Meeting a Rising Challenge

By John & Paula Williams

In this article, we contend that a shortage of leadership and management talent is a rising global problem.  We explore the reasons for the shortage and explain some key differences between leadership and management.  We describe some effective and not-so effective means that organizations employ in dealing with the shortages of leadership and management, and propose some suggestions for ensuring appropriate use of both leadership and management in your organization. 

In many cases, when the media speaks about the shortage of leadership, the measurements they use (position in organizations, graduation from business school with management degrees, etc.) refer to management, rather than leadership.  Leadership is the vision or direction of the organization, management includes the skills and disciplines required to actualize a vision or mission. 

 

Shortage of Leadership is a Rising Problem.

Leadership, and the management required to support good leadership, are essential to any successful company. Even with the best business idea, the most talented technical resources, the most state-of the art facilities and tools, your business will still fail if you don’t have people at key levels of the organization that have  the skills, experience and motivation to assume the management and leadership responsibilities.

The Problem is Longstanding and Worldwide.

In The Head Hunt, a recent article in the corporation section of Businessworld India, Baiju Kalesh said that India needs 3,700 top executives over the next two years.  India is certainly not alone.
More headlines:

• Management Shortage Hinders Startups' Prospects - Los Angeles Business Journal,  March 19, 2001
• Management Shortage Prompts Desperate Recruitment  Tactics -  Nation's Restaurant News,  April 3, 1995  
• Nonprofit Sector Struggles with Leadership Shortage – The Business of Giving, April 13, 2007
• Meeting the Leadership Shortage in Canadian School Districts – July 11, 2004
• Fierce war for talent in Indian labour market  - The Daily Reckoning , March 28th, 2007

The Impact is Significant

We know that the problem is widespread, and had been going on for several years. But can’t a company get along without mid-level leaders as long as there’s a good leader at the top?   Usually not, mid-level management and leaders are important to ensure that corporate direction gets translated into the actual work that’s going on. They make the decisions about what technical and production resources spend their time and energy on, what they get rewarded for, and how capital is spent. 

Chief Learning Officer Magazine (CLO) July 11, 2005

“Even more disturbing is the impact these [leadership] shortages are having on growth. Some companies indicated they are literally sitting on capital, unable to expand into new markets or make critical acquisitions, due to a lack of leadership talent. In one large organization, there were more than 100 leadership vacancies.

In some organizations, huge amounts of money are wasted as people work on the wrong things (resulting in re-work and lost opportunities) buy unsuitable equipment or software, or enter into agreements with vendors and partners that are grossly unprofitable.   Much of this waste could be prevented by a skilled, experienced leader (or manager depending upon the level in the organization) to evaluate the work being done or proposed, evaluate the options available and make good a decision. 

How Did It Get This Way?

There are several reasons for the dearth of both leadership and management talent.  Part of the problem stems from demographics.  In the United States, a significant portion of the “baby boom” population is retiring, leaving gaps where experienced leaders and managers used to be.   In some developing markets, young people are shepherded into technical or engineering fields because the education cycle is shorter. It is much more difficult for a struggling family to support a young person through four to eight years of business school.
Faced with a shortage of managers and leaders, companies have several tactics, including flattening the organizational structure or using the “player coach” concept to fill gaps.  While these have some merit in some situations, we have seen serious downsides.

Do We Need Leaders or Managers?

Most business schools teach that the first step toward a solution is to understand the problem.  The words leader and manager have become synonymous.  Many of the media we quoted earlier use the terms interchangeably, which does not shed much light on what the problem is or how to solve it.
The simplest but most illuminating of definitions follow:

• A leader does the right thing.
• A manager does things right.

Many organizations suffer from a lack of leadership, others from a lack of management. We contend that management is a prerequisite of effective leadership.  A well-managed organization can run effectively without good leadership, but it won’t be able to project and adapt to change in a timely manner or take advantage of market conditions.

A Comparison

Using the above discussion, we can compare and contrast the high level attributes quite easily.

Attribute	Leader	Manager
Be aware of what is happening within a group	√	√
And act accordingly	√
Clarity, Consciousness, Vision, Overall “big picture” of organizational goals	√
Make the vision happen		√
Consistent actions – a degree of predictability		√
Excellent “people skills” – the ability to understand and influence people		√
In depth technical job knowledge not required	√	√

And, why would you want or need one versus the other?

The leader is as the captain of a ship.  The leader decides where the ship is going and when it will arrive.  It is up to the manager of the engine shop, the manager of the electrical shop, the manager of the navigational equipment, etc. to do things right to make the captain’s vision a reality.

Most organizations need at least one leader and several managers.   The first step in fixing the problem is to determine whether the gap is in leadership or management.  Other steps follow after we describe a couple of the methods companies have been using to address these gaps.

Flattening the Organization

In response to a lack of talent in the areas of either leadership or management, some companies “flatten” the organizational structure.  In concept, there is some merit to this – prevailing literature suggests empowering lower level employees to make higher-level decisions.  

This can be helpful, but only works in companies where good leadership and management exist at the top of the organization, key strategic information is widely distributed, the communications systems are excellent, and all employees have a good vision of how their work and decisions affect the company as a whole. 

It also depends on all employees having the skills, experience and tools to perform tasks like evaluating vendors or measuring the results of their decisions.  That is usually not the case.

The Downside of Flattening the Organization

Flattening the organization and empowering lower-level employees to make higher-level decisions can be false economy.  In some industries, it is not appropriate or advisable to share key strategic information or direction beyond a certain tier of accountability within the company.   Employees may not have the same level of commitment to the company vision and goals as the upper level executives and may make decisions that benefit themselves to the detriment of the company. Even if everyone has the best of intentions and motives, one cannot expect a person with no experience or education in leadership or management concepts to use exceptional judgment, industry best practices and professional ethical standards when making a major decision or purchase.

The “Player Coach” Concept

Many companies handle a lack of management talent by promoting a technical or production employee who has an excellent record and some seniority in the company by giving him a raise in pay, a new title, and management duties to perform in addition to performing the technical or production functions. 

Taken from the examples in sports, (like successful examples of Bill Russell and Larry Wilkens in American basketball) the concept has some logical merit – it is  a worthwhile effort to reward excellent technical employees and to try to propagate their skills, work ethic, and other admirable qualities to others within the organization.

The Downside of the Player Coach Concept

The downside of the concept is that many “player coaches” soon find that the recognition and money is not worth the extra work, and become quickly burnt out.  Excellent technicians are often not excellent teachers, managers, or leaders.  Their teammates often suffer from lack of these skills. Teams engage in conflict over resources, time management, and other behaviors that a dedicated manager could mitigate or prevent.

We have seen many situations where the “player coach” did not know how to delegate tasks within the team, and would end up working overtime while his teammates sat idle during the workday because they had not had sufficient training.

In one case, the “player coach” explained that he could do the work in an hour, while it would take him four hours to teach a newer teammate to perform the same task.  He had no time, and no motivation, to delegate and teach his teammates. 

Needless to say, we had a huge, wasteful bottleneck on our hands. Even ambitious new hires on this technical team found it difficult to get any work to do without making waves with the “player coach.” No matter how many technical resources were hired, the rest of the team suffered from lack of training, idleness, lack of recognition, a low morale, and high turnover.

Our “player coach” was on the verge of burnout and the only resolution was to add insult to injury by wresting away the authority he’d been (inappropriately) given.  We had to risk losing our best technical resource in order to give someone else the authority to perform the leadership tasks of ensuring processes and procedures were documented, the team had appropriate training, and tasks were delegated appropriately.

How to Ensure Leadership in Your Company

Now that we’ve explored what doesn’t work, here are a few ideas for finding good leaders and making the most of the leadership talent that does exist in your organization.

Be a (Better) Leader

Regardless of your position within the company, you have the ambition, drive, (and we assume) the interest necessary to make your organization successful.  Use those traits to your best advantage and that of your company. Invest in your own education, skills and experience.

You company needs you. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find the best way to use your present skills, propose it to your management, and start using them.

It’s also important to keep improving your leadership skills. Even experienced leaders know that one can never stop learning. There are many excellent (and some not so great) educational opportunities for leaders.  A caveat here is to ensure you keep a balanced view. By learning from a variety of sources (books, courses, periodicals and seminars) you can stay objective and refrain from the “flavor of the week” management style that many young executives subject their organizations to.

The best programs are ones that show how to use basic ethics and principles for influencing human behavior more effectively.  One can learn leadership skills from a variety of life experiences.  Read classic leadership literature and biographies of great leaders, but also seek out the lessons in everyday life experiences.  One very unique program in the United States pairs leadership candidates with horses.

Mateo (the horse) stayed with me when I was fully present, but lost interest in me when I tried to share my attention between him and listening to others. I can't fake being present. The workshop heightened my awareness of how my being, actions, and attention evoke a response in others. I'm responding differently and supporting myself in being more fully present with others, clients, and myself.

Gandhi put it better than we ever could – “Be the change you want to see in the world.”  If you want better leadership in your organization, start with yourself.

Be a (Better) Manager

If you are a manager, do not spend time on technical or production tasks that can or should be delegated, and do not “micromanage” employees past where it’s useful or effective.  Many managers engage in these activities because they are comfortable, familiar and make you feel more productive.   You need to exercise some discipline not to dive into activities you enjoy at the expense of focusing on management tasks (see examples below,) which can sometimes be more difficult or unpleasant. 

• Establish and communicate your team’s mission, goals, objectives
• Measure progress against these goals and objectives
• Alignment with other departments and partners
• Team building, establish roles and responsibilities, and empower employees
• Set up hiring, professional development, corrective action, and learning practices.
• Remove obstacles and resolve conflicts.
• Ensure adequate processes, procedures and documentation are completed.
• Create (and defend) a productive, creative, positive culture.

If these things aren’t getting done, it’s likely that very little else is getting done, regardless of the busy “noise” around you.  If you’re constantly fighting fires, hire somebody else to fight the fires while you manage, or vice versa.  It’s much less expensive in the long run to add another executive to the payroll than to make a critical mistake or miss a key opportunity because everyone is too busy “doing work” to lead the organization.

Create an Organizational Structure that Makes the Most of the Leaders You Have

The people at the top of the organizational chart have a tall order.  It may be necessary to reorganize to ensure that management and leadership are occurring at levels that are effective for your organization.
Flatter organization structures work for organizations that are small, have highly-educated and self-motivated workforce, and where all key strategic information and direction can be shared with everyone.  (A real estate sales office is a good example of this.)

More hierarchical organization structures may be needed in larger companies, companies that have a diverse workforce with a variety of employees at different education and commitment levels.  Industries that have strategic imperatives, competitive pressures, trade secrets and other key information that needs to be controlled should have organizational structures that divide leadership and management jobs at lower levels.

Add Leadership and Management Skills Screening to Your Interview Process

Ask “what would you do in this situation” questions in your interview process.  Evaluate candidates for all positions based on their ethics and judgment.  This will help you train leaders within your organization.  If you have people that you have hired for technical ability only, you will need to scrutinize their leadership abilities and characteristics before promoting them.  Some leadership skills and traits can be taught, others (such as ethics, confidence, and responsibility) are very difficult, if not impossible, to instill in people who do not already have them.

Train New Managers and Leaders within Your Organization

Create career paths and professional objectives for people within your organization.  If possible, encourage continuing education (financially if you can, but at least culturally.)  Keep a library of books and tapes, and start discussion groups or team-building exercises.  

Make it clear that you expect people to exercise good judgment, and value people who show initiative and leadership skills.   Have people at all levels in your organization read the article “Leadership for Non-Bosses- Getting Things Done Without Pulling Rank” on the Ravenwerks site.

Conclusion

The shortage of leadership and management talent is real, long-term, and widespread.  To be successful, companies must invest in good leadership and management, in terms of defining their needs appropriately, hiring the right people, ensuring the right organizational structure, and creating a culture that promotes management and leadership within the organization.   Companies that are able to acquire, promote, retain and leverage people with these skills will be much more successful than companies that suffer from inadequate or improper leadership and management.