Inside Leadership Development

Leadership development may, itself, need some development, if the results of a recent survey are any indication. According to an executive summary of “Leadership Forecast 2005-2006,” released this fall by Bridgeville, Pa.,-based workforce management consultancy Development Dimensions International, trainers have room for improvement when it comes to nurturing their organization’s top performers.

Based on survey results that included 4,559 leaders and 944 human resources representatives from 42 countries, the sample involved both public and private organizations from 36 industries. Sixty-three percent of these organizations employ more than 1,000 people. Information was collected from December 2004 to April 2005.

From this respondent pool, it appears that up-and-comers may not be absorbing the skills and attitudes your organization says are important. For instance, when leaders were asked to select the one action that garnered them the most respect in their organization, the ability to make money clearly outweighed ethics. The “ability to bring in the numbers” ranked No. 1 on respondents’ list of priorities, followed second and third by “ability to take a stand and make tough decisions” and “ability to create a strategy or vision for success.”

This emphasis on the bottom line might not be paying off in the long run. The study found that about one-third of internally sourced leaders fail, usually because of poor interpersonal skills. The human resources reps queried reported that 65 percent of leaders selected internally stay in their positions and are successful, but of the 35 percent who are not successful, most fail because they have poor people skills or exhibit inappropriate personal qualities.

The efforts and funding behind leadership development programming often are misdirected, according to the study. While formal training is the most common leader development practice, special projects or assignments prove the most effective, the study revealed. When the HR professionals surveyed were asked to indicate the degree to which they made use of a variety of leadership development programs, the most widely used development activity, formal training, was not rated the most useful. Special projects within and outside normal job responsibilities were perceived as most valuable.

Both human resources reps and the leaders they are charged with developing seem to know something’s missing. Only 39 percent of HR and 53 percent of leader respondents reported they have high confidence in their organization’s leadership, and only 53 percent of leaders say they are satisfied with the development opportunities provided by their employer. Less than half of all leaders surveyed, or 47 percent, believe their organization provides them with all they need to develop.

For more information, visit www.ddiworld.com.

THE CURSE OF PERFECTIONISM

By Dr. Donald E. Wetmore

There’s a rule known as the Pareto Principle. It teaches us that 20% of
our efforts produce 80% of our results. The additional 80% of our
efforts will only yield an additional 20% of results. The first thrust
of effort then is the most productive use of our time. The latter thrust
is very costly.

For example, let’s say you allocate 2 hours (which we’ll represent as
20% of your time) to clean a room, a basement, or a garage. Let’s say
that will you will be able to get it to be 80% clean. It won’t be
perfect, but it will be acceptable and a job well done. However, to
squeeze out an additional 20% of results, to make it “perfectly clean”,
will require an additional 80% of your time, or 8 hours. The additional
results are sixteen times more costly than the initial results from 20%
of the effort, not to mention that while you’re trying to squeeze out
those additional results, you are kept from doing a lot of other more
productive things.

This rule has a lot of application to you as a time manager. Ever notice
if you’re in sales how 20% of your customers give you 80% of your sales
and the other 80% of your customers give you the remaining 20% of your
business? Where then should you be spending 80% of your time? With the
20% of the customers who are giving you 80% of your business.

Ever notice how 20% of your relatives give your 80% of your headaches?

It may not always work with exact mathematical precision, but,
typically, the small chunk of input yields the biggest chuck of output
or results.

Most of us benefit from this rule intuitively. When you and I approach a
task (clean a room, prepare a term paper, write up a project, etc.) we
decide to put in a reasonable amount of time and effort to achieve a
reasonable result. The result may not be perfect but it will be
acceptable and this will release us to devote our time to tackling other
endeavors.

We put in a reasonable amount of time and produce a pretty decent
report. It may not be perfect, but putting in a whole lot more time to
make it a little better is not cost-effective and therefore not worth
the effort.

Those who suffer from the Curse of Perfectionism do not understand this
principle. Their goal is always perfection, which, realistically, is
unattainable. For example, you cannot clean a room perfectly. As you
clean it, it’s getting dirty as dust settles. Any written report can be
polished and improved upon with more time and effort. Striving for
perfection is then always stressful and frustrating.

Their overall productivity suffers as they spend an inordinate amount of
time on a few things, trying to make them perfect, rather than a lesser
amount of time on a lot of things that will multiply their results.

The curse is cured when they abandon the need to do their tasks
perfectly, when they understand that excellence in performance is
attaining a degree of perfection, not absolute perfection. This does not
compromise one’s standard of excellence in performance. It enhances
excellent performance with increased results.