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.

We also have to guard against mistaking our measurements and our models with the whole picture.  There’s always more than what we can see or measure, and we need to avoid wearing self-made blinders.  It’s in the hidden spaces that wild and chaotic forces lurk.

Peter Bernstein was a remarkable example of intellectual humility and having a healthy respect for risk and uncertainty.  He warned us about trying to quantify the unquantifiable. I remember reading his bestseller Against the Gods in 1996 and gaining a deeper grasp of risk, hazard and management in the process.  We lost Peter last week at the age of 90, but he left behind some sound advice for the rest of us.

In my work with companies I urge them to set up measurement systems, or to better use the data and measurements they already have at hand.  These can be remarkably useful for making better decisions and keeping a lively inquiry that challenges lazy thinking or sloppy habits.

And I also see much value in heeding G.K. Chesterton’s advice:

“The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor that it is a reasonable  one.  The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite.  Life is not an illogicality, yet is is a trap for logicians.  It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait.”

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.

For those of you intently focused on developing your top talent I recommend the following resource as a guide.  It tells you where to look for inspiration, original ideas, the great thinkers.

Tom Butler-Bowdon has put together 50 Classics of Success, Self-Help, Spirituality, Psychology and now Prosperity.  That’s 250 books total…

though there is a fair bit of mixing in the categories.  There are spiritual books in the self-help category, success and prosperity books in the spiritual category–you get the idea.  Also, while most of the books reviewed are worthy of mention, not all are equally good.  Some are truly classics and must be read; others are optional, and it’s enough just to be aware they are out there.

Go check it out yourself at butler-bowdon.com     And let me know in a comment which book or author you learned about that you hadn’t heard of before!

Leadership can be expressed on many different levels, and each field of leadership has its requisite skills and competencies.  The five fields of leadership are:

1. Personal Mastery:  Self-Awareness, Vision, Integrity and Self-Control

2. Interpersonal Skill:  Empathy, Influence, Communication, and Contribution

3. Thought Leadership: Observation, Analysis, Learning/Integration, and Sharing

4. Group Endeavor: Organization, Meeting Discipline, Execution, Collaboration and Teambuilding

5. Systemic Leadership: Vision for Future, Organizational Design, Culture and Values, Strategy and Transformation