Direction is crucial for the continual success of just about any organization. A fantastic leader at top makes a big difference to their organization. Everyone will concur with one of these statements. Specialists in recruiting area mention the importance of leaders at all levels, and not just that of the direction at the top. It is not without reason that companies like 3M, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Coca Cola; HSBC etc. have known to set in place procedures for developing leaders constantly.
Mention this issue, however, to a sales manager, or to a line supervisor, or any executive in most organizations and you will most likely deal with responses that are diffident.
Leadership development -a tactical need?
The topic of direction is dealt with in a general way by many organizations. Direction is usually understood in regard to personal aspects including charisma, communication, inspiration, dynamism, stamina, instinct, etc., and not in terms what great leaders can do for their organizations. Cultivating leaders falls in HR domain. Whether the great intentions behind the training budgets get translated into actions or not, isn't tracked.
Such direction development outlays which are centered on general notions and just great goals about leadership get extravagant during times that are great and get axed in terrible times. If having great or good leaders at all levels is a strategic need, as the above mentioned top firms exhibit and as many leading management specialists claim, why do we see this type of stop and go approach?
Why is there disbelief about leadership development systems?
The first rationale is that expectations from good (or great) leaders are not defined in surgical terms and in ways where the consequences can be confirmed. Leaders are expected to achieve' many things. Leaders at all levels are expected to turn laggards turn companies, appeal customers around, and dazzle media. They are expected to perform miracles. These expectations remain merely wishful thinking. These desired consequences cannot be employed to supply any clues about gaps in development needs and leadership skills.
Lack of a comprehensive and universal (valid in conditions and diverse businesses) framework for defining leadership means that direction development attempt are scattered and inconsistent. Inconsistency gives bad name to leadership development plans. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go....) and opposition to every new initiative. Here is the second reason why the objectives of direction development are frequently not met.
The third reason is in the procedures employed for leadership development.
Sometimes the programs build better teams and consist of adventure or outdoor activities for helping folks bond better with each other. These programs create 'feel good' effect and sometimes participants 'return' with their private action plans. In majority of cases they neglect to capitalize on the efforts which have gone in. Leadership coaching must be mentioned by me in the passing. In the hands of an expert coach his leadership abilities can enhance radically. But leadership training is too expensive and inaccessible for most executives and their organizations.
Leadership -a competitive advantage
During my work as a business leader and after as a leadership trainer, I came across it is useful to define leadership in operational terms. When direction is described in terms of what it does and in terms of capacities of a person, it is better to assess Performance review Coaching and develop it.
They impart a distinct capacity to an organization, when leadership skills defined in the above mentioned mode can be found at all degrees. Organizations with a pipeline of good leaders have competitive advantages even individuals with great leaders just at the very best. The competitive advantages are:
1. They (the organizations) can recover from errors swiftly and have the ability to solve issues immediately.
2. The competitive have excellent horizontal communications. Things (procedures) move faster.
3. They tend to be less busy with themselves. Hence they have 'time' for outside folks. (error corrections etc about reminders, are Over 70% of inner communications. They are wasteful)
5. ) and are excellent at heeding to signs customer complaints, linked to quality, shifts in market conditions and customer preferences. This leads to good and useful bottom up communication. Top leaders often own less variety of blind spots in such organizations.
6. Great bottom up communications improve top-down communications too.
7. They require less 'supervision', as they are strongly rooted in values.
8. They're better at preventing devastating failures.
Expectations from productive and nice leaders must be set out. The leadership development plans ought to be chosen to develop leadership skills that could be verified in operative terms. Since leadership development is a strategic demand, there exists a requirement for clarity in regards to the above aspects.