Page 1 Page 2
Dr. Earl R. Smith II
Managing Partner, The Federal Circle
DrSmith@Dr-Smith.com
Dr-Smith.com
A common weakness of almost all management theories is that they are an essentially static conception of a dynamic process. As such they cultivate ignorance rather than enlightenment and promote failure rather than success.
A couple of years ago I began a coaching engagement with a CEO of an emerging company. As with all similar efforts it began with a search for one or two starting points – tactical issues – that we could initially focus on. But, it quickly became apparent that there was a large elephant in the room – one issue which seemed to overshadow all the others.
“I don’t know what it takes to lead. And I don’t know if I have the experience and wisdom to lead the team that we are forming. My company is growing faster than I am. I feel like I’m being left behind – becoming less and less relevant.”
This person had assembled a team and built a small but growing business. Their annual revenues had finally moved above a million dollars. That alone would seem an indication of the team’s success and a validation of the company’s value proposition. The business was moving out of the garage stage. Their client base was expanding. Things had finally started to look better after a long hard slog. But growing pains were emerging everywhere. And some of them were precursors of potentially very destructive problems.
The early stages of the company’s growth were dominated by a group of people who were heavily involved in the technology that was at the root of the company’s value proposition. But now the founders found themselves increasingly consumed by the problems of running and resourcing a business and out of touch with the latest technology developments. The expansion of the management team was producing cliques.
Original team members were increasingly coming up against problems that they lacked the skill set for and had no experience solving. New team members seemed to be expecting a more professional corporate culture than they found once on board and had little passion for the sense of family that had defined the earlier stages. The business development team looked more like an afterthought – an add-on – and seemed, in some ways, to be a whole other organization.
In the early days it was enough that the founder had a good idea and was passionate about the business, was a good salesman, great at making contacts and reliably getting business through the front door. It also helped that he could roll up his sleeves and deliver quality work to a satisfied client. But the first rush of growth was now in the past and things had started to deteriorate. The role the CEO had historically played left huge patches uncovered. Critical needs in the management area were taking time away from keeping current on the latest technology developments. The CEO was no longer the top technology ace in the stable.
There were challenges in these new areas that seemed intractable. Problems could no longer easily be diagnosed and solutions were much more difficult to devise and implement. Resourcing was a much more complicated matter and ‘getting it wrong’ was much more expensive. Simply said, there wasn’t a process in place, any structure, any management, any data, and often insufficient records to allow him and his team to deal with them.
Taken together these growing pains and new challenges threatened to limit or block the company’s growth. And the CEO, at first frustrated, was now becoming frightened that it was all going to fall apart despite his best efforts.
“I have assembled all these very talented people but I cannot seem to get them to work as a team and execute our corporate vision.”
I had reservations about starting with such a complex set of issues. This is pretty heavy lifting for a first focus of a coaching engagement. The CEO’s apparently simple statement rested on top of a complex and interrelated set of problems. Here are just some of the issues that came to mind. The first was, of course, “What does it mean to lead?” The second was, “How does the process of evolving and promulgating a corporate vision have to change as a company grows?” The third focused on the question “How do you integrate increasingly diverse backgrounds and expectations into a rapidly growing team?” Another set of questions revolved around “What do I as a CEO have to become to effectively manage this new team?” And those were just some of the big issues! I suggested that we start with a more manageable focus. But the CEO was insistent that we start where his pain was the strongest. And so we headed for the mountain!
Over the following months I introduced a number of concepts that we eventually integrated into a holistic response to the core questions. The CEO undertook a heroic, and I say with some pride a successful, effort at changing his own behavior, ideas about leadership and understanding of how teams grow and work effectively. I am convinced that, without this work, the company would have languished and then declined – eventually going out of business. But the actual story is far brighter and the success far sweeter because of the concerted efforts that went into making the telling differences. The chronicles of our journey would fill a book. Here are just two examples of what we came up with:[1]
Re-envision yourself and your company: In some very important ways your company is like your child – and children grow up and, in the process, change. As much as you might, during nostalgic moments, like your teenager to have the needs and responses that they had when they were a five year old, treating them like a five year old is a sure recipe for disaster. At sixteen they need different things from you and, as a good parent, you need to make sure that they get them. It is much the same with your company.
In the early stages it needed you, as a founder, to be an invincible jack of all trades – a worker among a team of other workers who were laboring in support of its future – in many ways a leader among a group of relative contemporaries. Like the three year old it needed a god that is omnipotent – one that is always looking out for its interest and protecting it from the bad guys. As its father or mother you set the rules and made all the major (and sometimes minor) decisions. The company’s needs were modest and you could provide them out of your own understanding, knowledge and emotional resources.
But as the company grew it needed you to become more and more a manager who can bring in all sorts of talent and resources – and organize and manage them effectively. There is a reversal of the ‘provider’ roles. Your company is well on its way to becoming a better generator of economic benefits to a wider range of people than you could ever be. Much like a teenager develops their own taste in clothing and music, your company develops a culture that is different, and often radically different, than the one you tried to give it at birth.
Maybe another ‘family’ parable will help you see what I’m getting at. When you were single you got to determine pretty much everything about your life. Once you got married or into a ‘significant other’ relationship, things got a bit more complicated. Once you had two or three children and they started to grow into teenagers, things got completely out of hand. Your family took on a character that was neither you nor the sum of its members. It became a thing unto itself with its own characteristics, quirks and appetites.
So the challenge of growing a company into its teens is really a double one. Much like the parent relating to a child, you need to see to your own development while supporting the growth of your company. The two are connected in a vital way and, should they get out of phase, dysfunction is almost guaranteed.
Your first step is learning to be an effective parent of a teenager who is eager to become a young adult – then an adult in their own right. If you are going to be the person that facilitates this perilous journey, you must see to your own intellectual and emotional growth. Central to this process is developing a new understanding of what your company has become and is becoming. It is not the five year old that you had become comfortable with. There is rebelliousness about it and an urge for growth and exploration that was completely alien to the youngster. There is a drive for dominance and an aversion to being dominated. You must come to see it as it is – not as you wish it to be. You can no longer tell it was it is – you must let it tell you what it wants to become. You can no longer tell it what it needs – you must let it tell you what it needs.
Beyond that you must develop the skills and understandings necessary to play an increasingly supporting role effectively. Your role as ‘god of the tribe’ is coming to an end. You need to come to see your company, its value proposition and needs, in an entirely new way. You must pay attention to what your teenager is becoming on the way to adulthood. And if you don’t give it what it needs … well ever had a frustrated teenager in the house?
Your company must traverse the storms and shoals of adolescence on the way to adulthood. As it does you will need to become less a father and more an advisor – you will have to become less a setter of the rules and more subject to them. There will be team members who know far better than you what is appropriate and effective in a particular situation. You need to give them the lead and follow that lead with the rest.
A company on a steep growth curve – like a teenager in the midst of full hormonal flush – needs parenting that has matured and adapted. As a CEO you cannot tolerate poor performance – either from yourself or from others. You need to raise your standards and expectations. You can no longer accept performance at prior levels.
The company is becoming potent in its own right and, as a result, can do more significant damage if it responds without discipline and careful training. Set the standards for performance and you will get what you accept. I saw a company die overnight because it lost its major source of business principally because the CEO could not bring herself to insist on a higher level of proposal development and review. The client, expecting a more professional proposal, was disappointed and went elsewhere. The company lost its base and reduced staff by 80% within the course of two months. It is no longer in business.
Page 1 Page 2
37 Responses to “Charting the Course – Crossing the Boundary”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Alan S. Michaels wrote:
Maybe.
(Because Leaders need to also manage others….. And because Managers should know how to lead …. It’s easy to use the terms interchangeably – although usually Leaders are also viewed as energetic visionaries ready.)
Thanks for the comment Alan. I have had a lot of responses to this idea and article but one thing is always missing in them – a leader has to be able to produce. Most approached to the question cast leadership as a passive or supervisory function. My experience is that great leaders are always the strongest horse in the team. Do you think that most people are confusing leaders with managers? Dr. Smith
Alan S. Michaels wrote:
Hello Earl,
You’re a great story-teller; it’s fun to learn from your stories.
I agree with you that the leadership skills required of a start-up are very different from the leadership skills required of a company experiencing growth (needing repeatable processes / professional standards, etc.).
Connie, Thanks for the comment. I am not sure about the implied continuum of management to leadership. The idea seems logical but I have found that leadership is something different from the ability to manage. One of the major differences comes when you focus on the source of direction. Managers get their orders from within the organization while leaders tend to adopt strategies focused on moving onto new ground – they take their orders from a situational awareness and a vision of the way forward. What do you think? Is there a sharp difference between managers and leaders or are they different parts of the same idea? Earl
Connie Tsui-Burchfield wrote:
Dear Dr Smith,
Thanks for sharing your stories and insights. In fact, clients that I met often ran into ‘low leadership, high management’ (growing company) or ‘high leadership, low management’ (startup) problems. As I attend John Kotter’s class last week, we were once again being reminded to move people from high management to high leadership in critical times. In your case, probably your diagnosis is right … management is desperately in need to guide people and put things in order. It’s time for your client to take this opportunity to grow even bigger! Connie
Richard, I have noticed that much of the focus on ‘leadership’ among the organizations I work with is actually on ‘management’. I suspect that large organizations tend to blur the distinction and opt for the safe ‘manager’. What do you think? Earl
Dr Richard Norris wrote:
Good Day Dr Smith!
Evidence inidates that your elephant in the room is a herd spread acorss the corporate and non-corporate world. 75% of more than 17,000 executives surveyed across 72 countries said their #1 need in their organizations is leadership development (see Global Leadership Forecast 2008/9). With that kind of majority why did it take a survey to unearth it…the elephants are breeding…globally!
Be Awesome!
Richard
Tony Bradshaw wrote:
I’ll try to take a look at this later. We’re a rapidly growing company experiencing some typical growth pains.
Mayank Chauhan wrote:
The article is absolutely great. I really appreciate and love the knowledge that comes out in what has been written.
Great comments – thanks Shan and Jeyaseelan.I have had a lot of responses to this idea and article but one thing is always missing in them – a leader has to be able to produce. Most approached to the question cast leadership as a passive or supervisory function. My experience is that great leaders are always the strongest horse in the team. Do you think that most people are confusing leaders with managers? Earl
Jeyaseelan J wrote:
I find your ideas very practical, particularly the concept of advisory boards. My company is yet to reach that transition stage. I guess every founder would pass through this stage. Opening your company to outsiders is a big challenge.
It is even a bigger challenge to find other professionals whom you can trust with your baby. I guess it is not good idea to look for baby sitters. I guess, till the child reaches adulthood, one can use external schooling but cannot rely on baby sitters.
Timing I guess is very important. Taking your own analogy further, the marriage has to take place when the child is ready to take on the world. Perhaps very late marriages might not be also a good idea.
Shan Saeed wrote:
Strategic thinker, people’s man and ability to get others to follow him/her with integrity, visionary and above all disciplined approach…….
These traits are very important for CEO………Since I want to be a CEO that is why I went to one of the top schools in USA, i.e. Uni. of Chicago
Mike Buck wrote:
Dr. Smith,
Yes, not only are they confusing the two (2) attributes, they don’t know when to put the right hat on. Many times they are the strongest horse on the team but the great ones know how to influence and not demand actions from the team. Thanks for listening.
Menino Lima wrote:
Dr Smith, I read your article. I think it was a quick stealthy insight into what ‘leadership’ is all about in the practical sense.
Mike, thanks for the comment. I have had experience with this recidivist tendency and agree with you that it is always a possibility. I have had a lot of responses to this idea and article but one thing is always missing in them – a leader has to be able to produce. Most approached to the question cast leadership as a passive or supervisory function. My experience is that great leaders are always the strongest horse in the team. Do you think that most people are confusing leaders with managers? Dr. Smith
Mike Buck wrote:
Dr, Smith,
In reading your article it is obvious to me the CEO was struggling with what I’ve found that many leaders struggle with and that is when to be a manager and when to be a leader. During times of change requires a leader to develop the vision and a manager to develop the plan and then impliment the plan, Both skills lie within each of us however one skill is always dominent. When a leader/manager faces difficult times and situations the dominent skill always takes over. It was stated by someone that if you did not give an individual any leadership training and thrust them into a leadership role, when they reached the first difficult situation there leadership style would revert back to how the home they grew up in as a child was handled. In short, to be successful you must know when to manage and when to lead and you must not have a monolithical leadership style. The leader must display the appropreiate leadership style for the situation. If they can do that, they will have no problem getting the team to follow.
Thanks for listening.
Michael, Good comment. My take is that good leaders lead by example. The best CEOs are ones who out-produce everybody else on the team – particularly when it comes to business development and sales. The worst ones see themselves as ‘principals’ who ‘supervise and guide’ the team. One of my early test questions for a CEO is ‘what is your role in the company’? If they go on and on about ‘visionary’ and ‘founder’, I know I am in for a hard slog. If they start with the business they are working to bring in or expand, I settle in and go to work. The most pathetic example of the latter is the stream of e-mails I get from ‘idea men’ who have a great product – not – and are looking for somebody to turn it into a company and make them rich. Leadership is, above all, about doing and implementing – not through minions but in the lead as the baddest dog in the pack. Earl
Michael Scott wrote:
I think people confuse management with leadership most of the time. I think we beleive that someone who is an effective manager equates to a leader. This belief is perpetuated until the system breaks down and the “supposed leaders” feel powerless to do anything to effect the cause. The true leaders either break the system, modify the fundamentals or create a new system to produce the results.
Leaders do not fix, they embrace the struggle.
Anthony Etherton wrote:
I felt It went without saying that the objective of leading is to lead ‘people’, ideas, philosophies etc to a goal. So I didn’t say it.
Cheers
Ants
Anthony, Thanks for the comment. I have had a lot of responses to this idea and article but one thing is always missing in them – a leader has to be able to produce. Most approached to the question cast leadership as a passive or supervisory function. My experience is that great leaders are always the strongest horse in the team. Do you think that most people are confusing leaders with managers? Earl
Anthony Etherton wrote:
No1: The ability to be contagious all day, every day.
No 2: As above
No 3 through 5: The ability to consciously create the impact you choose
No 6 through 10: All the above… until you’re cold on a slab, and then some
Ants
Arnold van der Beek wrote:
Earl and Ray, I agree that managers and leaders are more than often confused. As manager you are appointed, as leader you are called for by acclamation of the organisation. So many can assume the position of a manager, but few are really regarded as a leader.
Those who are elected in a position where leadership is demanded are always challenged to proof their leadership. Only when regarded and acclaimed as a leader they have succeeded.
If not, their leadership is their dream. They can enjoy the dream, but they will fail to be effective.
There are many (including CEO’s) who reduce the leadership position to a manager quality. Likely they compensate by resting upon the power of the position, by exercising control instruments, by getting lieutenants in crucial positions (the yes-guys), by disengaging from the feel with the organisation (the people) and by enlarging their ego(centric) manifestation.
Yes, I believe leaders always produce and are always the strongest in the team. However true leaders are careful in selecting the areas where and when they excel. They stand for vision and mission, for showing direction and holding on to the beliefs of their program. This applies to all levels where leadership is needed!
For me Self-Leadership is crucial to leadership. This refers to the last sentence of Ray.
When we could reach all people one will be surprised about the Leadership qualities people have within themselves, without being aware. Very often you have the silently acclaimed leader in teams, being not the manager. Raising, education and submitting to the expected is holding people away from who they really are and can be. It does not mean that all who have achieved their Self-Leadership need to go for leadership positions, but they certainly can offer Personal Leadership and become contributors in leading. Modern organisation will have to look at this if they want to make a step into the future.
Regards / Arnold
Ray McTier wrote:
Hi Earl,
Many confuse managers and leaders.
Yes a leader must be able to produce, and yes in ways they must be the strongest on the team.
A leader however, does not have to be the one producing, or the subject matter expert. A leader must know what they don’t know, and know where and when to engage resources that can provide the necessary support.
Just as the dtrength does not have to be overt, a leader does not have to be loud, beating their own chest, or even the managerin a corporate situation.
If you examine teams within business, it is rare to find the administrative person (manager) is actually the “Leader” of the team.
Regards,
Ray McTier
Arnold, Thanks for eh comment. I have had a lot of responses to this idea and article but one thing is always missing in them – a leader has to be able to produce. Most approached to the question cast leadership as a passive or supervisory function. My experience is that great leaders are always the strongest horse in the team. Do you think that most people are confusing leaders with managers? Earl
Arnold van der Beek wrote:
Hi Earl,
Enjoyed the article, feeling the passion and the experiential journey.
I think that key to your article is the ‘re-envision yourselves’!
Once the leader understand, knows how to do this and is able to follow… no better directing his/her personal growth, he/she will also understand that re-envisioning is valid too for the co-workers in the company.
A conscious leader does not look at the organisation, but at the people forming the organisation. One will find the co-workers to contribute their best and to co-create the direction the company has to take.
Holistic Leadership is not a one person’s show, but the collaborate consciousness.
Jamil, Thanks for he comment. I have had a lot of responses to this idea and article but one thing is always missing in them – a leader has to be able to produce. Most approached to the question cast leadership as a passive or supervisory function. My experience is that great leaders are always the strongest horse in the team. Do you think that most people are confusing leaders with managers? Earl
Jamil Abdo wrote:
Leader is who can fell and understand the diference between people and convince them to go to the same way. All of them will follow and respect it if they are sure where they are going and why.
David, thanks for the comment – good insight. I often find myself in exactly the role you describe. Mostly this occurs when I am called in by either the Board of Directors or the investors. Leadership can foster a culture of ignoring issues. It is often left to me to bring them to center stage. Once this is done, the real work begins – including a reworking of the corporate culture.. Earl
David Sanders wrote:
I feel the most important idea in your article is the one regarding being honest about issues and dealing with them. I find that management teams need a bit of tension to be most effective. Management teams that tend to agree with one another or do not discuss issue, tend to not be as successful as they could be.
Victori Paige wrote:
What it Takes to Lead… I have enjoyed the brief comments on your work. Your work addresses many issues in being an effective leader. I wish had know of your work many years ago in my corporate leadership roles and subsequent entrepreneurial pursuits. I am interested to see if you have an youth component or program. I have a leadership and career development program for youth. Perhaps we can incorporate some tools at the high school level. I would love to have a conversation with you at your convenience. Hope to hear from you soon. Victory teemm.pr@live.com
Denis Campbell wrote:
We seem to have a view of leaders as military heroes riding in front of their troops on a white charger. Jim Collins (mentioned elsewhere) has demonstrated that in the best performing companies over time the leader is “humble” and maintains a low profile.
Daniel Goleman, with great Emotional Intelligence, has suggested 6 leadership styles all underpinned by different emotional intelligences.
Your article was interesting because it highlights both issues – the stereotype leader and the changing requirements from a leader through time.
A good leader is one who is sensitive to these changing needs and adapts his style accordingly.
But in all circumstances the key element of the role is to to be responsible for the strategy of the organization and ensure its communication and understanding.
The strategy is not a dictat but the result of participative consultation and feedback from the organization. Those dealing with the customers probably know more about the market than the leader for example.
The better the strategy is understood and people feel they have contributed to it the more empowered the human resources in the organization will be. All of their energy and competence will be directed to teh achievement of he agreed goals rather than politicking or sabotage.
If you cannot get a clear understanding of a businesses values and strategy by talking to its managers then there is de facto a leadership problem. If they all paint you the same clear picture then the business is well lead.
So to be a leader one needs to be able to admit one does not know it all and be able to spend a lot of time listening to employees and customers. Its a job for a humble person above all.
Keith Johnson wrote:
HI,
I enjoyed the article – thanks for sharing it.
There was a poignant part of your article that I thought really highlights the issues with a number of leaders these days – ‘There will be team members who know far better than you what is appropriate and effective in a particular situation. You need to give them the lead and follow that lead with the rest.’
A number of leaders seem to think that because I lead, I need to stay the lead and know everything. They end up causing more damage than good by not utilising the resource around them. I myself learnt that I do not know everything and cannot know everything. Thus there are times when as a leader I need to step back and support someone else with the knowledge and ability. This instills trust and respect within the team and the questions and doubts over leadership (either by the leader or the team) quickly evaporate.
My personal opinion and experience is that leaders are about the people and managers are about the task. The leader is not always the strongest in terms of personality or knowledge. A strong leader is someone who recognises the situation and moves the people to meet it. They can then bring in their management expertise to reach the task goals. The management of a team and leadership of a team I believe complement each other but are separate entities.
This is based on my opinion and experiences. Again – I enjoyed the article.
Thanks
KJ
Amit Dharia, Ph.D. wrote:
Good article ! It is not easy to stay steady in blowing winds or standing against wall of air. Only leaders have firmness to stand still on shifting sand and keep marching forward.
Leaders remember, where they come from and where they are going – well before others call/recognize them as “leaders”. (Jesus never claimed to be a leader but he lead by example). Leaders not only know but accept their strengths as well as limitations. They have unweavering faith in their principles and mission. Gandhi – a great Indian leader- started his work well before he came to India and much before people call him Mahatma (Great Soul). He was an ordinary man with extra-ordinary ability to listen to call of his people. His steadfast practice of principles brought British to their knees. We have a proverb – The world will bow at your feet and follow you blindly – only if you are ready to lead.
It is sad that we promote and accept too many in leadership positions before they are ready ! In turn, these so called “leaders” have ruined our institutes, industries, and youth. No wonder, we are often disappointed. Followers choose leaders, leaders don’t choose followers.
Chip Nickolett wrote:
Nice article, it was a good read.
I’ve personally seen a few problems that IMO have more to do with the skills and personality of the person in charge than the size of the organization. There are really good leaders at organizations of all size, just as there are really bad leaders at organizations of all size. The one thing in common is that most feel they are doing a good job.
Traits that I’ve seen in common with good leaders include:
- Having a strong vision of who the company is and where it is going.
- Good team builders, especially with the executive team. People perform or are replaced.
- Honest, have integrity, and lead by example.
- Are good storytellers. They make it easy for people to understand and buy-into whatever they are “selling,” whether than is a change in approach to business, entry into a new market, or addressing a current event or problem. They make it tangible for their employees, who in turn can turn around and tell that story to customers and prospects.
- Really understand the business they are in. They benchmark themselves with their competition and don’t make excuses when they or their company fall short.
- They actively solicit input and feedback. You never know where the next great idea is going to come from, so they look beyond their inner circle.
- They are driven by results (not just activity). In order to achieve those results they empower their employees to do what needs to be done, give them tools and assistance, and then hold them accountable. This implies that the leader has trust in their team and confidence in themselves.
The more of these positive attributes that you see in the head of an organization, the more likely it is that they are a true leader. Without leadership and direction most companies will drift into mediocrity (or worse). So, when things aren’t going well the first thing that a good leader does is look at himself/herself and ask, “What could I be doing better?” Someone who is not a good or true leader always looks for excuses (history, the economy, competition, past investment choices, etc.)
It helps when a leader is charismatic, but if people trust and admire that leader, and believe in the vision or cause, then they can really make a positive impact to their organization.
Regarding your clarification, in a start-up situation I agree completely – the President / CEO / Founder should be the person leading the charge, teaching and developing his team using hands-on examples, and directly contributing to the bottom line. The problem that many of these people have is distancing themselves from the day-to-day hands-on work, and focus on growing the business.
When I had my company I realized that we would never scale with me being one of the top producer / contributors, so I started “buying back my time.” I would make a point of not being billable for a day, two days, or more, knowing that it would impact our short-term profitability. But, I used this time to document, automate, train, and create the beginnings of our “consulting system.” That helped us scale and allowed the business to run without me. I would also focus on sales and marketing during this time to increase our visibility and pipeline. For a small business it is an important step towards growth.
But, for a mid-size or larger company I disagree. The leader of the organization needs to create the vision, fuel the passion, and become an enabler of success. This is by no means passive. This person doesn’t sit behind their desk, create edicts, and then expect miracles to happen. This person is actively involved with all aspects of business – both for their own understanding (i.e., does this make sense?) and to ensure consistency between the various groups (i.e., are we all working towards the same goal?)
The last thing I want a CEO of a mid-size or larger organization doing is writing code, making regular sales calls, or doing other things that are best done by specialists within their organization. The CEO can be brought-in for impact or used to open doors, but the special nature of their position needs to be understood so that it can be fully leveraged (e.g., making his/her visit an event with special expectations around it). The CEO should be doing much more high-level, strategic work to ensure the growth and success of their organization. And, those types of activities show themselves more through ongoing results than day-to-day “sightings.”
Chip
“I’m dropping hat out of my head.” (Cyrano De Bergerac).
Dr.Smith, there is almost nothing to add – except small observation from real live. The Leadership is a talent man either has or has not. Nothing in between (wrong PR for your business therefore let me to “correct it”). You can teach (lead, coach, mentor, “manage”, advice) CEO, CFO and other honchos how to act and they will more /less follow your guidance. They will do it by hard – by definition of guidelines. Based on my experience, unfortunately, in critical situation they will act as BOSS (not as a Leaders). In my opinion, this fact is partially source of current crisis. Leaders did not led their people correctly – they failed into panic. Using my B2B (back-to-basic) approach & attitude, crisis is product of bad (unfortunately many times arrogant & aggressive career seekers) people in wrong positions. Tangible asset (houses, money…) did not disappear. Courage of middle management has gone – as they did not have anybody to lead them to keep heads up.
My advice to CEO who is using your leadership would be – find right leader (not need to be from your profession but need to be able to LEAD the others) and lock him with you. Funny is – money is not the best glue even when bosses assume so. Leaders could bring people beyond their imaginations (and will deliver unexpected results). Bad leader will empty the office in several weeks irrespective of crisis. People leave people, not a company.
Last, but not least we should mentioned it is important not only to be Leader and / or act as Leader. Important is to pass this capabilities to others in a way, they will be able to use it.
Have a nice day
Peter
Dr. Smith,
This is an excellent article. After years of running a company, languishing and ultimately failing, due to many of the the factors you address in this article, I can attest to the importance of the mentor concept because I have become such a mentor for many of my current clients. I now help troubled companies to shore up their operations, as we work to obtain the financing for them that will give them the opportunity to survive, grow and prosper in a challenging economic environment.
75% of these clients are referred by bankers, who are unable to approve the loan requests of the people they are referring. Having been there and done that, as regards the struggle to become the leader my company needed and having learned the hard way that without solid, third party objective influence, it is impossible to become all that one needs to be to lead a growing company, I thoroughly endose the mentor- business advisory approach you have so eloquently desribed in your article.
Chales N. Harris
Gateway Business Growth Advisors, LLC
Options Lending Group, LLC
414-510-1888 (Cell)
I find your ideas very practical, particularly the concept of advisory boards. My company is yet to reach that transition stage. I guess every founder would pass through this stage. Opening your company to outsiders is a big challenge.
It is even a bigger challenge to find other professionals whom you can trust with your baby. I guess it is not good idea to look for baby sitters. I guess, till the child reaches adulthood, one can use external schooling but cannot rely on baby sitters.
Timing I guess is very important. Taking your own analogy further, the marriage has to take place when the child is ready to take on the world. Perhaps very late marriages might not be also a good idea.