Does your leadership model reflect the strategic need of your business model?
The market place changes, the impact from the global competition creates a need for intensity and yet, your organizational structure reflects the 1990’s when a matrix (not the film) was all the rage. How can you begin to think you are creating a competitive solution to the need-for-speed when your leadership model resembles a snail inching along the path, slime trail and all? Yech!
Here are three, yes count them three, options that will make more sense and be attractive but for different needs and reasons. In addition, I will emphasize three aspects of leading; the person (who is taking the role) as one level of importance, the need (what the strategic goal that is being achieved for the company) and the role (actual title and spot in the organizational structure).
The Rotational Leadership Option
I start by referencing an article (The Wall Street Journal, September 28, 2010 page B9, Elizabeth Holmes, Top Jobs Shifted at Gilt Groupe). “Gilt Groupe Inc. said Monday that its chairman and chief executive will swap roles, as the on-line luxury-goods retailer continues to get its top leadership in order.” This article is well written and important because it brings to the forefront the creative option of rotating leaders and not simply dumping someone who was felt to be a great recruiting find. Elizabeth Holmes highlights the changes, more than first indicated, revolving around Susan Lyne, previously CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., becoming the chairman and Kevin Ryan, co-funded Gilt and past CEO of DoubleClick, taking the CEO role.
Rotational leading is a viable option for many organizations. This formula may be planned and cyclical with the changes intending to bring a fresh perspective to a position or development opportunity for the individuals swapping roles (marketing manager and sales manager swap is not unusual). Here is what you are doing, emphasis is around the person first and the role or need for the business is next.
The Distributed Leading Option
In this example I begin with referencing an article by the iconic Rosabeth Moss Kanter,
(page 42, Harvard Business Review, October 2010, It’s Time to Take Full Responsibility)where she brings a different challenge to leaders in the future. She drives home the challenges highlighted in the recent BP oil spill bringing an end to the career of Tony Hayward. In the column, Kanter emphasizes an interesting but not necessarily accurate prediction that leaders will be held responsible for cradle-to-grave impact of every product they oversee. I don’t buy it but here is an option. Rebalancing or distributing the responsibilities across different leadership streams, I predict, will be more important in the future. This formula is one that easily translates to “teaming” efforts. I also predict, the future will bring resurgence in teams, self-directed teams, autonomous work teams or any other vernacular you may be familiar with. The reasons I believe that teams are going to be big in the future will be for another Blog.
Distributed leading is one formula where the need of the organization is first, the role of individuals accepting the responsibility is second and because the need is first the person filling the role becomes third. This reallocation of responsibility would be a solution to the dilemma posed by Kanter because we assume her challenge to leaders is based on a traditional hierarchical structure causing responsibility to fall in the lap of one person.
The Strategic Leading Option
Now I start out with quoting myself, “…we are challenging you to designate the key positions by level of strategic importance. In your future, the workforce will be most efficient and effective if you have proportioned the organizational structure by using a structure based on the need for strategic leadership.” (Page 52, Your Ideal Organization, Workforce Planning: 90 Day Action Plan Field Manual)
You will have to read this section or contact me to discuss the impact you will gain from it. In essence, I have recommended that you redesign your organizational structures following the definition of a “key position” and determination of a validated competency model around the specific strategic need. In our programs that means the most important part of the leadership designations is the need followed by the role and the person is last. In this model you can adjust some of the pieces by presenting some aspects of the previous formulas, teams and rotational assignments both fit nicely.
The take-away from this commentary is design a structure on purpose and with the need first. In too many organizations it is last. Entire organizations are redesigned around finding a role for a person. In basket ball there are always five players from each team on the court not four or six. Make sense? Contact me or bring a comment.
About
http://www.jeffreyhgross.com/is a research-based publishing enterprise providing consulting services, training products and programs in all facets of workforce planning.