Even leaving aside the highly problematic argument that a leader’s role is to change people, the question of change as more generally a leadership function given expression in organizations has its own shortcomings. Most of these are self-inflicted. . .
The concept of individual leadership promoted by the modern leadership movement has long focused on specific functions or personal characteristics. For example, we are taught that leaders must generally possess specific traits, ranging from intelligence to passion. Alternatively, we are informed, they must have others that make them singularly capable of performing certain putative leadership functions, such as effecting change. . .
The term “strategy” has a powerful cache to it. It calls to mind the highest level thinking, tremendous stakes, and even genius. Everyone wants to be associated with the word; certainly the modern leadership movement has jumped on the bandwagon. But as we’ve seen here before, as important as it is, it is far less important than execution. That’s where you want to see genius – and not just at the top, but permeating every corner of your organization. . .
I was speaking with an American CEO of a major enterprise in a Middle Eastern country. This outfit had employees from a range of cultures and countries that literally spanned the globe, and of educational and socio-economic backgrounds that covered all the ground. I asked him how he dealt with so diverse a group – how did he arrange organizational policy regarding, say, ethics, in a way that satisfied company requirements and incorporated diverse habits and beliefs?
This year is shaping up to be a pointer to not only the direction the corporate governance debate takes, but the venue in which it is held. Thankfully, that direction seems to be toward more responsible assessments of the issues rather than denial of their existence, and that venue seems to be in the boardroom rather than in the bureaucracy. Let’s take a brief look at this. . .
A piece by Nic Paton published yesterday at Management-Issues explains how CEOs are passing the buck on talent management. It seems that most of them do all of the following:
* They acknowledge importance of the issue,
* They identify it as a serious problem in their organizations,
* They admit that they, personally, spend little time on it, and
* They blame it on the Human Resources department.
I’ll bet a lot of you recognize this sort of thing happening where you work – and not just with respect to talent management . . .
Being a jack of all trades isn’t necessary to being a CEO. It may not hurt, as we have noted here before, but it isn’t what makes a CEO successful in the generalist role that is necessary at the top. Even broad experience – even merely knowledge – of an industry may not be specifically necessary for serving in it as a senior executive. Recently we have seen examples of this in action . . .
Or:
Jim Stroup's Business card:
Come visit the Managing Leadership
Managing Leadership® is a registered trademark of the author
Bad Behavior has blocked 907 access attempts in the last 7 days.
