Part II: Leadership and Organization Development by Design - Organization Strategy

According to Robert Grant, strategy is about winning and strategy links the organization to its environment.

I recall a conversation a year or so ago in which a leader and I were discussing the misuses of the word "strategic"? It sometimes seems that people use the adjective, strategic, to indicate they are visionaries who leave the details to others. Misuse of the term strategic, to borrow a Venita-ism, just "wears me slick". So, let's do a little level setting.

What does "strategy" mean? Robert Grant and Jim Underwood said, strategy is an approach or a plan that answers where and how organizations will compete to make money or create value for their benefactors. For-profit and commercial non-profit organizations also have to ensure they are generating the highest net present value of the organization's future cash flow. Underwood suggests companies who create and execute good strategy are far more successful in achieving the goal of profit maximization than those who do not.

As a quick reminder, Grant wrote the primary benefactors of profits in for-profit organizations are the shareholders. According to Hansmann, in non-profits and government owned organizations the public is the primary benefactor. Non-profits and government owned organizations may also have security holders who are benefactors (e.g., those who have purchased Treasury notes, bonds, T-bills, etc.).

Grant also proposed the firm’s goals and values are or should be directly linked to its strategies. Consequently, developing winning strategies requires significant thinking agility of leaders and staff within organizations. Hickman described leadership as sensing, analyzing, and incorporating environmental changes through processes of interactions between themselves and employees. Yet, he also proposed, while leadership initiates the first steps toward change, employees are expected to be involved as “highly motivated critical thinkers and actors who perform equal but different roles than leaders to meet their mutual goals”. Do you think this sounds like a recipe for employee involvement and engagement? Under these conditions, hoarding information is definitely not a good idea.

So, why should leadership and organization development (L&OD) practitioners care? Great question! Let's assume leadership has a somewhat accurate perspective on the organization's environment. Accordingly, let's also assume leadership has developed a strategy, a critical few strategic goals, and objectives. Let's also assume you have facilitated or they have let you in on their thinking.

Once you are clear about their thoughts, as L&OD practitioners, the job is to ask key questions and provide consultation regarding talent implications and gaps. Why? The reason is alignment. Yes, it is the best way to ensure L&OD work is focused and cohesively meeting the organization's needs. Key questions you could ask and collaboratively answer once you are clear regarding the environment, strategic goals, and objectives include:

1. What must leaders and staff know?
2. How must they behave/act? and...
3. What must they be able to do in order to respond to environmental challenges, execute the strategy, and achieve the resulting key strategic goals and objectives?
4. Which, if any roles, are missing or need to change?
5. How will knowledge, skills, behaviors, roles, and goal accomplishment be reinforced?
6. How will knowledge, skills, behaviors, roles, and goal directives be quickly adjusted as environmental challenges dictate?
7. How will differentiation in rewards for success be leveraged to motivate leaders and staff? 
8. How will you continuously improve and tie outcome metrics to your L&OD efforts?

To be strategic, the big picture or vision is of critical importance and so is some sense of the appropriate level of details or plans. Chaotic and complex times demand some non-linear and inclusive thinking. In these times, to borrow another Amy-ism, we should consider "both/and" when comparing alternatives rather than risk the fallacies of either/or decisions.

After all, truly strategic people should be able to show meaningful outcomes that support their claim of "strategery"! As you may recall, "strategery" was coined by James Downey on Saturday Night Live in a sketch where Will Ferrell played President George W. Bush. The term was later adopted by some in Bush's administration as a joke. Yes, I am joking a little and I am very serious at the same time!

In the next blog, strategic agility will be the topic. Until then, ask and answer the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

This post contains a phrase I adored from one of my former leaders. Her name is Venita McCellon-Allen. She gave me an opportunity, the encouragement, and the motivation to grow! Thank you Venita. The phrase or Venita-ism is "wears me slick"! This post also contains another Amy-ism from Amy Tawney. She could produce these nuggets of gold in a split second flat. This time its "both/and". Don't you love it!

References


Grant, R. M. (1998). Contemporary strategy analysis (Third ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom:

      Blackwell.

Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis (Seventh ed.). Chichester, United      
     
      Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hansmann, H. (1996). The changing roles of public, private, and nonprofit enterprise in 

     education, health care, and other human services. In V. R. Fuchs, (Ed.), Individual and 

     Social Responsibility: Child Care, Education, Medical Care, and Long-Term Care in 

     America (pp. 245 - 275). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from 

     http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Hansmannthechangingroles.pdf

Underwood, J. D. (2002). The new corporate strategy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Capstone

     Publishing.

   

Part II: The 50 Billion Dollar Leadership Development Questions

Despite Barbara Kellerman's argument regarding the diminishing importance of leadership, the 2008 economic debacle illustrates a point made by Gill R. Hickman. "Leadership can and does make a meaningful difference in every aspect of organizations”. Let me add the words good and/or bad. Outcomes suggest the degree to which leaders have demonstrated contextual, emotional, political, social, and talent intelligence.

As a consumer of research, one also should immediately ask if there is insufficient evidence provided by the industry to show success, then where is the evidence for a claim that there is a correlation between the failure of CEOs and political leaders and the investment made in leadership development? Nonetheless, a lack of evidence of the value of a $50 billion annual investment demands an explanation and answers to some questions from industry experts, organization practitioners, and their executive sponsors/leaders. After all, one hopes there is an informed collaboration between practitioners and executive sponsors/ leadership regarding development investment decisions. 
 

Until one has explored the practitioners', executive leaders', and industry experts' unrestricted viewpoint, the depth of understanding regarding what has and is transpiring with the leadership development investment will continue to elude. Thanks to Dr. Kellerman, here are some of the 50 billion dollar annual investment questions to launch our discussion:

• Who makes the leadership development program investment decisions and on what basis are negotiations and expectations handled with leadership development industry providers?
• How does the organization’s environment and the derivative drivers of the business inform the leadership development program?
• What does a good leader have to know, what do they have to be able to do, and how must they act given the environment? Are these expectations different or the same from one industry to the next or even within industry given market factors?
• In contrast and given the environment, what describes a bad leader in the organization? Are these expectations different or the same from one industry to the next or even within industry given market factors?
• Who is the target audience for development and upon what objective criteria is that audience selected?
• Is the program tailored to the needs of the organization and its individual participants or is it a one-size fits all "peanut butter spread" in which all participants regardless of competence are "dipped"? What is the cost of each approach and what is the value derived?
• In what ways are leadership history, theory, organization environment, and good and bad leader models communicated to learners?
• What is being taught about being a good follower? How are followership lessons being delivered?
• What is the framework that integrates leader and follower development with other people processes (e.g., 360's, individual development plans, performance evaluation, recruiting and selection processes)?
• What is the evidence the program works? What measures of success were implemented as part of the design of the program? Where are these metrics maintained? When and to whom are they reported? How are these metrics used to modify and sustain program success? How is the program benchmarked?
• How has the program addressed pertinent organizational issues? (e.g., retention, engagement, bench strength, etc.)

If the question of value remains unanswered, then the tolling of the bell for the leadership development industry and associated staff will and should continue to get louder. Additionally, the continuing rise in the demonstration of incompetence and questionable ethics of leaders will cause further erosion of the perception of the role and continue to cast shadows on its importance.

As a practitioner and/or scholar, please engage in this dialogue and share thoughts and/or answers to any or all of the questions and content of this blog with those who are searching, reading, and listening. In my next blog, more will be shared about organization environment/context and its importance to effective leadership. Until then, ask and seek answers to the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see. Let the conversation begin!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter
 

This blog includes an Amy-ism by Amy Tawney..."peanut butter spread"! Thanks Amy for all the fun we had while working together!

References:

Hickman, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era.

       Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

 

Part 1: The 50 Billion Dollar Leadership Development Questions

The leadership development industry is composed of the vendors selling their know-how and programs to organizations and individuals interested in developing leadership expertise. Is the leadership development industry in danger of death?

In The End of Leadership, Dr. Barbara Kellerman warns that if the industry continues in its current state, then it just may be. The book is a must read for leadership development scholars and practitioners. One major benefit of the book is the crisp and thorough review of the history of leadership. The second major benefit is the resulting dialogue on this topic. It is catching on fire. Hopefully, the result will be the development of a pathway to constructive change since one was not offered in the book.

In the book, Kellerman proposes the following:

• the leadership development industry has presented insufficient evidence to prove their success in preparing leaders despite companies' $50 billion annual investment.  Proof includes the:
• current political gridlock
• crisis in leadership highlighted by the 2008 economic breakdown
• continued and significant increase in the loss of credibility and trust in the competence and ethics of C-suite members, particularly in CEOs and political leaders
• teaching people how to follow is missing from the curriculum despite the seemingly sea change rise in followers' open challenges to leadership power, authority, and influence across the world.
• organizations' environments/contexts (contextual intelligence) are given less than desirable attention and are presented shortsightedly.
• the rapid acceleration in technology and use of social media, environmental complexity, and followership challenges end in the need to take a different viewpoint on the importance of leadership and on how to prepare those who lead. 
• the leader role has diminished in its importance.

Wait! Don’t shed another tear...just yet...into whatever you may be drinking at the moment! Let’s all hope Kellerman has confined her prediction to the end of the leadership development industry in its current state and not the end of leadership per se. After all, wouldn’t you agree the word “leader” suggests there are followers? Daringly, we can assert the majority of us are following someone either socially and/or professionally albeit passively or actively or somewhere in between. So, someone somewhere for some reason is being viewed as a leader. Social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, according to Kellerman, has assisted followers in the erosion of the power, authority, and influence of leadership and in so doing the role of the leader has diminished. This is a sobering fact. Yet, I suggest the same media has also exponentially empowered leader and follower connections within and outside organizations’ traditional structures and has created a foundation upon which the leader/follower relationship is likely to be maintained, albeit in a very different form than exists today. As a result, rather than being reduced to the sands of time, I suggest that leadership will be forced to change from its current state and live on and up to its importance.

How should one respond to this state of affairs? Answers aren’t new! They have been offered by leadership theorists for years. Suggestions include time has passed for command and control leadership styles and time has come for wider distribution and free flow of information to all employees. There are many who have suggested change. Let’s focus on two theorists in addition to Kellerman for today.

Predicting chaos and complex times ahead, over fourteen years ago, Margaret Wheatley wrote information has to connect internally as it is distributed, interpreted, and acted upon by all members of the organization, not just its leaders. So, if information is still being hoarded in organizations by leaders given the current chaotic and complex environment, then what is the rationale for this behavior? Over fifteen years ago, along with Kellerman, Gill Robinson Hickman wrote the role of leaders and followers was changing. Hickman suggested that leaders and followers in organizations can and should exchange roles as appropriate. Specifically, he contended the philosophical shift in the functioning of leadership, while not negating authority, should be a "fluid" role in which the employee and leader move from employee to leader and leader to employee “based upon capabilities, expertise, motivation, ideas, and circumstances, not solely on position or authority”.  To what degree is this exchange being played out in organizations today? If not, then why not?

In Part II of this series, I will conclude with the $50 billion dollar leadership development questions. Until then, ask and seek answers to the right questions in the right way and be the change you want to see. Let the conversation begin!

Phyllis L. Wright, Ph.D.

View my profile on LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/phyllislajunewright/

Follow @PhyllWright Twitter

References:

Hickman, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new era.

       Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San

       Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.