From Research on Leadership

What does research tell us about leadership activities? A Center for Creative Leadership survey that included responses from 750 executives showed the following results:

• The majority of respondents (79 percent) consider developing leaders as one of the five most critical factors for developing competitive advantage.

• Executives (90 percent) are very or somewhat involved with leadership development.

• People skills were ranked the highest in importance, followed by personal characteristics, strategic management skills at upper levels, and process management skills.

• Personal characteristics rise with management level.

• Less than half (42 percent) have created or communicated a leadership strategy.

• Less than half (49 percent) have an HR program to support development of leadership skills.

These statistics are both encouraging and discouraging. Executives continually call out for more leadership. While 79 percent consider developing leaders as one of the five critical factors for developing competitive advantage, only 42 percent have created and communicated a leadership strategy and only 49 percent have an HR program to support development of leadership skills. Developing leadership skills involves more than sending people to a three-day course on how to make your employees feel good and at the same time meet the organization's objectives. The missing element in most leadership programs involves defining leaders for what and where.

A study conducted at the University of Michigan in the mid-1980s showed that a continuum existed with managers focusing at high performance at one end and people-centered managers at the other end. However, the results showed that managers of high-performance work groups took considerable interest in their employees' future. A performance-oriented leader would not necessarily have low people orientation.

A similar study conducted during the same time period at Ohio State University found that there were two continuums: a high-performance to low-performance continuum and a high people-orientation to low people-orientation continuum. The leader's behavior could fall on different ends of these continuums. In a follow-up study, agreement was reached by both groups of researchers to describe leaders in two dimensions: the performance and people dimensions. Being high-performance oriented did not necessarily mean low people orientation

The research of Warren G. Bennis and Robert J. Thomas regarding general differences in leadership have found some commonalities based on generational considerations. They have classified leaders as Geezers and Geeks. They suggest that Geezers survived the Great Depression and World War II and sought stability, loyalty, and financial security. Geezers read the "great books," and basically lead through the command and control techniques modeled after the heroic generals of World War II. They believe that the mailroom can be the start of a career that can lead to the boardroom. All it takes is hard work, dedication, and loyalty.

Geeks grew up at a time of peace and plenty and seek a more balanced lifestyle. They were fed television programs on demand; doing school homework became a secondary issue; plagiarism from searching the Web grew at a rapid rate. Their parents were well educated, and many had two working parents, so they did not want for material things. The authors also note that Geeks are impatient to reach the boardroom, but with the demise of the dot-coms that attitude will quickly wane. The idea of offering bonuses to come to work has been replaced with finding a job that might offer some iota of security. Organizational loyalty is a questionable value and they seek monetary rewards. (Note: These statements are somewhat true and somewhat false. Populations are not subject to broad generalizations.)

Bennis and Thomas found four competencies that are common to both generations:

1. Adaptation—the ability to adapt to circumstances with certain resilience regardless of the nature of those circumstances. Most organizations fail because they lack the ability to adapt to new environments.

2. Engagement—the ability to create shared meaning. The ability to motivate people to take risks and move forward. The ability to create cognitive dissonance.

3. Voice—understanding emotional intelligence and perspective. Treating people with dignity and respect. Knowing their possibilities and the limitations.

4. Integrity—maintaining a strong moral compass. Balancing ambition, competence, and ethical behavior.

The authors argue that both generations acquired their leadership skills through profound experiences that they call life-defining moments: Geezers lived through the Depression and World War II, and the Geeks had somewhat other, more diverse, defining moments. Edith Wharton provides a prescription for learning from those defining moments:

In spite of illness, in spite of the arch-enemy, sorrow, one can remain alive long past the usual date of disintegration if one is unafraid of change, insatiable in intellectual curiosity, interested in big things, and happy in small ways.