly question.) The climate in which change is encouraged, innovation is expected, and things are not regimented is far more inspiring to nearly all of us. The takeaway for the reader is a recommendation to perform a realistic, frank analysis of the climate of the organization you manage. Does it more closely resemble the first or the second? Before considering any specific techniques or steps to take, reflect on the culture that’s currently in place. If it has several elements of the first scenario, then take some steps to shake things up. Just as rearranging the furniture in your home or apartment serves to break the monotony, so little things make a big difference in an organization’s culture. Ask trusted leadership team development members for suggestions as to what changes would make the most difference. Innovation Happening at All Levels and within All FunctionsGeneral Electric has long enjoyed a reputation for forward thinking. Under Jack Welch, it was recognized for its decision to become number one or number two in each market it served, and if that was not possible, Welch wanted GE to get out. Its reputation was one of a strong focus on delivering results and operational excellence. Welch expanded the organization through diversification into new industries. He acquired countless new operations and divested companies that did not meet his standards for producing a positive return.Upon Welch’s retirement, Jeffrey Immelt was elected chairman and CEO of the firm. His emphasis shifted to a much stronger focus on innovation and internal growth. All executives were expected to come up with one or two bold initiatives that would grow their part of the business in a dramatic way. Small, incremental gains were to be augmented with serious innovation and growth plans that could have a significant impact on GE’s bottom line. Immelt paid close personal attention to the top 20 projects that were selected by the management team leadership skills to receive corporate support. Innovation Becoming Embedded in the SystemsWhen the right environment is created and combined with the expectation that everyone will contribute to the innovation process, then a steady stream of good ideas for new products, services, marketing techniques, and ways to better manage the business come forth on a regular basis.One of the most innovative organizations that many of us frequently encounter is a California company, OXO, that produces innovative kitchen utensils.Regina Schrambling wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Ever since Oxo came out with a Good Grips vegetable peeler in 1990 that changed the way America prepped mashed potatoes, the company has become so known for its hyper-clever takes on everyday things that the wow factor should be increasingly difficult to come by.” Visitors to the company’s home office observe 40 employees dwelling on the details of various kitchen gadgets. The key to their success is that they really “sweat the small stuff.” Every kitchen utensil is fair game for radical improvement. This all began when the founder, Sam Farber, modified some kitchen utensils for his wife, who suffered from arthritis. Now teams work for years trying to perfect a new product, and after it is released, they immediately begin analyzing what is wrong with it and how it could be improved. A new design is never good enough and is never off-limits for further improvement. Over 500 products have been OXOized since those early days of the swivel peeler. It now comes in multiple styles, and one even has a replaceable blade. Aim Is High and Not Satisfied with Tiny StepsOXO is a good example of a focus on innovation that is not content with mere line extensions for old products or “me-too” products that copy a competitor. When the right climate is created, there are no restrictions on the boldness or scope of the proposed innovation. It could be a new market to pursue, a new product line to invest in, a better way to outflank a competitor, or a better way to go to market.HOW CREATIVE LEADERS ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVESDetermine If You Personally Have a Yes or a No Approach to New IdeasYou may be surprised at what you discover. Leaders have a huge impact on the amount of innovation that occurs within their group. But this impact can be subtle. It is usually a summation of little things, no one of which blatantly stands out. Often leaders’ behavior unwittingly closes down creativity and innovation.There’s a large number of leaders for whom the default answer to any suggestion is no. The first step we propose is that you collect some data from your subordinates about your impact on their attempts at innovation. After reading the written comments on 360-degree feedback instruments for thousands of leaders, it is striking to see the number who are seen as rejecting any idea that is not their own. Discovering your receptiveness to new ideas requires asking your people some direct questions, either as a group or one on one. You can ask questions like these:
One leader who was somewhat aware of his behavior in this regard was a senior executive in a large multinational bank. He was responsible for all the organization’s information systems and procedures. On a 360-degree feedback instrument, his subordinates gave him extremely low scores regarding his willingness to support innovation and his overall receptivity to new ideas. When we discussed this fact with him, his reply was: “My job is to keep this place from blowing up. Any change someone proposes has that potential. So my answer to any suggestion is always no. Then I’ll ponder it some more, and if the person is really persistent, I may think about it and try it out in a very limited way.” You had to respect and admire this executive’s feeling of responsibility for the welfare of the firm. But by his own assessment, his function, and therefore the entire bank, hadn’t kept up with some of the innovations that competitors had embraced. This put the bank at some competitive disadvantage. There was a serious morale problem among those who reported to him. Turnover was unusually high. We talked about what would happen in a relatively short time when he retired. We suggested, “What if you first pointed out all the good things about an idea that is proposed to you. Then, after letting the person know that you appreciate his initiative and his having thought about ways to improve things, you might ask him if he sees any potential downsides or dangers to his proposal. After he’s given his answers, by all means add any important ones that you think he’s missed. Then ask him whether, on balance, this still seems like a good idea. Maybe ask if he can refine his proposal to eliminate the risks and preserve its positive aspects. There are clearly ways to protect the company and, at the same time, to inspire and motivate your colleagues by encouraging innovation and risk taking.” Shortly hereafter he retired. His legacy was one of having done good things, but it fell short of what it could have been had he been more receptive to the ideas that bubbled up from a talented staff. This doesn’t mean that ideas and suggestions should not be turned down. If they don’t make sense, they should be rejected. But some managers automatically say no unless there is overwhelming evidence and pressure to say yes. We submit that this is the wrong default answer to people who have taken the time to think about a better way of doing things. Remove the BarriersAsk your subordinates what is standing in the way of their making suggestions and proposing new and better ways to get work done. You’ll discover, in all likelihood, some things you hadn’t imagined. Excessive paperwork and approvals may be one thing that’s getting in the way. The lack of a clear channel by which to get new ideas considered may be another. Maybe the culture of the organization is resistant to new suggestions. Whatever you discover to be the barriers, take aim at them. Banish the bureaucracy that gets in the way.Another skill that the inspiring leader possesses is one of internal marketing. Such a leader is skilled at helping others to see the problem or issue and how what is being proposed will solve that problem. The impact of a change is rarely confined to one department or group. Invariably the change spills over to other areas. Their agreement is required if this change is to succeed. This requires the leader’s being perceived as working for the welfare of the entire organization, not just for something that will primarily benefit the leader’s group. Remove potential barriers. Because change usually affects many other groups, it is extremely important to identify the most likely barriers standing in the way of this change. Change efforts succeed when those responsible have taken the time to anticipate some of the key barriers and hurdles to making the change happen. Open the DoorOvertly encourage innovation. Send a clear signal that you are receptive to innovative ideas. Frequently ask, “Is there a better way to get this done?” “How long has it been since anyone dissected this process to see if it can be streamlined?” In addition, borrow an idea from Jeffrey Immelt’s playbook. Ask the people in your organization to come up with one or two really bold ideas that have the potential to transform the business. That means everyone.Another reason that leaders sometimes resist innovation, we fear, goes back to the fundamental levels of respect that senior people have for those at lower levels. Some senior people assume that being promoted to a higher level equates to superior abilities, including a much higher IQ. Often, there is a generally higher level of education the higher in the organization you go. But in today’s organization, our observation is that there are usually some extremely bright and well-educated people at lower levels. When senior people dismiss ideas from people at lower levels on the basis of some assumed superiority of the people at the top, this causes terrific ideas to be ignored. Worse yet, the leaders’ not paying attention is very uninspiring to these people. Some leaders resist innovation and ideas because they believe that good ideas largely come from management. We earlier noted that this is simply not the case. But many leaders hang on to the mistaken belief that Jack Welch described as thinking that the law of gravity applied to ideas. Some leaders believe that good ideas start at a high level and gently fall down to the layers below. One of Clayton Christensen’s contributions from his research on innovation was that this idea was a complete fallacy. The best leaders stayed attuned to the ideas that bubbled up from below, identified those with the greatest merit, and then institutionalized them. This pattern can be identified in every successful organization and in most successful new products, whether it is Postit notes or Intel’s decision to manufacture microprocessors rather than transistors. (In hindsight, the decision to manufacture microprocessors and abandon the manufacture of transistors was an extremely good one. There are now more transistors produced each year than there are grains of rice, and the price per transistor is less than that of each grain of rice.) In a large midwestern plant, the new management decided to transfer much more of the decision making and control to teams at the lowest level of the plant. After these changes were implemented, one of the workers went home to visit his father, who had worked in that same plant for nearly all of his working life. As the son described the innovative decisions that the employees were now making, including new systems for ordering materials and scheduling production runs, Internet programs for interacting with suppliers, and regular meetings to talk with customers, his father’s eyes welled up with tears. He said, “I told ’em. We knew how to run that plant better than they did. We could have done all those things. If only we’d had the chance.” We wish those days were all in the past. But they are not. We regularly see senior management teams who, from our vantage point, seriously underestimate the capability of the group below them. That often comes from having minimal interaction with the people in that group. It also arises from not putting them in roles where they can be tested and prove that they can perform. On more than one occasion, we have worked with a senior team as its members participated in a rather challenging business simulation as part of their leadership development goals process. The senior team had often been the pilot group for the organization, and it was followed in this development process by other teams that reported to it. These second groups usually perform well, sometimes better than their bosses. That was an important eye-opener and helped to create even greater confidence on the part of the senior team in their successors. Create Forums in Which Innovative Ideas Can Be Discussed and RecognizedSet up forums in which innovative ideas can be explored, fully understood, and finally evaluated. Give positive reinforcement not only to the ideas that are accepted, but also to those that were tabled or turned down.Some visionary leadership members mistakenly think that the only innovative ideas that deserve public acknowledgment and positive acclaim are those that are accepted and put into action. This is a mistake. Innovative ideas get put on the back burner for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the creator or the quality of the idea. It may be a matter of timing, funding, other projects that are extremely similar, or a variety of other reasons. Our research shows clearly that inspiring leaders champion new projects and programs. The key here is that the leader who inspires is willing to take the initiative to get things started. Here are some examples of what this leader says or does:
Engage key stakeholders. One powerful technique on how to be a good leader can be to use to make all this happen is to reach out to the key stakeholders who will be involved. The leader then floods other stakeholders with the information they’ll need if they are to fully understand what is being proposed. The reasons for the proposed change are made clear. The effective leader helps key stakeholders see why this is in the best interests of the entire organization and the other surrounding groups that will be affected. Set Up Processes That Support InnovationMuch has been published about the innovation process. Some of the most useful data come from design firms such as IDEO, which has published a great deal about the techniques it uses in the innovation process. These begin with a variety of ways to observe how customers use a product and the experience they are currently having. The techniques include in-depth interviews, shadowing customers, and photographing customers using the product. The second step is an intensive idea-generating meeting to brainstorm possibilities. The third step is a rapid prototyping phase in which mock-ups of either a product or a proposed service are made. These mock-ups are then tested in a variety of ways. After that comes a refining process in which the ideas are polished, new prototypes are created, and agreement is reached on a new design. Finally comes the implementation stage, in which a multidisciplinary approach is taken to plan and execute the implementation. IDEO’s enormous success attests to the payoff from following this process rigorously.Others are also pushing the boundaries of the innovation process. One of the more interesting comes from the work of a Russian scientist, Genrich Altshuller. His work is referred to as TRIZ, an acronym for the Russian phrase “theory of solving inventive problems” or “theory of inventive problem solving.” Today, TRIZ is a methodology, tool set, knowledge base, and model-based technology for generating innovative ideas and solutions for problem solving. TRIZ provides tools and methods for use in problem formulation, system analysis, failure analysis, and patterns of system evolution (both “as-is” and “could be”). TRIZ, in contrast to techniques such as brainstorming (which is based on random idea generation), aims to create an algorithmic approach to the invention of new systems, and the refinement of old systems. . . . Altshuller was employed to inspect invention proposals, help document them, and help others to invent. By 1969 he [had] reviewed about 40,000 patent abstracts in order to find out in what way the innovation had taken place. He eventually developed 40 Principles of Invention, several Laws of Technical Systems Evolution, the concepts of technical and physical contradictions that creative leadership inventions resolve, the concept of Ideality of a system and numerous other theoretical and practical approaches; together, this extensive work represents a unique contribution to the development of creativity and inventive problem-solving.” One big lesson that emerges from the work of such groups is that innovation requires a process. Indeed, that process will nearly always look and feel very different from traditional processes embedded in organizations. Shower Positive Attention on New IdeasNever begin by enumerating all the downsides and potential problems. Be optimistic. New ideas are fragile. They are like tiny plants that poke its way up through the soil. Rough handling at this point can easily kill them, and lots of great ideas have been squashed at this stage.For more than a decade, one of the authors worked in a pharmaceutical company. A senior executive in research, Ralph Dorfman, played a unique role in that organization. Whenever someone had a new idea for an innovative research project, she would go to Ralph. He was a respected scientist with a good deal of experience in research. But the spectrum of research being conducted ranged from molecular biology to chemistry and from biology to pharmaceutical science, with clinical medicine added on. Clearly Ralph was not the expert in all of these areas. But he possessed one quality that caused other people from virtually every area to come to spend time with him. He nurtured new ideas. He searched for the positive elements of everyone’s brainstorm. By nature he was cheerful, always smiling and with a cherubic manner. His instinct was never to find fault and focus on the downsides, but to see the good and the potential in every new idea. One might assume that this was an observation that his colleagues would make years later as they reflected on the forces that made creativity possible. In Ralph’s case, however, even at the time it was occurring, the scientists recognized what a valuable role he was playing in nurturing new ideas. Make a Hobby of Trend SpottingEncourage your group to stay out in front by spotting trends early. One of the behaviors of people with leadership characteristics who inspire is their ability and willingness to take an “eagle-eye view” of what’s happening in their industry and to pick up on new trends at a very beginning stage. A good staff meeting topic is to ask about any trends employees are picking up as they talk with customers, industry experts, suppliers, and competitors and from what they are reading. The obvious next step is to determine what impact that trend could have on your business, or how you should best respond to it.Visit CustomersInnovative products and services frequently originate from tips and suggestions from customers. Often customers will graciously toss these suggestions to you. But there is also great power in asking your customers some probing questions point-blank:
Some industries are fortunate to have extremely long product life cycles. But that number is shrinking all the time. Product life cycles are shortening. The most effective leadership traits is to constantly scan their environment for subtle changes that may signal an important change. At the same time, they encourage all their colleagues to do the same. One of the leadership communication skills the inspirational leader needs to develop is to recognize when change is needed. Our research showed that those leaders who excelled at inspiration were far more adept at recognizing when the time had come for change to be implemented. It wasn’t clear whether they were just more attuned to their environment or whether they were fundamentally more restless. Many of us have had the experience of living in a home or apartment for a few years. Then we have planned to have some company over or planned a party at our home. This made us look at our rooms with a more critical eye. There were spots on the carpet. The furniture was faded and frayed. The paint had some bad chips, and there was some water damage on the ceiling. Suddenly we saw our living space through a new lens. It triggered us to take some action. But it took some impending event to cause us to assess our living space objectively. Create Events Focused on InnovationThere is great value in scheduling an off-site meeting for a team, away from the normal work environment, where the focus is exclusively on thinking about new products, new services, better methods of production, new ways to market, paths to better customer service, fresh approaches to pricing your products, and ways of improving the morale of the team. Having an outsider serve as facilitator of the meeting frees the leadership communication to be an active participant, without the necessity of managing the group’s process. That function can be temporarily delegated to the outside facilitator.Have the Courage to Make Big ChangesHarvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen helped to catapult the issue of innovation to the forefront by publishing The Innovator’s Dilemma, which was followed by a later volume, The Innovator’s Solution. Christensen achieved great notoriety through his analysis of how successful organizations must often launch products and services that will destroy their current offerings and how difficult and counterintuitive that is. His research showed that if they did not do it, others would, and then they would be in even greater difficulty. He contended that it was far better for a firm to take risks by launching products that might replace its current offerings than to stand by and have others cannibalize its market.Making big changes requires courage. Recognizing that there is a need for change is obviously the first step, but change usually affects several people and often other departments. Unless there is external pressure on the leadership characteristics list to make some change, it is most often easier to let things continue as they are. But, as someone observed, “to follow the course of least resistance makes men and rivers crooked.” The willpower to initiate change often begins with the leadership development programs. We don’t agree with the old saying that people resist change. It depends. Many people deliberately seek new experiences in specific parts of their life. They travel to new places. They take up new hobbies. They read new books. Comfort with change probably has a lot to do with how much control people feel they have. Most of us resist having things done “to” us, especially if we lack control and if the outcomes are ambiguous or potentially damaging. So, if I hear that there will be a major reorganization in my work group, and if I have no knowledge of what is contemplated, it’s probable that I’ll be very resistant to the idea of that change. WHY FOSTERING INNOVATION AND RISK TAKING INSPIRES OTHERSOne of the most distinguished psychologists living has founded a movement known as Positive Psychology. It was meant to rebut the enormous preoccupation that psychology had with the darker sides of human nature. Martin Seligman’s work has had a profound impact on psychology. He resurrected the concept of character as a driving force in understanding individuals. With the help of equally distinguished colleagues, he researched the basic virtues and human strengths that permeate our culture. The six virtues they identified were ones that they found to be incorporated in all the major religious and philosophical traditions. Then, in order to have more workable and operational definitions of human character, they proceeded to identify 24 strengths that again seemed to cut across all cultures and societies.Three of these strengths help to explain why innovation and risk taking would be inspiring to their recipients.
via Blogger http://ift.tt/2d8v4fT September 17, 2016 at 08:28PM
0 Comments
Team leadership skills
The most inspirational leaders are bone-deep team oriented people, in contrast to those who are comfortable only in a traditional hierarchy, with its many layers and the shape of a steep pyramid. These leaders put the leadership team development before individuals. Inspirational leaders always talk of current and past success coming from the efforts of the team, not from the handiwork of any one person (especially themselves). When speaking of the future, these leaders invariably talk of the need for expanding collaboration and teamwork, realizing that future achievements will require extreme amounts of collaboration. These are the basics on how to be a good leader. http://ift.tt/2bPkp4QThe importance of the mutual respect between a leader and the members of a team has an interesting history. We’re all familiar with the crowns worn by royalty. Some are bedecked with jewels set in elaborate gold and silver, with ornate filigree and elegant carving. So in ancient times, what crown might have been the one most treasured by its recipient? Could there be a crown considered to have far greater value than any creation of diamonds, sapphires, rubies, and gold?
What if we said that it was a crown made of grass? What’s more, as hand-woven headpieces go, it wasn’t particularly nice. It was not beautifully designed, and the weaving was rather crude. It was made of extremely simple materials and fashioned by the calloused hands of Roman legionnaires. But this Grass Crown was without question the most revered honor that any leader of that day could receive. Why?
It was not given by any single person. No king, emperor, or magistrate could confer it. Nor could any body such as a parliament or senate confer the Grass Crown. This was an award given by the soldiers to their general. It was always awarded by acclamation. The award was given in recognition of visionary leadership that in a time of great crisis or trial enabled the army to be victorious. The respect of one’s subordinates is the ultimate tribute to an inspirational leader. As we have said before, if you want to know about the effectiveness of leadership communication, ask those who are led. WHY IS A TEAM ORIENTATION SO EFFECTIVE IN INSPIRING PEOPLE TO HIGH PERFORMANCE?It begins with the extreme complexity of most efforts in organizations. There are few tasks or projects in organizations today that can be completed by one person acting in isolation. The more important the task is, the more likely it is that it requires the cooperation of other departments to pull it off.Beyond that, from a front-line worker’s perspective, nothing is more wasteful than to have artificial boundaries in the organization based on different leadership traits definition of their turf. In ancient times, when princes were at odds with each other, but were conducting their covert personal battles in an overtly civil and dignified manner, the spear carriers who were loyal to each prince were on the battlefield killing each other. That phenomenon lives on inside modern organizations, where you see the subordinates of one executive working to outsmart and outflank their colleagues who report to another executive with whom their boss is at war. This is when statements like, “Don’t talk to them,” or “Don’t give them anything that isn’t absolutely necessary” get made. Sometimes this happens between competing divisions, such as Latin America versus Europe. Other times it happens between functional areas, such as when operations and sales are at odds with each other. Conflicts between the home office and the field are classic. In each case, it is the people at the lower levels who pay the high price. NEGATIVE IMPACT OF HOSTILITY BETWEEN GROUPSOne of the most frustrating experiences that employees describe is being told by their boss that they are forbidden to cooperate with another group inside the company. In some cases, they are even forbidden to talk with the people from another department. For the employee who is attempting to serve a customer or complete a project on time and needs the help of those in another department, to then be told that such collaboration is off-limits is maddening and highly demotivating.We consulted with an organization that was a combination of two behemoth organizations that had joined forces to develop a new product jointly between them. Their cultures were different. The assignments that people received were only temporary. Two leaders, one from each parent organization, were attempting to lead this project as “two-in-the-box” coleaders. One told the people with whom he had a close relationship that they must not talk to the people from the other company. The people at the lowest level recognized that the project’s success absolutely depended on there being a close working relationship between the two groups, and they were caught in an uncomfortable vise. How do you resolve loyalty to your boss with your perceptions of what’s good for the organization overall? In another organization, a senior head of a major operating division was at odds with corporate headquarters and all the staff people who were at the corporate level. This very personal conflict placed all the people who reported to him in an extremely awkward position. Did they actively participate on various task forces that were assembled with representatives from each of the operating divisions? Did they cooperate with initiatives that came from corporate headquarters? Did they take any initiative to interact with their counterparts in other divisions? The answer was most often no, and that caused an enormous drain on the effectiveness of the overall corporation. Such interpersonal conflicts seem reminiscent of teenagers in high school and their social dynamics. You could laugh at how childish these squabbles were if they didn’t have such a destructive impact on organizational achievement and efficiency. POSITIVE EFFECTS OF TEAM DYNAMICSFor most people, there is an excitement and energy that comes from being part of a team, even for those who seem highly independent and often are solo performers.One of the most dramatic moments of the 2008 Olympics was when the U.S. men’s swim team came from behind to win the 4X100 meter team medley final. The hero of the Olympic games, Michael Phelps, was on the deck of the pool with teammates Garrett Weber-Gale and Cullen Jones, cheering wildly as Jason Lezak chased down Alain Bernard of France in the last 15 meters to win the gold medal. Swimming, of course, is a highly individual sport, but there was more excitement in the team event than in any other at Beijing’s Water Cube. Most of the swimmers had competed against each other during the meet, but the joy and excitement of having a teammate succeed was tangible. They appeared to be having far more fun sharing the team success than was ever evident when they were swimming alone in various meets. Phelps summed it up simply after the race when he said, “The team events are the funnest!” CONCLUSIONS FROM TEAM LEADERSHIP SKILLS RESEARCHSo what practices can you initiate that will foster this team spirit and collaboration in those who report to you?Minimize CompetitionOne of the assumptions guiding some organizations is the belief that if you want to get the best people to work their hardest, the surest way is to set up two or more competing groups. Give them the same challenge. Yes, some feathers will be ruffled, and maybe even some fur will fly, but it will produce the best result in the shortest time. After all, life is all about winners and losers, and that’s the price you pay for getting a great result. Do you agree?Don’t. Collaboration almost always wins over competition. As far back as 1954, Peter Blau of Columbia University studied two groups of interviewers in an employment agency. One group’s members were highly competitive, were concerned primarily about their own productivity, and were highly ambitious. The second group was just the opposite. Its members were by nature collaborative and worked as a team. The second group’s success in filling jobs was far better than that of the first. Virtually every study that has been conducted on the impact of competition versus collaboration has shown that competition loses. Why? Success in today’s world demands the sharing of information and resources. Competition erodes and finally destroys that. Competition breeds suspicion and hostility, which, in turn, actively discourage any sharing of information and resources. Furthermore, trying to do well for the overall organization and trying to beat an internal competitor are two totally different objectives. They cannot both be met at the same time. Wise leaders are cautious about structuring competition between groups, realizing that unbridled competition often leads to conflict. Conflict, in turn, has enormously negative outcomes. Competition is an accepted, even revered, element of our society. People compete in sports. We compete in business. Our legal system brings competitive points of view together before a judge or jury. Most of the time the participants, whether they be athletes, corporate employees, or lawyers, can meet and be civil with one another and not have personal animosities arise. But unbridled competition that persists over a long period of time leads to highly dysfunctional conflict. It often becomes personal. The game or the issue takes a backseat to emotion. Fights erupt on the field. Teams begin to engage in questionable practices (such as the videotaping of signals that the opponent’s coaches are giving from the sidelines, as practiced by the New England Patriots) in order to obtain some advantage over others. Long-established rules of engagement are set aside in the heat of the battle. Even the fans supporting the teams, people sitting high in the stands and not butting heads on the playing field, become so emotionally wrought up that they pick fights, throw cups of beer on fans of the other team, and end up engaging in highly destructive behavior. Social scientists have observed for decades that highly successful innovations that occur in one part of an organization are seldom adopted by others. One plant figures out a way to streamline the production of a device with 30 percent less cost. Other plants are manufacturing the same product. Reason would hold that the other plants would willingly embrace such successful innovations and readily implement them in their part of the corporation. While the reasons may be complex and many, the competition between divisions in corporations seems to be the single largest force keeping that from happening. People think to themselves, “I don’t want a sister division to do well, especially if it makes us look bad.” “We compete for resources against them.” In the early days of Apple Computer, two competing teams were created to develop the next generation of computers. But a strategy that had been intended to accelerate the development of a new product ended up with the groups stealing resources from each other and building walls of silence in a wasteful and destructive manner. The Mac group won, but the internal cost was extremely high. What’s the lesson to be learned? Use competition sparingly. Keep the duration short. When it’s over, bring the teams together to celebrate. Be certain that people inside the organization recognize your real competitor as the real competitor, and that it is never a sister division. When leaders receive 360-degree feedback from their employees, we have observed that one of the most frequently occurring criticisms is about the leader’s tolerance of conflict within the work group. People often express strong feelings about the need for the leader to step up and do something about the conflict that is tearing the group apart. Make Teams the Basic Building Block of the OrganizationWhat’s the difference between a team and a randomly selected group of individuals? It starts with the members of a team having common leadership goals or purpose, and continues with their having some definition of roles and responsibilities. It often includes having some defined processes that govern on the leadership communication skills and how the team operates and communication channels that enable the team to function. Many forces combine to create effective teams, and the evidence is quite clear that team-based structures are becoming the standard. They generally perform better than a more traditional hierarchy.Today’s organizations, with their global reach and complex set of activities, are able to function because of two “structural materials.” The first is information technology, which makes it possible for companies to make timely information available to thousands of people simultaneously, no matter where they’re located. The second technology is the innovative use of teams—not in the traditional sense, but as a basic building block of the new architecture, relying upon people to use their collective knowledge, judgment, skill, and creativity to perform a variety of jobs and functions, rather than just one, in concert with their colleagues. Teams aren’t appropriate in every circumstance. But when the situation is right, teams have a broad range of beneficial results for the organization. Information flows more readily. Coordination between individuals is more seamless and easier. Decisions are made with greater rapidity, and all involved feel greater ownership in the outcomes because they have had a strong voice in the decisions. The ultimate execution and implementation of any project can be accelerated. The teams have structurally helped to create an organizational culture of collaboration. The fear that many have about the concept of teams is that personal accountability will be diminished. They worry that the team will allow everyone to point a finger at several other people and say, “I’m not responsible; it’s these other people.” This is not how effective teams function. Rather than individual team members pointing at each other, the outcome has been that everyone on the team feels a great personal sense of responsibility for the output of the entire team. Instead of having one person feel responsible for making something happen, there is now a group feeling of responsibility for everything. Reward Team Effort and AccomplishmentThe inspirational leader emphasizes the value and rewards for team effort. Many leaders push this concept aggressively, all the way to the creation of self-managing work teams, in which groups of seasoned employees take on many of the functions that would normally be performed by a supervisor or manager. Short of that, they do the following:
Assume that most front-line employees enjoy collaborating rather than competing. Assume further that these employees have the good of the organization at heart, rather than merely that of their own department. Employees appreciate alignment between what they know is good for the organization and what their leader rewards. It is not surprising, therefore, that the leader who encourages team effort and cooperation will be far more inspirational than the leader who behaves the opposite way. Dismantle SilosThe best leaders freely cross boundaries for the organization’s good. Formal organization charts with lines and boxes describe reporting relationships and chains of accountability. They conveniently group functional activities, such as marketing, sales, and operations. But they completely fail to describe how organizations really function. One observer noted that while organizations appear to be groups of silos, the real work occurs in the horizontal pipes that connect them, either above or below ground. As the Total Quality Management movement took hold and helped organizations to greatly increase the quality of their products and services, one of its main conclusions was that approximately 85 percent of the inefficiency and waste in organizations did not happen within departments, but in the pass-off of activity from one group to another.We were asked to coach an executive who had troubles in this arena. In our feedback session to him, we commented: “You are seen as pinning labels on people or groups, such as ‘nonsupportive,’ ‘can’t make up their minds,’ or ‘not pulling their weight.’ What impact do you think this behavior is having on your direct reports and peers? Have you considered praising other groups in public. Focus on what they do well, and work to magnify that. If you have some criticism or complaint, go privately to them with that feedback.” Criticizing other groups in public has the effect of filling the horizontal pipes that connect the groups with quick-setting concrete. We went on in coaching him: “Within the overall group reporting to you, it is perceived that there are subgroups that need to be brought together. That has been characterized as a ‘veterans’ group versus the rest of the organization. Would greater cohesion within the overall team produce some real benefit? People admire your standing up for what is best for your former employer, but they also think that issues between the groups are escalated more rapidly and with more amplitude than is needed.” This leader’s behavior was not helping. Reinforcing the walls of the silos is never a good idea if the organization is depending on seamless interactions between groups. Resolve Conflicts QuicklyWhen people live together, daily interactions can easily lead to misunderstandings and minor irritations. Some of the most interesting research in marriage counseling has shown that the biggest single predictor of those couples who ultimately end by divorcing is the absence of a problem-solving or conflict-resolving mechanism. Divorcing couples simply could not find ways to get over their differences amicably. Other couples experienced just as many or just as serious conflicts. Those who stayed married figured out ways to fix them.That principle also applies inside organizations. Organizations get into trouble when conflicts fester and the leaders ignore this. We noted earlier that in our work providing multirater feedback to leaders in organizations, the two lowest scores received by most leaders are on “Practices self-development” and “Resolves conflicts within the work group” through leadership development programs. It is unclear whether this comes from the following:
Or, it could be that we don’t know how to resolve the issue. With all that has been published by groups that have studied conflict resolution, the following concepts and appropriate behaviors seem straightforward and clear:
Involve the Right People in Decision MakingThis leadership development goals behavior appears to work in two ways. Looking at it from the perspective of any subordinate being studied, this behavior of involving the right people may mean that “my opinion is sought.” If so, it is clear that having a leader seek my views on an important topic is highly motivating. It is an act that conveys respect and appreciation. It is a form of recognition. It strengthens the bond that I have with my leader. For a host of reasons, this is motivational.Alternatively, if I am working on a project and seeking to move it along, my leader’s willingness and help in getting the most knowledgeable and strongest people to help in the decision process is also highly motivating to me. Again, it moves the project forward at an even brisker pace. It signals that what I’m doing is important, and that it is for the overall good of the broader organization. History records innumerable examples of people with leadership qualities being influenced by able teams and how this greatly enhanced their ultimate success. American history records several instances of General George Washington wanting to attack the British and being blocked by a strong cabinet. From every indication, viewing the events from a historian’s perspective, the cabinet was absolutely correct. Attack would have been disastrous. More recently, the Cuban Missile Crisis that happened during John F. Kennedy’s presidency showed the value of involving the right people. However, successful teams require a highly disciplined process for decision making. The team needs to agree up front how it will go about making important decisions. This process defines how key decisions are identified, how information is collected, who will be involved, and the process by which a decision will be achieved. Create an Inclusive EnvironmentOne of the traits of good leadership skills that inspires and motivates is the willingness of leaders to help people feel that they are inside the organization as full-fledged members looking out to the rest of the world rather than being on the outside looking in. Leaders who are comfortable with diversity in race, gender, age, academic background, and general demeanor are far more inspirational to each individual who represents those differences than are leaders who are comfortable only with people who look and think like themselves.In this way, the strengths of individuals are used. That in itself is highly motivating. Leaders clearly need to not play favorites and to put the well-being of the group above that of any one individual. However, the counterpart to that is the great gains that come from showing concern for each individual in the group. The power of an inclusive group to inspire and motivate people in the group is an ironic element for this post. We’re analyzing what it is that leaders do that inspires. In this case, in an almost catch-22 process, the leader’s creation of a cohesive team would seem to be circumventing our main objective. In reality, the cohesive team provides some of the strongest influence to perform at the highest level. The Marine on the battlefield would quickly acknowledge that he is primarily fighting for his comrades on either side of him, not for the captain or the general. It is the wise leader who recognizes this powerful force and who makes no attempt to get in the way of it. COLLABORATION AND TEAMWORK ARE ULTIMATELY WAYS TO BUILD CULTURECollaboration and teamwork are norms that need to be established in the culture of the organization. For them to succeed, many other elements need to be in place.Effective teams ideally require diversity of skills, talents, and experience, along with other kinds of diversity. The culture has to become one of putting the organization’s and the team’s interests higher than anyone’s self-interest, no matter how senior that person is in the organization. Ideas and proposals have to be evaluated on their merits, not on the role power or position that their proponent holds in the organization. There is a far greater degree of empowerment for the people, and thus leadership characteristics are shared much more broadly through the organization. via Blogger http://ift.tt/2bPk3uY September 06, 2016 at 10:53AM
Leadership team development
When team members think about the rewards they receive from their jobs, after the pay and benefits, the next most tangible reward is the learning and development that come from training, job assignments, and experiences at work. Leaders who create positive developmental experiences for their team members are much more apt to create an inspired and motivated team and then know how to be a good leader. Conversely, when team members see a job as just work, with no learning or development, then it is far more difficult for them to find their work inspirational. http://ift.tt/2bVM5XSOne of the authors, while in graduate school, was a research assistant for a professor who every they decade summarized the research from every journal in his specialty. The assigned task was to read every article and classify the research methods used. Hundreds of journal issues needed to be read and analyzed. On a rare occasion, an article would be of some interest to a young, naïve graduate student. But the majority of the time it was simply a boring and meaningless job. It took a great deal of discipline and fortitude just to walk to the library and begin reading every day. At the end of the semester, the student made a frantic effort to get an assignment with another professor. Grading statistics tests would have felt like a huge promotion. In this case there was no real learning, no development, and hence no inspiration just drudgery. But think of how exciting this assignment could have been had it been positioned and managed in a different way. In hindsight, the professor could have made it into a great developmental opportunity for a student. What a rare opportunity to be paid to read a decade’s worth of literature in your field! Periodic discussions with the professor about interesting articles that had been reviewed would have made the project come to life. Merely understanding what the professor was actually seeking for his teaching and research purposes would have made a huge difference. If the student had known how the professor would use this information, it could have been a far more fruitful endeavor. Permission to dismiss articles that were peripheral to the professor’s interests or treat them lightly would have made the student feel trusted and more of a colleague rather than a hired hand or servant and would have saved considerable time and wasted effort. BENEFITS OF LEADERSHIP TEAM DEVELOPMENTWhen people have opportunities for development, there are several personal benefits.
However, in addition to the individuals’ personal satisfaction, there is a secondary payoff from the individual with leadership characteristics having created a learning environment. Simply put, the organization keeps getting better, and people like to be associated with a winning organization. When the leadership communication creates a climate of learning, the outcome is continual improvement on the part of the organization. Mistakes do not get repeated. Information that is held by one group is freely passed to others who can benefit from it. The dependency that the organization might have had on a few people is now shared more broadly. Why is development so inspiring? GROWING AND DEVELOPING IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN NEEDDr. Maxwell Maltz wrote the book Psycho-Cybernetics at age 61, as the climax of an already varied, colorful, and exceptionally successful career. For many years, Dr. Maltz had a flourishing practice as a reconstructive and cosmetic facial surgeon, lectured internationally on his medical specialty, and pursued a dual career as a prolific author.He moved from treating “outer scars” to “inner scars” after observing that many patients’ unhappiness and insecurities were not cured, as they and he had believed they would be, when he gave them the perfect new faces they desired. One of his metaphors from the book compared people to bicycle riders. “If they aren’t moving forward, they fall over.” That is a useful way to explain the importance of development. There is a powerful driving force inside most individuals that prods and pushes them to improve. By our interpretation, roughly one-third of the strengths that were identified by Martin Seligman in his analysis of the signature strengths of individuals were strongly tied to the concept of improvement and moving forward. A FOCUS ON LEADERSHIP TEAM DEVELOPMENT EXPLAINS WHY PEOPLE SUCCEEDCarol Dweck, who teaches at Stanford University, has spent the last 30 years studying why some people succeed and others fail. Her answers are surprising to many. It isn’t about IQ points or other abilities that are bestowed on someone by an unseen hand. It has much more to do with their personal effort and application. And at the heart of it, she found that beginning at an early age, people begin to be divided into two camps. Which camp we’re in explains how we become optimistic or pessimistic. It shapes our goals, our attitude toward work, and our relationships on the job. It affects our relationships with a spouse and how we raise our kids. It ultimately predicts whether or not we will fulfill our potential.The first camp consists of those whose fundamental goal in life is to prove their worth to the people about them. They believe that their abilities are fixed, as if set in stone at an early age. And if you believe that your abilities are fixed at a high level, that means that you don’t need to work hard. If your abilities happen to be fixed at a low level, then you are destined to failure, and working hard would not change anything. In either case, you have to repeatedly prove yourself. Your goal in life is to avoid serious challenges and escape experiencing failure that will show up the deficiencies that you’ve tried to keep hidden. This is the path of stagnation. The second group is made up of those whose fundamental goal in life is to improve. For them, life is made up of a series of opportunities to be exploited and challenges to be overcome. This growth mindset is one in which you see yourself as fluid, a work in progress. You seek growth and opportunity. These people believe that talent is built over time and comes as the consequence of hard work and effort. Clearly the most successful people are those who fall into the “improving” category. Dweck reveals how high achievers in all fields—music, science, education, literature, sports, and business—apply the growth mindset to achieve results. LEADERSHIP TEAM DEVELOPMENT CREATE MINDSETSThe encouraging news, however, is that mindsets can be changed. People can move from believing that their capabilities were fixed at an early age and can come to believe that “smart is something you get” and that people can actually progress throughout most of the course of their life.Dweck’s research shows that parents are a powerful force in shaping the mindset of a child. While her research focused on how parents and teachers influenced young children in their developmental stages, we are quite certain that how people with leadership traits in business treat their subordinates can have a similar, profound impact on how people view themselves on these two dimensions. The right kind of leadership communication skills helps people move from a “fixed” or “proving” mindset to one of “growth” and “improving.” Research on the brain’s ability to develop new neural networks is currently taking place at several research institutions and serves to confirm Dweck’s fundamental thesis. For example, in 1999, Princeton University released a stunning announcement regarding a reversal of a long-held theory that the capacity of the brain was fixed at birth. The headlines read: “Scientists Discover Addition of New Brain Cells in Highest Brain Area: Finding reverses long-held beliefs and has implications for designing therapies.” The article went on to explain that this discovery confirmed that new neurons are being continually added to the cerebral cortex of adult monkeys and then explained that this reverses a strongly held belief that had existed for the last 100 years to the effect that the number of brain cells in primates was established at birth and that a certain number died each year through the adult years. This had strong implications for humans, because humans and monkeys have essentially the same brain structures. This view that humans were born with a certain number of brain cells and that as we aged, a certain number of these cells died each year was in virtually every textbook on psychology published before 2000. This meant that mentally we were coasting on a long glide path through life, but always descending. Now the consensus among human brain researchers is that not only is the brain adding new cells, but at the same time new connections between brain cells are being made. Questions to Ask YourselfThere clearly are some things that the leadership development programs must think and feel in order to be effective at developing subordinates, and thus be more inspirational and motivational.
Some people with leadership qualities believe that one of their prime opportunities and responsibilities is to help people learn. They willingly carve out time for people to attend relevant seminars and engage in activities that help to develop them. They budget generously for external development activities. They take time in staff meetings to discuss what was learned from each major project. These discussions often take the form of “after action reviews” that cover what had been intended to happen, what actually transpired, what caused the difference, and what should happen in the future for such events. These three questions do not identify action steps that a leader can just arbitrarily take. They are visceral and bone-deep convictions and attitudes about people and their worth to the organization. The action steps being proposed next, however, work best when the three conditions above are solidly in place. WHAT THE INSPIRATIONAL LEADER DOES TO DEVELOP HIS LEADERSHIP TEAMOur research revealed some specific actions that leaders engaged in leadership team development.Gives CoachingAn enormous amount has been written on coaching, its value to the individual, and its payoff for the organization. Dweck’s research provides some insightful tips about the best approach to coaching. By translating Dweck’s research on younger people to adult employees in a firm, you get some valuable suggestions.Guy Kawasaki, the former McKinsey consultant and marketing guru, wrote about Dweck’s research in a personal blog. Here are his conclusions, and it is interesting to note that he has intuitively made the translation from how these principles apply to children to how they apply to employees: You have a bright child [employee], and you want her to succeed. You should tell her how smart she is, right? That’s what 85 percent of the parents Dweck surveyed said. Her research on fifth graders shows otherwise. Labels, even though positive, can be harmful. They may instill a fixed mind-set and all the baggage that goes with it, from performance anxiety to a tendency to give up quickly. Well-meaning words can sap children’s [employee’s] motivation and enjoyment of learning and undermine their performance. While Dweck’s study focused on intelligence praise, she says her conclusions hold true for all talents and abilities. Here are Dweck’s tips from Mindset:
Provides Actionable FeedbackLots of people give advice. Managers frequently give advice to their subordinates. They, in turn, receive advice from various gurus who write books and give seminars based on only their opinions. But advice can be treacherous when it is either incorrect or not actionable. Often it is incorrect, especially if the person giving it didn’t really understand the situation. The other problem, however, is that advice can simply be impossible to implement.Part of that difficulty often comes from the general nature of the advice. We are reminded of the observation of Professor Karl Weick of the University of Michigan, in which he noted that any piece of advice could be two of three things, but could never be all three. The three things were as follows:
Pick up any popular book on the subject of visionary leadership or leadership development goals. Randomly open it to some chapter that gives advice on a particular topic. Chances are that whatever the principle being professed, there are exceptions to it. In fact, you can often find two opposing points of view that have generally gained wide acceptance. This is why, while we respect the opinions of so many authors and leaders, we choose to focus on areas where we can provide evidence that is quantifiable, objective, and empirical as it relates to leadership goals. As children, our parents often passed on proverbs that had been taught to them by their parents. The amusing fact is that virtually every proverb has a counterpart that contradicts it. Yet, when asked about each proverb separately, most people will indicate that they believe both to be true. Examples of this strange phenomenon include the following:
Argyris’s advice on how to rectify this problem is to do the following:
Argyris’s suggestions take advice giving to a new level of sophistication. Delegate in a Manner That Develops PeopleWhen tasks or projects are delegated to a subordinate, there is a seemingly infinite number of messages that can be conveyed. Here are a few of the messages that the recipient will listen for:
Let’s assume that the leader sees the potential in this delegation conversation to provide a great deal of inspiration and motivation to the people receiving this project. Now the discussion on why the leader has delegated the task will take on a completely different character. The conversation could well include some dialogue like, “I see this project as a real opportunity to help you develop your skills in coordinating with the design group, operations, and marketing”or, “One of my reasons for delegating this to you is to prepare you to be able to handle much bigger projects on your own.” From there, the leader could say something like, “Sondra, I’ve chosen you for several reasons. I think you have the technical background to pull it off. You’ve demonstrated an extremely conscientious attitude about getting things done on time. I thought this would be a great developmental assignment. There are some others in the group who could probably pull it off successfully, but they wouldn’t grow from the experience as much as I think you will.” (Think about how Sondra is going to feel when she reflects on this conversation. Ponder the powerful and motivating messages that the leader has just conveyed. Some are overtly stated, but there are many messages that are “between the lines” and not spoken.) But it doesn’t need to end there. Now the leader continues the delegation dialogue by saying, “Here’s what I envision to be the final deliverable that you and your team will produce. But I acknowledge that my conception is still a bit fuzzy. You’ll have the opportunity to sharpen it. And the important point is that you’ll have a strong voice in deciding how you get this all done. If you want to discuss with me how you plan to go about it, I’m available. That’s your choice.” (Again, sense the strong messages this leader has just sent and their motivational potential.) Next the leader discusses the ideal way to be kept informed. “Sondra, because this project is so important and high profile, I feel some need to be kept abreast of your progress. Please understand that this is driven to a large extent by the people above me, but it’s also because I’m very interested in knowing about your progress. How about us meeting once a week for the first month, and then maybe we should cut back to twice a month. All I want is your overall appraisal of progress against the milestones that you’ll set in the project plan. If I can be of any help, please know that I’m available. The purpose of these meetings is not for me to insert myself or meddle; it’s for me to be informed. I think one of my jobs is to provide ‘air cover’ for you and your team, and I can do that best if I’m knowledgeable about what’s going on.” (Again, the leader has conveyed some strong messages to Sondra that in most cases will have a profound motivational impact.) In summary, the delegation process that is so familiar to leaders and carried out so frequently can occur in a perfunctory fashion. In that case, the motivational dimension of it will be minimal at best. Or, delegation can be elevated to an important discussion and can be wrapped with important messages that inspire and that generate positive motivation. It is all about how the leader elects to conduct the discussion. Structure the Job with Development as the ObjectiveWhen a leader structures the job of each person in the group, there are many factors to consider. Clearly certain activities belong together. Many processes function best when they have one person overseeing the entire chain of activities. Good leadership skills requires the person in charge to take many things into account when designing any job.But when structuring a job, one dimension is often forgotten. One of the strongest drivers of motivation for any employee is the fundamental nature of the job itself. Precisely what does this person do during the working day? Expanding the employee’s responsibilities usually increases the level of motivation. Providing greater variety (within some boundaries, obviously) usually also has that effect. Having the job expand in its breadth and depth will, in most cases, greatly expand the motivation of the person doing the job. Frederick Herzberg, an early student of motivation in the workplace, came to the conclusion that the largest determinant of motivation for most people in organizations was directly proportional to the nature of the job itself. The huge mistake made by some of the leaders of the Industrial Revolution was to simplify jobs so that a person with a minimal amount of skill and experience could perform the work adequately. While there was a compelling logic that seemed to be driven by the economics of hiring less-skilled, lowercost workers, there were huge unintended consequences. Dumbed-down jobs created apathetic workers who over time moved from not caring to ultimately becoming hostile toward management. Luckily, we have moved a long distance from many of those practices. However, insufficient attention is paid to the simple principle of making jobs challenging, responsible, with reasonable variety, and capable of helping people grow in the ways they desire. Not every worker wants to grow and develop, but those who want that make remarkably greater contributions to their employers. Make Developmental Experiences Available (Classes, Courses, Trips, Site Visits, and Benchmarking Opportunities)One of the best organizations for excellent learning and development is the U.S. Marine Corps. A review of its recruits would reveal that the young men and women who entered the corps were of high quality, but they were not recruited from the elite universities and colleges of America. Most could not have gained admission to schools with extremely high admission standards. But after a few years, the same review would conclude that these individuals are now quite exceptional leaders. Their rigorous training has worked real magic. One aspect of their training experience that creates great value is that after every exercise, there is a debriefing activity in which decisions are discussed, alternative decisions are talked about, and feedback is provided. These are called “after action reviews.”Every business organization and public-sector agency has an enormous number of debriefing opportunities, but most of the time these organizations fail to sit down after a mission has ended, a decision has been made, or a project is concluded and debrief the experience. Such concrete reviews of actual events can be a much more meaningful learning experience than a class on how to conduct effective meetings, decision making, or project management. The principle is simply that some of the best training opportunities are those that are directly linked to work issues. Leaders should take advantage of major on-the-job events and follow up with each of their employees regarding what was learned and how that learning can be applied in the future. via Blogger http://ift.tt/2c6i8aJ September 04, 2016 at 09:23PM |