It’s a matter of attitude

Building a career might not be as straight as you think. A recent study by RHR shows what companies look for in their future flock and what they perceive as effective for getting there. What strikes me in the demands of future leaders is the amount of soft factors that make for a successful career – the business thinking and strategic focus that is at the core of most management magazines doesn’t seem to have such a high value as is often assumed. On the development side there is also a big impact when the right relationships are in place and the assignments fit the person.

What Companies Look for in their Future Leaders
(Percentage of companies that endorsed each ability, N = 111 )
• Ability to build strong relationships internally and externally: 86%
• Openness to change and growth: 81%
• Courage to make the “right” decisions: 75%
• Ability to motivate and inspire others: 75%
• Level of self confidence: 70%
• Awareness of one’s own strengths and limitations: 68%
• Personal desire to succeed: 68%
• Commitment to the success of business, even when personal sacrifice is involved: 67%
• A core set of leadership values that the individual lives by: 67%
• Broad, comprehensive knowledge of the business: 65%
• Decisiveness: 60%
• Ability to identify and develop talent: 57%
• Superior intellectual abilities: 45%
• Other: 12%

The Perceived Effectiveness of Development Experiences
(Average rated effectiveness of each activity where 1 = ineffective and 5 = extremely effective)
• Developmental, “stretch” assignments within company 3.9
• Involved boss 3.7
• Development assessments by outside consultants 3.5
• In-house executive education programs 3.4
• Formal development planning 3.4
• Mentoring relationships with senior executives 3.4
• Use of outside the company coaches 3.3
• Coaching relationships within company 3.3
• Rigorous monitoring of progress against development goals 3.2
• External executive education programs 3.1
• Peer contact and feedback 3.1

So its time to build some interpersonal skills

or hire smarter people around yourself, as Kevin Roberts of Saatchi & Saatchi says.

Better than 360 Feedback

Companies invest a lot of money in feedback – 360° feedback. They assume that better feedback will lead to better self-understanding and improved performance. OK, so far. Last night I listened to a presentation by Patrick Lencioni (Confronting Team Dysfunctions) who talked about a cheaper and better way to get feedback. This is how it works:

In a team, everyone writes down one positive thing about each other person on the team. Then you start sharing that, for example starting with the leader. Everyone share what they bring to the team. Not just their function, but what they add in a unique way. Then the next person and so on.

After that first round of positive things, everyone writes down one thing that each other person should improve. Same again: go around and everyone shares their comments.

This seems like an interesting process. Most people will probably feel uncomfortable with the directness of the approach. Someone asked in the show: can this be done anonymous? Sure, it can. But doing it open is even more beneficial, since each person commits to their feedback and is frank about it. It actually builds trust when people start speaking open. It also establishes a culture of feedback when people start opening up on their views.

I would like to try this some time. It seems that the uneasiness with being open is quiet a barrier. It is strange that people are so private about their relationships with the people they work with daily on a team. Why is that so difficult? Why is there such a “don’t talk directly about personal issues” thing? Sure, nobody wants to be constantly evaluated and judged by their peers. On the other hand: wouldn’t it be great to be in a team where you are committed to each other’s success? And where you are aware of the weaknesses and cover each other on them? I’ll let you know if this has actually worked for me…

The frustrated and the world-changers

I’ve often wondered about the attitudes in a company. The atmosphere that people work in can make a huge impact on the productivity and focus an organization has. Through a friend I came across some thoughts on “organizational energy”. It is a research program by Heike Bruch at St.Gallen, Switzerland which tries to answer the questions under what circumstances organizations are hot and under which not. For her, organizational energy “involves the vitality and perseverance of a company and it is expressed in the degree of temperament, intensity, speed, and stamina of its employees in performing their work.”

She proposes 4 energy zones for organizations along the matrix of quality and intensity. She says: “The quality of organizational energy distinguishes between positive energy (e.g., enthusiasm, joy, satisfaction) and negative energy (e.g., fear, frustration, sorrow). Intensity refers to the strength of organizational energy as seen in the level of activity, the amount of interaction, and the extent of alertness and emotional excitement. The intersection of intensity and quality determines an organization’s energy state, which usually falls into one of four categories: the comfort zone, the resignation zone, the corrosion zone, and the productive zone.”

Along with the zones, organizations react in a way and get into “energy traps”. You get stuck in some quadrant, try to correct but drive the thing deeper into trouble.

OK, the interesting part is how to move to the different zones. Here, Bruch describes 2 strategies, which are seen in business quiet a bit: slaying the dragon and winning the princess.
Slaying the dragon is about cranking up the fear factor. Whether unspecific (we face bankruptcy) or specific (kill your direct competitor), it turns up the intensity and gets people going.

Winning the princess is basically about vision crafting. Creating a powerful picture of the future and what that will feel like. It aims at getting people excited and engaged.
The point is that both of these strategies have to be specific, vivid and close enough for the people to get moving.

From their webpage it seems that the publication have been a bit quiet recently, but I hope they develop some more. The two strategies see a bit unspecific and general, but it seems like a good direction for me. Harvard has some more on it as well as others.