![]() ![]() If you ask some CEOs what their priority is, they'll shout "our customer," even though it's been years since they've spoken to a customer. While leaders are obviously responsible for the outcome you could also say that true leaders are responsible for the people who are responsible for the outcome. It means that if things really do go wrong, you shouldn't yell, rant and curse and take over, but you should say "try again." The pressure is not on your employees but the pressure is on you as their leader. But when things go wrong all the responsibility rests on you "so that really sucks." It means being the last one to go home because you have to show someone what to do. That also means that when things go well you should give all the praise away to those who deserve it. After all, you are not in "charge" but you are responsible for the people who are "in charge". And that's because in both cases, great personal sacrifice is necessary. It's the same with leaders everyone has the capacity to be a leader, but not everyone wants to be a leader and some shouldn't be a leader. It's like parenthood everyone has the capacity to be a parent, but that doesn't mean that everyone wants parenthood and also doesn't mean that everyone should want parenthood. So if you train a lot as a leader you become a strong leader, if you don't train you become a weak leader. It's like a muscle, if you train it a lot it gets stronger, if you don't train it, it gets weak. Leadership is a skill just like other skills and therefore learnable and trainable. So in many companies there is the big pitfall of not teaching new leaders how to lead. A transition from "responsible for the function" to "responsible for the people who are responsible for the function". Some people can do it quickly, some take a little longer and some never succeed. What they are doing is a kind of micro-management because they are good at the work their employees have to do, that's what earned the promotion in the end. But nobody tells you how you should do that that's why we get managers but not leaders. You then become responsible for the people who do the work that you first did and that you are good at. If you are good you are rewarded and even promoted. Thousands of dollars are spent to teach you how to work with the software or you are sent away for days to be trained in what you do for your company. And all you have to do after that is show up at work and work very hard. Example as an accountant you have to complete a tough training with a successful exam before you can start working. Some are even trained for it, for example accountants. When you're a newcomer to a company, all you have to do is be as good as you can at your job. ![]() These leaders don't realize that and they aren't trained for it. It's not about being in charge, it's about taking care of the people in charge or in other words, you are not "in charge" but responsible for the people who are "in charge". Partly due to the influence of today's society, they are so concerned with their status and position within a company that they forget their real job. I realize that this is a pithy statement, so I'd like to substantiate it. Statement: There are two things great leaders must have and what many leaders lack empathy and perspective. In a later stage of this blog I will come back to the connection with "the Peter Principle". Many companies are insufficiently aware of this, let alone that they look for opportunities to implement it. It's an open door to say that it should be. It surprised me that in my career as a trainer with companies, I've regularly dealt with subjects such as collaboration and trust, which actually implies that there's a chance that trust and collaboration are not a standard in these companies, or are insufficiently present or lacking. From that moment on, his usefulness to the organization rapidly decreases, if necessary until he makes a negative contribution to the organization (on balance). His (extra) skills or characteristics have apparently been overestimated. However, this process stops when the employee no longer satisfies the requirements after his promotion. If he also performs well in that next function, the way to a next higher function, if available, is again open. The "mechanism" described by Peter works like this an employee who performs well in his first position within the hierarchy is in principle eligible for promotion to a higher position. "In a hierarchy, each employee rises to his level of incompetence." The Peter principle is formulated as follows: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |