All entries for Sunday 20 March 2016
March 20, 2016
We always think that leaders must be risk-takers, embracing changes and dare to challenge the old practices. However, the best leaders in any field tend to be conscientious.They aren't impulsive and are remarkably capable of self-control, even when temptations are high. However, risk-taking and conscientious do not necessarily contradict. Embracing changes doesnt mean to proceed without considering consequences.
But it does implie a mismatch of what people actually value in leaders and what they shouldvalue. The psychologist Tim Judge found out that disagreeable people—those who are more likely to be self-centered and confrontational —have a higher probability of becoming leaders. More agreeable people—who are empathetic, altruistic, and sociable—tend to make better leaders, but are less frequently chosen to lead. This interesting result shows that the qualities of effective leadership are not in line with leaders choicen. Why do we tend to choose the wrong people to lead? The main reason might lead to the rule and criteria of selection and promotion. If we want to choose the real effective leaders, we need to change the rules of the game first.
It reminds of me the previous blog about talkers and listeners. In one of in-module exercise, Paul said each group was identified a strong leader by an independant person but none of us have realized that we had a leader. I kept asking myself how was the leader identified and where the perception came from. By identifying the ones talk the most while others listen? or the ones always try to persuade others with their own ideas? or the ones facilitate the conversation? There might be possibility that leaders do not talk much but are able to make the most sensible decision considering inputs from all the team members. So why and from where he identified the leaders?
Leaders are talkers or listeners? yes you are right, it should be both and depands on situations. But in reality, how many managers even try to listen and how many of them just pretend to listen? I am sure the result wont be surprising.
When CEO Alan Mulally arrived at Ford, he used a technique he had refined at Boeing. He found a way to instantly shift the senior executives from talkers to listeners by changing the way he evaluated his team’s performance. He said"when you give a speech you will be assess by audience" and those executives who were smart enough to leave lots of time for Q & A got better grades than those who lectured. And those managers who encouraged a dialogue with the team came out on top.
Great leaders with excellent management skills encourage input and change, and the best way to measure them is based on feedback they get from their best people. People usually give the best scores to leaders you trust and to leaders who listen. If it come down to motivation again, what does employee want? recoganition, time or money? The answer should be VISIBILITY - something to remind them that they are valued and the most basic one is that they are listened.