Looking for a "real" leader

Herminia Ibarria - Professor at Insead and authority on leadership - is opening a debate that will be crucial in the next months: we need leaders.

Ya ya... We should have them, right? Politicians, Managers, Economists... But no, we don't. The crisis, after years of economic growth, welfare and "emotionally intelligent" conflicts (at all levels) is revealing the limits of the imposed "all-coaching" leadership style, the one who asks you "how would you solve that?" when you have an issue. Reason is simple: when you have a lot to loose (your top level salary, your leadership position in the category...), taking risk is a bad move... Gain will never be enough to force you getting in arms, finding enemies, upsetting someone, taking decisions.

But this is finished: "mors tua" mood is now on. And the leaders we need have to take quick decisions, define shapes of enemies and ways to overcome them in a much more complex way than ever: they have to do it ethically (because otherwise they will not survive long term) and sustainably, growing their talents and leaving an heritage. 

No, it is not Napoleon. May be even Steve Jobs is not enough! Which one, than? We could start asking new generations: they do not know other than crisis and they don't love leaders who are not able of decisions (I found thousand proves in conversations eith them) but still need some coaching a and reward. Not just that.

Is anybody out there ready to jump on? The throne is vacant.

HR: stop being so boring!

It will come a time when HR will start communicating differently, avoiding that boring, old, formal standards which make us feeling safer (more professional? More credible?). We are not safe: most of the time we are just ignored, that's why we oblige people to read us! WE MUST BECOME INTERESTING, and RELEVANT... see below

Managers on the run

The crisis has got casualties: first come those loosing jobs, second come those who got paralyzed by fear of loosing job or stressed by the pressure and the menace of it... but next one "lost in action" could be the Talent Strategy. As unemployment rate grows, management could feel safe about retention ("where else they can go?"), which is not the case, Deloitte says in its Talent Edge 2000 report, as Talent Shortage is a big concern of top executives... 

So what's happening? Talent pool is much larger than before in a globalized world, with many talents to fish... but this increases cost of search and retention, and make people feel more and more a commodity. On top, Generations at work have probably never been so different, and Gen X is not making its role of transition and connection between the retiring Baby Boomers and the Y... and finally, management is much less attractive than in the past: as part of the public opinion is accusing corporations to be unhealthy for the planet and one of the causes for the current economic crisis, the new role-models are self entrepreneurs who aim to save the world with one single idea. 20 years of movies and negative literature have pictured the managerial jobs as unhealthy, useless, dangerous, unethetical, nonsense...

So, what to do??? Some answers are in the article @FastCompany, but one above all: develop the new generation of leaders, now. Before it's too late.

End of the job as we know it?

@Bersin: "The concept of a job, as we know it, is starting to go away" and it is not the catastrophic prediction of Rifkin on the end of the work (@Amazon). This is nowdays reality coming from studies and research: job is evolving, becoming more fluid, less structured, much less based on pure competencies and knowledge (which are now commodities). It was predictable as technologies are evolving and growing fast in their abilities to aggregate, analyze and deliver information, which make large part of human jobs based on information analysis, manipulation and sharing less crucial. But also with evolution of communication technologies and habits, which allows to make the talent pool to fish much larger (and cheaper), jobs with pure knowledge content, could become a commodity: would we need more somebody who has mastery on how a logistic chain works or somebody who has proven being able to overcome issues out of increasing complexity of cost transportation? A lot of variables are embedded in every job, in every project nowadays, with thousand possibilities. And they change in the range of hours. Agility in this context is much more crucial than mastery. Innovation and networking are much more valuable than degrees and academic honors.

Il destino è quel che è

All'incrocio tra le tue capacità ed i bisogni del mondo giace il tuo destino, diceva Socrate

“We don't find happiness by looking within. We go outside and immerse in the world. We are called to a higher purpose by the inescapable circumstances that are laid out on our path. It's our daily struggles that define us and bring out the best in us, and this lays down the foundation to continuously find fulfillment in what we do even when times get tough. HAPPINESS comes from the intersection of what you love, what you're good at, and what the world needs.

. Su HBR, nell'articolo To find happiness forget about passions ci ricordano - ancora una volta - la differenza tra gli hobby (le passioni autoreferenziali che servono al nostro relax ed al nostro edonismo) ed il "purpose" individuale: applicare capacità personali uniche a grossi problemi.

Seth Godin on the world changes

When the world changes It's painful, expensive, time-consuming, stressful and ultimately pointless to work overtime to preserve your dying business model. All the lobbying, the lawsuits, the ad campaigns and most of all, the hand-wringing, aren't going to change anything at all. […] Again and again the WINNERS are individuals and organizations that spot opportunities in the next thing, as opposed to those that would demonize, marginalize or illegalize

Seth Godin (http://sethgodin.typepad.com/) non dice niente di nuovo, eppure è una lezione millenaria che pochi hanno imparato.

Un 90% di inutili fannulloni?

I risultati della ricerca di Heike Bruch e Sumantra Ghoshal sembrano una boutade, di quelle buone a conquistare le prime pagine delle riviste di management: "Fully 90% of managers squander their time in all sorts of ineffective activities. In other words, a mere 10% of managers spend their time in a committed, purposeful, and reflective manner". Ma andando a leggere più in profondità, emerge un semplice studio sulla mancanza di un chiaro "purpose", un obiettivo di lungo termine chiaro e motivante... Dunque, escluso il 10% di cui sopra, gli altri sarebbero *energetic but unfocused; *had low energy, little focus and tended to procrastinate; *focused, but not very energetic. L'articolo sul tema è veloce ed interessante, lo studio richiede più tempo.