The experiences of leaders in different countries clearly shape them.  Two researchers looking at leaders in China, India and Singapore noted difference in challenging assignments, developmental relationships, dealing with hardships, education and personal experience.  All of these influences shape individuals into the leaders they are, and gaining an appreciation for each individual’s personal biography is insightful and essential for understanding their own expression of leadership with its gaps and its strong areas.

One way of understanding leadership differences is through behavior styles.  What we need is a fully descriptive, universal language for behavioral description, one that resists the bias of assigning “good” and “bad” labels to different ways that effective leaders get things done.  Two leaders, both equally effective, can take very different paths to arrive at similar results using different behavioral strategies.  Being able to describe those differences objectively, like a scientist, and avoiding personal biases allows us to expand our appreciation of different leaders and ultimately to develop more top talent for tomorrow’s leadership positions.

Research that I did with 1200 leaders in Asia led me to see clear behavior style preferences in different cultures.  In multinational companies (MNC’s), understanding these differences allows for context-specific leadership development as well as company-wide efforts to cultivate the next generation of top talent.

Some summary observations*

Leaders in India had a strong tendency to express dominance (direct, problem->solution orientation) in their leadership styles, especially in the business world.  In Korea, compliance-steadiness (detail-orientation, careful and analytical decision-making) were strong markers shared by many in the top levels of leadership.  In China, the preferred style for leaders were dominance, compliance (detail-oriented, analytical rules-based decision-making) and dominance-compliance (directness and high standards).  In these countries and across Asia there was a noticeable preference for a factual, objective approach to persuasion and motivation methods rather than extroverted, personal and humanistic approaches.

This research showed that cultural difference do indeed show up in self-expressed behavioral preferences by leaders.  However, within each culture there is still room for a diversity of styles and approaches even where one or a cluster of styles is preferred more often than others.  This has some implications for talent management and leadership development.

First, organizations have their own culture just as nations do.  Different MNC’s doing business in the same country or markets may have very different profiles or styles of leadership.  Sometimes, the preferred style imposes its own blinders on the rest of the culture.  When it comes to behavior style, diversity is a potential strength, but it must be acknowledged and managed or else decisions (and the culture) tend to reflect arbitrariness and chaotic tendencies.

Second, good talent management practices will not focus simply on “competency models” or modeling based on traits; it will be closely connected to business results, cultural awareness and experience-based learning and development.  The good news for talent management is that there are tools and proven precedents for defining what success looks like and what kind of leadership is desired for future growth; it is not simply about luck, intuition or other subjective biases.

Third, in terms of leadership development Asian leaders have historically valued a small number of close relationships and relied on personal experiences to guide them through difficult leadership trials and challenges.  A leadership style that projects personal warmth and charisma or inspiration more broadly (as North Americans are perceived to do) has not been part of their repertoire.  This is not a shortcoming or gap; it reflects preferences, comfort level and conditioning which is part of the culture.  More leadership development in Asia needs to be individualized and respect the high-context cultural reality, rather than importing Western models of executive education.

———————————-

*The leadership and behavior styles mentioned here are based on the Marston behavioral tendencies model.  For more on this and the research results mentioned you may send me an email requesting more information:  ron(at)leadskill(dot)com or use the comments box below.

Is that too bleak?  I’m not a pessimist even while I try to stay realistic.  Since the worldwide “reset” (recession, currency devaluation, drop in trade–whatever you want to call it) that began in 2008, the signs are clear that we’re looking for direction and the old order has passed.  We’re not too sure what the new order is, while many act confused, some put their heads down and soldier on while the true entrepreneurs smell opportunity and are moving aggressively into action.  You’re going to hear their stories become public in the coming years, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

What are some signs of the times?  First, lackluster performance in the markets.  Investors continue to seek places to put capital to work and get a good return, but the old rules no longer apply.  Stock markets gyrate up and down.  Currency markets are in a frothy turmoil (euro, yen or dollars anyone?).  Property prices are stagnant except for some bubbles in Asia.  After big bailouts in the US private sector in 2008-2009 (financials and autos particularly), now it’s Europe’s turn with sovereign debt (the PIIGS are ready for slaughter).

Second, geopolitical unrest.  Voter disenchantment in the US and now in the UK brought about regime change, but the “changers” have brought little that is new or innovative, just more of the same old.  The tone may be different, but the substance is the same.  The Middle East is no closer to peace and in fact destabilization in the region seems certain with Iran playing the spoiler.  Pakistan remains the premier jihadi training ground.  The brightest spot is the economic vitality of Asia as the faster developing nations (China and India principally) expand their realm of influence.  Even in Asia the picture is not all bright as Thailand finds it hard to shake it’s political unrest and Japan enters its third “lost decade”.

Third, there is the unsettling feeling that the earth itself is not resting easy.  Whether it is natural or manmade events–major earthquakes (Haiti, Chile and China), a huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a lack of consensus and will to act on climate change–the planet itself seems more restless and also vulnerable.

A real defining sign of our times is the lack of leadership.  Name 3 great leaders today.  Not famous people or inspirational people, but real leaders.  It’s tough, isn’t it?  Those in power are either disappointing us or making people madder.  Ineffective leaders linger on instead of making way for those who are more competent and able to step up and lead.  Executive pay continues to rise even as performance plateaus or declines.  Those in charge seem very capable of growing their personal power, their budget and their spending, but unable to make the tough decisions.  Even as Asia leads economically, the lack of leadership is felt acutely.  The experience and “bench strength” is just not there, so today’s leaders resort to trial and error–a slow and inefficient way to learn.

What is most needed in these uncertain times is true leadership, great leadership.  A clear mark of great leadership is looking out first for the people you lead.  This is not simply a high-minded ideal; it is essentially what all effective leaders in any time period do.  Shaun Rein recently wrote about this in Forbes, and he came to same conclusion.  Make the work, the life of those around you better, and people will follow.  Take from people, steal from them (either legally or illegally, there is little real difference), tell them untruths or half-truths, and the real truth will eventually come out.  Truly serve and you are on the path to leadership.  Take that path long enough and you’ll find yourself at the head of a line of people willingly taking the same path and following as their own lives improve.  This mark of great leadership is not complex or hidden, but it is in short supply in these times.  May more true leaders emerge soon!

Xenophon grew up in Athens and was a direct student of Socrates in the fifth century B.C.  As a young man he joined a military expedition from Greece to Persia and went on to become a battle-tested general before retiring to southern Greece and writing on philosophy, history, economics, politics, and other subjects.  Woven throughout his writing is Xenophon’s observations and lessons about leadership.  The systematic book that Drucker mentioned was The Education of Cyrus (or Cyropedia), based roughly on the life of Cyrus the Great who lived over a hundred years before Xenophon.

Xenophon writes about his own initiation into leadership in  The March Upcountry (or Anabasis), which has been classified as military history but is actually an epic of leadership written by a participant who saw good and bad leadership at close quarters.  I first read this book in 1988, and didn’t know what a gem I had.   I’ve gone back since then and learned some important lessons.  One of those is how the military holds some great lessons for leadership.

The military as a learning laboratory for leadership?  The notion is not so far-fetched.  In my interviews with officers who served in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps (2009) and who later transitioned into civilian leadership roles in business I noticed some common themes that went far beyond admirable traits or desirable leadership characteristics.

The military does an excellent job of training and reinforcing leadership in its combat officers.  This is done through recurring education, through reinforcing good disciplines of decision-making, by job rotation and merit-based job promotions, and through reinforcing a culture of honor, sacrifice and service.   William Cohen writes about these in A Class with Drucker (2008).  Together these make a powerful combination for solid leadership development.  The military does not often get the very best raw talent to join their ranks, but their system of rigorous development allows them to produce a disproportional share of the strongest leaders in any sector of society (whether business, education, politics, healthcare, social service or entertainment).

How do they do it?  If you have had experience as a military officer this will all be familiar.  For the rest of us I’ll share a few points.

First, the military takes training seriously.  They operate on two basic assumptions  The harder you train, the better you’ll perform; and everyone carries some degree of leadership responsibility.  Anyone involved in sports understands and agrees with the first assumption.  If you want to perform well and consistently win, you have to train hard.  Businesses today hardly train their people for leadership, either formally or informally.  It creates a huge gap when real leadership is needed.  The second assumption in the military, that everyone has some degree of leadership responsibility, arises from the realities of battlefield situations.  Combat is very fluid; leaders can be killed, injured or taken out of commission in other ways.  Every soldier has to be ready to assume greater responsibility and leadership without notice when the situation changes.  In most businesses today the owner or CEO may wish that every employee was more responsible, or thought like an owner, but the ethos and expectation of leadership is missing from most organizations except at the top.

Second, jobs or roles are assigned based on merit and rigorous review.  The military is a meritocracy, which means the decision to “hire” and promote is primarily based on merit and demonstrated competence, not on personality contests or other forms of fundamentally unfair competition.  There are ongoing performance reviews and counseling, promotion boards, and practices designed to ensure that there is a rich pool of leadership talent to draw from at the higher levels.  If only more companies were so lucky…

Third, the military has a rich and meaningful culture of leadership that sets high standards for honor, character and service.  Individuals don’t always live up to those standards, but through discipline and tradition the standards are not negotiated down.  Culture is articulated and maintained by the leaders of any organization;  morale is an indicator of the health and condition of the culture at any given time.  On both counts the military pays a lot of attention to how well its leaders embody the culture and maintain high morale through example.  Good businesses that are run in a disciplined way do the same.

The best-kept leadership secrets really are out in the open.  The military is certainly not perfect, and even the practices I’ve talked about are not implemented with uniform equality.  However, if you compare them in design and in execution with any other leadership program, you’ll find it difficult to come up with a close second-place contender.

What are your thoughts and experiences with these leadership practices?

‘The Irrational Side of Change Management’

Let people write their own story

Employees are what they think and believe in

Yesterday  John Mack, Chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley told his shareholders that he has to pay employees well to keep top talent and grow the business, but he doesn’t see the ability to sustain that into the future.  The average bonus paid per employee in 2008 at Morgan Stanley was $143,000.  They have seen this as the cost of attracting top talent to the firm. 

The problem is that this is expensive and difficult to sustain, especially for huge companies the size of Morgan Stanley.  Mack referred to a phone call he had with a hedge fund manager who told him:  “I can hire anyone from you (Morgan Stanley) or Goldman Sachs…”, to which Mr. Mack had no real answer.  The chairman and CEO of a Fortune 100 company admits that he has no real clue about how to keep top talent when faced with an extension of his own strategy, which amounts to a bidding war. 

Here’s an idea:  pay people fairly for their talent, but don’t try to flatter their egos with excessive money.  That attracts the wrong kind of people.  Instead, focus on developing a team of people who embrace deeply what the company is about and are trained or equipped to deliver on that core mission.  Developing top talent is not really a money game unless you have deep pockets and are looking for mercenaries; it’s actually a discipline that top managers pursue and hone over time to produce sustainable results.

I found it interesting that Goldman Sachs wanted to quickly return some of the government money it took last fall, partly so they would not be limited by government meddling in their compensation/bonus policies.  CEO Lloyd Blankfein knows that Goldman’s business model is based on generous financial rewards to top performers.  Other investment banks have said compensation caps will cause a flight of top talent.  Maybe multi-million dollar compensation only buys temporary rather than enduring loyalty.   They don’t call it a “money culture” without reason, and when the money isn’t flowing, the talent may not stick around.

Contrast that with the approach taken by Zappos.  The online retailer has quietly grown to $1billion in sales and in the process has built a culture that looks a lot like the exuberant workplaces of the dotcom era.  Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh has focused on building a culture devoted to customer service and employee engagement.  Zappos gives a lot of attention to recruitment and training-hallmarks of firms that are committed to truly developing top talent.  Employees have some degree of latitude in making sure customers are satisfied, and Zappos has a very high number of repeat customers and they are still growing, even in a serious economic downturn. 

Developing a culture and keeping top talent doesn’t happen automatically and it’s not something that is simply fixed with money.  Oh, if only it were that easy.  But it is doable and companies like Zappos are showing it may be one of the few paths to competitive and strategic distinction.

Mostly because of his ability to deal with people. 

What did Charles Schwab have to say about how he effectively dealt with people?

“I consider my ability to arouse enthusiasm among my people the greatest asset I possess, and the way to develop the best that is in a person is by appreciation and encouragement.”

“There is nothing else that so kills the ambitions of a person as criticisms from superiors.  I believe in giving a person incentive to work.  If I like anything, I am hearty in my approval and lavish in my praise.”

Related by Dale Carnegie from a personal conversation he had with Charles Schwab (How to Win Friends and Influence People)

If the words “museum” or “anthropology” turn you off, here is the “So what” in one paragraph.  A lot of important, even momentous, things happened in the Americas over the past several thousand years, but without a written history we don’t have a very good picture of what did happen.  That’s where anthropology comes in.  By studying what the various cultures left behind (pyramids, murals, calendars, cookware, weapons, food, human remains and more) and also by learning from the modern day inheritors of those cultures, we can get a much better picture and appreciation for all the accomplishments of the past.

What amazes me is the material accomplishments of people who built pyramids, massive stone sculptures, entire ceremonial cities and pilgrimage sites made of stone and yet they didn’t use the wheel or wheeled vehicles, didn’t have domesticated cattle or beasts of burden to do their work for them, who didn’t use steel or alloyed metals in their construction.

I’m also amazed by the social organization and coherence of groups that formed complex civilizations with specialized roles for different people.   Here are some examples:   Hunting and gathering food was not an individual affair-it was a cooperative group endeavor, and some were clearly better at tracking prey or spotting edibles in the wild, others at slaying the prey or avoiding poisonous plants, still others at preparing and utilizing all parts of the food for various community uses.   Cultivating food and agriculture were momentous breakthroughs that brought many benefits to a social group.  In the Americas maize, beans and tubers (potatoes) were important crops that allowed many social groups to develop rich material and religious cultures.  Later civilizations like the Mexica, Mayan and Incan (to name a few) were rich and profuse in talented and specialized roles for its members.  These complex civilizations developed highly sophisticated mathematical, astronomical and calendar systems as well as elaborate religious systems and architectural sites that people are still eager to visit today.

As a final note, each trip I make to Central and South America reminds me of the riches and talent that are still very much in evidence.  It is not simply a feature of the past, but there is a living link and a vibrant display of talent all around this region.  It is a shame that the political order throughout Latin America over the last several hundred years has not allowed for the full development of the rich human talent that you can find there.

I won’t go into all the background here about aikido (*see the footnote below if you’re interested).  Since we don’t have competitions or tournaments in aikido, testing (and the training that leads up to that) is one of the times when we are able to assess what we have learned and how much more there is to learn.  Besides demonstrating specific techniques that are called out early on, the last part of the test involves multiple attackers coming at you from all directions and you have to effectively deal with each attack without injuring yourself or anyone else.  It is a true test of poise under pressure.

What does this have to do with talent?  Aikido emphasizes constant development over time through practice.  You learn about your own fears and limits and abilities by practicing with many different partners of different ability levels.    Since I’ve been practicing for over 10 years, I’ve seen a lot of people come through the various dojos where I’ve studied.  Some people are naturally gifted.  Others clearly are not.  Both benefit greatly through regular practice. 

It is the same with talent in organizations.  Some people are more talented than others, but if there is no real contest then there is nothing to prove.  The emphasis can shift from competitive ”games” and politics to learning and development.  We are all on a path, we will all face a test and the real question is how will you perform under pressure?   I believe that organizations whose cultures resemble a dojo more than an alley are going to do a much better job of attracting and retaining the right kind of talent to be truly competitive and productive over time.  What do you think?

*aikido is a Japanese martial art that emphasizes a non-violent and peaceful resolution of conflict; it’s also a rigorous practice that works on multiple levels-physically, emotionally, spiritually-depending on what a practitioner is looking for.  For more information you can google “aikido” and finds lots of information (and lots of misinformation) on the web.  I recommend you watch a class or demonstration if you ever get the chance.

From the employee side, there is a natural concern about fairness and favoritism; will Talent Management (TM) be administered fairly and give everyone an equal chance to succeed?  Will it be a cover for leaders who are championing/grooming/promoting their own favorites?

Also, most TM efforts or programs have some kind of measurement included with them.  Some of those include personal profiles or talent assessments.  Some people have a natural fear about how those will be viewed or used by management.  Other measurements are more tied to performance management or productivity or contribution to the company.  Some employees don’t like the additional scrutiny that comes with measurement–period.

Honestly, a lot of “talent management” efforts are really HR-sponsored drives that are modest in their goals/design and don’t have real staying power.  Employees have a legitimate right to question if TM is a “flavor of the year” hobby that will be eventually abandoned in 12-24 months.  That often seems to be what happens unless management is fully committed to it and is willing to make it a robust, long-lasting change in how the organization thinks about and practices talent management.

Of course, I encourage leaders who are committed to developing top talent to exercise some empathy and think first about how their efforts are going to be received by employees.  It can avoid a lot of pain and waste later on.