I was recently in the classroom of my son (7 years old) and noticed the poem written below at the front of the class.  As a parent and professional familiar with the qualities of great leaders, I was excited to see this being instilled into his character.

It Can Be Done
The man who misses all the fun
Is he who says, “It can’t be done.”
In solemn pride he stands aloof
And greets each venture with reproof.

Had he the power he’d efface
The history of the human race.
We’d have no radio or motor cars
No streets lit by electric stars.

No telegraph nor telephone
We’d linger in the age of stone.
The world would sleep if things were run
By men who say, “It can’t be done.”

-William J. Bennett

This poem caught my attention because I am constantly helping my children to become great leaders and learn the skills necessary to be successful in their own lives.  While there are many qualities of leadership, the conviction to enjoy the journey and press forward is a great quality to develop and poses.

Being a leader who is able to drive organization success requires personal traits or characteristics that are not necessarily intuitive. Successful leadership demands a set of skills that appears to be less know or obvious, but nonetheless is critically important to both personal and organizational success. Mere knowledge of what actually drives success doesn’t by itself guarantee success, but it can point a person in the correct direction. Success comes from consistent execution of the personal trait of characteristic. Perhaps that is the “execution” that we should be discussing, not the execution of the company’s business plan.

According to the same research study, the top six leadership traits that are most likely to drive both personal and organizational failure are

1. Not building effective relationships.
2. Not demonstrating self control.
3. Not having functional expertise.
4. Not being able to manage complex systems and processes.
5. Having poor communication skills.
6. Not being able to execute the plan.

Now that you have seen the two lists, note what is included and where items appear on the lists. Do a comparison of what drives success and what drives failure. What similarities do you notice? Do you see, for example, that the most important thing a leaders can do to help drive success, and hopefully prevent failure (because it appears as the number one item on both lists), is to build and sustain effective interpersonal relationships with others? Do you notice that the lists are different? The traits that drive success are not necessarily the same traits that contribute to failure. This knowledge can provide an enterprising or aspiring leader with a list of things to do to maximize future success, and others things to eliminate from personal habits.

I find research intriguing; perhaps that is the psychologist in me. Some people prefer to ignore research, perhaps because they are suspicious of the manner in which the data were collected, or conclusion drawn by the researchers. The truth is that research can provide us with information that we otherwise would know. If we consider the information objectively, see how it applies to our life and what we do, and try to incorporate the relevant parts into how we behave, we can become more effective than we otherwise be. Give how you behave, as a leader, some thought.

Before discussing the two lists of traits, permit me to illustrate my point with an experience I had a few years ago. While consulting at a company I was asked to observe the CEO of the organization make a presentation to his executive staff of about a dozen persons. After a few preliminaries, the CEO asked, “What is the most important thing we need to do as leaders of this company?” A few of the executives mentioned things like, “Drive more profit,” “Control expenses,” “Get more sales,” and “Pay attention to gross margins.” The CEO nodded his agreement to the suggestions, but then said, “All of these things are good, and we certainly need to pay attention to them, but I think these is something else more important that this company desperately needs us as leaders to do.”

When none of the executives seemed able to read the CEOs mind, he walked to a whiteboard and wrote, “The most important thing we need to do is EXECUTE!” Then he turned back to the group and added, “Without us paying strict attention to how we and our employees execute the company business plan, we can’t possible succeed, and might well fail in the marketplace.”

In this CEOs mind the most important leadership trait for him and his executives at that time was the proper execution of the company’s business plan. Would you agree? Is execution the most important leadership trait? I have heard a number of leaders say almost the dame think in a variety of industries. In fact, there are companies today that have “execution” as their number one corporate priority. Execution is a common topic at trade conventions, industry meetings, company meetings, and in the boardroom. If execution were widely believed to be so important, it would certainly show up as the number one item in a list of what drives leadership success and failure. Right? Or are there other leadership traits more important than doing the right things in the first place? Could it be that doing the right things as a leader outweighs doing things right?

In last month’s article I listed the most important leadership traits as expressed by actual leaders in organizations. These leaders were discussing the most important traits to consider when selecting a leader. In my informal survey conducted in many organizations over several years it is interesting to note that “execution” doesn’t show up in the top six traits. In fact, “execution” doesn’t appear in the top twenty-five traits. I must admit that my informal survey is potentially flawed for a variety of reasons, but it does provide an interesting perspective on what Leaders value as important leadership traits when selecting a leader.

The top six mentioned leadership traits in my informal survey are:

1. Experience.
2. Leadership skills.
3. Being visionary.
4. Decision making.
5. Team player.
6. Technical skills.

By comparison, according to an extensive research study over many years and including hundreds of organizations and literally thousands of leaders, the top six leadership traits that are most likely to drive both personal and organization success are

1. Building effective relationships.
2. Being able to manage complex systems and processes.
3. Being able to communicate effectively.
4. Being in control of yourself.
5. Execution and results.
6. Having functional expertise.

You can conduct your own research by asking ten (or more) of you associates, friends, or leaders in your organization, what they consider to be the most important trait or characteristic a leader must have to be successful. See if you come up with results similar to mine, or if any of your leaders come close the top six from the research study, I think you will be surprised with what you learn.

See the list of qualities that are most likely to drive personal & business failure in Qualities of Effective Leaders, Part 2

The decisions and actions you are making regarding talent identification and development will have lasting impact on your organization. A leader today needs to be a pro-active people builder and actively work on identifying and nurturing high-potential team members. By raising the leadership bar, leadership will become a competitive advantage for your organization. Here are a few key things you can do to get the process started in your part of the organization:

• Make seeking out and fostering the development of existing talent a priority. Find time in your schedule to do it.
• Use a development process that can serve as a guide and help sustain your efforts.
• Conduct regular development planning discussions with team members and future leadership talent.
• Use communication tools and regular coaching conversations to follow-up and fuel development efforts.
• Support employee development plans and efforts by providing resources for and removing barriers to their success.
• Demonstrate your personal commitment to their development by engaging in development initiatives and building your own development plan.
• Create a development culture where people strive to maximize individual performance.

If you are able to contribute to developing the next generation of leaders in some of these ways, it may just become the greatest leadership legacy you can leave to your organization.

Below, we make the case for executive development and executive coaching.

FREE: add this infographic to your website!

600 Pixel Wide Version

<a href="http://www.cmoe.com/blog/executives-need-development-too.htm"><img src="http://www.cmoe.com/infographics/executives_need_development_too@600.jpg" border="0" alt="Executives Need Development Too" /><br /> <a href="http://www.cmoe.com">CMOE</a><br />

Large Version

<a href="http://www.cmoe.com/blog/executives-need-development-too.htm"><img src="http://www.cmoe.com/infographics/executives_need_development_too.jpg" border="0" alt="Executives Need Development Too" /><br /> <a href="http://www.cmoe.com">CMOE</a><br />

So the secret to creating a climate of accountability is to become more aware of performance levels, take the time to give the correct type of feedback or coaching, give feedback as often as practical, and do so as consistently as conditions permit. Done over time with the proper administration of rewards when deserved and discipline or sanctionswhen appropriate, a manager can create a climate of accountability and become more effective.

In organizations, families, and indeed even our Western society, one of the reasons for failure is the inability by leadership to establish and enforce accountability. Accountability in leadership is a topic that is not frequently discussed and as a result often the cause of problems relating to compliance to procedures, following work rules, treating customers with respect, achieving results, and getting along with co-workers. Accountability is at the heart of empowering people to perform well, demonstrating initiative, and acting responsibly. When a climate of accountability exists, things work smoothly; and when it is absent procedures fail and policies are ignored.

Let me describe parental leadership first. I read a newspaper report about a father who had an emotional outburst and caused a scene in a school board meeting regarding the suspension of his son from school. His eleven-year-old son had threatened the life of another student on the playground. Following district policy, the principal had suspended the boy for three days saying, “In light of tragedies that have happened in schools around the country, we take all threats such as this very seriously. The policy requires a three-day suspension.”

The irate father emotionally pleads his case to the school board saying, “He’s a good boy and even though this is the second time this year he’s been suspended he doesn’t deserve punishment this harsh. Three days is just too much, because it’s embarrassing for him and our entire family.”

The father apparently was saying that because the suspension would be embarrassing that the punishment ought to be reduced. In other words, the consequence of the son’s behavior is trumped by the father’s desire to evade embarrassment. That is interesting in light of the father’s emotional outburst in a public school board meeting.

Now let me describe organizational leadership. A manager complained, “My employees just don’t take me seriously. She said, “Even though I tell them over and over, some employees won’t even call in to say they are sick. They just don’t show up.”

I asked what she did when an employee didn’t take the time to call in sick. She replied, “I just find somebody else to work the shift and then when they do show up I tell them to be sure to call me next time.”

I asked, “So how is this technique working?”

She said, “It’s not! That’s the problem; I can’t find good people these days.”

The situations with the irate parent and the ineffective manager are related in the absence of the leader establishing and enforcing individual accountability. When people do not feel that they are held accountable for their behavior, they often lower their performance to the lowest possible level acceptable to the leader. In other words, leader behavior regarding the establishment of accountability does a lot to determine a person’s highest level of performance. That’s what the eleven-year-old boy did on the playground. He had gotten away with inappropriate behavior before (certainly at home and possibly at school) and believed he could do it again. His previous inappropriate behaviors resulted in no undesirable consequences for him. That’s similar to what the employees were doing to the manager. They had not been held accountable when they didn’t call in sick before, so they had no belief that it was a necessary requirement to maintain job security. The manager’s failure to hold her employees accountable created an overly permissive climate where the employees could dictate their own policies and procedures.

At the foundation of establishing accountability is the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence. When people do not believe that their behavior will result in a consequence, they are free to choose any behavior that feels good at the moment. When people believe that their positive behaviors will result in positive feedback or even rewards, and their inappropriate behaviors will result in corrective feedback, coaching, or even discipline, they will raise their performance to the standard expected by the leader. The leader sets the standard through his or her application of feedback, coaching and discipline.

I don’t know all of the details about the parent and his son, the schoolyard bully, but it is a safe bet that the son had not been held accountable for his behaviors in the past. The reason he threatened another classmate’s life is because he didn’t believe that his behavior would have any undesirable consequences. He thought he could get away with it. And, the reason why the manager’s employees didn’t call in sick, and didn’t even apologize for not doing so was because they also thought they could get away with it. The two examples are related because in each case the leader failed to establish personal accountability by practicing the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence.

Effective leaders believe in and practice the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence. When an employee performs well and/or adheres to organizational rules, an effective manager will notice and provide the employee with appropriate feedback to reinforce the good performance. Likewise, when an employee does not perform well and/or does not follow the rules, an effective manager will notice and provide the employee with corrective feedback, or coaching to change the performance. Exactly the same thing is true when raising children. Behavior Must Equal Consequence, both positive and negative, must be a guiding principle to raise responsible children who as a consequence act responsibly.

Personal accountability is a climate that is created when a leader consistently practices Behavior Must Equal Consequence. The word “consistently” often bothers managers, because they think it means “every time.” Clearly, a manager cannot provide supportive or corrective feedback every time an employee does something. That obviously is not possible. But a manager can do what is necessary to become more aware of an employee’s performance and then provide appropriate feedback as often as is practical. Simply, if employees feel and act as though they are accountable, then the leader is practicing consistent feedback. If employees do not feel and act accountable, then the leader is not consistent with his or her feedback.

Consistency not only involves the frequency of feedback in that it must be frequent enough to create a climate of accountability, but it also includes the appropriateness of the feedback. In the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence, good performance must result is supportive feedback, and poor performance must result in corrective feedback. If a manager, due to stress, anger, lack of understanding, failure to take time, or habit gives negative feedback for good performance, positive feedback for poor performance, or no feedback for any performance, then the employees will sense a lack of consistency and conclude that they are not accountable for their actions. Thus they are free to act any way they want.

So the secret to creating a climate of accountability is to become more aware of performance levels, take the time to give the correct type of feedback or coaching, give feedback as often as practical, and do so as consistently as conditions permit. Done over time with the proper administration of rewards when deserved and discipline or sanctions when appropriate, a manager can create a climate of accountability and become more effective.

CMOE is announcing our $500 Visualizing Leadership scholarship. This is an opportunity to for high school (grade 9-12), college, or graduate student receive som

e financial aid for the upcoming school year. This scholarship will be offered to the student who creates the

most visually compelling infographic that helps convey a concept or idea around Leadership, Teamwork, Strategy, or Coaching. The winning infographic will have the opportunity to be used in our workshops, training programs, or our consulting services.

Not only is this a great opportunity to receive financial help for education, we also believe this is a great opportunity to help and strengthen student skills, as well as help shape strong leadership skills for the future. It will give students an opportunity to explore industry concepts that may be of interest to them, as well as explore other topics that are vital in the workplace.

John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” This scholarship will allow these students this opportunity, as well as allowing them to become leaders through helping others.

Each entry will be judged and given a score based on its relevance to the following 4 categories:

-Creativity

-Relevance to our industry

-Professionalism

-Image quality

CMOE is excited to display the winning infographic and its author on our blog on or before September 15, 2011.  To view all criteria and deadlines please visit www.cmoe.com/scholarship.htm for more information.

The term “employee engagement” is thrown around a lot in business circles, but what does it actually mean on a functional level? At its roots, “engagement” has to do with passion. Employee engagement, then, deals with helping employees to find or retain passion for the work that they do. Easy, right? Wrong. Every day, hordes of employees arrive to their respective places of business, but all that walks through the door is the body; both the mind and the spirit are far, far away.

For many of these employees, work is something that they do out of habit. They do it because they have to. They have bills to pay, groceries to buy, extra-curricular activities to support. Some of them had planned to retire, but were unable to do so when they saw their retirement funds dwindle in an unstable marketplace. With the latter priorities taking precedence, the question of whether employees actually like the work they do often falls to the bottom of their lists. It’s a question that they often feel is safer left unanswered, but truth is a slippery creature, and it’s stubborn. Whether they like it or not, the truth about an employee’s dissatisfaction will inevitably come out, and most often it will appear in subtle ways. Over a period of months, even years, a once-enthusiastic employee’s level of productivity will slowly drop off. Sometimes the shift in engagement is so slow that leaders are left wondering whether it had always been that way. Had they just not noticed until now? Did they simply make a bad hiring decision?

Although sometimes the answer is that there is a poor fit between the person and the job, more often, dwindling productivity is due, for one reason or another, to decreasing levels of engagement. These individuals go through the motions, but their minds are elsewhere. Why in the world is that person taking so long to slog through that one, measly task, you ask? Because that employee doesn’t care about the task he or she has been given.

This is not to say that leaders are entirely responsible for making sure that their employees are “happy.” To the contrary, happy employees who spend their time socializing and surfing the web can be just as unproductive as those who are disengaged from their work. What’s important for leaders to remember is that employees who are dissatisfied and those who are happy (but fail to do their work) have one big thing in common: both groups are bored. They lack motivation. They don’t see the value or purpose of the work they’ve been asked to do. Their assigned work is failing to hold their attention, so they’re finding other things to do to pass the time. For employers, this disinterest can mean huge losses—in terms of their time, their companies’ productivity and profit margin, and the hefty expense of training new staff to replace team members who are lost to attrition (either self-selected or imposed).

Almost no one gets to work exclusively on assignments they love all the time. With every job comes some drudgery, whether minor or pronounced. Maybe this grind comes in the form of having too much of a certain type of task to complete. Maybe project deadlines are too short and come with long hours and little recognition. Maybe the job is deadly repetitive or, conversely, maybe it comes with too many surprises. It is not up to leaders to try to provide the ideal work environment for every one of their employees all the time. That is an impossibility. But what leaders should strive to do is communicate openly with their employees, working with them to create the best possible environments for their individual interests. Employees need to have some control over the scope and responsibilities of their respective jobs, and they need to be supported and encouraged to pursue opportunities within the organization that speak to their passions and allow them to develop new or expand existing professional skills. Not only will this flexible style of leadership help the collective abilities of your workforce grow, you will also be more likely to retain previously high-performing employees whose interest in their current job responsibilities has diminished. “Employee engagement” may sound like touchy-feely management fluff, but by taking an active interest in whether your employees are genuinely satisfied and invigorated by their jobs, you can elevate the performance of both your workforce and your organization.

Strategy is something that many people believe only the highest echelon of senior management should have the power to influence. It’s mysterious and abstract. Untouchable corporate types sit stiffly staring out the window of the ivory tower and nervously clenching their hands, and when asked what they’re doing, no other explanation but the words, “I’m formulating strategy” is required. Small wonder that the rest of us have no idea what they’re actually up to. It also doesn’t help that, immediately after the launch of this year’s big new strategic initiative, nothing appreciable seems to have changed. There is little to measure, if anything, and people are left to wonder whether the strategy is working.

In the short term, we can’t see it and we can’t measure it, so how do we know whether our corporations are on the right track? Like spiritual beliefs, top-tier corporate strategy often requires that we take a leap of faith. Lacking complete candor from our senior leaders, we must assume that they have done the necessary research and that they wouldn’t lead us astray. We can make the choice to trust them and simply follow their lead. But we can also take a more-active role in the creation of strategy ourselves, not at the very highest level, but at exactly the level where we currently make our mark on the business.

Leaving the creation of business strategy only to the top ranks of senior management is a common practice. It is also a mistake. Strategy needs to not only come from the top down, but from the bottom up. In recent years, some of the most innovative business ideas have come from employees working at the very lowest levels of the business, and those ideas are making their companies millions. The employees who are coming up with these groundbreaking notions do not report to the senior leadership team—they report to front-line supervisors and mid-level managers. What this means is that the levels of leadership who may ultimately be the most instrumental in pushing strategic change forward are managers in the middle—those who have the ears of both top management and employees on the front lines.

These managers are equally influential for and visible to both groups because having a foothold in both worlds allows them to understand the business in a different, and more complete, way. They are privy to more information than most concerning the direction of the business, and they have at least a moderate grasp on the company’s strategic vision and its plans for the future. But they can also see how the business is actually running; they can clearly hear the concerns of the employees because they work with them day in and day out; many of them have a better idea of the challenges that the business faces and the strengths that it has because they work alongside the people who actually make the business run. Having a firm understanding of both the business’ tactical realities and its strategic possibilities provides these leaders with a perspective that is nothing short of enviable, both for its breadth and, in the right hands, for its power. But in order to use this unique position to its fullest capacity, managers in the middle must make a minor, but crucial, shift in the way they have traditionally been asked to think.

The formulation of strategy from mid-level positions requires that managers think of the parts of the business that they run as smaller businesses within the larger organization. Mind you, this is not strategy gone rogue. These managers aren’t setting out on their own paths with no guidance from their betters. Instead, they are using their unique position—having equal footing in two corporate camps—to create individual strategy that is aligned with the strategic vision of the larger organization. These managers must cultivate an entrepreneurial mindset, actively fanning the flames of ingenuity and creativity while remaining sensitive to concerns of cost, consumption of resources, the needs of their customers, and the tactics of the competition. They must figure out how to remain relevant in the future, and they must know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they are moving their business functions forward in ways that are superior to their rivals.

You can be sure that the individuals doing the same jobs in competitor organizations have their fingers constantly on the pulse of the industry. Taking that pulse is less an act of curiosity and more one of compulsion. It is a symptom of a concern that we all share: self-preservation. We all want to matter. We all want to make a lasting impression. The greatest danger of obsolescence is that it comes so quietly, and by the time you see it leering at you, it’s already too late. Strategic thought is a tonic against being overcome by the next big thing, and managers in the middle may well hold the cup. Cheers!