Introduction
In this assignment I will attempt to outline what I consider to be the critical strategic leadership skills using what notable people have written and also what I see from my own perspectives as both an experienced follower and an inexperienced leader (although I really do enjoy trying to be, and think I am learning to become, a (good) leader).
Kouzes and Posners outline five qualities of a leader:
- Honest
o This is a personal characteristic describing how any leader must act with honesty, integrity and morality.
- Forward-looking
o Visionary trait – setting goals and driving ambition
- Competent
o Having a prerequisite skillset and the abilities for the task
- Inspiring
o Able to motivate and inspire those around him
- Intelligent
o Aligned with competence, the ability to absorb and process information to make decisions that take into account all aspects and produce the optimal result.
These categories attempt to cover the key aspects of a leader. However in the 21st century, a century of global competitiveness where sustaining a competitive advantage is the difference between life and death, leaders need to do more.
Other than perhaps the ‘forward-looking’ and ‘inspiring’ aspect, or visionary trait, there is nothing in K&P’s view that reflects the external environment a leader participates in. Hitt, Ireland, Hoskisson (in their book Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalisation, 1999) attempt to bring the leadership trait concept together with the environment and how it engages with the players within it. They aim to highlight how context is critical in leadership. Their definition of strategic leadership reads
“Strategic leadership is defined as a person’s ability to anticipate, envision, maintain flexibility, think strategically, and work with others to initiate changes that will create a viable future for the organisation”
This definition better highlights the dynamic nature required of a top strategic leader. It is the context that is cricital. Context is ever changing and is often hard to understand. A leader who can look at both the broad context and the details will have a better understanding and hence an advantage over others. Here a leader is able to create, influence, implement and “live” the strategy as well as convey that to colleagues and subordinates so they in effect have the same feeling.
Making a further point of the difference between leadership and strategic leadership is the experience in class of our Myers Briggs analysis depicting a situation of perfectly capable people who would be incapable of making the “right” strategic decision. Our class was less likely to make the correct decision because they are not attuned to the need to speak up even when a discretionary decision is required that might be uncomfortable for them. It is this ability of making decisions that are strategically relevant of the context, but otherwise difficult, that form part of the difference between leaders and strategic leaders.
Three Key Strategic Leadership Skills
I have made some broad points to help introduce strategic leadership but now want to focus on three points that I feel I need to work on personally thanks to experiences and observations over the past years. These perhaps are not the most important on the list globally but for me are key takeaways. I hope to take these to drive sustained success in all my future endeavours.
Engagement of Vision
Almost daily during my undergrad studies I read on a wall in the engineering faculty: “Worse than blindness is sight without vision” (a modification of Helen Keller’s quote). To this day it rings in my head. For ambitious people this is in fact probably their biggest fear to not be able to drive forward with new ideas and new challenges. However as a leader who develops this vision, like any strategy paper or powerpoint, a plan of implementation is also required. Part of this plan of implementation is how to engage the resources of the organisation to achieve that vision. As a leader one critical element is how to engage human capital. Engagement means that each person under the “umbrella” of that Vision truly believes it and uses it to guide their actions. The ability to create direction in a multi-goal environment where politics, competing agendas and people’s emotions are in play is a critical element of strategic leadership. If a leader is able to communicate a clear vision and subsequently everyone in the organisation buys in and is engaged then they hold a strategic advantage. A key skill discussed in class is that of summarising the understanding of subordinates. Take the counter example where a vision to reduce costs, increase productivity and improve customer service led the leaders of French Telecom to face the very unpleasant situation of labour suicides. There was perhaps no chance of buy in due to the deeply engrained mentality of the employees, but this is why the company is at a strategic disadvantage. It is not able to be dynamic in its labour policy and react to the strategic needs of executives to remain competitive in the market place. Strategic leadership in this case would require sensitivities of these issues and other solutions found to engage and connect with employees to meet the new vision of the organisation.
I had a vision to re-build the Boat Club. There were few rowers when I first joined but over five years we were able to rebuild the numbers, the facilities and the spirit of racing. In a not-for-profit organisation like amateur sport delivering a vision of “Club rebuilding” is/was easy. Upon my election as Captain of the Club it was easy to express my views, visions and intentions. However as time went by I realised success wasn’t coming our way. Due to the accountability issues or lack thereof in a not for profit, those who initially agreed to work with me in other leadership roles weren’t engaged to the vision. In my view they were pleased to be undertaking status quo activities thus holding back the small group who wanted to build the club further. I spent considerable effort trying to understand their underlying motivations and soon realised that my vision of elite racing and structured rowing was not clearly communicated and thus not in line with those whom I needed to help achieve the goals I’d set out in my own mind. In hindsight I would have saved energy understanding what it means to engage people; specific to the situation and the various needs of people within that situation. Either the vision was wrong or the engagement aspect was poorly delivered. I would argue the later.
Here I have only mentioned engagement to a vision in the context of engaging with other leaders; not necessarily subordinates. There are other forms of engagement at a more micro level when dealing with employee engagement but again having similar dynamics.
Human Capital (‘HC’) / Strategic Human Resource Management (‘SHRM’)
Tied to the need to engage employees or subordinates is the need to develop human resource strategies driven by the leadership level. If teams need to be built or people employed having a project assignment or recruitment policy to match the strategy of the will have a flow on effect to the final performance (Guest et al 2000, Effective People Management, CIPD). This makes sense from a company level. However we see that in fact often leadership delegate this task to the HR back office who are likely to have little direct knowledge of the HR requirements . The counter example to highlight this fact is that when HR strategies are included in transactions and business activities such as M&A deals the result is a marked improvement.
Like the engagement discussion above, there is a need for frontline managers and leaders at all levels to not only acknowledge the need for HR strategy but also be engaged in the implementation of it; critically removing the stigma of “it’s a back office role”.
Valuing not only the strategy but also the resource itself is a most interesting topic. While blue-chip employers like McKinsey know that their strategic advantage is having the ‘smartest guys in the room’ (Enron pun intended) the strategy of valuing human capital is lost on most companies. I have often wondered what Key Man insurance values or prestigious scholarships signify. They in fact value human capital. Strategically used, McKinsey is able to offer highly intelligent people, who operate a very sophisticated consulting toolbox, something most firms cannot replicate leaving McKinsey on a path of sustained success. Knowing this important the evaluation and re-evaluation of HC on a regular basis should be of top priority of all leaders. This includes when their own position is impeding the implementation of company strategy; suggesting they move on and out of the way.
The last point I want to make on HC and SHRM is on empowerment. Coming back to my Boat Club example, it became apparent to me, only later that I was a chronic micro-manager. This was perhaps a symptom of poor vision communication and engagement. I wanted something done and when it wasn’t, I saw the best solution always to do it myself or pester someone until they did it my way. An interesting interview of Mark Pincus of Zynga games in the New York times (Jan 2010) solidified in my mind that there are better ways to manage and lead. Although it has its downsides, his method of empowerment is to ask each person to become a CEO of something. The receptionist is CEO of the reception and so forth. A form of empowerment is to actively announce the delegation of roles. Although I think I delegate tasks, my former tendency to micro-manage often gives the wrong signal of my intentions leaving the delegate confused.
Roosevelt said: The best executive is one who has the sense enough to pick good men to do what he wants done, and self restraint to keep them from meddling with them while they do it.
Empowerment of employees thanks to integrated HR strategy into company strategy all correctly implemented may be a tall order but is one that leaders who wish to be successful need to contend with to pull the team together and or have the board on your side.
Valued by many firms but not clearly quantifiable is management development. To develop strategic advantages and maintain engagement of employees the investment in bespoke and generic development is being seen as a very wise investment.
Discretion
The ‘ability to make responsible decisions’ is a trait each leader on earth i’m sure is convinced they have. The term ‘responsible’ incorporates many aspects such as duty of care, ethics, accountability etc. The Myers Briggs test discussed earlier highlights a common occurrence of many leaders. That leaders become paralysed from making a decision, let alone a responsible one simply because they don’t want to face the consequences of their decision. The leader knows that their small decision may have a large effect on the outcome of the strategic future of the enterprise. The skill to make decisions and furthermore make a responsible one is a heavy burden. There are many examples of dishonest behaviour and irresponsible decision making and similarly examples of decisions that have had great effects on human kind thanks to leaders having the courage to make tough decisions.
Speaking up when one is uncomfortable with a discussion point or a decision is being made is not made easier in peer pressure situations or when facing alienation. However a leader who has the ability to make discretionary decisions that will benefit the constituents of the organisation has long term value; even if for short term losses.
Strategic leaders must have the emotive strength to understand the environment they are in, the situation at the time and the people around them to act at the point of discretion. Tough can be to ask the difficult questions, bring up difficult topics and draw out to the table true feelings of employees. But to align with strategy it is vital to get insight into what others are truly feeling. In my goal to improve my leadership abilities I see these as a critical skill I need to develop.
Conclusion
I have not gone into all the specific skills required of strategic leadership. By discussing leadership and then a comparison for strategic leadership I aimed to show that a leader operates within an environment or context. For a leader to be effective and add value this dynamic needs to be understood for both short term and long term periods. In essence the critical aspects of strategic leadership are those that create competitive advantages that are either too expensive to replicate or simply not applicable to other environments.
For me I have drawn out three main learning’s to develop my management and leadership skills. By understanding how to better engage people to a vision, I hope to be able to get better support when driving big projects and ideas. By developing better HR strategies and valuing human capital I hope to develop teams that are competent, not just capable for specific situations and environments and further more empower them to be inspired by their actions and of their organisations achievements. Lastly, taking the time to understand the context and acting with discretion is a huge requirement / improvement area of mine to speak up for the benefit of the implementation of the strategy.
No comments:
Post a Comment