The accelerating rate of change on this planet is killing a lot of companies.
It wasn’t that long ago that if you had a good idea or a good product, work out a good process to produce, market and deliver the product, tinkle with your strategy according to the megatrends once in a while, you company can last for decades. However in today’s world new technologies come out too fast, competitors get their funding too quickly and easily, and setting up a business is just a few clicks on the computer. Disruption comes too easily. During the 12-month period ending 6/30 in 2014 about 1 million companies filed for bankruptcy in the US and during the next 12 months another 900 thousand piled on top. So how can anyone stay alive and even thrive in this hostile environment?
The answer lies in the “About Us” section of almost everyone’s website: “We are agile, innovative and adaptive.” But regardless of how much companies boast or claim they are or want to be agile, innovative and adaptive, in most cases the reality is a different story.
Human nature is intrinsically selfish, insecure and a bit lazy; they tend to keep things unchanged and predictable until the last possible second. Because of this, in large organizations managers typically get to where they are by playing safe within the prevailing rules and boundaries; and they tend to hire new employees that demonstrate willingness to align with such modus operandi, further reinforcing the resistance to change inside the organization. To compound the problem, most people tend to lack introspection skills and over estimate their own ability to control their environment or their place in the big picture. Rarely do you see true leader with an open-heart that put the company's interest first.
Unfortunately In today's ultra-fast changing business world, there is no room for complacency. In order to survive and thrive we need selfless leaders with true leadership beliefs and courage to break the mode, try new things and initiate change. In the ideal case, leaders should be peppered all over the organization, not just at the top. Anything too far from this ideal will render a company becoming irrelevant.
If innovative, agile and flexible leaders are the new strategic asset for a company much like capital, factories and brand in the old days, then the acquisition, development and use of such asset has to command strategic attention from the top like the traditional asset bases. Also identifying, amassing and maintaining the right kind of leadership should be planned and executed consistently across the organization. It prompts the creation of an independent Strategic Leadership Commission whose goal is to continuously identify and develop management or operational talents with the right leadership style from both outside and inside of the organization.
The Strategic Leadership Commission (SLC) can be an internal or external entity and should report directly to the CEO. It should be kept small and comprised of people who have previously held very senior business and operational positions. The seniority of the “Commissioners” gives them the experience to understand the leadership needs from the strategic business context and have the credibility to persuade functional heads what kind of leadership style works well at particular situation.
The SLC would work with the most senior level of the organization to architect an overall ‘Leadership Distribution Map’ across the organization and define the leadership traits need in all areas of the organization. The members of the SLC will act as both mentor and work with management at each level or locale to execute the ‘leadership architecture’ plan. To ensure the success of this scheme, commissioners of the SLC would have voting power in making personnel moves to ensure suitable distribution of right leadership skills and avoid the selection-by-popularity syndrome. Finally, the SLC will be responsible for leadership development in the company, compensating for the operational knowledge and credibility gaps in the traditional leadership development model where HR drives such initiatives.
Some may suggest that the Leadership Commission can be an expensive overhead using commissioners with senior executive experience. It is worth noting that the effort of a Leadership Commission, like any strategic programs, comes in different stage. I can envision an external Leadership Commission or equivalent can be set up as a project, with a core team from within the organization and have external consultants doing the heavy-lifting until a system and a core leadership culture is established. Once the new culture is in place the philosophy will be practiced in all levels and by then only periodic review and maintenance would be needed.
Back to the original premise of this discussion, with the fast changing world where all old-business-axioms have been tear down and new one come from nowhere quickly, what can be a better weapon than having good, smart leaders at all levels?
