Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
Direction Development, Developing Building Learning Leadership Skills

Leadership is crucial for any organization's sustained success. A great leader at top makes a big difference to her or his organization. Everyone will concur with these statements. Experts in recruiting area mention the need for leaders at all levels, and not that of the leadership at the very best. It's not without reason that companies like 3M, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Coca Cola; HSBC etc. have understood to set in place procedures for developing leaders always.

Mention this subject, however, to some line manager, or to your sales manager, or some executive in most organizations and you'll most likely deal with responses that are diffident.

Direction development -a tactical need?

Many organizations deal with normally the subject of leadership. Developing leaders falls in HR domain name. Whether the good intentions behind the training budgets get translated into activities or not, is not tracked.

Such leadership development Talent Management & Assessment outlays which are depending on just great goals and general notions about direction get extravagant during times that are great and get axed in poor times. If having great or good leaders at all levels is a strategic demand, as the above top firms demonstrate and as many leading management experts claim, why do we see this type of stop and go approach?

Exactly why is there disbelief about leadership development programs?

The very first reason is that expectations from good (or great) leaders are not defined in surgical terms as well as in manners where the consequences can be checked. Leaders are expected to achieve' many things. They can be expected to turn laggards turn businesses, charm customers around, and dazzle media. They can be expected to perform miracles. These expectations stay merely wishful thinking. These desired outcomes cannot be used to supply any hints about gaps in development needs and leadership skills.

Absence of a complete and common (valid in conditions and varied businesses) framework for defining direction means that leadership development attempt are scattered and inconsistent in nature. Bad name is given by inconsistency to leadership development plans. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go....) and resistance to every new initiative. That is the next reason why the objectives of leadership development are often not fulfilled.

The third motive is in the strategies used for leadership development.

Sometimes the programs build better teams and consist of outdoor or experience activities for helping folks bond better with each other. These programs create 'feel good' effect as well as in some cases participants 'return' with their private action plans. In majority of cases they fail to capitalize on the attempts that have gone in. I have to mention leadership coaching in the passing. In the hands of an expert coach his leadership skills can be improved by a willing executive drastically. But leadership coaching is inaccessible and too expensive for most executives and their organizations.

Direction -a competitive advantage

When direction is defined in relation to capacities of an individual and in terms, it's not more difficult to assess and develop it.

When leadership skills defined in the above mentioned way are not absent at all levels, they impart a distinctive capability to an organization. This ability provides a competitive advantage to the organization. Organizations with a pipeline of good leaders have competitive advantages over other organizations, even individuals with leaders that are great just in the very best. The competitive advantages are:

1. The competitive (the organizations) have the ability to solve problems quickly and will recover from mistakes rapidly.

2. The competitive have horizontal communications that are excellent. Things (procedures) go faster.

3. ) and often be less active with themselves. Hence ) and have 'time' for individuals that are outside. (Over 70% of internal communications are error corrections etc about reminders,. They're wasteful)


5. They're not bad at heeding to signs related to quality, customer complaints, shifts in market conditions and client preferences. This contributes to nice and useful bottom-up communication. Top leaders generally have less number of blind spots in such organizations.

6. Topdown communications improve too.

7. They need less 'oversight', because they can be firmly rooted in values.

8. They are better at preventing disastrous failures.

Anticipations from nice and productive leaders should be set out. The direction development programs ought to be chosen to develop leadership skills which can be verified in terms that were operative. There exists a need for clarity about the aspects that are above since direction development is a strategic demand.

Tags: Business

Don't be the product, buy the product!