The First Thing Leaders Need to Do When Leading a Big Change

Guest post from Phil Buckley:

Most leaders will lead their organizations through multiple big change projects. Constant change is a business reality and organizations must continually adapt to their environments to stay competitive or risk losing relevance and becoming obsolete. For each change, leaders must define it, create a vision of the post-change world, and mobilize their teams to make it.

Often, leaders become paralyzed by the magnitude of the change. Transforming an organization while keeping day-to-day operations running is like fixing a car as it is being driven; it’s complicated, risky, and it’s not clear whether the team can pull it off. Since most changes are in response to performance gaps, speed to completion is a default success factor. Many leaders immediately jump into action mode without taking stock of the environment in which the change is being made and their abilities to lead it.

The first thing leaders need to ask themselves is, “What do I bring to the project?” They need to think of what they can draw upon to help the organization make the change; what past experiences, knowledge, skills and relationships are relevant to the project? Taking stock of their qualifications will focus their energy and build confidence. Many will be surprised at how much they have to offer and how these abilities will benefit them over the course of the change. They may also realize that there are some gaps that need to be filled to successfully lead the project.

Here are some tips on how leaders can assess what they bring to their role in leading change:

1. Review past change projects they have led and what they learned from them. A leader is less likely to repeat mistakes if they are analyzed and written down. If there is no record of lessons learned, the leader can interview past project team members, asking them for their views on what worked and what didn’t. Two or three short discussions will be enough to capture the key learnings so that the successes can be repeated and mistakes can be avoided.

2. Read past performance appraisals and note the skills and capabilities they have been recognized for. There will be themes over time around strengths and development needs. Leaders need to draw upon their strengths and mitigate their gaps by selecting team members who are strong in these areas.

3. Speak with peers (internal and external) who have managed similar change projects. Ask them to identify what experiences, knowledge, skills and relationships contributed to their success. Also, can they suggest which areas the leader is strong in and which ones needs some support. These resources can also be tapped when the leader needs advice on project challenges.

4. Assess the relationships they have with the groups that are going through the change. Personal credibility and trust is important when supporting teams through change. Employees have excellent memories and their initial view of the change will be influenced by their past experience with the leader. Knowing this point is critical to how the leader should frame the change and communicate the details to them.

5. Meet with employees they know that will be undergoing the change. These people will be able to give leaders insider perspectives on needs, concerns and cultural norms. Understanding the uncensored beliefs of the groups will enable them to amplify positive perceptions and refute negative ones.

Identifying the unique experiences, skills and behaviors leaders bring to a big change project is the best way to start building a plan to successfully managing it. Drawing upon these assets as they develop a deeper understanding of the change and what has to be done to make it successful will help them lead from their strengths and support their gaps.

Phil Buckley is a senior change management professional with nearly twenty-five years of experience developing and executing change strategies to achieve aggressive business goals. He has managed twenty-seven large scale change projects, most recently co-leading global change management for the $19.6 billion Kraft Foods acquisition of Cadbury with a team of forty change leads across sixty countries.

Phil is the author of a new book, CHANGE WITH CONFIDENCE: Answers to the 50 Biggest Questions that keep Change Leaders Up at Night (Jossey-Bass, March, 18 2013). It provides complete, actionable answers to the fifty burning questions that leaders routinely ask about how to manage change successfully.

After the Talent Review…Now What?

I was at a conference recently and the session topic was leadership development and succession planning. One of the participants, an HR manager, raised her hand and asked: “We’ve recently implemented a talent review process, so we’ve done a decent job assessing our leaders, but now we’re struggling with what to do next. Do you have any suggestions?”
The presenter did his best to provide a few tips, but in fairness, that’s a tough question to answer within the time allowed in a 60 minute conference session. It’s especially hard to provide a succinct answer when you’re been doing it for so long - it’s easy to go off on a tangent with so many aspects of leadership development. Believe me; I’ve made a few eyes glaze over myself. Thankfully I have this blog as an outlet. (-:

The “what do we do next” question is a common one that leadership teams will ask, and most busy executives, especially those in smaller, fast-paced companies don’t have a lot of patience for long lectures and complicated theory. What they want is a checklist – or a menu - something they can get their heads around, start implementing immediately, measure, and start seeing results. That’s how they are used to running their businesses.

How about if we give ‘em what they want? Otherwise, they’ll do what most organizations do – spend a lot of time identifying and assessing potential leaders, and then drop the ball on developing those high potentials.

Here are 20 suggestions for what to do after a talent review. These are not all sequential – some are, and some are menu items to pick and choose:

1. Don’t wait to discuss development – do it at the same talent review meeting. Instead of rating everyone on a performance and potential matrix and then leaving the discussion of development needs and actions for a follow-up meeting, as the team is assessing each person, take a few extra minutes to summarize the person’s strengths and development needs and 1-2 high impact development actions (from the list below).

Make sure someone (a talent review facilitator, HR) is taking notes, so the development needs and actions can be summarized and distributed to the team as a follow-up.

2. Have a development discussion with each individual that was assessed. While specific performance and potential ratings or “who said what” should never be shared with employees, talent review discussions can be a valuable source of feedback and input into a person’s development plans. The person’s manager can let the employee how they are perceived, and make development recommendations based on that talent review discussion.

3. Conduct formal assessments. Talent reviews are an efficient and effective way to assess employees, but a 360 degree or behavioral assessment will go much deeper and provide more specific and accurate feedback to the employee and can be used for development planning. 

4. Provide an assessment “debrief”. Assessments are great, but the value of an assessment is limited without a follow-up session with someone who really understands the assessment and how to change behaviors. 

5. Offer executive coaching. An executive coach can work with each individual (in partnership with their manager) to help them implement their development plans, be a sounding board, overcome obstacles, serve as a reminder, and ensure new behaviors take root.

6. Offer a senior leader mentor (usually for high potentials)

7. Suggest subject matter experts for the person to work with on specific development needs.

8. Offer to send the person to an executive development program.

9. Create a custom development program for a group of high potentials. Assuming there is a large enough group with common development needs (there usually are), developing a group of high potentials at the same time, together, can be a more cost-effective approach. Action learning programs are often used for high potentials, where they work on real company issues and learn at the same time.

10. Discuss moving to a new role (in order to acquire the skills and experience needed to prepare for next level opportunities).

11. Decide on a “stretch assignment” (challenging project) for the individual.

12. Recommend targeted reading.

13.  Invite the person to participate in a leadership meeting or event one level above them (for exposure, learning).

14. Suggest a person for the person to “shadow” (subject matter expert, role model, mentor, different business or country, etc…) for a few days. 

15. Give each person access to an online training library.

16. Recommend and help the person get involved in a non-profit or Board assignment.

17.  Recommend a professional organization to join or a conference to attend.

18. Establish ways for the person to get ongoing feedback.

19. Assign someone to collect and monitor all development plans.

20. Survey each person in 6 months to assess how they feel about the level of development support they are receiving.

What else can we add to the list?

This post was brought to you by Jobandtalent: “We help you to find the jobs that are right for you."

 

The Widening Gap Between Leaders and Up-and-coming Leaders…and What to Do About It

Never in our time has there been a greater need for outstanding leaders. Regulatory changes and changes to the international economic landscape have made it challenging for today’s leaders to achieve the results they need to survive, never mind the results they need to thrive. There is, however, much that can be done to confront these challenges head-on. What’s needed to overcome what I call the “leadership crisis,” is not new technology or massive staffing changes.  What’s needed is a shift in focus towards recognizing, supporting and developing leaders who possess both a strong “inner-core” of character and conviction and “outer-core” of leadership capability. These leaders, old guard and new, must be able to think creatively and critically at the same time. They must strategize effectively and respond with speed and competence to high-pressure situations.

Succession planning programs are meant to address the need for strong leaders, however the gap between those currently in leadership positions and the next wave of leaders is growing by the day, and these programs have not been designed to keep up with the accelerated pace dictated by this dramatic shift in demographics. By some estimates, up to 40-70% of any organization’s management population is currently eligible to retire. And of course, the succession planning debate is not only about having the right number of people to step into leadership roles; the quality and state of readiness of those who will take over leadership is even more vital to an organization’s success.                                                    

To address the leadership crisis from both angles (the need for both enough people and more importantly the right people), innovative practices such as job rotation, leadership development through coaching, mentoring, action-learning, and next-generation behavioral performance evaluation must all be considered. All of these practices, and other methods of identification and tracking of leaders, will be required to increase the speed with which organizations develop talent. The challenge is to put these and other innovative tools to use in a structured manner to build an enduring leadership succession program. One way to achieve this is by starting with a strong, compelling Succession Management Value Proposition.

 In practical terms, an organization’s Succession Management Value Proposition (SMVP) is the holistic sum of the following practices:

 

(1) Demarcation-performance management;

 

(2) Diagnostic—objectively assessing leaders andpotential leaders;

 

(3) Deployment-structured meetings to integrate performance and potential assessments, calibrate capability, determine development options, and identify potential replacement scenarios; and

 

(4) Development—coaching, on-the-job development and training programs.

There exists no better way to create the belief in the value of the human capital asset, than by demonstrating the connectedness between winning succession practices and operational success. As I discuss in my book Talent Leadership, a strong SMVP foundation leads to:

 

(1) Capability-“Can Do”;

 

(2) Commitment-“Will Do”; and

 

(3) Alignment-“Must Do”.

 

To put in different words, a strong SMVP is the foundation for any organization to build and sustain a culture in which leaders and future leaders become continuously more capable, committed and aligned. In fact, organizations of all sizes that excel in promoting and developing leadership talent—with a focus and unwavering commitment to optimizing these “leading” indicators achieve impressive results.

About John Mattone
John Mattone is a sought-after keynote speaker, trainer and coach to many leading corporations and government agencies. John has been recognized by the prestigious Thinkers50 as one of the world’s leading management thinkers and by Leadership Excellence Magazine as one of the world’s top leadership consultants, speakers and executive coaches. John is the author of seven books, including the best-selling, Talent Leadership: A Proven Method for Identifying and Developing High-Potential Employees (October, 2012).  John’s newest book, Intelligent Leadership: What You Need to Know to Unlock Your Full Potential is set for release in hardcover in April, (digital versions are already available for purchase).  Connect with John by email at askjohnmattone@gmail.com, follow him on Twitter and like his page on Facebook and visit his website.

Satisfied Employees = Satisfied Customers = Profitable Companies

When it comes to understanding how to balance the need to keep a sharp eye on the bottom line and keep a workforce fully satisfied and productive, some managers and companies seem to get it while others don’t have a clue.

There’s a ton of research and surveys that prove the following:

Satisfied employees = satisfied customers = profitable companies

While I may not be a researcher, I have no shortage of stories from readers, friends, family, and acquaintances that bring this simple formula to life.

Here are two real recent examples. The names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Company #1: 20 Cents an hour

“Marty” is a department manager at a regional grocery chain. Marty consistently hits his numbers – in fact, he often the #1 performing department of the entire chain for stores.

How does he do it? Well, he works hard, keeps waste to a minimum, is good with the customers, and takes care of his employees.

He recently did a performance evaluation for one of his assistant managers, “Bob”. Bob is a 17 year employee, hard worker, never calls in sick, and over the last year has consistently gone above and beyond to help Marty meet his goals and take care of the customers. After submitting the paperwork and getting the required approval from above, Marty gave him a great review and a 70 cents per hour raise.

You would have thought Bob had won the lottery! He was ecstatic, grateful, proud, and walking on air for the next two weeks. It was the biggest raise he had ever received. Bob was already a solid employee, but as a result of that extra recognition, he was working even harder with extra enthusiasm.

Four weeks later Marty got a call from one of the regional managers. It seems there was an oversight in the approval process, and Bob’s raise was 20 cents more than allowed under company policy. No matter how hard Marty fought, at the end of the day, he had to tell Bob his raise would be 20 cents less.

Bob was devastated. What was once an engaged, productive, proud “associate” quickly turned into a dejected, bitter, and completely demotivated employee. Marty did the best he could to soften the blow, but he couldn’t blame Bob for being ticked off.

I’m not sure how the story will end – maybe Bob will come around – or maybe he’ll go work for a competitor or get fired for a bad attitude. If that happens, it’s going to cost the company thousands of dollars in lost productivity, replacement hiring costs, and training costs. Some estimate the average cost of turnover to be $75,000. I’d say that’s conservative.

All for 20 cents per hour. $400 dollars per year.

Company #2: The $2000 sales management training lesson

Tony, a newly hired sales manager, went to his manager, Joanne, and confessed: “I screwed up! I made a promise to a sales rep that I shouldn’t have made. The operations manager just let me know that I didn’t fully understand our compensation policy and we need to take it back, or it’s going to put us $2,000 over budget. What should I do?”

The response from Joanne? “Take it back?! Hell no! Admit that you made a mistake, and the let the sales rep keep the payment. He’ll respect you for it, and word will quickly spread amongst the rest of the sales reps that you have their backs. That’s a small price to pay for that kind of loyalty and commitment. We’ll make up the $2000 in no time. I’ll talk to the operations manager.”

Joanne clearly understood the impact of the perception of screwing over one of the company’s top sales reps because of a management mistake. The sales rep was even more appreciative when he found out it was a mistake yet it wouldn’t be taken away. While the operations manager wasn’t too happy initially, he got over when he saw the sales numbers at the end of the month.

And now….. the rest of the story:

Company #1 continues to struggle and just got purchased by a competitor. Company # 2 is making money hand over fist in a tough economy. You might argue that company #2 could afford to make the policy exception. Actually, one of the reasons that company is so successful is that they keep a sharp eye on costs and wastes.  Apparently, making good on a promise isn’t considered an unnecessary expense; it’s considered an investment in keeping your workforce engaged and productive.

Both true stories – better than anything I could make up. Two similar management mistakes and company policies, yet two very different responses and results.

Comments?

May 2013 Leadership Development Carnival

The May 2013 Leadership Development Carnival is hosted this month by Karin Hurt, from her Let's Grow Leaders blog.

You can find here right here. Hope you enjoy it!





 

Leading Successfully… Start with the Right Strategy

Guest post by Jimmy Brown, Ph.D.

Business leaders have a lot on their plate. There are administrative chores like budgeting and logistics.  There are people development tasks like encouraging, coaching, and what we’ll politely call correcting. Then there are the big picture and forward thinking undertakings that help set the vision and define the mission for the organization. The exact nomenclature for this last set of responsibilities can vary from organization to organization, but what we are talking about is finding the right strategy. 

Finding the right strategy can be the difference between a leader’s success and failure.  Just look at Léo Apotheker’s brief tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard. He made several strategic missteps that not only led to his quick dismissal, but also drove value erosion and a loss of market position that the company is still trying to recover from. While the Apotheker example is one of the more recent, public, and dramatic, it is far from the only one. You can’t open up the business pages of any newspaper without reading about the negative impact of a leader’s poor strategic decision making. So why is this so hard?  Our research suggests that one of the drivers is that leaders are approaching strategy the wrong way. 

Most leaders take one of three approaches. The first is to use what we’ll respectfully call intuitive synthesis. This is a fancy term for guess work and gut-feel. The second is to use intuitive synthesis, often augmented by a couple days of management meetings, to come up with three or four options. Then, the accounting department will run a bunch of financial models to figure out which option is the cheapest. The third approach is to use some established strategic planning model to come up with the options, run the financial models, and then pick whatever is cheapest. 

This third approach is actually good progress towards better strategies because using a standard model helps leaders structure their thinking in a way that reduces the risk of overlooking important inputs. More importantly, if we consistently apply a standard model over several cycles, we can begin to see trends in the data. These trends can allow for even better decision making. The challenge with this approach, however, is that most of the standard models tend to only look at one domain (typically competitive data) and the analysis is still focused on whichever option is the cheapest. 

Leaders in top performing organizations take a much more systemic and holistic approach to strategic decision making. In particular, they incorporate data from three specific domains: 

·        Capabilities – What we do well and how we can do it better

·        Customers – Who we serve, or who has a need we can meet

·        Competitive Environment – What inhibits our success. This includes both direct competitors (i.e., other organizations), and other indirect factors in the external environment 

Armed with this full view of their ecosystem, leaders are now better equipped to decide how to best position their organizations for success. 

Another important differentiator of top performing leaders is that they do not make decisions based solely on which option is the cheapest. They approach these decisions in terms of how much return they will get on the investment, not just the cost. More importantly, that investment decision is not purely financial. Top performing leaders also engage in a sense-making process that considers their Organizational Orientation, as well as their organization’s Process Preferences. 

Organizational Orientation is about the mental models that people in the organization use to get their jobs done. Are they more longitudinally focused and stick to their guns despite changes in the market, or do they actively react to every change? Do they take their mission and vision into account for every decision, or are they more concerned with day-to-day numbers? This orientation is closely related to the culture, the brand, and the example set by the organization’s leaders. A strategy that is aligned with the organization’s orientation is much more likely to be embraced by the people who have to execute it. 

Process Preference is about how the people in the organization choose to execute their tasks. Do they prefer a more centralized command and control structure, or allow each unit to operate more independently? Do new ideas only come from the top, or do they look for the field to come up with new solutions and bubble those up? Regardless of which approach a particular organization prefers, good leaders stay aware of those inclinations, incorporate them into their strategies, and then leverage those to maximize the efficiency of the implementation and execution.   

To be honest, what was just described is an oversimplification of a very robust methodology. Each of the three data domains has several sub-levels of data that need to be collected to fully understand the organization’s ecosystem. The Organizational Orientation and Process Preference considerations are subsets of a larger sense-making process. It includes sorting through the mounds of data from the three domains to determine which particular data points need to be considered in each strategic cycle, and what kinds of analyses should be conducted. Starting at a high level like this is okay because good leaders know how to begin with the big picture, work with their teams to drill down to the details, and then make decisions based on complete information. And that is what strategy is all about. 

About the author:

Jimmy Brown, Ph.D. is the author of Systems Thinking Strategy: The New Way to Understand Your Business and Drive Performance. He is also the Strategy & Change Practice Area Lead at Beacon Associates where he is responsible for change management, organizational performance, and business strategy consulting engagements. In addition to his consulting work, he is a professional speaker and adjunct professor in graduate psychology and management programs. He can be reached at jbrown@beaconassociates.net.

Is it Time to Create your own Succession Plan?

If you’re in a senior leadership role in a large organization, there’s a good chance there is a succession plan for your position in case you get promoted, win the lottery, get hit by a bus, leave to take a position at another company, or need to be replaced for poor performance. In smart companies, an orderly replacement of high level, critical positions is considered to be strategically important to the continued success of the company. A failure to proactively plan for succession is the same as failing to safeguard the financial assets of an organization.

Other than this handful of critical executive positions, succession planning for the rest of the organizations is usually managed by identifying “pools” of candidates that are considered to have potential to move into any number of senior leadership roles. In other words, the typical mid-senior level leadership position isn’t considered important enough to worry about if the incumbent leaves. When it happens, the organization reaches into the pool for a replacement, hires externally, or re-shapes the position in a way so that it doesn’t look anything like it used to.

Some companies would rather exclude the incumbent manager from recommending replacement candidates, as it can be seen as threatening, and when asked, they often come up with blank lists or weak candidates.

However, just because there isn’t a formal, HR-driven succession plan for your position, that doesn’t mean you can’t create one yourself.

Why would any leader want to bother, especially if they are even not being asked to?

There are at least four compelling reasons:

1. So that you are not seen as “irreplaceable”.

On the surface, being so important that no one else could replace you seems like a good deal. That’s job security, right? Well, that’s OK if you want to do the same job for the rest of your career. But if you have aspirations to do something different (like get promoted), then being irreplaceable is painting yourself into a career corner. I have been in the meetings when those decisions are made – it happens.

2. So that you can take time off with peace of mind.

Being “replaceable” has immediate, tangible benefits too. You can actually take a vacation, maternity or disability leave, or time off for some other reason without worrying about your department falling apart or being called in to clean up the mess.

3. Failure to groom a successor is seen as poor leadership.

Talent management is considered a critical competency for leaders these days. Leaders that do it well have higher performing organizations and are seen as being strategic and confident leaders. If your management looks at your position and doesn’t see a viable slate of candidates, you’ll be labeled a leader that can’t coach, delegate, develop, or let go. The heck with that promotion, maybe it’ll be time to replace you for not doing your job.

4. If self-interest and fear aren’t enough motivation, then think about your legacy.

Francis Hesselbein, considered by Peter Drucker to be one of the greatest leaders of all time, said it best: “Successful transition is the last act of a great leader”.

You’ve worked hard to make a difference, establish a vision, achieve results, and build your team. Why wouldn’t you want someone that you handpicked and groomed to step into your role and continue to build on what you’ve created?

Once you’ve made the decision to plan for your own succession, here are a few tips on how to do it:

1. Define the future requirements for your position.

Unless you’re planning on leaving next week, don’t think about the skills needed to do your job as it exists today – think about what it would take to be successful 3-5 years in the future. It’s a good exercise in strategic thinking, and it may even change the way you’re approaching your own development.

2. Assess your team.

Use a performance and potential matrix to assess your own team. Does anyone have the potential to be considered a candidate for the role as you’ve envisioned it in the future? If so, put them on your “short list” of successors.

3. Look outside of your team.

A well rounded, talented, diverse “virtual bench” should include 1-2 candidates from your own team (if they exist) and a 2-3 from outside of your immediate team. They could be from within your organization or external. These external candidates could also be part of your virtual bench for new hires or replacements on your own team.

4. Coach and develop your succession candidates.

Coaching and developing will help everyone on your team become better performers – it shouldn’t be limited to just potential successors. However, if you are preparing someone to step into your role, either short term (i.e., a vacation or leave), or long term, development has a different focus. It’s not just about helping them do their own job better; it’s preparing them to do your job through stretch assignments, delegation, training, coaching, and feedback.

5. Share your succession plan with your boss.

If you have enough self-confidence to create your own succession plan, then share it with your manager. Why? In addition to the benefits already listed above, it’s a chance to get feedback and another perspective. Who knows, maybe your manager knows something about your role’s future requirements that you were not aware of, has opinions about the performance and potential of your candidates, or has other candidate suggestions. It’s all good information to share and be aware of.

How about you – are you ready to create your own succession plan?

How Nonprofit Leaders Can Use Strategy and Technology to Enhance Organization’s Performance

Guest post by Harrison Coerver:

Many membership organizations and not-for-profits are struggling to maintain their relevance in today’s fast changing environment.  Unprecedented competition, higher expectations, accelerating technology, changing preferences and time pressures are all converging to create a challenging landscape.  At the root of the problem: weak, hidebound board leadership.

Given the strong role that not-for-profit boards have in directing their organizations, it is difficult for volunteer leaders to not to take responsibility for the plight of these groups.  Many boards of membership and voluntary organizations share three characteristics that hamstring their leadership.

First, most boards are not composed for performance.  Directors are selected based on who they know, what interest they represent or how long they have been hanging around.  Let’s face it; many on boards are along for the ride.  They have superficial levels of involvement and they engage in “social loafing” -- the propensity of those in large groups to default to a smaller group to carry the workload.  While there are leaders on boards, there are not enough of them.

Second, board leadership rarely holds themselves or their peers accountable.  Admittedly, it is difficult to challenge a non-performing director that is volunteering their time.  But, tolerating slackers marginalizes the efforts of true leaders intent on advancing the organization’s mission.

Third, tradition – not strategy – is the master of most non-profits.  This year’s board does what last year’s board did.  Officers perpetuate time-honored programs and legacy processes.  There is a lot of talk about “strategic boards” and “strategic thinking,” but most nonprofits are driven by convention and “the way we’ve always done it” mentality.  Traditions have a stranglehold on most tax exempts.

Membership, civic, and charitable organizations are in a race for relevance.  To win, it requires leadership that can craft and execute strategy: skillful, creative, and disciplined use of resources to achieve their objectives.  Strategy doesn’t just happen.  It requires leadership, focus, and work.  Successful nonprofits will embrace the following three approaches to succeed:

1. Small, competency-based boards with rigorous director selection
Most boards are too large.  They are cumbersome and consume an inordinate amount of staff time.  A five-member board is likely to be most effective in many cases.  And, directors need to be carefully selected based on predetermined criteria.  For starters, ask “What are the major opportunities and challenges we will encounter in the next five years?”  Then ask, “What kind of directors will be best suited to govern (“direct and control”) the organization given those opportunities and challenges?”

This takes time and effort, but think of the time and effort costs of underperforming boards.  It will be well worth the effort.  For those who pushback at a five member board, please show me a large board where the Executive Committee does not do the lion’s share of the work anyway.

2. Strategy-driven vs. tradition-driven governance
Boards that perform will recognize the risks associated with clinging to obsolete programs and processes that once served them well, but now threaten their relevance.  They will assess their true strengths and areas where they excel, and concentrate their scarce resources on them like never before.  To do so will require them to say “no” – something politicians can’t do, but leaders know they must.  Losing focus in today’s environment is a prescription for failure.

Directors on effective boards will eliminate waste by understanding the cost of an activity and effort that doesn’t deliver value or advance the organization towards its mission. They will eliminate unproductive effort, just as manufacturers eliminated waste in the production process to compete in global markets.  Many tax-exempts are overweight and out of shape, yet vying with lean and nimble competitors.

Non-profit leaders of tomorrow will know that purposefully discontinuing programs and activities that have outlived their usefulness frees up resources for innovation.  They can’t continue to add new services, events, and initiatives year after year without spreading resources too thin and marginalizing performance in all of them.  Leaders will learn that at times you need to “shrink to grow” as did General Motors when it eliminated Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Saturn, Saab, and Hummer to focus on Cadillac and Chevrolet.

3. The technology imperative
Many associations and non-profits have been slow to adopt technology in a world that is rapidly going digital.  Members, donors, policymakers, and volunteers alike are constantly using technology from apps to streaming video to social media.  They expect non-profits to use the same technologies they are accustomed to in their day-to-day lives.  Ignoring the imperative and potential of technology is a short cut to irrelevance.

Change is particularly difficult when organizations have decades of operating based on long-standing traditions.  But, as someone tweeted recently during my keynote speech, “If you don’t like change, you’ll like irrelevance even less.”  Association and not-for-profit leaders will understand the tradeoffs involved and make the necessary changes with a sense of urgency.

About the author:

Harrison Coerver is an internationally recognized strategy and planning consultant and bestselling co-author of Race for Relevance: 5 Radical Changes for Associations (www.raceforrelevance.com) and Road to Relevance: 5 Strategies for Competitive Associations (www.roadtorelevance.com).  He can be reached at harrison@harrisoncoerver.com or 239.281.1691

6 Types of Bosses

I've been involved in leadership development for a long time, so I've been exposed to a lot of bosses from all walks of life. One question people often ask me and others in this business is "If all of this leadership development stuff is supposed to be so great, then why are there so many bad bosses?"

It's a fair question. It seems like wherever you turn, there are horror stories of bully bosses, bad bosses, evil bosses, and devil bosses. Bad bosses are lampooned on shows like the Office, in movies like Horrible Bosses, in comics like Dilbert, and in books, blogs, magazines, and other media outlets.

There's a lot of attention being given to "bullying" these days, and bosses are often the bully culprits in the workplace.

It's not just some kind of anti-boss media conspiracy. A lack of respect for bosses will often show up in polls and surveys as well.

How could this be? How could so many incapable, evil-doing nincompoops end up in positions of management?

I believe these kind of bosses are the minority, not the majority. That's not based on polls or research - only on my own personal experience in working with real managers, as well as reviewing the results of hundreds of 360 assessments.

Here's my view of the world of bosses:

1. Great Leaders: 10%
These are those rare bosses that are able to consistently bring out the best in others and achieve extraordinary results. They are the ones that make a positive difference in the lives of their employees, organizations, and the world around them. They are not just the famous historical figures - great leaders are all around us.

2. Good Bosses: 40%
This is the bell curve of bosses: decent, hard working, well-intended bosses that strive to be great leaders - and often are - but don't always get it right. When given feedback, they will work on their weak areas, but don't always have the tools or support needed to improve.

3. Unskilled Bosses: 30% (sometimes referred to as incompetent)
These bosses may be new, or just never learned the basics of good management and leadership. Sometimes they had poor roles models or were never trained. They have good intentions - they are just going about it the wrong way, and get frustrated when they don't get the results they need. With proper training, coaching, and development, they can become at least good, if not great leaders.

4. Apathetic Bosses: 10%
These are the ones that for some reason have just checked out. They may have been a good boss at some point - or at least have the potential to be a good boss - but just don't care anymore. They don't embrace the role of a boss - having to manage people is just a requirement of the role that they would just as soon not have to do.

5. Jerks: 5%
"Jerks" is a subjective assessment, and everyone has their own level of tolerance when it comes to the imperfections of others. Mine just happens to be around 5%, not just for bosses, but people in general.
Jerk bosses are just jerks that somehow got promoted when they should not have. Sadly, most jerks don't know they are jerks. In fact, these are some of the bosses who think they are great leaders. They will take a good management or leadership concept, and screw it up in practice. Unlike unskilled bosses, I'm not sure if any amount of training or coaching will make enough of a difference to overcome being a jerk.

6. Bullies: 5%.
Bully bosses, like jerks, were probably always mean-spirited people but got promoted because of their hard work, technical talent, and their ability to manipulate, intimidate, suck-up, and get short-term results. In a position of power and authority, they have even more ability to push others around and make the workplace a living hell for those unlucky enough to work for them.

These last two categories are the ones we read about the most. If you search "types of bosses", you'll  find a lot of articles written about different variations of these last two, but not much about the other 90%.

Again, these percentages are heavily biased based on the the kind of organizations I've worked in and for. I'm sure, based on Glassdoor reviews, that the percentages vary quite a bit based on organizational culture.

I think the percentages are also dependant on people's life experiences, their tolerance, as well as their expectations for a boss. For example, if you've never been a boss, are fiercely independent with little respect for anyone in a position of authority, you'd probably rate ANY boss as incompetent at best.

So why are do many surveys should that 50% or more employees have an unfavorable view of their bosses? Well, if you add up categories 3-6, there's 50% right there. I also think people often have unrealistic expectations of their bosses - they are rating them against "Great Leader" standards (based on the survey questions), when in reality, that's a pretty high bar that few will ever reach. So many from the "Good Boss" category end up getting low marks in surveys.

So what do you think? Do you agree or disagree with my categories and percentages, and if so, why? 

Leading through Long Term Influence

Guest post by Great Leadership regular contributor Beth Armknecht Miller:

Webster’s Dictionary defines a “leader” as a person who has commanding authority or influence”. I would argue that in the 21st century it’s all about influence, not authority. If a leader only has authority and is unable to influence others, then his leadership will be short lived. And with the shortage of talent, leaders need to create sustainability in an organization.

Think about those leaders and individual contributors in your organization, whether for profit or not for profit, who may not have the title of VP, Director, or Manager yet they have followers because of their influence with others. These are the people who others listen to and respect but don’t have the title providing them with the authority to lead. They are able to use specific behaviors that align with the situation that will get others to change behaviors, opinions, attitudes, goals, needs and values.

What are the critical methods to leadership influence?

It is important to understand that influence much like leadership, is dependent on the situation that requires influence. It may be that you are trying to influence someone higher in the organization, a peer, or a direct report. All of these are different situations in themselves. Other types of situations where influence may be needed include:

• Changes to project plans 

• Support of proposals by upper management

• Agree to new assignments and tasks

• Provide necessary information in a timely fashion

• Stop ineffective or negative behaviors

 The Power Use Model outlined by Anita Hall, Extension Educator 
and Leverne Barrett, Extension Leadership Specialist of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, depicts someone’s choice of influence tactics in terms of the “softness” versus “hardness” of the tactic. The spectrum relates to the freedom the tactic leaves the person being influenced to decide either to yield or to resist the influence attempt: 

Hard tactics give individuals less freedom than soft tactics. They are perceived as more forceful and push the person to comply versus support. Hard tactics include “exchange,” “legitimating,” “pressure,” “assertiveness,” “upward appeal” and “coalitions.” Soft tactics are considered thoughtful and constructive, and pull the person to make the necessary change. Soft tactics include “personal appeal,” “consultation,” “inspirational appeal,” “ingratiation” and “rational persuasion.” It is important to note that soft tactics tend to provide more lasting change because they create an emotion of support versus compliance by the person being influenced.

And, there are certain methods when used to influence that are generally unsuccessful. These tactics are often associated with a leader who has the authority but lacks influence. Autocratic leaders will often make demands, threats or intimidation, which will generate short-term change but no support.

When would this tactic be useful? In an emergency, demands are often necessary. A leader needs to have people move quickly when the office is on fire or the plant has been exposed to dangerous chemicals.

Yet for the most part, when soft tactics are used more than hard tactics, such as demands and threats, a leader can build influence capital. From my experience with leaders, those who are highly influential use these two tactics more than others: 

• Inspirational appeal - a request or proposal that arouses emotions and enthusiasm by appealing to other’s values and ideals, or by increasing their confidence in being successful.

• Consultation- includes others’ in making a decision or planning how to implement a change that impacts them

So what if you’re a leader with authority, you’ve got the title, how do you know whether or not you have influence with the people you are leading? My suggestion to leaders is to start taking an audit of the methods they use to influence. How much time are they using the consultation and inspirational appeal methods to influence others? And if the percent is low, how are you going to increase your soft tactic influence?

For additional information on the Power Use Model read more.

 Beth Armknecht Miller, of Atlanta, Georgia, is Founder and President of Executive Velocity, a leadership development advisory firm accelerating the leadership success of CEOs and business leaders. She is also a Vistage Chair and Executive Coach. She is certified in Myers Briggs and Hogan leadership assessment tools and is a Certified Managerial Coach by Kennesaw State University. Visit http://www.executive-velocity.com/ or http://executivevelocityblog.com/ or follow her on twitter at SrExecAdvisor.