August 2017
 << < > >>


Who's Online?

Member: 0
Visitors: 2

rss Syndication


09:35:19 pm

Direction Development, Developing Building Learning Leadership Abilities

Leadership Development, Developing Building Learning Leadership Skills

Direction is crucial for practically any organization's sustained success. A great leader at top makes an impact to her or his organization. These statements will be concurred with by everyone. Experts in hr area mention the need for leaders at all levels, and not just that of the leadership at the very very best. It is not without reason that companies like 3M, Proctor & Gamble, GE, Coca Cola; HSBC etc. have understood to set in place processes for developing leaders always.

Mention this issue, yet, to a sales manager, or to a line manager, or any executive in most organizations and you will probably cope with diffident answers.

Direction development -a need that is tactical?

Many organizations deal with typically the topic of direction. Developing leaders falls in HR domain. Whether the good intentions behind the training budgets get translated into activities or not, is not monitored.

Such direction development outlays which are depending on just great motives and general ideas about leadership get axed in terrible times and get extravagant during times that are good. If having great or good leaders at all levels is a strategic need, as the above mentioned top firms demonstrate and as many leading management specialists assert, why can we see this type of stop and go strategy?

Exactly why is there skepticism about leadership development programs?

The first reason is that anticipations from good (or great) leaders usually are Employee Conflict not defined in operative terms and in manners by which the consequences may be checked. Leaders are expected to attain' many things. They're expected to turn laggards into high performers, turn businesses, attraction customers around, and dazzle media. They're expected to do miracles. These expectations remain merely wishful thinking. These desired consequences can not be used to provide any hints about differences in development needs and leadership skills.

Lack of a complete and universal (valid in diverse industries and states) framework for defining direction means that direction development effort are scattered and inconsistent in nature. Bad name is given by inconsistency to leadership development plans. This breeds cynicism (these fads come and go....) and resistance to every new initiative. This really is the next reason why the objectives of direction development are frequently not fulfilled.

The third rationale is in the strategies employed for leadership development. Leadership development programs rely upon a variety of lectures (e.g. on subjects like team building, communications), case studies, and group activities (problem solving), and some inspirational talks by top business leaders or management gurus.

Sometimes the programs contain experience or outside activities for helping people bond better and build teams that are better. These applications create 'feel good' effect and in some cases participants 'return' with their private action plans. In majority of cases they neglect to capitalize on the efforts which have gone in. Leadership training must be mentioned by me in the passing. But leadership training is inaccessible and too expensive for most executives and their organizations.

When leadership is described in terms of capacities of a person and in terms of what it does, it is easier to assess and develop it.

When leadership skills defined in the above mentioned fashion are not absent at all degrees, they impart a distinctive capability to an organization. Organizations using a pipeline of good leaders have competitive advantages even individuals with great leaders just at the top.

1. They (the organizations) are able to solve problems quickly and may recover from mistakes fast.

2. They will have exceptional horizontal communications. Matters (procedures) go faster.

3. ) and tend to be less active with themselves. Therefore they have 'time' for individuals that are outside. (about reminders, error corrections etc are Over 70% of inner communications. ) and are wasteful)

4. It is among the toughest management challenges.

5. ) and are not bad at heeding to signs customer complaints, associated with quality, shifts in market conditions and client preferences. This results in nice and useful bottom up communication. Top leaders often own less amount of blind spots in such organizations.

6. Communications that are topdown improve also.

7. They require less 'supervision', because they're firmly rooted in values.

8. They may be better at preventing disastrous failures.

Anticipations from good and productive leaders must be set out clearly. The leadership development programs must be chosen to develop leadership abilities that may be verified in operative terms. Since leadership development is a tactical demand, there is a need for clarity about the above mentioned aspects.

Admin · 5504 views · Leave a comment

Permanent link to full entry


No Comment for this post yet...

Leave a comment

New feedback status: Published

Your URL will be displayed.

Please enter the code written in the picture.

Comment text

   (Set cookies for name, e-mail and url)