Brigadier General John E. Michel is the Commanding General, NATO Air Training Command-Afghanistan; NATO Training Mission/Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan; and Commander, 438th Air Expeditionary Wing, Kabul, Afghanistan. In addition to...
Don Cloud's insight:
10 things great leaders do, in the military, in business, and in life.
There are many leadership programs available today, from 1-day workshops to corporate training programs. But chances are, these won't really help. In this clear, candid talk, Roselinde Torres describes 25 years observing truly great leaders at work, and shares the three simple but crucial questions would-be company chiefs need to ask to thrive in the future.
Don Cloud's insight:
True leadership development (or lack thereof) ... captured in 3 simple yet profound questions you can ask yourself and can ask about your organization:
1 - Where are you looking to anticipate change? 2 - What is the diversity of your personal and professional network? 3 - Are you courageous enough to abandon the past?
Arguably one of the most critical decisions leaders will make time and again is about people ... who to hire, who to fire, who to push forward, who to demote, who to hedge your bets on, and who you will fill the organization with.
An interesting leadership construct, drawing distinctions between relational and organizational leaders. But as with many things in the world, I don't think any particular leader fits cleanly in just one or the other "bucket". Any particular leader likely demonstrates talents in both realms but to varying degrees.
Some interesting leadership questions to consider. Is it possible to transition from a relational to an organizational leader? At every higher levels of an organization, organizational leadership skills become more important ... but how might one continue to leveral relational leadership skills to reinforce the organization?
During a twelve-day period of time, I will be posting daily one of the Twelve Principles of Quality Leadership followed by some questions you, as a leader, may wish to ask yourself. Hopefully the description and inquiry will ...
Don Cloud's insight:
A piece of advice shared with me, now shared with you, that reinforces this article.
A mentor of mine shared with me, "Spend 90% of your time leading 90% of your people". His lesson, that the leader's purpose is to lead the entire organization, and it's not to get stuck only focusing on the 10% of people with issues.
Put another way, where a leader focuses his/her time and energy is where the organization will go. So spend the bulk of your time/energy leading them to some place worth going ... and don't spend 90% of your time on the 10% with issues or that is where your organization will end up.
In business today, every leader, every boss, every chief executive officer, wants their company to be successful and so they advocate for tough-minded attitudes and strong-willed personalities. And in doing so, they sometimes miss the mark of creating the success they are after. They forget that
Live the manifesto as these kids in the sandbox do. Play is the work. We work better, we play stronger, and we dream bigger when we know we this.The success of our students, communities, and organizations is waiting at the edge of the sandbox.
What does the military teach that helps these ex-officers climb to the top of major corporations? We combed through interviews with many of them to find out the biggest lessons about life, business, and leadership they learned ...
A useful guide to developing your own leadership philosphy and put it into practice. I recommend going one step further. Instead of just studying admirable/great leaders, also study bad leaders. It's critical as a leader to do the right things, but often times it's equally important to know what *not* to do. We can learn from the leadership failure of others and avoid those pitfalls.
Interesting insights combining several ideas ... and sound advice on how to push oneself to grow.
From a leadership perspective, it would be interesting to study how these ideas overlay on organizations (vice individuals) ... e.g. how similar principals as applied to groups/teams/organizations contribute to sustained, high performance, learning organizations?
A question to ponder. If self-control and grit is more important than talent when it comes to individual productivity and success, then how would these lessons translate with regards to leadership and the establishment of a sustained/enduring high-performance organizational culture (vice one that jumps at every quarterly projection)?
There is a long standing belief in business that people performance follows the Bell Curve (also called the Normal Distribution). This belief has been embedded in many business practices: performance appraisals, compensation models, and even how we get graded in school. (Remember "grading by the curve?")
Research shows that this statistical model, while easy to understand, does not accurately reflect the way people perform. As a result, HR departments and business leaders inadvertently create agonizing problems with employee performance and happiness.
A mentor of mine shared with me, "Spend 90% of your time leading 90% of your people", and this article reinforces that very idea.
That is, bell curves only apply to static distributions. So how should we account for the fact that people can grow and change? How might we compare the leaderhip and organizational culture of very successful organizations against those that are mediocre or failing ... in regards to how they treat their people?
What might be the key difference between the two? Might I suggest that perhaps the vital difference is the perspective and actions of leaders that prioritize the selection and development/growth of their people, as comprared to managers who pigeonhole their people on a bell curve and consider employees a cost center to be reduced?
The reality is that we—all of us, not just the financial elite—are the collective sleepwalkers. How do we wake up? Why is it that, across so many major systems, we collectively create results that nobody wants? Nobody wants to increase environmental destruction, poverty, cultural ADHD, or suicide. Yet we keep doing it. Why do we collectively recreate these patterns?