Why We Need to Lead

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Susan on February 19, 2009 at 8:51am

I looked at your website with all the great resources. Do you have any suggestions for leadership training for those of us that would like to be prepared for leadership opportunities in the future, keeping in mind that there is little funding for training. Plus we are not offered any professional development unless in a management position. I am mostly interested in online resources and trainings.

Permalink Reply by Don Jacobson on February 19, 2009 at 9:12am

Susan - Thanks for joining this group--and for your kind words about GovLeaders.org.

Learning to lead does not require a big investment in formal training. In fact, the most important parts of leadership development don't really have anything to do with formal training. The most important things are:

1. Deciding to lead (leadership is a choice and there are a lot of people in leadership positions who never actually decide to lead).

2. Seeking varied and challenging work assignments--and learning from them. Putting yourself in a position to stretch yourself and get out of your comfort zone is a great way to gain perspective and learn to deal with a wider variety of situations. The experience alone isn't enough, however. You have to examine and internalize the lessons of experience. There are some great articles about learning from experience here and here.

3. Find a senior leader you respect and see if he/she will mentor you. Learning from the stories and experience of senior leaders is an extremely valuable way to learn about what leaders do.

On the issue of formal training, don't get me wrong... I really do like leadership training. But a week-long course by itself never made anyone into a great leader. Training is a good way to get exposure to some new tools, but if you are motivated you can get a lot of that on your own via self-study. The best part of leadership courses is being able to discuss leadership issues in focused environment with others from your organization. But again, there are other venues to have those kinds of discussions--like here!

I hope this helps. And again, welcome to the GovLeaders group.

Best,
Don

Permalink Reply by Towson85 on February 26, 2009 at 1:40pm

Although I am currently not in a leadership role in the workplace, I am working hard to reaching that point, and recently cleared a hurdle, as I was given a promotion. I am within 20 credits of obtaining my bachelor's in Political Science, which is another big achievement I am looking forward to accomplishing.
I have a lot of interest in working to lead, and lead effectively. I am all for transparency in government, and I wish to lead with the goal of keeping a certain transparency within my work and the work of my agency, while at the same time increasing overall employee satisfaction. I hope that anyone who I may lead will be happy with their job and what they are doing for their country. This idea can get lost in the shuffle of day-to-day operations, and sometimes it is difficult to keep morale high when work can get stressful and includes longer hours.
I hope to learn from those on this site who have anything to say about effective leadership. My career goal is federal law enforcement, and I look forward to advancing my career to leadership roles in the future.

Best Wishes To All,
Dan

Permalink Reply by Andre Goodfriend on March 4, 2009 at 8:12am

Don,

I applaud your initiative and leadership in both setting up a website on government leadership with some excellent materials, and on initiating this and other discussions on the topic.

Leadership is a challenging concept to get hold of. Many aspire to be leaders, and in a collaborative "win-win" culture where a rising tide is understood to raise all the boats, aspiring leaders are encouraged, mentored and valued. Then again, this win-win culture co-exists with the "zero-sum game" culture in which there can only be one winner, and aspiring leaders are seen as threats to be managed.

Both cultures are strong in government, and understanding the dominant culture in one's environment is essential to understanding how to be effective as a leader. In fact, understanding the culture in which one is working is essential to being effective - period.

Does one's culture tend towards collaboration or hierarchical lines of communication?
Is information horded or shared freely?
Is the decision making process transparent or opaque?

In the more open, collaborative culture an "I'm OK, you're OK" approach works. While in the more closed, hierarchical culture, Machiavelli's "The Prince" may be the better guide.

In fact, both cultures are very competitive. But, in the pre-Internet era, the lines of communication were more controlled so that one could succeed more often if one horded information and understood how to command authority in an opaque decision making environment. However, in an era where there is an information glut, the more effective strategy incorporates collaboration and being able to work as if nothing can be kept secret (i.e. transparency).

It is in this collaborative, transparent environment that leadership can grow most effective from the middle, rather than (or as well as) be designated from above.

Permalink Reply by Don Jacobson on March 5, 2009 at 3:32am

Andre - Thanks for your very thoughtful message. I hope you are right that technology will help us improve transparency and weaken the traditional command and control hierarchical model. I'd really like to explore how collaborative technologies could help us do that.

At the end of the day, though, might this be another case where it's the human side that makes all the difference? Don't we, as individuals, have to take ownership of how we lead?

I completely agree it's critical to understand the culture in which we work and to adapt to it. But adaptation does not have to entail embracing that culture. By adaptation I mean understanding the culture and making strategic decisions about how we are going to react to it. As followers, it is sometimes necessary to accept things as they are, and I agree it's important to fully understand the full range of leadership styles (including Machiavelli) in order to operate with political savvy when required. But we don't have to adopt the controlling leadership model ourselves.

The ultra-competitive zero-sum leadership model you mention has always mystified me. The work we do in government is so important, it's a real shame when supervisors (I won't call them leaders in this case) focus on their personal career advancement ahead of the interests of the mission and of their people. We all operate with a certain amount of self-interest, but what the zero-sum types don't get is that if their staff is hyper-competent and highly motivated, the work unit will achieve greater results. It is thus in the interest of the supervisor to surround him/herself with good people, unleash their talents, and reward them for their work. Nothing does more to make the boss look good than to have a high-performing working unit. And when things go well, there is plenty of credit to spread around.

In my view, we each have far more potential influence in our immediate spheres of influence than we realize, and the most powerful tool we have is our personal example. This influence becomes multiplied significantly when we become supervisors, as the kind of leadership we model has a huge impact on the generation of leaders coming up behind us in the organization. It's like Gandhi said..."We must be the change we wish to see in the world."

Regardless of the culture in our organizations, we can all model integrity, develop the next generation, delegate authority (but but not responsibility), build great teams, lead by example, follow courageously, learn constantly, and collaborate effectively with others. As Jim Trinka and Les Wallace wrote in their book A Legacy of 21st Century Leadership:

"Not one single leadership principle requires permission from anyone other than you."

I look forward to continuing our dialogue!

Best,
Don

Permalink Reply by Andre Goodfriend on March 7, 2009 at 12:42pm

Don,

We very much agree on the need to take responsibility for how we lead. Being able to inspire and lead by example means understanding the type of example we are setting.

Coincident with increased transparency and telecommunications, not just within domestic politics but within the international arena, has been the discussion launched by Joseph Nye about "soft power" which attracts others to a course of action (i.e. leading by example) versus "hard power" which coerces others to take an action (i.e. leading by force).

Prior to the 1960s, exerting soft power and leading by example would have been far more difficult. Only a certain number of people could physically fit into a meeting, and it was difficult for an individual player to project a positive image without some other less than savory alliances. Changes in telecommunications during the 1960s began to alter that -- as exemplified by the public perception of our role in the Vietnam War, the uproar about the opaque process through which Hubert Humphrey was selected as the Democratic candidate in 1968, etc. You can continue to see the rising and falling of the different camps through Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama... But as the telecommunications environment has continued to change, momentum has shifted increasingly towards the soft power side grounded in transparency and collaboration. However, the different camps still exist, and each finds an advantage depending upon the environment.

The more an environment can be made opaque and hierarchical, the more there is an advantage to a zero-sum game, hard power approach. After all, in the hierarchical model, there is only one person at the top, and so every one else is a competitor to be neutralized. And, given the complexity and occasional duplicity of the compromises being made in the quest to reach the top of the hierarchy, opaqueness is beneficial, since no action being taken is actually in the best interests of everyone. Only one player makes it to the top.

The more an environment can be made transparent and collaborative, the more there is an advantage to a win-win, soft power approach. In the collaborative model, it's possible that everyone will benefit. There doesn't need to be a single player at the top. So, transparency helps keep the group working together effectively and drawing benefits from each others successes.

Knowing which environment one is in enables one to act best according to ones interests. Some, particularly those who are not leaders, may simply assess the environment and adapt to it. Others may find that the environment suits their own preferred approach (and some leaders may have a natural inclination towards working in the open or in secret). While other potential leaders may find that the environment is not compatible with their preferred approach. In this case, they will attempt to change the environment -- either by making it more opaque or more transparent.

But, to be effective, we must understand our environment, and help develop the environment in which we would hope to be leaders.

I strongly prefer transparency, and have been working for my two decades of government service to incorporate collaborative systems that promote communication and accountability into our decision making and implementation processes. But, when an environment is in place, the human part of the equation is that we have to use it.

Permalink Reply by Don Jacobson on March 7, 2009 at 3:12pm

Another great message, Andre! I completely agree that greater collaboration and flow of information increases transparency and creates an environment more conducive to collaborative leadership. That is a Good Thing.

One idea I would like to explore on GovLoop is how we might be able to use collaborative technologies as a tool to actively foster leadership development. For example, lots of people in this community post questions and discuss challenges they are facing. Those postings provide lots of opportunities for some spot coaching (i.e. asking powerful questions that help people clarify their thinking).

In addition, the GovLeaders group can provide a place where we all share ideas about leadership development, whether it be for our own development or that of others. Those developer leadership programs or simply growing other leaders can share what works. Aspiring leaders can seek help.

Any thoughts on other ways we can use this technology as an accelerator or multiplier for leadership development?

Anyone? Feel free to chime in!

Permalink Reply by Tony Darlington on April 16, 2009 at 1:36am

Don,

Interesting discussion and views on leadership. Coercion is not leadership an any way form or fashion. Leadership to the ability to have your personnel willingly follow your lead or direction. The key to being an effective leader at a minimum revolves around providing direction and purpose, and earning the respect of your subordinates, peers and superiors.

As a leader you are responsible for all your team does or doesn't do, so you as a leader develop a healthy work environment within your sphere of control (Area of Influence). Within this environment you as a leader establish the idea situation that promotes growth as a team and allows individuals the freedom to grow (through opportunities ... most you provide ... initially). Your AOI is an isolated environment from any outside distractions, this is your part as a leader to minimize. You deal with the meetings, and head off the non-essential tasks.

I have never found a productive and growing organization that was close hold on information, centralized control, everyone fighting to become the man on the pyramid; these stagnate (for lack of information across organizations), and the good people leave for other companies (that appreciate their talents), with personnel remaining that are willing to fall inline with the current environment (yes men and women).

Sincerity, putting mission first considering people always (in every decision) will never fail. Should we impede those below us because they want our jobs? Why should we, it is the mark of every good leader to have a team that can operate without him or her present, and if need be do his job. Leadership isn't just about setting a good example but also encouraging personal and professional growth of their subordinates. This means that you have to know your subordinates, know their weaknesses and help make them stronger.

Lastly we are on the right track trying to determine the best ways to use collaborative tools to improve as leaders and organizations. Because leadership is about effective communication, without this you are no good to your subordinates, peers, superiors and organization.

The term transparency (seems like a new concept) but in my mind this is the same principle based leadership techniques I have seen in healthy organizations.

Permalink Reply by CLIFTON TILLMAN on May 14, 2009 at 7:36am

John V. Lombardi I have had many role models. President Lombardi first came to mind when I read your quote: "All leaders lead by example--whether they intend to or not." I read an article in the paper wherein he agreed with his critics, quickly. The learning point I took from the article follows. Someone, upon seeing President Lombardi stoop to pick up litter, commented that Lombardi was only doing that because he wanted people to see. He agreed and hoped others would follow his example.

Permalink Reply by Hobbs on May 19, 2009 at 4:44pm

If we all took your advice and took ownership the government wwould be more effective im meeting its goal. I think this is advice I will strive hard to follow. Thanks.

Permalink Reply by Mark Lewack on May 27, 2009 at 7:12pm

Don:
Let me apologize for the delay in responding to your message in my profile:

I spent 30 years in the Coast Guard (retired as a SCPO) before I retired and moved on to my current position in OPM.

"... We must be effective leaders because that is critical to unleashing the passion and potential of the public servants we lead. We must model effective leadership because we have an obligation as leaders to help grow the next generation of leaders for the public service. Someone once said that "All leaders leader by example--whether they intend to or not." As such, it is important to be deliberate about the kind of example we set."

Your statements in the final large paragraph are spot on -

Let me add one more quote or rather a derivative of one I learned in many of the leadership courses I took.

"The difference between leaders and managers is -- Leaders innovate, managers go for the status quo." "Leaders go, go, go, whereas Managers go with the flow." The reason why companies like Microsoft and Toyota have been so successful (disregarding the losses that each have suffered in the current economic climate) is that its executives and supervisors are leaders, not managers. They are almost never stuck in the status quo ... Even when they release less than stellar products, they are simultaneously developing their next and better products and beating their competitors to the punch.

There is much more at stake in our success as Leaders, given we have a new Administration and spent so much money in rescuing failing enterprises at the expense of our future budgets, prosperity, etc. In order to make up for our future shortfalls, the Federal Government will soon be wielding a much larger budget ax than the meager $16-18 billion it is being asked to trim today.

- Mark

Permalink Reply by Midori Raymore on May 29, 2009 at 1:36pm

I don't think you have to be in a leadership position to be a leader. A person can be at any level of government and still be a leader. Being a leader is more about how a person conducts himself or herself and they perform their job than how at what grade level they are. I've seen plenty of 'leaders' that didn't have my respect. I joined this group as I'm interested in being a leader no matter what my position and no matter where I am in my career. But I also recognize that I have opportunities ahead of me and I don't rule out any possibilities.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page