Leaders : Reboot your approach

Hi,

Thanks for reflecting your views on the previous post. Here are some of my reflections. 

I think, the difference lies in the approach towards some of the key leadership functions.

Lets take some examples:

1. Approach to “being accepted”: Leaders can no longer rely on Hierarchy to get acceptability. It is leader’s personal expertise and recognized excellence in an area of business value, which followers believe deserve respect and worthy of providing platform to lead. 
2. Approach to “being heard”: Directive style memos don’t work anymore beyond minimal compliance. Two way dialogue, that is authentic, persuasive, consistent across channels while being open to questioning with leader as facilitator and final integrator of views seems to work. 
3. Approach to “getting things done”: It is no more about detailed instructions about “how” it is to be done, but greater focus on telling “what needs to be done’ and “why it is important?” 
4. Approach to “getting best out of those led”: Traditional means of Motivating them to do what they are not convinced about, wont work. Connect work to their passion and then work relentlessly to avoid organization bureaucracy, and politics act as de-motivating distractions. 
5. Approach to “handling failures”: Instead of being criticized for being careless and unprofessional, leaders are expected to emphasize upon lessons learnt and may celebrate the well intentioned experimentations.

What other approaches need to change?

Lets Reflect!

What enable leaders to sustain relevance in the new world?

Leaders sustain their relevance till the time they continue to sustain dependency of the followers on them. This is achieved by leaders providing something followers’ value and are seen as the most preferred source. Seen this way, leaders’ sustained relevance depends upon their ability to continually understand their followers and provide Value they seek.

Apart from seeking reward, recognition or objective resource allocation (which falls more in Managers’ domain now), followers used to look towards leaders for problem solving. For this, leaders required sufficient technical finesse to design appropriate solution and guts to execute the same. Demonstrable outcomes reinforced their credibility and thus help sustain their leadership. No less demanding task, but a lot simpler as long as problem had knowable dimensions and followers relatively aligned expectations.

Given the complex operating context and growing influence of multiple stakeholders in decision making, these days followers look towards Leaders for Sense Making of the prevailing "chaos with dynamically shifting patterns". Leaders challenge is to define the context, and communicate the relative importance of various trends at play and define action program, in a language that is simple but sufficiently sophisticated (to convey complex set of interdependencies) and boundary-spanning to connect with diverse followers set.

While in earlier world, followers leaders' confidence in proposed action and surety behind the proposal, now they look towards leaders ability to accept tentativeness and risks but still convince that the proposed action is the most suitable and appropriate option. While earlier having contingency plan was a good management practice, now leaders need to convey ability to adapt and allow for mid-course modifications as essential part of their confidence winning proposals.

What additional other traits do you see leaders of the new world need to learn?

Do you see anything yesterdays’ leaders need to UNLEARN to sustain their leadership in the New world?

 Lets reflect!!!