Why Leadership Is Not For Everyone

Here's what companies believe about leadership:

• If we increase the leadership capacity of our people, we can make them better performers.
• If we offer them leadership training, they will do a better job.
• If we make leadership a priority, our people can become better self-directed.
• If we bring in leadership experts, we can grow our talent better.

But then most organizational training only ever gets an employee to a level of "competence" not excellence. Excellence is what separates mediocre organizations from excellent organizations. Building leadership WITHOUT building excellence means you will continually be training in leadership (year after year) - and your people won't understand why. You're trying to build a house on a shaky foundation.

In order to find your performance average, you take all of the numbers (best and worst) into account. There is a reason that poor performers perform poorly and it has nothing to do with their leadership capacity. Training poor performers to be leaders doesn't improve their performance - in fact, it may inhibit it. When you tell a poor performer that he is being offered leadership training, what message does that send? Keep on performing poorly?

Not everyone is meant to lead and not everyone is meant to enroll in leadership development. Without followers, there are no leaders. Some are just meant to follow. Those who don't display excellence in their efforts should NOT be considered for leadership training. BIG mistake.

Strive for excellence first. Find those who naturally offer excellence in their work, their relationships and their quality of life. Then, offer those people the chance to be come better leaders.

Stop thinking leadership is just another course like Time Management that can solve the problems of your organization. It can't. Trying to turn an average worker-bee into a leader is a waste of organizational resources and a threat to the average worker who is probably happy with just being an average worker.

First, make your organization excellent. Then start looking for the natural leaders who helped you get there. Train only those people.
--  
Kevin Burns - Excellence Attitude/Culture Strategist
Speaking Web Site http://www.kevburns.com  

Creator of Filter-Free Fridays™ 
Creator of the 90-Day System To A Greatness Culture™

Coming Soon Kevin's 8th Book - "Your Attitude Sucks - Finding Your Excellence In A Wasteland of Mediocrity

Subscribe to Kevin's Attitude with ATTITUDE Blog by Email  
Follow Kevin on Twitter @attitudeburns  
The Official Kevin Burns YouTube Channel

Psych Minors and Leadership

Years ago I enrolled in a college Psychology course in the hopes of getting a little bit more information on how the brain processes information. I had no intention of becoming a Psychologist. I just wanted the introductory course information on the mechanics of the brain.

While attending the course, there was a great notion passed around: there is nothing scarier than a Psych minor. Yep. Bang on. Being lumped in with a bunch of other first year Psych students made for some interesting discussions: especially from those who, in their first year, already fancied themselves a Psychologist. Nothing scarier than a Psych minor - except maybe a weekend Leadership grad.

Companies who send their middle managers off to weekend leadership courses need to be open and transparent about why they are sending a middle manager to the course. Is it because you think that a particular middle manager lacks some basic people skills and could use some of the personal development skills found in the course? Or are you actually sending your middle manager to leadership school because you believe that either he or she has the potential to do great things with themselves, to be a great leader of others and potentially achieve top spot in senior management?

No really. Be honest. Tell the truth.

Because if you let a middle manager believe that the reason they are going to leadership school is because they have a shot at becoming CEO one day, then that middle manager could return to work Monday morning and with an ego trip as big as the second coming of the messiah. You will have created the perfect recipe for a staff revolt - putting further distance between management and employee.

Here's why. Just like the notion that there is nothing scarier than a Psych minor, the same is true about many first-time leadership-course grads. If you are not clear why you wish someone to attend the course, they may perceive themselves to be higher up the food chain than they actually are - which means they return full of self-importance. Because that is how they would have attended the course, what they got out of it may not be what you wanted them to learn. They might be thinking themselves a future senior manager. You might be seeing them as a last chance to improve some basic skills or be fired. So be honest.  

If you don't think that your middle manager has some basic people skills then don't send them to leadership school to get it. If you do, make sure you are completely forthright in discussing why they are going: to get some basic people skills to be a better person - not because they are being considered for promotion.

Better yet, consider sending your people who lack basic people skills to a personal development course. Save leadership for those who would one day lead. But remember, you don't become a leader overnight in exchange for money no matter what the course-offering claim might be. That leadership course is simply a starting point to a life-long commitment to self-improvement. If you think you can buy your way into leadership then you, after three whole days, still don't understand the Attitude of Leadership - and you wasted your money.

--
Attitude w/ ATTITUDE

Subscribe to Kevin's Attitude with ATTITUDE Blog by Email
Follow Kevin on Twitter @attitudeburns
The Official Kevin Burns YouTube Channel

The Separation Of Leadership

Can leadership survive without values? How can leadership takes so many big bonuses for themselves while throwing people out of work? Why is leadership always looking out for themselves?

These are questions that are asked a regular basis on the bulletin boards, articles and blogs. Personally, I think it's just a bunch of people with titles on their business cards that are hoping to be considered leaders purely by their position but they have to lower the bar first so that it's possible for them to slide into a leadership position. They don't want to be called managers anymore. Managers are boring. Managers have to get their hands dirty doing that icky management stuff. Eeeew (yes that's the sound of a 15-year-old girl).

And no matter how many times these questions get asked, the answer is still the same: you don't get to be considered a leader by your position. Yet, so many of the so-called leadership experts are still referring to senior executives as leaders. It's muddying the waters. It's becoming a point of confusion for the average person to try to better understand what leadership really is. Leadership is not a title on a business card.

If it were simply a title on a business card, then we could call up and make appointments for morning coffee with Jeffrey Skilling of Enron, Bernard Ebbers of Worldcom, Tyco 's Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz, Computer Associates International's Sanjay Kumar, Adelphia 's John and Timothy Rigas, Daewoo founder Kim Woo-choong or Dynegy's Jamie Olis. Oh, but we can't can we? I almost forgot, these guys are in PRISON. Imagine that, leaders in prison. Based on the widely accepted model of leadership, all of the above listed former CEOs would qualify as leaders because they led their organizations.

Look, if you conive, cheat and steal while you are running the place then you're not a leader. If how you run your organization is illegal, illicit and immoral can you still be considered a leader? No you can not!

These people weren't leaders. They were just greedy CEOs. It was greed and a thirst for power that caused them to let go of what they knew to be right and instead embrace what they knew to be wrong. If you are purposely letting go of your values, morals and ethics in the daily performance of your job duties can you be considered a leader? I would say no.

In fact, the vast majority of the world would agree that the CEOs listed above were not leaders but were criminals: a truth proven once they were caught. When a person knowingly engages in illegal activity in order to advance their own career then they are no longer leading but stealing. As you can see, from this list of CEOs, leader is not a title that should be afforded these criminals.

It's time to start separating the word leadership from those in positions of power. Managers are not leaders even if they have returned from a weeklong leadership course. They are still managers. Elected officials are not afforded the title of leadership simply by the number of votes cast for them. There are as many crooked politicians as there are crooked CEOs. But if you call one politician a leader you must call them all leaders. If you call one CEO a leader you must call them all leaders. There are no sort-of leaders. Leadership is an on-off switch: you either have it or you don't. And you don't get it by achieving a certain position within an organization.

If your organization, during the recession, is choosing not to grow but instead battening down the hatches and pulling in your horns, then you are by the very definition of the word not leading. You are managing. That makes you a manager. Managers manage. (You know, it really pains me to have to explain this. I would have thought that even the worst manager could figure this one out on his own but apparently not.)

It's a real insult to real leaders to have them lumped in with the list of crooked CEOs above. Besides, leader is not something you call yourself: leader is something your followers consider you to be. Leadership is an attitude. Management is a position.

If you are attempting to fleece the company for as much as you can then you're not leading, your "greeding" (I'm not sure if that's even a word but we will go with it). There is a huge difference between a manager or senior executive and a person with leadership ability. Let's not confuse the two. They are not interchangeable. So take down the Jeffrey Skilling poster in the executive washroom and get back to managing the place. We'll see over time whether or not you will be considered a leader.
--
Attitude w/ ATTITUDE

Subscribe to Kevin's Attitude with ATTITUDE Blog by Email

Follow Kevin on Twitter @attitudeburns

Stop Leadership Training Now

A 2-3 day leadership workshop is dangerous to staff morale. The term "management" should not be allowed to be sullied by using the fancy new "leadership" buzzword and by re-branding management workshops to make people think that are going to be anything more than managers anyway. We need managers - good managers. We don't need any managers who "think" they are leaders.

Nothing is more dangerous than a barely-competent manager who fancies himself a leader (except maybe a 1st year Psych minor). It's distressing when staff have to endure the arrogant "past-manager" who now thinks that as a result of his participation at a 2-3 day leadership course, he doesn't have to actually get his hands dirty doing that icky, hands-on manager stuff. Ugh. Trust me, allowing your manager to think himself a leader is going to create big staff problems.

We need managers - good competent managers. And management skills are something you CAN learn at a 2-3 day management workshop. You can derive tremendous benefit from that - if the focus is on target: management. Training companies would do well to stop lying to corporate America. Leadership is not management. Making organizations believe that they should stop management training and start Leadership training is a deception. Leadership is a personal skill. Management is a corporate skill.

If you're really speaking of leadership, you have to define "leadership" to get any benefit. And since there are 350,000 books alone on Amazon, that means there are 350,000 differing opinions on what leadership is. No one person has it right. It is all open to interpretation.

You can not transform a barely-competent manager into a leader in 2 or 3 days. That's ridiculous. And any training company that says they can do it is seeking only your checkbook. Leadership workshops are mostly "management" workshops re-branded anyway - which is a disservice to real life-long leadership commitments and it is insulting to think that a lifelong commitment that someone has made can be taught in 2-3 days.

Leadership workshops would have to change a person's context (the way they see the world), their philosophy (how they think about the world), their personal mission (what they are here to do in the world) and their contribution (what they offer the world). In addition, things like vision, values, ethics, morals, attitudes, opinions and beliefs will all have to be challenged. Leadership operates at that level. Then there is the impossible question to answer: why do people follow some people and not others? You can not have a leadership workshop without addressing these issues and there is no way it can all be covered in-depth, findings concluded and sufficient time allowed for participants to reflect on their lives thus far and where they wish to see themselves in relation to a world contribution (the big picture) in 2 or 3 days.

If you want your managers to be better managers, then send them to management workshops. Don't pretend that you're doing leadership. You can't teach someone how to be Gandhi in 2-3 days. You can't teach someone how to be Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King or Winston Churchill in 2-3 days. The best you can do is teach someone how to imitate these leaders. But imitation is fake. It is not real. And if it is not real it is not leadership. Leadership is internal - deep in the psyche. The rest is management. Call it what it is.

In every organization, there is ONE leader - the rest are managers. Get used to it. That's the way it is. The barely-competent manager who returns from a 2-3 day leadership course believing that people will follow him now because of his learning after a couple of days training course is not only still barely-competent, but he is now borderline arrogant as well. Yep, let's all line up behind that guy.

What you want are better managers. Stop pretending it's leadership because that is a real insult to real leaders - people who have spent their lifetimes garnering the respect that makes people want to follow them. You can't teach that in 2-3 days.

--
Attitude w/ ATTITUDE

Subscribe to Kevin's Attitude with ATTITUDE Blog by Email

Follow Kevin on Twitter @attitudeburns

The Annual Performance Review

Why do people have to wait until there's a performance evaluation to find out how they're doing? Why would any organization torture their own people like that? What's wrong with talking to your people informally and having conversations instead of remaining arm's length from the people who do the work? Oh that's right, the department manager recently went to a leadership course and now he's no longer a manager, he's a "leader." (You are required to make the quotations marks with your fingers when you read that word "leader." Go ahead. Try it.) Their graduation to "pretend-leader" (finger quotes again) is supposed to preclude managers from doing any of that icky, hands-on managerial stuff. They're apparently above that now.

"We're leaders, not managers," the old manager/new leader might say armed with their fresh, new (fingers) "pretend-leadership" attitude.

(Cue the harp music) "We don't have to manage anymore. All we have to do is lead our people and they will magically follow us to where we want them to go. If we lead, people follow. No really. We learned that in the course. We're leaders so people HAVE to follow us. I don't have time to give "my people" feedback. I've got people to lead. Let someone else work on that employee's performance. I'm too busy (fingers) leading."

The truth is too many employees stress over performance evaluations. When people are stressed they are not productive. When they are not productive they get poorer performance evaluations. So why not simply get rid of them - the performance evaluations not the people. Instead, open up your communications and have good two-way conversations on a regular basis. Any manager who doesn't want to do this would FAIL my performance evaluation. I don't care that he/she is a recent pretend-leadership course graduate. Get your head out of your .... er ... uh ... clouds, and get back to managing. Get over yourself. It's real people you're dealing with.

ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: Look, the way I see it, if you can talk to your neighbors over the fence, you can talk to your people over the cubicle wall. They'll do better work for you if they don't think that every little screw-up is going to be entered into a file to be unleashed at the next performance review. All people want to know is if they're doing it right, if their work quality is OK and that their efforts are being noticed and appreciated.

Talk to them. If they're not doing a good job, they'll get the idea right away. They'll probably just move on before you have to force them to. Seriously, if you want to accurately assess an individual's performance, then daily communication is a far better way to do it than to spring the annual "surprise" on them. In fact, most managers end up scrambling to put something together for an annual performance review anyway. It's not like they've been keeping notes. So, if you haven't been keeping notes then manage them - don't scare them.

Oh, and for the recent pretend-leadership course graduates, leadership is not something you get in exchange for money. If you're a manager, manage. Now get back to work. Your own annual performance review is coming up too.
--
Attitude w/ ATTITUDE

Subscribe to Kevin's Attitude with ATTITUDE Blog by Email

Follow Kevin on Twitter @attitudeburns

Leadership And Fake Boobs

Leadership is an Attitude. Management is a position. Leadership is NOT exclusive to the workplace. A parent is as much a leader as a CEO - perhaps better.

Stop thinking that leadership is a mere list of traits that you simply check off. A leader has only ONE responsibility: to lead. How he or she leads really doesn't matter. If a leader leads poorly, the followers will choose to follow someone else. If the leader leads well, the followers continue to follow. That's why they're called followers - because they follow. And you're only a leader if people are following. You can't force them to follow you. Authentic leaders understand that. Artificial leaders (those who think that by reading a book or attending a course that they can now call themselves leaders) don't get that.

Artificial leaders are the "fake boobs" of the corporate world. Just like some women say that implants make them feel better about themselves, getting a certificate from a leadership course makes some people feel better about themselves too. But in both cases, there is a difference between authentic and artificial. They look real but you know they're not - you just don't say anything.

Leadership is not management nor is it power, nor control, nor affluence. Who gets chosen to lead is based on the attitudes, opinions and beliefs of followers who believe that the leader they are following is the best person to lead them to where they want to go.

There are no irrefutable laws to leadership. Everything is refutable. Everything is questionable. Anyone who says different is asking you to blindly follow - which means you are not leading.

There is no explaining why some people are chosen leaders and some are not. Osama Bin Laden is a leader, as was Hitler, Charles Manson, Mother Teresa, Gandhi and Buddha. Leaders are not defined by their ability to make the world a better place necessarily. Leaders are defined by having followers - good or bad. Period.

There are 350,000 books on Amazon on "leadership." That means there are 350,000 varying opinions on what leadership is. Not much wonder you can't define it. But you so desperately want to be seen as a leader because you've been convinced that "following" is for the weak. Well maybe you are weak, too weak to acknowledge your weakness. You don't become a leader by self-anointing. Leadership is not a diploma or certificate of course completion. Leadership not something you get in exchange for money. And there is no certification necessary to offer leadership courses.

Want to be a leader? Start saying "no" to the whole idea that leadership is something that you can buy. If you have to take courses, read books and convince others you're a leader, then you're probably not.

ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: What's my definition of leadership? I define it as the biggest time-waster in Corporate America today. It wastes more time and money, sucks more resources and makes more people pompous in their search to be on top than any other single item in the corporate world - and only because you've been led to believe that you have to be at the front - the winner.

The truth is, people recognize authentic leadership when they see it - they just can't explain it - in the same way one hundred people would be challenged to come to consensus in describing the same sunset.

Trying to convince people that by simply following a few rules makes you a leader is perhaps the biggest thing wrong with Corporate North America today. That is not authentic leadership. That's artificial leadership - a fake, a sham, a lie. Leadership is not something you achieve - it is an Attitude.
--
Attitude w/ ATTITUDE

Subscribe to Kevin's Attitude with ATTITUDE Blog by Email

Follow Kevin on Twitter @attitudeburns

Why Leadership Courses Don't Work

Question: What is the difference between a natural leader and a trained leader and who would you want on your team?

Answer: I'm not sure why so many people think that somehow leadership is exclusive to business. It is not. A parent is as much a leader as a CEO - and in most instances, I would bet a better one. Leadership is not the result of attaining a title or taking a class or reading a book. That's simply a "management" course falsely re-branded. You don't train leaders. No one can be taught to become a real leader in a few-day course. They can be more effective, sure. Maybe more communicative, more accommodating, more decisive but that just a tiny sliver of what comprises a leader. To become a real leader would require a life-long commitment to continually improving and self-examining with nothing being off-limits.

There are no "irrefutable laws" to leadership either because leadership is not tangible. It's not something you can hold in your hand and it's not something that you become by blindly following someone else's 21 laws. Leaders know that everything can be questioned. Nothing is irrefutable including the leader themselves.

Sometimes managers have leadership abilities but it is NOT a prerequisite for the job. Leadership is an attitude. Management is a position. The office whiner can be a stronger leader than his supervisor if more people follow the whiner. Would you want that kind of strong natural leader on your team? Osama Bin Laden is a natural leader. Would you want him on your team? David Koresh possessed all natural leadership abilities. Would you have wanted him on your team?

Leadership isn't just positive. Sometimes leadership can be destructive (think about the first person to loot during a riot). That's leadership too.

Is it leaders you want on your team or good, honest, decent, hard-working, accountable people who are willing to take direction and get the job done more than they are about taking the credit? If your team of 12 was made up of 12 leaders, would anything get done? Each "leader" would expect to lead and expect that others would do what they say. They'd end up never coming to consensus about how to proceed. Think about that for a moment.

ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: We all need to stop throwing around the word "leader" like our organizations are full of them. Corporate America is so devoid of leadership that we've become self-anointing - take a course and be called a leader. People who have never led others can open up leadership courses and schools and call themselves experts and charge you money to teach you re-branded management courses. There's no certification to become a "leadership expert." So how can anyone claim to make you a leader? They can't. That's not leadership and it's an insult to real leaders to be lumped in with leadership imposters who claim they are leaders just because they finished a course.

Leadership is not exclusive to business and has really nothing to do with business. It's a fancy buzzword that we throw around when we really, for the most part, couldn't sum up leadership in a few sentences anyway.

That's why there are 350,000 books on Leadership on Amazon. There are that many varying opinions on it. That's why Leadership courses don't work. No one person has it completely right. If you're following only one person's interpretation of what Leadership is, you're missing the big picture and frankly, you're not much of a leader because you're following someone else's ideas. Leaders lead remember.