Leaders at all levels can only do the job if they understand the world around them and the people in it.Only with knowledge can a leader figure out how to go forward, either to fit their businesses into the world, or to understand how to change the environment to better suit their needs. Leaders must stay curious, and peer around the corner into the future at least a little bit. The higher you go, and the more you want to contribute at a strategic level, the more you need to know beyond your technical area of expertise.
Where do smart people get their information? I did a quick, informal and decidedly unscientific poll of some very good and successful thinkers I know.The question I asked was: Where do you get the information that you use for work? I let them define the boundary between work and non-work reading (I may include Vanity Fair – but others, understandably, may not). I gave them a 30 second response time – no gaming the judge.
Here’s what they came up with:
“I read business magazines (Economist weekly, Fortune, Forbes, Financial Times)…mostly I listen hard to audiences where I talk to pick up tidbits that might be of interest.”
“I read all kinds of stuff. The usual suspects, plus National Geographic and People (my daughter gets it).”
“I read: The Economist, Business Week, Financial Times (London), Financial Times (India), and Far Eastern Economic Review (occasionally).”
“Fast Company, The Futurist, Business Ethics, The Economist, Leader to Leader.”
“There's no doubt that the majority of my information on a day-to-day basis now comes from the Internet. I'm regularly on the mainstream news sites - BBC, CNN and FT.com. Abnormal Returns is also a great site with good links to credible news and blogs. When I'm at home [in Scotland] I still pick up the FT and regularly read The Economist. When I'm looking for something specific I use Harvard Business online or my own collection of books and articles. Google is an obvious favorite too. Occasionally I'll pick up The Times or The Telegraph but not too often anymore.”
“Harvard Business Review, Wall Street Journal…Within the Asia-Pacific region, a lot of the leading research is conducted out of Australia. Otherwise… EY, McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Mercer, Hewitt, etc. Of course there are also the local research firms…And if all else fails, there's always the ever-reliable Google.”
·“...[In Singapore] our bookstores are quite well-stocked… Ulrich, Collins, Tom Peters, Kaplan and many others. On periodicals, …HBR, Balanced Scorecard report, HRM, conference board...”
·“Google, NY Times, Boston Globe, WSJ, and conferences.”
“NPR, The Week magazine, Internet surfing, colleagues/friends/spouse…”
“Recommendations from colleagues.Local paper wherever I happen to be… Internet. Harvard Business Review. The POPULAR new business books – the ones getting the buzz. My past experience is probably the information I rely on the most…”
“WSJ, E&F newsletter and emails.”
“nytimes.com, boston.com, google (of course) and from there other websites and white papers, my own library of business books, sales and marketing e-zines/thought leadership (like ITSMA, Sirius Decisions, CSO Insights), Newsweek (subscription), tap into my network of colleagues, Linked In, on-line alumni groups, Huffington post, Slate, Politico, amazon to search for themes in new biz books (then read the summaries and index), pick up HBS mag when articles look good….stuff like that.”
And here’s mine:
“HBR for the big thought pieces.NYTimes.com and the Boston Globe for current events. Fast Company for innovation and ‘what’s happening’ kind of stuff. I used to read The Economist like a religion observance but have lost the habit – need to revive it.Anything well-written stimulates my own thinking and creativity, and provides the larger context for leadership work in a complex world. So, I dip into Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, Newsweek, Pink, National Geographic and Scientific American on a pretty regular basis. My husband wants to stage an intervention on my googling but I won’t be shut down.If anyone I know emails me a link, I always follow it, and then follow where that leads me. I also read a lot of books. Just finished Tribes by Seth ‘we need YOU to lead us’ Godin to learn more about social communities – quite an interesting read.”
I would love to hear your comments and additions to the lists above. Please e-mail me at: ksweetman@rbl.net, and check out our Leadership Code book website for more on the five key elements of leadership: www.leadershipcodebook.com.
Yesterday, a reader on another blog (That’s Quotable [Kate Sweetman]) reacted to a piece I wrote last week on strategy. He asked, in effect, why is strategy so often owned by the top of the house, and not more distributed among the people who are really doing the work, understanding its possibilities, meeting the customers, etc.
Great question. Is our ever-flattening world making top leadership obsolete?
There is certainly good evidence – most famously popularized by James Surowiecki in his book The Wisdom of Crowds – that a lot more people have useful insights and ideas than just the few at the top.In fact, as a collective, the crowd has significantly more ideas and wiser judgment.What does that say about the legitimacy of the folks at the top?
Who should own strategy?
I read the book a while ago, and, as just about everybody on the planet knows by now, it is a must-read.As I recall, the opening anecdote talks about how a crowd at a county fair did a better job of accurately estimating the weight of an ox than did the proverbial panel of experts.The crowd’s individual guesses, when averaged, came in very close to the ox's true weight.Closer to the true weight, in fact, than were any of the individual opinions of the cattle “experts” on hand.
I think this says a lot about the wisdom of the collective, but the outcome should come as no surprise to anyone living in a democracy. Sometimes one person/one vote really goes wrong (when a majority is misled by a bad leader, misinformation, fear or prejudice), but over time it is the best way to make decisions. When everyone is focused on the right outcome, whatever that may be, it is hard to beat.
This country fair example, however, also says something significant about the need for leadership at the top even when the crowd (when averaged) is wise.Think about it: somebody had to pick the ox. Somebody had to collect the crowd, set up the “rules of engagement,” and establish the structure that juxtaposed those cattle experts against the crowd.That organizer was the top leader.This does not by any means make illegitimate the crowd, the individuals in it and what they bring to the table.Clearly, they need to have their knowledge plumbed and voices heard.But, at a certain point, somebody had to shape the agenda and circumstances within which the others were acting.
The answer is: we need both. Both top leadership and the company as a collective need to own the strategy.The top of the house needs to set the parameters and create the conditions within which the larger organization will apply its wisdom, knowledge and efforts. The communications between the two groups needs to be open and fluid so that information, ideas, and insights can flow -- so that one can inform the other. But I don’t think we have quite evolved to the point where there is no need for senior leadership.We have, however, matured to a stage where, supported by information technology, senior leadership would be unwise indeed to fail to vigorously seek out and hear the voice of the hard-working people they lead.
Here in the US, CSR has only recently put down its first tender roots into many corporate strategies. In many of our US-based clients, CSR has only recently moved from a quasi-ornamental department to a piece of the core strategy for going forward. As the recession deepens, many companies are asking: “Can we afford this new commitment to ‘doing good’ as part of our core strategy when what we really need to focus on is our own survival?”
I recently caught up with a friend, the SVP of Sustainability at a global bank (“sustainability” is the new generation term for CSR).Her take is that CSR cannot be abandoned or diminished by these US companies for reasons that are both tactical and strategic.But they do need to be smart about it. I’ll call her Renée.I would love to introduce her but, unfortunately, her employer requires a two month vetting process for making public comment -- a time frame that is hard to accommodate in the blogosphere. Here’s how the conversation went:
Kate:“To what extent is sustainability a ‘nice to do’ in this economic climate? Doesn’t worrying about CSR put a crimp in urgent plans to build sales and cut costs?Can we really expect companies to have energy for that?”
Renée:“Every firm defines CSR or sustainability differently, given its own mission and history as well as its approach to CSR.For those organization for whom CSR was a sideline, I can see how itseem to distract from the most urgent needs. It may not seem to make sense in the short term if it is seems – or is -- disconnected from the core business. But the more CSR that has been woven into the fabric of the company, the more it actually becomes a source of strategic competitive advantage as well as short term value creation.”
Kate:“So you are saying they should keep buying cheap recycled paper and switching out incandescent lights for fluorescents?”
Renée:“Of course that’s part of it. In the short term, sustainability is about is being much smarter about how we use resources.Always looking to save money and materials.That is a short term benefit of CSR.But it’s not just about environmental concerns or the short term.Cisco, for example, started partnering with universities around the world long before they even considered entering those markets. What they did was good for those countries. It was also good for Cisco when they did enter those markets and found ready and able workers.Microsoft operates similarly.”
Kate:“That makes sense to me.Only last week, I saw Majora Carter of Sustainable South Bronx speak. Her mission is to ‘green up’ the South Bronx. In addition to cleaning up junkyards to make tree-lined parks, they are also creating sustainable businesses from the enormous amount of industrial trash brought into the neighborhood.For example, the world’s largest food distribution warehouses are in her neighborhood.They have started scavenging the wooden pallets that the food arrives on – mountains of wood that used to be just thrown away – and have started making beautiful hand-crafted furniture from it.But, of course, that is their business, not an add-on.”
Renée:“That’s a good example of being smart in adaptive reuse and recycling, and if you can create business out of that, so much the better. They are also clearly training young people in ‘green collar jobs’ which will give them the skills to compete going into the future, not so different from Cisco or Microsoft. The fact is that every company has opportunities to make sustainability and opportunity creation a part of how they do business.What are their ‘pallets’? What can their ‘furniture’ be? How can they help to create the workforce of the future, especially in the less advantaged populations that may be bursting with talent but lack opportunity?
Kate:“I see that.But still, isn’t it tough to stay committed in a downturn?”
Renee:“Even in a downturn, companies need to think long term as well as short term.That’s about more than recycling, or even helping the next generation in an ‘enlightened self-interest’ sort of way.It really is about their brand – about how they will be perceived by their customers, their employees, their future employees, the community and other constituents.The fact is that any company that said it cared about CSR is being tested now.Do they truly have values they believe in, or will they give them up when the going gets tough? Whether they pass or fail will have long term ramifications for their future.
Kate:“This reminds me of the legendary Tylenol scare.J&J secured its reputation for at least a generation because it handled that situation so well way back in the early 1980s.They could have fought a recall to make a few bucks.Instead, they took a short term hit for a major long term gain.”
Renée:“Exactly. In fact, they recouped their losses quite quickly because they so enhanced their brand value. The eyes of a new generation are upon corporations now.Many studies have shown that young people in college now care very much about the values and character of the companies that will be recruiting them in the future. It is a major part of their employment decision-making. Fail the values test now, and it will be much harder to win back their trust and with it their commitment and hard work over their working lifetimes.”
Kate:“You seem quite convinced.”
Renée:“This isn’t just my opinion.There is loads of research connecting CSR with long term sustainability of the firm.For the latest on that, check out the latest Stanford Social Innovation Review, and its piece on profitability driven by innovation and CSR.” http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/when_good_wins/
It is a truth well-recognized by business pundits everywhere these days that recessionary pressure makes the leadership discipline of strategy more important, not less. “It’s not just about execution and cost-cutting,” they opine, thumbs in lapels, rocking back on their heels. “It’s about the long term view as well. Make sure you are positioned for the recovery.” Thanks, you say. But if you are currently stringing out vendors to meet payroll, or cashing in recyclables to keep the lights on, this advice may ring hollow indeed.
Here’s the thing: they’re right.Many studies show that firms that come out of a recovery in an advantaged position tend to keep it far into the recovery period.What do these analyses tell us that these companies have done better than others?Well, the big one is that they go into recessions strong: they managed their finances conservatively in good times and have ample cash on hand entering bad times.But even if that is not your situation, you can still turn this recession to advantage by thinking and acting strategically in ways that challenge your ingenuity, openness and leadership habits more than your Treasury. Specifically:
Stay Curious.A recession is no time to shut down your own thinking. In fact, it is time to open it up. Even if you had a winning formula going into the recession, allow yourself the pleasure of questioning your assumptions: it’s a new world. Always ask yourself: “What if…” and explore possibilities.Connect with leading thinkers whoever they may be.Make yourself read more broadly than before, look for trends and ideas that you have never explored before.Spend a little of that cash you’ve hidden under your mattress to go to a conference you think you can’t afford and would have skipped before because it was not core to your business – new ideas, new approaches, new ideas and new people will be perceived at the edge of your vision, not the center. Make yourself understand and use the social networking technology you have been ignoring (this advice to my peers and older) because it really and truly will open up your world. Use these insights not only to understand your own situation better, but to anticipate problems that your best of future customers might be facing.It will also allow you to connect into that now famous “crowd” that really does have some good ideas.
Invite your savviest outsiders inside: At a minimum, you will build empathy and loyalty with your customers and other key stakeholders (major investors, community leaders and the like). You never know when you may need their support or sufferance as this recession drags on.It is also very likely that they will have some good ideas for you. Customers influence strategy when their needs and experiences connect to employees throughout your organization.That may have been happening before – but do you still understand each other? Their needs have doubtless changed.Make sure you still know each other.
No “one” knows enough: engage the organization. The temptation to hunker down with your exclusive group of trusted advisors may threaten to overwhelm you.Don’t let it.Take some advice from our president-elect (even if you voted for the opposition): rock the vote. You need to engage others within the organization in developing your strategy. Why?Because each member of the organization also wants to survive, and may be able to add a lot to the strategic process if you let them have a voice.This is true especially if the organization has experienced a lot of change (read: downsizing and restructuring).
Create Strategic Traction Within the Organization.Strategic leadership also requires embedding strategic capability throughout the organization.Strategy is often delegated upward to the CEO or senior management team, which have a legitimate responsibility to shape the direction of the entire company.But strategic traction comes when employees at all levels of the company not only understand where the company is going, but they are excited by it, remember it, and know what to do to make it happen in their day-to-day decisions.They will have valid points of view about how the strategy will be operationalized internally, including which difficulties need to be overcome and how.
Remember: great companies are built over decades, and recessions come and go.If you act as if you are in it for the long haul in terms of your own thinking, and your relationships with customers, employees, the community and investors, you are much more likely to make it there.
When I was an editor at Harvard Business Review and we received an article proposal from parts unknown, these two questions were the first tough screen.The first is about the author; the second is about the ideas being proposed. Does this author have the background, experience and credibility to bring real insight to our battle-hardened CEO’s, company presidents and aspiring executives? Does this particular set of ideas sufficiently meet our trademark “ideas with impact” standard to survive the grueling HBR development process and make it to press?
Or should we, like the ancient Greeks, leave this baby on the hillside?
These two blunt questions – “Who is she?” and “So what?” – apply here.But it is you, not me, doing the asking.You need to know that this blog space is worth your while if you are to come back.
So let me briefly introduce myself, and then, more importantly, outline the basics of the leadership conversation that I hope to foster.Please give feedback – not about me, of course – but about how this blog can best engage all of us together.As a community intent on improving leadership ideas and practice, we can adapt the plan to have the conversation we need.
OK, about me.For this, I will direct the reader to my CV.
Now to the good stuff: the leadership conversation. As my CV tells you, I have been working in field of leadership for almost 20 years in various roles, gaining a wide variety of experiences in a broad range of industries around the globe.All of that time, effort, conversation, reading, writing, take-offs and touch-downs have given me a point of view about leadership.Not a dogma, or The Answer, but a living, breathing, pretty robust point of view that I will be bringing to this blog and testing, refining, revising with your involvement.This point of view has been immeasurably sharpened and clarified through my collaboration with Dave Ulrich and Norm Smallwood over the past two years, and is expressed in its most condensed form in our book, Leadership Code: 5 Rules to Lead By. Dave and Norm will weigh in on occasion in this blog as well.
Here’s a very general outline of the topics this blog will explore.Not in this order necessarily, and always in the context of the pressing issues of today: recession, innovation, globalization, diversity, uncertainty. It is the framework of the Leadership Code – the five essential domains of all effective leaders no matter what their context or circumstance:
Effective leaders are strategists. They answer the question, “Where are we going?”They test their big ideas pragmatically, and they work with others to find the path from the present to the desired future – even in the teeth of a recession.
·Effective leaders can execute. They ask: “How will we ensure that we reach our goal?”They understand how to make change and innovation happen, while also keeping the organization steady.
·Effective leaders engage today’s talent to generate intense personal, professional, and organizational loyalty – no matter how diverse the population.They help people to bring their best selves to the job at hand despite the day-to-day challenges of work.
·Effective leaders build the next generation.They make sure that the organization has the longer-term skills, knowledge, behaviors and attitudes for future strategic success, and that everyone who can make a positive difference in the future has the opportunity to do at their own highest and best level.
·Effective leaders are personally proficient: they manage their physical, emotional, intellectual and spiritual selves well. They learn constantly. They are capable of quick, bold actions and great patience.They constantly deepen their insight of themselves.
Moving forward we will be seeking outside perspectives from executives, managers, and thought leaders around the globe to help shed light on these topics.I hope you will join in – everyone’s ideas are important.Hope to see you again soon.
Even in a business blog, it is not possible to sit down on this historic morning to compose a piece about leadership and innovation without talking about Barack Obama. The Obama leadership equation for two years has been Obama = Change. He convinced enough Americans that he would deliver on the promise that he and his nationwide network of organizers absolutely routed the opposition on Election Day.
What people were really saying, whether they realized it or not, was that what they wanted for a change was leadership. Because real leadership is always about moving forward in new and better ways.
In decoding Obama, I find that, while he is young and not entirely proven, he has the makings of one of the few fully complete leaders I have encountered in almost 20 years of studying and helping to develop leaders around the world. He embodies and exhibits all five of the leadership domains that research tells us are essential to world-class leadership no matter what the context. Here’s the simple analysis – I wish I had more space.
First, he had a strategy for going forward differently. In terms of the country, he proposed a 180 degree shift in our relationship with the rest of the world, and a tectonic internal shift in Americans’ relationship with each other. In terms of the campaign strategy, he built on the “grassroots” strategy that Howard Dean started, threw in a lot of ideas of his own and utilized the grassroots as never before seen.
Second, he executed on his campaign strategy. Internet fund raising at an average donation of $86 a pop, legions of community organizers – unprecedented. Flexible in emphasis depending on where the battles were raging, but always executing in complete alignment with the overall strategy and vision.
Third, he did nothing alone, and never pretended to. He created a national network of organizers like no one before him. In business, we call this “leading talent.” In real life, we call this top drawer leadership: inspiring not just “support” or “cooperation” but rabidly devoted fans that would literally put their lives on hold for the sake of the mission.
Fourth, he gave an entire population hope, not about dominating the global oil trade by whatever means necessary, but about the personal futures that they and their children might begin to expect if they are willing to co-create the future with him. Education, health care, becoming a more caring and sharing society that would use its own ingenuity to develop greener domestic energy sources to wean us off foreign oil. In business, we call this human capital management, but you get the picture.
Fifth, he himself was the story of leadership as change. Anyone who read Dreams from My Father, his 1994 autobiography, was introduced to a person always willing to ask who am I, what do I stand for, why, and how do I get continuously better to deliver on my own promise to myself.
Ok, so according to our research, Obama fits the leadership bill to get elected. However, it is one thing to get elected; it's another to deliver on the leadership promise of hope and change.
What do excellent leaders do if not urge, cajole, persuade, discipline, plan, plot, educate, shame, harangue or otherwise propel themselves and others forward into a better future. Think of the leaders that Obama can learn from who had a vision and who delivered on it over time -- Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Gandhi, Mother Theresa or Sheikh Zayed, visionary founder of the modern UAE. Different styles but same basic result: positive, beneficial change that matters to the person, the organization, and the society. The truly effective leader, then, is always able to give us a new and innovative vision for the future, invest in the people who will help to deliver on that vision, keep the stakeholders engaged and, finally, through this, consistently deliver on the promises.
