“Leadership” can be a fuzzy concept. Ask 100 people, and you’ll likely get a 100 different definitions. Often we feel like US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who wrote in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964):

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”

Although leadership isn’t exactly pornography (most of the time), many of us may struggle to define it but still feel like we know it when we see it.

With that said, here’s my attempt:

“Leadership is the sustained ability to achieve extraordinary results by engaging the collective efforts of others.”

What’s your definition of “leadership”?

Click the link to share your thoughts and to see that other readers say about leadership.

In the month since my post about Basic Steps for Effective Succession Planning, global economic issues have continued to ripple onto our shores, as we wrestle with our own economic concerns. Now more than ever, companies need great talent to lead them effectively, and smart leaders are doing all they can (as they did during better times) to ensure that they have a continuous supply of great talent.

In this month’s 60-Second Emailâ„¢, we conclude an earlier post with some remaining steps you need to take for effective succession planning.

When you’re done reading, let us know your thoughts. What makes succession planning work in your organization? What’s done to ensure people have the right skills to succeed, not just now, but in the future too?

Click here, to get started.

An article from the NY Times on why it’s important, now more than ever, to stay flexible and relevant in your career.

Even with the crummy economy and high unemployment, smart leaders are still concerned about the potential loss of great talent from their companies. Whether you’re running a company, division, department, or a team, you need to plan for your future talent needs. And the sooner, the better.

In this month’s 60-Second Email (TM) , we outline the first steps you need to take for effective succession planning.

And when you’re done reading, let us know your thoughts. What else needs to be considered when doing succession planning? Any examples of succession planning done well? Done poorly? We’d like to know, and so would other readers (would we lie to you?!)

Click here, to get started.

A recent survey from OI Partners suggests that many companies are not adequately prepared when it comes to succession planning. And we’re not talking just at the C-level. This includes leaders and managers at other levels as well.

One issue that many companies face is the fact that no one’s in charge or responsible for ensuring the company has enough successors for key positions. For more on this issue, please see this month’s 60-Second Email (TM) .

And when you’re done reading, let us know your thoughts on the matter. Who’s passionate about developing people in your organization? And how do they demonstrate that? What are they doing to ensure your company has enough future leaders and managers?

Click here, and share your examples with other readers.

There used to be a time when if jobs were lost during a recession, there was the expectation that many of these same jobs would eventually return after the economy came back. These days, though, there’s a whole different feel about jobs returning.

In a recent article, “5 Myths About How to Create Jobs” (link), McKinsey notes that even if the economy were to add 200,000 jobs per month, it would take the next 7 years to return to a “normal” unemployment rate of 5%. And according to a recent WSJ article, “Economists Expect Shifting Work Force” (link), 1 in 4 jobs won’t be coming back, but instead will be replaced by other types of work in growing industries, which for many is a much longer road to re-employment and to previous salary levels.

Personally, when I hear about jobs not coming back, I’m not thinking just about the jobs. I’m thinking about the skill sets of the people who were performing those jobs.

The crisis that I see many people facing these days is not a lack of jobs, but a lack of relevant skills. When jobs are lost or go overseas, people aren’t losing their jobs. They’re losing the domestic demand for their skill sets. It’s their capabilities that are being lost, some for good.

People are being left with skills that don’t have a marketplace. And that’s a much more frightening reality than being without a job.

As we have seen recently, even well established enduring companies and industries can falter. Therefore to provide yourself with real unemployment insurance, you need to ensure that the skills and capabilities you possess remain relevant and attractive to many companies in and beyond your industry.

To remain gainfully employed with a viable future, you need to remain relevant. And for that to be the case, your skill set needs to be relevant to both your company and to the marketplace in general.

So that being said, when did you last take inventory of the skills and capabilities you bring to the table?


Have a thought or point of view on jobs and skill sets being lost? Share them with other readers by clicking here.

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.” - Winston Churchill.
“Experience is the best teacher, but the tuition is high.” - Norwegian proverb

If experience is, indeed, the best teacher, we’ve certainly had a post-graduate education this past year. And, yes, the tuition has been very high.

So what did you learn from it?

I didn’t have an immediate answer when I asked myself the question. I realized that more time and focus had been spent navigating the chaotic times, than making sense of them.

Nonetheless, it would be a pity if one didn’t have an answer. What a wasted opportunity: the greatest upheaval since the Great Depression, and yet nothing learned from it.

So I stopped, and made sense of the past 12 months. I looked at my behavior, and asked myself what were some of the principles that guided me. Here are some of mine (and I’ll be asking for yours shortly):

1. Stay close and incredibly focused on your clients/customers, particularly when it’s the darkest and most uncertain. These were not times to go it alone, and there’s mutual benefit in trying to read the tea leaves with others.

2. The giving hand is always a full hand. Particularly when scarcity surrounds you, maintain an abundance mindset, and offer to help, even when there’s no immediate return. A zero-sum-game mentality can be incredibly self-destructive.

3. Enjoy what you do. Better to do what you love when the economic foundation is being shaken to its core, than hate what you do and struggle to find some satisfaction when the proverbial sky seems to be falling too.

So, again, what did you learn? Please post your comments below, or if you prefer to remain anonymous, click on this link, and list your insights in this 1-question survey:
What I Learned from the Great Recession

I’ll collate all responses, and share some of the lessons learned with readers of our 60-Second Emailâ„¢ (without identifying the authors, unless you’d like the attribution). Please share this blog post and survey link with friends, family, and colleagues. There’s wisdom in numbers.

2010 will be here shortly, and “school” will once again be in session. My very best of wishes to you for the New Year. I hope the knowledge you gained in these past 12 months will serve you well in the next 12.

“If an educated work force is the nation’s human capital, business is seeing a lot of subprime these days.”
- from An Educated Workforce, Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2009

Recently the Wall Street Journal invited top CEOs and policy makers to Washington to discuss critical issues facing the United States. According to John Chambers, Chairman and CEO of Cisco Systems, and a Co-Chair of the assembled task force on Education:

“As we [the CEOs] went through the discussion today, it was a unanimous vote that [education] needs to be the top national priority - way above the economy, health care, energy or the environment.”

Given where the economy is these days, and in light of the recent vociferous debates on health care, energy, and the environment, that’s quite a statement.

But unfortunately, it’s not surprising. In the last couple of years, I for one have heard increasing frustration from employers regarding the quality of talent in the labor pool. In a nutshell, many candidates just aren’t prepared for the demands of work these days.

Now, full stop - the recent recession certainly has provided a sudden and unusual increase in the quantity of qualified talent in the labor pool. But this is a one-time blip up. This won’t last forever. (Let’s hope not. If it does, we’ll have more extensive, systemic problems to deal with).

If we take a long-term nation-wide view of succession planning, what are we doing to ensure that the younger, less experienced talent in the labor pool will ultimately be capable and able to replace the more experienced talent that eventually will retire and leave the workforce?

Can we honestly say that a country can remain, in the long run, an economic superpower if it does not lead in the education of its citizens?

Successful global companies will always invest where the best talent is. To do otherwise, is a losing proposition. This is particularly so today when companies are depending on the capability, drive, and versatility of its leaders, managers, and employees.

Consider your own organization as a microcosm of a nation. How long could it remain viable with second-rate talent? How long would customers tolerate it? And where is it currently getting its next generation of great leaders and managers? From inside? From outside? How successful is it in each? And why?

Human beings have this chronic tendency to deal with the urgent at the expense of what may be less urgent but equally, if not more, important. My major concern is that by the time education becomes an urgent national issue (aren’t we there already?), it will be too late to stem the impact. Change will take generations, and our global economy moves at a much faster pace.

Businesses will continue to vote with their feet, and set up operations in regions with work-ready talent. Those people who are skilled and educated will be the most mobile and sought after. They will go where the jobs are. Those who are under-educated and under-skilled will not be mobile and will be left behind. It will be a knowledge-based meritocracy that will yield serious and dire socio-economic consequences.

I welcome your thoughts on what a forward-thinking nation and its business leaders should do to accelerate the education and capability of its citizens. Join the conversation, and post your comments below.

Today more than ever, companies are looking for leaders. Not the kind to fill management or leadership vacancies. They’re looking for employees, whether or not they have people under their direction, to step up and demonstrate a greater ability to contribute. They’re looking for people to lead in terms of what they bring to the table each and every day.

In a different time, one might have argued that this stemmed from a short-term focus on corporate profits, from a desire to extend corporate profitability at the expense of the employee. Today, however, the increased expectations flow from an intensely competitive marketplace. If you feel the pressure of your boss’s hand at your back, it’s likely being placed there by your customers.

And so what’s an employee-cum-leader to do?
Answer: Give people one hand to shake, and one throat to squeeze.

First, make it easy and efficient for people, both customers and colleagues, to work with you. Particularly given the inter-dependencies at work these days, no one has the patience for being delayed or frustrated. That’s the “one hand to shake”.

Second, be a leader and take full responsibility for the work you need to get done. Commit fully to getting it done exceptionally well, and similarly, commit to fixing it immediately and completely when it’s broken. That’s the “one throat to squeeze”.

Consider the following:
Both my electric company and my cable company make it relatively easy to do business with them, which when things go well, means it’s easy to pay my bill (”one hand to shake”). Now should I lose power at my home, with one phone call, I can found out from the electric company what went wrong and when service should be restored (”one throat to squeeze”). But if I lose cable service, the cable company can tell me only what went wrong; they can’t tell me when service should be back. Isn’t that kind of important for the customer to know? Don’t they have cell phones in the field? Aren’t they a communications company? Why is it impossible to get a simple answer? Personally, that’s too many throats to squeeze.

If your company is still in business, at this point it’s likely made most, if not all, of the requisite structural changes in response to the economic decline. If it’s like most companies, payroll has been trimmed, and there are few expectations of ratcheting up hiring plans anytime soon. Employees are expected to deliver exceptionally well to customers, both internal and external. And are expected to do so for some time to come.

No one needs the runaround, and no one has the patience for “not my job” or “I only work here.” Bottom-line, if your people can’t give your customers one hand to shake and one throat to squeeze, you’d better forget it. Because sooner or later, your customers will.

Have a comment on leaders or individual contributors who step up during tough times? Click here, and share your comments.

All great hockey players are ambitious and have a desire to win. Therefore, if I am ambitious and have a desire to win, I should become a great hockey player.

As silly as this sounds, versions of this logic arise in leadership development. Example:
We study a select group of great leaders, see what attributes they have in common, and then make conclusions about which leadership attributes are required for anyone aspiring to be a great leader.

Hence, great leaders are thought to be: communicators, delegators, high achievers, coaches, team players, optimists, realists, visionaries, operators, servants, teachers, innovators, pragmatists, emotionally intelligent, self-aware, and so on and so on…

And the inference is that you should develop one / several / all of these attributes if you want to be a great leader too.

The problem with this sort of analysis is that:
1) It’s backwards looking, and
2) It ignores the unique context and behavioral demands of your specific business or organization.

Regarding point 1, even if all great leaders are, let’s say, emotionally intelligent, does that mean that all people who start off being emotionally intelligent will become great leaders? Will most become great leaders? How about a significant proportion? Can I therefore be truly confident assuming that if I develop my emotional intelligence, I will become a great leader?

Regarding point 2, leadership does not take place in a vacuum; it takes place in your unique business or organization that is a product of its history, culture, customers, employees, competitors, products, services, etc.

Therefore, in order to be truly effective, leadership development must be rigorous in its focus on specific leadership behaviors as opposed to general leadership attributes: Focus on what your best leaders specifically do better than your average leaders to produce extraordinary results.

Attributes are important, but they must be translated into the specific behaviors that define leadership success in your organization. If I’m an aspiring leader in your firm, I don’t want to know what I must be; I want to know what I must do to be a great leader. And the more specific you can make that for me, the better my chances at knowing what to do, and hence, at being able to do it.

Now more than ever, when companies expect and need so much more from their leaders and managers (and when there is so little margin for error in their leadership development initiatives), companies must examine how rigorous, specific, and unique their leadership development approach is. Looking backwards and highlighting general leadership attributes just won’t work.

There’s too much at stake.


Love the game of hockey or have a comment on leadership development programs you’ve enjoyed or suffered through? Click here, and share your comments.