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.