Leaders are Neither Born nor Made. Leaders Develop Themselves.

by Vic Downing

© Victor Downing May 2010

In their well researched and well written article (How to Keep Your Top Talent, Harvard Business Review, May 2010), Martin and Schmidt assert that corporations must develop their high performance assets in order to keep that talent in the company. That conclusion is almost entirely wrong.

First, high performance people who lead are not developed… they develop themselves. Second, they cannot be retained by a firm… they stay or go as they please. Third, they are not assets… they are people.

Martin and Schmidt report that 25% of high performance/high potential (Hi-Po’s) are ready to “jump ship.” They argue that is the result of employers making six “mistakes” in their attempt to develop HI-Po leaders:

1. Assuming Hi-Po’s are Highly Engaged
2. Equating Current High Performance with Future Potential
3. Delegating Management of Hi-Po’s Down The Organization Chart
4. Shielding Hi-Po’s from Derailment
5. Expecting Hi-Po’s to Share The Pain (i.e., to defer raises and bonuses)
6. Failing to Link Hi-Po’s to Corporate Strategy

In fact, Hi-Pos leave their employers because they can get a better deal elsewhere. What constitutes a better deal varies by the person… it cannot be predicted or “managed” by an employer. Although one component of that better deal is usually the opportunity to grow and develop and to have one’s excellent work recognized, leadership development will never be sufficient to retain a Hi-Po. Furthermore, the purpose of leadership development is to secure a successful business future for the firm… not to reduce turnover of Hi-Po’s.

Therefore, I recommend the following:

1. Require Hi-Po’s to measure the engagement of their direct reports
2. Focus equally on performance, potential and perception
3. Don’t manage the development of Hi-Po’s… empower them to manage their own development
4. Dramatically increase the potential for Hi-Po’s to derail
5. Offer Hi-Po’s a risk-reward option
6. Require Hi-Po’s to link themselves to the corporate strategy

Require Hi-Po’s to Measure the Engagement of Their Direct Reports

Schmidt and Martin, et al., loosely define engagement as a type of I-like-the-company feeling and disengagement as the tendency to be looking for a different job.

Here’s reality. Engagement is (as defined by the incomparable research of the Gallup organization) “discretionary effort” (i.e., voluntarily doing more value-to-business work than is required). Discretionary effort is the result of having 12 essentials. 1

When Hi-Po’s are measured on the engagement of their direct reports, Hi-Po’s become more engaged… i.e., they deliver more discretionary effort. Why? Leaders inspire discretionary effort within his or her team by personally delivering discretionary effort.

Furthermore, no Hi-Po worth his or her salt will fail to have one eye on the next and better job… both inside and beyond your company. You do it. They do it. Failure to be sniffing out that next position is clear evidence of being a person who thinks, “This is the best I can hope for until someone comes along and offers me a better opportunity” … and that is definitely not the voice of a Hi-Po!

Focus Equally on Performance, Potential, and Perception

Martin and Schmidt correctly caution that high performance does not guarantee high potential. They argue that the firm must look at both performance and potential. What they have written is true… and it isn’t the whole truth.

True: performance is the ticket to the dance: no performance = no future.

True: a portion of high-performance people lack potential (Martin and Schmidt report that 70% of Hi-Po’s lack potential, pp. 57-58). Unfortunately their criteria are vague.

Following is a short list of characteristics associated with assessing the potential of a Hi-Po to move from a lower level leader position to a mid-level leader position:

• Willing to move from one part of the country to another part of the country?
• Is favorably known by respected leaders in other regions and other functions?
• Speaks several “languages” (Finance, Operations, Night Shift, Sales, North East, Southern, Corporate, Field, Six Sigma, Spanish, Mandarin, etc.)?
• Writes as well as well respected leaders two levels higher in the organization?
• Takes the initiative and puts others at-ease in social situations with leaders two levels higher in the organization?
• Makes presentations that respected leaders two levels higher in the organization view as “well done”?

Truth be told, perception –the perceptions of those who are gate-keepers to leadership responsibility— is the most subjective and may influence the decision to promote more than both performance and potential.

Truth be told, perception –the perceptions of those who are gate-keepers to leadership responsibility— is the most subjective and may influence the decision to promote more than both performance and potential. Negative perception (or a negative “brand”) can be the result of an untrue set of circumstances or it can be the result of a negative opinion that is well deserved. It doesn’t matter. “Brand” is always the responsibility of the Hi-Po. He/she must know how he/she is being perceived and must do whatever is required and ethical to achieve a positive “brand”… or must move on. (Please see my article, What to Do When Your Brand Goes Bad.)

Don’t Manage Development for Hi-Po’s… Empower Them to Manage Their Own Development

Schmidt and Martin perpetuate the problem that plagues almost all leadership development programs: “These employees [i.e., Hi-Po’s] are a long-term corporate asset and must be managed accordingly” (p. 58).

First, they are not corporate assets! They are people! Assets don’t innovate, challenge, listen, reconsider, encourage, inspire, or do more than they are required to do… people do those things. When people are treated like assets, the best among them move away as soon as possible and those who are left behind (at best) perform like machines that must be “maintained.” It is precisely this asset- or resource-view, this 19th and 20th century industrial revolution view that repels Gen-X and Millennials. This well intentioned and ubiquitous view reveals a deep, profound, and deadly blind spot among many more senior leaders. The importance of this cannot be overestimated.

Second, these persons do not need to be “managed” nor do their careers or their development need to be managed. Indeed, if they or their careers or their development is managed, the unintended consequence will be “well trained” people who lack initiative and courage… two character traits we most need in leaders.

If someone performs well and has the potential to do more (see above), then offer the opportunity and tools whereby they can manage their own careers. Offer Hi-Po’s the equivalent of a conditional membership in the local gym: if you show up, lift the weights, and measurably improve your performance and how you are perceived, then –and only then—your membership will remain active.

Dramatically Increase the Potential for Hi-Po’s to Derail

Schmidt and Martin hit the bull’s eye: “Human resources executives and line managers alike will go to great lengths to ensure that employees with promise are placed in training assignments that provide a bit of a stretch but little real risk of failure… True leadership development takes place under conditions of real stress…” (p. 59).

Actually, the bar is higher still.

The measure of leadership is what a person does under adverse conditions where both failure and success have significant personal consequences. Leaders who are “coming up” need to prove that they remain composed, inspire the performance of others, process the data, and “pull the trigger” when time is short, resources are insufficient, and tensions are high. Furthermore, if the process of leadership development does not ensure the Candidate will lose something of real value to the Candidate if success is not achieved, then we have no real sense of the person’s potential to lead.

Offer Hi-Po’s a Risk-Reward Option

Schmidt and Martin struggle unsuccessfully to link variable compensation with leadership development (pp. 60-61). In my view, they struggle because they assume more money produces better performance. There are two problems with that assumption: (1) pay is increased before performance is improved, and (2) although everyone wants more money, it is not more money that improves performance (improved performance is a function of providing the 12 essentials identified by Gallup and noted above).

In business, reward is a function of undertaking a significant risk with the potential –but not the assurance—of achieving a significant reward. Leaders are drawn to that prospect… that personal risk. In the case of leadership development, offer Hi-Po’s the potential reward of an earned promotion and the risk of not performing well enough to achieve that promotion.

Require Hi-Po’s to Link Themselves to Corporate Strategy

Once again, Schmidt and Martin intend well and foster exactly the results that must be avoided at all costs: “…our research shows that their [i.e., Hi-Po’s] confidence in their managers –and their firms’ strategic capabilities—is one of the strongest factors in top employees’ engagement. An organization that goes “radio silent’ with respect to its strategy –or, even worse, explicitly or implicitly signals a strategy freeze in the midst of economic uncertainty—runs the risk of disengaging its rising starts…” (p. 61).

When it comes to leadership development, the point is the initiative taken by the leader who is developing and not the initiative taken by the firm for which the leader works. A person who expects to be handed the corporate strategy like food dished out in a cafeteria is not ready for leadership. Leaders take the initiative to unearth, refine, challenge, and apply corporate strategy. It is initiative, not knowledge, that most distinguishes leaders.

Exceptional Performance Leadership (EPL)

It will come as no surprise that EPL (© Global Advantage, Inc.) does exactly what is recommended in this response to Schmidt’s and Martin’s article.

It may come as a surprise to know that EPL is designed for what senior leaders –not consultants or trainers— need to see junior leaders do in the field. During their year of candidacy, EPL requires Candidates do the behaviors characteristic of premier senior leaders. EPL is not about learning tools and techniques and concepts; EPL is all about being accountable for specific measures of business performance in the field (and EPL provides coaching and tools just-in-time when the need emerges).

The core message is this: The customer of leadership development is the senior business leader… not the Candidate. The purpose of leadership development is to achieve a better business result… not to prevent turnover… and certainly not to “offer training.” People who will lead successfully are not people who “are developed.” People who will lead in business are people who want to lead in business… people who take initiative to build relationships that result in teams that solve problems that are very important to customers… and they do so under adverse conditions.

1. Clear expectations, tools, the opportunity to do what I do best, having superior work recognized as such, a boss who cares about me-the-person, encouragement of development, having one’s opinion seriously considered, knowing how the team mission depends on one’s contribution, working with colleagues who value quality, having a buddy at work, discussing progress at least twice per year, and having evidence of personal development.

Track Record

30 years experience… North America, Asia, Europe… BioTech, Transportation, Distribution, Health Care, Manufacturing, Wholesale, Retail, Construction, Financial Services, Software… Sales, Service, Marketing, Environmental Health and Safety, Human Resources, Information Technology, Customer Service, Technical Services… CEO, CIO, CFO, Line Manager, First Line Supervisor, individuals, teams, virtual teams… find the problem, design the event, facilitate the meeting, train, inspire, build the process, fix the process, develop in-house expertise, listen, keep confidences.

Vic Downing
President, Global Advantage, Inc.

Sample Assignments

In two years increase per-square-foot net profit of a retail chain by more than 30% while expanding outlets by 10%… and be recognized as the number one quality vendor in the industry.

In one year reduce $300,000,000.00 operating budget by $47,000,000.00, not including savings associated with reduction in force.

Convene North American-Western European-Asian summit to resolve operational and cross-cultural issues that were impeding performance. Walk away with an integrated, measurable plan and a unified team with an extremely high level of rapport.

Jump-start a high potential manager whose performance was neutralized by the inability to delegate.

Prepare a Senior Vice President to plan, announce, and successfully manage two downsizings in six months, while improving the performance and loyalty of top performers.

Ramp-up emerging, high-technology production by 300% in 12 months while shortening cycle times, reducing waste, and improving morale.

http://www.globaladvantageinc.net/

“When the clock is running, there’s money on the table and reputation on the line, Global Advantage makes sense.”