1.

Developing Successful Leadership Practices By: Riley Jones Successful leadership practices and professional business management skills are proficiencies that develop over time. Actually, some people are born leaders; however there are certain areas which will be targeted on to develop leadership skills. Mahatma Gandhi once said "If I have the idea that I can do it, I can surely acquire the capability to try and do it, even if I may not have it at the beginning". Sensible leadership starts with a solid and clearly defined leadership philosophy. Why? As a result of your personal leadership philosophy defines a collection of beliefs that verify how you react to folks and situations. Jim Collins and Jerry Porras describe the key parts of a leadership philosophy in their book designed to Last. At the core of a leadership philosophy they place a group of beliefs or ideologies. It's necessary to define these for yourself to perceive your leadership philosophy. The three belief systems Collins and Porras define are what you think concerning individuals, what you believe concerning life and what you believe makes teams and organizations effective. These systems are expressed in your values and ultimately shape how you behave and your leadership style. Martin Glenn is a leadership skilled and complete guru with demonstrable expertise and expertise. He and his team took Walkers Snack Foods from a relatively small regional operation to the most well-known supermarket brand within the UK in simply 5 years. By 2005, Walkers occupied forty five % of 22-billion salty snacks industry in the UK. Nowadays as the CEO of PepsiCo UK (the parent company of Walkers), Glenn has been tasked with making Pepsi a household name within the UK. Martin Glenn has had wonderful teams behind him that have aided in his success. And while quality of product, branding marketing and distribution are the hallmarks of Walkers crisps' success - his account of this turnaround reveals many valuable lessons regarding successful business leadership practices, and his personal leadership philosophies. In an eBook entitled Successful Leadership in Apply, Glenn distils the various leadership lessons he's learned along the way. These embrace recommendation regarding managing teams and creativity, when to relinquishing, an uncompromising commitment to quality and excellence and engagement with every employee. Martin Glenn provides some clear lessons in successful leadership practices. As an example, he

says that in addition to have a clear leadership philosophy - it's also vital to know your business inside and out. A slip-up several folks in management positions create is just viewing the globe from their desks. Solely counting on data could be a huge mistake - and it's advisable to get out into the field yourself to work out what is really going on. Whereas you are out there, create time to speak to people. This is often one manner to elicit info from them that will give ways in which to improve or innovate. He goes on to say that great business leadership strategies ought to not only keep individuals motivated, however conjointly ensure that the business stays contemporary and keeps moving forward. This does not mean that you must change for change's sake - this could be fatal to a brand that has been established over time. However, when marketing a product keep things additional-ordinary. This will guarantee that folks do not stop talking concerning your product or business. Another lesson is that taking time to engage with each employee is very important to excellence in leadership. It is a well-established reality that deeper relationships and open internal communication channels with workers make every member of an organization not solely feel a lot of valued and empowered, however additionally motivated to try and do their job better and to create selections that are in the most effective interest of the organization. Finally, and this could be a shocker - it's not all about profit! In Martin Glenn's example with Walkers crisps, yes, the profits doubled in five years however this was not the initial objective. This was simply a natural results of the means things developed as a result of Glenn's specialize in doing his job properly and a specialize in growth. Definitely taking these lessons in successful leadership practices on board will solely improve your leadership skills, enabling you to encourage teams and take your business to new heights in the data that you have a solid foundation on that to build. Riley Jones has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Leadership, you can also check out his latest website about: Little Wonder Leaf Blower Article Source: http://www.leadershiparticles.net

2. Three Ways of Defining Leadership By Mitch McCrimmon

Here are 3 popular ways of defining leadership, each from a slightly different perspective: 1. Leadership means being the dominant individual in a group. 2. Leadership means getting things done through people. 3. Leadership means challenging the status quo, promoting a better way. For many, leadership means doing all three of these things but there are subtle and important differences. Let's look at them one by one.

Leadership means being the dominant individual in a group.

In primitive tribes and higher animal species the dominant individual was the leader. Being the leader simply meant having the power to attain and hold the top position for a reasonable length of time. Contrary to definition 2, you could be the leader without getting anything done through others. A leader was the person in charge even if the group was in a stable state where people went about their business as normal. As long as group members obeyed the leader's rules, the leader did not even need to be actively involved in the lives of group members, let alone get anything done through them. You could also be the leader in such a group without promoting a better way as suggested by definition 3. If you didn't need to be voted into power, why have a platform for change? You simply seized power; no sales pitch was needed on how you could make life better for the group. Yes, such leaders may have led groups successfully in battle and built great monuments with them, but, strictly speaking, you could be the leader without achieving anything through a group effort. The meaning of leadership, according to this definition, is simply to be at the top of the pile.

Leadership means getting things done through people.

Great leaders throughout history have led their groups to momentous achievements, but the idea that leadership should be defined as getting things done through people has been developed most fully by modern business, which is all about achieving results. As business has become more complex, the leadership challenge has grown form one of the simple issuing of orders to a few "hands" to the subtle coordination of highly skilled, diverse knowledge workers to build sophisticated machines and put men on the moon. There is a problem with this definition of leadership, however. It used to belong to management. Why the switch from management to leadership? And is this a good move? Up to the late 1970's writers used the terms leadership and management interchangeably but with more emphasis on management. For example, the

management theorists, Blake and Mouton, developed their famous managerial grid in the 1960's. At the time, it was portrayed as a way of identifying your management style. Today, in line with the shift to leadership, the name is the same (managerial grid) but it is now positioned as a leadership style instrument. Similarly, we used to talk about management style more than leadership style. Managers could be either "theory X" and task oriented or "theory Y" and concerned for people. But a profound shift in thinking took place in a revolutionary period lasting from the late 1970's through the mid 1980's. The cause of this upheaval was the commercial success of Japanese industry in North America. This led pundits to claim that the U.S. had lost its competitive edge because U.S. management was too bureaucratic, controlling, uninspiring and inept at fostering innovation. Rather than upgrade management, there was an emotional over reaction such that management was rejected and replaced by leadership. Since then, leaders were portrayed as theory Y, inspiring and concerned about people while management got saddled with all the bad guy attributes of being controlling, theory X, uninspiring and narrowly task focused. Similarly, the distinction between being transformational and transactional was originally launched to differentiate two leadership styles, but it wasn't long before it became used to separate leadership from management, the former being transformational and the latter transactional. In our haste to trash management, we grabbed whatever tools were handy but with heavy costs. First, we painted leadership into a corner by suggesting that you needed to be an inspiring cheerleader to be a leader, leaving no room for quiet or simply factual leadership. Second, we created a bloated concept of leadership by banishing management. Third, by attaching leadership to getting things done through a team, we associated leadership irrevocably with being in charge of people, thereby ruling out position less leadership. Yes, there is informal leadership but this concept is essentially the same as formal leadership except for their power bases. Like its formal counterpart, informal leadership still means taking charge and managing a group to achieve a target. In either case, you need to have the personal presence, organizational skills and motivation to take charge to be a leader.

Leadership means challenging the status quo, promoting a better way.

We have always felt, intuitively, that leaders have the courage to stand up and be counted. They go against the grain, often at great risk, to call for change. We only need to look at Martin Luther King, Jr. His leadership rested not so much on his oratorical skills - they were just icing on the cake. He was a leader primarily because he marched and spoke against injustice. He challenged the status quo and promoted a better world. However, and this is the whole point here, if you think through what it means to challenge the status quo or advocate change, there is no necessary implication that you have to be in charge of the people you are trying to influence. The bottom line is that this third definition, when worked

through fully, gives us a way to break the stranglehold of the previous two definitions. The benefit of this move is that we gain a clearer understanding of how all employees can show leadership even if they totally lack the skills or inclination to take charge of groups in a managerial sense, even informally. Think again of Martin Luther King, Jr. He sought to move the U.S. Government and the population at large to think differently about such issues as segregation on buses. His leadership efforts were successful when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such discrimination unconstitutional. Now, it is obvious that he was not in a managerial role within the Supreme Court. He showed leadership to this group as an outsider. You could say the same of Jack Welch who had a leadership impact on countless businesses around the globe through his novel practices, such as being first or second in a market. Again, those who followed the lead of Jack Welch did not report to him. They were not even members of a common group. Leadership Reinvented for the 21st Century If we cast aside the first two definitions of leadership, what is left? If leadership means nothing more than promoting a better way, then we need to upgrade management to take care of everything to do with getting things done through people. We need to say that management does not entail being controlling, bureaucratic or theory X, that they can be as inspiring as they need to be, good at coaching, developing and empowering people. A critical supporting fact is that the power on which leadership is based is shifting from having a dominant personality to the ability to devise new ways of working, new products and better services. Businesses that compete on the basis of rapid innovation are engaged in a war of ideas and no one has a monopoly on good ideas. This is revolutionary because it suggests that leadership can no longer be about group domination. Now, leadership is a brief influence impact, an episode or act, not an ongoing state or role. You still may need a larger than life personality to ascend to the role of Chief Executive, but leadership conceived as a good idea for a better way can be very small scale and local. Any employee with a better idea can promote it, even if only by example, without having the personal presence to be promoted to a managerial role. Strictly, speaking there are no longer any leaders, only leadership. This view captures the fact that leadership is a fleeting state that can shift quickly from one person to another. It is an impact rather than a type of person or position. It must be so if it can be shown by outsiders. Key Features of Leadership Reinvented

It does not involve managing people to get things done. It comes to an end once those led get on board. It sells the tickets for the journey; management drives the bus to the destination. It is a discrete episode, a one-off act of influence, not an ongoing position of dominance. It is based on the promotion of a better way. It can be shown bottom-up as well as top-down.

It can be shown by outsiders and between competing individuals or groups.

Thought Leadership - The Essence of Leadership Reinvented Organizations today need all employees to think creatively and to promote new products. Promoting a better idea can be called thought leadership. In a knowledge driven environment, the newest, best idea influences others to get on board. When a product developer convinces top management to adopt a new product, that person has shown thought leadership bottom-up. But it can be shown across groups as well. When Microsoft develops products or services invented by Apple or Google, they are following the lead of these innovators. This also is thought leadership. While the possession of great emotional intelligence and the oratory of a Martin Luther King, Jr. can help thought leaders make their case, it is vital to see that these skills are nice to have addons, not an essential part of the meaning of leadership. Technical geeks with zero emotional intelligence and an obnoxious influencing style can show thought leadership if they can demonstrate the value of their ideas. This is very empowering because it moves us away from the demand to develop sophisticated leadership skills as a precondition of showing leadership. Strictly speaking there are no leadership skills, only influencing skills and great content. Imagine asking Tiger Woods after the end of the third round when he is in the lead, how he developed such great leadership skills. The truth is that he shows leadership through being great at the content of his profession, not by having a separate set of talents called leadership skills. On the other hand, there are very definite management skills. Getting work done through people calls for quite sophisticated interpersonal and organizational skills. Content is King The point of the previous section is that convincing content or substance can trump great style or form. Having a larger than life personality may still help you get to be CEO but this is the power of style over substance. If the prospective leader has enough charisma, it almost doesn't matter what is being advocated (the content). Conversely, thought leadership is most convincing if backed up by hard evidence. Having persuasive influencing skills helps but isn't essential. This means that front line knowledge workers can focus on what it really takes to show leadership: begin by developing convincing content. If your idea is good enough it will virtually sell itself. It's not that influencing skills are not valuable. The point is that we can define leadership without mentioning influencing style. Also, there is the fact that opportunists will get on board with a great idea with no persuasion whatsoever. Thus, if it is possible to show leadership without being personally persuasive, then having such skills cannot be a necessary condition to show leadership. The Future of Leadership

Leadership reinvented can still be shown by CEOs. They just need to accept that much of what they do needs to be reclassified as management. They also need to devote more time to fostering leadership in front line employees, thereby taking empowerment a huge leap forward. If they want to reap the full innovative potential of all employees, CEOs and other managers need to engage and inspire employees more fully. Helping them to see how all employees can show leadership now could make all the difference between winning the war of ideas and falling further behind. Where knowledge rules, the old fashioned conception of leadership as group domination is dangerously obsolete. Complexity drives specialization. It is time to bring management back from the dead to take care of getting things done through people, leaving leadership to focus on finding and promoting new directions. Definition number 1 may still be good enough to capture what happens in small street gangs and primitive tribes but it is most clearly out of date in a world that is a war of ideas. Number 2 is a mess because it is a total confusion of leadership and management. Only definition number 3 captures all leadership - that shown by people in charge, by those with neither the inclination nor the skills to take charge, and by outsiders like Martin Luther King, Jr. Uniquely, this definition also captures what it means to be a market leading company or a leading individual or team in sports. Leadership is simply a matter of showing the way. One of the many exciting features of this definition is that followers must choose to follow of their own free will because coercive power and authority are missing. Definition number 3 captures the essence of pure leadership. About this Author See http://www.lead2xl.com for more articles like this one. Mitch McCrimmon has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. His latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, challenges conventional thinking on leadership. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Mitch_McCrimmon

3. Leadership Starts From Within By Dr. Richard Norris

The global recession, directly or indirectly, will impact leadership - yours, your market, your competition, your region and, yes, your nation. Why? Because leadership is ubiquitous. It is all around us. It is of primary importance. Yet, it is seemingly underserved, undervalued and under resourced. Need some proof?

According to the Development Dimensions International 's Global Leadership Forecast 2008/09 (1) from research of 1493 HR professionals and 12,208 business leaders across 76 countries:

75% of business leaders identified that improving or leveraging of leadership talent was their #1 priority. Only 41% of business leaders are satisfied with the help they get to develop leadership capabilities. One of the core needs within organizations is to create a sustainable supply of quality leaders. The primary skill shortfall amongst organizations is in leadership skills and interpersonal skills.

Leadership is a leaking bucket. All organizations, large and small, from the family to local sport team to government to the boardroom of a leading global company, will at some time need to replace leaders. This arises from necessity and/or from natural attrition. From the information above, there is clearly a pervasive problem or, in a more positive tone, there is an opportunity an opportunity to address this chronic shortcoming. How? Start with yourself. Leadership starts from within. Insights Definition To begin to explore this important distinction let's start by looking at the definition of leadership. According to the Oxford Dictionary leadership is the action of leading a group of people or an organization, or the ability to do this. And... To lead is to cause (a person or animal) to go with one by holding them by the hand, a halter, a rope, etc. while moving forward. Leadership therefore requires influence, direction and action. However, for leadership to manifest so that others follow, it stands to reason that the leader, whoever or whatever that may be, must first influence themselves, give self-direction and act on that direction. Chronic Question There exists a perennial question about leadership - "Are leaders born or made?" or to rephrase it "Nature versus nurture".

Why does it need to be one or the other? Do you see many babies leading Fortune 500s or governments or the local sports team? Regardless of your opinion or perceptions one thing is for sure. Leadership is something into which you grow. Importantly, we are all born to lead ourselves at least! In nature there must be reasonably synchronous growth regardless of the "ecosystem". Teenagers may experience growing pains when their bones are growing at a faster rate than their muscles. Our DNA is programmed so that eventually growth levels out and all systems are aligned and developed to their full design specification. An individual promoted to a new role in an organization can experience a skill, attitude and/or ability gap compared to the new demands. To address the gap or deficit, the same individual must seek within first and begin the process of change there. Admittedly, in organizations it is possible to experience growing pains too - sales and demand exceed the ability to supply and/or service the customer. Leadership must, therefore, develop within the organization to address the imbalance and ensure that harmony is restored. What Does Google Have To Say? As Google is the #1 search engine, it gives an impartial and objective perspective on leadership. Just by typing in "leadership" yields 118 million results - sites, references etc. According to Google AdWords searches on the word "leadership" receives >4 million hits globally per month. Both of these facts suggest that leadership is a topic of significant interest and that there is a huge diversity of data, opinions, perceptions, models, styles, concepts and experts. The monthly searches also suggest there is a perpetual quest for answers, solutions and information on leadership. Interestingly, when the global search is narrowed there are only:

4400 hits per month for "successful leadership" 33,100 hits per months for "effective leadership" and 18,100 hits per month for "self-leadership".

It is interesting that, in the face of all the need out there for leadership, the refined search on successful and effective leadership globally produces comparatively so few hits. Why is that? Is there a global delusion that we just need to know more about leadership or just understand it better rather than define what it takes to make a good leader or even a great one or to establish a legacy of outstanding leadership? People - Your Most Important Asset

The mantra that people are your most important asset is spoken around the world. Too bad the mantra is wrong. People are not your most important asset - the right people are. And that is especially true for the right leaders. The right leaders will attract, inspire, develop and retain the right people. The right leaders will be intent on growing other leaders. The right leaders will start by growing themselves - from the inside out. They know that to be a great leader they have to establish their own strong foundation of principles, values and attitudes. A skills-based approach to leadership, however, takes an outside-in approach. That is where many individuals, teams and organizations get it wrong and contribute significantly to the statistics of the Global Leadership Forecast 2008/9. A skills approach to leadership assumes that good foundations have been laid upon which to lay the skills. To outright ignore examining and establishing the right foundation is in place is a huge risk. Regrettably, whether assumptions have been made or the matter outright ignored, this often equates, effectively, to throwing skills on Teflon. The result is skills will not stick. Applying the skills-based approach, consider a formula for success, here applied to leadership, as Be x Do = Have. Have = good right leadership. Do = skills. Be =? Without addressing the 'Be' it is no surprise that leadership is chronically found wanting. You get the people you deserve. It's your decision. For you to attract and lead better people you need to become the leader those people need and desire. That means you must invest in yourself first. Where to Start The majority of leaders should know and understand that people are the core building block of their team and/or organization. But to be an effective leader, you need to know the core building block of your people - their respective roles. Many organizations just look at their people in their professional capacity. Whilst they may invest in their development and endeavor to lead them they often miss the mark. To ensure that your leadership "fits" and attracts the right people doing the right things to generate the right results, you need to ensure that you take into account all the roles each person comes to work with - within and outside the team or organization. This means you must address their personal roles outside of work e.g. parent, spouse, charity volunteer, team captain of local hockey team and coach of daughter's swim team (5 roles).

All of a person's roles show up at work. A leader is no different. They have as many if not more roles. The right leader will be addressing their growth and development in each role according to priorities and available "resources" (time, money etc.). Self-leadership therefore begins by identifying core roles, prioritizing them, planning their development and then acting on the plan. To do all that it must begin from within. Relationships Interestingly, a leader will attract into their lives people and circumstances from which to learn and grow. Life is, after all, a mirror. The quality of your leadership is determined by the quality of your relationships. There are two often quoted adages - love your neighbour as yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. These both stress the importance of meaningful relationships and emphasize that all relationships start with you. So leadership starts with your relationship with yourself. To improve your relationships with others so that you can become a better leader, you need to improve your relationship with yourself first. Regrettably, this revelation is often overlooked and/or not given the attention it is due. A Critical Ingredient Any relationship starts with you. Leadership starts with you. Self-leadership (and any leadership for that matter), to be effective, is dependent on the ability to communicate well - internally and externally. There is plenty of focus on external communication. For example, throughout the school systems around the world there is an emphasis regarding training around the messages from our mouth and from our pen or keyboard. However, what has been sadly overlooked is the greater importance of our internal communication. All communication starts as a thought before it is translated into words and messages. How many of us have allowed ourselves to "speak first and think later"? What was the result? In many instances it likely created some unwelcome ripples in your life and in your leadership. We all have an internal voice - actually we have two - our internal ally or our internal adversary. Our ally is working for us. Our adversary is working against us. As a leader which voice is loudest most often or to which one do you listen to most? When the adversary prevails it is often because we are reacting to a situation or challenge. Self-leadership knows to proactively and consciously control the voice to which it listens.

With self-leadership our internal (and external) communication must be open, honest, clear, timely and, at times, radical. Integrity then flows from this. When our thoughts line up with our words our actions will follow in alignment. We are congruent. We walk the talk. When we do that people do what people see. Your self-leadership then flows into leadership. Parting Questions To help initiate your self-leadership here are some extremely helpful questions for you to consider: 1. What is the detailed profile of the ideal leader for you, your team or your organization? 2. What are the foundations for self-leadership? 3. On a scale of 1-10 (1 being poor and 10 being excellent) how do you score on selfleadership? 4. In the event you did not score a 10 for #3 what do you need to be and/or do to improve your score to an 8+? 5. How do you encourage and develop self-leadership individually and/or as team or organization? 6. Where applicable, how will you integrate self-leadership into your existing leadership development? Summary: There is a global need for leadership - always will be. The important distinction is the need for great leadership. Great leaders lead themselves well first. But before they become great they know they have to grow into it. To do that means they must invest in themselves first and begin that by developing themselves from the inside out role by role. Ultimately, the quality of your leadership is determined by the quality of your relationships which are determined by the quality of your internal or self-communication. Leadership brings change. Change is inevitable; growth is optional. To grow as a leader, whether as an individual, team or organization, you must therefore change. That change must begin with you. Leadership starts from within you. About this Author References: 1. http://www.ddiworld.com/thoughtleadership/globalleadershipforecast2008.asp Copyright 2011 Serendipity Global Ltd & Dr Richard Norris

Dr Richard Norris delivers global transformation through a focus on self-leadership delivered through coaching and speaking (although he prefers the term "messaging". He is the author of Hoof it! 7 Key Lessons on Your Journey of Success, an engaging parable, and a contributing author and editor in several business books and publications. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dr._Richard_Norris

4. The Relationship Between Leadership and Influence By Mitch McCrimmon

What is the relationship between leadership and influence? Is leadership always influence and is influence always leadership? To say that leadership always entails influence is like saying that all snow is white. It's true but the inference doesn't work the other way. That is, not all white things are snow. Similarly, although all leadership is influence, there are lots of types of influence that don't count as leadership. Here are a few examples: - Intimidating or forcing someone to do something. - Bribing someone to do your bidding. - Paying for things you want someone to do for you. - Teaching a student to behave better in a classroom. - Encouraging your children to eat their vegetables. The last two examples are not leadership because they have nothing to do with a group striving to achieve a goal. Teaching students and encouraging children to eat vegetables is for their own interest, not for the good of a larger group. Similarly, salespeople may be very influential but their influence is self-interested. The salesperson and the customer do not constitute a group. Formal Authority and Leadership Influence Suppose you are the boss and you decide to ramp up production by 50%, requiring everyone to work faster and longer hours without overtime. Is this leadership? No, it may be influence but it is not leadership because the employees had no choice. To say that leadership is informal influence means that followers have a free choice to follow or not.

What are some prime examples of true leadership influence? One of the most familiar is Martin Luther King's demonstrations against segregation on buses which led the U.S. Supreme Court to outlaw this practice. King had no formal authority or other power to move the U.S. government. This is the real meaning of leadership. Another example of genuine leadership influence was the Sony employee who influenced management to adopt his idea for PlayStation despite their feeling that Sony wasn't into making toys. Whenever you convince your colleagues or your boss to adopt a new idea, you have shown them leadership. Or, you might simply set a good example for others and, if they follow, you have shown leadership. Market leading businesses influence their competitors to change course, another example of real leadership. When executives make decisions that take their teams in new directions, they are taking managerial actions, NOT showing leadership because employees have no choice. To count as leadership, influence must be informal and followers must get on board completely of their own free will. Leadership is also a group phenomenon and is aimed at serving some unselfish purpose, something to improve the group's effectiveness. For this reason, even if your children willingly follow your plea to eat their vegetables, you haven't shown leadership because you and your kids are not a group working toward a common goal. Informal leadership and Influence We often distinguish between formal and informal leadership. The only difference between these concepts is that the informal leader takes charge informally. The formal leader has been given formal authority to govern the group while the informal leader is granted this role by the group itself. The informal leader has personal power - charisma, knowledge or some form of expertise that the group values. It is vital to recognize that the conventional concept of informal leadership is not the same thing as saying that all leadership influence is informal. The conventional concept, formal or informal, is all about being in charge of the group. The claim made here is that real leadership is independent of position, as it was in the case of Martin Luther King. He was not an informal leader in the conventional sense - the Supreme Court didn't recognize him as their informal leader. As another example, a technical geek might influence his peers to adopt a new piece of software. He has influenced them informally. However, this geek might be so disinclined to

manage the group that they might never view him as their informal leader - someone who they would turn to for help in organizing their day to day work, who they would look to for advice and the resolution of conflict. The geek's informal leadership is a one-off act, not an ongoing role. His influence is informal but he is not what we normally call an informal leader because he has no interest or ability to take charge of the group in a managerial sense. So what? By reformulating the meaning of leadership, I am saying that the old distinction between formal and informal leadership is outdated. There is really only formal and informal management because all leadership is informal where this term refers to willingly following someone's lead NOT to informally taking charge of the group. Conclusion Leadership influence involves a group changing direction because of someone's informal influence. It is always disinterested because, if you influence people to support you by appealing to their needs, you are effectively operating as a salesperson, not a leader. True leadership asks people to set aside their personal needs and do something for the good of the group. Think again of Martin Luther King. He was campaigning for justice, not to be elected U.S. president. His leadership entailed personal sacrifice in the interest of a higher cause. About this Author See http://www.leadersdirect.com for more information on this and related topics. Mitch McCrimmon has over 30 years experience in executive assessment and coaching. His latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, challenges conventional thinking on leadership. Warning: you might find it annoying if you are committed to the usual platitudes about leadership. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Mitch_McCrimmon

5. Authentic Leadership - A Personal Philosophy By James Taggart "I am your servant. I do not come to you as a leader, as one above others." These words were uttered by Nelson Mandela several years ago, and serve as an important reminder of how one individual maintained his dignity and integrity while being incarcerated for 27 years as a political prisoner in South Africa. Mandela's own leadership journey continues to

serve as an inspiration to people around the world. His ability to rise above the inhumane treatment from his jailers and others in positions of power at the time reflect authentic leadership. The purpose of this article is to share some of what I have learned over 15 years as a student of leadership, and to challenge the reader to take the time in the weeks ahead to reflect on their own personal leadership and to ask themselves the question: Am I an authentic leader? I have studied the question of what do we mean by the word 'leadership' over a long period of time. Is it something that each of us can develop, or is it the domain of only a few. Many writers on the subject argue that leadership can be learned. I'm not quick, however, to reject the older school view that leadership is something with which people are born. For example, it was Aristotle who made the comment: "From the moment of their birth, some are marked for subjugation, and others for command." Many of the contemporary thinkers on leadership reject that leaders are born. But I believe that this is what I'll call the pendulum effect, in which people jump onto a new theory after abandoning an older one. Now, it's argued that everyone can be developed into a leader. I've identified an approach to address the issue of who possesses leadership in an organization or a community. It consists of two types of leadership: Big L and Little L. My personal view is that only a few of us will ever have the dynamic leadership behaviors and skills to lead organizations, private, public or non-profit, large or small, or the populace of a country, state or province. Only a few of us have what it takes to be a Big L leader. What propelled people like Winston Churchill, Mohandas Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, and Nelson Mandela to be world-class leaders? For those who are sports-minded, consider the great athletes like Bobby Orr, Billy Jean King, Wayne Gretsky, or Mohammed Ali. Or how about such vocalists as Aretha Franklin, Cline Dionne, or Beverly Sills? These individuals possessed an innate talent and drive that propelled them to succeed. Why do some children at a very young age show an incredible skill in a certain discipline, yet other children work hard but only attain a certain level of proficiency? To lead an organization, especially in today's turbulent world, requires someone with unique abilities. Some of these can be learned. But there needs to be an inner drive and vision that causes that individual to want to lead others. This raises the issue of power and status, for which many people strive in their efforts to rise to the top. Power can be an important component of effective leadership, provided it is used properly and for the right purposes. When top leaders abuse power by controlling and manipulating their

subordinates, then these are not Big L leaders. They may be good managers, but when it comes to inspiring people and leading with integrity, they fall short of achieving this. The late Peter Drucker believed that leadership must be founded upon a constitution. Otherwise, irresponsibility will result. He made the following powerful statement some years ago: "I am amazed that today's prominent writers on leadership do not seem to realize that the three most charismatic leaders in all recorded history were named Hitler, Stalin and Mao. I do not believe that there are three men who did more evil and more harm. Leadership has to be grounded in responsibility. It has to be grounded in a constitution. It has to be grounded in accountability. Otherwise, it will lead to tyranny." Drucker was an advocate for shared leadership. He believed in employee responsibility and the need for a "self-governing community," where individuals and teams share in many managerial activities. This brings me to the concept of Little L leadership. This is the leadership we see displayed throughout organizations and community. It is the day-today acts and behaviors that people at all levels engage in. However, there are those who just are not interested in showing leadership behaviors, or at least for the time being. That's okay. Some of them will gradually come on board, while others will continue to want to be led by their peers and managers. This brings to mind a quotation from physicist David Bohm: "The ability to perceive or think differently is more important than the knowledge gained." This is a key point to remember when reflecting on our personal leadership styles and potentials. It comes down to each of us being authentic in how we conduct ourselves. We need to strip off the facades we wear and own up to our weaknesses, limitations and warts. When we're honest and open with ourselves and others, we gain greater confidence and self-respect, plus respect from others. Be true to yourself and others will be true to you. I'll share a personal example. When I was in my early 30s I was promoted to manager of a team of economists. While I had the technical skills and knew the work, I had zero management training. Because of my own insecurities and wanting to do a good job, I became a bit of a micro manager. That was until a couple of the young economists straightened me out. It took a while but I learned to eventually let go and share the leadership within my branch. I was still the managerial leader, but the people with whom I worked certainly took a lot of initiative and consistently demonstrated leadership in their own ways. There's no magic formula or cookie cutter approach to this. Each of us has to find our own way. In my case, I had to fall on my nose a number of times. Here are three questions you may wish to reflect on when it comes to developing your leadership skills:

1. What are my strengths and weaknesses? (Be honest with yourself) 2. What do I need to do to be more adventurous and risk-taking? 3. How can I inspire others to want to work towards a common purpose? I'll share one piece of advice, something I've learned: If you want to inspire others (an essential part of leadership), you need to be passionate about your cause. I recall watching a PBS program a few years ago that looked at the head surgeon of an emergency room in a large US city. As you can imagine, an ER can be an extremely hectic and stressful place in which to work. People have to know their duties and understand the interdependency of their efforts. What struck me most about watching the surgeon (a middle age Black man) was his calmness in dealing with highly stressful situations in the midst of chaos - multiple victims of car accidents and victims with gunshot wounds. As he stated to the journalist: "My staff look at me to keep it together. If I lose it, they lose it." When his shift finished, where did he go? Home? No, he went to do volunteer work with inner city Black children. For me, this man showed exemplary leadership. But this prompts the question: was this Black man born as a natural leader, or did he develop his leadership skills over time? Each of us needs to see our personal quest for leadership as one that first starts with the discovery of who each of us really is. We need: To know ourselves, To hear ourselves, To tell the truth to ourselves, To be honest with ourselves. Once we address these questions and reexamine our values and beliefs, we'll be ready to move forward in our leadership journey. Yes, leadership skills can be learned. But the first step is a process in which we look inside ourselves. This journey is a very personal and private one. We may or may not to wish to share with others along the way. However, one thing needs to be clear and that is every leader must go though it. Authors Kouzes and Posner express this beautifully when they state: "You can't elevate others to higher purposes until you've first elevated yourself....You can't lead others until you've first led yourself through a struggle with opposing values....A leader with integrity has one self, at home and at work, with family and with colleagues. Such a leader has a unifying set of values that guide choices of action regardless of the situation."

Here are four excellent questions they pose to help facilitate the leadership journey: o What are my values and beliefs on how people should operate in the organization? o How strongly am I attached to my values and beliefs? o How strong is my relationship with those I lead and with whom I work? o Am I the right one to be leading at the moment? The last question is especially important in my opinion. It gets at the heart of the shared leadership issue. Regardless of one's "position" in the organization, there are times when one steps forward to lead and times when one steps back. As Kouzes and Posner state: "To step out into the unknown, begin with the exploration of the inner territory. With that as a base, we can then discover and unleash the leader within us all." And with those closing words, I'll leave you, the reader, to reflect upon what I've shared. Don't be shy; take the plunge! About this Author James Taggart has been a student of leadership for over 20 years, and devoted over a decade to applied work in leadership development, organizational learning, and team building. As a thought leader, he has initiated and led several change management projects. He has also worked as an economist for many years, conducting applied research into labour market issues; carrying out policy research in the areas of science, technology and innovation; and initiating projects focused on industrial competitiveness. In addition to bachelor and master degrees in economics from the University of New Brunswick, Jim holds an executive master degree from Royal Roads University in Victoria, Canada. His master's thesis was on the topic of shared leadership. Jim invites you to visit his leadership website: Changing Winds Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Taggart

6. Leadership Attributes, Leadership Traits, and Transformational Leadership Research By Dr Howard Edward Haller My doctoral dissertation leadership research primarily focused on the impact and relationship between leadership and adversity. However, a material additional component of my leadership

was to evoke from the sixteen prominent leader's descriptions their concepts of leadership, as well as their styles of leadership, including transformational leadership. The sixteen prominent leader / research participants each had their own unique life journey in dealing with adversity and then working to become a successful and accomplished leader. One common theme is that obstacles or adversity in the early lives of the participants, such as the loss of a parent, poverty, discrimination, or even being a Holocaust victim, was not the seminal or most important event in their lives. They each grew through the experiences that came with increasing responsibilities in their careers, or through significant career changes. Successfully overcoming the obstacles in their adult lives helped them to grow. The encouragement, guidance, and examples from mentors played a significant part in their lives. My in depth Doctoral dissertation research into leadership and adversity has shown me that a mentor, especially a servant-leader mentor, can teach a person how to overcome the obstacles and adversities of life. Enlightened mentors or servant-leader mentors are a classic example of someone who uses transformation leadership techniques and skills in the life. The leader I interviewed commented on the importance of being the enlightened and caring mentor can guide from their own personal experiences with adversity. They are some who has been there and has successfully overcome the difficult problem or major adversity. In some cases, mentors may teach mentees which way to go based on their experience of taking a wrong path and having learned a better way. The mentor may have experienced and overcome some other, even more horrendous, difficulty in his or her life's journey that could inspire the mentee to higher heights. The sixteen prominent leaders that I personally interviewed identified nine important qualities of a leader. Many of these leadership traits, including though usually associated with transformational leadership, are found in the lst from my leadership research: 1. Honesty or integrity 2. A high level of people skills 3. Initiative, assertiveness, drive, or determination 4. Excellent communication skills or willingness to speak up, take a position, or take charge 5. Vision (being forward-looking) 6. Desire or passion to lead and inspire 7. Positive attitude and self-confidence; charisma 8. Knowledge of the business and/or group task at hand; competence 9. The ability to overcome adversity or obstacles The sixteen prominent leaders that I interviewed for my Doctoral dissertation research into leadership and adversity specifically identified an additional four important qualities that are not

commonly found in the academic leadership literature. 10. Being a Servant-Leader, serving people, and especially being humble 11. Having both religious faith and strong family ties 12. Framing or recognizing the worst adversity as an opportunity 13. Having a mentor or mentors in their development as leaders (Haller, 2008, pp. 116-117) Several of my leadership research participants acknowledged the refining nature of adversity, but it was not really a "transformational leadership traits," but rather a comment on their experience with overcoming adversity, obstacles, abuse, discrimination, death of a parent, or in one case the Nazi Holocaust. Leadership Attributes or Traits, and Transformational Leadership I have found from my personal leadership experience and my doctoral research in the area of leadership foundations, that transformational leadership especially important in the "real application" of leadership. Starting back in the 1980s there was a resurgence of researchers updating the academic literature with their findings, repackaging, and comments leadership trait theory. Many of the leadership scholars focused there framing on leadership traits in the context of discussing transformational leadership. Review of Recent Research on Individual Traits or Attributes My finding from my personal interviews and their answers to my questions on "What is Leadership" and "what help them become leaders" resulted in the list of 13 leadership traits I just listed from my leadership research with sixteen prominent leaders. Many of my thirteen leadership traits mentioned where often found in the leadership literature. The findings, renaming and framing of trait theory and transformational, or situational leadership research was led by scholars such as, Austin, Blanchard, Johnson, Kouzes, Posner, Peters, Waterman and Zigarmi. Some authors commented on trait theory by adding their concept of "excellence" as the objective of leadership success. Much of the leadership theory research focused on the important effects of being a transformational leader. A great number of the studies done on traits by researchers in the first half of the twentieth century used young children or high school/college students as their subjects, including Bass & Stogdill. Much of the research done on leadership traits after 1950 started to focused on business managers, major company CEOs, and recent college graduates entering management training programs in large firms.. By the second half of the twentieth century, the theory that leaders were "born" had been rejected by several major researchers, including Bennis , Gardner, and Kotter. Van Fleet and Yukl held that certain characteristics improved a leader's chance of success and that those characteristics included initiative and fortitude.

Kouzes and Posner's did extensive research identified respected and admired characteristics in leaders necessary to "make or build" a leader. Kouzes and Posner identified nineteen qualities or characteristics as being the most admired in leaders; which they claimed were consistent over decades of time and across six continents. Their list of leadership trait list was consistent with my own leadership trait list. They started with "honest," which was selected by 88% of the respondents. Their other top three traits were: (a) forward-looking, (b) competent, and (c) inspiring, and these concepts were found in my list of 13 Leadership Traits from my Doctoral research. The comments and findings from my research into the foundations of leadership from the sixteen prominent leaders consistently stressed the importance of transformational leadership from my Doctroal dissertation research into leadership and adversity are consistent with the bulk of the leadership literature, but a material new element on the effects and impact of overcoming adversity and specifically the importance of transformational leadership. About this Author Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D. Chief Enlightenment Officer The Leadership Success Institute http://www.TheLeadershipSuccessInstitute.com HowardEdwardHallerPhD@gmail.com Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D., is an accomplished serial entrepreneur, successful serial intrapreneur, seasoned senior corporate executive, university professor, university board trustee, former university board president, academic scholar, an award winning published author, screenwriter (Member, WGAw), and Professional Speaker (Member of NSA) delivering Keynote Speeches and Seminars on Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, ServantLeadership, Leadership and Adversity, and Innovation. The initial nine prominent leaders who overcame adversity included, CEO, US Sernator, University Presidents, Gurus, and a US Army Major General. Five internationally well-respected leadership scholars offered their reviews of the Dr. Hallers research findings including: Dr. Ken Blanchard, Dr. John Kotter, Professor Jim Kouzes, Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley. Dr. Haller is the Chief Enlightenment Officer of The Leadership Success Institute and Founder/CEO of the Entrepreneurial Success Boot Camp. He is a Professional Speaker and Award-Winning Published Author.

Dr. Haller is the author of two books: "Leadership and Adversity" 2008 & Intrapreneurship Secrets" 2009, both published by VDM Verlag Dr Muller AG & CoKG. http://www.leadershipandadversity.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dr_Howard_Edward_Haller 7. Leadership and Adversity - The Real Story and Truth About the Value of Leadership Trait Theory By Dr Howard Edward Haller

I will make the case that Leadership traits exist, and admit that the situation faced may call from different traits or different application, or combinations of traits. Some scholars discount the value of traits in leaders, or their impact on individuals becoming successful and effective leaders. My published leadership and adversity Doctoral research documents the value of leadership traits for the sixteen prominent leaders that I personally interviewed who all overcame adversity and became successful leaders, in spite of their adversities, included: Dr. Tony Bonanzino, Jack Canfield, William Draper III, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Mark Victor Hansen, Monzer Hourani, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, J. Terrence Lanni, Dr. John Malone, Angelo Mozilo, Larry Pino, Dr. Nido Qubein, U.S. Army Major General Sid Shachnow, Dr. John Sperling, Dr. Blenda Wilson, and Zig Ziglar. My leadership and adversity research has been peer debriefed, reviewed and agreed with by five internationally known, well respected leadership scholars, and best-selling authors: Dr. Ken Blanchard, Dr. John Kotter, Professor Jim Kouzes, Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley. My Doctoral dissertation research revealed that sixteen prominent leaders specifically indentified as number of leadership traits that they believed were important in becoming a leader. My research revealed that, honesty and integrity were high on their lists of the essential qualities of a leader. The sixteen prominent leaders and research participants shared an emphasis on the willingness to serve those they lead and to be a humble servant-leader. Under the umbrella of leadership traits, the notion of the importance of servant leadership and being a Humble Servant Leader (from my leadership research) is repeated here because it remained a strong theme in the sixteen prominent leaders' interviews. The sixteen prominent leaders I interviewed all talked about the importance of caring about people and listening to their needs. The participants emphasized that having clear and consistent communication and

willingness to share their vision, their objectives, and the tone of the journey was essential to their success as leaders. They believe that having a complete and deep understanding of the business was needed to lead and succeed. They were quick to repeat the need to be able to cope with adversity 'head-on,' overcome obstacles, and view challenges as opportunities. The question is: Are leadership traits real or a myth? Dozens of leadership authors (even some well-known leadership scholars), and no I am not going the specifically identify them by name, as it may cause some embarrassment, has specifically claimed that "leadership trait theory is dead," "leadership trait theory is out of step with the mainstream of current academic scholars thoughts in the field of leadership," or "recent leadership research by noted scholars disagree with the concept there are traits of leaders." I found that the source of the misinformation stems around an article by Stogdill which is frequently misquoted or misinterpreted. Many leadership writers, even some leadership scholars, misquoted or misunderstood the article. But they have commented on his now sixty year old article from his review and findings from various trait studies, relying on a prior interpretation, instead going back the primary document. He is often cited as finding them contradictory or inconclusive. Several authors have also stated that the well-respected late Professor Stogdill could not find a reliable and coherent pattern in the 120 trait studies he initially reviewed. I re-read the entire 1948 article by Stogdill, and he never made the statements that were attributed to him regarding his alleged opinion that Leadership Trait Theory is false or not true. I personally and professional do not believe that that leadership theory is false or dead. I will proceed to counter and document the false information, or misinformation, that leadership traits are untrue or invalid. Stogdill in his reporting of his leadership research, just instead used the term Leadership Factors instead of Leadership Traits. In the original article which was published in a 1948 issue of the Journal of Psychology, Stogdill discussed in detail the results of his leadership foundation literature review and study, in which he found and published that certain factors (or traits) which have been associated with leadership could all probably be classified under the general headings of capacity, achievement, responsibility, participation, status, and situation.. Of particular note, what Stogdill's calls his Situational Factor (Situational Leadership Trait) is very similar or comparable to the underpinnings of leadership philosophies such as servantleadership, principle-centered leadership, or even transformation leadership. He explicated in

detail the meaning of each factor, using terms or adjectives for his sub-factors that others might call Leadership Traits. Stogdill, discussed what other leadership scholar have before and since called Traits, but he recategorized them and called "factors" He instead as argued that the five individual Factors" with "sub-factors, existed, but that there was a sixth factor which was the specific situation itself. My Doctoral dissertation leadership research clearly showed that there are a number of key leadership traits or qualities. One of the key factors usually not included in the list of traits is the ability to overcome adversity. The ability of leader to effective deal with adversity or obstacles was an important trait, according to the sixteen prominent leaders I interviewed on the subject of leadership and adversity. One of my leading scholars that peer reviewed my leadership research, Professor Jim Kouzes, said, as reported in my published Doctoral dissertation, that he generally they would agree with my research finding statement that the adversity or obstacles in their adult lives was the most important event in their development as leaders. Stogdill did conducted a follow-up survey to his 1948 work of 163 individual leadership trait studies and updated it through 1970. The resulting comparison of the 1948 and 1974 research was reviewed in narrative form and then compiled into table form, labeled with the six basic characteristic types factors (traits) and multiple sub-categories sub-factors (sub-traits). In his later work on leadership factors (aka leadership traits), Stogdill (1974) simply modified his six basic characteristic types and expanded them to include eight factor descriptions. One of the key elements of the later review of characteristics was the inclusion of a much larger percentage of survey information gathered much more information or data from adults in the working world. The trait study done by Stogdill reviewed a series of trait studies done mostly on children or social groups, not usually on adults. Stogdill's original article has been repeatedly misquoted as evidence that personal traits have little significance or bearing on leadership. This consistent and out-of-context misquoting, or simple misunderstanding, of his position, bothered Stogdill enough that he clarified that he did not hold this view on the lack of importance of these traits. In fact, Stogdill, later specifically noted in writing that his 1948 work had been cited frequently as evidence in support of the view that leadership is entirely situational in origin and that no personal characteristics are predictive of leadership. This view seems to overemphasize the situational and underemphasize the personal nature of leadership. He indicated that different leadership skills and traits are required in different situations.

The behaviors and traits enabling a mobster to gain and maintain control over a criminal gang are not the same as those enabling a religious leader to gain and maintain a large following. Yet certain general qualities, such as courage, fortitude, and conviction-appear to characterize both. How could Stogdill have not believed in the value and relevance of Leadership Traits, when Bass and Stogdill (1990) concluded their chapter entitled Traits of Leadership: A Follow-up with the statement, "Evidence abounds about particular patterns of traits that are of consequence to leadership." Why did he and Bass devote three chapters on the Traits of Leadership, if he did not believe in them? If any doubt remains, Bass summed up his position on the importance and transferability of certain traits and attributes were transferable or situational. Even though Stogdill has been misquoted by other scholars, the record shows that he and Bass, 1990, in their best-selling Handbook of leadership reviewed the last century of leadership research on traits or attributes which they documented and footnoted in nine full chapters under the heading Personal Attributes of Leaders My Doctoral dissertation leadership research clearly shows that "leadership trait theory" is not dead or false. The leadership literature and my Doctoral dissertation leadership research seems to indicate that traits alone are not enough, but that traits may be helpful, or even foundational, or a precondition in the development of leadership. It may even be possible that a particular combination of Traits, Factors, and Attributes for a given situation may be a conditional precedent to developing effective leadership. Leadership Traits (regardless of the term used) are clearly Not dead, just relabeled. What is the real difference between leadership: Traits, Factors, and Attributes, it is really it just scholarly semantics. Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D. Chief Enlightenment Officer The Leadership Success Institute http://www.TheLeadershipSuccessInstitute.com HowardEdwardHallerPhD@gmail.com Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D., is an accomplished serial entrepreneur, successful serial intrapreneur, seasoned senior corporate executive, university professor, university board trustee,

former university board president, academic scholar, an award winning published author, screenwriter (Member of the WGAw), and Professional Speaker (Member of NSA) delivering Keynote Speeches and Seminars on Leadership, Entrepreneurship, Intrapreneurship, ServantLeadership, Leadership and Adversity, and Innovation. The initial sixteen prominent leaders who overcame adversity included: Dr. Tony Bonanzino, Jack Canfield, William Draper III, U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Mark Victor Hansen, Monzer Hourani, U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye, J. Terrence Lanni, Dr. John Malone, Angelo Mozilo, Larry Pino, Dr. Nido Qubein, U.S. Army Major General Sid Shachnow, Dr. John Sperling,Dr. Blenda Wilson, and Zig Ziglar. Five internationally known and respected leadership scholars offered their reviews of the Dr. Hallers research findings including: Dr. Ken Blanchard, Jim Kouzes, Dr. John Kotter, Dr. Paul Stoltz, and Dr. Meg Wheatley. Dr. Haller is currently the Chief Enlightenment Officer of The Leadership Success Institute and Founder/CEO of the Entrepreneurial Success Boot Camp. He is a Published Author, Entrepreneurship Mentor, and Intrapreneurship Coach. Professor Haller is currently active as a serial entrepreneur, involved in several ventures ranging from super high definition sign advertising to internet marketing training. Dr Haller serves on the Board of Directors of companies. Dr. Haller is the author of two books: "Leadership and Adversity" 2008 & "Intrapreneurship Secrets" 2009, both published by VDM Verlag Dr Muller AG & CoKG. http://www.LeadershipandAdversity.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dr_Howard_Edward_Haller 8. Lone Wolf to Lead Wolf-The Evolution of Leadership By Rick Johnson Privately held companies range in size form very small "Mom & Pop" operations with revenue as low as $100,000 or less, to huge multi- million dollar distributors with locations all across North America. Wholesale distribution also has some mega-distributors with sales ranging from $1 billion to as much as $27 billion. The majority of wholesale distributors are family owned.

Family owned organizations, both small and large, with succession issues, family preparation and second and third generation leadership issues have been subjected to the evolution of leadership. These organizations are often founded by an aggressive, highly talented entrepreneur. Many of the principles of leadership that helped build the success that the organization enjoyed in the past is not the type of leadership that will maintain that success through generations of ownership. Contrary to some "leadership authorities" belief, the Machiavelli theories on leadership just don't apply today. Niccolo Machiavelli is considered by some a leadership guru who lived during the renaissance period and is often quoted and written about today. Machiavelli believed that "Men are more ready for evil than good." "A leader's goal is one of power and domination." The Evolution of Leadership Times have changed, leadership has evolved. The days of the "Lone Wolf" leader at the top who dominates with power are gone. Successful privately held organizations have gone through the leadership evolutionary process. They understand that today's leader must create change in the organization to meet the needs of their customers, to meet the needs of their employees and to meet the needs of their vendor partners. It involves a particular life cycle change. This change varies according to the generation of leadership. More often than not, the "seat of the pants" based on intuitive judgment leadership style of the founder with highly autocratic methodologies won't work in today's business environment. Today's environment demands a stable administrative structure that requires a change in the nature of past leadership practices. Simply put, it's an evolution from a highly reactive, autocratic individualistic style to a more empowering, people employee oriented proactive style. It's about going from a "Lone Wolf" leadership style to a "Lead Wolf" leadership style that has confidence in the employee's ability to make things happen and empowers the employees to get the job done. Founders and even second and third generation successors may find it difficult to make the transition from the "Lone Wolf" to the "Lead Wolf" leadership style. When this happens, ownership may put personal needs ahead of business needs and the organization is not managed in the best interest of its customers, its vendors and its employees. Organizations that are still run in the "Lone Wolf" style have an owner at the helm that has a strong dominating personality that is likely to be a poor listener. This "Lone Wolf" syndrome is easy to recognize. The same problems seem to arise over and over. Market share deteriorates, cash flow problems exist, there may be a vision but no plan exists to accomplish that vision. Anxiety may set in and the owner

becomes defensive or even paranoid and resorts to blaming others for the lack of success or pending failure. Without outside intervention, executive coaching, a solid board of directors or even an advisory group, the company may end up being sold or worse yet the company may go into a death spiral. (e-mail rick@ceostrategist.com for the article "The Death Spiral" and the "Leadership Thought Provoker" Checklist) The Lone Wolf Leader Still Exists This doesn't mean that there aren't some "Lone Wolf" leaders that still exist today that are successful. Remember, they have a strong entrepreneurial spirit that makes them dynamic and decisive. They often have a clear vision and these traits can drive a company for some time. However, I submit to you that the "Lone Wolf" leaders that have not evolved today cannot maximize the success of their organization. They will not leverage the competitive advantage that has become the life line of their survival. The strong traits that brought them success in the past quickly become liabilities in today's environment. They don't believe in empowerment. They don't believe in long range planning. They are reluctant to develop structure, policy and procedure because it inhibits the ability to shoot from the hip and it slows them down. They mistakenly believe that shooting from the hip is part of their competitive advantage because it worked so well in the past. They can make reactive crisis-driven decisions with little or no help from their management without recognizing that they must identify and correct the root cause. If they do have a board of directors, they are hand picked friends that basically do whatever they want and challenge very little. They count on only those that seem to be the most loyal and they motivate by fear and guilt. Sure, they'll hold staff meetings but it's more of an exercise in power to report on crisis intervention or simply to chew people out. They have difficulty in letting go of the past. Evolution has Created the Demand for Lead Wolf Executives Successful growing organizations have gone through the experience of change. In fact, these organizations recognized the necessity to create change. That is what leadership is really about; the ability to create change. These successful organizations have developed their employees along the way. The Lead Wolf executives have earned the respect and trust of their employees by demonstrating respect and trust in the employees themselves. Most employ a servant, situational leadership style that is based on an empowerment platform. They develop future leaders; make proactive decisions based on calculated risk. They employ root cause analysis even if they don't formally call it that. They employ best practices and make staffing decisions based on responsibility, competency, training and capabilities. They develop a real board of directors that

provide value to the organization, challenge the executive staff and hold them accountable. The Lead Wolf executives recognize and believe that leadership is an invitation to greatness that we extend to others. Successful leaders understand that they must give back what they have learned. They become mentors. The Evolution is a Growth & Learning Process Owner executives that have evolved to the Lead Wolf style of leadership have gone through an individual growth and learning process. They have accepted the fact that they may not have all the answers. More importantly, they recognize that they don't have to have all the answers. Many have found a mentor or an executive coach outside the organization. Changing a leadership style is not the easiest thing in the world to do. Coaching becomes a very useful resource. This evolutionary process includes: o Enhancement of their instinctive curiosity and a strengthening of their focus on being a customer driven organization. Service and quality become a way of life within the organization and it is used to support their competitive advantage. o Taking their vision and redefining it as an end game which challenges their executive team to create a strategic plan to meet this end game. This plan incorporates growth and profitability as well as other specific goals and objectives. o The recognition that employees are the most precious asset and backing up that recognition by the willingness to invest profits in the development of these employees. o Empowerment that is accompanied by the resources necessary to succeed and accountability for results. o Utilizing a board of directors as a resource while sharing management challenges seeking policy and guidance. Incorporating contingency planning and scenario planning as a regular exercise. (e-mail rick@ceostrategist.com for Board of Director information including a sample director application form and qualifications) Wholesale distribution organizations increasingly are characterized by a large and incredibly complex set of independent relationships between highly diverse groups of people. That is what the evolution is about. To be successful, the Lead Wolf executive determines how to get active involvement, innovation and creativity out of their employees. Success depends on more than

just "best practice" success drivers. Success demands a superior level of leadership--a level that requires deep commitment. This commitment will not flourish in workplace environments that are still dominated by the Lone Wolf--"slap & point" or the "carrot and stick" method of management often used in the past. The Lead Wolf Executive Lead Wolf executives get results. They are high impact leaders. They are consistent, explicit and concise and they command a presence when they walk into a room. They have enough charisma to turn the dullest moment into a high-energy event. When they move on, others want to go with them. They have a following. Their openness and honesty create a legacy which people admire and look up to. They gain commitment and foster trust. Creating change, managing during turbulent times, or fostering growth all depends on balance and the Lead Wolf type of leadership. No one person can make a company successful. It takes a lot of people, but one person with a command of leadership, utilizing the Lead Wolf style can transfer enough influence, creating enough leadership amongst the management group to guarantee success. Management must figure out how to get more active involvement and creativity out of their employees. Questioning of the status quo and the generation of new ideas is a mandate of success. That success depends on a superior level of performance, a level that requires deep commitment. Most of us are not born leaders. We are not adept at communication. However, a good percentage of us long to become leaders of men and make deep connections in our careers that lead to commitment, a commitment to success. For family owned organizations, leadership is passed on from generation to generation. To achieve objectives, each generation must understand the following basic principles of leadership. o Honesty o Integrity o Respect o Trustworthiness o Sincere concern of others o Willingness to take calculated risk

Once these principles are learned and practiced, leverage of these leadership skills to develop the management team is the next step. Lead Wolf family executives that have gone through the evolution of change understand this and they are clear as to what their responsibilities are. "The true test of a successful leader is that he leaves behind the conviction, the will and the understanding to carry on." "Leadership is easy, just find a bunch of people going in the same direction and jump in front of them"--------Willie Nelson The Lead Wolf executive understands the importance of making emotional connections with the management team that surrounds them. They must encourage these people to open up, share dialog and reveal dreams. They must teach and mentor. It's not as easy as Willie Nelson would have you believe. Leveraging their leadership entails advancing their personal agenda by advancing the agenda of others. A good leader is not intimidated by the success of others. They encourage others to succeed and help them fulfill their wants and needs. Leveraging leadership helps determine the hidden factors in communication. Understanding inferences and assertions become a key component to understanding people. Lead Wolf executives have high questioning and prospering skills that allow them to drill down to real facts and issues. Leveraging their leadership allows successful leaders to establish emotional connections, which diminish fear and intimidation. This encourages enthusiasm and cooperation and that is what being a Lead Wolf leader is all about. (e-mail rick@ceostrategist.com for the Leadership Thought Provoker Checklist) http://www.ceostrategist.com Sign up to receive The Howl a fre*e monthly newsletter and get your choice of "CEO Strategist's Hiring and Interview Guide" or "The Guide to Effective Training Sessions", valuable resources for all levels of management. The Howl addresses real world industry issues. Straight talk about today s issues. Rick Johnson, expert speaker, wholesale distribution s Leadership Strategist , founder of CEO Strategist, LLC a firm that helps clients create and maintain competitive advantage. Dr. Eric Rick Johnson (rick@ceostrategist.com) is the founder of CEO Strategist LLC. an experienced based firm specializing in Distribution. CEO Strategist LLC. works in an advisory capacity with distributor executives in board representation, executive coaching, team coaching and education and training to make the changes necessary to create or maintain competitive advantage. You can contact them by calling 352-750-0868, or visit http://www.ceostrategist.com for more information.Need a speaker for your next event, E-mail rick@ceostrategist.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Rick_Johnson 9. The Fundamental Purpose of Leadership By Mitch McCrimmon It's time to question the traditional assumption of leadership's fundamental purpose. The textbook account focuses on the leader's role in maximizing employee performance. All the decades of writing about leadership style beginning over 50 years ago focuses on how different styles affect the motivation and productivity of employees. When we question the conventional purpose of leadership and offer a different foundation, we get a very different conception of leadership. Until we recognize the need for a radical shift in perspective, our vision of leadership will remain stuck in the past. Having an internal focus on employee performance was acceptable for leadership prior to the 1970's. But since the success of the Japanese commercial invasion, business has increasingly operated in an era of hyper-competition where rapid innovation changes whole markets overnight. In the old days of leadership theory, business was not so competitive. Then, business's only task was to execute as cost effectively and profitably as possible. Today, there is also the need for businesses to be constantly re-inventing themselves, to be continuously creating new futures. For leaders to be successful now, they must have an external focus. The new purpose of leaders is to ensure that new futures are created as rapidly as their external markets evolve. All organizations now have two equally important tasks: to deliver today's results and to create the future. The principle of division of labor suggests that we need two separate functions for these very different tasks. Management needs to be upgraded from a narrowly controlling, mechanistic function to take care of today's business, leaving leadership to champion changes to enhance competitive advantage. So, what are the implications of this shift in emphasis? Well, if your sole reason for being is to maximize employee productivity, you need to be in charge of the people whose performance you want to improve. You need a formal position of authority over them. You need the authority to promote, move, develop, train and pay in accordance with merit. People can be motivated by informal leaders but none of the other productivity enhancing decisions can be made without formal authority. Not so with the new leadership. Promoting new products, services or better processes can be done by anyone, regardless of their formal roles. Even a consumer group criticizing an existing

product line could show leadership from the outside to the organization. This new conception of leadership is the only way to make sense of bottom-up leadership. If leadership is merely the successful promotion of new products, then front-line employees can do it. The Sony employee who invented Playstation is a good example. He showed bottom-up leadership to the senior executives at Sony whose initial reaction to the idea of Playstation was to protest that Sony doesn't do toys. The role of senior executives is now more multifaceted. They need to both lead and manage. But leadership, as conceived here, has nothing to do with motivating employees to perform better, contrary to the textbook account. So-called transformational leadership became popular because it was felt that employees needed to be really inspired to give of their best. But now, we need to shift everything to do with motivating employees to management, leaving leadership free to promote enhancements to competitive advantage. Why? Because we need a definition of leadership that makes sense of how leadership can be shown bottom-up which has nothing to do with motivating employees to work harder. The sole purpose of leadership, therefore, is to promote new directions. It is management's job to execute them. Leaders must have an external focus to be effective; managers can focus internally. Both leadership and management are equally essential organizational functions, but only management is a formal role. Leadership is an informal, occasional act, like creativity, not a role. Senior executives are managers by virtue of their roles, not leaders. If their businesses are operating successfully and don't need innovation or process improvements to succeed, then these organizations don't need any leadership. This is a second radical implication of the new vision of leadership, the first one being that leadership has nothing to do with managing people or getting things done through them. Keep in mind that, if leadership equates to the successful promotion of new products, services or process improvements, and if anyone can do it regardless of position, then employees with no one reporting to them can show leadership. This is a liberating conclusion, but one that has revolutionary implications for our understanding of leadership. See http://www.leadersdirect.com for more information on this and related topics. Mitch McCrimmon's latest book, Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes was published in 2006. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Mitch_McCrimmon

10. Autocratic vs Consultative Leadership By Daniel Theyagu When one speaks about Leadership styles, there are several different models to choose from. However, whatever the model it is never an easy process to implement or practice a particular style of leadership and hope to get the results that was intended. "Leadership" per se is both an Art as well as a Science. The one key element that all leaders should possess is their ability to communicate their visions and values to the people they are leading and to get the people to buy into their visions and values. The key concern is whether the leader is getting his people to 'buy-in' or is he trying to 'sell' his vision. When you want to 'sell' you need to be convincing and give the impression that the ideas you have are inherently beneficial to the people and therefore they should accept it. This usually is a challenging dilemma as sometimes the people you are leading might not quite see the relevance of your visions and values and may not be forthcoming in accepting them. However, if you are able to create the circumstances whereby the people feel that what you possess are important visions and values, and that by they buying into these it would benefit them well, you have created a winning formula to lead your people successfully. If you want your people to 'buy-in' rather than 'sell' your visions and values you need to pay meticulous attention to the type of leadership style that you portray. I personally find that in this context, leadership can be classified either as autocratic leadership style or a consultative leadership style. Autocratic Leadership Style Autocratic leadership is one which is based on a clear top-down approach. The leader is in a position of absolute power and he can implement and do whatever he wants to get things done. Usually in an autocratic leadership environment there will not be much discussion of affairs as the people find that their voices does not carry weight in the problem solving and decision making aspects of their organization. An autocratic leader will be the driver of his people and without his leadership the organization will not be able to function. Usually autocratic leaders like to delegate their power but at the same time having a stranglehold on all those subordinate to them. They also like to coach their people to do things the way they want it and may create a 'my way or the highway' kind of

working environment. The impression one gets in an autocratic leadership style is that the leader is seen as some kind of megalomaniacal tyrant to be feared and followed. Although there is some truth to this, autocratic leadership is not necessarily a bad style. In fact there are some circumstances where an autocratic leadership should be the preferred style. One instance where autocratic leadership style may be applicable is when the organization is new and the people are inexperience and thus look up to the leadership to guide them in their work. Another instance is if the people are disengaged in their job and have no clear direction and there is vast internal politicking of the kind that is disruptive and causes an emotional strain in the way the organization is being managed. Here a powerful autocratic leadership might help to re-align the organization to its original position and get the people back in shape. The downside of all this is that an extended period of engaging in an autocratic style of leadership can strain the relationship between the leader and the people in that the people might find the leader to be so task-oriented that they may develop a sense of resentment. Further, when the leader becomes too autocratic he may forget that he is dealing with humans and not machines and might create the impression that the people are just part of the machinery. This can create a sense of dissonance in the work environment which will not be beneficial to the leader, the people and the organization in the long run. Take the cue from Dwight D. Eisenhower who said: "You do not lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership" Consultative Leadership Consultative leadership is the way to go in the long run. Management Guru, Kenneth Blanchard said: "The key to successful leadership today is influence, not authority". This is the very nature of consultative leadership in that you the leader will have to develop the ability to influence people rather than impose on them your authority as is the case in an autocratic leadership style. In consultative leadership style, the leader will engage the subordinates efficaciously in the decision making and problem solving process. This kind of leadership style endorses the fact that the leader is indeed the servant of the people he is leading. The people have the power to engage in consultation with the leader and are able to make suggestions which they know would be taken into serious contemplation by the leader. Further, consultative leadership style endorses the concept of empowerment rather than delegation. When a leader empowers, he is basically giving the person concern a freehand to do what is necessary. The leader may draw up certain parameters for the person to work within and to ensure that he is kept in the loop by the person. In a consultative leadership style, the leader

still has strong visions and concrete values that he can communicate with his people. However unlike the autocratic leader, the concept underlying consultative leadership style is one of administering a people-oriented kind of management rather than a task-oriented one. The consultative leader's role will continuously involve the development of his people and this is done by being kept aware of the needs and wants of the people. The only way this information can be gotten is by having constant dialogue with the people and clarifying the goals and aspirations that you have and synchronizing this with their personal visions. When the people get to experience this state of being they will be more prepared to 'buy-in' the visions and values of the leader. In the long haul, consultative leadership will be the most appropriate one. As the organization mature, the leader has to learn to move away from delegation to empowerment. When the people become more experienced and participative in their professional relationship with you the leader, you will have to play the role of a mentor to them. Consultative leadership style will invoke in you the ability to find out the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals under your authority and allow you the opportunity to nurture the best out of them. The parting quote by Elisabeth Dole seems apt to be mentioned here where she said: "What you always do before you make a decision is consult. The best public policy is made when you are listening to people who are going to be impacted. Then, once policy is determined, you call on them to help you sell it". Dr Daniel Theyagu is a corporate trainer and seminar leader who has designed and conducted competency-based training for more than 150 organizations. He is based in Singapore and can be reached atdtheyagu@singnet.com.sg Website: http://www.thinklaterally.com Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Daniel_Theyagu