Turn Your Speech Into A Leadership Talk

My experience working with thousands of leaders world wide for the past two decades teaches me that most leaders are screwing up their careers.

On a daily basis, these leaders are getting the wrong results or the right results in the wrong ways.

Interestingly, they themselves are choosing to fail. They're actively sabotaging their own careers.

Leaders commit this sabotage for a simple reason: They make the fatal mistake of choosing to communicate with presentations and speeches -- not leadership talks.

In terms of boosting one's career, the difference between the two methods of leadership communication is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.

Speeches/presentations primarily communicate information. Leadership talks, on the other hand, not only communicate information, they do more: They establish a deep, human emotional connection with the audience.

Why is the later connection necessary in leadership?

Look at it this way: Leaders do nothing more important than get results. There are generally two ways that leaders get results: They can order people to go from point A to point B; or they can have people WANT TO go from A to B.

Clearly, leaders who can instill "want to" in people, who motivate those people, are much more effective than leaders who can't or won't.

And the best way to instill "want to" is not simply to relate to people as if they are information receptacles but to relate to them on a deep, human, emotional way.

And you do it with leadership talks.

Here are a few examples of leadership talks.

When Churchill said, "We will fight on the beaches ... " That was a leadership talk.

When Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you ... " that was a leadership talk.

When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" That was a leadership talk.

You can come up with a lot of examples too. Go back to those moments when the words of a leader inspired people to take ardent action, and you've probably put your finger on an authentic leadership talk.

Mind you, I'm not just talking about great leaders of history. I'm also talking about the leaders in your organizations. After all, leaders speak 15 to 20 times a day: everything from formal speeches to informal chats. When those interactions are leadership talks, not just speeches or presentations, the effectiveness of those leaders is dramatically increased.

How do we put together leadership talks? It's not easy. Mastering leadership talks takes a rigorous application of many specific processes. As Clement Atlee said of that great master of leadership talks, Winston Churchill, "Winston spent the best years of his life preparing his impromptu talks."

Churchill, Kennedy, Reagan and others who were masters at giving leadership talks didn't actually call their communications "leadership talks", but they must have been conscious to some degree of the processes one must employ in putting a leadership talk together.

Here's how to start. If you plan to give a leadership talk, there are three questions you should ask. If you answer "no" to any one of those questions, you can't give one. You may be able to give a speech or presentation, but certainly not a leadership talk.

(1) DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS?

Winston Churchill said, "We must face the facts or they'll stab us in the back."

When you are trying to motivate people, the real facts are THEIR facts, their reality.

Their reality is composed of their needs. In many cases, their needs have nothing to do with your needs.

Most leaders don't get this. They think that their own needs, their organization's needs, are reality. That's okay if you're into ordering. As an order leader, you only need work with your reality. You simply have to tell people to get the job done. You don't have to know where they're coming from. But if you want to motivate them, you must work within their reality, not yours.

I call it "playing the game in the people's home park". There is no other way to motivate them consistently. If you insist on playing the game in your park, you'll be disappointed in the motivational outcome.

(2) CAN YOU BRING DEEP BELIEF TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

Nobody wants to follow a leader who doesn't believe the job can get done. If you can't feel it, they won't do it.

But though you yourself must "want to" when it comes to the challenge you face, your motivation isn't the point. It's simply a given. If you're not motivated, you shouldn't be leading.

Here's the point: Can you TRANSFER your motivation to the people so they become as motivated as you are?

I call it THE MOTIVATIONAL TRANSFER, and it is one of the least understood and most important leadership determinants of all.

There are three ways you can make the transfer happen.

* CONVEY INFORMATION. Often, this is enough to get people motivated. For instance, many people have quit smoking because of information on the harmful effects of the habit

* MAKE SENSE. To be motivated, people must understand the rationality behind your challenge. Re: smoking: People have been motivated to quit because the information makes sense.

* TRANSMIT EXPERIENCE. This entails having the leader's experience become the people's experience. This can be the most effective method of all, for when the speaker's experience becomes the audience's experience, a deep sharing of emotions and ideas, a communing, can take place.

There are plenty of presentation and speech courses devoted to the first two methods, so I won't talk about those.

Here's a few thoughts on the third method. Generally speaking, humans learn in two ways: by acquiring intellectual understanding and through experience. In our schooling, the former predominates, but it is the latter which is most powerful in terms of inducing a deep sharing of emotions and ideas; for our experiences, which can be life's teachings, often lead us to profound awareness and purposeful action.

Look back at your schooling. Was it your book learning or your experiences, your interactions with teachers and students, that you remember most? In most cases, your experiences made the most telling impressions upon you.

To transfer your motivation to others, use what I call my "defining moment" technique, which I describe fully in my book, DEFINING MOMENT: MOTIVATING PEOPLE TO TAKE ACTION.

In brief, the technique is this: Put into sharp focus a particular experience of yours then communicate that focused experience to the people by describing the physical facts that gave you the emotion.

Now, here's the secret to the defining moment. That experience of yours must provide a lesson and that lesson is a solution to the needs of the people. Otherwise, they'll think you're just talking about yourself.

For the defining moment to work (i.e., for it to transfer your motivation to them), the experience must be about them. The experience happened to you, of course. But that experience becomes their experience when the lesson it communicates is a solution to their needs.

(3) CAN YOU HAVE THE AUDIENCE TAKE RIGHT ACTION?

Results don't happen unless people take action. After all, it's not what you say that's important in your leadership communications, it's what the people do after you have had your say.

Yet the vast majority of leaders don't have a clue as to what action truly is.

They get people taking the wrong action at the wrong time in the wrong way for the wrong results.

A key reason for this failure is they don't know how to deliver the all-important "leadership talk Call-to-action".

"Call" comes from an Old English word meaning "to shout." A Call-to-Action is a "shout for action." Implicit in the concept is urgency and forcefulness. But most leaders don't deliver the most effective Calls-to-action because they make three errors regarding it.

First, they err by mistaking the Call-to-Action as an order. Within the context of The Leadership Talk, a Call-to-action is not an order. Leave the order for the order leader.

Second, leaders err by mistaking the Call as theirs to give. The best Call-to-action is not the leader's to give. It's the people's to give. It's the people's to give to themselves. A true Call-to-action prompts people to motivate themselves to take action.

The most effective Call-to-action then is not from the leader to the people but from the people to the people themselves!

Third, they error by not priming their Call. There are two parts to the Call-to-Action, the primer and the Call itself. Most leaders omit the all-important primer.

The primer sets up the Call, which is to prompt people to motivate themselves to take action. You yourself control the primer. The people control the Call.

The primer/Call is critical because every leadership communication situation is in essence a problem situation. There is the problem the leader has. And there is the problem the people have. In many cases, they are two different problems. But leaders get into trouble regarding the Call-to-action when they think it's only one problem, mainly theirs.

For instance, a leader might be talking about the organization needing to be more productive. So, the leader talks PRODUCTIVITY.

On the other hand, the people, hearing PRODUCTIVITY, think, YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE ME MORE WORK!

If the leader thinks that productivity is the people's problem and ignores the "more work" aspect, h/she's Call-to-action will probably be a bust, resulting in the people avoiding committed action.

Let's apply the primer/Call dynamic to the productivity case. The leader talks PRODUCTIVITY: but this time uses a PRIMER. The primer's purpose is to establish a "critical confluence" - the union of your problem with the problem of the people.

In this case, the leader creates a critical confluence by couching productivity within the framework of MORE MEANINGFUL WORK.

The primer may be: LET'S GET TOGETHER AND SEE IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH AN ACTION PLAN THAT WILL ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCTIVITY GAINS YOU IDENTIFY AND EXECUTE WILL ENABLE YOU TO WORK AT WHAT'S REALLY MEANINGFUL TO YOU.

Note what we've done: The primer is LET'S GET TOGETHER AND SEE IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH AN ACTION PLAN.

The actual Call is from the people to themselves: LET'S INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY BY WORKING AT WHAT'S MEANINGFUL.

With that Call, the leader moves from just getting average results (YOU MUST BE MORE PRODUCTIVE: i.e., you're going to solve MY problem) to getting great results (YOU COME UP WITH WAYS TO TIE PRODUCTIVITY INTO MEANINGFUL WORK: i.e., you're also going to solve your problem.)

So, here's what the leadership talk Call-to-action is truly about: It's not an order; it's best manifested when the people give themselves the Call; and it is always primed by your creating the "critical confluence" -- they'll be solving their problem as well as yours.

The vast majority of leaders I've worked with are hampering their careers for one simple reason: They're giving presentations and speeches -- not leadership talks.

You have a great opportunity to turbo charge your career by recognizing the power of leadership talks. Before you give a leadership talk, ask three basic questions. Do you know what the people need? Can you bring deep belief to what you're saying? Can you have the people take the right take action?

If you say "no" to any one of those questions you cannot give a leadership talk. But the questions aren't meant to be stumbling blocks to your leadership but stepping stones. If you answer "no", work on the questions until you can say, "yes". In that way, you'll start getting the right results in the right way on a consistent basis.

2004 © The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

=====================================================

PERMISSION TO REPUBLISH: This article may be republished in newsletters and on web sites provided attribution is provided to the author, and it appears with the included copyright, resource box and live web site link. Email notice of intent to publish is appreciated but not required: mail to: brent@actionleadership.com

The author of 23 books, Brent Filson's recent books are, THE LEADERSHIP TALK: THE GREATEST LEADERSHIP TOOL and 101 WAYS TO GIVE GREAT LEADERSHIP TALKS. He is founder and president of The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. ? and has worked with thousands of leaders worldwide during the past 20 years helping them achieve sizable increases in hard, measured results. Sign up for his free leadership ezine and get a free guide, "49 Ways To Turn Action Into Results," at http://www.actionleadership.com

Unlocking Organizational Value Through Leadership

For more than two decades, in many ways, in many forums, with thousands of leaders, I've taught that organizational results are limitless.

Those leaders who don't understand this don't understand the soul of leadership. When I say "soul", I don't mean it in a religious sense, but in a human sense, and not as a static entity but as a fundamental process that manifests the value inherent in all organizations. The soul of leadership is that which triggers and guides the best organizational activities to achieve the best results.

However, there is another soul at work here. It is the leadership soul of the individual leader. Again, I am not using the word in a religious sense but in a human sense, and as a fundamental process that manifests the human value inherent in each individual leader.

The leadership soul of the leader is that inner strength and commitment an individual draws on in order to carry out the activities of the soul of leadership.

Mind you, I am not counting angels on the head of a pin. The difference between the soul of leadership and the leadership soul of the individual leader is not a philosophical fine distinction. The difference may not be readily apparent, but it is manifest, and it is decisive. It's a difference most leaders and their organizations are not aware of -- to their detriment.

The soul of leadership looks outward, the leadership soul of the individual looks inward. Working in tandem, both outer and inner directed activities can notably increase the effectiveness of your leadership. When both the soul of leadership and the leadership soul unite, great things can happen.

That's where limitless results come in. Most organizations have far more value locked up than their leaders realize. Those organizations consistently fail to tap the deep reservoirs of their members motivation, talent and skills. After all, most members of most organizations want to do well. In fact, in each organization, the members, naturally and collectively, represent an on-rushing current of ardent commitment to succeed. However, through misguided leadership, leadership that is tyrannical and micro-managing, leadership that coerces rather than motivates, that current can be blocked, impeding results.

The blockage occurs when leaders focus exclusively on ordering the establishment of surface drivers such as sales and marketing activities, logistical dynamics, organizational strategies and tactics, financial strategies and tactics, human resource undertakings, and the like -- what business schools teach.

Clearly, the surface drivers are necessary in realizing the value an organization possesses, but they're not sufficient. In focusing exclusively on the above drivers, leaders often neglect the deepest and most important realm of all, the realm which largely determines the success or failure of the organization, the realm of human relationships -- what business schools don't teach.

For example, I'm sure you've heard of the classic case of the railroads of the mid-20th century neglecting to understand they were in the transportation business and losing out to airlines in the passenger market. Railroad leaders did a fair to middling job of dealing with sales, logistics, administration, etc. But their hierarchical, top-down management structures and culture that viewed their employees much like rail cars to be pushed and pulled here and there, probably prevented them tapping into the immense collective value of those employees. If the employees had been empowered, motivated and unleashed, they would have brought a richer vision of market dynamics to railroads that could have forestalled their decline.

On the other hand, I know of a company that has consistently tapped into the strengths of its employees. In the 1930s, they were in the tea bag business. However, they didn't see themselves in the tea bag business but in the materials' business. As markets kept changing, their offerings kept changing and today, their tea bag paper products have morphed into hi-tech thermoplastics. They couldn't have done it without tapping into the value of their employees.

There are many ways to unlock value in an organization. Those are not the purview of this article. The main point I'm making is about the leadership soul of the leader and unlocking its value.

Just as the results-potential of organizations are limitless, so the interior of each leader is a limitless world of value.

To unlock the value within an organization, leaders must unlock the leadership value within themselves.

What is this leadership value? It is the value you have simply being a human being. All human beings have a powerful capacity for transformation because they possess an innate capacity to direct a strong sense of determination and action in whatever direction they choose.

Furthermore, humans also have an powerful capacity to form and manifest deep, transforming relationships. And it is in the on-going transforming of relationships that you find and unlock the leadership value within yourself.

How do you unlock the value inherent in your organization and in yourself? Fortunately, there is a simple, powerful tool to do that. I call it the Leadership Imperative: "I will lead people in such a way that we not only get results but grow as leaders and human beings."

Make this principle live in your daily actions, and you'll be unlocking and unleashing great organizational value -- as well as great value in your career and your life.

2006 © The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

PERMISSION TO REPUBLISH: This article may be republished in newsletters and on web sites provided attribution is provided to the author, and it appears with the included copyright, resource box and live web site link. Email notice of intent to publish is appreciated but not required: mail to: brent@actionleadership.com

The author of 23 books, Brent Filson's recent books are, THE LEADERSHIP TALK: THE GREATEST LEADERSHIP TOOL and 101 WAYS TO GIVE GREAT LEADERSHIP TALKS. He is founder and president of The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. ? and for more than 21 years has been helping leaders of top companies worldwide get audacious results. Sign up for his free leadership e-zine and get a free white paper: "49 Ways To Turn Action Into Results," at http://www.actionleadership.com

What is Leadership Training?

The introduction of a successful leader into a management team is a good investment for any organization. Leaders visualize plans, inspire subordinates and plan the required course. Leadership skills comprise of various qualities such as optimism, commitment and the ability to use power effectively.

Leadership training is significant, not only in the world of business, but even in the worlds of sports and medicine. Leadership training is essential for the social and economical set-up of any business. Leadership skills in managers are important ingredients in company's expansion. These skills are best acquired with the help leadership training. Democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire are the different approaches to leadership training. Each of these is unique and inculcates leadership skills based upon distinct operational patterns.

Training programs are tools that help in the application of leadership skills at work. These skills could have been acquired at leadership skills classes, seminars or read. Individuals as well as organizations specialize in offering leadership training in various fields. There are many organizations that offer online leadership training also. Some of these organizations are even willing to reimburse the money paid for a leadership seminar, if the result is not satisfactory. Leadership training programs are expected to use core and widely agreed upon features of leadership, to bring out the best in people. Leadership involves vision and the ability to influence people and motivate them to work towards it.

Leadership training can be profitable to businesses in a number of ways. It helps to educate the employees, improves their performances and reduces staff attrition. This is beneficial to organizations, as it reduces the cost involved in constantly hiring new employees. It also helps in developing high performance teams. The participants gain a sense of power, which is, the power to guide others and the organization in the right direction, successfully.

Leadership Training provides detailed information on Leadership Training, Leadership Development Training, Corporate Leadership Training, Leadership Skill Training and more. Leadership Training is affiliated with Leadership Development.

Turbo Charge Your Career With The Most Powerful Leadership Tool Of All: The Leadership Talk: Part 1

Leaders speak 15 to 20 times daily. You speak at meetings, you speak across their desks, you speak on the phone, you speak in e-mails, you speak at lunch, beside the water cooler, and on elevators, etc.

It's in the interaction of those speaking encounters, multiplied daily, month in and month out, year in and year out, that you become a successful leader or not.

If those encounters are defined by Leadership Talks instead of presentations/speeches, the effectiveness of your leadership will be dramatically increased, not only in your job but in your career.

Here's why: There's a ladder of verbal persuasion. The lowest rungs (least effective)of which are presentations and speeches. Primarily, they communicate information.

But the highest rung, the most effective way to communicate as a leader, is through the Leadership Talk.

The Leadership Talk not only communicates information. It does something much more. It has you establish a deep, human, emotional connection with people - so important in motivating them to achieve results.

Once you understand the Leadership Talk, you'll find it's indispensable to your leadership. You'll never go back to giving presentations/speeches again.

I'm going to show you what it is and a few tips on using it. But first, let's understand this important point: If leaders don't measure up, it's often because they act under the wrong premises. Here are two golden leadership premises that drive The Leadership Talk.

Premise one. Leadership is about one thing only, getting results, however you define and measure them. If you're not getting results, you're not a leader, or you won't be a leader for long. Leadership is not a measure of results; results are a measure of leadership.

That seems simple enough; but many leaders either ignore or misunderstand this premise. They may not know that getting results is their raison d'etre. Or they may be focusing on the wrong results. Or they may be going after the right results in the wrong ways.

If leaders don't act on the above premise, they'll go wrong in countless ways.

Premise two: The best leaders get more results, get them faster, and get "more, faster" continually.

This too may seem like an obvious point, but it is a point many leaders miss as well. In leadership, the greatest sin is the greatest treason, to get the right results for the wrong reasons.

For example, many leaders think that they can cost-cut their way to achieving a robust organization. Don't get me wrong: Cost-management should be an on-going effort in any organization, but to rely on it as the primary results-generator can lead to an organization being driven into the ground. Achieving "more, faster, continually" means going beyond an exclusive focus on cost-cutting and getting results by tapping the heart of what the organization is all about.

And the heart of any organization is purpose and people: the combination of its central purpose and the actions of the people who manifest that purpose. Those people must be enlisted as cause leaders. Cause leaders do more than accomplish their jobs; they actually take leadership of those jobs and by doing so bring a special motivation, vision, and initiative to the jobs.

Leadership is not position, it's performance. If you are a floor sweeper, say, you best accomplish your work not simply by doing floor sweeping but taking leadership of it: in other words, approaching the job with the distinctive initiative, care, and commitment that leadership entails.

These two essential premises beg the question, how do leaders get more results, faster results on a continual basis?

The answer is simple: through the Leadership Talk.

The Leadership Talk is a powerful results-generator, maybe the most powerful results-generator you'll ever use. It works through your interacting with people so that they become motivated to be your cause leader(s) in achieving more results faster, continually.

Leadership Talks can be formal ways of communicating but mostly they are informal. Unlike a speech, they are usually interactive. They can be delivered anywhere: at a conference table, over lunch, at a water cooler, across a desk. (One of the best Leadership Talks I have witnessed was given by a plant supervisor to one of his team members at a company picnic while they sat on the back of a truck, sipping beers.) And in many cases, an effective Leadership Talk can be given when roles are reversed, when the audience speaks to the speaker.

Finally, though the methodologies I've developed for The Leadership Talk are new, its roots go back into the mists of history. Throughout history, when people needed to accomplish great endeavors, one thing had to happen, a leader had to gather them together and speak from the heart. That leader had to give a Leadership Talk.

In the next two parts, I'll describe the essential elements of the Leadership Talk, so you can start developing and delivering them right away.

2005 © The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

PERMISSION TO REPUBLISH: This article may be republished in newsletters and on web sites provided attribution is provided to the author, and it appears with the included copyright, resource box and live web site link. Email notice of intent to publish is appreciated but not required: mail to: brent@actionleadership.com

The author of 23 books, Brent Filson's recent books are, THE LEADERSHIP TALK: THE GREATEST LEADERSHIP TOOL and 101 WAYS TO GIVE GREAT LEADERSHIP TALKS. He is founder and president of The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. ? and for more than 20 years has been helping leaders of top companies worldwide get audacious results. Sign up for his free leadership e-zine and get a free white paper: "49 Ways To Turn Action Into Results," at http://www.actionleadership.com. For more on the Leadership Talk: http://www.theleadershiptalk.com

The Fundamental Purpose of Leadership

It's time to question the traditional assumption of leadership's fundamental purpose. The textbook account focuses on the leader's role in maximizing employee performance. All the decades of writing about leadership style beginning over 50 years ago focuses on how different styles affect the motivation and productivity of employees. When we question the conventional purpose of leadership and offer a different foundation, we get a very different conception of leadership. Until we recognize the need for a radical shift in perspective, our vision of leadership will remain stuck in the past.

Having an internal focus on employee performance was acceptable for leadership prior to the 1970's. But since the success of the Japanese commercial invasion, business has increasingly operated in an era of hyper-competition where rapid innovation changes whole markets overnight. In the old days of leadership theory, business was not so competitive. Then, business's only task was to execute as cost effectively and profitably as possible. Today, there is also the need for businesses to be constantly re-inventing themselves, to be continuously creating new futures. For leaders to be successful now, they must have an external focus.

The new purpose of leaders is to ensure that new futures are created as rapidly as their external markets evolve. All organizations now have two equally important tasks: to deliver today's results and to create the future. The principle of division of labor suggests that we need two separate functions for these very different tasks. Management needs to be upgraded from a narrowly controlling, mechanistic function to take care of today's business, leaving leadership to champion changes to enhance competitive advantage.

So, what are the implications of this shift in emphasis? Well, if your sole reason for being is to maximize employee productivity, you need to be in charge of the people whose performance you want to improve. You need a formal position of authority over them. You need the authority to promote, move, develop, train and pay in accordance with merit. People can be motivated by informal leaders but none of the other productivity enhancing decisions can be made without formal authority.

Not so with the new leadership. Promoting new products, services or better processes can be done by anyone, regardless of their formal roles. Even a consumer group criticizing an existing product line could show leadership from the outside to the organization. This new conception of leadership is the only way to make sense of bottom-up leadership. If leadership is merely the successful promotion of new products, then front-line employees can do it. The Sony employee who invented Playstation is a good example. He showed bottom-up leadership to the senior executives at Sony whose initial reaction to the idea of Playstation was to protest that Sony doesn't do toys.

The role of senior executives is now more multifaceted. They need to both lead and manage. But leadership, as conceived here, has nothing to do with motivating employees to perform better, contrary to the textbook account. So-called transformational leadership became popular because it was felt that employees needed to be really inspired to give of their best. But now, we need to shift everything to do with motivating employees to management, leaving leadership free to promote enhancements to competitive advantage. Why? Because we need a definition of leadership that makes sense of how leadership can be shown bottom-up which has nothing to do with motivating employees to work harder. The sole purpose of leadership, therefore, is to promote new directions. It is management's job to execute them.

Leaders must have an external focus to be effective; managers can focus internally. Both leadership and management are equally essential organizational functions, but only management is a formal role. Leadership is an informal, occasional act, like creativity, not a role. Senior executives are managers by virtue of their roles, not leaders. If their businesses are operating successfully and don't need innovation or process improvements to succeed, then these organizations don't need any leadership. This is a second radical implication of the new vision of leadership, the first one being that leadership has nothing to do with managing people or getting things done through them.

Keep in mind that, if leadership equates to the successful promotion of new products, services or process improvements, and if anyone can do it regardless of position, then employees with no one reporting to them can show leadership. This is a liberating conclusion, but one that has revolutionary implications for our understanding of leadership.

See http://www.leadersdirect.com for more information on this and related topics. Mitch McCrimmon's latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes was published in 2006.

Elevate Your Leadership by Immersing Yourself in a Wide Array of Leadership and Organizational Tools

There are so many books, seminars, coaching, and consulting practices based on leadership and organizational development. There are many forms of leadership and organizational development models such as transformational leadership, executive coaching, Six Sigma, TQM (Total Quality Management), business process improvement, learning organizations, and systems thinking to name a few. Some of you may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of authors, seminars, coaching, and consulting practices claiming to have the answers for improving your leadership and/or organization's performance.

I used to be one of those individuals, as I too was initially overwhelmed by the number of books, speakers, and seminars pertaining to leadership and organizational development. However, I soon realized that life, learning, and leadership is all about taking in knowledge from multiple sources and then deciphering for yourself what works best for you and your particular situation. Whatever improved my personal leadership, I incorporated in my repertoire. Whatever did not work, I allowed to fall into the recesses of my subconscious so that I could retrieve it in case I ever needed it in the future.

There is so much knowledge available in the world in regards to leadership and organizational development. However, all of this knowledge may not be beneficial to our particular situation or life. Therefore, we must obtain this knowledge with a discriminating eye, assessing multiple leadership models from multiple sources, looking for those tid bits of information that can improve and shape our lives and organizations to be what we want them to be. However, for this to occur, we must overcome our intimidation and immerse ourselves in the vast genre of leadership and organizational development for optimal absorption.

Personally, I try to read as many books and articles on leadership and organizational development as my time allows. In addition, I still attend leadership and organizational development workshops and seminars because even though leadership and organizational development is what I do, I can always learn more.

My personal leadership development is the result of all of my years of academic study coupled with my ongoing appetite for learning about leadership and organizational development. The books, coaching, seminars, and blog are expressions of what I have learned and continue to learn. I am sharing my insights with you because I know that leadership and organizational development does not occur overnight, rather it consists of a continuous immersion of both your conscious and subconscious into the depths of who you are and how you relate to the challenges of the world you live in.

By immersing yourself in all of the leadership and organizational development training offered by the various leadership development outlets, you will provide your conscious and subconscious with a steady diet of ideas that you can then pick and choose from. Immersing yourself in multiple leadership and organizational models will afford you the ability to pick and choose the ideas that work best for you. It is important to note that one model may work for one individual and not another. Also, a combination of ideas from several models may work better for you than someone else. Therefore, do not limit yourself to any one model, as there may be something you can learn about yourself, or your leadership from another. Always remember that leadership and organizational development is a life long learning process. If you truly want to develop your leadership, don't be intimidated by the vast amounts of knowledge in the field. Immerse yourself with a discriminating eye and come out a leader.

Dr. Barrett has an earned PhD in applied management and decision sciences, with a specialization in leadership and organizational change. He also holds a MS in organizational leadership and a BS in organizational management. In addition to these degrees, Dr. Barrett has completed several executive certificates focusing on various areas of management and leadership development.

Dr. Barrett is proud of his academic accomplishments, as they are the product of his long and sometimes difficult journey out of poverty. Along his journey, Dr. Barrett served honorably in the U.S. Air Force, participating in several vital overseas operations in the Middle East and Europe. He has also taught organizational leadership courses at the graduate degree level at Mercy College. This desire to develop leadership whether it be in myself or others is what drives Dr. Barrett. Dr. Barrett currently lives in NYC, where he runs The Barrett Center for Leadership Development, LLC ( http://www.TheBarrettCenter.com ) and The Barrett Leadership Blog ( http://www.TheBarrettCenter.blogspot.com ). The Barrett center offers workshops, seminars, coaching, consulting, and speaking engagements focused on the leadership and organizational principles developed by Dr. Barrett. You can find his current leadership model (The Barrett Leadership Model) in his new book Leading from the Inside-Out.

The Barrett Center's Mission: To help clients develop their leadership from the inside-out. The Barrett Center's Vision: Uplift the human condition by teaching individuals and organizations how to lead their existence from the inside-out.

The Nature of Christian Leadership

The quest to identify an ideal model of leadership that leaders can replicate in order to have better functioning organizations continues to be a challenge for leaders (Kouzes and Posner, 1987). This has lead writers such as Greenleaf, Winston and Brauna to explore the nature of Christian leadership, which has the capacity to change the moral fiber of man and society. This unique model has shown the potential to revolutionize leadership as we know it, and invariably create more successful organizations.

To fully understand the implications of Christian leadership we must first understand its nature. Hence the questions: what are the fundamentals on which this type of Leadership is based? Why this style of leadership gained preeminence in the work of so many scholars and has proven to be so effective in Biblical Testaments...? What is the nature of Christian leadership that sets it apart from secular leadership styles? In order to ascertain answers to these questions this paper examines the nature of Christian leadership by studying and analyzing Jesus' Leadership in the 9th chapter in the gospel of Matthew, verses 20-22, by explicitly looking at the attributes which formed the core of Jesus' Leadership. To assist readers to fully comprehend the nature of Christian leadership in this passage, this paper employs an inter-textual and inner texture approach from Socio rhetoric Interpretation. By examining Jesus' leadership from different perspectives readers are provided with a more wholesome view of the nature of Jesus' leadership style. This paper therefore, examines attributes such as: Godly principles, love and purpose of Jesus' leadership as well as their importance to what constitute Christian leadership. It is my intention that readers will utilize the findings in this paper to enhance their leadership styles which will invariably lead to better leadership and healthier organizations.

Background

Matthean gospel holds much value to the understanding of Christian leadership as it is deemed to have had more influence on the development of the early church and consequently, Christianity. There seems to be much discrepancy about the authorship of Matthew (Desilva, 2004). Some scholars claim that it was written by Matthew, an eye witness, one of the twelve, while others cited the reliance on Mark gospel as evidence against him being an eye witness. Matthew is said to have utilized not only Mark as a source but also the Q. The language while bearing marked similarities to Mark is more elaborate. The Matthean gospel is said to have been written prior to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The citation of various Jewish customs, without accompanying explanations, woven throughout Matthew suggests that it was written for a Jewish audience. In order to portray Christ as the King and Messiah of Israel, Matthew utilizes various quotes from the Old Testament, thus all the principal themes are grounded in the Old Testament.

Method

In analyzing Matthew 9:20-22, socio rhetorical criticism is employed to assist in understanding the intricacies of this passage. Socio rhetorical criticism is a method of analyzing text by looking at the values, conviction and beliefs in the text in relation to the world (Robbins, 1996). There are five approaches in this method of analyzing text: Inner texture, inter texture, social and cultural texture, ideological texture and sacred texture. (Desilva, 2004). For the purposes of examining Matthew 9:20-22, an intertexture is first done to provide a conceptual understanding of the existing culture in that era. This is followed by an inner texture approach to help in comprehending the passage. Inner texture refers to the different ways that a text manipulates language to provide more detailed understanding of the text. The argumentative texture is one branch of understanding the inner working of a text. It provides reasons for readers to think and act in a specific manner. The inter-textual method of analyzing a text, studies the specific text in relation to other texts outside of the particular text. This method of analyzing a text may use different approaches and includes the use of other text in relation to the text being studied, in order for readers to fully grasp the meaning of the text. The use of both approaches provides a richer and fuller meaning of the text.

Intertexture Analysis

In order to understand Matthew 9:20-22, we must understand the history surrounding the two sects operating throughout that era; the Pharisees and the Sadducees. A study of the writings of Flavius Josephus, early rabbinical writings as well as the New Testaments provides an accurate description of these two groups. The term Pharisees is derived from the Hebrew perusim, which means "separated ones." Later findings suggest that it may have been derived from Hebrew parosim, meaning "specifier," They were regarded as puritans, in other words they were extremely passionate concerning the principles within the Mosaic laws, as well as those that they added to the Old Testament legislation (Huie, 2007). This sect is symbolic of the orthodox core of Judaism and had very strong influence on the Israelites. The Sadducees are said to have been named after Zadok, a priest during the stint of King David and King Solomon, other theorists presupposes that the name is a derivative from Zadok who lived in the 2nd century BCE. In the same vein there are others who believe the name "Sadducee" comes from the Hebrew tsadiq, which means righteous (Huie, 2007). The Sadducees were famous for their unbelief of supernatural happenings. Matt.22:23 express their refusal to believe the resurrection of the dead. This sect had no regards for tradition and despised legalism. In their view the Pentateuch was the only authority, they were often very affluent, aristocrats, member of the priestly tribes and under Herod's rule were the owners of the temple.

The degrees of differences between these two groups created an imbalance with regards to the political views throughout that era. These two groups had opposing views/beliefs concerning laws, and regulations (Huie 2002). Matthew 9:20-22 is about the woman with the issue of blood. This story may be seen as an interruption, as it occurs while Jesus was on His way to heal Jarius's daughter. Matthew relates a story of a woman who had been bleeding for over twelve years. According to Jewish Law, this woman is deemed as unclean because of the insistent bleeding (Lev 15:25-27). This woman was scorned by family members and the society and was barred from synagogue and temples (MacArthur, 2005). A poor woman, Luke mentions that she had spent all that she had, looking for a cure. She was ostracized, an outcast by all accounts. As a result of her illness, the traditions of that era prevented women from touching men, it is possible that this is the reason she approached Jesus from behind and touched the hem of His garment. Her belief in Jesus to cure her was evident in her gesture to touch Him. Jesus did not criticize the woman because she opted to mix with people and thereby breaking all the conventions of that era. Instead He encouraged her "Take heart daughter your faith as made you whole, on approaching Jesus the woman thought "if" I touch his cloak I will be healed." This statement is often refers to as an enthymeme (Robins, 1996).

Enthymeme is described as a syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly. In Matthew 9:20-22, the enthymeme 'if' is presented to make the statement logical or qualitative, implicit in this statement we can assume that Jesus posses special healing power. How did Jesus receive such power? The answer to this can be two fold, it could have been 'in born" or it could have been acquired. Authors of the first three synoptic gospels presupposes that Jesus power was from heaven and was given to him at his baptism (Matt 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22). (Robbins, 1999). It is possible that this woman's opinion runs concurrent to that of the authors in Matthew, Mark and Luke. This woman knew that Jesus had power and if she could touch him, His power was sufficient to heal her. This act to touch Jesus generates two points of view; On one hand it could have been construed that by touching a man of such power you are either foolish or simple minded and your action could have resulted in death. Biblical tradition showed where Uzzah touched the ark of God and died (2 Samuel 6.6-7). The converse is also true. Her actions could be interpreted from a bold perspective as an expression of her courage.

In the Matthean Gospel special emphasis is place on Jesus' healing powers while in the Lukan gospel, the attention was deflected from Jesus but instead is centered on the woman's faith, (your faith as made you well). There are different implications based on Jesus' leadership in this story that helped to form the premise of Christian leadership.

The needs of followers are important and should take precedence over issues that are less important, such as some aspects of the law. "This eternal principle is clearly spelled out by Jesus in Matthew 12:3-8, Mark 2:25-28 and Luke 6:3-5. Thank God His Son was not a legalist, or that poor woman would likely have received the back of His hand, rather than His healing touch." (Maxey, 2000). Matthews account provides the depth of compassion that Jesus had for the "common people" as well as the infinite power He possessed from God, that He freely used to help people. As a leader He was always accessible to his followers, this is evident in the large crowd that followed Him. People irrespective of their position could approach Him. This woman was poor; the Lukan account refers to the fact that she had spent all her money on doctors, trying to find a cure (Luke 8:40-49). She lost her status to the point of being referred to as a woman with the issue of blood... In a culture pervaded by the Pharisees and Sadducees with their different beliefs, Jesus did what he needed to do in order to fulfill the purpose of His mission.

In showing love to even those who were deemed unworthy he fostered Godly principles which were emphasized in the golden rule... "do unto others as you would have them do unto you..." Jesus modeled the core of Christian leadership and left a pattern for current leaders to emulate by serving others.

Conclusion

The nature of Christian leadership is based on the fundamental issue that Jesus' leadership represents the quintessence of leadership, and may be viewed as a blue print of true leadership. To model this kind of leadership, contemporary leaders must first analyze the distinct leadership principles which are evident in Matthew 9:20-22. The story of the woman with the issue of blood, showed Jesus modeling leadership. By acknowledging the condition of the woman, by healing her and by further referring to her as daughter, Jesus transformed the spirit and ethos of leadership. In an era that was dominated by self-righteous dogmatists, he showed love, rendered service and never lost sight of His purpose to reach out to those who were ostracized. His values consistently guided His actions which resulted in a continuous increase of followers. Contemporary leaders should explore the benefits of Jesus' style of leadership as His style can create more successful transformative organizations.

References:

DeSilva, D. (2004). An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Huie, B. T. (2007). Who were the Pharisees and Sadducees Retrieved 21 September 2007, http://users.aristotle.net/~bhuie/pharsadd.htm

Kouzes and B. Posner, The Leadership Challenge, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987

MacArthur, J. (2005). The MacArthur Bible Commentary, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc Publishers.

Maxey A. (2000). Reflections, Retrieved 22 September 2007, http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx287.htm

Robbins, K. V. (1996). Exploring the Texture of Exts. A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation, Harrisburg. PA: Trinity Press International

Do You Want to Launch a Leadership Revolution?

There are many terrific books that offer information on leadership as both an art and a science. They are books that every manager, in any capacity, should invest their money and time into studying and applying in their work situation. Reading such books to keep abreast of the times will help you launch a leadership revolution that will enable you to make your work environment run smoothly.

Reading books that help you become a better manager is information that deserves deeper study than just a casual reading. These types of books are driven by the intelligent analysis of leadership provided within the book. They provide many of the guiding principles that make leadership a science. Leadership books that teach are balanced with the emotional intelligence that makes leadership an art.

The principles learned in books about management are given in explanations we are sure to hear repeated as better management practices are taught and discussed in the future. This is especially true of concepts like: "the art and science of leadership"; "five levels of leadership"; and, "the tri-lateral leadership ledger."

What's in a word?

Before you start gleaning insights from reading leadership books, I want to suggest you take a moment to consider the titles and what they mean. As you do so, why not apply the concepts to your own life and leadership scenario? Why not look at how they impact your life?

It always helps to pause a moment to challenge our own assumptions. I am always an advocate of the analysis process. (After all I paid a lot of graduate tuition to learn analysis processes and it would be a shame to let those thousands go to waste.)

I suggest that you take a moment and consider three words that are key to management applications, and that you learn from reading books that teach leadership skills. These are words that if you never even pick up a book, just pausing to consider their definitions and applying them with what you already know can be a mini refresher course in leadership. These words are "launch," "leadership," and "revolution."

It will often expand your thinking to look at the different definitions of a word in a dictionary. That is the expansion of thinking you will find here. You will find definitions of the words: launch, leadership, and revolution. With the exception of "leadership, the definitions are correlated to personality types.

The four personality types are: Choleric, Sanguine, Melancholy, and Phlegmatic. Cholerics lead through assertiveness and strength of will; Sanguines through charm; Melancholies through rules and systems; and Phlegmatics lead by consensus or mentoring.

Leadership definitions were not correlated with any specific type since all types can be leaders. As you read them, keep in mind you are probably a combination of two or more personality types. Don't try to understand yourself using one personality type only. There are numerous web articles about personality types if you want to learn more.

What is leadership?

To lead is to direct or control the movement of something. It is often associated with authority. Another meaning is to influence the action of others by example. A definition which brings in the concept of future vision is "to guide on a way by going in advance". Using these definitions you are you are ready to define "leadership".

Definition 1: Leadership is an office or position according to Merriam-Webster. You may have a position in a corporation, a church, a business to which has been given to you. You may also have obtained it by virtue of being a founder.

Definition 2: Leadership is a capacity to lead. People may have said to you, "You have leadership". They mean that they see in you something that they often attribute to a natural talent for leadership.

Definition 3: Leadership was also defined as the act or moment of leadership. It makes me think of you as stepping forward and rising to show leadership because the moment called for it.

Definition 4: Leadership is also given a collective definition. It is a select group of people at a high level in the hierarchy of an organization, movement, or institution who collective have the power to control direction and activities. In politics you might talk about party leadership in this sense.

How would different personalities define launching?

Definition 1: The first meaning of launch is "To hurl forward or throw. This is a great definition for a "choleric" personality. If you are choleric you want start as fast as you can and as hard as you can. It is a "Ready, Fire, Aim" type leader. Maybe it is you.

Definition 2: Merriam-Webster also defines launch as to "set into energetically, such as to launch a speech." This is definitely a sanguine. If you are sanguine you love the stage and whatever you do, you are going to get excited enough to generate some energy.

Definition 3: The third definition is in the context of computer programming. You load a program and then run it. You launch it. This has to be a definition that will resonate with you if you are a melancholy. You want lots of rules. (Computer programs have lots of protocols.) And then, you want things to run the same way, over and over.

Definition 4: There are two more definitions from Merriam-Webster that both describe you if you are phlegmatic. One definition is, "to make a start or to introduce". The other is "to initiate through self-propulsion" such as launching a rocket. Think about starting someone else out in a business or launching a new graduate into their career.

If you are phlegmatic are probably sensitive about other people. You are a person who knows how to help others because you understand who they are. You will enjoy launching someone you care about into something beneficial. At the same time, you do not feel a need to control them. You want them to become self-propelled.

How would the different personalities define revolution?

Definition 1: The "overthrow of one government and substitution of another by the governed". This is a definition from Merriam-Webster that cholerics would like. If you are choleric you are ready to change the authority and governing structure and lead others to do something about it.

Definition2: "A sudden, radical, or complete change". If you are sanguine you are always ready for change, perhaps even drastic change. Sanguines tend to get bored easily, and love the new. It doesn't necessarily have to be deep or philosophical, as long as it is positive change.

Definition 3: "A fundamental change in use or technology". If you are melancholy, any significant change in the status quo system is revolutionary for you. You lead by systems and feel uncomfortable if they are changed in large degrees.

Definition 4: "A fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something". As a phlegmatic you lead through consensus. You would probably want to convince people to change the way they think and then let them decide to do it in their own time. That would be enough of a revolution for a consensus-driven phlegmatic.

Now that you have these definitions, work with them, decide which ones best describe you, and use them. You may find you are launching a leadership revolution in your own life.

Rick Hubbard - B.A. in Communication and Organizational Leadership and an M.A. in Instructional Systems/e-Learning He is a instructional technologist at a Florida university and does consulting in communication and instructional design. TEAM2.0 [http://www.Team2point0.com]

Leadership Transitions - the Key to Organizational Success

Introduction

There is a growing recognition in the business world that a good leadership strategy can significantly improve business results. At the same time, good leaders seem to be rare things these days. According to recent study, it has been found that recruiting and retaining qualified leaders has become crucial challenge facing businesses today and in the future.

However, organizations are feeling the pressure of implementing a leadership strategy quickly and effectively. However, they seem to be faced with three interlinked difficulties such as:

1. They lack an understanding of which factors constitute an effective leadership strategy.

2. They remain unclear on the impact of leadership on organizational performance.

3. They are not doing enough to encourage leadership development internally.

Now first let us understand what we mean by Effective Leadership.

Effective Leadership is a self-sustaining organizational practice that transcends the personalities of individual leaders. The key to establishing a sound leadership approach is to identify which factors make up an effective leadership strategy and to understand how each of these factors affects overall results.

Does Effective Leadership influence organizational success?

Yes, Effective Leadership with its top seven factors does assign positive influence on organizational results. These top seven factors are:

1. Initiating and Managing change: Organization must encourage a culture of change leadership internally in order to assert leadership externally. Today's turbulent organizational environment is characterized by a continuous race between competing businesses. Therefore, organizations must seize existing opportunities and create new ones in order to thr8ive. To reap the full benefits of change, they must also need to have a systematic change management approach that will enable them to react with agility and speed to changes within and outside the organization.

2. Communicating a Common Vision: In order to lead their organization successfully, leaders needs to have a clear vision (See Exhibit 1: Dynamic pattern of organizational structure) for the firms and must also possess the ability to think strategically. Recent survey reports indicates, "Creating an environment of shared values and goals" has been one of the most important factors in improving employee productivity and financial results. Also a well-developed personal vision and the ability to sell that vision is the key skill needed for effective leadership in today's evolving economy. In order to create a culture of common goals, regular communication at all levels of the organization is required.

3. Empowering others to lead: Good leaders today understand that in the present economy, creating a culture of leadership and empowering others to make decisions are essential for long-term business success. The study shows that it is more important for an organization to have in place the systems and processes that enable leadership to emerge naturally and that is those systems that often explain why some organization outperform their competitors throughout the terms of many different CEO's and why some leaders can succeed in one organization and final in the next. The sharing of the leadership role is essential in the fragile and uncertain times that leaders face and will continue to face in the future. Teamwork and "Cooperative leadership" (See Exhibit 2: Leadership attribution) can only increase in importance as a way of staying ahead of the competition. Leadership through teamwork also works to keep people, processes and ideas to check and to prevent a single personality from making foolish or irrational decisions.

4. Global Sensitivity: Effective leadership in the present economy must adopt a global perspective and must integrate global experience and cultural sensitivity. There is no escaping the trend towards globalization, which is presently taking place within organizations. However, organization needs to be ready to face competition locally and form global. In order to be well equipped to deal with the competition, they need to recognize the importance of having qualified leaders who are capable of applying a global perspective in their business dealings and are able to approach issues from different angles.

5. Cultivating Relationships: The ability to cultivate and manage relationships both within and outside the organization is an integral aspect of effective leadership. Forming and maintaining relationship with employees, customers and suppliers is essential to safe guard the interests of the organization. The ability to network effectively with relevant parties is essential because it maximizes an organizations chance of capturing new business opportunities in the future and also enables leaders to learn from others and to gain expertise in new areas. Trying to walk alone in an increasingly competitive business environment is a self-defeating act, particularly since organizations are increasingly being rated on their innovation and knowledge capabilities.

6. Growing Top Talent: Building great leaders are a hot topic in today's business media. Due to a growing shortage of talent in the world economy, leadership skills needs to be developed internally so that employees can be prepared to assume leadership roles in the future. Retaining the people who had key leadership skills has found to be difficult.

7. Managing Performance: An effective leadership strategy needs to include a performance management system, which is geared towards positively reinforcing employees at all, levels of the organization and which is aligned with the end goals of the organization. A performance management system needs to involve recruitment and selection, training and development, coaching and feedback, performance appraisal and reviews.

Now let us focus on how leadership transitions bring about success in an organization.

Leadership transitions are a fact of our organizational lives. While times of transition can be exciting and energizing, they often prove difficult both for the leaders, who has new role and for the followers. Leaders work from the start to establish their credibility in their new position. In a sense, all eyes are on the new person, with some followers wishing for success and in many cases others pointing out the weaknesses that might prove to be failure.

During organizational changes, the needs of the new leaders and the followers often conflicts. The leader seeks to impact the organization immediately and the followers want a slow pace of change. Successful transitions requires understanding both parties need and building communication and trust between them as quickly as possible.

During transitions four areas of interactions between leaders and followers are critical. These four areas are:

1. Partnering in decision-making: The new leader needs to understand the organization. Successful new leaders emphasis listening to followers, drawing out the issues that needs to be addressed and the ideas that can potentially improve the organization. Followers can assist the leaders. Throughout this process by bringing to the table not only their own ideas but also facts and data that inform those opinions. Quality analysis of issues fosters significant conversations between the leader and the follower that result in effective decisions.

2. Successful Implementations: Followers play major roles in implementing organizational products and services. Successful leaders trust followers to implement decisions so that they can focus their own time and effort on defining successful outcomes. It is almost impossible for a leader new to the organization to know enough to be helpful in making implementation decisions. A new leader who does not shift to focus on the results the organization is trying to achieve deprives the organization of leadership and singles to followers that they are not trusted to understand defined outcomes and implement them successfully. The level of trust between leaders and followers is a key to success. Focused discussions between leaders and followers about successful outcomes and accountability mechanisms can results in focused and successful implementations.

3. Challenging the leader: The courage to challenge the leader is an important element in organizational success. Leaders benefit greatly from listening to employees and encouraging them to respectfully disagree. Honest interaction between leaders and followers can bring the leader new and important information. Ensuring that the top management includes those who have the courage to challenge the leader is particularly important.

4. Supporting the leader and the followers: It is important for the new leader to develop support networks of peers who can provide advice and counsel on the new role. In addition, the new leader needs followers to understand the basic functional needs of leadership. Given how over whelming the new role might be, just dealing with the daily stream of ideas, demands, e-mails and so on can challenge the new leader. Followers can assist new leaders by seeking information about their preferred styles of communication, not only how they would like to interact or the preferred means of communication but also what information needs to be shared with them.

Sum Up

Due to the current talent shortage in the economy, organization cannot rely solely on hiring leadership talent externally. Instead, they need to focus on finding ways to retain the best people and develop them into potential leaders for the future.

However, a leadership transition poses dangers and challenges for both leaders and followers. While each party naturally focuses on the organizations success, time needs to be spent on how the new relationship will develop and mature into effective working relationships.

In light of the strong link between leadership and organizational performance, organization must invest heavily in leadership development programmes and must have a comprehensive performance management system in place to identify and reward their present and potential leaders. Organizations that fail to capitalize on leadership will lose their competitive advantage in the market.

Leadership Development is Coming of Age and Returning to Each and Every Individual

Leadership development can be read in any business, educational or professional organizational journal. Leadership continues to be a popular topic. However, with thousands of articles, hundreds of books, the question for me is "Why?"

With all this information, why are we still not developing the leaders necessary for the 21st century? Maybe, because the focus is on the competencies (knowledge and skills) and fails to acknowledge that each individual brings to the table of life certain key strengths. When a competency-based model for leadership is implemented, this approach ignores the wealth of inherent strengths that reside within each individual and can be developed into incredible leadership skills.

Also, leadership skills are not just relegated to the executive team or upper management, but should cascade down throughout the organization and positively develop each and every stakeholder.

So, then what is the definition of leadership? Peter Drucker has stated that "leadership is all about results." Drucker's definition is only part of what leadership means. By achieving results forward progress is made and those involved feel that their efforts have been justified.

Leading without securing either business results or personal results is much like walking the same path over and over again. This may be an easy path to travel, but ultimately diminishes the incredible potential residing within all individuals and decreases the overall results within the organization. Also, this approach reinforces a fear of accountability. By not having the desired results clearly articulated and shared, everyone denies accountability and embraces a victim mentality by pointing their fingers at other shareholders.

Another part of leadership, missing from Drucker's definition, is that core values must always be demonstrated when achieving the desired results. Failure to include those non-negotiable behaviors within the overall definition of leadership supports a culture contrary to the desired results.

Today's media has the ability to almost immediately broadcast the unethical behaviors of corporate CEOs to elected government officials. These individuals, in many cases, are viewed as leaders within the communities because they were able to secure significant results. However, because they sacrificed their values or in some cases there were no core values present, these individuals are truly not the leaders necessary to take a school corporation, an organization, a state or a country forward in the 21st century.

Also, leadership begins with the individual. Leadership is about individuals achieving results. Drucker's and others' definitions may imply that leadership begins from within each individual, but the definition of leadership must clearly state the source of leadership.

Finally, leadership is truly about achieving the desired results. The use of the word desired indicates that there exists some planning, strategy and higher order thinking skills involved. Results are not achieved willy-nilly or haphazardly, but rather with careful and thoughtful consideration.

If we accept the definition of leadership as being individuals who consistently deliver the desired results while executing positive core values, our belief of leadership may change. No longer do we confuse leadership with management, that leadership is only for the administrative team or that leadership for management is different than leadership for the rest of the those within the organization. Nor we will accept any results, but rather results that can be directly tied to specific strategies and tactics. Now, we can begin to look at the strengths of each individual and how those strengths can be further developed and leveraged to create a win-win for everyone.

The next question is how do we leverage the strengths of each individual to help them become better leaders who can consistently achieve the desired results without the sacrifice of positive and critical core values? That is a very good question and the answer may be far simpler than many realize.

In any organization, management needs to model the leadership behaviors that they are expecting from each other as well as everyone else. The disconnect between "Do as I say and not as I do" rings even more false today than 40 years ago. Today's work force can see the disconnects and more importantly will challenge those very same issues. Their challenges can be direct, but are usually indirect through many of their miss-behaviors including "jumping ship."

Leadership development is coming of age and more and more individuals are recognizing that leadership requires a shared definition as well as total alignment within the organization. Failure to embrace this realization will create a rudderless ship traveling thousands of miles in a continual circle while wasting the individual potential of each crew member.

Leanne Hoagland-Smith, M.S. is a business coach and executive coach with offices in Indianapolis and near Chicago. She writes, speaks and coaches people in businesses to quickly double or triple results through the creation of an executable strategic plan along with the necessary leadership skills "to pull it off."

One quick question,Of you could develop accountable employees who consistently demonstrate exceptional leadership skills, what would that mean to you? Then, take a risk and give me, Leanne, a call at 219.759.5601 for a free telephone consultation.

Visit http://www.processspecialist.com/ and explore everything from free articles to connecting with Leanne.

Autocratic vs Consultative Leadership

When one speaks about Leadership styles, there are several different models to choose from. However, whatever the model it is never an easy process to implement or practice a particular style of leadership and hope to get the results that was intended. "Leadership" per se is both an Art as well as a Science. The one key element that all leaders should possess is their ability to communicate their visions and values to the people they are leading and to get the people to buy into their visions and values.

The key concern is whether the leader is getting his people to 'buy-in' or is he trying to 'sell' his vision. When you want to 'sell' you need to be convincing and give the impression that the ideas you have are inherently beneficial to the people and therefore they should accept it. This usually is a challenging dilemma as sometimes the people you are leading might not quite see the relevance of your visions and values and may not be forthcoming in accepting them. However, if you are able to create the circumstances whereby the people feel that what you possess are important visions and values, and that by they buying into these it would benefit them well, you have created a winning formula to lead your people successfully.

If you want your people to 'buy-in' rather than 'sell' your visions and values you need to pay meticulous attention to the type of leadership style that you portray. I personally find that in this context, leadership can be classified either as autocratic leadership style or a consultative leadership style.

Autocratic Leadership Style

Autocratic leadership is one which is based on a clear top-down approach. The leader is in a position of absolute power and he can implement and do whatever he wants to get things done. Usually in an autocratic leadership environment there will not be much discussion of affairs as the people find that their voices does not carry weight in the problem solving and decision making aspects of their organization.

An autocratic leader will be the driver of his people and without his leadership the organization will not be able to function. Usually autocratic leaders like to delegate their power but at the same time having a stranglehold on all those subordinate to them. They also like to coach their people to do things the way they want it and may create a 'my way or the highway' kind of working environment. The impression one gets in an autocratic leadership style is that the leader is seen as some kind of megalomaniacal tyrant to be feared and followed.

Although there is some truth to this, autocratic leadership is not necessarily a bad style. In fact there are some circumstances where an autocratic leadership should be the preferred style. One instance where autocratic leadership style may be applicable is when the organization is new and the people are inexperience and thus look up to the leadership to guide them in their work. Another instance is if the people are disengaged in their job and have no clear direction and there is vast internal politicking of the kind that is disruptive and causes an emotional strain in the way the organization is being managed. Here a powerful autocratic leadership might help to re-align the organization to its original position and get the people back in shape.

The downside of all this is that an extended period of engaging in an autocratic style of leadership can strain the relationship between the leader and the people in that the people might find the leader to be so task-oriented that they may develop a sense of resentment. Further, when the leader becomes too autocratic he may forget that he is dealing with humans and not machines and might create the impression that the people are just part of the machinery. This can create a sense of dissonance in the work environment which will not be beneficial to the leader, the people and the organization in the long run. Take the cue from Dwight D. Eisenhower who said: "You do not lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership"

Consultative Leadership

Consultative leadership is the way to go in the long run. Management Guru, Kenneth Blanchard said: "The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority". This is the very nature of consultative leadership in that you the leader will have to develop the ability to influence people rather than impose on them your authority as is the case in an autocratic leadership style. In consultative leadership style, the leader will engage the subordinates efficaciously in the decision making and problem solving process. This kind of leadership style endorses the fact that the leader is indeed the servant of the people he is leading. The people have the power to engage in consultation with the leader and are able to make suggestions which they know would be taken into serious contemplation by the leader.

Further, consultative leadership style endorses the concept of empowerment rather than delegation. When a leader empowers, he is basically giving the person concern a freehand to do what is necessary. The leader may draw up certain parameters for the person to work within and to ensure that he is kept in the loop by the person. In a consultative leadership style, the leader still has strong visions and concrete values that he can communicate with his people. However unlike the autocratic leader, the concept underlying consultative leadership style is one of administering a people-oriented kind of management rather than a task-oriented one.

The consultative leader's role will continuously involve the development of his people and this is done by being kept aware of the needs and wants of the people. The only way this information can be gotten is by having constant dialogue with the people and clarifying the goals and aspirations that you have and synchronizing this with their personal visions. When the people get to experience this state of being they will be more prepared to 'buy-in' the visions and values of the leader.

In the long haul, consultative leadership will be the most appropriate one. As the organization mature, the leader has to learn to move away from delegation to empowerment. When the people become more experienced and participative in their professional relationship with you the leader, you will have to play the role of a mentor to them. Consultative leadership style will invoke in you the ability to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals under your authority and allow you the opportunity to nurture the best out of them. The parting quote by Elisabeth Dole seems apt to be mentioned here where she said: "What you always do before you make a decision is consult. The best public policy is made when you are listening to people who are going to be impacted. Then, once policy is determined, you call on them to help you sell it".

Dr Daniel Theyagu is a corporate trainer and seminar leader who has designed and conducted competency-based training for more than 150 organizations.

He is based in Singapore and can be reached atdtheyagu@singnet.com.sg

Website: http://www.thinklaterally.com

Creating a Culture of Leadership

Many organizational managers assume that by adding leadership training or a leadership development program that they are able to create a culture that accepts leadership. The move from non-existent leadership to a leadership culture takes time - and a few steps in between. Let's look at how you can create a culture of leadership.

First, you, as the organizational leader, must acknowledge the existence of leadership potential. It sounds simple, but many leaders do not want to admit that they are replaceable - that someone or more than one person would be capable of taking the reins once they're gone. Don't be that leader - seek out and recognize that the organization has talent. Acknowledge that the talent will one day be capable of taking over your vision and moving the organization forward. By making this acknowledgment, you're telling your mid- and senior-level leaders that a path exists. And you're telling new hires that the sky is the limit in your organization.

Next, clearly outline what a leader in your organization "looks like" - and hold people to the standard. The list of leadership competencies is a long one. You'll never find one leader who executes all competencies perfectly. So, you must determine the competencies that mesh well with your organization and its climate. Don't forget to decide which competencies lend themselves to your vision for the organization and where you see the organization in the future - even after you've gone. You should also consider the functional leadership competencies that go along with your organization's line of business. If you choose too widely, you'll end up with a picture of a leader who doesn't exist. Once you've determined the competencies, lay them out for the organization. Simply put, you can say that a leader in your organization has these competencies and displays these behaviors. As people move into leadership roles, hold them to the standard.

We've already mentioned the fact that organizations do create leadership training and development programs - and you should do that to build a leadership culture. The program should be ongoing and consist of various levels - from "beginning" leadership to the advanced. In fact, your leadership program should begin reaching down into the lowest levels of the organization right away. For example, offer a leadership program to new-hires that details what your leader "looks like". It's the seed that will keep leadership growing through all levels. Your program should include seminars, networking, and even real-time project management at the higher levels. By creating a multi-level program, you're keeping the leadership machinery in motion - and giving the organization a sense that anyone can move up to the leadership ranks.

Now that you've got your program, put your mid- and senior-level leaders through the program. You should even include yourself. This way, the message goes out loud and clear that your organization expects the same standard of leadership from everyone - executives included. Any cultural shift should start from the top. If they don't buy in, how do you expect the lower levels to buy in? It may be an unpopular decision with your executive team, but you'll be taking big strides in creating the culture of leadership.

At this point, it's important to explain why you're making the shift to leadership. The explanation shouldn't just be afforded to executives and managers but to all levels of the organization. Explain that you're looking to give everyone an opportunity to advance - and to learn what it takes to do so. Outline the fact that you're looking for bench strength for all leadership positions - including your own. Not only this, a leadership orientation prepares you for succession planning at all levels, as well as talent management. The benefits to the organization are numerous and it's your job to explain them.

Finally, focus on the success of the program. When you have a successful advancement due to the leadership program, highlight it publicly. Or, let's say one of your leadership teams "in training" solve a business problem in their project assignment. Showcase this development as related to the culture of leadership at your organization. When the members of your organization see that the program and its culture are successful, you'll have no trouble keeping your talent pipeline full.

There are many ways to move to a leadership culture. Follow these steps in the beginning and you'll find that the transition is simple and beneficial.

Copyright 2008 Bryant Nielson. All Rights Reserved.

Bryant Nielson - Managing Director and National Sales Trainer - assists executives, business owners, and top performing sales executives in taking the leap from the ordinary to extraordinary. Bryant is a trainer, business & leadership coach, and strategic planner for sales organizations. Bryant's 27 year business career has been based on his results-oriented style of empowering.

Subscribe to his blog - and learn the legendary secrets of top business training programs at: http://www.BryantNielson.com

Your Leadership Or Your Life: A Leadership Lesson

A classic radio skit by comedian Jack Benny involved Benny being held up on the street by a man with a gun. "Your money or your life," the gunman said to Benny, who portrayed himself in character as an inveterate tightwad. There was a long pause. The gunman repeated, "Your money or your life."

"I'm thinking!" said Benny. "I'm thinking!"

Whenever I remember that skit, I think of leadership. The portrayal of Benny's stage character, a skinflint equally concerned for his money as for his life, gives a kind of sideways, albeit humorous, glimpse into the nature of human commitment. For some people, there are things as important or more important than one's life.

I submit that leadership involves such commitment -- maybe not as extreme as offering up one's life (though history clearly shows many leaders have) but none-the-less that calls for our total devotion.

Leadership is not just position or even performance. It's much more. It's a life-quest. I am not saying it should be more important than your life; I am saying that if you are in a position of leadership, you should make your leadership a better part of who you are.

Leadership is important to you in two ways. First, it is a career-maker/breaker. Most careers have at their basis leadership. A human resources director told me. "Brent, we hire people for their skills and knowledge but we promote them or fail to promote them or fire them for their leadership abilities (or lack thereof.) What we hire for and what we fire, promote for are two different things!"

Organizations are hungry for good leadership. And if you can provide it, you have a great career advantage over those who can't, or at least those who provide it ineffectively.

This is especially so if you promote the right kind of leadership. It doesn't mean being an order leader. The days of the order-leader are not just numbered. They're over. Today, leadership is motivational or its stumbling in the dark.

Because in terms of achieving more results faster continually, the order is the lowest form of leadership.

With globalization, businesses worldwide are undergoing changes as radical as any since the Industrial Revolution. With competition increasing dramatically, with the volume and velocity of information multiplying, with information becoming accessible to more and more people, with the traditional, pyramidal structures of order-giving flattening, leaders today need skills akin not to those needed for white-water canoeing.

Order leadership founders in an environment where lines of authority are dynamic, information widely disseminated, markets rapidly changing, and employees empowered. In such an environment, new leadership, motivational leadership, is needed.

In short, the leader who can "have" others get results. That means global leadership is essentially motivational leadership.

That's the kind of leadership needed to achieve such success. Now, here's the tool to make that leadership happen. That tool is The Leadership Talk. Here's what the Leadership Talk is all about.

When it comes to realizing motivational leadership around the world, there is a hierarchy of verbal persuasion. This hierarchy extends to people everywhere, no matter what their culture, what job they hold, or what ambitions they have.

The lowest levels of the hierarchy are speeches and presentations. They communicate information. The highest level, the most effective level is The Leadership Talk. The Leadership Talk not only communicates information. It does something much more. It establishes deep, human, emotional connections with people.

The question isn't, "Why is this connection necessary in terms of getting organizational results?" (After all, the answer is obvious.), the question is, "Why is the Leadership Talk the gold standard for international leadership?"

For one thing, I've had top leaders in top companies worldwide applying it for more than two decades, and it simply works. It's all about helping leaders get what I call "more results faster, continually." You can get those kinds of results on a global scale without the Leadership Talk.

The Leadership Talk is motivational, action-focused, results oriented. When you use it, you'll find it works not only on an organization level but also on a deeply personal level.

And it is in the realm of the deeply personal that leadership comprises the second way its important. This leadership methodology can be of great benefit to your life-relationships, not just your job ones. In fact, it's something you can devote your life to in every relationship every day.

Your leadership or your life? With the Leadership Talk, your leadership IS your life.

2006 © The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

PERMISSION TO REPUBLISH: This article may be republished in newsletters and on web sites provided attribution is provided to the author, and it appears with the included copyright, resource box and live web site link. Email notice of intent to publish is appreciated but not required: mail to: brent@actionleadership.com

The author of 23 books, Brent Filson's recent books are, THE LEADERSHIP TALK: THE GREATEST LEADERSHIP TOOL and 101 WAYS TO GIVE GREAT LEADERSHIP TALKS. He is founder and president of The Filson Leadership Group, Inc. ? and for more than 21 years has been helping leaders of top companies worldwide get audacious results. Sign up for his free leadership e-zine and get a free white paper: "49 Ways To Turn Action Into Results," at http://www.actionleadership.com

Three Ways of Defining Leadership

Here are 3 popular ways of defining leadership, each from a slightly different perspective:

Leadership means being the dominant individual in a group.
Leadership means getting things done through people.
Leadership means challenging the status quo, promoting a better way.

For many, leadership means doing all three of these things but there are subtle and important differences. Let's look at them one by one.

Leadership means being the dominant individual in a group.

In primitive tribes and higher animal species the dominant individual was the leader. Being the leader simply meant having the power to attain and hold the top position for a reasonable length of time. Contrary to definition 2, you could be the leader without getting anything done through others. A leader was the person in charge even if the group was in a stable state where people went about their business as normal. As long as group members obeyed the leader's rules, the leader did not even need to be actively involved in the lives of group members, let alone get anything done through them. You could also be the leader in such a group without promoting a better way as suggested by definition 3. If you didn't need to be voted into power, why have a platform for change? You simply seized power; no sales pitch was needed on how you could make life better for the group. Yes, such leaders may have led groups successfully in battle and built great monuments with them, but, strictly speaking, you could be the leader without achieving anything through a group effort. The meaning of leadership, according to this definition, is simply to be at the top of the pile.

Leadership means getting things done through people.

Great leaders throughout history have led their groups to momentous achievements, but the idea that leadership should be defined as getting things done through people has been developed most fully by modern business, which is all about achieving results. As business has become more complex, the leadership challenge has grown form one of the simple issuing of orders to a few "hands" to the subtle coordination of highly skilled, diverse knowledge workers to build sophisticated machines and put men on the moon. There is a problem with this definition of leadership, however. It used to belong to management. Why the switch from management to leadership? And is this a good move? Up to the late 1970's writers used the terms leadership and management interchangeably but with more emphasis on management. For example, the management theorists, Blake and Mouton, developed their famous managerial grid in the 1960's. At the time, it was portrayed as a way of identifying your management style. Today, in line with the shift to leadership, the name is the same (managerial grid) but it is now positioned as a leadership style instrument.

Similarly, we used to talk about management style more than leadership style. Managers could be either "theory X" and task oriented or "theory Y" and concerned for people. But a profound shift in thinking took place in a revolutionary period lasting from the late 1970's through the mid 1980's. The cause of this upheaval was the commercial success of Japanese industry in North America. This led pundits to claim that the U.S. had lost its competitive edge because U.S. management was too bureaucratic, controlling, uninspiring and inept at fostering innovation. Rather than upgrade management, there was an emotional over reaction such that management was rejected and replaced by leadership. Since then, leaders were portrayed as theory Y, inspiring and concerned about people while management got saddled with all the bad guy attributes of being controlling, theory X, uninspiring and narrowly task focused. Similarly, the distinction between being transformational and transactional was originally launched to differentiate two leadership styles, but it wasn't long before it became used to separate leadership from management, the former being transformational and the latter transactional.

In our haste to trash management, we grabbed whatever tools were handy but with heavy costs. First, we painted leadership into a corner by suggesting that you needed to be an inspiring cheerleader to be a leader, leaving no room for quiet or simply factual leadership. Second, we created a bloated concept of leadership by banishing management. Third, by attaching leadership to getting things done through a team, we associated leadership irrevocably with being in charge of people, thereby ruling out positionless leadership. Yes, there is informal leadership but this concept is essentially the same as formal leadership except for their power bases. Like its formal counterpart, informal leadership still means taking charge and managing a group to achieve a target. In either case, you need to have the personal presence, organizational skills and motivation to take charge to be a leader.

Leadership means challenging the status quo, promoting a better way.

We have always felt, intuitively, that leaders have the courage to stand up and be counted. They go against the grain, often at great risk, to call for change. We only need to look at Martin Luther King, Jr. His leadership rested not so much on his oratorical skills - they were just icing on the cake. He was a leader primarily because he marched and spoke against injustice. He challenged the status quo and promoted a better world.

However, and this is the whole point here, if you think through what it means to challenge the status quo or advocate change, there is no necessary implication that you have to be in charge of the people you are trying to influence. The bottom line is that this third definition, when worked through fully, gives us a way to break the stranglehold of the previous two definitions. The benefit of this move is that we gain a clearer understanding of how all employees can show leadership even if they totally lack the skills or inclination to take charge of groups in a managerial sense, even informally. Think again of Martin Luther King, Jr. He sought to move the U.S. Government and the population at large to think differently about such issues as segregation on buses. His leadership efforts were successful when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such discrimination unconstitutional. Now, it is obvious that he was not in a managerial role within the Supreme Court. He showed leadership to this group as an outsider. You could say the same of Jack Welch who had a leadership impact on countless businesses around the globe through his novel practices, such as being first or second in a market. Again, those who followed the lead of Jack Welch did not report to him. They were not even members of a common group.

Leadership Reinvented for the 21st Century

If we cast aside the first two definitions of leadership, what is left? If leadership means nothing more than promoting a better way, then we need to upgrade management to take care of everything to do with getting things done through people. We need to say that management does not entail being controlling, bureaucratic or theory X, that they can be as inspiring as they need to be, good at coaching, developing and empowering people.

A critical supporting fact is that the power on which leadership is based is shifting from having a dominant personality to the ability to devise new ways of working, new products and better services. Businesses that compete on the basis of rapid innovation are engaged in a war of ideas and no one has a monopoly on good ideas. This is revolutionary because it suggests that leadership can no longer be about group domination. Now, leadership is a brief influence impact, an episode or act, not an ongoing state or role. You still may need a larger than life personality to ascend to the role of Chief Executive, but leadership conceived as a good idea for a better way can be very small scale and local. Any employee with a better idea can promote it, even if only by example, without having the personal presence to be promoted to a managerial role. Strictly, speaking there are no longer any leaders, only leadership. This view captures the fact that leadership is a fleeting state that can shift quickly from one person to another. It is an impact rather than a type of person or position. It must be so if it can be shown by outsiders.

Key Features of Leadership Reinvented

It does not involve managing people to get things done.
It comes to an end once those led get on board. It sells the tickets for the journey; management drives the bus to the destination.
It is a discrete episode, a one-off act of influence, not an ongoing position of dominance.
It is based on the promotion of a better way.
It can be shown bottom-up as well as top-down.
It can be shown by outsiders and between competing individuals or groups.

Thought Leadership - The Essence of Leadership Reinvented

Organizations today need all employees to think creatively and to promote new products. Promoting a better idea can be called thought leadership. In a knowledge driven environment, the newest, best idea influences others to get on board. When a product developer convinces top management to adopt a new product, that person has shown thought leadership bottom-up. But it can be shown across groups as well. When Microsoft develops products or services invented by Apple or Google, they are following the lead of these innovators. This also is thought leadership.

While the possession of great emotional intelligence and the oratory of a Martin Luther King, Jr. can help thought leaders make their case, it is vital to see that these skills are nice to have add-ons, not an essential part of the meaning of leadership. Technical geeks with zero emotional intelligence and an obnoxious influencing style can show thought leadership if they can demonstrate the value of their ideas. This is very empowering because it moves us away from the demand to develop sophisticated leadership skills as a precondition of showing leadership. Strictly speaking there are no leadership skills, only influencing skills and great content. Imagine asking Tiger Woods. after the end of the third round when he is in the lead, how he developed such great leadership skills. The truth is that he shows leadership through being great at the content of his profession, not by having a separate set of talents called leadership skills. On the other hand, there are very definite management skills. Getting work done through people calls for quite sophisticated interpersonal and organizational skills.

Content is King

The point of the previous section is that convincing content or substance can trump great style or form. Having a larger than life personality may still help you get to be CEO but this is the power of style over substance. If the prospective leader has enough charisma, it almost doesn't matter what is being advocated (the content). Conversely, thought leadership is most convincing if backed up by hard evidence. Having persuasive influencing skills helps but isn't essential. This means that front line knowledge workers can focus on what it really takes to show leadership: begin by developing convincing content. If your idea is good enough it will virtually sell itself. It's not that influencing skills are not valuable. The point is that we can define leadership without mentioning influencing style. Also, there is the fact that opportunists will get on board with a great idea with no persuasion whatsoever. Thus, if it is possible to show leadership without being personally persuasive, then having such skills cannot be a necessary condition to show leadership.

The Future of Leadership

Leadership reinvented can still be shown by CEOs. They just need to accept that much of what they do needs to be reclassified as management. They also need to devote more time to fostering leadership in front line employees, thereby taking empowerment a huge leap forward. If they want to reap the full innovative potential of all employees, CEOs and other managers need to engage and inspire employees more fully. Helping them to see how all employees can show leadership now could make all the difference between winning the war of ideas and falling further behind. Where knowledge rules, the old fashioned conception of leadership as group domination is dangerously obsolete. Complexity drives specialization. It is time to bring management back from the dead to take care of getting things done through people, leaving leadership to focus on finding and promoting new directions.

Definition number 1 may still be good enough to capture what happens in small street gangs and primitive tribes but it is most clearly out of date in a world that is a war of ideas. Number 2 is a mess because it is a total confusion of leadership and management. Only definition number 3 captures all leadership - that shown by people in charge, by those with neither the inclination nor the skills to take charge, and by outsiders like Martin Luther King, Jr. Uniquely, this definition also captures what it means to be a market leading company or a leading individual or team in sports. Leadership is simply a matter of showing the way. One of the many exciting features of this definition is that followers must choose to follow of their own free will because coercive power and authority are missing. Definition number 3 captures the essence of pure leadership.

See http://www.lead2xl.com for more articles like this one. Mitch McCrimmon has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. His latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, challenges conventional thinking on leadership.