BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

4 Leadership And Performance Trends To Question Before Adopting Into Practice

This article is more than 7 years old.

There are new modalities of leadership and performance arising today that are redefining how leaders win in their industries. I’m not talking about learning the value of trust, the importance of clear communication or the components of high performing teams that Google apparently “discovered” yet have been known for decades.

In today’s internet-of-everything-world, new factors of global dispersion, the pace of technological change and virtual teaming are redefining competitive advantage—as they should—and giving rise to solutions--such as “agility”—that are treated as gospel. But they’re not. Take agility, for instance. While agility sounds sexy, if you actually look up what agility means, it’s hardly a business differentiator (see below). Yet, organizations aim to become more agile because it “seems” right.

Companies—and the leaders who lead them—fail not because of poor profits or excess costs (although they certainly do contribute) but because of poor decisions and communications. They fail to question the status quo and, as a result, don’t glean the (new) insight they need “re-arm” their market distinction and make choices that last (which precludes them from communicating “right”). Curiosity is a competitive advantage not just for people, but for teams and organizations. Here are four leadership and performance trends in business that you should question:

Adaptability vs. agility. As alluded to above, the definition of agility is “[to be] able to move quickly and easily.” While being nimble is important, moving quickly and easily between targets of opportunity will only get you to the wrong place faster if you’re on the wrong battlefield. Adaptability, however, is different. To adapt is to “adjust to new conditions;” to be the right solution for the right problem. Look at the Netflix vs. Blockbuster saga. Both offered videos for customers but Netflix saw the writing on the wall with regard to the rising demand and accessibility of technology and the web, and repositioned itself as a video service (through subscriptions). They became the right answer for a new demand. Conversely, Blockbuster continued doing what it always did by offering video products, and no matter how quickly they moved, Blockbuster simply could not compete because they were on the wrong battlefield. They were trying to answer the wrong question.

 Effective vs. efficient leadership. I’ve heard so many different definitions of leadership in my time as a team and leadership coach, but “efficient leadership” was never one of them. Until recently. The difference between effective and efficient leadership—in my mind—is this: effective leadership focuses on value whereas efficient leadership focuses on speed. To de-bias my own bias, I interviewed Deloitte partner Jennifer Knickerbocker and Becky Halstead of Thayer Leader Development Group and asked both leaders their perspectives on effective vs. efficient leadership. Here’s what they said:

• Jennifer Knickerbocker: “[Effective leadership] is about making sure that you’re deliberate and focused in your actions; that you’re leading with purpose.”

• Becky Halstead: “Effectiveness means you're bringing in the human dimension, whereas efficiency is how managers drive workload and allocate tasks.”

While efficiency is important, it doesn't usurp the importance of effectiveness. If you're not effective in what you do or how you do it then being efficient doesn't matter.

Coaching vs. directing. The age old business structure of hierarchy is dead. Wrap it up, send it back and say, “Thanks for coming.” However, the habit of directing (as a leadership and management style) that stems from hierarchical rule is not. Yet, the times they are a changing, and with millennials absorbing the majority of the workforce today, the top-down style of directing needs to be—and is being—replaced with coaching. Coaching pulls and builds whereas directing pushes and depletes. Coaching entails curiosity, and to be curious is to constantly learn, and to constantly learn is to constantly adapt. I can’t think of any business leader today who doesn’t have to continually sharpen his or her relevancy as an individual or as an organization. Of course, habits aren’t easy to break, but research indicates that the coaching habit of inquiry vs. the top-down habit of directing (situationally dependent, of course) improves workplace performance by 70%.

Purpose vs. profit. People metrics are becoming big. In fact, they already have. Resources like grow.com, satisfactionatwork.com and achievers.com help leaders realize the ROI on talent versus invested capital, because the realization that people drive profits and purpose drives people is finally coming to fruition. The bulletproof recipe for success is to hire for character, train for competence, coach for performance. It’s simple and you can't go wrong.

Follow me on LinkedInCheck out some of my other work here