Archive for November, 2005

Nov 26 2005

Current Leadership-Thoughts Blog: Peter Drucker–A Man’s Spiritual Journey From Kierkegaard to General Motors: November 19, 2005

Peter Drucker died on November 11, 2005. This NYT article is a tribute to this incredible man who changed the face of organizational leadership and management. In fact, one of THE BEST books I have ever read on leadership and management was Drucker’s Managing the Non-Profit: Principals and Practices.

You can’t help but read anything Drucker has written and not get a sense that he was a man with spiritual convictions…the kind of convictions that underlie his principals of leadership and management. Though his spiritual moorings were always understated and stealthily articulated, they were present in the way he described the impact managers/leaders have upon people and organizations. The following are excerpts from the NYTs article by Peter Steinfels:

Religion, it turned out, had a great deal to do with Mr. Drucker’s work. In 1989, the editors of Leadership, an evangelical quarterly for pastors, asked him, “After a lifetime of studying management, why are you now turning your attention to the church?”

Mr. Drucker politely corrected them. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the other way around,” he said. “I became interested in management because of my interest in religion and institutions.”

Then, at age 19, Mr. Drucker came across the works of the theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard - and was bowled over. He studied Danish in order to read Kierkegaard’s yet-untranslated writings.

From Kierkegaard to studying General Motors and the secrets of entrepreneurship may seem like a long stretch. But Kierkegaard’s stark Christian vision spoke to Mr. Drucker’s lifelong search for what he was observing while working in a Germany sliding into Nazism - an explanation of why, in a modern world of organizations and rapid change, freedom has so often been surrendered.

Mr. Beatty notes the “nakedly religious sentiment” with which Mr. Drucker ended his 1959 book “Landmarks of Tomorrow.”

“The individual,” Mr. Drucker wrote, “needs the return to spiritual values, for he can survive in the present human situation only by reaffirming that man is not just a biological and psychological being but also a spiritual being, that is creature, and existing for the purposes of his creator and subject to Him.”

As Mr. Stafford observed, “Drucker hardly ever uses theological or biblical terminology to express himself, even if he is writing about something that easily fits theological categories. With some other management writer this might be an accident, but Drucker is so well educated in philosophy and theology that it has to be a conscious choice. The point is that Drucker is not a man of pious gestures.”

So if Mr. Drucker’s religious interests were not more widely noticed, it was due to his own reticence as much as to any antipathy to religion in the world of business or ideas. Still, once one becomes aware of his religions as well as his political outlook, it is not hard to see them as underpinnings for much of his thinking about the human obligations of management and the importance of community in an unstable world.

His reticence disappeared, of course, when he was addressing religion and management directly. He tossed out ideas and opinions in his usual dizzying fashion, comparing Reformation-era Calvinists and Jesuits, declaring revolutions “in the human spirit,” obviously less concerned about being wrong than about not provoking thought.

Sermons are important. “You have 20 minutes to communicate the vision,” he said, the fact “that there is another world, but it completely penetrates, encompasses, encapsulates this world.”

Sometimes he criticized churches as being unconcerned about the world. At other times, he criticized them as emphasizing social programs to the neglect of a distinctly spiritual mission.

“The church is the only organization that is not entirely concerned with the kingdom of this earth,” he said. “We’re the only one with another dimension. And for that reason, many good concerns around here are not our primary focus.”

“Making a difference in the way people see what’s truly important in life” was his ultimate test for both individuals and churches.

“I don’t know,” he acknowledged, “that you can measure this - certainly not by the bookkeeping of this world - but I’m reasonably sure that some sort of bookkeeping is going on someplace.”

In this world, he said in a characteristic marriage of the visionary and the practical, the ones who best understand what can make a difference are the saints.

“That’s the definition of a saint,” Mr. Drucker said, “somebody who sees reality.”

The point I would like to make about Drucker’s words coupled with my own convictions is that the exercise of leadership and management principals and practices, regardless of the arguments anyone postulates to the contrary, become “best practices” when they are undergirded, buttressed and permeated with a spirituality and theology that values people, the potentially redemptive good in every organization and the larger flow of human history toward an inexorable good and firm hope!

No responses yet

Nov 26 2005

Current Leadership-Thoughts Blog: Peter Drucker–A Man’s Spiritual Journey From Kierkegaard to General Motors: November 19, 2005

Peter Drucker died on November 11, 2005. This NYT article is a tribute to this incredible man who changed the face of organizational leadership and management. In fact, one of THE BEST books I have ever read on leadership and management was Drucker’s Managing the Non-Profit: Principals and Practices.

You can’t help but read anything Drucker has written and not get a sense that he was a man with spiritual convictions…the kind of convictions that underlie his principals of leadership and management. Though his spiritual moorings were always understated and stealthily articulated, they were present in the way he described the impact managers/leaders have upon people and organizations. The following are excerpts from the NYTs article by Peter Steinfels:

Religion, it turned out, had a great deal to do with Mr. Drucker’s work. In 1989, the editors of Leadership, an evangelical quarterly for pastors, asked him, “After a lifetime of studying management, why are you now turning your attention to the church?”

Mr. Drucker politely corrected them. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the other way around,” he said. “I became interested in management because of my interest in religion and institutions.”

Then, at age 19, Mr. Drucker came across the works of the theologian and philosopher Soren Kierkegaard - and was bowled over. He studied Danish in order to read Kierkegaard’s yet-untranslated writings.

From Kierkegaard to studying General Motors and the secrets of entrepreneurship may seem like a long stretch. But Kierkegaard’s stark Christian vision spoke to Mr. Drucker’s lifelong search for what he was observing while working in a Germany sliding into Nazism - an explanation of why, in a modern world of organizations and rapid change, freedom has so often been surrendered.

Mr. Beatty notes the “nakedly religious sentiment” with which Mr. Drucker ended his 1959 book “Landmarks of Tomorrow.”

“The individual,” Mr. Drucker wrote, “needs the return to spiritual values, for he can survive in the present human situation only by reaffirming that man is not just a biological and psychological being but also a spiritual being, that is creature, and existing for the purposes of his creator and subject to Him.”

As Mr. Stafford observed, “Drucker hardly ever uses theological or biblical terminology to express himself, even if he is writing about something that easily fits theological categories. With some other management writer this might be an accident, but Drucker is so well educated in philosophy and theology that it has to be a conscious choice. The point is that Drucker is not a man of pious gestures.”

So if Mr. Drucker’s religious interests were not more widely noticed, it was due to his own reticence as much as to any antipathy to religion in the world of business or ideas. Still, once one becomes aware of his religions as well as his political outlook, it is not hard to see them as underpinnings for much of his thinking about the human obligations of management and the importance of community in an unstable world.

His reticence disappeared, of course, when he was addressing religion and management directly. He tossed out ideas and opinions in his usual dizzying fashion, comparing Reformation-era Calvinists and Jesuits, declaring revolutions “in the human spirit,” obviously less concerned about being wrong than about not provoking thought.

Sermons are important. “You have 20 minutes to communicate the vision,” he said, the fact “that there is another world, but it completely penetrates, encompasses, encapsulates this world.”

Sometimes he criticized churches as being unconcerned about the world. At other times, he criticized them as emphasizing social programs to the neglect of a distinctly spiritual mission.

“The church is the only organization that is not entirely concerned with the kingdom of this earth,” he said. “We’re the only one with another dimension. And for that reason, many good concerns around here are not our primary focus.”

“Making a difference in the way people see what’s truly important in life” was his ultimate test for both individuals and churches.

“I don’t know,” he acknowledged, “that you can measure this - certainly not by the bookkeeping of this world - but I’m reasonably sure that some sort of bookkeeping is going on someplace.”

In this world, he said in a characteristic marriage of the visionary and the practical, the ones who best understand what can make a difference are the saints.

“That’s the definition of a saint,” Mr. Drucker said, “somebody who sees reality.”

The point I would like to make about Drucker’s words coupled with my own convictions is that the exercise of leadership and management principals and practices, regardless of the arguments anyone postulates to the contrary, become “best practices” when they are undergirded, buttressed and permeated with a spirituality and theology that values people, the potentially redemptive good in every organization and the larger flow of human history toward an inexorable good and firm hope!

No responses yet

Nov 02 2005

Current Leadership-Thoughts Blog: Leadership Succession in Organizations: November 2, 2005

In the October edition of HBR there is an excellent article entitled, Closing the Talent Gap. The article speaks to the challenge and opportunity of Leadership Succession within Organizations. If you have anything to do with developing an Internal Leadership Succession “Process, University, or Institute” this article is a must read!

Leadership Succession is fast (and the word “fast” is too slow a word to use in this context) becoming a hallmark of thriving, strategically postured organizations. I have identified the following themes at work within organizations that are serious about Leadership Succession planning.

Theme A: LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION ATTRACTS AND RETAINS PROFESSIONAL TALENT

Why would any talented, gifted, competent, self-selecting and entrepreneurial person be attracted to an organization that does not have in place the possibility of maturing and growing into a capable, effective and compassionate leader? The answer is obvious, “no potential leader worth their salt would bother.” These organizations would most certainly attract the chronic underachiever satisfied with mediocre performance, which, as any student of systems thinking knows, would “infect” the organization with a systemic cycle of mediocrity. Conversely, organizations that have a strategic, holistic, cross-departmental and broad participatory philosophy by those leaders already in place, would see their talent pool naturally grow from the outside-in and from the inside-out.

Theme B: LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION INCREASES PERFORMANCE LEVELS OF POTENTIAL HIGH PERFORMERS

A rising tide lifts all ships. So it is with organizations which build a culture of Leadership Succession. What I mean by this is that organizations that celebrate and implement LS
processes give all staff something for which to aspire. Obviously, every employee is not going to be a self-selecting high potential leader BUT the fact the opportunity is there, is clearly accessible and available gives potential leaders the open door to pursue it. And because self-selecting leaders, even those potential leaders that are discovering they really DO want to develop and grow into superb, value-added leaders, naturally gravitate to development opportunities, open doors into the leadership-development gauntlet are HUGE.

Theme C: LEADERSHIP SUCCESSION SHOULD BE BROADLY BASED (STAFFED) WITH DEPARTMENTAL LEADERS WHO THEMSELVES VALUE AND ESTEEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A ROLE IN DEVELOPING THE NEXT GENERATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERS

The HBR article was very clear on this and is worth emphasizing here. Leadership Succession is no longer the role of HR alone. It cannot be deposited squarely in the hands of HR and abandoned while other key organizational leaders, including upper level management and VPs, go about their more urgent business of managing the “hard side” of the enterprise. The executive leadership is a critical player in any LS process. Their role is significant in terms of direct involvement through teaching, mentoring, availability and accessibility. Yet a successful and transformational LS process does not stop with the VPs. It also involves departmental management and other organizational professionals within the structure who can contribute their own particular insight from their own unqiue knowledge-base to the growth and development of the emerging leader…call this 360-degree leadership input.

This, then, naturally means that middle management and other departmental leaders need to be equipped and trained to be a part of the LS process. LS involves these seasoned and competent leaders which, by their intentional inclusion, builds increasing levels of synergy within the organization. While they themselves may not aspire to executive or other positions of upper level management, they are honored and excited to be part of shaping and crafting and investing-in the emerging leaders. This process of inclusion alone builds morale and increases “stakeholdership.”

No responses yet