In recent months I have observed an increased emphasis on execution as a core leadership quality. Larry Bossidy started this trend with "Execution." I liked it although it lacked specificity on how to do it. "Vision to Execution" by Marv Covault (gloproinc@aol.com) covered the "what to do" in great detail. It is a great companion to Bossidy, particularly when looking at execution from an organizational rather than an individual basis. "Flexible Leadership", (Yukl and Lepsinger, 2004) brought it down to an individual level by detailing those competencies dealing with execution.
Interestingly, Breakthrough Thinking fits right in. If you employ Breakthrough Thinking principles, you will find that you are demonstrating some of Yukl and Lepsinger's core competencies. In short, Breakthrough Thinking enables you to execute. Thinking like a leader helps you to be a leader. This is what creating breakthroughs is all about.
Contact us if execution is critical to you or your organization.
George
Reference:
Yukl, Gary and Lepsinger, Richard (2004), Flexible Leadership, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Interest in South Asia
I have been analyzing the hits to our website. We are getting significant interest from South Asia and Southeast Asia. We were unaware that we had disciples in these areas. It is a pleasing development.
We would love to hear from some of you. Do you represent the tip of the iceberg? Is there an unmet need in your region? What if we were able to conduct a Breakthrough Thinking workshop in the region? What about a webinar? Let us know what would help.
George
We would love to hear from some of you. Do you represent the tip of the iceberg? Is there an unmet need in your region? What if we were able to conduct a Breakthrough Thinking workshop in the region? What about a webinar? Let us know what would help.
George
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Smart Questions without telling anyone
All of us belong to and take part in organizations and groups where teaching participants the Breakthrough Thinking or Smart Questions concepts is not possible - restricted amount of time, the people do not think about thinking, you are only in an advisory position, and so on.
As a member of the Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission, I am almost always in this position when evaluating proposals for funding from the Productivity Investment Board. A proposal last week sought $250,000 to hire consultants to tell the department what software/hardware would be needed to develop statistics and trends from a large number of different databases in many different County Departments.
The proposal listed the types of data available in the different databases and the different departments where they existed. However, there was no specificity about the requirements for or types of statistics and trends being sought. In other words, no requirements or key parameters were thought through. Just give us the money and we're bound to come up with great information.
I could have stated these negative comments and put the proposal on a non-approval path. In some ways, I perceived that there could be value created for the many departments if such a collective database were available. Since several proposals were on the agenda to be evaluated, there was no time to explain that I was about to use SQ/BT. All I did was to ask questions anout what purposes the consolidated database would achieve, what outcomes/departmental requirements would expected, what measurable benefits might accrue, and how the collaborating departments were going to proceed to accomplish all that.
The proposers said they would report back with as much of this information as possible prior to the full Commission review in three weeks.
This committee activity repeats many such situations in my experience. Using BT/SQ in all your activities even without orienting the groups can be your hidden competitive and leadership advantage and vehicle for personal career development.
Please add any of your similar experiences.
Gerry
As a member of the Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission, I am almost always in this position when evaluating proposals for funding from the Productivity Investment Board. A proposal last week sought $250,000 to hire consultants to tell the department what software/hardware would be needed to develop statistics and trends from a large number of different databases in many different County Departments.
The proposal listed the types of data available in the different databases and the different departments where they existed. However, there was no specificity about the requirements for or types of statistics and trends being sought. In other words, no requirements or key parameters were thought through. Just give us the money and we're bound to come up with great information.
I could have stated these negative comments and put the proposal on a non-approval path. In some ways, I perceived that there could be value created for the many departments if such a collective database were available. Since several proposals were on the agenda to be evaluated, there was no time to explain that I was about to use SQ/BT. All I did was to ask questions anout what purposes the consolidated database would achieve, what outcomes/departmental requirements would expected, what measurable benefits might accrue, and how the collaborating departments were going to proceed to accomplish all that.
The proposers said they would report back with as much of this information as possible prior to the full Commission review in three weeks.
This committee activity repeats many such situations in my experience. Using BT/SQ in all your activities even without orienting the groups can be your hidden competitive and leadership advantage and vehicle for personal career development.
Please add any of your similar experiences.
Gerry
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)