Direction Development, Developing Building Learning Leadership Skills
Leadership is crucial for almost any organization's sustained success. A fantastic leader makes a big difference to her or his organization. Everyone will concur with these statements. Specialists in human resources area mention the importance of leaders at all levels, and not just that of the direction at the very top.
Mention this issue, however, to a sales manager, or to a line manager, or some executive in many organizations and you'll probably cope with diffident responses.
Direction development -a strategic need?
The topic of direction is dealt with in a general way by many organizations. Leadership is generally understood concerning personal attributes like charm, communication, inspiration, dynamism, toughness, instinct, etc., and not in terms what good leaders can do for their organizations. Cultivating leaders falls in HR domain. Budgets are framed and outlays are used with indexes like training hours per worker per year. Whether the good motives on the other side of the training budgets get translated into activities or not, is not monitored.
Such direction development outlays that are centered on just good goals and general notions about leadership get extravagant during great times and get axed in awful times. If having great or good leaders at all levels is a strategic demand, as the above mentioned top companies demonstrate and as many leading management specialists assert, why do we see this kind of stop and go strategy?
Exactly why is there skepticism about leadership development programs?
The first rationale is that anticipations (or great) leaders are not defined in in ways where the consequences can be checked and operative terms. Leaders are expected to achieve' many things. Leaders at all levels are expected to turn laggards turn companies, charm customers around, and dazzle media. They can be expected to perform miracles. These expectations stay merely wishful thinking. These desired consequences cannot be used to offer any hints about gaps in development needs and leadership abilities.
Lack of a complete and generic (valid in diverse businesses and conditions) framework for defining direction means that leadership development attempt are inconsistent in nature and scattered. Bad name is given by inconsistency to leadership development programs. That is the 2nd reason why leadership development's goals are often not met.
The next reason is in the strategies used for leadership development.
Sometimes the programs consist of adventure or outside activities for helping folks bond better with each other and build better teams. These applications create 'feel good' effect as well as in a few cases participants 'return' with their personal action plans. But in majority of cases they fail to capitalize on the efforts which have gone in. Leadership training must be mentioned by me in the passing. In the hands of an expert coach a willing executive can enhance his leadership abilities drastically. But leadership coaching is inaccessible and overly expensive for most executives as well as their organizations.
When direction is defined in relation to abilities of a person and in terms, it's not more difficult to evaluate and develop it.
When leadership abilities defined in the above mentioned manner are not absent at all levels, they impart a distinctive ability to an organization. This capability provides a competitive advantage to the organization. Organizations using a pipeline of leaders that are good have competitive advantages even individuals with leaders that are great only at the top. The competitive advantages are:
1. They (the organizations) have the ability to solve issues quickly and may recover from mistakes swiftly.
2. They have excellent communications that are horizontal. Matters (processes) move faster.
3. ) and tend to be less busy with themselves. So they have 'time' for outside people. (Over 70% of internal communications are mistake corrections etc about reminders,. They're wasteful)
4. That is just one of the toughest management challenges.
5. Themselves are great at heeding to signals customer complaints, linked to quality, shifts in market conditions and customer preferences. This contributes to useful and nice bottom up communication. Top leaders often own less variety of blind spots.
6. It is easier to roll out programs for strategic shift as well as for enhancing business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Great bottom-up Teamwork Coaching communications improve topdown communications too.
7. They demand less 'supervision', as they're strongly rooted in values.
8. They are better at preventing disastrous failures.
Expectations from good and productive leaders needs to be set out. The direction development programs must be chosen to develop leadership skills which can be verified in operative terms. There exists a requirement for clarity concerning the above aspects since leadership development is a tactical demand.