Is Your Organization Globally Competitive?

Managers who have been shaped and developed within a mentoring environment are handicap, as their views distort the perception of leadership. Traditional forms of development like mentoring shape managers, not leaders in the image of their predecessor. This type of development quagmire a company's performance, freezing the competitive strategy and back-dating results to the original date of strategic inception. Many managers adopt behaviors that appear on surface, as successful, when in reality they prove obsolete and counterproductive with today's workforce. As current managers, choose successors from a mentoring pool of "likeables personalities" competition among potential leaders is thwarted, leaving miniature copies of past business ideology for replacements. Missing within this group of chosen few, like chapters from human development, are the improvements brought on by failure and a coalesce of diverse cultural creativity.

When we speak of competition within industries, most people would conclude that we are referring to a set of products or services, and would fail to realize forces at work that enable competitive advantages. Intellectual resources embodied in human capital form the innovative aspirations, provide the vision to forecast beyond the here and now, and personify the mission for the organization. Often, this most valued resource is neglected by a time-lapsed decline in material support, a lack of development or an incapacity to appropriately lead.

Traditional forms of management are obsolete in today's global environment, as they are absent of the principle leadership qualities that equip aspiring leaders of those behaviors that are indicative of team success. As organizational leaders, cling to old forms of development like "mentoring" the competitive landscape for most industries decline. The natural consequences of reduced or substandard competition is a slowing of innovation, declining profits and workforce reshuffling, as the overall skill-sets change due to retraining. When the competitive landscape changes as the adaptiveness of an organization is called into question, can we then check our leadership strategy?

Leading From A Smaller Chair!

Over the years, we've become familiar with the typical conference room setting of Corporate America where there sits a "whale of a conference table" end-capped by one or two, high leather chairs and flanked by a series of substantially smaller chairs. For those of us who have attended a corporate meeting, we have observed and at times, participated in the shuffling of positions where hierarchy has often been closely monitored by those whose professionalism is defined by their authority. During these occasions, we experience traditional corporate symbolism in it's finest form where definitively and demonstratively, leaders exact their positions of authority for subordinates to align behaviors in accordance. Powerful are these images for first-time managers, especially as veteran colleagues wisper advice on corporate etiquette while they smudgily greenhorn your reputation to cohorts. Considering the effort to produce this orchestrated display of authority, how much if any can be attributed to higher productivity? How effective is symbolism in gaining admiration from subordinates and does it contribute to improved workplace efficiency?

Times are changing, as younger generations show immunity to figures of authority and desire almost immediate access to positions of authority. In contrast, many mid-career professionals only aspire to have enough authority to lend credence to their "qualified" opinions. Faced with the ever increasing complexity of employee behavior, leadership has been forced to capitulate on traditional forms of organizational behavior. As symbolic gestures that perpetuate authority prove ineffective, leaders are finding it advantageous to allow for greater team independence, create more opportunity for freelance work, and streamline pathways to leadership. This is done to accomodate the demands of future leaders, tomorrows innovators freshly graduated from most colleges or B-schools. Forgotten in the equation are mid-career professionals who often opt-out of executive-level positions in favor of mid-level management positions as workplace balance outweigh career goals. These seasoned professionals understand the importance of the individual contributor and are satisfied with possessing enough "juice" or authority to remain effective, and a credible professional. To them, leading from a smaller chair offers significant reward as there are fewer headaches than from assuming the overall responsibility of an organization which is typically a never-ending proposition.

"The Double-Standard of Leadership in Professional Sports."

If the most recent NBA free agency issues surrounding Lebron James, Bosh and Wade have taught us anything, it's probably that ownership and the fans exploit the concept of loyalty, more than players. Owners have historically dismantled teams for purposes of rebuilding, traded players just in time to receive maximum value for declining skills or performed "equal trades" for the purpose of a roster upgrade. Fans have waged media wars against unproductive and "selfish" players often applying pressure to ownership in hopes of forcing a trade. The ability of either of these groups to invoke change within their respective clubs has been championed by society, as a generally accepted practice and a plausible way to rid one's franchise from an "unloyal," money-hungry player or "a cancer in the locker room." Enabled by the overwhelmingly negative perception of being "all about the money," players were typically forced to comply with demands as ownership and fans leveraged heavily on this option during contract negotiation.

Up until recently, the prevailing strategy to win in the NBA called for a substantial roster upgrade where ownership or team leadership, represented by the GM or President of operations would utilize several mechanisms to acquire top talent. Specifically, team leadership would assemble the best available talent through free agency, the draft or trade that fit an adopted coaching scheme where player skill-sets would be matched to the existing skills of key players for enhanced play. Historically, only a couple of teams (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls & Spurs) have displayed the capacity to assemble talented players and the consistent desire to win at all costs. Outside of this list, the other 26 teams have rarely, if ever attempted or been successful in implementing a strategy to win; leaving us to conclude that they show a disinterest in winning, or a incapacity/ineptness in managing a professional club towards a championship banner or are only interested in profits.

In constrast, society has a double-standard view of loyalty when it comes to professional sports where players are held to a different set of standards than are owners and fans. If a player, takes it upon oneself to expedite a similar competitive strategy like a franchise, consorting with other talented professional to form a team and win, then society and ownership show disagreeance in action. And if ever there were a situation that called for such action, then it would be with the professional athlete who is typically bound for employment via the negotiated contract, thus making oneself a business. This would be especially true for the exceptional athlete who may embody an individual franchise's success. So, I applaud these players for their leadership and desire to win, regardless of immediate compensation, and for taking action when ownership/management were unable.

How Important Is Your Career Yardage?

As a mid-career professional, a person who has invested a "sizable chunk" of life cultivating skills through the acquisition of advance-level education and personal sacrifice for time in favor of the office; how much traction (career-yardage) has one really gained playing the Corporate game? How much value can one affix to one's career? What does success really mean? If the ultimate life goal, centers around the accumulation of wealth or the acquisition of power, then at some point, one would have to assess the value of the effort. If we consider the value proposition it would make no sense to have a "period gain!"

To ask these questions, one would have to be matured into a certain stage of life where career aspirations like yardage, fade away, being driven out by the most important aspect of one's career "the personal impact that is made on others!" When we reflect on former colleagues or peers? Do we say "man he/she made alot of money while they were here?" Or do the memories of the more favorite just warm the cockles of our hearts or do the unsavory elicit feelings of disdain? I would say that our impact on one another carries significant weight in creating lasting workplace memories than do our authority or compensation. Details surrounding individual compensation are not typically shared and so this aspect of one's impact would be speculative! So, much of our thoughts about one another are derived from the quality of our interface. Therefore the most important aspect of one's professional career is in how one has lead their career.

So, how much of the positive imagery of oneself is sacrificed to matriculate up the Corporate ladder? Over the years can one accurately measure the career yardage gained? Can one assess the relative value individual sacrifice and collateral impact to one's family? In essence, how much career yardage can we quanitify? So, how important is one's career yardage?

The Corporate Fiefdom.

Long ago (in Medieval times), there existed a system of allegiance or loyalty where powers, priveleges and opportunity were granted from the seat of a few "power brokers." These "gifts" or fiefs, as they were called, could be held as "pawns for exploitation" much like promotions in Corporate America. Nothing about this arrangement produced the best results for the masses, only those that seeked to remain in power or that sought to build an empire benefited. As I extrapolate about this system, contrasting it with Corporate America, you'll find similarities between the two that will help illuminate the major flaws in the current leadership model. My objective is to promulgate about the need for change in Corporate leadership.

Our Corporate Leadership strategy can be characterized as "traditional" being operated by traditionalist. A traditionalist in Corporate America is a person(s) that klings to an old way of conducting business, putting into practice these beliefs and molding successors in the mannerisms in an attempt to sustain personal influence which is the primary function of the system. Like a corporation's ability to survive beyond the life expectancy of it's investors, products and personnel, the traditionalist model of leadership aspires to as well; however, unlike the leadership model, corporations require moderate to substantial leadership and philosophical change to remain competitive or to survive. Specifically, as investors seek the perpetuation of investments through the longevity of corporations the adopted form of leadership is not well-suited to provide such, as the very nature of  market competition is to provoke organizations to adapt to changing conditions. A microcosm of this behavior is the self-interest demonstrated by the officers of companies when choosing successors. The prevalent methodology utilized by these "trusted authorities" is to favor those that assimilate or those that present the lowest-level of leadership competition. In a competitive environment and if given the choice, most managers would choose the lesser competition or least threatening credentials to promote. The reason behind such madness is that most managers, manage out of fear and fail to appropriately plan for an exit strategy or stay well past their usefullness.

 When evaluating the strength of a company's leadership it's important to gauge the degree to which managers participate in continued education, advanced training and leadership coaching. What we are experiencing in America today is a lack of participation where foreign counterparts continues to outpace us, possessing advanced degrees and challenging the prevailing conventional philosophy. The challenge to us as leaders is in penetrating this wall of leadership and establishing a credible alternative. So, when you get back to your office, please pay attention to the mannerism of your leadership evaluating them beyond the salient features that define their structures.