The 2 Most Critical Leadership Traits

According to Cuddy, Kohut and Neffinger in their article "Connect, Then Lead" in HBR July-Aug 2013, two personal characteristics or traits have proved to be most critical in leadership: Strength and Warmth.

One should focus first on warmth before strength, but it is best to combine the 2 characteristics because they can reinforce each other: warmth creates personal strength which helps to be more open and less intimidated, while strength can create the projection of authenticity and warmth.

The 2 traits reminded me of the Managerial Grid of Blake and Mouton, who in their classic behavioral leadership model distinguished between the concern for people and the concern for production, which could and should also be combined (hence the "grid").

Interestingly Cuddy, Kohut and Neffinger mention 3 ways of projecting warmth as a leader:

1. Finding the right level

2. Validate feelings

3. Smile sincerely

... as well 3 ways to project strength for leaders:

1. Feeling confident

2. Standing up straight

3. Have yourself in control.

You can go here to find more detail on what are the most important leadership characteristics.
Sometimes it's amazing how obvious new insights from management science are, don't you think?

CEO Succession

In 2006, Hay Group surveyed executives at more than 150 companies around the world about CEO succession. To avoid a succession crisis in case of an unplanned CEO or other top executive situation, boards of companies in the most admired group:

• Are more likely than their peers to plan long term for CEO succession.
• Have a stronger preference for internal candidates.
• Are more likely to receive regular updates on potential candidates for potential top leadership positions.
• Are more frequently given information and metrics related to human capital management.

(Source: Business Week, Eur ed., March 26, 2007, no. 5)

CEO Counseling

If you are a management consultant or if you are currently working with one, the article from David A. Nadler in this month´s Harvard Business Review is a brilliant read. It is not very often that you see this kind of best practices being shared in the open.

But then Mr. Nadler is Chairman and CEO of Mercer Delta Consulting, and has over 25 years of high-level management consultancy experience, so he has plenty to share. And that is showing. His article is truly packed with gold nuggets.

Nadler differentiates between 6 dilemma's in 2 groups that makes CEO counseling so hard, but also so interesting to do:
A. Organizational and Political:

1. The Loyalty Dilemma. Is the advisor ultimately responsible to the CEO who hired him or to the company that pays the fees?
2. The Communication Dilemma. How much and what kind of information should the management consultant convey between employees and the CEO?
3. The Assessment Dilemma. Should the CEO counselor share his opinions about individual employees?

B. Relationships and Emotional Maturity of the Advisor:

1. The Overidentification Dilemma. The advisor must ensure he immerses himself in the view of his client, without making it his own.
2. The Ego Dilemma. An advisor should avoid to be known or perceived as the man behind the curtain, although this may be tempting sometimes.
3. The Friendship Dilemma. Can and should a management consultant become friends with her client?

One example of a nugget that keeps going through my mind is the remark: "My job is helping my client see the entire puzzle, not rushing upstairs every time I discover a stray piece".

I found it interesting the author refers to all of these complexities as "Dilemma's". I believe actually "Paradoxes" would be the better terminology. If you face a dilemma, you have to choose out of two opposite options. When you are dealing with a paradox, you must try to reconcile two seemingly contradicting options.

Anyway, I highly recommend to read the entire article to any management consultant, whether you are advising CEO's or haven't quite made it (yet) to this level ;-).

No more heroes?

A Dutch newspaper writes that the times of the almighty and heroic CEOs are over. After the many accounting scandals and failed acquisitions much more attention is being given to the optimal length a CEO must stay 'in charge'.
One experience that's clearly evolved in the mean time is that the longer a CEO rules, the bigger the chance becomes he makes mistakes.
What are typical warning signs that the Chief Executive Officer is loosing it? Here's the top-10 list.

1. Attends society events too often
2. Talks a lot in public about higher purposes in life
3. Is not happy with his rewards and keeps complaining about it
4. Continuously replaces senior executives
5. Accepts many side responsibilities
6. Changes his wife for a younger girlfriend
7. Is longing for a grand finale, such as a major acquisition
8. Refuses to make succession plans
9. Continuously wants to be in the spotlights
10. Surrounds himself with mediocre yes-men.

Multiple and combined occurrences of these 10 are particularly worrisome and you are well advised to sell your stocks as soon as possible.

What do you think, is this a typical Dutch story (never like people who stand out anyway) or is the heroic CEO coming to a global end? Drop a comment!

Should Wolfowitz become leader of World Bank?

The United States has nominated Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to be the next president of the World Bank.
The current president, James Wolfensohn, is due to leave the development body on 1 June, as his second five-year term comes to an end.
The bank traditionally has had a US chief while its sister body, the International Monetary Fund, is usually headed by a European.
But Mr Wolfowitz is a controversial choice, with a reputation as a leading hawk and a leading architect of US policy in Iraq.

Some of the most intesting comments on Wolfowitz' nomination are:

• Perhaps now the World Bank will be controlled to direct aid towards the vested interests of Bush & Co. Will we see large amounts of WB aid for the development of Iraq (i.e. the US multinationals profiting from the war and paying kickbacks to Bush)?
  Vivek, Corvallis, US
• Coupled with Under-Secretary of State John Bolton's recent appointment as UN Ambassador, the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz as the next president of the World Bank represents the latest assault by the Bush administration on the efficacy of the core institutions of the international system. As an American citizen I am appalled by the Bush administration's blatant contempt for international law and disregard for the sanctity of human life.
  Emile Durette, Oakland, CA, USA
• At the World Bank, it makes no difference whether Jesus or Mahatma Gandhi were the president for nothing would change. I think President's Bush selection of Paul Wolfowitz is the worst we could have hoped for. It is most infertile and repugnant as it can ever be.
  John Sagala, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
• A horrible choice, but typical. I hope the Europeans can block this bit of stupidity.
  JC, USA
• The right man, the right time, at the right job. God bless this man.
  Donald Boone, Ahoskie, USA
• The nomination of Paul Wolfowitz to a position which has global power and influence seems to be another attempt of the United States to extend its power to rubber stamp any move it makes.
  Hans Lukiman, Melbourne
• He will lead it for the USA's interest as they all do.
  Al, Essex
• Please, Europeans, stop the Bush machine and veto this misguided choice. We need to turn the tide on the hawks in power in the US, who are spreading their tunnel vision to the rest of the world.
  Ellen, Mill Valley, USA
• Wolfowitz is a bad choice. The World Bank needs the obvious - a respected international banker - not a narrow minded ideologue who will manipulate the World Bank's capital to promote a neo-con political agenda. He will bring to the World Bank the same sort of myopic world vision that has created the Iraq war disaster.
  Jim A, Phoenix, USA

More comments on Wolfowitz nomination.

Changing Course not a bad Sign of Leadership?

In a list of possible breakthrough ideas for 2005 in the Harvard Business Review, the number 1 spot is taken by "Flipping without Flopping".
In the 2004 US presedential campaign "flip-flop" was a dirty word. Particularly in times of crisis or opportunity, we expect our leaders to take swift, sure action and then remain steadfast.
According to Professor Kramer, great leaders understand that changing course is sometimes the best thing to do. And changing one's mind does not signal an inability to lead, but rather an ability to learn.
I would argue though that knowing and showing the right direction for the organization is one of the elements that distinguish a true leader from managers. Any human is allowed to make an erroneous judgement now and then, but being wrong about the strategy or course the organization should take is a mistake a true leader will never make.

Peter Drucker on leading large corporations

The grandfather of management gurus has spoken one more time: be sure you don't miss the interview with the now 95 year old (!) Peter Drucker in Forbes on leading large corporations. Good stuff to help you think about your coming targets for 2005. It's a bit speaking in commonplaces, but hey: this is Drucker...
In the article, Drucker says successful leaders:

1. Make sure that things that make a difference get done, whether by themselves or by somebody else;
2. Check their performance against previously defined goals;
3. Are mission / purpose driven and say no to things that don't contribute;
4. Know early when to stop trying doing something that can't be done;
5. Organize their travel, leveraging new technology where possible;
6. Have a maximum of two organizational goals at the same time;
7. Make sure the people around them understand their priorities;
8. Build on their strengths and find strong people to do the other necessary tasks.

Read the rest of the article here.

Bestselling Leadership Books

Corporate Leadership Development

Douglas Ready says companies must nowadays synchronize the actions of business units and the goals of the enterprise as a whole more tightly than ever. As a result corporations need people capable of running business units AND who can focus on broader corporate goals at the same time (HBR Dec04).

However developing corporate leaders is far from easy. As soon as a company becomes large enough to offer multiple lines of business in various regions, it begins to face tensions regarding how to go to market, who has primary accountability for which customers, and how to factor revenue and profitability into performance measurement.

Growing corporate leaders takes a sustained effort, Business Unit - Enterprise tensions are quite real. Mr. Ready provides the following advice on how corporate leadershop development can be organized and how the tensions can be dealt with:

• Air the tensions by communicating extensively about the tensions in the form of leadership dialogues, leaders exchanges, task forces. Aknowledge the tensions exist and open them up for discussion, practice how to deal with them)
• Cross-fertilizing talent across unit boundaries (Executive job rotation)
• Targeting rewards to shape performance (use both economic rewards and noneconomic rewards, such as rewards in the form of prestigious roles or placement in the task force)

Just enough L.

Henry Mintzberg argues in HBR of November 2004 that in many companies there exists a cult of L. that is dragging business down. These companies embrace the notion of the single, isolated leader who is supposed to charge heroically ahead, formulating the grand strategies, making the tough decisions, pulling off the great mergers, while downsizing left and right.

That is not to say Mintzberg does not recognize the importance of being engaged. Leaders engage others by, above all, engaging themselves. But he says leaders should care a lot more than they cure, connect a lot more than they control, and demonstrate a lot more than they decide. He calls this "Just enough L." or appropriate L., supporting the direction setting of others. A participative L. style.

I believe many modern CEO's will sympathize towards Mintzberg's thinking of moving a bit more to the democratic side of the L. continuum. However a complication Mintzberg does not mention in his short article is that mass media and certain shareholder groups may push leaders into unwanted heroic L. roles. Leaders should consider once they give in to this, even in a specific situation, it might be difficult to assume a democratic role in other circumstances. Heroic L. works like Opium of the People.