Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Leadership....A Quiet Presence...or Front & Center?
A leader is best when people barely know he exists, not so good when people obey and acclaim him, worse when they despise him ... but of a good leader who talks little when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, "We did it ourselves". Lao Tzu (Father of Taoism)
The above is actually something I keep posted on my desktop and in my office as it conveys my most fundamental feelings of how I hope I am viewed as a leader. I have always felt that if I am an effective leader, it will come out strong in the performance and presence of my employees. Conversely, it could be stated that poor leadership is called out the same way.
So....should a leadership be measured by individual accomplishment? Is self promotion at times a necessary evil...or do outcomes and employee behaviors provide the portrait of an effective leader. Dominance and/or self promotion or influencing & supporting others. Thoughts??
Melissa
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
My effectiveness as a leader can be measured by a myriad of benchmark criteria. Example,
1. Financial performance of the group.
2. Patient satisfaction
3. Employee satisfaction
4. Clinical Outcomes
5. Meeting or exceeding budget expectations
The list goes on and on. Some outcomes are out of my control however as the leader of the corporation, I have to position myself to take responsibility for the group.
I'm in favor of a 360 dergree performance evaluation. With that tool you're judged by your leader, peers and subordinates. Scores are then averaged and rated. In the ideal world, I would have my annual performance measured by using a combination of the 360, accomplishments and bottom line performance.
Mariann
I think a leader should be measured on the performance of the group they manage, and the growth each team member displays while reporting to that leader. I think a leader is better served developing employees through coaching sessions, timely reviews listing strengths and improvements necessary, and making sure each employee is focused on the goal of the company and of the department. I think self-promotion isn’t necessary, however, departmental promotion by the leader is essential.
There are two examples of where a leader should display some dominant characteristics. The first is when the group has a major deadline of a task, I feel it is appropriate to make sure the task is complete by the deadline, and completed adequately. A leader could accomplish this by setting several deadlines and meeting with the employees to review their progress and to communicate if they are on the right track. Underachieving employees may need to be managed more assertively at times.
The second example of a leader needing to be more dominant is to support the group when there is a dispute between two departments. I feel like a leader will support the people they manage even if they have to coach an individual privately to coach them on handling conflict better. That is my thoughts on some effective leadership.
It appears that the best of all measurement occurs when the individual, team, and leadership goal is exactly the same. When each person sees his or her role in helping the team reach that goal. Customer satisfaction may mean little if the organization's goal is only to serve a lot of people. A leader's self aggrandizement is moot if the facts don't favor the leadership.
I've heard of places where individual performance is measured by exactly the same criteria year after year. My question - how does the organization grow? How can individual performance improve?
Goals - well defined and agreed upon - achieved or not - are the one true measure.
Goals comment by Jan.
I believe that LEADERS cannot be measured by just using the tools developed for evaluating MANAGERS. The two, as we have discovered, are not necessarily the same. A leader can certainly be a manager, and a manager can certainly be a leader, but the two are not automatically linked.
A leader's worth should be measured by the long-term impact he/she has on the organization in which they are involved.
Leaders have the responsibility of constantly creating a new and improved organization, while managers try to maintain.
Just as we have discovered in the differing theories on leadership, I believe that we will find, that the measurements are not so standard.
John
I think we can find examples of leaders who were quietly profound in their effectiveness; and those who were loud, colorful and again profound in their effectiveness.
I think a true leader's measurment is not only in the outcomes of the group, team, or company they are leading, but also in the creation, and inputs at the beginning.
A leader who can identify the needs of the organziation, adapt to these needs, work and create new ideas within these needs will find success irregardless of their demeanor. In fact, their demeanor, attitude, and "charisma" may be determined by the needs of the organization.
Leader performance can be based on how they handle defeat as well as how they handle success. A measure of greatness could be found in both.
Jana
Leadership should not be measured by individual accomplishment, but by the accomplishments of the group in it's entirety, as to how well it met or exceeded the goals that were set out by the leader. Self promotion is not part of good leadership. Promotion of the goal for the overall good of the group or company, is what's desired. Effective leaders need to suppress their egos and blend their identities to the group they are leading.
Gary
I put this quote thru the blender (my brain at 8am) and I came up with this... This quote shows the leader gives total faith to his/her team.
To answer your question 'Should leadership be measured by individual accomplishment:
absolutely!
Joe Pelle
Post a Comment