Menu

Your title here

Welcome to my site, enjoy your stay!

blog post

October 12, 2014
Leadership Development, Developing Building Learning Leadership Abilities

Leadership is essential for just about any organization's continual success. A great leader at top makes an impact to his or her organization. Everyone will concur with one of these statements. Specialists in recruiting area mention the importance of leaders at all levels, and not simply that of the direction at the very top.

Mention Management Development this subject, yet, to a sales manager, or to a line manager, or any executive in many organizations and you will most likely deal with responses that are diffident.

Direction development -a strategic need?

The subject of leadership is dealt with typically by many organizations. HR domain name is fallen in by developing leaders. Budgets are framed and outlays are employed with indicators like training hours per employee annually.

Such direction development outlays which are depending on just good motives and general ideas about leadership get excessive during good times and get axed in terrible times. If having good or great leaders at all levels is a strategic demand, as the above top companies demonstrate and as many leading management specialists claim, why do we see such a stop and go approach?

Exactly why is there disbelief about leadership development programs?

The first motive is that expectations (or great) leaders are not defined in in ways in which the outcomes may be confirmed and surgical terms. Leaders are expected to achieve' many things. Leaders are expected to turn laggards into high performers, turn around companies, attraction customers, and dazzle media. They can be expected to perform miracles. These anticipations remain just wishful thinking. These desired consequences can not be utilized to offer any clues about gaps in development needs and leadership skills.

Lack of a comprehensive and generic (valid in diverse businesses and states) framework for defining leadership means that leadership development attempt are scattered and inconsistent. Bad name is given by inconsistency to leadership development plans. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go....) and resistance to every new initiative. This is the 2nd reason why leadership development's objectives are frequently not fulfilled.

The next reason is in the procedures employed for leadership development.

Sometimes the programs build better teams and include experience or outside activities for helping individuals bond with each other. These applications generate 'feel good' effect as well as in certain cases participants 'return' with their private action plans. However, in majority of cases they neglect to capitalize in the efforts that have gone in. Leadership coaching must be mentioned by me in the passing. But leadership training is too expensive and inaccessible for many executives as well as their organizations.

Direction -a competitive advantage

During my work as a business leader and after as a leadership trainer, I came across it is advantageous to define leadership in operative terms. When leadership is defined in terms of capacities of a person and in terms of what it does, it's more easy to evaluate and develop it.

They impart a distinct capacity to an organization when leadership abilities defined in the aforementioned style are found at all levels. Organizations having a pipeline of leaders that are good have competitive advantages even those with great leaders only at the top. The competitive advantages are:



1. They (the organizations) are able to solve problems rapidly and can recover from mistakes fast.

2. The competitive have excellent horizontal communications. Things (processes) go faster.

3. ) and often be less active with themselves. Therefore they have 'time' for individuals that are outside. (Over 70% of inner communications are mistake corrections etc about reminders,. ) and are wasteful)

4. Their staff (indirect) productivity is high.

5. Themselves are great at heeding to signs customer complaints, associated with quality, shifts in market conditions and client preferences. This leads to useful and good bottom up communication. Top leaders tend to own less variety of blind spots.

6. It's better to roll out programs for strategic shift as well as for enhancing business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Top down communications improve too.

7. They need less 'supervision', as they are strongly rooted in values.

8. They are better at preventing catastrophic failures.

Expectations from nice and powerful leaders ought to be set out. The direction development programs must be chosen to acquire leadership abilities that can be confirmed in terms that were operative. There exists a requirement for clarity concerning the above mentioned aspects since direction development is a tactical need.

Go Back

Comment