💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 4854.gmi captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sydney Finkelstein
I, like many people, have been thinking a lot about US President Barack Obama
lately. Did we pick the right man? Do we ever pick the right man, or woman? And
how can we know ahead of time whether we ve got the right person to be our
leader?
The puzzle is one that is faced not just in presidential politics, but by all
companies profit and non-profit alike as well as volunteer organisations,
NGO s, hospitals, schools and governments. The person at the top can make all
the difference in the world, for better or for worse.
Politicians and other leaders from virtually every corner of the globe
inevitably disappoint. But the much bigger concern is the mindset of voters,
board members, and nominating committees when selecting our leaders and the
uncomfortable realisation that we re not very good at it.
I m not even talking about the myriad of mistakes we make in selecting talent
when we hire, from preferring people who look and act like us to believing that
we can size someone up from an interview (the data on this last point, by the
way, shows we are astoundingly bad at that). The single biggest problem the
fatal flaw in choosing presidents, school board leaders, or football coaches
is that we believe we can predict the future rather than looking for a leader
who can quickly adapt to whatever the unpredictable future holds.
Think about what stands as best practice for choosing leaders. You assess the
challenges and opportunities your organisation or team faces, and then look for
the one person who has the best array of skills to address those challenges and
opportunities. And that s considered state of the art.
But what if we re not that good at figuring out the most critical challenges
and opportunities we want our leader to solve? And even more, what if the
issues of the day are eclipsed by new events? With the pace of change as
intense as it is across industries and countries, how can we even believe we
are able to identify the precise bundle of experiences, capabilities and
personality needed to take on what tomorrow brings?
What if we re not that good at figuring out the most critical challenges and
opportunities we want our leader to solve?
Yet we act as if that is exactly what we are able to do.
In long election cycles like in the United States, by the time a new president
is sworn in, the entire mandate may have changed. Was President Obama elected
because of his massive experience in addressing global financial breakdown? Of
course not, but that dominated the first year of his administration, which
coincided with the global financial crisis.
How about President George W Bush? He had been in office for less than eight
months when September 11 happened. Did voters anticipate that type of challenge
to the country when voting for him?
Certainly not. In fact, how could we? Even the most seasoned executive is
vulnerable to this same fatal flaw. Reginald Jones was ready to retire as CEO
of General Electric in 1981, when he decided to turn the reins over to Jack
Welch. One of the things he said at the time was that after a period of
technological change the economy, and hence, GE, was about to enter an era of
stability and maturity. He didn t have a sense of the coming onslaught from the
Microsofts, Intels and Ciscos of the world, yet he was the CEO of one of the
most powerful and resource-rich companies on the globe. He had access to the
best advisors and experts that money could buy. And he got it wrong utterly
wrong.
If we can t predict the future, then how can we figure out who s got the right
stuff to lead us into that future?
First, there is a body of knowledge and experience that is relevant for any top
job. It s like an entry ticket to the game; you can t be considered if you
haven t at least paid some dues. Second, you need a demonstrated track record
of accomplishment. Playing is not enough; you have to have some wins under your
belt too.
Many organisations stop there, but you really have to go the third, final, step
to increase the odds of identifying a great leader. You need to ensure that
your would-be leader has the agility to adapt to new and unexpected
circumstances. In the face of change, executives who stick to the same playbook
that got them to the top is almost always a failing formula. The inability of
senior executives to adapt and adjust is the real reason companies such as
Blockbuster and Kodak went out of business and the reason companies like
Google and Amazon keep beating competitors to the punch, time and time again.
The need for agile leadership is a problem for executives in all organisations.
And the more senior the position the more complex, the more ambiguous, the more
important the challenges and the decisions a leader is faced with. It s
precisely for these types of challenges that there is a huge premium on
adaptability.
When faced with a failed strategy, we want our leaders to come up with
something very different. We want them to adapt, demonstrate flexibility and
show they have the agility to be a great leader. And we want them to do it in
real-time, all the time.
Which brings us back to President Obama. The big question is: has he shown
himself to be an agile leader amid multiple crises such as Syria, superstorm
Sandy and battles with Congress? The agility question is one that voters should
have asked before 2008.
Great leaders must be adaptable. Consider the military s special forces, those
highly trained personnel assigned to the most dangerous and unconventional
missions. These elite units, which date back to Roman times, select and train
warriors for strength, maturity, motivation, and intelligence. Candidates who
make it through to the end are incredibly capable, yet there is one
characteristic that is make-or-break in the final analysis: the ability to
adapt and adjust and think fresh, in real-time.
And that is the one capability all leaders must have.