When Jimmy Mc Ginty was appointed Football Coach for Washington D.C. (The Replacements), he set his terms. He wanted total control of the team, be able to recruit anybody that he wanted and to pick the players without any interference from the club owners. The owners of the club agreed.
Jimmy went through a list of players whom he had been keeping his eyes on for years. They were good. Not everyone was a professional, though. The players came from different backgrounds; SWAT team member, shop assistant, bar tender, reverend and Shane Falco, a retired former quarter master of Ohio State Football Team. Jimmy put these 'players' together. He was focusing on their strengths not their weaknesses. Jimmy made each one of them go through tough football training and team-building mill and processes - forming, storming, norming and performing - to form a winning team.
What Jimmy did was nothing unfamiliar. Being the leader of the team, Jimmy call the shot. Jimmy looked for the following 'players' (Maxwell):
a) those who raise up themselves
b) those who raise up morale of others
c) those who raise up the leaders
d) those who raise up others
e) those who raise up people who raise up other people.
In management and politics - BN, PR etc - such games are played by leaders. They have a list of 'who's who'. They have a complete record of people - the good, the bad and the ugly- whom they want to pick. They picked their men and and positioned them to deliver what are expected of them. These people had the leader's trust but it is the leader that call the final shot.
They are members of the Inner Circle. Why is this so? Every leader's potentials is determined by the people closest to them. When leaders have the right people - staff/ co-workers, their potentials ecxel. Mind you, there aren't lone-ranger leaders, for if you are, you aren't leaders.
Have you thought through about your inner circle?
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Leaders: Are You In Position, In Control or Neither?
Have you ever experienced situations in meetings when you see the chairman is leading the meeting but someone else is leading the people?
In such a situation, the man running the meeting is not the real leader. The man running the meeting is in position but the man leading the people is in control. The man running the meeting holds the legitimate position but the man leading the people is the de facto leader.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law. Very often, the word de facto is used to express a person who does not hold a legitimate position but is very influential, controls the situation and leads the people.
A case in point is the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) governments in 5 states of Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. It unveiled the role of the former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the de facto leader or the real leader of the PR. See this clip on the announcement of the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat.
A real leader holds the power and not just the position, though it may not be legitimate.
Positional leader usually speaks first, influence other positional leaders but counts on the influence of the real leader to move and get things done. On the other hand, real leader speaks later, influences everyone and uses his own influence power to move and get things done the way he desires.
When the real leader speaks, people listen. The irony is people listen not necessarily because of the truth in the message being imparted, but because of their respect for the leader. And this is driven by the leader's character, relationships, knowledge, intuition, experience, sacrifice and ability.
Where are you? In control, in position or neither in control nor in position?
In such a situation, the man running the meeting is not the real leader. The man running the meeting is in position but the man leading the people is in control. The man running the meeting holds the legitimate position but the man leading the people is the de facto leader.
De facto is a Latin expression that means "in fact" or "in practice" but not spelled out by law. Very often, the word de facto is used to express a person who does not hold a legitimate position but is very influential, controls the situation and leads the people.
A case in point is the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) governments in 5 states of Kelantan, Kedah, Penang, Perak and Selangor. It unveiled the role of the former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the de facto leader or the real leader of the PR. See this clip on the announcement of the formation of the Pakatan Rakyat.
A real leader holds the power and not just the position, though it may not be legitimate.
Positional leader usually speaks first, influence other positional leaders but counts on the influence of the real leader to move and get things done. On the other hand, real leader speaks later, influences everyone and uses his own influence power to move and get things done the way he desires.
When the real leader speaks, people listen. The irony is people listen not necessarily because of the truth in the message being imparted, but because of their respect for the leader. And this is driven by the leader's character, relationships, knowledge, intuition, experience, sacrifice and ability.
Where are you? In control, in position or neither in control nor in position?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Should Leaders Throw Rocks At Each Other?
Although the 12 Parliament Session has begun, some members of the ruling coalition has yet to stop bickering each other.
The latest was when the former Selangor MB, Khir Toyo told reporters that the Hindu Temple demolition, alleged to be one of the major factors for Selangor BN dismal performance in the last GE, was MIC President, Samy Velu's idea. Read full report here and here. Samy slammed and said 'It is Khir's fault'.
On seeing that this is not good for BN, PM Abdullah Badawi told both leaders to stop it.
And then another headline picked Khir Toyo as saying 'Blame the keris not the broom' for the poor performance.
I had quarrels with my brothers that compelled my parent to stop us from bickering each other. We were children then. Now that we have families of our own, we understood why our parent had to come in between us to resolve our differences. They had gone and we missed them a lot. As leaders, they had indeed taught us to place greater importance on building relationships rather than bickering on each other. Thereafter, we move on to do what we were supposed to do.
Sometime in November - December 2006, I held a series of 12 Management Training sessions for Mayban Fortis. Mayban Fortis, Takaful Malaysia and MNI then were going through a merger process. I had quoted and shared a case story of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition in these sessions.
The 1982 Canadian Everest team had the best climbers from all over the world. The leader knew that even though they had the best people in the entire world at what they did, the trip would not be a success. This was because everyone in the team wants to get to the top for themselves. They did it for the glory of their own country and not for the good of their team. Not only that they never got to the top, at one point these successful climbers were throwing rocks at each other. What was frustrating, was to see them throwing rocks at each other when they were supposed to be in a team. And, what seemed to be even more crazy was that they dare throw rocks at each other when they were just attached to each other by ropes.
The above local news headlines are no different from this case story. More often than not, while leaders claimed they deserved their positions we still see them throwing 'verbal rocks' at people who are supposed to be on their team. Why? Only they can tell the reasons for doing so. But....surely we can learn from the experiences of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition Team. And we too can list the leadership lessons learnt.
The latest was when the former Selangor MB, Khir Toyo told reporters that the Hindu Temple demolition, alleged to be one of the major factors for Selangor BN dismal performance in the last GE, was MIC President, Samy Velu's idea. Read full report here and here. Samy slammed and said 'It is Khir's fault'.
On seeing that this is not good for BN, PM Abdullah Badawi told both leaders to stop it.
And then another headline picked Khir Toyo as saying 'Blame the keris not the broom' for the poor performance.
I had quarrels with my brothers that compelled my parent to stop us from bickering each other. We were children then. Now that we have families of our own, we understood why our parent had to come in between us to resolve our differences. They had gone and we missed them a lot. As leaders, they had indeed taught us to place greater importance on building relationships rather than bickering on each other. Thereafter, we move on to do what we were supposed to do.
Sometime in November - December 2006, I held a series of 12 Management Training sessions for Mayban Fortis. Mayban Fortis, Takaful Malaysia and MNI then were going through a merger process. I had quoted and shared a case story of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition in these sessions.
The 1982 Canadian Everest team had the best climbers from all over the world. The leader knew that even though they had the best people in the entire world at what they did, the trip would not be a success. This was because everyone in the team wants to get to the top for themselves. They did it for the glory of their own country and not for the good of their team. Not only that they never got to the top, at one point these successful climbers were throwing rocks at each other. What was frustrating, was to see them throwing rocks at each other when they were supposed to be in a team. And, what seemed to be even more crazy was that they dare throw rocks at each other when they were just attached to each other by ropes.
The above local news headlines are no different from this case story. More often than not, while leaders claimed they deserved their positions we still see them throwing 'verbal rocks' at people who are supposed to be on their team. Why? Only they can tell the reasons for doing so. But....surely we can learn from the experiences of the Canadian's 1982 Everest Expedition Team. And we too can list the leadership lessons learnt.
Monday, April 28, 2008
People Follow Stronger Leader
When Dato' Seri Anwar made a statement that there are 30 Sabah MPs who would defect to join PKR and that PKR will be in a position to form the federal government no later than 16 September 2008, Dato' Seri Najib claimed that was part of Anwar's political game. Read The Star full report, here.
But, when Former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said on the possibility of Sabah MPs crossing over to PKR by virture of their background, Najib felt that the threats have to be taken seriously. In Sarawak, when SNAP said they are ready to defect and join PKR, Najib reiterated that Anwar's claim cannot be taken lightly.
While UMNO and BN have not totally resolved their internal issues, Sabah MPs and SNAP politicians are already on the verge of concluding their evaluation on the strengths of their current and future leadership.
Either they remain in BN or defect to join PKR, the leadership lesson learned is that people will follow leaders stronger than themselves. They too follow them out of respect ... and that is quite natural.
But, when Former Finance Minister Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah said on the possibility of Sabah MPs crossing over to PKR by virture of their background, Najib felt that the threats have to be taken seriously. In Sarawak, when SNAP said they are ready to defect and join PKR, Najib reiterated that Anwar's claim cannot be taken lightly.
While UMNO and BN have not totally resolved their internal issues, Sabah MPs and SNAP politicians are already on the verge of concluding their evaluation on the strengths of their current and future leadership.
Either they remain in BN or defect to join PKR, the leadership lesson learned is that people will follow leaders stronger than themselves. They too follow them out of respect ... and that is quite natural.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Was the Timing Right?
When Parti Keadilan Rakyat advisor and Former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, on his arrival in Sabah told reporters that Pakatan Rakyat is in a position to form the federal government no later than 16 September 2008, he is talking about right timing. The Star Online has the full report, here.
It appears to me that there are relationships between timing, what-to-do (mission) and where-to-go (vision)vis-a-vis leadership, the decisions made before the General Election (GE) and the outcomes of such decisions. Each one of these is equally important.
First, there was this denial on the dissolution of the Malaysian Parliament on the 12 February 2008. Then, in less than 24 hours came the announcement on the dissolution of the parliament on the 13 February 2008. This was followed by the EC Chairman's announcement on the polling date.
So, the decision was made on the GE and the polling date. Thereafter, there were opinions and feedbacks and reactions from both BN component parties and the oppositions. There were also allegations on the non-sensitivity on the part of the government as the Chinese were still celebrating their Chinese New Year.
When the results of the GE were announced, the ruling coalition, BN lost their 2/3 majority. On the other hand the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat set unprecedented victory and formed state governments in four additional states other than Kelantan. They also swept 10 seats out of 11 in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.
We have observed that the aftermath of GE resulted in calls from members of the ruling coalition especially UMNO, for the top leadership to take full responsibility for the dismal performance in the polls. We have also read in mainstream media instances of 'stone-throwing' among members of the ruling coalition at state leaderships for their poor performance, especially in the four states that had fallen to Pakatan Rakyat.
What can we learn from these unprecedented events?
Leaders recognized that execution is as important as the strategy (how to go to where you and your people want to be). But, effective leaders ensured that when to lead (timing) is as important as what to do (mission) and where to go (vision.)
When a leader decides to make his moves, there are four possible outcomes:
1. Disaster - when a wrong action is executed at a wrong time;
2. Mistakes - when a wrong action is executed at the right time;
3. Resistance to Change - when the right action is executed at the wrong timing;
4. Success - when the right action is executed at the right time.
In my assessment is it apparent that every Malaysian leader is mindful of these outcomes. But, what makes a leader great is his ability to effectively scan his environment, both internal and external and thereafter articulates himself and executes his strategic moves. However, if a leader repeatedly shows poor judgement, even in things regarded as trivial by his followers, then the followers will start to think and believe that having him is a liability.
It appears to me that there are relationships between timing, what-to-do (mission) and where-to-go (vision)vis-a-vis leadership, the decisions made before the General Election (GE) and the outcomes of such decisions. Each one of these is equally important.
First, there was this denial on the dissolution of the Malaysian Parliament on the 12 February 2008. Then, in less than 24 hours came the announcement on the dissolution of the parliament on the 13 February 2008. This was followed by the EC Chairman's announcement on the polling date.
So, the decision was made on the GE and the polling date. Thereafter, there were opinions and feedbacks and reactions from both BN component parties and the oppositions. There were also allegations on the non-sensitivity on the part of the government as the Chinese were still celebrating their Chinese New Year.
When the results of the GE were announced, the ruling coalition, BN lost their 2/3 majority. On the other hand the opposition coalition, Pakatan Rakyat set unprecedented victory and formed state governments in four additional states other than Kelantan. They also swept 10 seats out of 11 in the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur.
We have observed that the aftermath of GE resulted in calls from members of the ruling coalition especially UMNO, for the top leadership to take full responsibility for the dismal performance in the polls. We have also read in mainstream media instances of 'stone-throwing' among members of the ruling coalition at state leaderships for their poor performance, especially in the four states that had fallen to Pakatan Rakyat.
What can we learn from these unprecedented events?
Leaders recognized that execution is as important as the strategy (how to go to where you and your people want to be). But, effective leaders ensured that when to lead (timing) is as important as what to do (mission) and where to go (vision.)
When a leader decides to make his moves, there are four possible outcomes:
1. Disaster - when a wrong action is executed at a wrong time;
2. Mistakes - when a wrong action is executed at the right time;
3. Resistance to Change - when the right action is executed at the wrong timing;
4. Success - when the right action is executed at the right time.
In my assessment is it apparent that every Malaysian leader is mindful of these outcomes. But, what makes a leader great is his ability to effectively scan his environment, both internal and external and thereafter articulates himself and executes his strategic moves. However, if a leader repeatedly shows poor judgement, even in things regarded as trivial by his followers, then the followers will start to think and believe that having him is a liability.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Power of Buying-In
The results of the 8 March General Election (GE) have changed Malaysia's political landscape. With five states fallen into the hands of Pakatan Rakyat, sooner or later, this change will certainly have some implications - for better or worst - on the society and economy.
In my previous postings, I have delved into some leadership principles and lessons learned. These principles and lessons learned are not necessarily exhaustive. I have also tried to critically analyze the presence of these principles in Malaysian leaders especially in regard to the performance of the recent GE. Through this analysis, I have somehow felt that there is a missing link. And, that missing link could probably explain the 'tsunami' that eventually changed Malaysia's political scenario.
In trying to find this missing link, I have resorted to various sources of information including electronic media - e-newspapers, YouTube video-clips and blogs such as BN Manifesto; PAS Manifesto, here and here; PKR Manifesto, here and here; DAP Campaign, here and here; and Pakatan Rakyat's Mission, here.
My analysis uncovered:
1. That there is a very close relationship between; firstly, the leader - that is centered on leadership attributes and influence, and secondly, the leader's vision - that is the destination the leader wants to take his followers to.
2. That it is quite natural for people to follow leaders that are stronger than themselves.
3. That people will only line-up behind the leader when they have bought-in both the leader as well as his vision.
4. That leaders first need to set a dream (vision) and then find his people.
5. That people first find their leaders and then their dreams.
Given the backdrop on the significance of leaders' attributes and their vision, the recent GE manifested that some leaders were able to not only buy-in but swing the people's support towards them. Others, though still in position, felt that they are slowly loosing the people who traditionally used to support them.These were due to leaders' ability to articulate and then align themselves or otherwise, to the people's dreams and wishes.
Politicians called this 'makkal sakhti', management and leadership gurus refer this as the power of buying-in. In much simpler terms, it is leadership engagement or organizational acceptance.
Perhaps, these video clips (1, 2, 3) give you better impressions of the points discussed above.
In my previous postings, I have delved into some leadership principles and lessons learned. These principles and lessons learned are not necessarily exhaustive. I have also tried to critically analyze the presence of these principles in Malaysian leaders especially in regard to the performance of the recent GE. Through this analysis, I have somehow felt that there is a missing link. And, that missing link could probably explain the 'tsunami' that eventually changed Malaysia's political scenario.
In trying to find this missing link, I have resorted to various sources of information including electronic media - e-newspapers, YouTube video-clips and blogs such as BN Manifesto; PAS Manifesto, here and here; PKR Manifesto, here and here; DAP Campaign, here and here; and Pakatan Rakyat's Mission, here.
My analysis uncovered:
1. That there is a very close relationship between; firstly, the leader - that is centered on leadership attributes and influence, and secondly, the leader's vision - that is the destination the leader wants to take his followers to.
2. That it is quite natural for people to follow leaders that are stronger than themselves.
3. That people will only line-up behind the leader when they have bought-in both the leader as well as his vision.
4. That leaders first need to set a dream (vision) and then find his people.
5. That people first find their leaders and then their dreams.
Given the backdrop on the significance of leaders' attributes and their vision, the recent GE manifested that some leaders were able to not only buy-in but swing the people's support towards them. Others, though still in position, felt that they are slowly loosing the people who traditionally used to support them.These were due to leaders' ability to articulate and then align themselves or otherwise, to the people's dreams and wishes.
Politicians called this 'makkal sakhti', management and leadership gurus refer this as the power of buying-in. In much simpler terms, it is leadership engagement or organizational acceptance.
Perhaps, these video clips (1, 2, 3) give you better impressions of the points discussed above.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Leadership Engagement
My associate and I had an appointment with one of our clients this afternoon. Our agenda was to discuss on strategic planning and develop a framework for implementation. Thereafter, translate the strategic plan into measurable operational terms.
When we go deeper into our discussion, we reckoned neither the process nor the system/technology propel the organization to realize its strategic plan. We came to a consensus that the most important element in an organization is the people behind the organizational processes, systems and technology.
"When we talk about leadership, we can't run away from politics." warned my client. "We should be able to draw a line, read the message in-between-lines and balance the situation." he added. Obviously he was inferring to office politics. We concurred with his observation.
The significance and relevance of visionary leadership and leader-follower engagement in managing and leading knowledge workers surfaced very vividly in our minds.
The brief discourse was indeed an invaluable hands-on experience that we could leverage for our future managerial development programs. Though local in flavor, it reaffirmed General Electric's (GE) advocacy that was shared when both of us attended the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) Seminar way back in mid 90's. In accelerating change, GE advocated leaders to identify what to change and think how to gain organizational acceptance before expecting any breakthrough.
Jimmy Mc Ginty, Washington DC Football Coach (The Replacements. DVD. 2000) when asked how his team could win the second half of the game, after loosing badly in the first half, responded, "You have to have miles and miles of heart to win the game and go to the final." Mc Ginty replaced the arrogant, self-centric quarter-master who played the first-half with Shane Falco, a team-player quarter-master who possessed a strong leader-follower connection. Washington DC won this game, made it to the final and won the championship.
You may wish to analyze this case, this case, this feedback and this coverage in light of the above discussions.
Hence, effective leaders need to know that they have to win the hearts and minds of their people first, before they could ask for their support. Leaders have to touch their (followers') hearts before asking for their hands.
When we go deeper into our discussion, we reckoned neither the process nor the system/technology propel the organization to realize its strategic plan. We came to a consensus that the most important element in an organization is the people behind the organizational processes, systems and technology.
"When we talk about leadership, we can't run away from politics." warned my client. "We should be able to draw a line, read the message in-between-lines and balance the situation." he added. Obviously he was inferring to office politics. We concurred with his observation.
The significance and relevance of visionary leadership and leader-follower engagement in managing and leading knowledge workers surfaced very vividly in our minds.
The brief discourse was indeed an invaluable hands-on experience that we could leverage for our future managerial development programs. Though local in flavor, it reaffirmed General Electric's (GE) advocacy that was shared when both of us attended the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) Seminar way back in mid 90's. In accelerating change, GE advocated leaders to identify what to change and think how to gain organizational acceptance before expecting any breakthrough.
Jimmy Mc Ginty, Washington DC Football Coach (The Replacements. DVD. 2000) when asked how his team could win the second half of the game, after loosing badly in the first half, responded, "You have to have miles and miles of heart to win the game and go to the final." Mc Ginty replaced the arrogant, self-centric quarter-master who played the first-half with Shane Falco, a team-player quarter-master who possessed a strong leader-follower connection. Washington DC won this game, made it to the final and won the championship.
You may wish to analyze this case, this case, this feedback and this coverage in light of the above discussions.
Hence, effective leaders need to know that they have to win the hearts and minds of their people first, before they could ask for their support. Leaders have to touch their (followers') hearts before asking for their hands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
