Are you a Manager or a Leader?

Leaders exist at every level of an organisation, whereas Managers are hierarchical pinnacles. By its nature, the role of a Manager is that of control, unless that manager is a Leader. There is nothing wrong with being a Manager as long as it is where you wish to be.

So which one am I (one might ask)? In order to better portray this, I'll use a real example, that I observed yesterday while shopping for clothes. I asked one of the 2 charming shop assistants why he seemed rather low-key. He told me this short story. 

He said that the other shop assistant who is his manager (Store Manager) hired him, some weeks ago, as he was recommended by her husband. He was doing very well from the outset, so the creative Store Manager moved against convention and decided to pool the Store Sales and effectively share her commission with him, while he ramped-up his sales. It created an amazing harmonious, effective, positive, pleasant and rewarding environment for both; a great place to work he added. That lasted about 3 weeks.

Then, the morning of my visit, the pair received a call from the Store Manager's supervisor who asked them to promptly stop that practise. "You are meant to be competing"........... 

The shop assistant is totally disincentivised and is now wondering if this organisation is aligned with his value systems or whether he will just be there and just collect the salary.

Hierarchically, the Supervisor was "enforcing" the organisational edict of how people participate in their internal commission scheme. The Store Manager was incentivising her staff.

The point is that as managers we often forget the purpose of the process, in this case the commission process. Obviously it is, to incentivise the team and individuals specifically, to achieve better organisational results. We seem to fail to realise that the best results are achieved through effective and happy teams rather than through dogma. As a manager this individual was using his position to enforce company policy. As a Leader, he failed, as this achieved the opposite outcome to the intent of the policy/process.

So the answer to the question "Am I a Leader or a Manager?", seems straight forward to me. Am I an enforcer that utilises my position to control outcomes, or am I unleashing that Leader quality within each individual in my team to achieve results that eclipse my industry competitors?

In our definition, Leaders are those that create Leaders and Leadership starts with one owning the responsibility of taking a Lead in their own life! Whether you know it or not, you are a Leader! Leaders exist in all walks of life. They are mothers, CEOs, volunteers, spiritualists, care-givers, receptionists, and the list goes on. However not all these role players are Leaders.

http://www.aldogrech.com

Who's Your Boss?

not relevant but interesting

As a leader, this is a key question to keep in mind.

It is my observation and opinion over the many years that I led businesses, that there are 2 types of businesses, those that focus on the customer and those that focus on the shareholder. Now many will argue that these are not mutually exclusive, and maybe so. However. I believe that in most cases that I have observed, this is a valid statement.i believe that there is only one Organisation that is effective and meets the test of time and that is the Organisation that focuses on the customer. I also happen to believe that the Organisation that focuses primarily on its customer is better serving its shareholders.

The focus on shareholders is usually a short-term view of an Organisation. It is usually a 3 monthly cycle of achieving certain results. Where, if results are not met, the Organisation is severely punished. In order to meet these short term results, so called leaders resort to anything including getting rid of core staff (often not the ones that are obviously bringing the results, but are the hidden jewels, alas), selling core assets and diverting the Organisation away from its true vision, merely to keep investors happy. I use the word merely quite purposefully. As I believe the shareholders are best served if these decisions are not made, if they want long-term "success".

I am not saying that recalcitrant employees should not be addressed appropriately. However, getting rid of employees, merely for short-term results achievement, is tantamount to throwing away the baby with the bath water! This is a different issue and the subject of a separate article.

Shareholders are best served if the Organisation stays focused on its customers; it's vision, even as times get tough and as shareholders want blood. Of course, one needs to stay relevant and the business of a leader is in fact to continually measure the Organisational one page business plan against market ensuring its validity. However, once validated and/or trimmed, a true leader stays focused on the customer and not the short-term blood thirst of the shareholders. Shareholders operate out of fear and a true leader knows this, and is able to stay on course while managing shareholders expectations.

However, back to the original hypothesis. As a leader there is a key choice to make; the customer, or the shareholder. And this is not about politics and rhetoric. It is about conviction.

Practically, what does this mean?

The customer-centric leader understands that the Organisational best asset is the employee. They do everything to ensure that everybody is on board and on purpose. They ensure that training is provided for all to stay on purpose and eliminates those that refuse to adopt the vision and are not on purpose. These are not necessarily recalcitrant employees. However, sometimes, there are valid differences of opinion and there is no place for an employee with opposing views of objectives. This is like letting a cancer grow. An on-purpose Organisation is unstoppable, profitable and has longevity built-in; it can whitstand down-times and maximize profits in good times, better serving its loyal shareholders.

I would not call CEOs and Managers of shareholder-centric organizations leaders. They might be brilliant in delivering great short-term dividends. However, the organizations they build are not sustainable long-term, have tragic customer satisfaction levels and have limited longevity. They are the heroes of investors but create organizations with low morale high staff turn-over and as a result unsustainable. In the long-term, this is bad news for loyal investors and create cronic down-turns as they do almost anything (as shown in the GFC) to ensure short-term results. They might be Managers, CEOs, great analysers, politicians; often charismatic, but not Leaders.

Unfortunately, these individuals are the yardstick for our youth and this is a sad indictment for our civilization that has placed money as a god above all gods.

Obviously, investors are by nature transient and they pick and choose, dropping perceived hot potatoes for the new short term money making opportunity. This is sometimes good for the investors hip-pocket, but always bad for business.

Apple is a great example of my views. Its share-value has been savaged even as it enjoys, unparalleled customer satisfaction, unparalleled profits, unparalleled growth of liquid assets unparalleled equity for a company of its size and has effectively created 5 new global product categories; simply because it has not met shareholder expectations! Absurd...

As a Leader, it is your choice. Choose wisely as true deep-in-the-heart conviction, alignment and happiness is worth much more than the short-term financial reward. And be clear that choosing the customer over the shareholder is a sure guarantee of investor return, almost and oxymoron!

CxO has proven alternative methodologies to turn your Organisation into a sustainable, long term, great entity. http://www.CxOconsulting.com.au. Aldo Grech is the managing Partner and Leader of CxO.

There Is No "I" In Nature

We live in an ecosystem that's made-up of subset and superset ecosystems. They are inter-reliant and by their nature are very fragile. This fragility ensures the ongoing evolution of the same ecosystem that relies on this mechanism as its method of survival and development.

Humankind is an ecosystem within this ecosystem. Unbalance in an ecosystem creates shifts that alter our ecosystem for the better; survival. Sometimes this happens at the cost of some specious as we have seen with the dinosaurs. If humankind really desires longevity in this ecosystem, we need to respect this balance or suffer the worst possible outcome for our kind.

All ecosystems are constantly in a state of change and rebalancing as they become more and more resilient. Humans are one phase of this ongoing ecosystem change. So by design, we are transient and as we transition to our next stage (should there be one), we need to work collectively towards this aim. There are many nascent initiatives, towards this goal, some spiritual, some industrial and others conceptual. I believe that the real answer lies in the "WE". The energy that lives these ecosystems is one energy and it is the same energy that is us. It is one and the same energy that lives and breaths us as does trees, and every other living organism. As one, we are able to continue the evolution of our species. As "I", we are one-by-one, driven by the greed and ego of "I" destroying the "We", our same humanity as we destroy our planet.

The "I" results from our upbringing, in a society that has been galvanized by the success of the individual. But this is a misguided notion as real success stories are underpinned by the work of a collective rather than one individual. The greed of our Ego is driving us to compete at any cost, in the process losing ourselves, our families, our sense of compassion and more importantly humankind, as we race blinded by the objective of being the ultimate winner who, in our culture is defined as the one with most money.

There is no "I" in nature but the collective "We" that includes the cosmos, our solar system, our beautiful planet, the trees, the oceans, you and I. Our fear and shame drives our Ego to achieve at all cost, in the process losing everything. And yet, the alternative brings so much more adundance, peace and happiness, bundles of compassion and a humanity that lives as one with nature and itself.

Call me a dreamer. However, at 55 and many of these years driven by greed, I see the only real alternative we have, which is to focus on our creativity rather than the greed of Ego. The only real and sustainable wealth!