On Leadership
While in the early stages of my MBA studies, I had the pleasure and honor of attending a small meeting at the Adelaide University business school at which John Uhrig spoke to the group about leadership.
John Uhrig started work in 1945, and successfully ran a major Australian company, and later in life chaired the boards of some of Australia's largest public companies like Rio Tinto, Westpac Bank, and Santos. The man knows business and he knows people.
This topic of leadership floats around in my head now and then - it's so sad hearing about terrible 'leaders' in positions of responsibilities who ruin the culture of the place, disenfranchise the workforce, and often run the financials of the company into the ground. In Australia there seemed to be a habit of hiring experienced, but bad, chief executives despite their track record of running companies into the ground. My guess is that the boards hiring them figured that having an experienced 'figurehead' was more important than hiring someone who may have not proven themselves as an experienced figurehead, but who would actually do good for the organisation.
John's talk was fascinating.
He spoke of the different types of leaders, and why people become leaders.
John said that he felt there were four types of leaders, but everyone has some mix of each type:
1) Motivation: Need to be seen to achieve.
This kind of leader will try to do things personally, leaving others to clean-up after them. They make others feel uncomfortable because of their high personal achievement level.
This model of leadership doesn't scale-up when trying to lead thousands of people or a bigger group.
2) Motivation: Immense need to be liked.
This leader is okay as long as everything goes well. They may need a mentor when things go badly. Works well in small groups. Often a dogmatic, authoritarian, aggressive response when people don't do as this leader wants.
3) Motivation: Control!
'Authoritarian' is a key description here. Feels that everyone should do as they are told. The organisation can be successful for a while with this kind of leader but the best people will drift away, as followers won't be developed by this leader.
This leader is driven by a raw lust for power. They get to power because they get results. But they are very distructive to individuals. Someone nicknamed 'Chainsaw' comes to mind here!
4) Motivation: Need to influence people
Here's the good one (best for last, of course.) The institution is the winner with this kind of leader. This person's motivation is the success of the organisation. They share the credit. This person will coach, mentor and develop the people.
Interesting, John Uhrig said in his talk that he had never seen a leader like this placed in the organisation based on their attributes. They usually rise to a leadership position in a crisis. This person will be the only one who isn't distraught in the middle of a crisis - he/she makes decisions and people fall into line due to the confidence shown.
Where organisations fail is in not recognising/developing this kind of leader. Ain't it the truth.
I've grabbed the following from the GE 2000 Annual Report (page 3 of 4 in the 'Letter to Share Owners' section of the annual report. Jack Welch, then President and Chairman-elect of GE, wrote of the four types of GE leaders they identified:
'...And it's about the four "types" that represent the way we evaluate and deal with our existing leaders. Type I: shares our values; makes the numbers—sky's the limit! Type II: doesn't share the values; doesn't make the numbers—gone. Type III: shares the values; misses the numbers—typically, another chance, or two.
None of these three are tough calls, but Type IV is the toughest call of all: the manager who doesn't share the values, but delivers the numbers; the "go-to" manager, the hammer, who delivers the bacon but does it on the backs of people, often "kissing up and kicking down" during the process. This type is the toughest to part with because organizations always want to deliver—it's in the blood—and to let someone go who gets the job done is yet another unnatural act. But we have to remove these Type IVs because they have the power, by themselves, to destroy the open, informal, trust-based culture we need to win today and tomorrow...'
Go forth and lead (well.)
John Uhrig started work in 1945, and successfully ran a major Australian company, and later in life chaired the boards of some of Australia's largest public companies like Rio Tinto, Westpac Bank, and Santos. The man knows business and he knows people.
This topic of leadership floats around in my head now and then - it's so sad hearing about terrible 'leaders' in positions of responsibilities who ruin the culture of the place, disenfranchise the workforce, and often run the financials of the company into the ground. In Australia there seemed to be a habit of hiring experienced, but bad, chief executives despite their track record of running companies into the ground. My guess is that the boards hiring them figured that having an experienced 'figurehead' was more important than hiring someone who may have not proven themselves as an experienced figurehead, but who would actually do good for the organisation.
John's talk was fascinating.
He spoke of the different types of leaders, and why people become leaders.
John said that he felt there were four types of leaders, but everyone has some mix of each type:
1) Motivation: Need to be seen to achieve.
This kind of leader will try to do things personally, leaving others to clean-up after them. They make others feel uncomfortable because of their high personal achievement level.
This model of leadership doesn't scale-up when trying to lead thousands of people or a bigger group.
2) Motivation: Immense need to be liked.
This leader is okay as long as everything goes well. They may need a mentor when things go badly. Works well in small groups. Often a dogmatic, authoritarian, aggressive response when people don't do as this leader wants.
3) Motivation: Control!
'Authoritarian' is a key description here. Feels that everyone should do as they are told. The organisation can be successful for a while with this kind of leader but the best people will drift away, as followers won't be developed by this leader.
This leader is driven by a raw lust for power. They get to power because they get results. But they are very distructive to individuals. Someone nicknamed 'Chainsaw' comes to mind here!
4) Motivation: Need to influence people
Here's the good one (best for last, of course.) The institution is the winner with this kind of leader. This person's motivation is the success of the organisation. They share the credit. This person will coach, mentor and develop the people.
Interesting, John Uhrig said in his talk that he had never seen a leader like this placed in the organisation based on their attributes. They usually rise to a leadership position in a crisis. This person will be the only one who isn't distraught in the middle of a crisis - he/she makes decisions and people fall into line due to the confidence shown.
Where organisations fail is in not recognising/developing this kind of leader. Ain't it the truth.
I've grabbed the following from the GE 2000 Annual Report (page 3 of 4 in the 'Letter to Share Owners' section of the annual report. Jack Welch, then President and Chairman-elect of GE, wrote of the four types of GE leaders they identified:
'...And it's about the four "types" that represent the way we evaluate and deal with our existing leaders. Type I: shares our values; makes the numbers—sky's the limit! Type II: doesn't share the values; doesn't make the numbers—gone. Type III: shares the values; misses the numbers—typically, another chance, or two.
None of these three are tough calls, but Type IV is the toughest call of all: the manager who doesn't share the values, but delivers the numbers; the "go-to" manager, the hammer, who delivers the bacon but does it on the backs of people, often "kissing up and kicking down" during the process. This type is the toughest to part with because organizations always want to deliver—it's in the blood—and to let someone go who gets the job done is yet another unnatural act. But we have to remove these Type IVs because they have the power, by themselves, to destroy the open, informal, trust-based culture we need to win today and tomorrow...'
Go forth and lead (well.)
posted by Rick's Rambles at 11:55 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home