Archive for leadership

In Jim Collin’s new book, “Great by Choice: Uncertainty, Chaos, and Luck – Why Some Thrive Despite Them All” he compares what he calls 10x companies (the best of the best) to those that are less than 10x (the mediocre or barely surviving). The secret to these “10xers”, as he refers to them, is that they all display patterns of 10x Leaders.

10x Leadership is a combination of behavioral traits that distinguished the 10xers them from their comparisons.  Collins uses a simply triangle to describe these 10x Leadership traits.

As you can see it is the motivational force of level 5 ambition, surrounded by fanatic discipline, productive paranoia, and empirical creativity. Companies that display 10x Leadership are ones that have outperformed their comparisons by 10 times during uncertain, chaotic times.  It’s companies like Southwest airlines surviving government regulations and growing during the aftermath of 9/11.  Or the fascinating story of two very different leaders, Amundsen and Scott, as they lead their team of men through an extreme journey to the South Pole.

So what are these traits and would you or someone you know be considered a 10x Leader?  Below you will find excerpts from the book that describe the four areas of the triangle. After each there is list of traits. Ask yourself if you display those characteristics and to what extreme.

Fanatic Discipline: 10xers are “utterly relentless, monomaniacal even, unbending in their focus on their quests. They don’t overreact to events, succumb to the herd, or lead for alluring –but irrelevant— opportunities. They’re capable of immense perseverance, unyielding in their standards yet disciplined enough not to overreach.”

Traits of people with Fantatic Discipline:

  • Consistency of action
  • Consistency with goals, performance standards and methods
  • Complete and utter focus to achieve the quest

Empirical Creativity: “10xers do not look to conventional wisdom to set their course during times of uncertainty, nor do they primarily look to what other people do, or to what pundits and experts say they should do. They look primarily to empirical evidence. They rely on direct observation, conducting practice experiments, and/or engaging directly with evidence rather than relying upon opinion, whim, conventional wisdom, authority or untested ideas.”

Traits of people with Empirical Creativity:

  • Unconventional in their thinking and problem solving
  • Completely driven to empirically analyze all the possibilities
  • Base decisions on empirical evidence

Productive Paranoia: “10xers differ from their less successful comparisons in how they maintain hypervigilance in good times as well as bad. Even in calm, clear, positive conditions, 10xers constantly consider the possibility that events could turn against them at any moment. Indeed, they believe that conditions will – absolutely, with 100 percent certainty – turn against them without warning, at some unpredictable point in time, at some highly inconvenient moment. And they’d better be prepared.”

Traits of people with Productive Paranoia:

  • Constantly scan for changes and threats in their environment, zooming out and then zooming back in
  • Continuously prepare for challenges that may arise
  • Build buffers for when times of uncertainty hit

Level 5 Ambition: “The 10xers share Level 5 leaders’ most important trait: they’re incredibly ambitious, but their ambition is first and foremost for the cause, for the company, for the work, not themselves.”

Traits of people with Level 5 Amibition

  • The need to achieve great results for a greater good than themselves
  • The drive and passion to do whatever it achieve those results
  • The continuously push to motivate and engage others on their quest

 

 

Categories : Monar Musing Blog
Comments (0)

So I was looking around the office for something to blog about today and came across the book, “100 Things you Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers & HR.”  The book is divided into a 100 “mini sections” each starting off with a multiple choice question.  I read through many of them and found myself questioning the answers but this particular one stood out the most.  Number 56.

Question: What makes the least difference in team effectiveness?

a. Teams managing talent and skill acquisition themselves

b. The personality and style of the team leader

c. The net functional skills of the team to do the work

d. The absolute number of talented individuals on the team

e. Organizational support for the team

The answer? B. The personality and style of the team leader makes the least amount of difference in team effectiveness.

Question to the reader: Do you agree or disagree with the answer? What is the importance of a leader on team effectiveness? 

Categories : Monar Musing Blog
Comments (0)
Aug
31

Managers vs. Leaders: Which are you?

Posted by: | Comments (0)

What’s the difference between management and leadership? Although these terms are thrown around interchangeably, there are distinct differences that separate the two in terms of personality, work style, worldviews, etc. Understanding the differences will better help you gain insight into the attributes that contribute to being more of a manager than a leaders, or visa versa.

Management is defined as the process of dealing with or controlling things or people. With that, managers most often have subordinates and have formal authority. Leadership on the other hand, is defined as the act of leading a group of people or an organization. Leaders do not have subordinates – they have followers.

I recently (yesterday) started a new school semester where I am taking a class entitled Organizational Leadership. In our first class we discussed our work experiences and more specifically, management and leadership experiences. We went around the room discussing the differences between managers and leaders and our horror or fairytale experiences with each.

As we were going around the room I began to notice a partner among my classmates’ experiences. Managers seemed to be classified into a more goal oriented/results focused category whereas leaders were seen as more personable and not necessarily someone with authority in the organization. Here is a short list of the attributes or characteristics that my class came up with to define a manager versus a leader.

To our readers: Try making a list of your own. Do your characteristics mirror those listed below?

Management

Leadership

Seeks order and stability Seeks adaptive and constructive change
 Works to accomplish goals/tasks  Influences others
Wants to master routines Creates vision for change
 Has low emotional involvement  Is emotionally active and involved
 Delegates  Empowers
 Is an assigned “leader”  Earns the leadership role
 Is essential if an organization is to prosper  Is essential is an organization is to prospec

 

As you can see, being a manager is different from being a leader. Although there are differences, it is important to keep in mind that there are strengths and weaknesses in both. According to an online article from Fox News (Managers vs. Leaders: Are they all that different?), “Managers are very good at maintaining the status quo and adding stability and order to our culture. However, they may not be as good at instigating change and envisioning the future. On the other hand, leaders are very good at stirring people’s emotions, raising their expectations, and taking them in new directions (both good and bad).”

So… Which are you, manager or leader? And is that what you want to be?

Comments (0)

In her book Bossypants, Tina Fey offers several pieces of advice for managers who have to make decisions about the selection and management of “crazy” people. At first glance, some of the thoughts she shares on this topic might seem to contradict one another: at one point in her book, she seems to be advocating for including “crazy” people in your work teams and working around their unreasonable ideas, whereas at other points she seems to be specifically advising against the hiring of “crazy” people. If you read carefully, though, you’ll find that the apparent contradiction comes from the fact that Fey is talking about two different kinds of “crazy:” the first is a sort of unconventional creativity that can often seem odd to other people, whereas the second refers to people who are routinely negative or even abusive at work – the kind of person Robert J. Sutton would call a “certified asshole” (if you don’t remember this from our blog series a few months ago, take the self-assessment here). So from this point on, I will refer to Tina Fey’s two kinds of “crazy” as “creative insanity” and “destructive insanity,” just for the sake of clarity.

As an example of how to work with those who suffer from “creative insanity,” Fey shares a lesson in managerial style that she learned from a former boss, Lorne Michaels (creator and producer of Saturday Night Live): “Never tell a crazy person he’s crazy.” She goes on to relate this pearl of wisdom to an old joke: “A man goes to a psychiatrist and says, ‘My brother’s gone crazy. He thinks he’s a chicken.’ And the psychiatrist says, ‘Have you told him he’s not a chicken?’ The man replies, ‘I would, but we need the eggs.’”

According to Fey, Michaels’ management philosophy included the acknowledgement that “the most exhausting people occasionally turn out the best stuff.” This is extremely important for managers to understand, because sometimes one of the biggest challenges of being a leader is to provide guidance and support while still allowing people to be who they are and think the way that they think. And it’s incredibly important that leaders do this: allowing individuals to be independently creative not only creates a more positive environment for your team, since people respond well to the message that their thoughts and opinions are respected and valued, but it is often the best path to innovation as well.

Again, though, the use of the word “exhausting” above does not mean that managers should accommodate or reward the behavior of those who are hurting the well-being of an entire team by creating a negative environment. In two different places in her book, Fey advises against the hiring of individuals who suffer from what I am referring to here as “destructive insanity.” For example, in a brief description of her own managerial techniques, she writes, “I have met some very dangerous, erratic, funny people over the years, people I admire, but I don’t want to work with them every day. Go do your own show, tough guys, and I will gladly watch it from the safety of my home. I hire the most talented of the people who are the least likely to throw a punch in the workplace.”

In other words, of course you need creative people on your team, and sometimes those people can be a bit unpredictable, unconventional, and maybe what some would call “crazy.” But it’s important to draw a line between the kind of erratic behavior that goes along with a creative personality and the kind of erratic behavior that indicates someone could become a destructive team member. If you are getting some indications that a job candidate or a new hire is emotionally volatile, unreasonably demanding, or otherwise not the kind of person who is capable of positively interacting with others, it probably is not the best idea to have that person on your team. You “need the eggs,” yes… but they won’t do you any good if they’re rotten.

Comments (0)

My generation is working longer and harder than any of those before us. The demands on the average employee in a company’s workforce have never been greater, in regards to hours or results. While the output of the worker has increased, the global technological output has increased at an even greater rate. The age of the internet has somehow morphed into the age of the blackberry – where internet access is available virtually anywhere – to create an atmosphere in which truly competitive companies operate in a culture in which the work day never actually ends. A day in New York ends as a day in Shanghai begins and before that day in Shanghai has ended, the next day in New York has begun again. One could argue that we clearly have figured out how to maximize production while adapting to globalization. One could also argue that we have entered into quite a vicious cycle.

So, if the marketplace has essentially shrunken because technology is making the world a smaller place, then it would stand to reason that globalization is happening whether a company is looking to grow on a worldwide level or not. Through the connectivity of the internet, companies of all sizes are now competing against each other in the same larger space. Your company can either embrace this reality or continue to try and operate in a regional marketplace that no longer exists – and those that emerge successful will be those who can adapt quickly and efficiently.

The key factor when trying to adapt quickly to change is the ability to understand strengths and weaknesses. A department that has operated at one pace for many years will need to be ready to change when that pace picks up. If a group leader understands – and embraces – the greater demands this is a positive; an opportunity to grow, improve, and produce even greater results. But a group leader who resists such change can actually set his team back, and even worse, hold the larger company back too. Proactive thinkers who see a fundamental change coming well before it is actually needed use these times as an opportunity to separate from the competition. Reactive thinkers spend months trying to clean up processes and logistics, working within companies that are always behind the curve. Identifying which type of people are leading groups throughout your company is the first step of a consultation – and the first step to ensuring that you are ready to thrive in a shrinking, more demanding, faster-paced global marketplace.

And unfortunately, if you are reading this and don’t know in which group your company belongs, you may have already missed the boat. They key to a productive consultation is being self aware, understanding what your company is well equipped to do and where it is lacking. From there, we just need to identify solutions that are practical. But a company that delays the all important first step of identifying the necessary changes is only going to have more trouble adapting, if and when they finally realize all of the change they need.

Comments (0)
Mar
23

Shocked and Appalled? Probably not…

Posted by: | Comments (0)

Last night Monar Consulting facilitated an inspiring event for Northwestern’s Kellogg Executive Women’s Network.  The topic?  How can women use their unique leadership talents to rise into executive roles in the next 5 – 7 years.  Tomorrow we will have a more in-depth blog about the event, but we wanted to give our readers a little teaser.

Take a minute to reflect on the statistics below.  Do they shock you?  Do you agree/disagree?  Can you identify with a specific statistic?  Share your thoughts with us.  Tomorrow we’ll let you know how a group of leading women professionals felt and dive deeper into the actions women can take to rise up the ranks.

Women’s earnings relative to men’s have stagnated at 73.2%.

Women are more pessimistic about the how much is available when they do negotiate and so they typically ask for and get less when they do negotiate—on average, 30 percent less than men.

Women often don’t know the market value of their work: Women report salary expectations between 3 and 32 percent lower than those of men for the same jobs; men expect to earn 13 percent more than women during their first year of full-time work and 32 percent more at their career peaks.

By not negotiating a first salary, an individual stands to lose more than $500,000 by age 60—and men are more than four times as likely as women to negotiate a first salary.

(Source: Linda Babcock & Sara Laschever, authors of “Women Don’t Ask”)

Fortune 500 executive officer positions held by women in 2010: 14.4%, or 735 out of 5,110. This is an increase from 13.5% in 2009.

The labor force participation rate of parents with children under 18 in 2009 was 71.4% for mothers and 93.8% for fathers.

Women in the U.S. earned 36.6% of MBAs in 2009-2010.

10.1 million firms are owned by women (50% or more), employing more than 13 million people, and generating $1.9 trillion in sales as of 2008.

Women-owned firms (50% or more) account for 40% of all privately held firms.

(Source: Catalyst)

Beginning January 1st, 2011 every single day more than 10,000 Baby Boomers will reach the age of 65.  That is going to keep happening every single day for the next 19 years.

According to another recent survey, 24% of U.S. workers admit that they have postponed their planned retirement age at least once during the past year.

(Source: The American Dream)

The 25 Fortune 500 firms with the best records of promoting women to senior positions record returns on assets 18 percent higher and returns on investments 69 percent higher than the Fortune 500 median for their industry.

Companies with the most women on their boards of directors outperform those with the fewest women on their boards on several key performance measures – return on invested capital is 65 percent higher in firms with strong female representation; return on equity is 53 percent higher; and return on sales is 42 percent higher.

(Source: Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress)

Profits at Fortune 500 firms that most aggressively promoted women were 34% higher than industry medians, according to Pepperdine University Study.

(Source: The Whitehouse Report)

Comments (0)
Dec
10

A quote from a leader himself…

Posted by: | Comments (1)

To conclude our theme on leaders for the week, I present a quote from Steve Jobs himself.  Steve Jobs, has earned the title of being one of the best, most exemplary leaders at Apple.  What is it about his personality, his thought process, his overall leadership style that makes the difference?

Here is a quote from Steve Jobs himself:

“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

Comments (1)
Dec
09

Some initial thoughts on Leaders…

Posted by: | Comments (0)

On 12/7, we began our battle against dictionary.com’s definition of leader.  We have collected some initial responses on the characteristics of a leader.  We will continue to do so to help create a new definition (one that beats dictionary.com). Here is what we have so far –

A Leader is…

  • Self-actualized
  • Passionate
  • Open minded
  • Effective communicator (x2)
  • Intuitive (x2)
  • Advocate
  • Influencer (x3)
  • Authentic
  • Visionary (x2)
  • Motivator
  • Active listener
  • Puts others or group first
  • Intelligent
  • Take charge
  • Motivated

A special thanks to Dr. Tim and our Chicago School Leadership class for getting the discussion started.

Keep them coming!

Comments (0)
Dec
08

Dilbert’s view of Leaders

Posted by: | Comments (0)

Dilbert.com

Comments (0)

As we sat at lunch today and talked about leadership competencies, I became curious as to what leadership really means. To get to the bottom of it I started with the dictionary definition of leader, “a person or thing that leads.” Ok, that’s great…thank you dictionary.com. Unfulfilled with the results, I dug a little deeper and looked up “to lead.” Out of the 56 (yes, 56 definitions) here are a few…

• To go before or with to show the way.
• To influence or induce, to guide in direction, course, action, opinion.
• To conduct or bring.
• To go at the head of or in advance of.
• To have top position or first place.
• To act as a leader.

Then, just to cover all my bases, I decided I would be daring and search the definition of “leadership.” Not surprisingly, the result was “ability to lead.” I sat there and scratched my head (literally) for a few minutes while I wondered how society can define some of the most important people in our world, organizations and life with a definition as simple as that. Yes, a leader is someone that leads but there is so much more to it than that. So I challenge our readers (and dictionary.com) to think about what it really means to be a leader.

Here are some questions to consider:
What characteristics does a person need in order to lead? What makes others willing to trust and follow them? Why are some so much better at leading than others? What does it really mean to be a leader? What makes a good leader?

We will collect all of your responses and come up with a new definition of leader — one that is suited for the finest leader in town. Who knows, maybe it will even make its way to dictionary.com!

Comments (2)

Stay Connected to Monar