Leadership Solutions

The Pathway to Bridge the Leadership Gap

David S. Weiss, Vince Molinaro, Liane Davey

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780470675625
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Leadership
• Index: Business

An organizational guide to assessing, measuring, and building leadership capacity

Leadership capacity has emerged as a key source of competitive advantage in today's economy. But many organizations struggle to develop the capacity they need to succeed. This book offers concrete and precise strategies to close the leadership gap. It explains in detail how to conduct a leadership analysis, determining exactly where the gaps are in both organizational and individual leadership; analyzes the challenges a company faces; helps in understanding an organization's leadership deficit; and generates leadership solutions tailored to the organization's particular needs and shortcomings.

part one

LEADERSHIP

CHAPTER ONE

The Leadership Gap Persists

Building leadership capacity is mission critical. This is the conclusion of more and more senior executives who are making the connection between leadership capacity and competitive advantage. Unfortunately, many organizations have significant leadership gaps, which are undermining their ability to succeed. What is especially alarming is that despite significant investments in leadership development and other strategies to build leadership capacity, these gaps are not closing.

As organizations set out to build the leadership capacity they need for the future, they are often confronted with a series of questions: How can we build leadership capacity throughout the organization? How can we anticipate the type of leadership we will require in the future? How do we measure the leadership we have today? How will we know when we have bridged the leadership gap? Where do we start?

When organizations are confronted by these questions, they are sometimes overwhelmed by the challenge of building leadership capacity. Some are not concentrating on this issue because they are preoccupied with current struggles. Others have not yet focused their organizations on leadership because they are not satisfied with current approaches of how to build leadership capacity. Still other executives may believe that this is a “soft” issue that can be handled within the HR department. Quite to the contrary, we suggest that executives and HR professionals need to rally to address the leadership gap and not allow it to jeopardize their business success. Building leadership capacity must be one of the top business priorities for executives now and into the future.

Our intent in Leadership Solutions is to provide a comprehensive and compelling answer to this critical business issue. Part One of this book focuses on “leadership” and clarifies how organizations and individuals should think about leadership capacity; Part Two of this book focuses on “solutions” and describes the four-step leadership solutions pathway to build the leadership capacity required to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.

Let’s begin with a story.

The CEO of a manufacturing company sits in an airport lounge, waiting for his flight back home. As he stares out the window at the bustling tarmac, he remembers sitting in the exact same spot last year. Then, as now, he had been in town to attend a board meeting. That meeting had focused on the directors’ growing concern that the company’s mandate for growth was in jeopardy. In the past the company had been successful by being the first to capitalize on sources of competitive advantage. They were the first to reengineer and use new supply chain processes to remove costs. Once others caught on to supply chain innovations, the company found huge gains by exploiting technology to automate key processes. But again, those gains had disappeared as other organizations copied their systems. At last year’s board meeting, the board shared with the CEO that they believed the organization’s leadership would be the next source of competitive advantage. They were unanimous that the CEO’s top priority was to build the necessary leadership to drive the company’s future growth. He was given 30 days to develop a strategy and a plan to address the company’s leadership gap. When he left the meeting, he understood the board’s concerns. Even though the company had experienced three years of consistent financial performance, there was an increasing understanding that the overall leadership capacity was not in place for the future. The CEO and members of the executive team had felt for some time that the company’s leadership was too entrenched in departmental silos. While leaders were very strong in their technical or functional areas and were able to manage “business as usual,” they were too internally focused. They were missing future growth opportunities in their markets, and the company was starting to fall behind its competitors. Employees felt their leaders were not strong people managers, and they had little confidence in them. The leaders themselves revealed that the company was not doing enough to support their own growth and development.

Now, one year later, the company had implemented the plan and had invested considerable resources in hopes of closing the leadership gap. In fact, benchmarking had shown that the company’s annual budget for leadership development was higher than the industry average. Yet, the CEO had just faced the board again with little progress to report. The training and programs they had implemented weren’t leading to changes in behavior on the job. Recent employee surveys showed no improvement in the engagement of employees—or of the leaders themselves. The boarding announcement startled the CEO. As he got ready to leave the lounge, he reflected with frustration on the persistent leadership gap and lack of clarity of what to do next. His top priority upon his return was to meet with the executive team, share the details of the board meeting and develop a new plan for the board—one that would be successful in closing the company’s leadership gap. He was determined not to be in the same position again next year.

The above story is both a good news and bad news story. The good news is that the board of this company “gets it.” They understand that leadership capacity has become the primary source of competitive advantage. They also understand that closing the leadership gap is one of the top business priorities and a challenge that they need to address in order to sustain the growth and success of the company. The CEO also seems to get it and demonstrates a commitment to building the leadership capacity required for the future.

The bad news is that despite investments made in building leadership capacity, the company still has a considerable leadership gap. Furthermore, there is a sense that the nature of the gap, if it persists, will put the company at risk of not being able to fulfil its growth mandate.

The experience of this CEO and organization is not unlike the experiences of many organizations in the private and public sectors. The competition has neutralized standard competitive advantages of operational excellence, product innovation and customer intimacy. The new competitive frontier has shifted to people—but not the over-simplified view of people as the organization’s most important asset—which few really believed and even fewer acted on. Rather, the competitive frontier of people is specifically focused on leadership: what leaders do, how the organization fosters leadership talents and how organizations reinforce their leadership culture.

Leadership is the path to sustained competitive advantage because great leadership provides the vision to uncover each successive source of competitive advantage and the focus to realize the gains that will outpace the competition. Unfortunately, despite widespread investments companies have made to build leadership capacity, when all is said and done, the leadership gap still persists in many companies, and the next frontier in competitive advantage remains elusive.

EVIDENCE OF THE GAP

Since publishing The Leadership Gap, we have made numerous presentations to organizations. Many times, we polled the audience to describe the severity of the leadership gap. The questions we asked are:

• To what extent is the leadership gap in your organization a burning issue now?

• Five years from now, will the leadership gap be more, the same, or less of an issue for your organization? Please explain.

The responses to these questions have been consistent wherever we have traveled.

To what extent is leadership capacity a burning issue now? 80 percent of the respondents indicate it is a burning issue now.

Five years from now, will leadership capacity be more, or less, of an issue?

Approximately 50 percent indicate it will be more of a burning issue.

Approximately 20 percent indicate it will remain a burning issue as it is today.

Approximately 30 percent indicate it will be less of an issue—because we will fix it now.

Approximately 80 percent of respondents say that leadership capacity is currently a burning issue. Even with strong agreement that there is a leadership gap now, a large majority of the people we talk to believe that in five years their organizations will be no better off (and perhaps worse off) than they are today. They cite reasons for their pessimistic view such as the increasing complexity of their business environment, which will make it more difficult to find leadership talent, and that attempts to resolve issues related to the leadership gap will be unsuccessful. Some examples of their responses include:

• Even more important! Delayering of organizational structure, decentralization, demographics, lack of institutional learning/sharing, globalization, mobilization of people globally to centers of excellence, pace of mergers and acquisitions all exploding—therefore, the one with the leadership wins.

• Could be greater if we don’t begin to take greater steps (immediate and substantial effort) to address gaps; if we do not change gears on what leadership is in our company, we will be in a position where the leadership gap will increase.

• Will get worse, i.e., change in demographics and the next generation will not want to take on leadership roles. It will be tougher if we do not build the capability to deal with it now.

Approximately 30 percent of the people we ask believe that the leadership gap will be less of a burning issue in the next five years—primarily because they believe that their efforts to close the gap will be successful. Almost no respondents say that leadership capacity will be a non issue in five years.

WHY THE LEADERSHIP GAP PERSISTS

In our book, The Leadership Gap,¹ we described the nature of the leadership gap in some detail. Since writing that book, we’ve gained deeper insights into the dynamics perpetuating leadership gaps in organizations and the failure paths organizations sometimes take in implementing leadership solutions. We have found several reasons why organizations are struggling to close their leadership gaps.

Reasons the Leadership Gap Persists

1. Over-reliance on traditional views of leadership

2. No shared or well-defined view of leadership for the future

3. A void of leadership capacity metrics

4. Unclear accountability for leadership capacity

5. Fragmented solutions that are not sustained

6. Flat and lean organizations with fewer intermediate leadership positions

7. Poor supply of leaders

(1) Over-Reliance on Traditional Views of Leadership

Two traditional views of leadership are contributing to the persistence of the leadership gap:

The first is charismatic leadership, which has become a widely accepted view of leadership—actually, a collective default. The charismatic view overemphasizes the role of individual personality in leadership. Consider the results:

• Organizations become preoccupied with molding leaders into a prescribed style or having them emulate other successful leaders of the past. This is an approach that is seldom successful in changing leaders’ behaviors.

• Organizations spend too much time and money on a small group of highly visible leaders at the top of the hierarchy. This causes them to neglect leadership at other levels and to ignore the collective forms of leadership that emerge in teams.

The second traditional view is the belief that it is important to select leaders from specific areas of expertise within the company. Organizations that hold this view are often led by a highly capable technical expert who comes from the organization’s dominant function (e.g., consumer products companies that are led by brilliant marketers or professional service firms led by accountants). As organizations become increasingly complex, however, solutions cannot be found within a single perspective. Organizations with a strong legacy of hiring and promoting leaders based on superb technical or functional expertise will need leaders with wider perspectives. They must be capable of rising above their specific exper...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Figures
• Preface
• Author Biographies
• Acknowledgements
• part one - LEADERSHIP
• part two - SOLUTIONS
• APPENDIX A - Audit of Organizational Practices and Accompanying 30-Cell Grid
• APPENDIX B - Survey of Leadership Culture and Accompanying 30-Cell Grid
• APPENDIX - Assessment of Leader Behaviors and Accompanying 30-Cell Grid
• Endnotes
• Index