Practical Leadership

Leadership and reward

2009-03-24T18:40:00.002+01:00

How important being rewarded is, becomes clear when we look at its influence on human behavior. Which the credit crunch from 2008 makes clear. Then it became clear that loan officers had created bad debt, because they were rewarded for every mortgage they created.

Rewards
When it comes to rewards, the first that comes to mind is compensation, paid at the end of the month or the end of the year in money. Compensation is often combined with personnel benefits, which may not be directly valued in money, but they represent money. Next to compensation and benefits there are other forms of rewarding.
The first one that may come to mind is the reward received from the work done. This can be the feeling of accomplishment, when a job is done succesfully. Of the feeling of success when a job is ready. Or the feeling that the job was a learning opportunity.
A completely different form of rewarding is that of the recognition by others. This can be verbal. Or in the form of new projects or promotion.
An often overlooked form of rewarding is that which people feel when they are part of a group or team that is successful or is seen as successful.

So leaders have different means of rewarding themselves and others.

Effective rewarding
The most effective method of rewarding does not exist, because all humans experience different forms of rewarding and combinations of rewarding as pleasant. So there will be employees who like to get a large salary and great benefits. Where others would rather be rewarded with difficult projects and find the reward in successfully closing projects.

This difference in experience of rewarding, means that leaders need to search for the right combination of rewards for every single employee.

An important point when it comes to rewarding, that should not be forgetting, is that the stronger the emphasis on short term rewards, the faster employees will find ways to receive the reward. And that behavior is even strengthened by the example that they get.

So the effectiveness of a mix of rewards is also influenced by the example that leaders give.

For a leader this means making visible how he experiences the way he is rewarded. And this in itself is a reward for the employees, because the leader shows that he finds his employees important enough to make them part of his experience.

Leadership and groups

2009-02-18T09:24:00.003+01:00

Leadership is often seen as something that is part of a group. In corporations groups are a way of life. And leadership can be for the corporation as a whole or for subgroups. Subgroups are created when dividing the corporation into departments with specific tasks. But they can also be created for a specific temporary task.

Departments
Most organizations that grow beyond twenty persons, automatically divide themselves into specialist groups. Accounting, purchase and sales, cleaning, they are all part of the organization. Specialization has its advantage over generalization, when it comes to certain organizational tasks. These departments often doe not really need leadership. Especially when the members are highly specialized and highly trained. Often the specialists know exactly what to do and only need someone to keep them up to date with higher management and in contact with other departments.

Taskgroups
Groups that are specially formed for a certain task often have need of internal leadership. But they also need external leadership, to support their work. Especially if the task has implications for the company policy or if it is to prepare change.

Internal leadership of groups is needed to make the group work efficient and effective. However this internal leadership does not necessarilly has to be filled by one person. Belbin showed that the success of a group is defined by the fulfillment of nine roles. In which one person can very well occupy two group roles.

The external leadership is needed to make it possible for the group to do its work. But also to let the groups work have effect. Without the external leadership the work the group has done could very well get lost in the politics of any organization that is larger than 50 members.

Leadership and getting trained

2009-02-05T18:43:00.005+01:00

Although it is often stated that leaders are born and not made, it is off course just the opposite. A born leader without the possibility to practice will never become a leader. Where a future leader with lots of chances to practice, automatically becomes a better leader.

Training leaders
The most important part of leadership is getting a chance to practice. If this practice is structured and formal or informal and unstructured does not matter. For many of todays leaders the rule was, that they encountered situaties in which they could develop there talents as a leader.

From the point of view of an organization, it is off course better to work structured at the development of future leaders. There is however a but attached to this method.

A however
The danger of training leaders is that they are trained for the present or the past, not for the future. It is possible to train for the future, but that takes a different approach to training, from what today is main stream. In the current economy most trainings are based on what we already know. The knowledge that is passed on, is based on the past or is current at the moment the leaderships position is to be taken. The knowledge is seldom based on the fact that the world changes.

Few future leaders following an official trainingprogram learn to gather knowledge to understand the future. Often the idea is, that this will happen by itself as one is busy learning. A second thought is that learning to gather knowledge and information automatically leads to understanding the current situation. That this a flawed idea was proven in 2008 by the economic crisis, that was caused when the mortgage industry collapsed.

So it takes more to make someone understand the information he has received or gathered himself in his current situation.

Leadership and training 2

2009-02-04T19:33:00.003+01:00

A leader has three ways in which he is involved with training. The first is his own training to become a leader. This is often a combination of informal and formal training. Secondly he is involved in the training of future leaders, to get them ready to take their position as a leader, when it is time for the leader to step down. Thirdly as part of the strategy of the organization. Here I am only going to talk about the training of leaders.

The standard method

Save a few companies, most companies choose to hunt and select their new leaders outside their organization. The choice is for proven leadership quality. That has two reasons. First you prevent jealous reactions of other managers, who did not make it into the leadership position. Second you have proof that the new leader can lead and can bear the lesser aspects of the function of leader.

The prevention of jealousy between managers is important to an organization, because jealousy can create adverse powers. The managers that were passed over, can start an internal war or use their position to undermine the new leader. And every internal resistance has negative effects on the effectiveness of an organization.

The advantage of the proof of leadership is that you prevent someone failing, because he was not ready for the leadership role. However the proof is off course only proof for the fact that the leader could lead the organization he left. It can never be proof, that he can lead the organization he is going to lead. Except off course is both organizations are identical to the last point.

The other approach

A different approach is the management development program for high potentials. A combination of training and development for employees who show potential to realise that potential.

These programs begin off course with the selection of the HiPo's, by their manager, a manager HRM or HRD or maybe even a manager MD and a manager high in the hierarchy of the organization, sometimes the current leader.

Next the HiPo's get to participate in all kinds of training and development, directed at realising their potential. Often this potential strands in a management position at middle management levels. Not because they lack potential, but because their are more people with potential, then positions for managers.

This approach often flounders at the possibility to practice with the new knowledge acquired during the MD program. An effect from that fact that training is something completely different from a working organization. A proper working MD program will try to make the training situation resemble the practice of the organization and will try to integrate the training into the practical organization.

Leadership and courage

2008-12-22T19:35:00.003+01:00

Courage is probably the most important talent a leader should have. How else can you have the guts to act differently from the group. Because that is what leadership is, an aberration. A leader is a single person, who does exactly what the group does not want: being different.

Courageous leadership
Achieving leadership can be done through two routes. The first is complete conviction of your leadership. You are the only one, who could be the leader. You could call this sociopathic leadership. You were born to be a leader and no one else is right. For this kind of leadership courage is not necessary. There is not even room for courage, because leadership is not feared. Leadership is the only logical conclusion of ones carrier.
The second form of achieving leadership is through love. First loving yourself as a human being. Using the principle that a human is good the way he is and perfection is not necessary. Second loving others as they are.
The leadership is not a logical conclusion, but a logical effect of the love you feel. And from this love for yourself, you feel love for others. You do not see your leadership as a necessity, but as a possibility to help others discover their love.
This kind of leadership takes courage. Because this type of leader recognizes human weakness and will experience fear during its leadership. Conquering this fear takes courage, because it needs trust, that those fears are unfounded.
This in contradiction to the sociopathic leader, who might feel fear, but will see it as completely irrational, because his leadership does not know any problems.

Developing courage
So the sociopathic leader has no need to for courage, because he does not know it. But the leader who took is task because of love, will need courage. Luckily it is not that difficult to develop courage, when you feel love, and if you live your life on the basis of love. The love you feel for yourself and others, will give you the power to address your task as a leader with courage.
So to develop courage, you must love yourself. And that means most of all knowing yourself. Knowing yourself with all your good en bad talents and look at them with love.

Leadership and gulliblility

2008-11-08T22:58:00.004+01:00

The worst a leader can happen is getting caught being gullible. Gullible does off course have a very negative connotation, as it means dumb trusting. The point however is, that to understand what is really asked, one has to know more about this world than possible. So one has to be gullible to be able to live in this world.

So it is impossible for a leader to prevent being used for his gullibility. Not only because it would make life a living hell. But also because it would that you could trust nobody. Which would end in the impossibility to work with anyone.

Off course trust and gullibility does not mean that you can not be interested in someone else. And maybe that is where the solution lies to prevent misuse of gullibility. Although interest is a form of gullibility. As you need to trust the other to answer your questions truthfully. Byt by asking questions, you lessen the possibility that the other will take advantage of your trust. Because unanswered questions point to a problem that needs to be research, so you can help finding a solution.

Leadership and the truth

2008-10-05T19:00:00.002+01:00

On a Dutch blog for managers they had two items. One item was about lying, the other was about telling the truth. The conclusion you would get from it was that lying is a legitimate action and truth is an expensive commodity, best kept hidden.

Unfortunately the right to speak the truth is countered with arguments that make it clear that the truth is expensive when you hide behind lies. And although the Dutch management blog, gives many reasons to lie, and why it is justified, there is of course only one real reason to lie. And that reason is to protect others from your own incompetence to give them the truth in the form of a gift.

Because what is the truth really? It is no more then your observation of reality, given in your own words. So the truth as such does not exist in most cases. The truth often is depend on the focus of the observer. So a teenager will find the rules of his parents stifling. Where the parents will see the rules as protection for the teenager. A CEO will see his rules as a means to protect the profitability of the company. Where the account manager will see the rules as an obstacle for client satisfaction.

So the truth often is no more then a point of view, that even more often than not will be defended every inch of the way.

Leadership and even more success

2008-09-05T13:28:00.003+01:00

How important is it for a leader to define his own success? Should a real leader not need to focus on the success of others? Or what can he do to make others succeed? In that case the definition for the success of a leader would be: "Under his leadership everybody realized their goals."

Such a definition is tasking for a leader. First of all he is dependent on how many people he leads. Because the larger the group, the more difference between all the goals of group. And how do you support all those different goals.
Secondly he is dependent on the amount of support he receives. Because the larger the group the more support he needs.
It also means, that a leader should be willing to receive help with his leadership. The support however has to sides. The one side is the help offered to and accepted by the leader. The other side is the acceptance of the leaders help by those being helped to achieve their goals.
Thirdly a leader should be willing to be open to goals that are not his own. He has to let go of his ego, and make the goals of others his goal. He should be able to gain pleasure from the pleasure others have achieving their goals.

Leadership and more success

2008-08-24T15:43:00.002+01:00

Okay, so success is just a case of choosing the right definition. And success as a leader is the first of its kind. Because most leaders define their success at the start, by telling us at which points they want to succeed. It is just a pity that their success is just a number, and most often it is even a percentage of a previous success.
"Dear Sirs, the board plans make the companies business grow with 10% in comparison to last year, which should result in a 5% raise in profit. We think it is possible to achieve these goals, by selling more products in new markets like ..."

But why do I call this a pity? Because I do not call this success. I would call this freshman calculus. Real success would be defined like:
"People we want 50% more satisfied customers this year (50% of course is only possible if you had less than 66% satisfied customers last year.) And we want our employees to go home with a 10% salary raise, compared to last year. We will try to achieve these goals, by listening to our customers and employees. We will use this information to create products, that fit the wishes of our customers. We expect that by creating more satisfied customers, they will buy more products, so we can pay our employees more. If by some fluke it will be impossible to pay 10% more than last year, the board will take a 50% cute in salary, so to enable our employees to go home with a nice bonus.

As you can see, the chosen definition of success, makes clear that most people who are in a leading position are more often managers than leaders.

Leadership and success

2008-08-22T22:07:00.001+01:00

Success a real nice and vague term. It is completely dependable on the definition used. Success is in no way comparable to a law of nature. As water is fluid between 273 to 373 degrees Kelvin. Or masses attract each other. Or a ball can only fly so far at has been thrown through air.

But success is completely defined on the basis of a norm. If my norm is money. Those with the most of it are successful according to me. If my norm is speed. Those who are the fastest over 100 meters are successful. So success can not be measured the same way as when there is air or not.

But one way or another, we live by certain definitions of success. If someone reaches the age on which his entitled to a pension, and he has ten million dollars, we call him a successful person. Even if there are three other persons with three billion dollars each at that moment. However if that same person would retire with only a state sponsored pension and fifty years work for the same employer, we would find him pitiful and even would call him a looser.
We would not look at we the person had done in those fifty years. We would let ourselves be seduced by our definition of success so much, that we forget to take anything else into account.
Because what if the person who earned a ten million dollar pension did that by firing 10.000 men personnel? Or even worse, he sold enough guns to kill a million humans? Whereas this person that only has a state pension helped 10.000 persons and saved them from a death by hunger? Who would we call successful now?

Our inclination is to use a small definition for success, and more often then not an useless definition. We do not define success on terms of most happiness to most people. But we take a definition which carries in it the chance that the success of the one person is based on the misery of many others.

But maybe that is exactly the reason why we find ourselves so successful as a species?

Leadership and feelings of guilt

2008-08-19T11:50:00.000+01:00

Is it useful for a leader to feel guilty over what one has done? Would it be useful for anyone to feel guilty about something done? I would say: NO. Guilt and feelings of guilt will not solve the problem, for which we create those feelings. The danger is even, that people will seek ways to escape the feelings. The best known actions to escape feelings of guilt are blaming others. "If they had done that, then I would have done the right thing." Another method of escape would be avoiding the situation, in which the problem was created or is being created. "Sorry, but do not have time now, to get busy with that." Or "What did you say, you want me to do that? Sorry, but they are much better at doing that, and you want the best result, not? Besides I do not have the time for it, I still need to do this and that?"

So guilt and feelings of guilt are for only a few persons useful motivators. Persons who do not get bogged down by guilt, but are motivated by it to go out and search for a solution.

The art of leadership in situations where guilt is created, is to show that guilt should not depress, but motivate. Which means that you can not take your responsibility by resigning, because that is admitting that you can not solve the problem you created. Leadership is shown by creating an atmosphere in which guilt does not lead to fear and flight, but bravery and a fighting spirit. Because in the end, it is not about the guilt when it comes to problems, but the solutions created.

Leadership and guilt

2008-08-13T11:35:00.001+01:00

It is clear that assigning blame most of the time does not create a solution. There is even a bigger chance that a similar future situation will have the same result. First of all because the person who made the mistake the first time, is not allowed to do it a second time. And so has no chance to practice what he learned from the first time. Secondly, because the person who did it wrong the first time, is afraid to make a mistake again and so makes new mistakes.

The first situation is only solved by giving the maker of the mistake another try. That needs trust on both sides that this time around everything will go right. To create that trust, you could have a good talk about how the job will be done. The danger of a good talk however is, that the plan will be that of the one who has the greatest need for trust. And most often that is the client, who was disappointed the first time. Such a plan however is not trust, but control. So the art of these good talks is to find the middleground. Trust in the plan is created, without the plan becoming a way of control.

In the second situation the goal will be to prevent or take away any fear of making mistakes. Preventing should not be that difficult. That is often no more then not finding blame, but looking for solutions. The only two things that need to be done to achieve that is not talking about someone, but talking about what should be achieved. So not a person should be the topic of the talk, but the activity. The point is, that blaming does not bring or create a solution. But talking over possible solutions does. An additional advantage of a talk about solutions, is that the producer of the mistake will get a chance to reflect on what went wrong and what can be done to do it right.

You will have a real problem, when the person who is going to do the job, is afraid to make mistakes. It can be a result of the reaction of the judge. But it can also be the result of past experiences. In that case however, the only person who can do anything about it, is the person who is afraid.

Leadership and blame

2008-08-12T01:24:00.002+01:00

In leadership and blame you find three kinds. First there is the guilt of the leader, default part of his position. The guilt as part of his responsibility as highest in rank. Second there is the guilt of the leader as part of the outcome of his decisions. The leader who makes a choice that can or endangers his fellow group members. Third there is the guilt of the groupmember. The blame as part of the group members responsibility for his behavior.

The first guilt comes from the third kind. The leader is also guilty, as he is also responsible for what others in his group do.

The second guilt is not so interesting. A leader is human and wil make mistakes. It can only be hoped for, that he will learn from his mistakes. And that these lessons will result in better choices in the future. But this guilt is no different from the guilt of an employee, responsible for his actions. The only difference is that a leader has no one above him to assign blame.

And that is what it is all about when it comes to guilt. Of what use is blaming someone? In most cases blaming, leads to flight behavior. The blamed person tries to find external reasons to proof his innocence. The famous excuse: "The dog ate my homework." A pity you do not have a dog. Or the person blamed, will try to spread the blame thin. "I was not the only one, who did this job." Or "I was giving the wrong information by him and him." Or "The client constantly changed his goals and wishes." Or even better: "It was not me, they would do that and so I could not do this." The "Everybody, somebody, anybody, nobody" story is very recognizable.

But is it useful to assign blame, if everybody tries to find an excuse?

Leadership and judging, a thought

2008-08-11T17:34:00.004+01:00

Would the past change, if we judged it?

Why then, do we condemn others, based on their past?

And why do we condemn ourselves, based on our past?

Leadership and still more rules

2008-06-24T06:53:00.005+01:00

Well now you know that you need to be conscious of the rules you follow and act by. But what is the next step? Do you really need to judge and dissect every rule you have? If you want to be honest: Yes you have. However if this is humanly feasible is a completely different question. Because as you start to consciously dissect every rule you follow, the first thing you need to do is to become conscious of every rule you use, for example: older employees cost to much. Secondly you need to become aware of the fact if there is not another rule behind that rule. IE: Older employees cost to much, because I do not want to associate with them, as I look up to there experience in life and get the feeling they are watching me when they are around. Thirdly it is necessary to free up time, to become aware of all those rules. Fourthly you need to be able to forgive yourself for using rules you find morally or ethically unjust. As a fifth point you need to make a choice whether you want to keep using a rule or not. And sixth you need time to think up a new rule, if you think it necessary. However it might be enough to be aware of the rules and express the desire not to use them anymore.

But in the end the question will be: Can you be happy with your leadership, if you leave your rules unconscious? I find this hard to believe. Certainly when it turns out that your leadership is making other people unhappy and you need to impress yourself with the idea that you are happy with your leadership.

Leadership and more rules

2008-05-15T21:24:00.001+01:00

Rules are an important part of the life of a human. Some rules are good to exist. For example the rule of gravity, without it we would be drifting around in a dark and empty universe, without stars and planets. But there are more rules we have devised ourselves and on which we act without thinking.
It are those self made rules, that are important when it comes to leadership. Because many of those rules oblivious used rules hinder a humane kind of leadership. Take for example the rule, that a leader should not mingle with his employees in a friendship like manner. The strange thing however is, that the leaders who act out of a kind of friendship achieve the best results and have the greatest successes. But still this rule of non friendship stays alive.

So it seems to be important to avoid taking rules as a basis for ones leadership, without thinking about their influence on you behavior as a leader. Because often there is enough evidence to proof that an exception to the rule works better. Specially when you want to create a humane kind of leadership, that also gives the successes that are expected.

Leadership and rules

2008-05-13T22:42:00.001+01:00

I think that the most important thing a leader can do is to forgive the people he leads the mistakes they make.

The importance of forgiveness lays in the fact, that it sends the message that rules are not there to punish. As a leader you want you people to follow the rules. You do not want them to be so afraid of the rules, that they start to avoid them.

To forgive someone the mistakes he makes, does not mean that you let it be. To forgive does not mean letting the mistake pass as if nothing happened. Forgiveness means giving the wrongdoer the chance to admit guilt, but then letting go of his guilt.

To forgive also means that you sit down with the person who made the mistake to help him understand what went wrong and what his part was. It also means helping the wrondoer to find a solution, to prevent the mistake from being made in the future.

And of course it is much easier to fire someone who makes a mistake. But then you will have one certainty. In the end you will have less and less people to fire and hire. And the persons who work for you, will be less willing to take risks. Because if there is one thing clear of the social systems in which humans live it is the following. In a surrounding in which there is little tolerance for mistakes, every new participant is taught that making mistakes is not tolerated and should be avoided. And the best way to avoid making mistakes is to do nothing. And the second best way is to do your work the way it has always been done, by eveyone before you.

Leadership and poverty

2007-10-31T19:06:00.001+01:00

Is it not about time, that leaders who have their mouths full of combating poverty put their wallet were their mouth is?

Leadership and listening

2007-07-12T22:50:00.000+01:00

A log by Michael Wagner gave me the inspiration, that listening is the most important competency a leader can have. A competency followed only by the competency to ask questions based on what you hear. Michael Wagner called it: “Go in stupid, come out with a sale.”

Asking questions is probably one of the most difficult competencies a leader can develop. Everything in his surroundings works against him developing it or if once developed keeping it up to speed.

Listening is one of the most difficult competencies, because it asks from us to take our own thoughts and hold them to the light of our own scrutiny. Really listening means not listening to your own thought, ideas, believes and expectations, but listening to the other. For a leader this is almost impossible, because the own thoughts, expectations and ideas form the basis for their successes. And success strengthens the behavior through which it is created together with the thoughts, ideas and expectations.

So you have learned to be a leader that listens to others. Your own thoughts ko not hinder your attention. But what now? Of what use is the competency to listen to others, without your own internal commentary? Even if those internal thoughts were judgments, solutions or expectations. Maybe its an idea to translate what your heard into questions. Questions that give the other the chance to clarify what he thinks, expects, believes or wants.

And the moment you start asking questions, a leader will face a new obstacle. Because most people do not go to a leader to get listened to, they want their leader tot talk to them. Most people would prefer not to talk when their leader is near, but would want to listen to what their leader has to say. And that is exactly what you can see happening with leaders, they become talkers the longer they are leaders. Or they started out as talkers and their behavior became strengthened, because others will only listen when they are around. This however means, that as a leader you know little about what motivates others. So it is important for a leader to be able to listen and ask questions and preferably in the reverse order. Because asking questions will start the other talking after which you can start listening.

But instead of expecting our leaders to be listeners, we expect them to be talkers. They need to make us feel comfortable with their stories. They must motivate us with their ideas. They must comfort us with their thoughts. The must cheer us up with their expectations. But listening is not what we expect of them. It would be nice, but that is not what they are there for.

Leadership and dreams

2007-07-09T00:20:00.000+01:00

It is sad to see, that most people who according to the Dutch are leaders, not really have dreams. Take for example a dream “everyone has a paid job.” That is more a wish then a dream. Because if it were a dream the work that is important would be paid for. But in the Netherlands that kind of work is seen als valueless, and not worth to pay for. Look at the great number of activities that are done by volunteers, that should be done by professionals who get paid. And jobs that deliver a great value to others in happiness are the worst paid.
But not only is “everyone a paid job” not a dream, it is a charge against everyone who does not earn money with his work. And so someone can and may only be valued if his work makes money. It has come so far, that the amount of money paid for something is what makes something valuable. But slowly but surely it becomes clearer and clearer that most of the work that is paid for is of less and less real value to society.
Take for example the very well paid dj’s and presenters. Their work does not make people work harder. Their work does not lower stress. They only distract people from what they are doing, with their work.
Or take CEO’s who leave their post after a few years with large golden parachutes. Often leaving an organization behind without dreams, waiting for the next CEO to install his dreams. Often that dream is no more then the wish to save money, so he can justify his salary and platinum parachute or at least have it paid.
Or what to say of soccer players, seen weekly on tv, who keep others from behaving correctly towards others. Their dreams often not going any further then scoring the most beautiful goal ever.

But what can a leader do to find your dreams, that will be inspiring and motivating? Dreams a leader will take responsibility for? Dreams that help you to motivate yourself and inspire and motivate others to take up their dreams and help you realize yours? Where do you find such dreams?

Probably the only possibility nowadays is cutting yourself loose from the society, in which it is not about realizing dreams but earning money. And as you have successfully freed yourself from societies shackles you need to take a hard look at society, but now from an independent point of view to see what motivates her members. You will need to find those factors in society that form its core and that can form the basis for a dream. Because in the end the dream will need to fit to the society that will realize it.
As important as knowledge of the society is the positive attitude of the dreamer towards his dream. You need to believe it can be done. In the Netherlands this is a problem, because everybody needs to be taken into account when you want to realize your dream. That includes the people who do not want to cooperate with realizing other peoples dreams or do not want to couple their dreams to others.

In that sense the Netherlands is a country in which to many dreams go lost, because to many people who want to be involved. But also because to many people find that the dreams of others who do not fit their ideas, should not be realized.
Maybe that is the reason why the Dutch have leaders that dare not dream big. They do not believe in their own dreams. Where the solution is so simple: Be positive and expect your dream to come true, the rest will follow as in a dream.

Leaders and time

2007-06-26T20:56:00.000+01:00

The way a leader handles time is maybe the clear difference between a real leader and a manager.

Many managers create the image with their employees, that you can only do good work if you are in before a certain time and time after a certain moment. Managers seem to take the saying: “time is money” literally.
Leaders seem to read this saying differently. They seem to think that with time you can make money and not that time costs money.

A leader does not look at time in the sense of how much time do I have and how much time do I think would someone need and how much would that time cost me. A leader looks to find the right person, who can produce with the wanted quality. And he or she tries to find someone who will be motivated by the project.
This approach has the advantage, off course, that the producer does not look at how much time he puts into the project, but how much time he would need to produce the wanted quality. The producer will not ask how much time he may use, he will keep going until he produces the wanted quality or the client says that it is good enough.

When it comes to time managers can learn a lot from leaders. It is a pity that most managers think, that time costs money and that learning takes time and that there is not enough money for that.

Leadership and balance

2007-05-09T12:13:00.000+01:00

I sometimes wonder to what amount the seeking of leaders is good for humans? Or should I say seeking leadership?
Whenever a leader is near, many humans seem to see this as a justification to stop thinking. They no longer try to lead themselves, but blindly follow the rules the so called leader has created. The rules become untouchable and unchangeable, no matter what the consequences of using those rules.
A few questions come to mind though: “How come humans stop with thinking, the moment a “leader” is near?” And “How come leaders think, that other humans can not think?”

The strange thing however is, that leadership in itself is not bad, if applied correctly. Leaders can set an example for other people, so they can become more than what they are. They can help others to achieve more. They can motivate others to reach higher, than they would on their own. They can help humans to live in peace with each other. That is the good side of leadership.

However leadership also has a bad side. To much help wil lead to dependency and humans, that no longer can help themselves. To much motivation leads to humans that are not able to motivate themselves. To much example leads to demotivated humans, that crawl away in a corner fearful, waiting for the world to forget about them. To much peace leads to humans that in complacency let themselves slide into lazy waiters for what else can be received. And that is some of things that can happen next to what could happen to the leader him- or herself. Something Lord Acton described as following: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Leadership seems to be a high rope act. You need to find the balance between to much and to little leadership and that for everyone you lead. Luckily leadership does not really need to be a precise art, as I made it look. It is more of a balancing act on a foot broad wall top. But still you can fall of on either side of the wall and only if you stay on the wall you well reach the desired effects. The problem however seems be, that the wall gets steeper and steeper as you walk over it. As if the wall knows that you get better at keeping your balance.

Leadership and your own expectations

2006-12-07T13:00:00.000+01:00

If we take a honest look at ourselves, we see that we have expectations of everything and everyone around us. For example we expect our employees to do their work and realize the vision, mission and goals of the organization. The vision, mission and goals are again expectations of what the organization can achieve, as they have not yet been realized. In essence we expect to carry out our vision, to realize our mission and reach our goals. But is that what really happens? If we look at how many companies have a vision, but never achieve a workforce, where every employee carries the vision, you should start wondering.
So what is the use of expectations, if they do not become real?
Maybe the most important thing about, expectations is not to make them external. You should not expect others to realize your goals, or you could say your expectations. In a sense, the only thing you can expect of others is that their expectations are the same as yours. Or even better, their expectations go beyond yours and support yours
If you really expect others to realize the expectations you have from yourself, those expectations are no longer yours.

But why is it so important to realize your own expectations? Because your expectations energize you. They give direction to your live, based on you subconscious knowledge of your talents. But they also give the motivation, to stay motivated in any situation. Take this quantitative expectation some people have.
- I expect to have enough money, within ten years, to make it possible to travel the world.
Such an expectation can even be realized by cleaning buildings for ten years. If you keep your expectation in sight, you will succeed, while doing all kinds of other fun stuff. And by keeping the expectation in sight, you will endure ten years of cleaning buildings. (By the way, I expect that cleaning buildings is dull and tedious work).
But why do I call this an expectation and not a goal? Because a goal is something that seems to stand outside yourself. It is something that can lead to disappointment, if for example it is not reached. A goal is also something people like te use to settle scores. An expectation however is something, that leaves room for all those strange things that happen to people. Lets be honest, who would have expected forty years ago, that hypertext would become important and you could become a multimillionaire using it. Besides most people who now are multimillionaire thanks to internet, probably never expected that that would happen. They probably expected that they would be having fun with using their knowledge of and skills for internet.

Leadership and expectations

2006-11-06T17:58:00.000+01:00

How can a leader satisfy others expectations?
There are often lots of expectations when it comes to a leader. If you take a look at who is expecting something from a leader, you start to wonder how one person can satisfy all those expectations. Lets be honest. The board of directors expects the leader to show the way, to keep the company alive. The board of trustees expects the leader to have himself advised. The shareholders expect that their shares will rise in value and they will receive a yearly divident. The colleagues of the leader expect him to be sound and honest. The employees expect that the leader will ensure their salary. The customers expect the leader to ensure that the products will be good. The government expects the leader to keep the company profitable, so taxes can be collected. The neighborhood expect the leader to honor their wishes for a save living environment. And then we have not yet addressed all expectations that surround the position of a leader.
As you see, leadership is accompanied by expectations from others. But it is not about the expectations of others. All it is about, is the expectations the leader has of himself. Does he expect to be able satisfy the expectations of others. And how important is it to satisfy the expectations of others, if you forget to realize your own expectations?
In the end it is more important te realize your own expectations, because that is where you find the energy. You will not find energy in satisfying others expectations. Of course it is nice to give others a pleasant feeling, by satisfying their expectations, but that will only be fun and energetic if that is what you expect from yourself.

Leadership and goals

2006-10-17T10:37:00.000+01:00

Setting goals is a important part of the function of a leader. Often this is described with having a vision, although in laymen terms it is called setting goals. An important point when setting goals is setting the right goals. And to be able to set the richt goals, one needs the right information for the situation. An example of setting the richt goals and having the right information is an anecdote about a basketball player who took up running, because basketball was not really his game. Before he began running, he called a trainer. The trainers advised him to start running eight miles every day for a week and then call him back. After a week he would see results, the trainer added. After a week of running eight miles every day, the runner found he was still running the eight miles in the same time as when he began running. Disappointed he called the trainer, that his time had not improved and that could not have been the goal. The trainer answered with a question: “Are you still out of breath after running eight miles as you were at the beginning of the week?” The runner had to admit, that his condition had improved over the week. And he could only conclude that he had sat himself the wrong goals. So the only difference between the trainer and the runner, was the amount of knowledge. The trainer knew that a better running condition starts with better use of your lounges, not a faster time.

So being able to set the right goals is an important leadership skill. Setting the wrong goals will lead to disappointment and disappointment will lead to resistance. But setting the right goals needs information. Information about the possibilities and abilities and about the situation in which those abilities are to be used. It asks for the ability to tune the available abilities to the situation. To recognize which abilities are needed in a situation and see which abilities are available in yourself and your organization. But it also needs the ability to see the possibilities and impossibilities of a situation and through that set the right goals. Because setting realistic objectives, is more important to create the feeling that reality is manageable, than setting high and lofty goals, that will be forever out of reach. Besides it is more fun to make real small steps, than become disappointed over giant steps you will never make.

Leadership and two kinds of it

2006-10-13T15:44:00.000+01:00

If you want to sort leadership, one could state, that there are only two kinds. The first kind is all about the leader. The second kind is all about the succes of the organization the leader works for.
In the case of the leader who stands central, the leader and his wishes will stand as norm. Something that would not be a problem if the leader had only to lead himself. Or when his wishes and standards coincide with those of his surroundings. It becomes a problem, when this leader starts to impose his wishes and standards on his surroundings, from his believe to be more knowledgeable than everybody else. Often such an all knowing leader will look for people to surround him, that will agree with him. Or else he will use any means possible to undermine and weaken the opinion of others. If the leader has enough power he will use it to get rid of those with a opposing opinion or make it impossible for them to work, so they will choose to leave.
Such an egocentric leader will believe that all successes are his doing and will explain all failures with every possible external reason available. If that means blaming his coworkers, so be it. But failure can never be his doing.

The second kind of leader has a attitude that seeks to find success for his surroundings. He knows, through observation, what his surrounding sees as success. This kind of leader will try to gather people around him, that will be strong in the aspects where his weaknesses lie. He wil also find the means and people who make it possible to be successful. And he will look for the strong sides of the people and the means that are at his disposable to create success.
The inclusive leader will acknowledge everyone who had a part in the success. He wil look at failure from its causes and try to learn from it, together with the people with whom he cooperates. This behavior does not mean that this kind of leader is afraid to take difficult decisions. Difficult decisions are part of what a leader has to do. The inclusive leader will have less need for these kinds of decisions. And they will be taken after all other options have been tried and proofed to be inadequate.

Making such a bipartition is off course extreme, because no human is black and white in personality. However it will be much less fun working for an egocentric leader than a inclusive leader. Even if the egocentric leader is completely or partly egocentric. So all one needs to do is find a leader, who finds his surroundings more important than himself.

Leadership and natural talents

2006-09-09T21:57:00.000+01:00

It seems that most people really like to be special in one way or another. I can imagine this myself. Of course it feels good to get attention because you are good at something. But lets not follow that idea as it comes to leadership. Because as a leader you will always get attention. First of course because most people think, you are the best at what you do. Secondly just because you are the leader. Thirdly because some people will see you as a means to achieve their goals. Fourthly because some will want to take your place. Fifthly because everybody around you is looking for their safety with you. So as a leader you get so much attention, that most of the time, it has nothing to do with any talent you have what so ever. And the talent you do have, is unrecognizable for most people, if they do not have it themselves (if we would believe most leaders.)

The best leader is you
I would not call leadership a talent like playing the piano or painting or running or writing. Leadership is just being the best you can be as a human in relation to and with others. If that is a talent, than we all have it. In the end it is just choosing to the best you can be and getting the opportunity to practice your leadership.
Getting the best from yourself is growing up in a risk tolerant surrounding, so you can make mistakes and learn from them. Getting the best from yourself is also being supported by someone who has high expectations and will give you the chance to make true on those expectations. And not by stating those expectations, but also create the training facilities and to coach you while you practice. That support also means keeping someone motivated if he lets himself get beaten down by a situation. And then when everything goes right, you get your leaders just like that.
In the end the only talent a leader really needs is some common sense.

Leadership and change (3)

2006-08-31T11:04:00.000+01:00

So now you have everybody motivated to make the journey to the top and enjoy the view from the top with you. You have expressed your expectation that the view will be beautiful and that you expect everyone to be able to reach the top. But you are still standing in the valley. And then the Chinese proverb comes up:
A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

In that sence climbing a mountain is a beautiful metafore for change. You are standing in the valley and can only see mountains around you. You expect that the view from the top of the mountain will be more beautiful than in the valley. But to get to that view you will need to get up the mountain.

And there you find the most important point of climbing mountains. There are no beaten paths. You will need to find the path together in cooperation. Which means starting at the bottom. You will need to find a point where you can access the mountain with ease. And you will need to take a rest every now and then from climbing. Also you will need to stop and look around every so often to see where you are, and if you are still going up the mountain? Are you following the best route? Sometimes you will need to trackback and choose a new route. Or you will need to walk along the mountain face to find a better route before going up again. Because in the end you want to reach the top without accidents. Also you will need to give everybody the chance to climb at his own speed. And sometimes you will need to let someone else lead, who has had time to look for a saver route. In the end climbing a mountain is a group activity, that will be a succes because of all the different talents in the group.

However as leader you can use the climb to proof how good you are. But then you are not going for the view, but the proof of your position within the group. At the top you will not be enjoying the view and most of all you do not want to enjoy the view together with your colleagues. But hen you better ask yourself why you became a leader.

Leadership and change (2)

2006-08-31T10:33:00.000+01:00

In a previous blog about leadership and change I mentioned that change asks clearity of a leader. He does not need to live others lifes, he needs to lead by living example. An analogy for change to me is climbing a mountain.

Most leaders when working on a change in their organization show people a mountain and tell them about the beautiful view is from the top, once you stand on it. It seems that the leader already has been on the top and now he invites everybody to join him at the top to enjoy the view with him. (People who have experienced change before, know that most of the time when they arrive at the top of the change mountain, the leader has already found a new top from which he is enjoying the view. So the people who came out of the valley to enjoy the view do not get the time to look at it.)
The strange thing of a leader describing the view from the top is that he can only do so, when standing in the valley himself. So he can not have seen the real view from the top.

So starting change by describing to others a view you have not seen yourself, is a hoax .

A possible solution to prevent yourself from becoming a hoax, as a leader, is telling what you expect to see. But never go off on a rant of how beautiful a place must be, when you have not been there. It will come back to bite you.
So what you really must find important is that everybody will reach the top. And that you want to enjoy the view from the top together. And most of all you expect that everybody will be able to reach the top.

Leadership and form or substance

2006-08-14T13:47:00.000+01:00

One could state that there are only two forms of leadership. However it is always possible to say, that every human has his own form of leadership. But to keep the discussion simple, lets keep it with two kinds. Although maybe it would be better to speak of one form of leadership and something that looks like it.

Oke, so I said two forms of leadership. One form of leadership is all about its appearance. What does the leadership look like? Does it look like leadership or does it not? This is, so to speak, leadership in appearance, that tries to look like leadership and works really hard at it. Where am I in the hierarchy? How do I interact with my subordinates? Am I friends with the right kind of persons? Do I say the right things?
The other form of leadership is substantial. I am not talking about leadership given to someone, because he is the best in his field. I am talking about leadership that is directed at making the best of leading others. Everything the leader does is directed at the advantage it creates for everybody who is beneficiary of the leadership.

However the leadership of substance is hard to discern from the leadership in form. Simply because the external elements of leadership are the same. Making a distinction between both forms of leadership can be really difficult in many situations, especially if a culture has all kinds of rituals and protocols that support the leadership.
Although most of the time it does not matter if leadership is substantial or form driven. Most people do not need a leader in normal circumstances. Most people think it is all right if someone represents their group. The will probably think: “Rather him then me.”

The difference between both forms of leadership are found in situations of emergency. Situations in which one person needs to decide who does what, so the efficiency of the actions of the group is maximized. In those emergency situations humans want a substantial leader, not one who looks at the form and seeks to minimize the risks for his own position.

But how can you tell the difference between both forms of leadership, if it is possible at all? Often it can be found in things like the desperate fight of a pro forma leader to conserve certain rituals and protocols. The form directed leader will also point to the rules and the hierarchy with great energy. He will try to establish his leadership by showing himself in public in a ritualistic way. He will tell others how they should behave and what their responsibility is towards the leadership. In moments of privacy he will be glad to except help. But in the open he will proclaim to have done everything on his own. Persons who have knowledge of the weaknesses of the leader will be manipulated into keeping their information to themselves or have to fear for their position within the organization.
Form centered leaders will often seek subjects and employees who will say yes to everything he says and wants. They will use their limited power to derail any independent mind, by promoting them to a save location or firing them.

The substantial leader will often do things that are the direct opposite. In public they do not mind to much for rituals and protocols. The do not have a problem with asking for help in public, although they may not need it. They surround themselves with people whose strong points are a complementation to their weaknesses. And decisions for hiring or firing are based on the need of the organization.
The substantial leader will look for what is good for the group. The pro forma leader will do everything that is good for his position.

Leadership and change

2006-08-12T22:28:00.000+01:00

Expectations
If you look at what people expect from leadership, then you that it is not much what they expect. A leader does not need to plan the lifes of others. He does not need to lead others lifes. He does not need to live others lifes. All this people can do themselves.
What people really want from leadership is clarity. A leader really needs to reduce or take away the insecurity people have about living. A leader needs to clarify the future and in which direction it will go. A leader needs to clarify what happened. A leader needs to show confidence at the moment people feel insecure and because of that are frightened.
What does that mean for a leader who leads a change? It means that a leader most of can tell what the consequences are from the change. A leader should be able to tell why the change is necessary. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the change? How will the world look like after the change? The leader needs to show confidence in the success of the change. The leader will need to believe that the change is necessary. But why do so many changes fail?

Changing successfully
Change is a highly researched subject, especially changes that failed. Several authors have given their ideas about the factors for failure and added their factors for success. Take De Caluwé for example, who states that the change process needs to fit the organizational culture. Others tell us that the failure was caused by the lack of a good plan. Systems thinking states that failures to change are caused by the parts of the system and how they interact. So finding causes for failure to change is easy. But why should we not look at the reason for change.
With many change activities you could ask te question of necessity. The question you could put forward about change is: “Why do organization want to change?” Several answers are possible to this question. But is the real answer to this question not: “Because it is possible.” Most of the time, when we look at the reasons for change, the need to change is minimal and most of all made up. And most employees even think, that change is just a way for most managers to make their mark.
And that idea about managers makes clear that most leaders make a big mistakes when it comes to change. They forget that for people to change, they need to be absolutely clear about what is going to happen. And if we know anything about uncertainty, it is that people become fearful in unclear situations. And uncertainty feeds wishes of keeping the situation as it is. It can even create forces that wish to return to times when everything was clear, known and understandable. This conservatism among employees was created by leaders who were not clear about: “What is going to happen?”, “Why it is happening?”, “How it will happen?”, “What people are allowed to do, and what others will be doing?”, but most of all: “They did not make it clear if they believe that the change is necessary?”

Personal change
If you look at creating change in your personal life, you can see how difficult it can be to change. Take for example the plan to start running every sunday morning. So you plan to get up early, before everybody is up. The first sunday you choose to realize your plan it is raining. As you had not expected it, you did not get gear to protect you against the rain. The second sunday fails also because your children get up even earlier and want to talk to you as you come downstairs. The third sunday you remember that you wanted to go running after you wake up late in the morning. So you do not go running. It seems that having a plan to change, without the conviction is the same as having no plan at all.
A different example however shows how easy change can be. You are fired at your employer, for whom you worked eight years. You lived a short fifteen bike ride from your workplace. After a few weeks you find a job in a place that is fifteen minutes driving from where you live. Now you get up a half hour early every morning to make your lunch. It seems that you are completely convinced of the need to change.

Off course you wil say now. The first example is not the same as the second. And you are right. In the first case you made an investment into your own future. In the second case the investment was into certainty about your future. What seems to be important in change is the attitude you have towards the change. How important do you think you are yourself or how important is the security a job can give you?

Leadership and training

2006-07-09T15:04:00.000+01:00

I have always found training to be a strange activity within many organizations. Especially the way training takes place.

The trainee
If we look at what training means to a person who is going to be trained, we see the following.
First training is a fast way of gaining more and new knowledge and skills. It is a situation of which you can be certain that the wished for knowledge and skills will be available.
Secondly training is a change process. The receiver of the new knowledge and skills no longer has a deficit in knowledge and skills.
Thirdly training is a social activity. The transfer of knowledge and skills from the trainer to the trainee takes place through communicating the training content. In this social situation the trainer receives respect from the trainee for his work.
The fourth point in training is that is a brake in the daily situation. Especially if training takes several days and is organized outside the workplace. If training becomes schooling it becomes part of the daily situation.

The organization
As training has a certain meaning for the trainee, it has a different meaning for organizations.
Firstly training is a purchase activity. As there is a shortage of knowledge and skills a product is needed that will reduce the shortage or change it into a surplus.
Secondly training is an investment. The purchased knowledge and skills have to create value for the customer and the organization as soon as possible.
Thirdly it is a change process. Where at first there was a shortage, now a method must be found to make money with the new skills and knowledge. Sometimes the change is forced on the organization because the keeper of the new knowledge and skills changes organizations and a new employee has to be found with the samen knowledge and skills. And when this employee is found he or she needs to be trained in working with the organization.
Fourthly training is a social process. The training is giving to one of the employees and this often is followed by new chances and relations within the organization for the trained employee.

Strange
So what is strange about the way organizations use training? Often training is no more then a way to eliminate a shortage of knowledge and skills. For example training is more often used as a way of rewarding employees who have been exemplary and can not be giving a pay rise or bigger bonus due to company policy. So they are sent to function related trainings at nice locations. But after returning from the training nobody expects them to use their new knowledge and skills. You could call this a paid short working vacation. That as a result of the training a lot of unfinished work has piled up, that needs to be done as soon as possible, is no need to stop sending people to trainings. So the employee has to work extra hard the first few days back from training to clear this backlog. And a simple solution to this backlog problem would be to use a reasonably quiet period to send employees to training.
Training as a part of the reward system also is delayed payment. As the employee is upgraded by the training, his or her worth for an organization is greater. So the employee will be able to take on new positions that have a higher salary scale.
Next training often is not bought because of a shortage, but because it is a habit. Every new employee follows the same training, containing so much new knowledge and skills, that you can not expect anything else but inefficiency of training content use. The advantage of such a habitual use of training, especially if it is done consequently at the same training institute is that all employees learn to speak the same language.
And of course some training is purchased because of a recognized shortage of knowledge and skills. But then the organization acts as if training does not change the level of knowledge and skills. So as the employee returns from his training the new knowledge is nog addressed and the skills do not get a chance to be used. The expectations shown to the employee are for a product similar as before he or she left for training, even if with the training the employee could create more value than before.

Strange training purchasing
And that is the strange thing of buying training by organizations. And here we see a contradiction with buying machines.
You might even call it a radical contradiction buying machines or training. When an organization purchases a new machine everything is researched. From the qualitative and quantitative differences between the current and the wished for machines to the TCO and ROI. Does it take a long time to learn to work with the new machine or can it be done in a short amount of time. Does it give more if you learn longer or can you do any amount of learning without any advantage. All this is researched before deciding buying the new machine.
And there we see the strangeness of training purchasing within organizations. Because it seems to be difficult to find the ROI, we forget about the TCO. We do not look at the learning curve or better the forgetting curve. But most of all we do not look at efficiency or effectiveness. Although doing something about this situation is not difficult.

Social activities
As I said before, training is a social activity, as well for the trainee as the organization. It even is so, that by making training a real social activity the forgetting curve becomes a learning curve, effectiveness increases and TCO reduces. With social activity I mean coming together to decide what should be learned. Taking care of replacement during the training and showing interest and coaching afterwards. In a sense what an organization would do when it would buy a new machine and had it installed.

Leadership and models

2006-05-25T09:43:00.000+01:00

Lingual hairsplitting
In a Dutch article on Managementsite by Leo Kerklaan and Marjan Hoogendijk present their opinion about commonly used management models to organize work. They state that those “popular standard models” often are directed at quality improvement. The use of ‘standard models’ is something I would criticize. To start the word standard has several meanings. First of the word standard already makes clear that it is something that is commonly used. Like in the ISO 9000 standard or the IEEE standards, which both are models of something you could find in the real world. And these kinds of standards are meant to make the connection between different models possible. Secondly standard means: something to keep a something else standing. For example a musical standard. Standard is also used to make clear that something happens regularly. As when you say that Robert's reaction is standard.
Kerklaan and Hoogendijk seem to use standard in its first meaning, which however makes the combination of standard and model rather strange. Because a model is a standard, a means to simplify the complexity of the world, to make it understandable. A way of looking at the world, that makes the causal relations between elements, that influence each other, visible. And in the end a model is meant to give a theory of a causal relationship a link to being used in reality.
Or are Kerklaan and Hoogendijk saying that ‘standard models’ are models that are commonly uses. In that case the combination of ‘popular’ and ‘standard’ is superfluous, because popular means common.

So it would have been more sensible if they had used “popular quality models”, because that is what the article is criticizing.

Technical critique
Of course I do not only have lingual critique. To start with their piece has a big technical rattling structure. Take for instance the sentence:

Organizations are being convinced to use the model by showing best practices, or using a ‘award’ approach in which an authority gives away the award to an excellent organization. However, as said before, there is little systematic research that supports the positive effects.

This gives a question:

What ‘positive effect’ is meant: the effect of the model, the award ceremony, the research? I assume they mean the models.

Next I wonder if a model has an effect? Is it not more likely that it has influence? So the model influences the behaviour of its user, and the behaviour has the desired effect. If the model itself has effect, we are probably talking about a supermodel or a mechanical model. Effect is about changing reality by direct action. That a model does not change reality is a good thing, because that would mean that every time someone has an idea about what the world should look like, that world would change.

A second dissonant in the technical structure is that the writers disqualify the models, because they are used incorrectly, need to much time and money and do not deliver on what was promised. But these disqualification are only presented when they need to qualify their own model. It seems that the writers think that the cause lies with the models.

So what I see is, that the article wishes to replace one hammer, with another on the basis of the fact that the first hammer forces me to use it wrong. However only after I looked at the use from the perspective of the second hammer. Which brings me to the third point of critique. The article is critical of quality models, without ever showing the model that is used to judge.
However what it looks like to me, is that Kerklaan en Hoogendijk use a model that is quite similar to the quality models they judge. According to me they use the ideas behind their model:

To reach a goal one needs to set a goal
A goal is flexible, and gives meaning to what you do
A goal is not rigid, but gives direction and can change over time, through the experiences one has trying to reach his goal.

By using this approach while judging the quality models, the seek the fault with the models and keep their users out of the wind. So in a way Kerklaan en Hoogendijk say that all models inherently cause wrong use, except for their model. But as with all models, it is not the model that causes the problems, the problem is that they are made and used by humans.

Internal critique
What really bugs me about the article by Kerklaan and Hoogendijk, is that it leaves out human traits.
First of all human are not able to comprehend reality in its totality. Which declares our need for the use of models, extracts, structure and systems.
Secondly people do not like uncertainty. Which also declares why we use models, structures, systems and rules.
Thirdly people differ in the way in which the react to reality. Which again declares our use of models, structures, rules and systems. That is also why nobody has exactly the same learning style, we use different tactics to come to a solution and we have differences in taste.
Fourthly humans have trouble changing. To start with because it creates uncertainty. Secondly because they become afraid of what the effect of the change will be for their reality. And lastly because changing takes time.
Although the model of Kerklaan en Hoogendijk takes this human side into account, their critique on all other models however does not consider the human side. Whereas all models are a consequence of human behavior. All models are meant to make reality manageable. The models are meant to reduce uncertainty. They are meant to help humans change. That is also what is going wrong with all models. The models forget to address the most important motivator humans have: their freedom to decide. Behavior that can be found in babies. They play longer with toys that are under their control, than with toys controlled by others.

Solutions
So why would the Kerklaan and Hoogendijk model be better, than other models? It gives humans a grip on making their reality managable. Their model is not a straightjacket, but a handle. And in the basis this is what all models do, but as they become more and more complex they create the wrong behavior. They make their users dependent, wanting to object and fight the change the model proposes. They create political behavior, strictness and risk averseness.

Leadership
What does this mean for leadership? To start a leader wil have to address his own shortcomings and that of his fellow humans. Change takes time and is not a result of introducing a new model. Taking the ideas of Kerklaan en Hoogendijk means that the leader picks a model that clarifies what his daily behavior is.
The leader should be permanently attentive to prevent the model from becoming the goal instead of what it was meant for: quality improvement. So it is not enough to choose a model to realize a goal. The correct implementation of the model has to become one of the goals. The leader could almost choose a second model to check the implementation of the model that will create all changes. Which also means that the leader can not let external personnel implement the new model without checking their progress and checking if everybody is satisfied with how the model effects the organization.
You might say that implementing a new model is a full time job next to the leadership job. So the question comes to mind if changing your model is the best course of action?

Leadership and “Yes, however ...”

2006-04-20T14:58:00.000+01:00

One of the most frustrating answers to a vision presented by a leader must be the "Yes, I see your point, however ...". This kind of leader probably is one who likes to tell others what, when and how it should be done. The leader who gets frustrated by the "Yes, however .." answer could try to find a seminar like the one organized by Intermediair and Denk Producties. A seminar that states that the person who answers with "Yes, however ..." thinks that problems are caused by others.
By the way a leader who thinks that the "Yes, but ..." answer should never reach his table, also thinks that the cause of his problems are others.
However if the leader sees the "Yes, that maybe so, but ..." as a starting point to discover each others ideas about the situation, has found an opening. You might use this answer to start a mutual conversation.
So the "Yes, if ..." reaction could be the start of a talk about both visions of the situation.

There is of course a simple reason why people answer with "Yes, however ...". Sometimes it is because they see that what is presented is old whine in new bags. Especially experienced employees will have this reaction to change and ask themselves of what use it is to change the looks, if the content stays the same. ("We're not selling cars here, is it?") And most of the time the new leaders are the ones who present old ideas as new. At those moments, experienced employees react with their "Yes, however ..." it is highly important for the new leader to listen instead of identifing himself with the presented ideas. So to speak: "You are not your vision."
This attitude however is rather difficult to achieve, if one has put a lot of effort in creating a balanced vision statement. The vision has become part of ones personal view of the world, and has incorporated itself into our personality. Disapproval of the vision with "Yes, however ..." first creates the feeling of an attack on ones personality. At such a moment one could forget that:

The receiver needs to explore the vision to understand it and make it his own. As you have done yourself.
You are not your vision.
It is highly unprofessional to let ones emotions answer the emotions of others.

Solutions
So what could be the best solution for a leader to answer the "Yes, but what if ...?" reaction? Start talking to people in the organization, that will directly be influenced by the new vision. That way they will get the chance to understand the ideas behind the vision. And they can start thinking of solutions to work with the new vision, once it needs to be implemented.

A lesser solution is to bring your vision, listen to the reactions of the others at the different levels people can react. Those reactions can be substantive, procedural, relational of emotional. We would most of all like substantive reactions, but every kind of reaction is justified. One can not assume to have the right, to decide for others how they should feel.

The worst solution is to present the vision and answer every "Yes, however ..." with "When are you going to act as a professional?" Because you not only say: "I think you and your emotions are unimportant." But you also say that the other is only a means to an end, which lowers yourself to the same level. In which you have created a precedent to be treated as a means to an end. Something a leader should not want.

Leadership and thinking in solutions

2006-04-03T21:40:00.000+01:00

I read about ‘solutions focus’ for the first time about a year ago. It was presented to me at the Dutch site managementsite.nl.
The idea behind ‘solutions focus’ is, that a problem does not exist all the time. During a period in which we perceive having a problem, there will be moments that the problem does not exist. If we examin these problem free moments we might be able to find a solution for our problem, by applying the behaviour we show at the moments the problem does not exist to the moments that we seem to have a problem.
This method of ‘solutions focus’ does not work for the moments, that we encounter a problem for the first time. Although it can support us in solving the problem, because it reminds us of the fact that most problems have a solution.
Also ‘solution focus’ does not see running away from the problem as a solution. Most of the time we find, that the problem occurs in a different disguises and setting, just as soon as we have settled there. So ‘solutions focus' sees addressing your problem or problem situation with action directed at the problem as the solution. Besides the danger of fleeing is that those around you will see you as the source of the problem. Because the moment you leave the problem probably disappears. And for managers this image is even more dangerous, as they are seen, most of the time, as the ones who should have solved the problem.

To help someone with a problem find a solution according to ‘solutions focus’ you could ask him or her to describe a situation in which the problem did not occur. If this is a problem you could explore the situation, by asking: “what happened?”, “who was present?”, “what was the goal of the situation?”, “who had which tasks?”, “which actions were taken?”, “what results were achieved?”, “how much time was necessary?”, “what was said?”, “what was different from the situation in which you had no problem?” The goal of these questions is to make people let go of their need to protect their world view. As putting their world view on the line, is asking them to put themselves on the line and admit that they are flawed as are we all.
If that does not work, you might try to ask: “What would the situation look like, if there was no problem?” The goal of this question is to get visualization going, as this helps people to see what can be done to solve their problem. To support this visualization process one could ask questions like: “What would be different from the current situation?”, “How would you behave in that new situation?”, “How would you relate to the other in the future situation?” “What could you do to create the new situation?”

The advantage of ‘solutions focus’ is that you are helped to start thinking positively about your problem. You stop thinking of yourself as victim of your situation and take initiative to solve the problem. One stops complaining and becomes a solver. And if there is something people like, it is having influence on their situation.

Why
But why should it be important to a leader to focus on solutions? First of the block is the idea, that leaders should have answers to questions and problems followers have. However by using ‘solutions focus’ a leader puts the follower in to the driving seat of his own position. The leader does not lead by presenting a solution, but by helping finding the solution. This not only creates a follower who can lead himself, but the follower will see the leader as a person who is sincere and willing to listen to the questions he or she has. A second idea that comes to mind is the fact that two know more than one. A leader can not know all answers to all questions, he needs his followers to be able to answer some of their questions on their own. Thirdly using this approach creates trust and openes within the relationship the leader has with his followers. So when problems might become really serious they will not wait till the end to talk with the leader, they will keep him informed.
So in a sense using this approach means that life will be easier, the leader will be seen as a leader, followers will be happier and probably work harder and be less ill.

Leadership and aging

2006-03-07T12:04:00.000+01:00

According to Paul Schnabel and Peter Ester it is simple. If the Dutch leadership does not address the coming wave of aging citizens, the Dutch will be toast. Secretary Hoogervorst already mentioned that it will come to the stage that there will only be two employees in elderly care for every elder.

In real life it will not be as worse as these Dutch gentlemen suggest. First more and more elderly are growing old healthy. Secondly it will take somewhere between twenty and forty years to ride this wave of elderly citizens. So just bite the bullet.

On the other hand from the point of view of leadership is addressing aging in the workforce is a good thing. Simply because there will be less youngsters to do all the work. It will be necessary to use the elderly (aging) employee.

Up to now you often saw, that companies out of cost cutting fired their older employees. Which often resulted in their return for a consultancy fee, comparable to their year salary, just to get their work done. You could question this kind of leadership or should it be called bean counting?

A solution for addressing aging is employees taking their responsibility. A proponent of this idea is Rupert Spijkerman. For leaders however it is necessary to create the possibility for the employees to take their responsibility. If the rules do not allow employees to carry responsibility you get what you could call bureaucratism (the rules do not allow it, so I do not do anything outside the rules). With the strange side effect, that the same rule abiding employee, in the world outside of his job actively takes part in all kinds of enterprising activities. So here Schnabel and Ester have a point. if the rules do not change, older employees will not change. A important instrument for leaders to use, is leading by example: change your own attitude towards aging employees.

Leadership and disappointment

2006-02-24T15:26:00.000+01:00

Cause
It is not hard to imagine that leaders can be disappointed by the reactions they get from their direct colleagues. Everything you do is directed at helping and leading them and they do not recognize your efforts.
A simple reason could be, that your employees are used to your way of working and do not react to it like they used too. Another reason could be, that your employees do not know how they could react. Or do not understand, that a leader also likes to receive positive feedback. A forth reason could be, that employees never learned to see by what kind of positive actions they are surrounded. Yet another reason could be, that your actions as a leader are so indirectly connected to outcomes, that employees have trouble recognizing your impact as a leader on their experiences.

External
It becomes a strange situation, when a leader starts to complain about the behavior of people from outside his organization. If he is disappointed by his customers, who do not seem to understand that quality is costly. If he is disappointed about the fact that investments do not deliver within five years the expected market share and profit. When you are disappointed about the fact that your turnover grows less in one country compared to another, although neither are comparable.
The disappointment is even stranger, when the leader has a great succes under his belt. You decided to invest in a company, that others thought to be a bad investment. And after a year your decision turns out right. Your company’s profit grew 75% over the last year and you can pay your shareholders their dividend, for the first time in four years.
But maybe the disappointment is understandable. We often want to hear from the ones we see as close to ourselves to recognize our succes and the financial profits do not seem enough.
Or all our efforts are directed at making it possible to stay in a certain place, that seems to be difficult to maintain. We often see this happening when people try to keep a company or its headquarters connected to the county in which it was founded.

Coping with disappointment
How could a leader address his disappointment, to keep yourself from showing it in public? Because people do not understand that a successful organization complains about a small problem.
A first method could be to see that you are disappointed and why. Getting a clear understanding of your disappointment could be achieved by talking to an external party. Be careful who you choose, because journalist have their own goals when listening to you. Best is to find someone who has no stake in listening to you.
A second approach is stop looking at negative things and things that go wrong. You might want to look at only your successes. However there is a danger in only looking at positive things. If the failures are a signal for fundamental problems, then ignoring them may result in complete failure of all systems.
A third method is to sit down with your colleagues and make a list of all positive and negative elements and see if being disappointed is justified. Often you will find out, that there is no reason to be disappointed.
An advantage of this last approach is that you get a clear view of your situation and that you can be content. Your satisfaction can give you the energy to find out what caused some of the fiascos.

Advise
A few suggestions for a leader who is feeling disappointed:

talk internally about your disappointment, because in the outside world you will not be understood;
have a positive feeling, before you start looking at fiascos, because else you will feel disappointed afterwards;
do not look at disappointments on your own. Do it with someone else, who can give the advantages of the fiascos (not the devils advocate, but his fool);
research your disappointment, is it caused by:

internal reactions, or
are they from outside, or
is your personal situation a reason for disappointment?

Advise for Numico’s chairman
My advise to Jan Bennink of Numico is: stop being disappointed about the Dutch when everywhere else you are a succes. My compliments for the succes of Numico.

Leadership and management

2006-02-16T20:41:00.000+01:00

Superior leaders get things done with very little motion.
They impart instruction not through many words, but through a few deeds.
They keep informed about everything but interfere hardly at all.
They are catalysts, and though things would not get done as well if they were not there, when they succeed they take no credit.
And, because they take no credit, credit never leaves them.

-- Lao-Tzu

Most of what we call management consists of making it difficult for people to get their work done.

-- Peter F. Drucker

Leadership and marketing

2006-02-08T18:36:00.000+01:00

Organizations are more than their product

Marketing is one of those disciplines of which many leaders probably think: thank goodness that it is a department. This of course is the wrong thought. Because marketing in essence is the product an organization sells.
Most small to average size organizations however, think that they are selling a specific product to their clients, for example a machine or a hamburger.
Most clients think they are buying a machine or a donut they crave for. But in reality an organization sells a combination of elements, of which the product is only a part.

A leader should look at the total organization as a product that is to be sold. That would give the insight why it is necessary to address the 5 P’s of the marketing mix as well as the 4 C’s of the consumer mix.

The 5 P’s were short for:

Product:
	What are you selling? The next cash cow or do you have a dog in the house?
Place:
	As real estate agents will say: Location, location, location
Price:
	Are you offering the lowest price? Or are you being exclusive? Or is the relation between price and performance more important?
Promotion:
	Is the products existence known to the public and does it look good?
Personnel:
	Is everybody motivated to sell the product or are they selling because they get paid to do so?

A variation on the 5 P’s is the 4 C’s put forward by R. Lauterborn (ref. 1, ref. 2, ref. 3, ref. 4), which I first encountered in an article by John Koster and Ed Peelen on managementsite.nl “Komt het nog wel goed met marketing?” (Will marketing be alright?):

Cost:
	Which effort must the customer make: personally, financial or physical?
Customer needs:
	What is it the customer wants to buy: a product or its use?
Convenience:
	What can be done to live up to the expectations of the customer in price, place, promotion, product and personnel?
Communication:
	How does the customer want to be addressed?

When we use the 5 P marketing mix to answer the questions of the consumer mix, you get the following questions:

Cost:	Product
	How much trouble is it to us a product (almost everyone has something at home, that after onetime use disappeared into a closet or drawer, because of the difficulty to use it or get help from the manufacturer.)
	Place
	How far and how long should a customer travel to get his product. And what should he be paying once he has arrived at his destination? (An example of how this is solved, is the free parking ticket for the car park.)
	Price
	What should a customer pay for the product? And does this price seem reasonable compared to what he is getting and needs to do?
	Promotion
	Is the PR directed at the customer or was it made for the PR department? Is the packaging and the user manuel clear and understandable? Is there a help desk and is personnel available?
	Personnel
	Is it the customer who is excerting himself to reach a member of the organization or is the personnel that tries to reach the customer with a friendly attitude? You might say is the customer there to keep the employees busy or are the employees there to help the customer?

Customer needs:	Product
	What is the intended use by the customer and is that the only thing it can be used for? Is the customer interested in this product or would he rather have a product that is less sophisticated but easier to use?
	Place
	Does the customer want a shop around the corner with everything for sale or does he want a range of shops. that all sell their own unique products? Does he want to spend a lot to get at the desired place or does she want it at walking distance? Does he want exclusivity or does she want what everybody is having?
	Price
	Is the price unimportant as long as the product works the way advertised or should it give more for a low price?
	Promotion
	Is the customer interested in thinking for himself or should you make him laugh? Should your PR be understandable or should it challenge the customer to understand what was meant?
	Personnel
	Should the customer be searching and waiting for help or should the customer be treated like a king?

Convenience:	Product
	How much effort should it take the customer to use the product? How can the customer be helped to start using the product as soon as possible?
	Place
	How easy can you get to the location where the product is sold? What has to be done to get to the location? Could the product be brought to the customer?
	Price
	Does the price fit the expectations of the client? Or should the client be helped understanding what the price signifies?
	Promotion
	Is the customer getting the information he needs, or should the customer adjust to the information?
	Personnel
	Is the customer expected to search and wait for personnel or is he being pampered like a baby?

Communication:	Product
	Is the product telling the customer that it is easy to use and understand or is a product for professionally trained users.
	Place
	Does it say: “come on in” or more something like ”get out and stay out.”
	Price
	Is it a price of exclusiveness or inclusiveness? Does the adjust to the customer or should the customer adjust to the price?
	Promotion
	Is it about the customer or is the product and the organization central to the information given? Do we think and tell the customer we think his mental capacity is hindered or do we think he needs to be informed to become knowledgeable?
	Personnel
	Is it clear that the employees think that the customer is important and do they show it or is the customer a buggy side effect of working for this company? Is the customer right or the employee?

Examples of how organizations and their leaders have trouble connecting their product and customers, are easily found. Take for example the automotive industry. With the exception of a few brands most are doing worse every year. Toyota has almost overtaken GM as biggest car maker of the world. Where GM is closing factories and cutting salaries.

What is causing this difference?
Because Toyota puts the customer and his wishes central and also communicates this with its vehicles and service. GM however still thinks that all its customers want is a car with the GM logo somewhere on the car.
But not only the automotive industry is an example. The educational system also thinks its knows better than its customers. The biggest part of the educational system still focuses on content delivery. Instead it should be looking at what is needed to help their customers learn what is being taught and what the customer is going to do with that knowledge.
It would be good if leaders understood that their product is not what the customer takes with him when stepping out of the door, but that its the whole package from the first glimpse of an idea for a product up to the moment the product will be recycled.

Leadership and diversity

2006-01-29T17:42:00.000+01:00

At the core of the position of a leader is diversity. The leader does not only has to deal with diversity daily, but his existence means diversity, because he is different from all other members of his organization.

The word diversity is being used for many different aspects and activities within an organization.
The government for example expects organizations to employ several kinds of citizens, employee diversity. The expectation is, that the leader will answer the governments quest for diversity. But what answer could a leader give? (A reason to work on creating a divers workforce, is that multi cultural organizations have more success than mono cultural.)
The organization itself expects the leader to poses an arsenal of reactions that fit almost every situation. In every situation his reactions have to create the right effect, a divers arsenal of reactions in leadership. But which reactions are the most effective in which situation?
The consumer expects that an organization sells products that fit his wishes, a diversity of products. How can a leader make those consumer wishes come true and at the same time keep all those wishes separated?
Employees expect a divers array of jobs, functions, tasks and responsibilities. What can a leader do to create all this diversity? (Although all those different products consumers want, create a lot of diversity in jobs.)
The suppliers expect the organization to be able to address a myriad of delivery forms and payment possibilities. How could a leader keep all these differences apart? (What if he tried to find employees that address the specific wishes of suppliers?)
Banks expect an organization to answer a range of questions about their financial situation and follow several rules before they can loan money. How does a leader answer all these questions? (Should he do it himself of find others to help him? And should this help be external or internal?)
The Internal revenue service expects a company to follow a divers set of rules that govern accounting and tax payment. Those a leader need to know all those rules? (What should be done by himself and what can be done by others?)
Stake holders in the organization expect the leader to give the right leadership, so its effects on her surroundings may be positive. Can a leader create this effect on his own and how? (Could he select the right employees who will follow his example?)
Shareholders expect a yearly returning positive return on investment and climbing share prices. Can a leader answer their question of is he to dependent on the market, employees and other external factors?

Diversity is really the central axiom of the function of a leader in an organization. But what is the best way to address diversity?

Leadership and tradition

2006-01-27T19:55:00.000+01:00

What is the importance of tradition for leadership?
Repeating a certain action, behavior or ritual with a long rest period could be a definition for tradition.
The advantage of tradition is, that it fits the way our brain works. Something that happens regularly, or returns occasionally or is being done at a regular basis, becomes strongly embedded in our memory and can be easily retrieved for use.
The disadvantage of such deep memory tracks is that they are difficult to replace with new behavior. The human brain will try to prevent the removal of such memory tracks.
So tradition is important for leadership, because it supports a long living leader by creating a subconscious right to leadership with the people he leads. The advantage of this is, that people know what they may expect of their leader, which gives them a feeling of safety.
This tradition effect of long lasting leadership is strengthened if the leader creates all kinds of recognition and remembrance moments into his leadership existense. An example is personally giving employees presents who did something special for the organization. Although lately the 25 year employee ship is a rare occasion, the five year working relation is more than special enough.
A tradition in that sense that has been created the last twenty years is the press conference and stockholder meeting where the CEO presents the financial situation of the organization.

For a future or new leader this need for tradition of humans means that one should keep the previous leader in high regard. The best one can do is to leave the existing traditions in place and replace them slowly with their own. An example of an organization that uses this tactic is the Catholic church. New church leaders do not change traditions, because the traditions are part of the rituals of the organization and her surrounding culture.

Traditions strengthen leadership, if the leader respects the traditions.

What could a leader do to support traditions?
The most important activity a leader can give to support a tradition is show his face. His partaking of the tradition confirms and strengthens the right of existence of the tradition. However the danger of supporting a tradition can be, that the leader is governed by the tradition. You could say, the tradition starts to live a life on its own. An example of this is Queens day in the Netherlands.
To prevent such a situation, you need to change the tradition slowly. Again Queens day is an example of how this is done.

How does tradition support leadership?
In most cases tradition only supports a leader or the leadership during the period of transition or take over. Take for example how the English royal family has organized its succession. Everybody knows the phrase “The king is dead. Long live the king.” After which a process is started to crown the new king. By doing this in a traditional fashion, the new king is confirmed as the new head of the royal family. But would this also work for a leader in an organization?
Most leadership successions often take place by means of an electronic message to all employees and a message to the biggest customers. If a company is of interest to the press the succession will be on the news. But that has nothing to do with tradition.
Tradition supports the new leader most of all in his direct contract with his new staff. His introduction, sometimes by the old leader, must make it clear to his staff who holds the power to take decisions. In some cases it is even a tradition to get rid of all other members of the executive board and replace them with friends. The staff often expects this behavior from the new leader.
This tradition of the introduction does not mean that a leader can be certain about his power. The tradition does not automatically support the leaders position. The leader will need to find those elements in the tradition, that support or weaken his position.

Are leadership and tradition partners or enemies?
Leadership and tradition are nor partners nor enemies. The leader needs traditions to support his position, but also has the freedom to create new traditions. Tradition however does not need the leader to survive, because human nature is inclined to keep traditions alive. However tradition is not set in stone and can be changed over time.
Tradition can be a leaders enemy, if he uses or treats it wrongly. Just as tradition can be a partner to a leader, if the leader recognizes the tradition for how important it is to his staff and employees.
However if a leader is not careful, he can become a prisoner of tradition.

Leadership an interview for example

2005-12-18T22:16:00.000+01:00

Starting point Voordaan
On the Dutch weblog by Daan (Voordaan) a start was made with a snowball interview. Her idea and execution has created a flood of loggers writing about themselves.

Other web logs and Volkskrantblog
I have chosen to use Volkskrantblog and Blogger to put down my ideas about leadership. My other thoughts and writings are saved at web-log en punt weblog. The reason to choose for one subject on a weblog, is something that other people might want to know. So lets start writing about the reason or reasons.

A few reasons
First there was a conference about leadership, that I started organizing. My Vk and Blogger weblog gave me the possibility to order and write down my own ideas about leadership.
My opinion about leadership is rather clear cut. I think that every human kan en should lead himself. That does not mean that I think that leading yourself is easy, but then neither is learning to walk.

Secondly I heard more and more people call out for leadership, but nobody really tells what is meant with leadership. I think, that as long as people are not able to lead themselves, they will receive leaders that will not do what is best for everybody.
I do not mean to say, that leadership is useless, but when an individual is not able to lead himself, he should certainly not ask others to lead him.

To me leadership means taking responsibility for ones actions. And to me that is not the same as being accountable. In the end one can only be accountable to oneself. It is off course possible to state, that one is accountable toward others, but maybe this simple question will make it clear what I mean.
Assume that some ones action are detrimental to others, but that he dies during that action.

To whom will he be accountable?
Is he accountable toward a higher being, that shaped everything?

I do not think so, because I have to assume that this higher being knew, that it would happen, even if I take free choice into account. In that case the responsibility is not with the perpetrator, but with the creator.
Although humans like clarity about guilt and responsibility, we do not know why. Is it is something that is part of our nature or is it nurtured or maybe both.
My question about the responsibility of the leader could also be worded as following:

Can a leader be held responsible for mistakes made by the cleaner, even if he did not personally see what happened?

Personally I do not think, that a leader can be personally responsible for the mistakes others make. He can be held accountable though, for how he handles the mistakes of others. Is he playing “pass the buck” or does he try to find a solution that fits the problems, that were created by the mistakes? In that last case I would call someone a real leader. His solution is not finding someone to blame, but to find a suitable solution.

Thirdly writing about leadership gives me a possibility to create a structured image of leadership. I mean a structure that answers questions like:

What is leadership?
How does one become a leader?
What is that leaders do?
What influences do leaders have?
By what are leaders influences?
How can leaders have influence?

To end
Writing about leadership makes it clearer and clearer, that leadership is the easiest thing to do. In the end it is bringing together all kinds of abilities we use daily. The difficulty lies in conquering our fear and taking our responsibility.

Leadership and judging

2005-12-14T12:24:00.001+01:00

A major ability for a leader to posses is judging without condemning.
Most people learn throughout life, that being judged is a denouncement of ones personality. They often only have experiences with judging, but most of all condemning, statements. For example, what does the statement: “You have to work smarter.” mean? Or a judgment stated in the form of a question: “Do you know what you are doing?” Or the deathblow condemnation: “Why do you do that?” Often spoken in a tone of voice that makes clear that the question is rhetorical.
The motivation for such condemning behavior by the judge or condemner often is discontent with the overall situation. This discontent however creates a reaction, that creates resistance within the recipient of the reaction. In the end the judge has transported his discontent to the judged. The reaction of the judged is not to ask himself the question: “What has been said?” but just reacts. And the original problem, that needed a judgment, is never solved.
For a leader such behavior will signal the beginning of the end of his leadership. Where the beginning is his recognized, respected leadership and the end is a leadership in name, not respected and without influence.
How can a leader prevent that his judgment become condemnations?
First by looking at his feelings.
What does he feel for the situation he needs to judge? Is he irritated, because it does not function or does not function in the way it should? Is he angry, because the person to be judged does not do, what was asked of him? Is he sad, because the situation will be less effective than possible? Every feeling will create its own reaction, but they will create condemnation if they are not recognized as the basis for the reaction.
Secondly the leader can look at what the recipient of the judgment needs and adjust to that need. This strongly compares to what Blanchard and Hersey mean with situational leadership.
Thirdly the leader can look at how he wants to communicate his judgment. And even there it sometimes can go wrong. Because some people will think, that the used medium is a judgment about their personality.
Special is that a leader who gets to know and understand his feelings and emotions, gets better at understanding others.
But maybe the most important activity of judging is, the guts to admit that you as a leader are only human. So when giving wrong judgments, you are also willing to admit, that you made a mistake and will correct it.

Leadership and double loop learning

2005-12-14T00:17:00.000+01:00

Learning may be the most important thing a leader can do. I am not talking about learning new knowledge or skills for your job or professional background. I am talking about getting to know yourself. Getting to know the people around you, with whom you work together or cooperate. Learning about the new developments within and without your organization. Learning from the mistakes you make yourself, those that your colleagues make, those made by your organization and found in its surroundings.
With learning I do not rote learning, often negatively described with repository learning. You could compare this repository learning with Argyris’ single loop learning. I am talking about double loop learning. Learning by looking at what happened and comparing those outcomes with the goals that where set. And if necessary adjusting or changing those goals.

Why should leaders learn in double loops? Argyris gives a few reasons:

Past knowledge creates a model of the world. If this model is not adjusted over time, you will try to fit the changes in your surroundings into this outdated model. When this fails it could lead to a feeling of personal failure. Lots of humans however have trouble admitting they make mistakes, based on values they use. Something that could lead to denying that there is a discrepancy between reality and model. By keeping an open mind to differences between model and reality, you create the possibility to adjust the model to reality.
If this model becomes the core of ones professional activities, you slowly start to identify yourself with it. Every critical reaction to the model, from your direct surroundings up to the changing reality, can be seen as a threat to your personality. Suddenly the solution is no longer changing the model, but removing or denying the critique. A reaction could also be to focus the attention on something or someone else. By looking at the model as a instrument, to create a clearer few of reality, it does not become a burden but a tool.
The fear of critique, created by identifying oneself with the model could lead to the fear of having created a imperfect model. One no longer tries to look at the model objectively, but sees every flaw in or fault created with the model as a personal mistake. By constantly comparing the model with reality, one keeps in mind that the model is not the reality. Also the possibility to adjest the model to keep it useful is kept open.

If I had to sum everything up to one scentence, I would say: Keeping an open mind for information out your surrounding and comparing that with the ideas one has based on a model, could help a leader to become a better leader.

Leadership and intervening

2005-11-27T20:17:00.000+01:00

Leadership means having to intervene. In all kinds of situations leaders are asked to be judge, police officer, motivator, coach etc. And there is more than one kind of intervention that can be used. You could act to protect the order. You could intervene to motivate someone of help him find his own inspiration. It can also be necessary to control the direction of a conversation. In the case of a conversation it can be handy to use an intervention model, that takes the different elements of a conversation as starting point.

The intervention model
Every situation in which humans communicate with each other, you can find four elements:
content, procedure, relation and emotions.
At certain moments during a conversation, one of the communication partners can make one of the four elements more important than the others. You could say, the partner wishes to change the subject of the conversation. Suddenly the procedure, the relation or the emotions are the subject of conversation.

The intervention wish
Often the leader is expected to answer the wish of his conversation partner to discuss one of the other three elements instead of the content with was the subject of conversation. And to answer that wish the leader has to address that wish, even when it is not expressed openly. Most of the time the leader has to read the wish from the reaction that is given by his conversation partner. For example: his partner reacts emotionally or shows behavior that is related to a certain position, that is not appropriate for the given conversation. Those are the moments that a leader should intervene. Often to prevent the conversation from escalating into an emotional battle. Sometimes to answer the others wish to address one of the elements. Which element should be addressed for the best result, is often however unclear.

Intervening
A guideline for intervening is to react as soon as possible on a level of least importance. The goal is to prevent the need to intervene at a level that will be emotionally hurtful.
This means, that one could ask the other to follow a certain procedure during the conversation. P.e. when giving feedback use the following guidelines:

to tell first which behavior one has seen, without being judgmental.
secondly give your feelings, caused by the behavior.
then tell how the other can behave in such away, that it give you a positive feeling.
last you can also say what will happen if the behavior does not change.

If putting the procedure central does not work, it can be useful to talk about the relationship. This element is important to both parties and could lead to loss of face for both sides. It can be necessary to agree on the fact, that during the conversation both parties are equal, where outside of that situation there is a clear hierarchical relationship. For example during the conversation there is a coach/coached relation, where afterwards it is manager/employee.
If in the end the talks escalates out of the reach of a procedural and relationships intervention, one must address the emotions shown. It is important to take the emotions serious and not ask the other to stop being emotional, because it hinders the conversation. It will be necessary to give the emotional party the possibility to work through his emotions, which can be helped by expressing what you see in your own words. After that it probably will be possible to make procedural proposal. Especially if the emotions went deep it can be necessary to make a new appointment.

Intervening is not the easiest thing to do. It takes tact and empathy to make it work well. However not intervening and letting things snowball, will often hurt the relationship more in the long run, then trying the wrong intervention.

Strange developments

2005-11-16T00:21:00.000+01:00

The government of Norway is planning a law, that forces companies to have at least 40% women in top management.

Their motivation is, that research showed, that diversity leads to successful organizations. From this point of view, this action by the Norwegian politicians is rather smart. It shows guts to force others to think about diversity.
It is only a pity that it might not be diversity that is the factor that leads to success. It could be a hidden factor, that creates as well success as diversity.

The Norwegian governments behavior is similar to behavior based on the following thought.
I will put on as many garments as I can, because that will keep me warm. That it is not the clothes you wear, that keep you warm, should be clear when you look at the Tuareg. They live in a hot climate and put on a lot of layers of clothes to keep cool.

So the danger is, that your conclusion is shallow and hastily taken. To prevent is this, it is necessary to research your situation thorrowly and take into account that what you think is normal. This last part is rather difficult, as you will need comparison material, to see what is normal to yourself and different to others. So diversity does not only breed success, it gives you the opportunity to understand what is invisible to you in your own situation, because its normal.

Leaders, fear and anger

2005-11-07T04:23:00.000+01:00

I wonder how many leaders think, that their emotions are useful instruments. And how many focus on their emotions and use them to assess a situation. I wonder how many leaders are aware, that two emotions should never be left unknown and unheeded. I mean anger and fear.
Neither of these two emotions should be allowed to run free or even sneak around in the leaders emotional arsenal.
When one of these two emotions appears, a leader should be aware of it and understand what it has to tell.
Fear is probably the worst advisor a leader can have, if it is left to do what it wants: run. By the way, anger is not much better at advising, as anger only wants to fight and so brings the leader in perilous situations.

Mankind had found several cultural solutions to cope with these two emotions. Some of those solutions are:

suppression
denial
freedom to act
limit to certain members of the group
manage
control
make rules for use

Organizations also have their way of coping with these two emotions, fear and anger. Some forbid employees to be afraid or show anger when inside the walls of the organization. However, when they leave the building, both emotions can be used the way best seen fit. An example are aggressive sales organizations. The behavior of those organizations led to the government making laws to protect citizens against them.

The government itself is off course an organization itself. The government is even an organization, that uses fear and anger as a means to achieve its goals. Most rules nowadays are based on the fact that people can be scared into doing what you want them to do. You could say, that the government creates anger in a controlled manner. It does so through laws, rules and regulations in which citizens are told what to do or what they are allowed to do or not to do. And it makes it clear that sanctions are available for those who break the law or do not follow by the letter.

Experts, mostly psychologists, often propose the use of rewards for proper behavior instead of punishment as a better way of achieving the wanted goals. The problems arise as one tries to write down such a reward system in laws and regulations. It seems that paper rules only are capable of regulating anger and fear.

This leaves us with the question: how can a leader use fear and anger to his organizations benefit without having to use paper to write down the rules?

Preparing to be a leader

2005-10-24T22:44:00.000+01:00

The development of leadership is comprised of several elements, that need to be clear beforehand.
The first element is a question:
“Are you sure about leading other people?”
That question should be asked, not because leading other people is the worst job there is, but because leading is more than giving orders from within a well defined plan communicated in the right way.
Leading means taking into account, that others stop taking responsibility for their actions, simply because the leader is responsible for everything.

How do you make them understand, that they are responsible and need to take responsibility for what they do?

Leadership also includes taking into account the jealousy of others, who wanted to be the leader instead of you. Or the jealousy of those who think they can do a better job than you at being a leader.

How do you make those jealous ones let go of their jealousy?

Being a leader also means having to meet people with the expectancy that you are or should be infallible.

How do you make it clear, that being a leader, does not mean you stopped being a human and so you will make mistakes?

It also seems that having the leadership includes seeing the future more clearly than others, without the information and knowledge of others about what the present looks like.

How do you make them help you with their knowledge and information?

Leadership according to many entails: telling others what to do and how to do it.

How do you make them understand, that their way of working is no worse than yours or even better than yours?
And that you do not posses all knowledge and skills just because you are the leader?

Some think that leaders are without fear or fearless.

How do you make them see, that it is not about being without fear, but that it is about conquering your fears and taking decisions or action although you are afraid?

Being the leader means you have manipulated those who took the decision to make you the leader, because you had compromising information about them or bought their loyalty.

How do you convince them that your were chosen on basis of your merits and abilities and you were the best the decision makers could find for the job?

Leadership is according to some the willingness to lie and cheat to keep your position and protect the company.

How do you make it clear that a real leader does not lie to safe his position or protect his company?

There are more questions you can ask, before you decide to start taking on your role as a leader. Especially because if you do not answer them beforehand, you might find out the hard way during your leadership, that they exist.

Leadership and communication

2005-10-24T13:28:00.000+01:00

There are lots of definitions given for leadership and everybody will have his own preference. I am not planning to summarize them here. If you are interested you can always go to a search engine to start a search.
What I think is special is that more and more people think that leadership is something you can learn and not a talent you are born with. Look for example at this site of Big Dog en Little Dog at the page about the concept of leadership.
Another example of a different way of thinking about what is important in leadership is the Dutch column by Bert Overbeek about what organizations can learn from termites on Management Site.
What is so special in the article by Bert Overbeek, is that it points out how much you can achieve with a good plan, that is clearly communicated and in which everybody works together. This article by Bert Overbeek gives me the idea, that a leader is the one who creates a well thought out plan and communicates it with those who will execute it. When this is done well, he makes sure that the cooperation runs smoothly. To be able to do this, the leader needs to understand the culture within his organization.
But his knowledge of other factors within his organization is also important, for example knowing how changes influence everybody within the organization.
But in the end all knowledge is useless, if you do not know how to communicate with others.

Eight Tips to motivate, or should I say nine?

2005-10-17T14:13:00.000+01:00

In this Dutch article on Managers Online you will find eight tips from Phil Kleingeld, CEO of Motivaris.
The most important tip is that you can not motivate other, you can only support their own motivation by creating the right conditions.
The other eight tips are:

Using immaterial rewards lasts longer
Let people decide how the will work
Listen to ideas
Keep people informed
Use concrete goals and do not forget to use tip 4
Give clear compliments, as soon as you see something done well
Be consistent towards others and in your own behavior
Plan useful meetings

The question I have after reading those nine tips is: What is the founding idea?
One answer I know from scientific research is that people like having their lives in their own hands. Even babies like toys they control more than toys controlled by others.
You can also conclude that people like to motivate themselves, by the fact that children playing games like to play by their own rules. Looking at the reaction grown-ups give to this “childish” behavior, it seems that grown-ups also would rather play by their own rules. The solution to solve this conflict is agreeing to rules beforehand and strictly adhering to those rules. If you break the rules you are accused of being a cheat.

In a way it all seems very simple. If you abide by the rules, explicitly or implicitly agreed upon, everybody is motivated to play along.

Kinds of leadership

2005-10-17T02:06:00.000+01:00

I think there are several kinds of leadership. I do not mean the kind of leadership Blanchard and Hersey address when they speak of situational leadership. What I mean is leadership in the areas of:
- content
- emotion
- relation
- procedure.

A good leader probably needs to be reasonable to well able at all these areas. You might say, he has to be a leader in all four areas. In that sense it would be better to speak of a complete leader. I assume that four persons, every one very able in one of the four areas, could achieve the same as one leader, able at all four areas.
The art of finding leaders, under that assumption, would mean finding four persons that make each other complete in every four of the areas.
Off course, if one of the four is a complete disaster, when it comes to relations and another one is his opposite, the situation will not be salvageable.
This does not mean, that a four headed leadership is less appropriate. It just means that looking for four leaders takes as much wisdom and spirit as looking for one leader. Besides four equals are in the situation to learn from each other. The danger for one person, that is better in most areas than other persons in his surroundings, is that he or she becomes arrogant, if that is not already the case.
And we all know what happens to arrogant leaders.

Leadership and fear

2005-10-14T23:32:00.000+01:00

Afraid
Ever since that dreadful day in september 2001, their has not been a day, that terror has not struck at the hearts of citizens all over the world.

More afraid
But most leaders will have been more afraid than most citizens. Because how can they make it clear to us that they have recognized our fears? How can they make their citizens see that they are doing everything to control the creators of our fears?
As I look at the situation, I see a problem. How can I diminish the fear of others through my behavior? Is it possible to influence others emotions by showing courage? I do not know. What I do know is that people seem to be less afraid, when others in their surroundings, to whom they look up, do not seem to be afraid. However this technique does not really work in the long run. Look at all the stress related illnesses. The first world war had its shell shock, the first Gulf war had is syndrome. It seems that showing courage is the way to help others suppress their fear. It does not seem to help them conquer their fear.
So maybe it is necessary for humans to experience their fear. And that the leader should only show that you do not have to be afraid of your fear.

Most afraid
So I would not be surprised if it became clear, that showing bravery, while not really being brave is the worst thing a leader can do. This behavior probably looks to most people more like bragging, than bravery. Although most people might not be able to put their finger on it, the probably feel something is wrong. And it is this subconscious information that is endangering the position of the leader.
This problem will not have a simple solution. Because the solution will differ for every person and every leader. But the first step will be to show that you are afraid but have faith in the outcome of the situation. So what is important is to show, that you know your own feelings and know how to deal with them.

Courage
Real courage seems to me, is not running for your fear. Real courage is becoming aware of your fear and having the will to give it a name. Once your are aware of your fear and ask yourself why you are afraid you can work on it. Because often we think we are afraid of the situation, but what we really are afraid of is what this situation will mean for the future of our position.
In that sense I can understand that a leader is afraid to show his fear, because that might compromise his position in a situation in which everybody is looking to him for guidance. In those situations it does not only take courage to become aware of your fear for the situation but also become aware of your fear of loosing your position.

The difference according to women

2005-10-09T21:00:00.000+01:00

a list of words describing female leaders, as mentioned by females:

collaborative
compassionate
consensus building
empathetic
emotional
gossipy
intuitive
multi-tasking
relationship building
strong
verbal

a list of words describing male leaders, as mentioned by females:

arrogant
assertive
bravado
competitive
direct
dominant
ego-driven
focused
intelligent
physical
powerful
self-righteous
single tasking
Strong
stubborn

Can you spot the differences?

Leadership and feedback

2005-09-27T10:50:00.000+01:00

While reading in Lenette Schuijts book Met ziel en zakelijkheid I read her definition of responsibility toward others.

Her thought centers on the idea of sympathy instead of pity. So would also like to see, that people take responsibility for their action and use those actions to recognize their fellow humans.

That idea created the insight, that gives the giving of feedback a new basis.
Feedback is often defined as:
Someone acts in a way I do not like or maybe I do like it.
I react to that by addressing the other, and describing what he did, without judging that behavior.
The next step is to tell, how that behavior influences me, for example does it influence me emotionally or physically.
After that I describe what the other can do to help me more constructively. To end with the possible consequences if the behavior does not change.

The thoughts of Lenette Schuijt however make feedback into an instrument of recognizing the other. By describing the others behavior I show that he and his behavior is important to me. As I describe my emotions, created through that behavior, I make it clear how important the other is to me. By addressing my whishes for my emotions and the possible consequences of not changed behavior I show that I want a our relationship to have a future.

So by giving feedback I not only make myself important, but I also make the relationship and the other important.

Leadership, how to get it?

2005-09-25T21:01:00.000+01:00

I think that every consultant or guru has something to say over leadership, so let me put in my five cents.

As I look at leadership, I will do so from my knowledge and experience background, which gives me a certain distrust of leaders and leadership.

But letst start with making clear that leadership often is defined as the possibility to give others orders. However you could state, that leadership and leaders only exist where you find groups. However at the moments, that you are alone, you will have to lead yourself, so everyone is a leader at some moment in time.

But lets look at leadership as it is often defined: the power to order other people.

From a groups point of view, leadership can be obtained through two methods. One of the two methods however does not mean that you are seen as a leader. That method is the one that you see in official situations or created through agreements, or based on heredity. It is the hierarchical leadership model.
The other method is often seen as the true form of leadership and a being leader. That is when the leader receives his leadership from the members of the group, through his knowledge, behavior or attitude.

In some cultures the task of obtaining the leadership is the task of the individual, where other cultures it is the group that gives the leadership to the individual. Especially western cultures put the burden on the individual. But there are differences. Dutch culture expects the leader to be cooperative. The English culture wants its leaders to class consious with some form of self derision. The American culture wants its leaders to be a visible figurehead, who takes decisions. In eastern cultures the leader had to show modesty and put the group needs over his own. In which case the group gives the leader is given the leadership.

However, in the end you can state, how you become a leader is not that important.
The group leadership is done by a human and in that position certain factors come together. Those factors are the person of the leader and his personality, the culture of the group and its surroundings and the influences all these factors have on each other.

The fall and rise of a CEO

2005-09-17T09:46:00.000+01:00

Read about how David Pottruck, former CEO of Charles Schwab, went from being fired at Schwab, to chairman of a startup.
The process that is described is compared to the loss of a loved one. So the article at the website of Fast Company Magazine is not only of interest to leaders and managers who want to know what emotional rollercoaster they can expect after being layed off.
That process goes from:

Shock and Disbelief, through
Developing Awareness, and
Restitution, and
Resolution of the Loss, to
Recovery

One should however remember, that as clear and concise it was written down here, it is not a linear process. It should be more likened to a itterative process. At every step in the process you can fall back into a previous fase of fases. And the way and how fast you go through the process also depends on your personality, your surroundings. It is even possible to get stuck in one of the fases.

Excerpt from an article on Fast Companies website.

Leadership

2005-09-16T17:55:00.000+01:00

Lets start with stating, that leadership is something that every human being is born with. Some may have mor e feeling for it, than others, but everyone has it. But as with every aptitude, it might vanish as it is not being used. So humans possess leadership and during their life the either develop it or not.

However, I assume that the aptitude for leadership disappears when it is not developed, but you could ask yourself if there is only one kind of leadership. For example:

Is parenthood not somekind of leadership?
Are there not lots of people who lead in all kinds of situations, that are often not associated with leadership?

The questions we should ask, before we start talking about leadership, are:

What do we mean with leadership?

And

Is leadership something that happens in every situations or only in certain situations?

And

Might leadership not be dependend on the culture that looks at it and from which it is looked at?

But first of all lets start with determining what is meant with leadership.