Mind the Leadership Gap
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
The Center for Creative Leadership just issued a news release with the headline: "Do Tomorrow's Leaders Have What It Takes? Research Says No." The release includes a link to a CCL report titled "The Leadership Gap."
The report is the usual quality CCL work. They surveyed 2200 leaders from 15 organizations in three countries between 2006 and 2008. They asked the respondents about the importance of 20 leadership competencies as defined in the CCL Benchmarks tool.
The report is interesting. It describes the leadership competencies that respondents think will be important five years in the future.
I had my usual problem with that approach. When it comes to leadership development, I agree with what Jamie Dimon said about strategy. "At JP Morgan, we try to prepare for all kinds of weather. We don't guess what the weather will be and prepare for that."
In other words, prepare leaders to meet whatever future arrives. Don't try to guess what it will be and prepare for that one.
That's why I wasn't interested in what CCL thinks are the competencies that need to be developed for the world just over the next hill. But I was fascinated by their lists of what will and won't be important. Here's the list, from page 10.
The following were "not important."
- "Building and mending relationships
- Compassion and sensitivity
- Culturally adaptable
- Respecting individual differences
- Composure
- Self-awareness
- Confronting people
- Putting people at ease
- Managing one's career"
The "important" list includes "leading people" and "inspiring commitment." Those two are among the competencies that the respondents thought they were not good at. Maybe there would be a gap on those competencies if they thought things like "building and maintaining relationships" were important.
Boss's Bottom Line
Surveys like this can be fun to read, but you don't have the luxury of planning for a specific future. You and your team have to be ready for whatever future washes over the bow. Whatever it is, the key to success will involve people and people skills.
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Categories: leadership development
Tags: Leadership Development
Great point about the fundamental nature of relationships. Leadership is a relationship first and foremost. The capacity to attend to others, comprehend their perspectives,and respond with compassion provide the foundation for the more demonstrative qualities of leadership.
Thanks for pointing out the study and its quirks
Michael
www.workengagement.com
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Michael. You're so right that leadership is anchored in relationships. Without the relationships, everything is manipulation.
Reply to this
Wow, Wally, that list is alarming. It almost does not even merit comment - it is that incredible. I don't pay much attention to crap like that. Never have, never will. Keep up the great work! Bret
Reply to this
Actually, I think it DOES merit comment.
It's even more compelling because CCL didn't put the items in a list of "things that aren't important." First they defined things in terms of whether or not they were considered important and whether or not they were strengths (page 9). Then they put the competencies in a two by two matrix (page 10). That gave you a list of things "not considered important" in the two lefthand cells.
If they have made a formal list, I'm sure some editor would have caught it and used different words. But as it is, I suspect we have the language of the survey and the responses.
Reply to this
Whoa! I'm definitely inclined to go with you on this, Wally! Totally amazing what's shown on the "not important" list. I think I might also question a survey of competencies needed for leadership which asks just the leaders -- those being "led" (not to the slaughter, we hope!) might have something of value to add here, and might identify even wider gaps!
Reply to this
That's a great point, Beth. The view would be very different from the subordinate level. In this study, the survey respondents named "participative management" as one of their strengths. I wonder how their direct reports would see it.
Reply to this
Wolly,
I also think that this is a fascinating topic. The list that you mention about things that are "not important" I find quite hilarious because in my opinion those are the things that kind of make the workplace functional and what leaders should be taking into consideration when working with their peers and subordinates. To be a good leader you have to establish those trusting relationships, and be ready to build and mend them when needed. I also agree that there is no list of things that we need to focus on when training to be a leader. Everything holds its own level of importance. Thanks for writing about it.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding your voice, Danielle.
Reply to this
It is hard to predict anything in the future, so we will see if the younger generation can lead effectively. I think they will be fine. It is good advice to look at what could be future techniques and adapt future leaders. It seems like the list is for people persons, so according to the list the future will be all business and very little compassion for people. We will see.
Reply to this
Hi Brad. Given the short time frame (five years), I think the respondents were thinking about people already in middle to senior management positions. But I agree with you, there will be great leaders in this generation has there have been in every generation.
Reply to this
Well said. The future is uncertain and predicting what it will be and preparing for that specific future would be risky for any organization. Great post.
Reply to this
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Reply to this
I always find articles like the one you are discussing, which comment on whether the "next generation" has what it takes amusing. It reminds me of the iconic image of a group of senior citizens looking on as a younger person doing something they consider improper and commenting that the next generation is "doomed." Every generation seems to think the next one is doomed, but here we are, not so doomed after all apparently.
And, its impossible to know what situations new leaders will face in the future, so how can we identify traits that these leaders will allegedly need to deal with these unknowable issues AND conclude that tomorrow's leaders already lack them? It seems like there are a lot of conclusions being jumped to here. For me, you can't try and convict the next generation of leaders until they have had their turn at bat and failed. Once that happens, you can conduct a post-mortem to see what went wrong, but its far to early for that at this point.
Reply to this
Thanks, Patrick. I agree with you on the generations. So far, my view of history is that every generation has produced some excellent leaders and some duds. I suspect that next one will be no different.
Reply to this
Wally,
Interesting list of things that are “not important.” Many of those things seem to be fundamental in becoming a leader. Makes me wonder if these people have ever been in leadership roles or if they are only academics who learn from books. I really like your point about be prepared for what ever the future brings as the only thing certain is uncertainty.
Reply to this
Thanks for the kind words, Elijah. The rating was done by over 2000 managers and then compiled by CCL. So what you're seeing is what at least this sample of managers think, not a theory by some academic. The managers surveyed were presented with a list of twenty "competencies" and asked to rate their importance for today and five years in the future.
Reply to this
Thanks for the highlight of CCL survey Wally. The 9 least important items are exactly what future leaders need if they are going to develop and maintain productive and innovative teams. The non-essentials list are actually the things needed by future leaders to truly inspre and lead.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comment Alicia-Ann. I agree. I think what happened with the managers who responded to CCL and many other managers is a surrender to the idea that head work is more important than people work or the bias to make anything labeled "leadership" into something important.
Reply to this
It is discouraging reading that managers seem so out of touch with what is important. It almost seems like a joke. I will say that Jamie Dimon said it best.
Reply to this
Thanks, George. What you mention is what I found so disturbing about this report. We're reading the responses of men and women who are currently filling high positions and they seem to place very little value on human factors.
Reply to this
Wally,
This is a fascinating case. Does the survey mention anything about the rational CCL used to decide what was a core competency and what wasn't? Does this shine any light on the apparent disconnect?
Reply to this
Interesting question, Zac. Here's my best shot at answering it. Perhaps other blog readers will add some insights.
"Benchmarks" is the CCL 360 degree assessment tool. It is proprietary. There is information describing the instrument on the CCL site. They tell us that: "Benchmarks assesses 16 skills and perspectives that CCL researchers identified as being critical to successful management." There is no description of how the competencies were identified.
Another page purports to list resources on the research behind Benchmarks, but it seems to me like the citations are for research on the benefits of 360 degree feedback.
CCL is probably being very careful about trade secrets and intellectual capital, but it's hard to evaluate a study based on competencies when you don't know how the competencies were arrived at.
Reply to this
Hi Wally,
Its interesting that the information in this study contradicts findings in an earlier study that CCL did, as reported on (using their instrument) back in the late 1990's. That particular study (I cannot find a copy)was summed up by them as the most important trait of effective leaders is the "ability to establish strong interpersonal relationships".
Although I am familiar with CCL's instrument, after much study, I became certified in another one (Management Research Group's LEA 360). That one is also grounded in a lot of research, but the research is based on their 22 competencies. I do not know how they decided on those particular competencies, and probably never will.
Reply to this
Thanks, Mary Jo. I'm not surprised that the results of this survey contradict an earlier one. CCL is very good and doing a survey and then using a report as a marketing tool. The problem is that they rarely give you information that will help you compare the findings in different studies.
In this one, for example, we're told that they "surveyed 2200 leaders from 15 organizations in three countries." Without knowing the countries and their representation in the respondent pool, it's hard to evaluate the reponses.
If BRIC countries are heavily represented you'll get different responses than from European countries, because the challenges business faces are different. Culture plays a part, too. Respondents from the US, the UK, and Australia will be much more individualistic than Japanese respondents.
Reply to this
Wally,
I went ahead and did a rough reading of the report, and I was quite surprised. It seems the respondents are ok with putting human relationships on the back burner. Whatever happened to the concept that direct reports don’t leave jobs, they leave bosses. If that statement is still true, then there will be no people to lead and develop employees, two of the competencies indicated under the Key Gap. It’s sort of like saying, I’ll take the cart please, but the horse can be left behind.
Reply to this
Great comments, Chris. I can't explain why respondents can pick "leadership" as important and label the things you need for it as unimportant. And yes, whatever did happen to understanding that people join companies and leave bosses?
Reply to this
Hmm...potential gap of the leaders who participated in the survey..systems thinking....to not see connection/pattern between developing/maintaining of relationships and leading/developing employees speaks volumes. Book "A whole New Mind" by Daniel H.Pink, is of interest for those who have a keen interest in linkage between what globalization(Asia/China focus)and a shift from left to right side thinking means for the future, and the six fundamental human abilities for success. One of those being pattern recognition. Good read.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding the comment, Jennie.
Reply to this
So, to sum up, the future direction seems to be: 'Be an insufferable jerk in order to inspire commitment.' Sounds easy - why are they worried no one will have these skills?
Reply to this
What a delightful comment! You add a needed perspective. Thanks.
Reply to this