Many people would describe a leader as someone with
“vision” or “a vision” as defined as an image of the preferred future position
of an organization. I would agree that this is defiantly one aspect. I do think
that of greater importance, when discussing a supportive culture, would be what
John Maxwell calls the “Law of Solid Ground.” To develop a supportive culture a leader must
be someone of good character (Maxwell, 1998). Maxwell confirms that people are
attracted by the character of the leader.
The second attribute on leadership I find important when discussing a
supportive culture is the ability to lead. Maxwell, once again, has nailed this
attribute in his 21 Irrefutable Laws with the “Law of Connection.” I refer to
this attribute as building relationships. When people develop strong
relationships it is more likely that they will align themselves to each other
and to a strategy that contains common goals.
So, if a leader is of good character (trustworthy), and
they have built strong relationships with those they lead the only missing
element to the picture is how they lead, or their leadership style.
There is a range of leadership styles that run from being
autocratic and making all of the decisions period to the leader who delegates
all decisions. The leadership style that might be the most compatible with
successful strategy execution would be the participative style fostered through
a relational process that would include shareholders and those on playing field
(so-to-speak). All decisions obviously cannot be participative, but the “how”
questions of strategy implementation can be improved through
inter-communication between leaders and subordinates who have built
relationships on trust and good character.
(Side-bar) If you are a leader and don’t trust those who
work for you, OR if you are someone working for a “leader” within an
organization and you do not trust the leader, something NEEDS to CHANGE. Sounds
obvious, but I have run into so many people over the years of pastoral
counseling who work within this exact situation. I can tell you without any
reservation that almost 100% of those who came for counseling were experiencing
problems in their family life, church life, recreational activities, and
friendships that somehow related back to this dynamic of untrustworthy working
relationships.
Here is a great excerpt from an interview of Robert
Kaplan done by Martha Lagace with the Harvard Business School Newsletter
concerning this very topic,
Q:
What is the role of leadership in sound execution?
A:
While not an explicit part of any of the six strategy execution stages
(described below), executive leadership pervades every stage of the management
system. Throughout The Execution Premium, we describe organizations that
have successfully implemented their strategies. They operate in varied regions
and industries, including manufacturing, financial services, consumer services,
nonprofit, educational, and public sector. Their strategies differ; some
produce low-cost commodity products and services, others deliver complete
solutions to their customer, and still others innovate with high-technology
products. About the only common element all these diverse successful strategy
implementers have in common is exceptional and visionary leadership. In every
example, the unit's CEO led the case for change and understood the importance
of communicating the vision and strategy to every employee. Without such strong
leadership at the top, even the comprehensive management system we introduce in
this book cannot deliver breakthrough performance.
In fact, leadership is so
important to the strategy management system that we make a rather bold claim
that leadership is both necessary and sufficient for successful strategy
execution. The necessary condition comes from our experience with the more than
one hundred enterprises around the world who have become members of the
Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame. In every instance, the CEO of the
organizational unit implementing the new strategy management system led the
processes to develop the strategy and oversee its implementation. No
organization reporting success with the strategy management system had an
unengaged or passive leader. (Emphasis mine) (Lagace, 2008).
As a psychology grad student, I will address structure in
a conceptual way versus a technical way. Sun Tzu said, “If equally matched, we
can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if
quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him” (Griffich & Tzu, 1971). Which loosely
translated means, strategically speaking, that having organizational members
who are better trained, equipped, and highly motivated should be able to come
out on top when implementing organizational strategy.
Have you ever worked with someone you didn’t trust?
How do you think it affected your productivity?
Looking back, do you think it had an effect on your
relationships outside of the working environment?
Any specific memories?
No comments:
Post a Comment