In the last few months, I have been asked many times, in interviews with various media, what difficult economic times have made to change leadership. I'm not sure the times have changed leadership requirements as much as they've expanded our weaknesses and areas to improve.
We are often unaware of the fact that our cultural rights have really lowered what we think about when it comes to leadership. Strong, bright individuals have been blamed for not too strong or too bright, so they draw negative attention. We talk endlessly about effective communication and our apparent communication skills are worsening with the high impact of 360-degree auditing, and other ways of evaluating emotional intelligence and operational skills. George Patton simply would not survive in the most sophisticated culture of our companies. He would at least have to go underground.
Have we gone wrong? Have co-operation, cooperation and "play good" replace leadership? I personally believe that we had to go to treat people with greater respect. I believe we have failed to develop our communication skills skills, as well as our understanding of "emotional intelligence." We have clearly told our leaders what they can not do, but we have not replaced the old Patton powerfield with a kind of direct and effective communication "skillful set" that allows leaders to be clear.
I've been watching strong leaders who have a lot to say being hammered in an ineffective, unhappy, tip-damaging shadow because they simply do not know how to be strong, clear and at the same time "right". The bullies are still thriving because they have gone underground with subversive, passive aggressive behaviors. Our talented leaders no longer know how far they can go, how far will the organization support them and how much they need to acquire for the benefit of the team?
It's not "new" thinking to acknowledge that our leaders need more courage and more skills to combat short-term, economical thinking. However, rather than formulating and asserting these needs, we must help the leader to remove real obstacles to behave as most would like.
All abilities of teaching in the field of reliability, courage, judgment, etc. Must include understanding and adaptation for what prevents folks to act automatically according to their value. How can we help our leaders find their voice when it seems to be against their best interest in doing it?
Leader and 360 degree performance review
Over the last ten years, I've been putting talented leaders together after their 360 performance. I'm afraid of what I consider to be in a normal disadvantage in such a process and I'm sick of any damage they do for everyone and we do not care about leadership. The seemingly brilliant concept (anonymous response from the people who influence leadership leaders) are very harmful to leaders and organizations.
1. Methodology offers poor performers unparalleled voice. It is often used as an opportunity to "get back" on leaders who have given a performance to someone who has failed to meet expectations. The leader can not defend himself from this anonymous reaction, but it is weighted heavily in leadership performance.
2. "Anonymous" brings forth alleged spiritual answers, back from those with an ax to grind. It's something unhealthy to tell someone they can say what they want and nobody can ever hold them responsible. Actions that promote indirect aggressive behavior simply make no sense.
3. My clients usually know exactly who had the negative comments because they accidentally say it in the way they've said before. The fact that they say it in a formal, documented process does not add relationships or cooperation.
4. The weighting reaction is always negative. It does not mean that there are negative but positive comments. That means that the person is forever haunted by alleged things that are said. Rarely are the newly assigned 360 people can be neutral.
5. The system does not promote learning or growth. Usually, people learn best with positive strengthening and redirect their strengths. Negative feedback, well put and delivered carefully, can be very useful. What this tool seems to do, however, is that leaders are afraid to make somebody unhappy. They lose themselves and their policies in trying to please. Actually, one of my talented customers was told that an individual treated her 360, the most important thing she could focus on was making people like her. He clearly pointed out that this was more important than getting the results.
Reception 360 is a bit like walking into your office and finding an invincible, nasty mind. You can learn and grow from the experience, but the chances are you will be hurt and cheated. It's simply not a deputy for fearless person who has been well-trained in an effective way to respond to a very strong personality. Although 360 is a popular tool and strategy, it's an excuse for not doing what we should do in the first place.
So where is the scarcity of skills we need to fill? How do you teach people to tell exactly what they are thinking without hurting or hurting others? It's the talent that needs to be developed and it's a very powerful tool.
I work daily with senior executives who are in a loss when it comes to communication issues they have with others. They are afraid of being themselves because they have been punished for being too bad, too slipping or too strong. Otherwise, they are simply too unthinkable. They can not win.
What they find is that if they can communicate with the effects of what they "feel" in communication and if they can find the ability to communicate effectively, they can again affect revenue.
Sound too simple? I have a client, a very talented customer, who has been hurt by violence, indirect aggressive curses. When they learn that they can turn the beach by making things public and telling exactly how the interaction makes them feel, they are once again the power to lead.
Before they figure this out, bullies can push them around. And we lose them as successful leaders.
What other skills do we need to build to help our leaders to be strong in happiness? We need to help them understand that technology is not enough. They must learn to communicate efficiently, they must manage the power of communication.
What does it mean? That means we need to dive the level below what we usually teach in communication. We must understand that the power of communication will tell you more about its success than the talents of leaders in language. A leader who understands how to feel and control energy will be ten times as effective and the one who is simply clever with his words.
Let me be specific. If a leader is communicating policies or policies, or decisions about his establishment, and if the agency has recently experienced a loan, it is more complicated communication than if things are great. The leader becomes aware of the need to control the fear that the message can send. This is a fairly common focus on leaders in difficult situations.
What if each communication has the accompanying energy that needs to be controlled? If a leader developed his talents, he would need to become more aware of the underlying energy and had to learn the technology to guide them effectively. If someone needed the "rails" the savvy leader would know this intuition and would provide stronger parameters. If a person was unmanageable and reckless, the leader would know that he had to push back (and he / she just knew how difficult to push again).
In other words, the leader would be very talented in reading the state's energy, knowing exactly how much finesse or power was needed and he or she trusted enough to respond to what they knew. The leader would not allow circumstances to travel too far with a negative path because he or she would know the consequences. In other words, leaders need to learn skills that give them relevant results, and they must learn to rely on themselves to apply these skills in the light of possible negative consideration.
In short, our leaders will learn new and standardized communication technology by entering the right, leading side of the communication process. This will be especially difficult for highly analytical, left brained leaders and our teachers will be trained on how to help them do it.