Leading in the Economic Recovery

by

An ongoing study of leadership roles, practices, and behaviors explores distinctions between individuals who disclose that they personally or their companies were financially harmed in the recent economic downturn and those who indicate that they or their companies experienced no financial harm. The responses vary by country.

Economic harm seems more likely among residents of Europe and North America than in Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America. Respondents from North America to date see 70% of 280 reporting financial harm while residents of Europe to date see 58% of 36 reporting a negative financial impact from the economic downturn. Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America reported 43%, 47%, 42%, and 71% respectively. If leading during economic recovery is different from leading at other times, and residents of Europe and the Americas are more likely to have experienced economic trauma than residents in the rest of the world, then we might expect leadership in Europe and the Americas to look differently than leadership elsewhere as the economic recovery proceeds.

Two somewhat universal themes emerge from research and experience. The first theme is that leaders rise to the surface. People display leadership that is disconnected to the position that they hold. When looking for leaders in organizations, we should not limit our search to people in somewhat traditional positions of leadership. It may be that future holders of positions of leadership come out of the ranks of leaders whose leadership is unrelated to their position. At the moment, these leaders have followers and these followers, rather than organizations or communities, give them power or authority based on the value that they bring.

The second theme is related to this added value. One value that leaders consistently add is a vision for the future that followers find compelling, attractive, and attainable at some level. As much as so many people promote the idea that people are afraid of change, the reality may be that the fear is of specific changes and that certain change is not only tolerable but desired at a visceral level. Leaders communicate a vision for a changed workplace or community or world that a critical mass of followers crave, or at least find positively exciting.

To find the leaders, look for the followers. To understand why they are leaders rather than somebody else, look for the vision.

Middle East Leadership – Egypt

by

A leaderless attempt to transform Egypt?
Following the events of the past week or so, I am struck by the increasingly frequent references to the lack of visible leaders to the protests calling for the ouster of the current president of Egypt. Recent television commentary suggests that the protests began with text messages and online discussions that thus far are not attributed publicly to anybody.

Is it possible for a virtual network to take on the characteristics of leadership? Is the current situation one in which the initiators of the protest movement are remaining in the background, perhaps for their own safety, while others collectively lead?

While the ousting of the current Egyptian president is the presenting issue, is this an example of diverse groups with potentially conflicting goals and objectives rallying around the one point on which they all agree? If so, who will sort out the potentially significant differences and how? Who will ultimately emerge from the reported chaos to unify and lead in Egypt?

Egypt protests
As events continue to unfold in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Yemen, Jordan, and elsewhere, what new leaders will emerge? What roles, practices, and behaviors will the citizens of countries seek? What leadership style will emerge for the evolving context of these countries? Will the leadership style be charismatic, collegial or collaborative, autocratic, situational, or something else, even a unique, situationally-based style?

What vision will emerge from the current conflict situation for leaders to communicate? Press reports in Egypt paint a picture of change and hope, a familiar theme that few would suggest is unique to the United States. Change to what? Hope for what? Will emerging leaders be content with motivational generalities promising something different from the past and, if so, will the populace be content with non-specifics or will they demand detail?

Will leaders seek to not only promote their personal thoughts and agendas or will they collaborate and build consensus among other leaders and interest groups as a coalition to build something new? Will the new leader be as autocratic as the replaced leader seemed to be? Will the new leader communicate and live into a desire to seek what is good for the community even if it is at the expense of personal gain or will the new leader seemingly focus on personal enrichment?

Will the new leader attempt to reconcile the various potentially conflicting parties? If so, what will that reconciliation look like? How do broken relationships get healed and by who? How do have’s and have-not’s come together in community?

What values will emerge as important? Will the culture change and , if so, how? What moral and ethical implications may emerge from the conflict?

Transitioning Out of Latent Conflict in Kenya: A Call for Leadership

by

The continuing political crisis in Kenya, as reported at The Independent among other places, continues to surprise some and disappoint many who have been to Kenya for business or pleasure. Having visited Kenya 12 times since 2004, to attempt to offer hope to refugees at the Kakuma Refugee Camp and to serve as a resource to leaders seeking a sustainable resolution to the, until late 2007, somewhat latent conflict in Kenya, I have been disappointed yet not surprised by the recent dispute between Kenya’s President and Prime Minister. This time the conflict appears to be over the authority of the Prime Minister to discipline Cabinet Ministers; this may be the symptom rather than the underlying problem. As with 2008’s post-election violence in Kenya and other episodes of conflict in the world today, a primary issue seems to be ineffective leadership.

In recent research for my doctoral dissertation, a leadership model emerged from the consensus among 375 leaders in Uganda’s Acholi sub-region that may apply to the Kenya context. Leaders, by what they say and do, and by what they do not say and do not do, define the beginning and end of conflict, the resolution of issues, and the reconciliation of interests and of individuals. Leaders divide people and reintegrate them.

Based on input from 375 leaders in Uganda, effective leaders suppress self interests in favor of community interests; when persons in leadership positions pursue self interests over community interests, members of the community may feel that the community is receiving ineffective leadership. Effective leaders pursue, develop, and provide culturally appropriate leadership training to help groom the next generation of leaders. To the extent that the same people seem to be recycled through positions of leadership and new people remain invisible or are not developed as the next generation of leaders, members of the community may question whether promises of new vision and change are empty slogans.

Leaders seeking a sustainable post-conflict heal broken relationships, guide define and guide needed change in their community, coordinate resolution of development issues and resource acquisition and allocation. Post-conflict leaders may become pre-conflict leaders if they pursue division and the opening of wounds. Leaders communicate a compelling vision to the community, model culturally appropriate behavior, and collaborate with other leaders within and outside the community. If the vision is not compelling or is poorly communicated, if the modeled behavior is culturally inappropriate, or if the would-be leader appears to isolate rather than collaborate, community members may suggest the would-be leader, or the people in positions of leadership, are not exhibiting leadership.

The more than 17 million refugees and internally displaced people in the world today, the conflicts in Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and elsewhere may indicate ineffective leadership. The world’s refugees and internally displaced, along with those of us fortunate to not be direct victims of the world’s conflicts, deserve effective leadership and people in positions of leadership who exhibit leadership. The context for leadership in regions transitioning from conflict to post-conflict is different from the context of most other types of organizations. An appropriate model for leading out of conflict may facilitate the recovery and rehabilitation in the world’s conflict zones. Will leaders choose to lead?

Elected leaders need to set aside their self-interests and lead the whole governmental unit, whether a nation, state, or district, and not meet only the needs of their party, people group, or clan. If historical, latent conflicts exist, resolve them rather than perpetuate or rekindle them. Where consensus exists, build on it; where consensus is lacking, either build consensus or seek compatible, parallel paths. Heal wounds and restore or, if possible, celebrate differences without creating an “us versus them” climate or dehumanizing “them” because of perceived differences. Create opportunities for all to advance rather than advantages for the few.

Above all, leaders should understand that would-be followers expect leaders, especially those in elected positions of leadership, to lead. A self-described leader who lacks followers may likely find that others do not consider the person a leader or their practices to represent effective leadership. Eventually, a person in a position of leadership who does not lead may find themselves removed from their position. The history of coups, revolutions, and elections in Africa and elsewhere should provide sufficient evidence that eventually people expect their leaders to lead them.

If Leaders Require Followers, How Do I Lead So That Others Will Follow?

by

At the risk of stating the obvious, if a person wants to become a leader, and, consequently, wants others to follow her or him, the would-be leader must provide the would-be followers with a reason to follow her or him. Some people label that reason “vision,” a term that has become controversial perhaps through overuse or misunderstanding. Some might be more comfortable with the term “direction” rather than vision; if you want to lead somebody somewhere, most people might consider it reasonable to know where you want to go with them. So, if you want somebody to follow you, having someplace to go is a good starting point.

Having someplace to go is necessary but not entirely sufficient to becoming a leader. The would-be followers eventually need to decide that your chosen destination is interesting, if not desirable, to them. Some leaders need to convince the followers to head in the chosen direction; other leaders may have followers who are more willing. A former pastor of mine was fond of observing that when a crowd is determined to run you out of town get in front and make it look like you are leading a parade! While that is cute, if not humorous, in such a scenario I would argue that the person in front is not the leader but the led. The direction or vision apparently needs to be compelling, if not clear.

The direction does not need a clear or pre-determined path. Since the advent of participative management, leaders seem more inclined to seek input from the followers in determining how to get to the chosen destination. The leader may actually begin to manage a process of determining the appropriate path, including how to overcome obstacles along the way. The leader’s job is to keep everybody moving in the appropriate direction. When the followers are in doubt or disagreement, the followers may look to the leader for guidance. Here, an important distinction seems to emerge – while managers can be imposed on subordinates, leaders lead at the discretion and by the permission of the followers. If followers choose not to follow a would-be leader, the followers are implicitly or explicitly choosing a new leader.

Can I Become A Leader?

by

During the past month or so on LinkedIn, a very active discussion continues to unfold about perceived distinctions between leaders and managers. Perhaps coincidently, a significant number of people, some new acquaintances and some long-term colleagues, have asked me how a person becomes a leader. Frequently, the question is more specific: how do I become a leader?

The question is intriguing for a number of reasons.

On one hand, people do not seem to be asking how they can become a manager. Perhaps that is because the person asking the question knows that have studied leadership extensively; however, my longer-term colleagues will also be aware of my study of management and, more specifically, improving management effectiveness, since the late 1970′s. Perhaps my colleagues and acquaintances already have an understanding that a person can learn to be a better manager through a combination of study, experience, and effort.

Many organizations have a clearly defined career path and management development track. From observation of dozens of organizations during a 25-plus year consulting career, few organizations seem to have a leadership development track. It is possible that the lower level of development of programs to train new leaders arises at least in part from the comparative newness of the study of leadership compared to approximately a century of the study of management. Even the suggestion that leaders can be trained or developed remains controversial in some circles while management training and development is broadly accepted.

At the risk of appearing trite, one key to becoming a leader is having followers. Organizational structures seem to take care of providing managers with subordinates, although clearly some managers are more skilled than others at actually managing. Having a managerial title places a person in a position in which they are expected to perform certain and specific managerial duties. Having a managerial position does not inherently make a person a manager; neither does a position, of management or leadership, automatically make the holder of the position a leader. Leaders require followers to lead; perhaps it can be said that followers also require leaders to follow.

It is possible to become a leader, but first you need followers.