1. The Business of Humor: I Can Has Cheezburger.
2. I know it sounds odd but this is a must read and surprisingly funny story about women and street harassment
3. Five Big Bookkeeping Tips
4. iPhone 5 shipping in September
5. TV shopping networks can teach you about making money
6. The Management Feedback Gap
7. Amazon bringing Kindle to 11000 libraries
8. Even with Verizon selling them, AT&T iPhone sales chugging right along
Leaders and managers have a lot more in common with each other than they know. When we think of leadership we often envision a knight in shining armor galloping across a field of battle on a strong white steed, vanquishing all those who dare oppose him. On the flipside when management comes to mind we are more likely to picture a balding, pudgy 50 year old man in an ill fitting suit, sitting in a dimly lit office combing joylessly through a mountain of quarterly reports. But in reality managers have to know how to ride a horse and leaders have to learn how to hunker down in a small dark room every now and again. So I think it’s time to bridge this semantically chasm. Leaders aren’t gods and managers aren’t drones.
When we think of leaders we think of people who can rally people around them and lead them onto great heights. Leadership is about rallying those around you and getting things done. When we think of managers we think of people who can handle the day to day tasks that allow an organization to move forward. Proper logistics aren’t heroic, but without them no amount of inspired leadership will save your company from the ash-heap of history. Despite the fact there aren’t many “Great Managers of All Time” books floating around out there, their logistical skills are a must for all leaders to learn and if they can, master.
We tend to lionize our leaders and marginalize our managers but the skills of both occur at every level of an organization and neither one can live without the other. There are times when you need a leader and their particular skills. If you know exactly what needs to be done but can’t figure out how to get people to go along with you, then you need a leader not a manager. One of the major challenges of leadership is finding a way to effectively persuading skeptics and potential allies to join your coalition. Managers can get the initial support of people, they can get others to listen and reflect. But only someone with strong leadership skills can get the buy-in necessary to bring people to their side. This is one of those moments where everyone needs leadership skills to move forward. Managers will never go beyond a certain level without getting a certain level of buy-in from those around them.
On the other hand if you have a core group of adherents who have bought into your agenda it really won’t do much good unless you have the skills to take them across the finish line. Think of your agenda as a plant. In the early stages a plant’s root system is weak and easy to uproot. As its roots take hold they provide the foundation for future growth and stability. You can get build an agenda and get people on your side, but if you don’t have the skills of a manager, the skills of execution and logistics, then you face an uncertain future. Getting people on your side is a big challenge but if you can’t execute, implement and manage change you will come up short.
In the final analysis, we need to remove the imagined boundary between leadership and management. Both leaders and managers need the others particular skill set to get beyond inertia, because in the end no one wants a manager who can’t lead or a leader who can’t manage.
As a leader you want to be liked, or if you can make it happened…loved. If you can get and keep people on your side they tend to spend more time working and less time huddling in cubicles. quietly but passionately complaining about the boss. With this concept/desire in mind, the ever vigilant folks over at Glassdoor.com have just released a employee-generated report card for the CEO’s of the 12 largest tech companies. From Google’s much loved but soon to be ex-CEO Eric Schimidt (96%) to Microsoft’s not-so-adored Steve Ballmer (40%) the list gives us a decent snapshot of how these organizations are faring from the inside out. If your like me and you want to get a head start on next year’s Tech CEO Fantasy League draft, check out the entire list and anaysis at Glassdoor.com.
p.s. I am not sure there is an actual Fantasy League for CEOs, if there is please send me the link
Even if charismatic leadership can be learned and measured, what counts most is execution. This is the only measurement that really matters. Nevertheless, developing charisma that helps in fulfilling goals can be a tangible asset.
Here is part of an article about Kenneth Levine’s (University of Tennessee) new charisma study:
Can a person’s charisma be measured and learned? Yes, says a University of Tennessee study.
Much has been written in business management textbooks and self-help guides about the role that personal charisma plays in leadership.
However, according to the new study co-authored by Kenneth Levine, a University of Tennessee, Knoxville, until recently no one was able to describe and measure charisma in a systematic way.
“Everyone has a leadership capacity in something. But we found that if you want people to perceive you as charismatic, you need to display attributes such as empathy, good listening skills, eye contact, enthusiasm, self-confidence and skillful speaking,” he said.
Those are the attributes social scientists can measure to more fully understand charismatic communication.
David Foster Wallace covered John McCain’s 2000 bid to become president for Rolling Stone magazine. He rode with McCain’s Straight Talk Express for a week and wrote a 15,000 + word essay that took a look at everything from the campaign’s catering to its political strategy. Wallace, a keen American essayist, humorist, and novelist, studies McCain’s campaign from the eyes of a young, 20-something American who is not only fed-up with the political system, but bored to tears by it. He argues that generation X, the segment of people born after 1970, have trouble accepting, embracing, and supporting leaders because, well, their skin is too thick for marketing gimmicks, emotional appeals, and political promises. Or, as Wallace says, younger voters can’t identify with political leaders because they instinctively sense “bullshit.”
Voters born after 1970 grew up with marketing, advertising, and sales pitches. Wallace argues that voters “below the age of 35” can “smell” the self serving interests a political candidate has when they ask for votes. No matter what they promise. He says, “We [generation X] may vote for [leaders] the same way we may go buy toothpaste. But we’re not inspired. They’re not the real thing.” For Wallace this ‘sales’ aspect of leadership is nothing new. What’s new is people’s growing ability to “smell” marketing before feeling inspiration, to identity the salesman before the message.The post-1970 generation was raised with commercials and can’t help but look at the political process as one big commercial.
Wallace argues that young voters are instinctively aware of a leader’s inherent self-interest. Since this is the case, young voters can’t be inspired since they are too busy waiting to get let down. As he sees it no leader has been able to reverse this formula since 1970. Of course Wallace, writing in the Spring of 2000, doesn’t take into account President Obama, his campaign, and his popularity among young voters.
Wallace’s argument is half right. Younger voters and younger employees are forced, to a degree, to view leaders on any stage with some distrust and cynicism. Campaigns appear as commercials and leaders appear to act with self interest. It’s a stance that’s been adopted to deal with advertising overload and marketing blitzes. It’s a tension that both political and business leaders must consider when they try to talk to young voters or employees. Today’s leaders have to find a way to express their desire for action while stating their self interests clearly.
Here’s how Wallace defines leaders: “A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can’t get ourselves to do on our own. It’s a mysterious quality, hard to define, but we always know it when we see it, even as kids.” Wallace can’t put his finger on what a real leader is. He describes what leaders can do, but he explains the ‘how’ of leadership as a “mysterious quality.” Ultimately identify a leader, under Wallace’s rubric, comes down to a 6th sense. A preternatural gift you probably had since you were a kid.
Wallace stumbles in his definition of leadership. If leadership is to remain a murky ability, a “mysterious quality,” then not only young voters, but everyone, is forced to approach campaigning leaders with caution. If leadership is truly indefinable and only felt how can we trust, measure, and promote aspiring leaders? We can’t with any reliability and we’re forced to study leaders using a language of cliches. When we can’t explain leadership, we have to ask about a leader’s ability to inspire or the amount of charisma they have–and we get more confused.
If Wallace looked at leadership as the ability the get things done, he’d have less anxiety about trusting or believing in potential leaders and politicians. Wallace says the discussion of leadership makes “eyes glaze over” because it involves discussing abstract qualities and contradictory personality traits. But leadership isn’t a set of indefinable traits and mysterious qualities, it’s a muscle that can be seen and exercised. Leadership is about execution, building coalitions, bargaining, building legitimacy and so much more.
Wallace rightly asserts that young people are skeptical about aspiring leaders. They have trouble discerning between marketing and a real promise. But the main reason leadership worries people is because it lacks a consistent definition. When Wallace argues that leadership is a “mysterious quality” it’s easy to be skeptical of leaders since we don’t even know where to begin trusting them or perceiving them. We’d be able to support the right leaders if we were able to measure their ability to get things done and execute. It’s crucial that we define leadership as a real set of skills rather than a hazy combination of personal qualities.
Pic Credit: Steve Rhodes
©2020 BLG-Lead.com All Rights Reserved. | Designed by Princeton Internet Marketing