I had an interesting conversation with a colleague this week. The conversation centered around the leadership training class I am both creating and teaching to individuals at my company, individuals viewed as up and coming leaders who have the potential to improve the organization. With 4 of the 6 training sessions complete, the response from the seven attendees has been overwhelmingly positive and, the real test, they are applying some of what they have learned and are affecting positive change in their teams. The gist of the conversation that I found particularly interesting came from a single comment. And I paraphrase: "Of course the training is going very well. You hand picked the cream of the crop for your first group of trainees. The real test would be to take person 'X', a person assigned a leadership position because of technical skills, and turn them into an effective leader."
The underlying implication is that I cherry picked a situation and that anyone in my shoes working with talent would easily experience success. This minimization of my accomplishment aside, the comment is based, in my opinion, on a misunderstanding of the situation and, perhaps, a misunderstanding of motivation as it applies to human nature.
There are two schools of thought on how an individual can be most valuable to an organization and achieve personal success. One school says a person should develop their weaknesses to make them well rounded, a sort of, Jack of all trades. The problem with this school of thought is contained in the rest of the phrase, that is, a Jack of all trades and a master of none. The individual is seen as a generalist. In some situations, a generalist will do just fine. In this day and age, what really sets a person apart from everyone else occurs when they excel at their personal art, when they maximize their strengths and apply that which makes them unique.
Our strength and value to society or an organization comes from our individuality, is borne of the uniqueness that makes us unlike anyone else ever born or ever to be born. The other school of thought, the one to which I ascribe, is based on each of us being a unique individual with skills and giftedness that should be maximized. The maximization of our giftedness will bring about personal satisfaction and, the enjoyment we get from maximization our gifts, will enable us to uniquely influence the organization moving it toward success.
In my case, I must understand some principles of accounting for my role as a Manager in my company. However, no matter how much I learn, accounting will never be something I enjoy, something in which I excel. The reason I will never really excel is that I hate accounting, it bores me, it drives me to watch the clock and scurry out of the office at the end of the day. The topic of leadership, on the other hand, is a topic that fascinates me, a topic I have been studying and applying for over twenty years. Leading teams and developing leaders is something that I enjoy immensely, I find deeply satisfying and, from the feedback I have received from my teams and trainees, something at which I am good. Working in the area of leadership generally finds me looking at the clock long after quitting time and wishing it wasn't so late because I am having too much fun to go home.
Now, back to person X from the conversation with my colleague. Person X is a brilliant software developer who revels in finding unique solutions to software problems. In addition, person X gets great satisfaction out of being the hero, of being the go to person to solve a problem that no one else can find. Leadership, sacrificing so others can excel, others can be the hero is not an area which brings him joy. In fact, other's being the hero is in direct contradiction to one of the ways he derives personal satisfaction.
As suggested, I could run person X through my leadership training class. It's an experiment I would undertake though, I believe, it would be a poor investment of time on my part and on person X's part. I would not expect any more than a marginal change in behavior if any change at all. I would not view this lack of change in any way indicative of the quality of my training class or in my abilities as a trainer of leaders. The reason is very simple. Person X is not intrinsically motivated by being a great leader. Person X does not have a DNA inclined toward the sacrifices required of someone in leadership.
For someone to really develop a skill, they need to have an aptitude for that skill. If I wanted to teach an animal to play fetch, I would find myself a dog, preferably a dog bred for retrieving, and work through the necessary steps such that dog would track a thrown object and bring it back to me for a repeat performance.
In my case, I must understand some principles of accounting for my role as a Manager in my company. However, no matter how much I learn, accounting will never be something I enjoy, something in which I excel. The reason I will never really excel is that I hate accounting, it bores me, it drives me to watch the clock and scurry out of the office at the end of the day. The topic of leadership, on the other hand, is a topic that fascinates me, a topic I have been studying and applying for over twenty years. Leading teams and developing leaders is something that I enjoy immensely, I find deeply satisfying and, from the feedback I have received from my teams and trainees, something at which I am good. Working in the area of leadership generally finds me looking at the clock long after quitting time and wishing it wasn't so late because I am having too much fun to go home.
Now, back to person X from the conversation with my colleague. Person X is a brilliant software developer who revels in finding unique solutions to software problems. In addition, person X gets great satisfaction out of being the hero, of being the go to person to solve a problem that no one else can find. Leadership, sacrificing so others can excel, others can be the hero is not an area which brings him joy. In fact, other's being the hero is in direct contradiction to one of the ways he derives personal satisfaction.
As suggested, I could run person X through my leadership training class. It's an experiment I would undertake though, I believe, it would be a poor investment of time on my part and on person X's part. I would not expect any more than a marginal change in behavior if any change at all. I would not view this lack of change in any way indicative of the quality of my training class or in my abilities as a trainer of leaders. The reason is very simple. Person X is not intrinsically motivated by being a great leader. Person X does not have a DNA inclined toward the sacrifices required of someone in leadership.
For someone to really develop a skill, they need to have an aptitude for that skill. If I wanted to teach an animal to play fetch, I would find myself a dog, preferably a dog bred for retrieving, and work through the necessary steps such that dog would track a thrown object and bring it back to me for a repeat performance.
To attempt this same training with a cat would be justifiably seen as folly because it's not in the cat's DNA to fetch an object. A cat is simply not motivated by chasing a thrown ball and bringing it back to the thrower. However, I don't believe any sensible person would judge my abilities as a trainer of fetch on not being able to teach a cat to fetch. That would be like someone giving me carrot seeds and saying I wasn't a gardener because the seeds failed to reap watermelon.
No comments:
Post a Comment