When it comes to leadership, you either have it or you don’t. While leadership skills can be developed over time, it may very well be an innate characteristic.
Around one-third of a leader’s success is based on IQ and expertise, the other two-thirds on EQ — the emotional quotient, says Harvey Silver, president of Management Consultants Inc. in Toronto.
“That is their general maturity, how well they establish relationships. Can they coach people to be better than they are? That’s not taught in a MBA program,” he says. It’s like a pilot going to flight school. He got an A+ in almost all his courses then flunks the course on gravity.
Fred Pamenter, managing partner with Pamenter, Pamenter, Brezer and Deganis Limited, a Toronto-based HR consulting and executive search firm, says it’s a balance between nature versus nurture.
“I think there has to be leadership traits in the individual and then it can be developed. I’m not sure you can instill leadership into a person who doesn’t have it.” Being a leader, to Pamenter, means having a vision, thinking outside the box and possessing both charisma and presence. He notes leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Pierre Trudeau were exceptional because they were able to lead people and move them toward a vision. That’s what it’s all about, he says. HR must recognize these kinds of people and create a friendly environment that thrives on leadership.
“HR should provide opportunities, and make sure they’re not squashing the people with leadership ability.” They should look at the softer competencies of employees, such as the ability to motivate people, being a strategic thinker and looking at the bigger picture rather than getting tied down with incremental details.
Identifying these competencies can get buried in the red tape administration of performance assessments, which is usually when managers recommend prospective leaders, says Sue Nador, a partner with consulting firm NVision.
“I think to a large extent it’s (identifying leaders) still an administrative exercise with fairly inconsistent standards across the organization. You don’t want people with potential to fall through the cracks.”
Sometimes it does end up happening, particularly when employers jump on the bandwagon of the latest trends in leadership. However, some companies will just blindly go with a standard leadership course, ignoring all the obvious warning signs that it’s the wrong program for them.
“They (HR) should really evaluate the courses they choose. Is it of value? Is it something the organization supports? Make sure it’s consistent with the business’ values.”
Often the role of managers can get left out of the equation when HR focuses on ways to improve leadership development. What HR must remember, says Nador, is that managers are a critical part of an employee’s advancement.
“You want to train managers in the process, rewarding them for developing their people, making them better advocates and mentors.”
The employee has to know her manager has a vested interest in her growth, says Silver. A manager has to build a relationship according to what he calls the BARE components:
•belonging — a sense of being part of the team;
•achievement — setting goals and accomplishing them;
•recognition — employees expect to know when they’re doing a good job; and
•equity — workers hope their managers will practice fair play.
“Managers should act as coaches rather than caretakers and build clear communication lines so people know they’re on the same team.” HR obviously has to be on side with the business, but they also have to be supportive of their managers and thus have managers support their people, he says. It’s a cyclical effect.
Around one-third of a leader’s success is based on IQ and expertise, the other two-thirds on EQ — the emotional quotient, says Harvey Silver, president of Management Consultants Inc. in Toronto.
“That is their general maturity, how well they establish relationships. Can they coach people to be better than they are? That’s not taught in a MBA program,” he says. It’s like a pilot going to flight school. He got an A+ in almost all his courses then flunks the course on gravity.
Fred Pamenter, managing partner with Pamenter, Pamenter, Brezer and Deganis Limited, a Toronto-based HR consulting and executive search firm, says it’s a balance between nature versus nurture.
“I think there has to be leadership traits in the individual and then it can be developed. I’m not sure you can instill leadership into a person who doesn’t have it.” Being a leader, to Pamenter, means having a vision, thinking outside the box and possessing both charisma and presence. He notes leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Pierre Trudeau were exceptional because they were able to lead people and move them toward a vision. That’s what it’s all about, he says. HR must recognize these kinds of people and create a friendly environment that thrives on leadership.
“HR should provide opportunities, and make sure they’re not squashing the people with leadership ability.” They should look at the softer competencies of employees, such as the ability to motivate people, being a strategic thinker and looking at the bigger picture rather than getting tied down with incremental details.
Identifying these competencies can get buried in the red tape administration of performance assessments, which is usually when managers recommend prospective leaders, says Sue Nador, a partner with consulting firm NVision.
“I think to a large extent it’s (identifying leaders) still an administrative exercise with fairly inconsistent standards across the organization. You don’t want people with potential to fall through the cracks.”
Sometimes it does end up happening, particularly when employers jump on the bandwagon of the latest trends in leadership. However, some companies will just blindly go with a standard leadership course, ignoring all the obvious warning signs that it’s the wrong program for them.
“They (HR) should really evaluate the courses they choose. Is it of value? Is it something the organization supports? Make sure it’s consistent with the business’ values.”
Often the role of managers can get left out of the equation when HR focuses on ways to improve leadership development. What HR must remember, says Nador, is that managers are a critical part of an employee’s advancement.
“You want to train managers in the process, rewarding them for developing their people, making them better advocates and mentors.”
The employee has to know her manager has a vested interest in her growth, says Silver. A manager has to build a relationship according to what he calls the BARE components:
•belonging — a sense of being part of the team;
•achievement — setting goals and accomplishing them;
•recognition — employees expect to know when they’re doing a good job; and
•equity — workers hope their managers will practice fair play.
“Managers should act as coaches rather than caretakers and build clear communication lines so people know they’re on the same team.” HR obviously has to be on side with the business, but they also have to be supportive of their managers and thus have managers support their people, he says. It’s a cyclical effect.
