Looking for This Kind of Leadership


I fancy myself a management guru, even though I’m not; but hey, it’s my blog so I can dream. If I could afford it, I would devour issues of Harvard Business Review. Alas, I have to content myself with what they post for free on their site. This article by AG Lafley – “What Only the CEO Can Do” – resonates with me. [See a similar post of mine from a few years back – “The Three Things I Focused On.”]

Note the similarities. Translate and make sense of all of the disparate points in the universe that may or may not relate to your business. Figure out who you are and who you aren’t. Balance execution today with investment tomorrow. And live out the standard of values you want your entity to follow by. Those are good words for CEOs, executive directors, pastors, superintendents, and even heads of families. Would that we see more of this kind of leadership in a world that, however cynical, still hopes for it.
Email Post

Comments

Eric Orozco said…
Timely topic. From my perspective as a planner, I do think the quality of leadership in a city is what sets it apart from others. It's not just about social tolerance (as Richard Florida would claim), but its more about idea tolerance. If the leadership you are working for does not want to try new things, that really puts a damper on innovation. I often do not like teaming up with certain consultants because I know they are idea killers. They have an aversion for new thought. A leader needs to be especially sensitive to the quality of thinking and enthusiasm of her charges. Those leaders know how to cultivate that enthusiasm and utilize human potential, even if the ideas generated are not yet tested. They know that enthusiasm is what drives the energy of the project to outperform the normative. Even if ideas fail, they show how you can work with the margins of limitation. I think this is what sets apart cities like Melbourne and Toronto. When you go to those cities, you sense that their leaders are daring.
4:41 PM
LH said…
Eric, good point. One dynamic you find in older cities like Philadelphia is this friction between homegrowns and transplants, where homegrowns distrust transplants for their new-fangled ideas and homegrowns are frustrated by transplants' unwillingness to see things in new ways.

Of course, cities need both perspectives, as too much of either is bad for decision-making. And friction isn't necessarily a bad thing and can in fact be a good thing if it is comes out of a spirit of open-mindedness and mutual purpose.

But when the opposite happens - people refuse to learn, and people push because of their own agendas and not because they want to see genuine progress - then you have the sorts of innovation-killing idea intolerance that you speak of.
5:48 AM
Post a Comment

Popular Posts