The Concept of Self-Leadership

When thinking about management, typical thought leads one to think of one person leading others to reach some common purpose or goal. As a result, most leadership research focuses on how a leader can lead others in this manner. But what about thinking outside the box of traditional thought and thinking about the concept of self-leadership? What about the concept of the ability to lead one’s self to reach some purpose or goal?

What if the world of academia began to focus some of their energies on the topic of self-leadership and its role in the field of organizational leadership? Would it be possible to correlate the two worlds and find some common keys of success between the two?

Well, after researching the internet, I’ve found for the first time there is a part of academic research that does focus on self-leadership and its role in the broader field of organizational leadership theory. In fact, some universities include the study of self-leadership in their curriculum and apparently, this inclusion has been effective in teaching leadership theory. According to the Amazon.com website, students of university courses in this field have commented on the usefulness and application of self-leadership concepts. So let’s address one of the primary tenets or beliefs within the self-leadership field.

One of the first foundational truths of self-leadership is the belief that one must be able to lead themselves first before they can effectively lead others. I believe this position does have some significant validity but does have some qualifiers. Let me explain why.

If we define leadership as simply the “process of influencing others”, this position can be supported with some clear examples. For example, a leader might be talented at computer programming and can lead a group of programmers based on the team’s respect of the leader’s programming abilities. In the same light, the leader may be extremely disorganized and consistently loses focus on the team’s goals. In this situation, the leader is able to influence the team’s programming efforts but not able to influence their strategic timelines because they do not trust or respect his abilities in planning. Simply, because the leader is not able to lead himself in the area of strategic planning, the team is not led effectively in this area.

To further support the validity of this position, we have examples of accepted management theory that support the idea of “Leading By Example”. According to Kouzes and Posner, modeling the way is foundational in effective leadership. The logical progression of thought is that self-leadership must first exist before the ability to model the way can occur. I believe this progression is valid but here is where I must qualify my beliefs.

First, what about the role of delegation in the leadership process? Where does the ability to effectively delegate play a part in this foundational truth. In our earlier example, the leader may not have the ability to be effective at strategic planning but what if that leader could delegate that role to one of the followers who did possess that skill? Could the leader still be effective? I think it depends. The leader still must possess the ability to discern these strategic plans and make decisions to accept, modify or reject them. Does this situation relegate leadership to simply effective delegation? While leadership does depend on delegation, I do believe that effective leaders must show the ability to lead themselves first before they can expect the respect of their followers.

Second, I believe many of us have met individuals who seem to possess effective skills in the workplace but not outside the workplace. Here’s an example. Some individuals are very organized at work but disorganized at home. They have the ability and take the time to plan ahead in their commercial activities but when they get home, they quickly lose focus and let tasks go unfinished and miss important deadlines. The qualifier in this example is not that the first foundational truth is not correct but focuses more on the assumption that individuals possess the same level of self-leadership in all aspects of life. In fact, when examining this example in more depth, one will find this qualifier does not invalidate the proposition but rather strengthens it. The purpose of the qualifier is to ensure that one does not get lost in improper assumptions around the idea of self-leadership.

I believe strongly in the belief that one must be able to lead themselves first before they can lead others effectively. Such beliefs do not include expectations that anyone is perfect in their ability to lead themselves. I believe that journey is a life-long journey to improve each day but never to expect perfection. I believe we must be aware of our own actions and be open to modification whenever necessary. As each one strives to improve themselves and their own leadership abilities, the goal is to be the type of leader that is able to balance progress with compassion for people. But think about it. For me, that goal is the same whether I’m leading a group of people or leading myself.

The basis for this blog is found at the following two websites: http://www.emergingleader.com/article4.shtml and http://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Self-Leadership-Empowering-Excellence/dp/0130110876/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t. I’ve also referenced “The Leadership Challenge”, written by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner.

Frank Crowe – Maker of Miracles

Frank Crowe had always dreamed of building dams but not just any dam, he desired to build the biggest dam possible, one that would be a climax to his career in civil engineering. After 20 years of working with the Reclamation Service, he got his chance when the US government decided to build the Hoover dam on the border of California and Nevada. All the pieces of his dream came together on March 4, 1931 when his company awarded him the "Project Manager" role for the project.

Mr. Crowe’s leadership and ingenuity abounded on the construction site where he was known as “Hurry Up Frank”. His civil engineering skills helped him invent innovation methods for delivering concrete and moving equipment around the job site. His leadership skills helped him drive a workforce to complete the project two years ahead of schedule. In 1936 when the project was completed, the dam was the largest concrete structure in the world and helped fuel Franklin Roosevelt’s PR machine for his public works projects.

What was it about Frank Crowe that helped him be a successful leader with a construction project of this magnitude? According to some of his friends and close associates, Frank was fair-minded, possessed superior human understanding, a good sense of humor and was known for integrity. But what about the thousands of workers on the worksite, would they have the same opinion?

This question is an interesting one because it really does depend on who you ask. According to some accounts, he was a great leader. In fact, many men followed him from construction project to construction project because they liked working for him. One of these men, Saul Wixom commented “One thing he knew was men”. His comment referred to Mr. Crowe’s ability to understand different temperaments and how to treat each one appropriately.
Mr. Crowe also had another character trait which was his tireless effort on the worksite. While he had many administrative tasks he needed to complete, he was often on the job site reviewing process and walking the construction area. It was not unusual to see him on the job site at 2 A.M. His interest, passion and leadership on the worksite very likely provided motivation to the men who worked in the 120+ degree weather.

Other accounts might also explain why he was respected as a leader. His ability to remember everyone by name was noteworthy. According to Bob Parker, another construction worker, commented “His workmen, he knew them by their first name, nearly every one of them….”. Being the project manager and remembering everyone in some personal sense showed that he at least recognized you on the site.

Mr. Crowe was trustworthy as well. According to some accounts, he was true to his word. If he told you he was going to do something, he would follow through, regardless of the effort it told for him to fulfill the promise. While he did and said many things his workers did not like, they did know that he was a man of his word.

In fact, it is interesting that Mr. Crowe’s honesty and ability to be straightforward with his workers caused many of them to create a somewhat personal bond with him. This bond caused many of the workers to expect his support early in the project when a labor strike occurred. They assumed he would back them when the strike occurred over substantial cuts in worker wages. Instead, Mr. Crowe fully supported the company stance and took the stance that workers who did not want to work should quit and other workers would be hired. In fact, Mr. Crowe took a very strong stand and publicly denounced the strike as an action by a few who would be considered agitators.

While he did not back the workers, the good will he had previously built was a foundation for an eventually end to the strike and workers returned to the work site. His gamble with the workers did work, whether one would call that approach good leadership or not.

Finally, Mr. Crowe has been heralded for his accomplishments through his own work and the work of his workers. The story is not complete though. Mr. Crowe will also be remembered for running a construction site where 76 men died on the worksite. His work site included environments where men had to work in tunnels that had little ventilation and high levels of gas. His work site was known for clearly breaking laws and ignoring mining regulations to meet construction timelines. His work site included the knowledge that if you ever crossed Mr. Crowe, he would never forget it. Finally, his work site was known for taking advantage of the depressed economic times and cutting already low wages in order to increase the company profits.

Yes, we must acknowledge the accomplishments of Frank Crowe for leading the construction of the Hoover Dam. The acknowledgement will likely always be tempered with qualifications such as the ones mentioned above. The moral of the story is that it does matter “how” one reaches accomplishments, it is not just the “what”.

This article used two websites as sources of information. These sites include posts on the ezine website (http://ezinearticles.com/?Remarkable-Project-Managers---Frank-Crowe&id=2935432) and the civil engineering website First 100 (http://www.1st100.com/part1/crowe.html).

Learning From Another Generation

When leaders think of mentoring programs, they usually think of older workers mentoring younger, less experienced workers. Traditional mentoring programs are used to help young high potentials in developing the business and management skills needed in their future corporate endeavors.

But some companies are beginning to think of mentoring as occurring in more than one direction. What about those skills that younger, less experienced workers can teach to older generations? This question is one that comes by thinking outside the box and needs some attention by the leaders of today. What if leaders began to see that learning could occur in both directions, including younger workers teaching older workers what they know. Its time to wake up and see the value that all workers bring, both young and old.

One primary example involves computer skills and how computers can be used for corporate growth. According to a recent article in the Richmond Times Dispatch, several examples were provided where young workers were either leading or helping to lead their companies in learning how to market products and services through social media internet sites. In one example, an executive leader was so impressed with the ideas and leadership an intern provided in this area, a permanent full-time position is being offered when the intern graduates. Apparently, this executive leader understood the value of inputs offered by this 21 year old and was open to their suggestions.

Another example is the area of corporate benefit offerings. Human Resource benefit groups can learn valuable information from their young workers concerning the value of various benefits to the younger population. The key is the ability to listen to this subset of the organization and understand personal needs will be different. One size does not fit all when dealing with different populations within your organization.

Regardless of the application, one can not deny the value of mentoring. Leaders need to ensure they understand learning can occur in non-traditional ways. Clearly, the point is simple, don’t forget that mentoring can take place between younger workers and older workers. Leaders must think outside the box to get the full value of the mentoring process.

This article was inspired from a recent article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch (Marte, Jonnelle. Mentor Your Boss, Richmond Times-Dispatch, October 25,2009, p. D5).

Leadership Comes in Many Forms

When thinking of leadership, most think of business leaders who are responsible for leading subordinates to make a product or provide a service. Actually, leaders come in many forms with goals beyond any commercial concern. So, is the example of David Robertson, music director of the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra.

Through his approach to leadership, he has acquired the commitment of his players and is building a lasting reputation of excellence for this group. It is clear the fruits of his labor are many including comparisons between his orchestra and symphonies in much larger cities such as New York and Chicago. In fact, his name has been mentioned when openings occur for such groups as the New York Philharmonic and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.

What makes this conductor such a good leader and example? When learning more about Mr. Robertson, several key traits and characteristics are noteworthy and appear attributable to his success.

First, he has a burning commitment to his orchestra. This commitment can be seen in a most recent quote, “I’ve never looked at anything I do as a steppingstone to someplace else”. It is clear that he is not looking for the next big thing but values his current relationship and focuses his attention on that relationship. I believe his players can sense that commitment and focus and in turn, provide it back to him.

Second, Mr. Robertson values player’s creativity and allows them to express it through their work. This ability to value creativity drives a deeper commitment from those being lead and allows them to feel as if they are part of the process rather than simple order takers.

Third, this conductor sees inspiration as coming from the composer, the musicians and the audience. It is interesting that when he addresses the topic of inspiration, he doesn’t mention his role as conductor. One would think the conductor would brag about the level and type of inspiration that he brings. Not the case with Mr. Robertson. In fact, he sees his job as reflecting and refracting these inspirations in a manner to bring out the best in all of them. Apparently, his focus is on others and optimizing their abilities rather than promoting his own.

As I mentioned earlier, David Robertson’s role as conductor of the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra has something to show everyone interested in the topic of leadership. His commitment, ability to value creativity and focus on others are three valuable lessons in learning about effective leadership.

While I’ve never met Mr. Robertson, I can only imagine the level of commitment he has spurred in the players in the Saint Louis ensemble. May we learn something from this conductor beyond the realm of musical excellence.

This blog entry was based on a Wall Street Journal article published Wednesday, November 4, 2009 (David Mermelstein, The Conductor Reflects, Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2009, p. D7).

Marilyn Carlson Nelson and Curt Carlson – A Contrast In Leadership Styles

Marilyn Carlson Nelson retired in 2008 as CEO of Carlson Companies, a multi-billion dollar international company. Her story is an interesting one though since she is the daughter of Curt Carlson who lead the company in its early days. While one might think being the CEO’s child would have helped her to quickly move up the corporate ladder, Ms. Nelson’s experiences were just the opposite.

Ms. Nelson’s early leadership challenges came when working for her father’s company which clearly operated in the male dominated good ole boy tradition where only men were leaders and women worked in supportive roles. While Ms. Nelson was very successful at the company in various leadership roles, her chance to lead the company did not occur until she left the company, proved her leadership abilities at other organizations, and returned to eventually become CEO.

What’s even more interesting is the contrast in leadership styles between Ms. Nelson and her father. In many ways, the contrast is a clear example of the clear differences that exist between past and present approaches to leadership. Let’s examine some of these differences.

The first difference and likely the most prevalent is the general view of employees and their roles in the successful operation of an organization. When Carlson was run by the elder father, employees were viewed as a resource which was easily replaceable. This approach was based on a premise the external workforce was plentiful and employees better perform well since they were lucky just to have a job.

In contrast, Ms. Nelson’s approach to leading people is very different. Her approach is clearly to view employees as human capital, a valuable resource needed to make the company profitable. Since employees are highly valued in this new culture, the company benefits in two primary ways. First, the current employees are more valued and are more likely to have job satisfaction. Second, prospective employees are more likely to be drawn towards the company when considering their career choices.

The second difference in leadership styles between Ms. Nelson and her father is the view of chain of command at the company. Mr. Carlson, used to a very autocratic approach, lead with a strong allegiance to the chain of command. In other words, one must work through their chain of command before discussing any matters with someone in management higher in the chain.

Ms. Nelson’s approach is very different in that she values collaboration more than chain of command and looks to a stronger team approach to solving problems. Her view is more around making the most effective decisions with each member of her management team providing their specific area of expertise.

The last major difference is more around the influence of stereotypes and there influence of leadership styles. Mr. Carlson, had a very limiting view of women. For years, the company’s external benefit plans only covered men and not women. While the company did create a private plan to cover some of the single women in the company, it was clear Mr. Carlson’s view included stereotypes where women should only stay in the home and take care of their husband. As a result, opportunities for women were limited and leaders at Carlson did not view women as potential leaders.

In contrast, Ms. Nelson’s approach has revolutionized the company and changed the culture to become more inclusive. In fact, women now make up forty percent of the executives at Carlson. One can bet that prospective female employees are now motivated to work within Carlson and contribute to such an inclusive work environment.

This blog entry is based on an internet article written by Jennifer Pellet for chiefexecutive.net (Pellet, Jennifer. Posted 10/8/2008. An Upside Down Career Path to the Top, Retrieved October 29, 2009 from http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=E34BB7DCFFD6411AA2FBC1E87F2E2812&AudID=AE720E7DE3FE473693930869A5157C27).

An Effective Leader in My Past

In thinking over my years at Dominion, I began to think about my own experiences and those leaders that I have followed. Was there a leader that exemplified many of the traits associated with progressive and effective leadership? Were there leaders that stood out in my memory as extraordinary who I would gladly follow into any potential challenge?

While I’ve followed many leaders in my day, it was actually difficult to think of leaders that I admired. I could think of one leader that stood out in my memory though. I began to wonder what was so special about this leader that she stood above all the rest.

As I reflected, I did begin to see many of the traits that leadership books espouse. While she had many great traits, I will reflect on three specific traits that stood out.

First, this leader knew how to empower her people. She knew how to give assignments, provide the needed resources and support, and let her people get the job done. In this role, I worked as an Human Resources Specialist with my specific roles including the creation and maintenance of employee policies. This leader had a special way of assigning tasks while providing personal support and encouragement as you completed the tasks. You knew as a subordinate that she wanted you to succeed.

In that role at the time, my customers were generalists in field human resources groups providing services to business units. As I’ve learned from my leadership readings (Regaining Public Trust from The Leader of the Future 2, Ken Blanchard and Dennis Carey, p. 160), I benefited from her leadership abilities by allowing me to be direct my energies to my customers rather than trying to cater to a leadership hierarchy. In fact, one of her strongest traits was dealing with upper leadership while letting her employees focus on getting the job done.

Second, this leader had a high level of integrity. She stood behind what she said and you could depend on her word. In a number of cases, it would have been easier for her to waver on her word and just get by but she did not. While one might expect integrity to be a must for effective leadership, the public has seen an increasing lack of integrity from leaders from political to economic fronts. What once was a foundation for leadership behavior has become a trait hard to find among the leaders of today. Even Peter Drucker included integrity as one of the primary prerequisites for establishing a high level of performance (Peter Drucker on Executive Leadership and Effectiveness from The Leader of the Future 2, Joseph A. Maciariello, p. 5). This leader exhibited integrity in all she did.

Third, this leader knew how to instill confidence in her people. When I worked for this leader, the company was going through a very difficult period. Dominion had just merged with Consolidated Natural Gas (CNG) and the company was downsizing and severing employees. The mood was very somber at the time and employees were insecure about their futures.

This leader had a way of helping her employees through this difficult time. Her ability to build a level of confidence in her employees was based on providing needed support and encouragement. Her ability to instill this confidence is very similar to traits of successful cosmopolitan leaders who are able to instill a level of confidence within their workers and in the organization as a whole (How Cosmopolitan Leaders Inspire Confidence-A Profile of the Future from The Leader of the Future 2, Rosabeth M. Kanter, p. 65). She had a way of letting you know that she had confidence in your ability and if help was needed, she would provide assistance to help you through.

My experiences with Dominion leaders have been positive. Many of these leaders have provided guidance and direction without being overly autocratic. Without a doubt though, the leader referred to in this blog entry has exceptional abilities. My desire is to see leaders of this type to succeed and spread their talents to others within the company. May her success live on.

Jim Press – Lead By Example

Over the last year, we have heard many stories about the big three automakers and the billions of dollars spent to bail them out and keep them from bankruptcy. Only a few years ago, would anyone have thought these automakers would need such large sums of money to keep them in operations? While these companies were losing market share in those years, they were still viable companies with many loyal customers, employees and shareholders.

Chrysler was one of those viable companies trying different approaches to turn the company around and improve market position. In 2007, they hired Jim Press who was an acclaimed leader at Toyota to help them in this effort (Linebaugh, K. (2009, September 19-20). Chrysler’s Press in Debt Squeeze. Wall Street Journal, p.B5). In his case, they were hiring a proven leader in the industry who had the connections and possible leadership skills to bring Chrysler back into prominence. Now, let’s see how effective their CEO screening process was in that decision.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, we find Mr. Press is not only leading Chrysler out of bankruptcy but he is falling behind on his own bills, not paying his mortgage payments or his back taxes (Linbaugh, p.B5). In fact, Mr. Press finds himself under a September 2009 tax lien for taxes owed in 2007 (Linbaugh, p.B5). To add to the debt load, liens have been filed against his $2.2 million Michigan home and his $12.96 million townhouse in Manhattan (Linbaugh, p.B5).

It seems hard to understand how the Mr. Press can be leading a company in efforts to avoid bankruptcy while buying extravagant purchases which place him in debt beyond his means (Linbaugh, p.B5). Specifically, is this the same person who is making decisions about significant debt load and the future financial viability of Chrysler?

When companies like Chrysler make decisions concerning their leadership in tough times, what screening process do they go through? Do they employ the same screening criteria as used for first line management or middle management? Does that screening process include credit checks? Is the process thorough and time consuming? After all, they are hiring the leader of the company and the person who needs to set an example on a day-to-day basis.

While the screening criteria for executive selection is likely set by outsiders such executive search firms, I would propose that the selection process should be lead by insiders with clear input concerning culture and shared values. In this case, I think someone missed the mark and Chrysler is likely to pay for such a misstep.