It has become a pervasive problem in the industry and has led to great recent private-, public-industry and government leadership debacles - leaders who over-lead without really knowing what they are leading. Or to put this in other words, a leader who is remote from management, in short, a leader with weak management. Not only does this relate to the leaders' knowledge of the organization and the people, but now more than ever also about the knowledge of the activities which have to be performed by the people to reach organizational performance standards and targets. Leaders are questioning what is going on and what, if anything at all, they have been contributing to these issues?
In the 80's and 90's we often experienced strong management with weak leadership at the helm of companies. Gradually this has a morphed into a situation where we have come to separate leaders from managers and where governing boards explicitly were seeking leaders to become Presidents-CEO's of the organization.
So, frequently leaders no longer understand the tasks, the what of what needs to be done, to successfully complete the delegated task(s). We now regularly face the "Abdiled", the abdicating leader at work.
This type of leader is so busy with doing all kinds of things to serve outside stakeholders, for it to be no longer possible, to be involved with and aware of the tasks at hand in their own organization. They measure performance standards and output, yet they do not know what needs to be done for the measured standards and output to be produced.
If this sounds too harsh to you, please ask yourself the question: "How aware am I of what my direct reports need to establish to meet, or exceed the performance standards and goals?" If you have the slightest doubt about the answer, please be so reflexive and honest to count yourself in on the Abdiled club.
Let me give you a few brief real life examples.
- A leader promises a timeline to outsiders e.g., financial analysts, without proper communication with its division leaders. The cascading effect becomes that this timeline needs to be managed in whatever way, although no longer at whatever cost.
For example in the life sciences industry, in clinical drug development, as part of monitoring progress of a clinical development plan of a compound, often times first patient included in a clinical trial, is considered a key measurement of organizational performance, particularly measured at the beginning of Phase I, Phase II and Phase III respectively. However, what is often overlooked is the artifact of the meaning of this measurement. From experience, studies are often delayed in its completion due to poor protocol, hasty and erratic planning and poor investigator and site selection. These are all clear consequences of how the study got started in the first place, all with the goal in mind of having the first patient in the study by a certain, promised date. Is the leader possibly unaware of the consequences of the promises and its related intricate details? If so, is this irrelevant to its leadership and should this not be part of their management?
- Quality standard promises by leaders - unaware of what is implied by the words used. I am not going to refer to a car manufacturer example, but let's say a company claims to deliver an error free product and puts high brand and promotional value on this, consequently selling the product at a higher price than the competition. Does the leader know what needs to be accomplished to make this happen. How does this need to be managed in order for the desired quality level to be sustained at a given cost? Is this realistic?
- Promises of non-protocol described data disclosure in a regulatory controlled drug development environment. Some leaders may label this as a statistical interim analysis, yet if this analysis was not described in the protocol and was not planned for, it cannot be suddenly labeled as such without consequences. Does the leader know what it implies to press ahead without following proper procedure, for not following regulatory guidelines and for communicating this within and outside of the organization? Does the leader know how this needs to be properly managed? If not, why not?
- Leaders who claim to have made excellent progress with customer relationship management, but not having personally met and talked with a customer in the last two months. Does the President-CEO role imply delegating internal and external customer relationship management, or is personal participation, personal management required as part of his/her balanced leadership and management portfolio?
These are just a few examples to stress the point of the requirement of an involved leader, one who is aware of what needs to be done to meet a performance target. It seems that balanced scorecards and dashboards have become the middle man and yet have been elevated to near saint like status. They have turned into one of the leader's closely guarded secret formulas, often used as a shield from behind which all alchemy to performance takes place.
Leadership matters and it implies a healthy and structured balance between leadership and management. A leader, is supposed to operate as a strategic leader and a management generalist, ensuring excellent two-way communication with specialists, allowing plans to reflect reality and execution of the corporation's strategy.
This combined quality of leadership and management in one person, requires strong reflexive behaviors on the side of the leader and its team, such as;
- Open communication about establishing the corporation's direction
- Aligning the leadership team and the rest of the people
- Motivating and inspiring every one in the organization
- Planning and budgeting
- Organizing and staffing, controlling and problem solving.
If all is done well, this will lead to an organization which is adaptive to change, consistently producing the target performance standards and results as expected by the various stakeholders, using a minimum of scarce resources.
Lead and manage the business through personal involvement, being a leader and manager, stimulating an open and honest organization with a transparent communication system.
Leadership Matters and letting go of tasks, delegating without going overboard is key to healthy leadership and to a healthy, growing and developing organization. Be the balanced leader and manager, the lead-manager you can and must be, and remember, every one notices and appreciates your productive efforts.
Copyrights 2010, All Rights Reserved, All Media Johan Reinhoudt
Johan Reinhoudt is President, CEO and Principal of Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting).
He is an experienced global executive and international business advisor, working principally with senior industry leaders on executive and business performance.
Collaborative Primacy Life Sciences Consulting (CPLS Consulting) is a specialized Business Advisory Firm, with a Primary Focus on Executive and Business Performance.
Our base rule of operations is to initially learn, listen, to gain a deep insight into our client's business. We quickly analyze complex organizational development and performance matters and translate them into workable solutions, in a concrete and diplomatic manner. We work against specific objectives with clearly determined outcomes, contributing to our client's specific business goals.
As part of Collaborative Primacy leadership and people development are indispensable to a client's successful business development. Our approach is innovative, pragmatic intelligent and client-value driven. We are committed to customer satisfaction and a successful relationship through a partnership of equals.
We deal with those issues, few consultants are willing to deal with and best of all we guarantee our work. Hence, when business leaders need professional assistance for challenges facing their enterprise, they call on us - a practical, collaborative, responsive and strategic partner.