Leadership is vital for any organization's sustained success. A terrific leader makes an impact to their organization. One of these statements will be concurred with by everyone. Specialists in human resources field mention the need for leaders at all levels, and not simply that of the direction at the very top. It's not without reason that companies like 3M, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Coca Cola; HSBC etc. have known to set in place processes for developing leaders constantly.
Mention this subject, yet, to a line manager, or into a sales manager, or any executive in many organizations and you will most likely take care of diffident answers.
Direction development -a need that is strategic?
The subject of leadership is dealt with typically by many organizations. Developing leaders falls in HR domain. Whether the great motives behind the training budgets get translated into activities or not, isn't monitored.
Such direction development outlays which are depending on general notions and only great motives about direction get excessive during times that are good and get axed in terrible times. If having good or great leaders at all levels is a tactical need, as the above mentioned top firms exhibit and as Relationship Management many leading management experts claim, why can we see such a stop and go strategy?
Why is there doubt about leadership development systems?
The very first motive is that expectations (or great) leaders are not defined in surgical terms as well as in ways in which the outcomes could be checked. Leaders are expected to attain' many things. Leaders at all levels are expected to turn laggards turn companies, attraction customers around, and dazzle media. They're expected to perform miracles. These anticipations remain just wishful thinking. These desired outcomes can't be utilized to offer any hints about differences in leadership abilities and development needs.
Absence of a complete and generic (valid in diverse industries and states) framework for defining leadership 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 2nd reason why direction development's aims are often not fulfilled.
The next reason is in the methods taken for leadership development.
Occasionally the programs build better teams and consist of outdoor or experience activities for helping folks bond better with each other. These applications create 'feel good' effect and in some cases participants 'return' with their personal action plans. But in majority of cases they neglect to capitalize in the attempts that have gone in. Leadership coaching must be mentioned by me in the passing. But leadership training is inaccessible and overly expensive for many executives as well as their organizations.
Leadership -a competitive advantage
When leadership is described in terms and in terms of capacities of an individual, it's better to evaluate and develop it.
They impart a distinct ability to an organization when leadership skills defined in the above mentioned mode are present at all levels. This ability gives a competitive advantage to the organization. Organizations having a pipeline of leaders that are good have competitive advantages over other organizations, even those with leaders that are great only at the very best. The competitive advantages are:
1. They demand less 'oversight', as they can be strongly rooted in values.
2. They are better at preventing disastrous failures.
3. They (the organizations) can recover from mistakes fast and are able to solve problems immediately.
4.They have excellent horizontal communications. Matters (processes) move faster.
5. ) and tend to be less active with themselves. Hence themselves have 'time' for outside people. (Over 70% of internal communications are about reminders, error corrections etc. They are wasteful)
6. Their staff (indirect) productivity is high.
7. Themselves are good at heeding to signals customer complaints linked to quality, shifts in market conditions and client preferences. This contributes to bottom up communication that is useful and nice. Top leaders tend to have less number of blind spots in such organizations.
8. It is easier to roll out applications for strategic shift as well as for enhancing business processes (using Six Sigma, TQM, etc.). Good bottom up communications improve top-down communications too.
Expectancies from effective and good leaders should be set out clearly. The direction development programs ought to be selected to acquire leadership abilities that can be verified in operative terms. There exists a requirement for clarity regarding the above aspects, since direction development is a strategic demand.