Leadership Starts From Within

By Dr. Richard Norris

The global recession, directly or indirectly, will impact leadership - yours, your market, your competition, your region and, yes, your nation. Why?

Because leadership is ubiquitous. It is all around us. It is of primary importance. Yet, it is seemingly underserved, undervalued and under resourced. Need some proof?

According to the Development Dimensions International 's Global Leadership Forecast 2008/09 (1) from research of 1493 HR professionals and 12,208 business leaders across 76 countries: 

• 75% of business leaders identified that improving or leveraging of leadership talent was their #1 priority.
• Only 41% of business leaders are satisfied with the help they get to develop leadership capabilities.
• One of the core needs within organizations is to create a sustainable supply of quality leaders.
• The primary skill shortfall amongst organizations is in leadership skills and interpersonal skills.

Leadership is a leaking bucket. All organizations, large and small, from the family to local sport team to government to the boardroom of a leading global company, will at some time need to replace leaders. This arises from necessity and/or from natural attrition. From the information above, there is clearly a pervasive problem or, in a more positive tone, there is an opportunity - an opportunity to address this chronic shortcoming. How?

Start with yourself. Leadership starts from within.

Insights

Definition

To begin to explore this important distinction let's start by looking at the definition of leadership.According to the Oxford Dictionary leadership is the action of leading a group of people or an organization, or the ability to do this.

And...

To lead is to cause (a person or animal) to go with one by holding them by the hand, a halter, a rope, etc. while moving forward.

Leadership therefore requires influence, direction and action. However, for leadership to manifest so that others follow, it stands to reason that the leader, whoever or whatever that may be, must first influence themselves, give self-direction and act on that direction.

Chronic Question

There exists a perennial question about leadership - "Are leaders born or made?" or to rephrase it "Nature versus nurture".

Why does it need to be one or the other? Do you see many babies leading Fortune 500s or governments or the local sports team? Regardless of your opinion or perceptions one thing is for sure. Leadership is something into which you grow. Importantly, we are all born to lead ourselves at least!

In nature there must be reasonably synchronous growth regardless of the "ecosystem". Teenagers may experience growing pains when their bones are growing at a faster rate than their muscles. Our DNA is programmed so that eventually growth levels out and all systems are aligned and developed to their full design specification.

An individual promoted to a new role in an organization can experience a skill, attitude and/or ability gap compared to the new demands. To address the gap or deficit, the same individual must seek within first and begin the process of change there.

Admittedly, in organizations it is possible to experience growing pains too - sales and demand exceed the ability to supply and/or service the customer. Leadership must, therefore, develop within the organization to address the imbalance and ensure that harmony is restored.

What Does Google Have To Say?

As Google is the #1 search engine, it gives an impartial and objective perspective on leadership.

Just by typing in "leadership" yields 118 million results - sites, references etc. According to Google AdWords searches on the word "leadership" receives >4 million hits globally per month. Both of these facts suggest that leadership is a topic of significant interest and that there is a huge diversity of data, opinions, perceptions, models, styles, concepts and experts. The monthly searches also suggest there is a perpetual quest for answers, solutions and information on leadership.

Interestingly, when the global search is narrowed there are only: 

• 4400 hits per month for "successful leadership"
• 33,100 hits per months for "effective leadership" and
• 18,100 hits per month for "self-leadership".

It is interesting that, in the face of all the need out there for leadership, the refined search on successful and effective leadership globally produces comparatively so few hits. Why is that? Is there a global delusion that we just need to know more about leadership or just understand it better rather than define what it takes to make a good leader or even a great one or to establish a legacy of outstanding leadership?

People - Your Most Important Asset

The mantra that people are your most important asset is spoken around the world. Too bad the mantra is wrong.

People are not your most important asset - the right people are. And that is especially true for the right leaders. The right leaders will attract, inspire, develop and retain the right people. The right leaders will be intent on growing other leaders. The right leaders will start by growing themselves - from the inside out. They know that to be a great leader they have to establish their own strong foundation of principles, values and attitudes.

A skills-based approach to leadership, however, takes an outside-in approach. That is where many individuals, teams and organizations get it wrong and contribute significantly to the statistics of the Global Leadership Forecast 2008/9. A skills approach to leadership assumes that good foundations have been laid upon which to lay the skills. To outright ignore examining and establishing the right foundation is in place is a huge risk. Regrettably, whether assumptions have been made or the matter outright ignored, this often equates, effectively, to throwing skills on Teflon. The result is skills will not stick.

Applying the skills-based approach, consider a formula for success, here applied to leadership, as Be x Do = Have. Have = good right leadership. Do = skills. Be =? Without addressing the 'Be' it is no surprise that leadership is chronically found wanting. 

You get the people you deserve. It's your decision. For you to attract and lead better people you need to become the leader those people need and desire. That means you must invest in yourself first.

Where to Start

The majority of leaders should know and understand that people are the core building block of their team and/or organization. But to be an effective leader, you need to know the core building block of your people - their respective roles.

Many organizations just look at their people in their professional capacity. Whilst they may invest in their development and endeavour to lead them they often miss the mark. To ensure that your leadership "fits" and attracts the right people doing the right things to generate the right results, you need to ensure that you take into account all the roles each person comes to work with - within and outside the team or organization. This means you must address their personal roles outside of work e.g. parent, spouse, charity volunteer, team captain of local hockey team and coach of daughter's swim team (5 roles).

All of a person's roles show up at work. A leader is no different. They have as many if not more roles. The right leader will be addressing their growth and development in each role according to priorities and available "resources" (time, money etc.).

Self-leadership therefore begins by identifying core roles, prioritizing them, planning their development and then acting on the plan. To do all that it must begin from within.

Relationships

Interestingly, a leader will attract into their lives people and circumstances from which to learn and grow. Life is, after all, a mirror. The quality of your leadership is determined by the quality of your relationships.

There are two often quoted adages - love your neighbour as yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. These both stress the importance of meaningful relationships and emphasize that all relationships start with you.

So leadership starts with your relationship with yourself. To improve your relationships with others so that you can become a better leader, you need to improve your relationship with yourself first. Regrettably, this revelation is often overlooked and/or not given the attention it is due.

A Critical Ingredient

Any relationship starts with you. Leadership starts with you. Self-leadership (and any leadership for that matter), to be effective, is dependent on the ability to communicate well - internally and externally. There is plenty of focus on external communication. For example, throughout the school systems around the world there is an emphasis regarding training around the messages from our mouth and from our pen or keyboard. However, what has been sadly overlooked is the greater importance of our internal communication.

All communication starts as a thought before it is translated into words and messages. How many of us have allowed ourselves to "speak first and think later"? What was the result? In many instances it likely created some unwelcome ripples in your life and in your leadership.

We all have an internal voice - actually we have two - our internal ally or our internal adversary. Our ally is working for us. Our adversary is working against us. As a leader which voice is loudest most often or to which one do you listen to most? When the adversary prevails it is often because we are reacting to a situation or challenge. Self-leadership knows to proactively and consciously control the voice to which it listens.

With self-leadership our internal (and external) communication must be open, honest, clear, timely and, at times, radical. Integrity then flows from this. When our thoughts line up with our words our actions will follow in alignment. We are congruent. We walk the talk. When we do that people do what people see. Your self-leadership then flows into leadership.

Parting Questions

To help initiate your self-leadership here are some extremely helpful questions for you to consider: 

1. What is the detailed profile of the ideal leader for you, your team or your organization?
2. What are the foundations for self-leadership?
3. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how do you score on self-leadership?
4. In the event you did not score a 10 for #3 what do you need to be and/or do to improve your score to an 8+?
5. How do you encourage and develop self-leadership individually and/or as team or organization?
6. Where applicable, how will you integrate self-leadership into your existing leadership development?

Summary:

There is a global need for leadership - always will be. The important distinction is the need for great leadership. Great leaders lead themselves well first. But before they become great they know they have to grow into it. To do that means they must invest in themselves first and begin that by developing themselves from the inside out role by role. Ultimately, the quality of your leadership is determined by the quality of your relationships which are determined by the quality of your internal or self-communication.

Leadership brings change. Change is inevitable; growth is optional. To grow as a leader, whether as an individual, team or organization, you must therefore change. That change must begin with you. Leadership starts from within you.

References:

1. http://www.ddiworld.com/thoughtleadership/globalleadershipforecast2008.asp

Copyright 2011 Serendipity Global Ltd & Dr Richard Norris

Dr Richard Norris delivers global transformation through a focus on self-leadership delivered through coaching and speaking (although he prefers the term "messaging". He is the author of Hoof it! 7 Key Lessons on Your Journey of Success, an engaging parable, and a contributing author and editor in several business books and publications.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Dr._Richard_Norris/767038

Leadership Is More of a "Practice" Than a "Theory"

By Talan B Miller

Lessons from our recent Leadership Academies with clients.

Summary of article key points:

Leadership is more about practice than theory, even if theory can inform some relevant insights as part of a leadership development programme.

Leadership is a blend of art and science. Some leaders are born / pre-equipped better than others (nature), but intelligent training and development (nurture) can enhance virtually anyone's leadership capability.

Theories and models have a use, but only to underpin "practice" in leadership and real world outcomes.

Functional skills and previous performnace are no guarantees of future leadership capability.

You will only get the leadership qualities that you select and train for.

The cost of promoting without leadership skills and then desperately seeking to equip people with adequate leadership skills can be high in human and economic terms.

Well-designed internal leadership academies can help when they match enhanced leadership awareness and capability to actual business needs.

_______________________________________________________________

Main article:

For centuries much has been written about the "science" and the "art" of leadership.

Most of us have read and absorbed elements of this wisdom (and too often perhaps some of the come and go fads rather than wisdom). Many of us have subsequently pondered that age-old question about leadership; "are great leaders born, or are they made"?

Based on our experiences we have found that effective leadership capability tends to arise from a little of both in terms of settling that 'nature versus nurture' debate? Sabre's recent work on a number of high-level leadership academies (including one that was integral to the Coles turnaround) has confirmed that whilst there are many valid theories and models for the "science" of leadership, it's often the "art" of leadership that still evades adequate capture and definition.

Many businesses simply don't get it right, but it's reassuring to see those that do reap the positive rewards that flow so evidently from putting in the effort.

It is certain that nature does equip some people better than others in terms of their leadership traits (from a genetic, neurological and thence a behavioural perspective). There are those who just seem pre-loaded with healthy measures of IQ, charisma and also enough EQ to meld it all together in a way that gets their people to where they need to be.

Arguably though the honing of these skills that may at first glance seem to be gifted from "nature" can be attributed in at least part also to a degree of "nurture." For example, the development of complex neurological systems and patterns that drive much of our behavior (social systems of the brain, core belief patterns and embedded personality) can be traced to responses to external stimulus over the course of a lifetime.

It is however equally certain that proper approaches to 'nurture' can be used to raise the bar for virtually anyone who wishes to play the leadership game by enhancing awareness of their own strengths, areas of struggle and weakness as they manifest day to day.

Discipline is then required to act upon those insights of self-awareness to help cultivate better leadership capability for their own personal and professional circumstances.

One thing we often see is that being gifted in a particular functional skill or specialization, even to the point of genius, is no assurance that you can then lead a group of former peers in that field (or indeed any other).

Regular experiential "practice" of leadership comes into play as a valuable tool for enhancing the quotients of leadership talent that are gifted or acquired from our own recipe of nature and nurture. In the cut and thrust of day to day work life we don't always have adequate time to discern the true source of, and impact of our leadership and team role styles.

Current research and models from such emerging fields as neuroscience confirm some leadership theories and debunk others, and are often very useful in framing approaches and delivering ongoing insight. They are at the end of the day however just more tools for the toolbox, with leadership capability itself something that needs to be lived and developed day to day and powerfully linked to real world outcomes.

One of the clearest examples that I have observed was in the military when being selected for and subsequently entering into Army Officer training. Now whilst not all attributes of military leadership are relevant to commercial or non-military endeavours, it's safe to say that many are with respect to the human dynamics of leadership (particularly leading amidst complexity).

For Officer selection the emphasis was first and foremost upon personal leadership capability (and the potential to hone it further for a military environment). It was only much later after rigorous training in general military skills and leadership that relevant specialist streaming was done into various specializations and functional skills.

In commerce the reverse is often the case, where people are selected and promoted firstly with their "functional" skills and credibility strongly in mind (e.g. a great engineer, lawyer, stockbroker, salesman) with their leadership skills seldom given the same rigorous analysis as their functional results.

The Officer selection process was designed to reveal "leadership" potential first via a careful blend of psychometrics followed up with a host of mental and physical challenges that were rigorously observed by an experienced leadership selection panel. Their emphasis for selection was first upon core leadership traits exhibited under pressure, and the potential to polish those. 

It was only much later that the aptitude for possible functional roles was to be explored. Functional experience and past performance, whilst taken into account if it was present, was never taken as an assurance of future leadership capability.

In commerce the best and brightest performer in a functional sense may not be the best person to lead a team of their former peers (unless they have been equipped by nature and nurture to lead also). The skills for leadership often exist outside of our functional skills, and are deserving of attention.

The military naturally values both individual leadership capability, and functional proficiency in an Officer's chosen trade post graduation (e.g. Infantry, Armour, Artillery, Intelligence etc), but the term "General Service Officer" is used to describe Army Officers upon graduation, and is used to imply that it's the "Officer" bit (your designated status as a leader) that comes first, and any functional / technical proficiency that may come later is second.

So much so that in theory any General Service Officer can be moved to or seconded into to virtually any military role or command should it be required of them. Of course you won't get far, or get much respect form peers or subordinates if you don't have some credible functional capability also, but the foundation is first your personal "leadership brand" which can be transferred into almost any other challenge.

Again, the military doesn't always get it right, but there is much to be said for the "leadership first" approach given to seeking and honing "Leadership DNA" as part of the overall process of developing organisational leadership talent. This in tandem with functional capability is ideal. Both matter, but the "personal leadership capability" bit is often overlooked in commerce (or considered as a clear second to ticking all the boxes on functional results and skills).

We have all seen people who are highly adept specialists in their given field (e.g. engineer, lawyer, doctor, stockbroker, IT professional) given leadership roles after getting runs on the board functionally speaking, without necessarily coming equipped with the requisite inter-personal and leadership awareness to handle the "non-functional" challenges of leadership.

Even being a respected genius at your chosen trade, does not ensure that you may end up out of your depth when asked to lead a cohort of your former peers (unless you have the "leadership bit" sorted first)?

The low morale, high turnover, friction and inefficiencies that can arise from poorly lead dysfunctional teams costs a great deal in both personal and economic terms This is where teams that on paper may have fall the boxes ticked for functional brilliance with their professional skills, experience and qualifications can simply fail through poor leadership and poor teamwork.

In a military environment the price paid for this is often instant, but in business it' can be slower and more insidious, but the outcome is the same, your team takes casualties and loses.

The ideal package for a leader is perhaps having enough functional proficiency to establish credibility, whilst also ensuring that they have been given ample opportunity to properly explore and develop their own leadership capability before being advanced to lead others. There is thus far less chance of being caught out of their depth in the all-important "leadership bit".

So how can business get the balance right?

It is our assertion that businesses can 'cherry pick' from the very best of the military approach by carefully designing and delivering their own internal leadership academies to target existing and emerging leaders. This enables people to build and develop upon existing leadership skills within the critical context of what they actually need to do and deliver within the business.

Time taken "outside" of the business, but very much "about" the business can really pay off when leadership development is tailored to meet business needs.

We have been involved with several wonderful examples at Coles where senior leadership skillfully identified a need to design a series of highly tailored leadership academies for enhancing personal leadership capability. This is one of the few examples where we have seen a company achieve such a wonderful balance of leadership capability development wedded to real world needs and outcomes.

Coles recognized leadership capability development as a key factor in itself and that it was by "practicing" it in tandem with cutting edge theory that worked best. It was our privilege to be invited to work with Steve Robinson and Dr Malcolm McGregor who were brought in by the Boards of Coles and Wesfarmers to craft the overarching strategy for these approaches.

An enormous amount of design work was done to ensure that every aspect of the Academy would hone and develop each individual's leadership capability, but very much with the business in mind and putting valid personal insights immediately into practice.

The blending of theory and practice in facilitation was done very carefully to ensure constant linkages back to a leader's daily planning, interactions with their own teams and daily execution. The careful and intelligent exploration of personal leadership styles was matched to personal leadership plans and real world business scenarios. This was all within an environment that focused meaningfully upon people taking responsibility for and ownership of their own development and the impacts of their behavior (in both tailored simulations and shared real world case studies).

Participants were existing leaders within the business, and emerging leaders with high potential who were engaged in meaningful pre programme diagnostics followed by an intensive 7 day residential programme with targeted follow though, mentoring and coaching back into the business.

Theory was carefully linked to real world and business case studies were used throughout and the targeted experiential content was linked powerfully and intelligently to individual profiling and learning. Leadership was lived and "practiced" throughout.

All approaches used were of sufficient complexity and sophistication to meaningfully engage intelligent leaders (there certainly weren't any tacky reality TV show rip off team games or treasure hunts). This is very much along the lines of what most successful military academies embrace, and that is to take the time to properly select leaders then develop and hone personal leadership capability itself as a powerful enabler for better functional capability and success to follow.

Some well selected theory is fine, but at the end of the day it's all about putting it into practice.

This was reflected in the outcomes that ensued for the many alumni of this Coles academy, and the turnaround demonstrated by Coles as a company and as a brand.

Yes there is a price to pay in terms of taking key people outside of the 'day to day' business for a time, but it's important not to forget that ongoing development of leadership capability is still very much "about the business" when it's done well.

Investing in leadership capability in this way removes the "lucky dip" approach of selection primarily for a person's functional skills, then finding out all too late that real world productivity and lost opportunities has been caused by poor leadership that transfers into low performing teams.

Sabre is pleased to be able to continue working in this field with both Steve Robinson and Dr Malcolm McGregor in our own Leadership Academy formats that can be tailored and adapted to suit the needs of each client.

Talan Miller

Managing Director, Sabre Corporate Development

Sabre Corporate Development are premium level designers and facilitators for team and leadership development approaches world-wide. They have worked with major corporate, government, defence, sports and association clients since 1988.

See the websites at

http://www.TeamBuildingSabre.com.au and http://www.TeamRolesAustralia.com.au for more information.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Talan_B_Miller/1907234

Want to sound like a leader? Start by saying your name right | Laura Sic...

Start with the basics - get those right and then move forward.  Good luck.

What You Need to Know About Leadership

By Jason Taylor, Ph.D.

Executive Summary

Since the inception of business, organizations have searched for clues to help identify and select successful leaders. They have searched for men and women of vision with that rare combination of traits that help them serve as motivator, business driver, and authority figure. The concept of leadership has been widely observed and frequently studied, but a thorough understanding of what defines successful leadership has always remained just out of reach.

I wanted to find the answer(s) to the age-old question, "What makes a great leader?" After studying the behavioral attributes of thousands of business leaders, the resulting data could reveal commonalities that define strong leadership. What similar patterns or behaviors might possibly be found over and over again? By forming a concise "leadership recipe," the never-ending search for quality leaders could finally be simplified to a standardized set of characteristics that might help predict successful leadership in any organization. But could science and behavioral psychology be successfully applied to extract these leadership "revelations" from the data?

I centered my investigation on 30 behavioral leadership models that were used across 24 unique companies encompassing 4,512 business leaders from all performance levels. These companies included several from the Fortune 500 list. Each of the 30 leadership models was analyzed to identify the most common behaviors that differentiate higher-performing leaders from low-performing leaders. The findings compiled from this data set revealed new evidence that must serve as a foundational piece of every leadership hiring or training endeavor.

Expectations of the Study

Leadership is a concept that is difficult to capture. You know it when you see it, but it is difficult to quantify. The components of leadership are often examined and observed, but the ability to predict successful leadership has thus far avoided the confines of a repeatable recipe. Many approaches have been used in an attempt to document commonalities among successful leaders, but only with mixed results at best. Taking a new approach to the issue, I set out to study the behavioral characteristics of successful leaders in comparison to leaders of lower performance levels. The two main objectives of this study were:

• To identify the three most important behaviors that are predictive of leadership performance.
• To identify the level or degree of the three most common behaviors that are predictive of leadership performance.

Behavioral Leadership Models

Before discussing the study findings, it is important to lay the groundwork of this study using the behavioral leadership model. The behavioral leadership model is the cornerstone to this research study since it is designed to capture the behavioral preferences of successful leaders currently working in the position. Essentially, the behavioral leadership model captures the unique combination of behaviors that predicts success. Each unique model was created using the same methodology, but the customization was made possible by using performance data related to a specific position. To create a behavioral leadership model, each organization used the following three-step process.

Define Success-Traditionally, leadership success is determined by education, experience, potential, or other non-performance related measures. For this study, success was determined by actual performance on the job. We want to better understand the behaviors of the real leaders who produce results on a daily basis.

To keep the study focused on leadership productivity, each company defined success based on their business practices, and their leaders were evaluated on their ability to produce the desired business results. Those who did not produce the desired outcomes were considered ineffective leaders while others who produced the desired results were considered successful leaders. Each organization utilized specific performance data captured from those leaders actively engaged in the leadership role. The types of performance data collected ranged from subjective data (i.e., performance evaluations, soft achievement ratings, etc.) to objective data (i.e., store sales, percent to plan, profit metrics, etc.).

Use a Behavioral Assessment-The objective in this step is to capture the behavioral preferences of each leader (across all levels of success). The leaders in each organization were assessed using a behavioral assessment tool that measured 38 core behaviors. The 38 behaviors provided insight into the deeper motivations and preferences of each leader.

Build a Leadership Model-To create the leadership model, the behavioral assessment data was combined with the performance data for each leadership role. The result was a behavioral depiction of successful leadership across 38 behaviors. The leadership model determined how important each dimension was when compared to all 38 behaviors. Understanding the importance provides insight into the comparative ability of each behavior in predicting leadership performance. Equally as important is the degree in which the dimension needs to exist (ex: "high" Attention to Detail, "medium" Assertiveness, or "low" Insight into Others). The degree of a behavior will greatly affect leadership in terms of productivity, communication, and many other leadership activities.

Each leadership model was constructed in the same manner. The specific combination of dimensions (both importance and degree) was a reflection of current performance data from active leaders in the role. The models were customized to capture the true essence of leadership as it exists on the job and as it relates specifically to daily performance or contribution to the organization.

Behavioral Leadership Study

For this study, leadership roles were analyzed across 30 leadership models using the behavioral and performance data of 4,512 business leaders. For each role, a unique leadership model was created to assemble the strongest predictors of leadership according to behavioral preferences as they relate to actual quantified performance on the job. The process included comparing each of the 30 leadership models in a search for common behaviors predictive of leadership success (also considering the importance and degree). The study was based on the following parameters:

• There were (n = 24) companies represented, some with multi-billion-dollar annual revenues, across (n = 10) industries: Medical, Grocery, Retail, Financial, Restaurant, Hotel, Food Service, Property Management, Industrial, and Customer Service.
• Successful leadership was defined as a consistent and quantified achievement of current business objectives as designated by the organization. For example, in situations where the organization defined leadership success as achieving a higher "percent to plan," good performance was reflected through a consistent and strong production of high "percent to plan" numbers.
• The average tenure for the (n = 4,512) leaders with varying performance levels was 2,242 days (over six years).
• For descriptive purposes, leadership roles were banded according to range of responsibility. For this study sample, Level 1 leaders, or 36.67%, are responsible for a small direct group of employees. Level 2, or 56.67% of the sample, are responsible for a location, site, store, or entire office. Level 3, or 6.67%, were responsible for a region, multiple sites, multiple stores, multiple locations, or multiple offices.

Leadership Study Findings

Importance-Most Frequently Occurring Behaviors

Over the course of the study, each of the 30 leadership models was analyzed and the top ten "most predictive" behaviors were recorded and compared. The objective was to use the top ten behaviors across the 30 models as the method to capture the most predictive behaviors.

The next step was to identify the three most common behaviors (out of the top ten) across the 30 leadership models. The focus was limited to the top three most common behaviors to provide a more concise view of successful leadership. By identifying the three most frequently occurring behaviors, insights would be gained into the three most important behaviors that predict leadership success across a wide variety of leadership roles in a wide variety of industries. The data showed some surprising results: 

• Interestingly, all 38 behavioral dimensions were represented somewhere within the lists of top ten behaviors across the 30 leadership models.
• Least Important Behaviors-There were two behaviors that were consistently the lowest in importance. Reflective (deep thinking and/or the ability to anticipate long-term outcomes) and Team Orientation (desire to work with groups) had the lowest frequency, occurring in just 10.00% of the models.
• Most Important Behavior-Across all 30 of the leadership models, Energy appeared in the top ten more than any other behavior (14 out of 30, or 46.67%) among all the leadership models. The mere presence of Energy in the behavioral model did not indicate the degree most suitable for the position, only that it played an important role in the overall behavioral equation for successful leadership.
• Second-Most Important Behavior-The dimension of Competitive Fierceness appeared in 13 out of 30, or 43.33%, of the top ten lists of the leadership models studied. Some successful leaders may be more competitive while others prefer a supportive environment. As with Energy, Competitive Fierceness was found to be a primary part of many behavioral models in varying degrees.
• Third-Most Important Behavior-Acceptance of Authority appeared in 12 out of 30, or 40.00%, of the top ten lists of the leadership models studied. Whether these 12 behavioral models required a high, medium, or low degree of this dimension required further study (see the following section).

There were 38 behavioral characteristics studied across the 30 leadership models. The objective was to find the most predictive or most frequently occurring behaviors that drive successful leadership. The research data revealed that Energy, Competitive Fierceness, and Acceptance of Authority appeared in the top ten lists most frequently. The most predictive or most frequently occurring behaviors provide the avenue to further explore the degree or amount of each behavior needed to predict leadership success for each of these three behaviors.

Challenging Leadership Assumptions

Based on the three most important or predictive leadership behaviors (Energy, Competitive Fierceness, and Acceptance of Authority), assumptions can be formed based on common (natural) perceptions of successful leadership. It is a common practice to assume that successful leaders exhibit a strong relation to, or very high degree of, a particular behavior. For the purpose of this study, I examined the varying degrees required to be successful across each of these three important behaviors.

Assumption #1 - Leaders must be "high energy" to be successful.

Energy was considered the most predictive (or most frequently occurring) behavior in 14 of 30, or 46.67%, of the leadership models.

• 21% of the models required below average Energy levels

• 37% of the models required average Energy levels

• 21% of the models required an above average Energy level

• 21% of the models required high Energy levels

• 0% of the models required an extremely high level of Energy

Although the majority of the leadership models required an above average amount of Energy, there were no models that required extraordinary levels of Energy.

Assumption #2 - Successful leaders must be highly competitive to be successful.

Competitive Fierceness was a top ten behavior in 13 of 30, or 43.33%, of the leadership models studied.

• 23% of the models required a more Supportive approach

• 39% of the models required a balance between being supportive and competitive

• 38% of the models required a more competitive approach

• 0% of the models required a high level of Competitive Fierceness

• 0% of the models required an extremely high level of Competitive Fierceness

The majority of the leadership models required an average to slightly above average level of Competitive Fierceness. None of the leadership models required a high or extremely high level of Competitive Fierceness.

Assumption #3 - Successful leaders need a more rebellious nature to be a high performer.

According to the data studied, Acceptance of Authority was considered one of the most predictive behaviors in 12 of 30, or 40.00%, of the leadership models.

• 42% of the models required a more rebellious approach

• 41% of the models required a balance between accepting authority and being rebellious

• 17% of the models required a more Acceptance of Authority approach

• 0% of the models required a high level of Acceptance of Authority

• 0% of the models required an extremely high level of Acceptance of Authority

According to the data studied, 84% of the leadership models required a below average or average level of Acceptance of Authority. None of the leadership models required a high or extremely high level of Acceptance of Authority.

Conclusions Drawn from the Study

Data Point #1-All 38 behaviors play a role in successful leadership. It is important to point out that across the leadership models studied, all 38 behaviors appeared in the top ten of at least two or more of the leadership models. The entire group of 38 behaviors was present and accounted for in identifying successful leadership. This helps us to better understand the need to view each behavior as potentially valuable.

Conclusion-there were no behaviors that could be ignored or excluded from the recipe for successful leadership.

Data Point #2-Successful leadership behaviors are situational. Even the most common or frequently occurring leadership behavior showed up in less than 50% of the models. Stated another way, slightly more than half of the 30 leadership models did not consider Energy (the most frequently occurring behavior) as an important differentiator in identifying successful leadership. The data does not support the notion of a universal or "off-the-shelf" behavioral leadership model that will predict successful leadership.

Conclusion-there was no cut-and-dried combination of behaviors that predicted successful leadership (not even some of the time).

Data Point #3-Most leadership roles required higher than average levels of Energy, but not as high as you might think. Only 21% of the leadership models required high levels of Energy and none of the leadership models required extremely high levels of Energy.

By definition, a high level of Energy is often manifested through lots of activity, but the negative byproduct is hyperactivity, waste, and inefficiency. Practically, an above average level of Energy translates to the leader's ability to keep a group of people focused and moving at the proper pace and in the proper direction without the frustration of hyperactivity. From the follower's perspective, it is important to understand the implications of a sporadic or over-reactive leadership style (extremely high Energy). Think of how frustrating it is to do something and then redo it "just to stay busy" or doing busy work just "because the boss can't sit still." Associates perceive this style as scattered, confusing, and they struggle to find success and fulfillment under such a leadership style. Over time, credibility and respect can be lost, leaving this type of leader ineffective.

Conclusion-The most successful leaders possess above average amounts of energy, but not too much!

Data Point #4-Great leaders are competitive, but they also understand the importance of being supportive. According to the data, 23% of the leadership models required a more supportive approach to leading others. Combined with the 39% of leadership models that required a balanced approach, these findings provide helpful insights to the task of understanding strong leadership. Intuitively, the concept of balancing support with competition makes leadership sense. Leaders must know when competition is appropriate and when being supportive of those around them is more valuable than competing. Think of it as healthy competition-knowing when to turn the competitive juices on and when to turn them off. Without a firm grasp of this concept, overly competitive leaders may alienate those around them and create toxic environments.

Conclusion-A balance of respect for authority and rebelliousness is a common predictor of successful leadership.

Data Point #5-This we know to be true: successful leaders tend to challenge conventional structure and rules. In fact, 42% of the leadership models required a more rebellious approach to leadership. Many organizations rely on their leaders to challenge the current structure and methods that have been historically successful (or unsuccessful, as the case may be). Strong leaders often have an eye for creating positive change that removes stumbling blocks to success.

However, do not go overboard and think that your next leadership hire must behave like James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause." Keep in mind that 41% of the leadership models required a balance between following authority and challenging the establishment. Not to be forgotten, another 17% of the leadership models required leaders to accept and embrace the structure around them. The practical reality is that successful leaders know how to "choose their battles." Sometimes being a rebel is productive and provides the necessary change, but that must be balanced with the recognition of situations where one must accept the current structure and operate within it.

Conclusion-Successful leaders often have a "rebellious streak" that leads them to challenge the current structure and methods, but they choose their battles wisely.

Summary of Findings

Remember the original question: "What makes a great leader?" Contrary to preconceived notions of what we might expect the answers to be-for example, all successful leaders must be high-energy and extremely competitive while battling the powers-that-be at every opportunity-what I found was not nearly so clear-cut. In fact, successful leaders were scattered all over the behavioral board, ranging from a below average degree of one behavior to a high degree of another.

What do these findings tell you about your organization? Everyone is different, and every leadership behavioral model will vary from company to company. Any so-called "Leadership Model" that offers a one-size-fits-all solution is most likely a failure waiting to happen. As proven in the data for over 4,500 leaders, your leadership staff is very different than the one at the company across the street. As a matter of fact, there is ample documentation of extreme differences between leadership preferences in groups working together within the same organization.

What is the solution to identifying and hiring successful leaders for your team? Learn your organization's strongest leadership traits that translate into success on the job. To accomplish this task manually, look to your own executive and managerial team for clues as to the behaviors that help leaders succeed. A thorough understanding of their job function, productivity expectations, and behavior will provide insight into what makes one person more effective than another in a particular role.

There is an easier way to determine the perfect leadership recipe for your organization across multiple behavioral dimensions. The "automated" method is to use a good behavioral assessment to measure the behaviors of your incumbent leaders. In approximately 30 minutes-the time it takes to complete a validated, reliable behavioral assessment-you could have access to a behavioral profile for every assessed leader in the company. From this data, a profile of a successful leader can be generated and used to duplicate your current crop of successful leaders through better hiring decisions. In addition to bringing more successful leaders on board, behavioral profiles provide content for an employee development program that will drive higher productivity for years to come.

Dr. Jason E. Taylor is the Chief Science Officer at PeopleAnswers Inc. He is a leader in the field of talent assessments in business. Since receiving his Ph.D. from Texas A&M University, Dr. Taylor has pioneered the development of several assessment technologies since the late 1990s. He is an active member of the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Society of Industrial Organizational Psychology (SIOP). Visit the PeopleAnswers site at http://www.peopleanswers.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/expert/Jason_Taylor,_Ph.D./315017

How great leaders inspire action | Simon Sinek

Fantastic TED talk - put these ideas into action this week!