August 2017
 << < > >>


Who's Online?

Member: 0
Visitor: 1

rss Syndication


01:54:08 am

Leadership Development, Developing Building Learning Leadership Skills

Leadership is vital for the sustained success of almost any organization. A fantastic leader at top makes a big difference to her or his organization. These statements will be concurred with by everyone. Specialists in human resources area mention the importance of leaders at all levels, and not only that of the leadership towards the top. It is not without reason that companies like 3M, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Coca Cola; HSBC etc. have known to put in place processes for developing leaders always.

Mention this subject, nevertheless, to a sales manager, or to a line supervisor, or some executive in many organizations and you will most likely deal with diffident responses.

Direction development -a need that is tactical?

The subject of leadership is dealt with typically by many organizations. Direction is usually understood regarding private attributes for example charisma, communication, inspiration, dynamism, stamina, instinct, etc., and not in terms what good leaders can do for their organizations. Developing leaders falls in HR domain. Whether the good intentions behind the training budgets get translated into activities or not, is not monitored.

Such leadership development outlays that are based on only good intentions and general notions 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 top firms exhibit and as many leading management experts claim, why can we see this kind of stop and go strategy?

Why is there disbelief about leadership development programs?

The first reason is that anticipations from good (or great) leaders are not defined in in manners in which the outcomes can be confirmed and surgical terms. Leaders are expected to reach' many things. Leaders are expected to turn laggards turn companies, charm customers around, and dazzle media. They are expected to perform miracles. These expectancies remain merely wishful thinking. These desired consequences can't be used to offer any clues about differences in development needs and leadership abilities.

Absence of a comprehensive and common (valid in conditions and varied businesses) framework for defining direction means that leadership development attempt are scattered and inconsistent in nature. Inconsistency gives bad name to leadership development plans. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go....) and resistance to every new initiative. This is the next reason why the aims of leadership development are often not met.

The third reason is in the approaches employed for leadership development.

Occasionally the applications build better teams and include adventure or outdoor activities for helping people bond better. These programs generate 'feel good' effect as well as in some cases participants 'return' with their private action plans. But in majority of cases they neglect to capitalize in the attempts that have gone in. Leadership training must be mentioned by me in the passing. In the hands of an expert coach his leadership abilities can be improved by a willing executive drastically. But leadership training is overly expensive and inaccessible for many executives as well as their organizations.

Direction -a competitive advantage

During my work as a business leader and later as a leadership coach, I came across that it's helpful to define leadership in operational terms. When leadership is described in terms and in terms of abilities of an individual, it is easier to evaluate and develop it.

They impart a distinct ability to an organization when leadership abilities defined in Relationship Management the above mentioned fashion are not absent at all levels. This ability gives a competitive advantage to the organization. Organizations having a pipeline of leaders that are good have competitive advantages even individuals with leaders that are great just at the very best.

1. They need less 'supervision', since they're firmly rooted in values.

2. They may be better at preventing disastrous failures.

3. The competitive (the organizations) may recover from errors swiftly and are able to solve problems quickly.

4.They will have excellent horizontal communications. Matters (processes) move faster.

5. ) and tend to be less occupied with themselves. Therefore themselves have 'time' for outside people. (Over 70% of internal communications are error corrections etc about reminders,. ) and are wasteful)

6. Their staff (indirect) productivity is high.

7. They're good at heeding to signs customer complaints, associated with quality, shifts in market conditions and customer preferences. This results in useful and good bottom-up communication. Top leaders often own less quantity of blind spots in such organizations.

8. It's simpler to roll out applications for tactical shift and also for enhancing business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Communications that are topdown improve too.

Anticipations from nice and powerful leaders must be set out clearly. The leadership development programs must be selected to acquire leadership abilities that may be checked in operative terms. There is certainly a requirement for clarity about the above facets since direction development is a tactical need.

Admin · 2109 views · Leave a comment

Permanent link to full entry


No Comment for this post yet...

Leave a comment

New feedback status: Published

Your URL will be displayed.

Please enter the code written in the picture.

Comment text

   (Set cookies for name, e-mail and url)