Horizon Point Consulting

Category: Beyond Leadership

Beyond Leadership is Horizon Point’s line of resources for managers of people. Managing ourselves is a distinct set of behaviors from managers the work of others, and we are here to help. Read stories in this category if you are ready to take the next step into people leadership (or if you’re looking for articles to send someone else…).

  • Why Communities Should Focus on Building Social Capital and How They Can Do It

    Why Communities Should Focus on Building Social Capital and How They Can Do It

    I drive within a 50-mile radius of my home quite often to meet with clients or potential clients. On one particular drive from one town to the next, the highway used to be lined with dozens of nursery wholesalers. Thousands upon thousands of trees, shrubs and plants used to grow along this stretch of the highway and many of the remnants of these nursery farms can still be seen.

    Why would all of these nurseries locate side by side? Wouldn’t that increase the proximity of their competition, thus decreasing their potential sales?

    This small, rural Alabama phenomenon about nurseries can also be said of Silicon Valley. While the companies in this region don’t necessarily compete for customers due to proximity- most of them have a global sales footprint- they most certainly compete for labor, as the nurseries did at one point in time as well. Wouldn’t the competition for labor (and real estate/land) in such close proximity to each other drive the prices on everything up leading to a diminished ability to remain competitive or produce as large a profit?

    Turns out, the opposite is true as The New Geography of Jobs  points out.  The proximity to the social capital of your industry leads to value and competitive advantage, not the other way around.   And it creates a snowball effect.  The more technology companies that locate in Silicon Valley, the higher likelihood that more will come because it creates a community that is desirable and attractive to similar companies and the talent who work for these types of companies.  It creates a “thick” labor market.

    While we’ve been talking a lot about individuals developing their social capital in order to grow their competitive advantage, communities can and should foster the growth of social capital as well.

    But what comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do the organizations that create the jobs, thus producing the demand side of the economic equation provide the key to community growth or does the supply side, the people, create the growth?

    Most economic stimulus policies focus on driving the demand or organizational side of the equation. Tax incentives focus on getting companies to locate in a community, and these packages continue to become more and more competitive. Some research even points to the fact that the ROI of many of packages isn’t there.

    By and large, communities do not focus on stimulating the supply side of the equation through stimulus-type measures. Yes, communities work to improve their educational infrastructure and outputs to improve supply, but this doesn’t guarantee an increased supply of labor, especially in high growth or in-demand areas.

    Because of the sheer power of social capital at a community level, stimulating supply side economics should be more of a focus for communities wanting to grow.

     

    Some ideas for doing this include:

    • Pay off the debt of students in high demand skill areas in exchange for them living and working in your community. This has been done for a while in rural communities and medical fields, but we are now seeing communities do this in technical fields like engineering and IT.
    • Pay the best to come to your community and others will follow. If you want a good example of this, check out the Washington University example in The New Geography of Jobs  on page 198-199.
    • Create hubs for collaboration or co-work spaces in your community. This “turns isolated innovators into a real community, a creative ecosystem designed to maximize knowledge spillovers.”
    • Incentivize entrepreneurs to come to your community through business incubation and accelerator programs. Although different, this can play quite nicely with creating hubs for innovation and co-work spaces.

     

    Basically, all of this comes down to bribing people instead of bribing business. Because social capital is the competitive advantage driving innovation today, communities would do well to begin bribing people, not just business. Just make sure you bribe the right people- those with the skill sets and connections to drive innovation and create a multiplier effect of job creation and community growth.

  • GREAT REALITIES OF MANAGEMENT: It’s Not Your Fault, But It’s Your Problem…

    GREAT REALITIES OF MANAGEMENT: It’s Not Your Fault, But It’s Your Problem…

    By Kris Dunn

    It’s one of the unwritten rules of management. It’s also one of the hardest things for new managers to wrap their heads around.

    “It’s not your fault, but it’s your problem.”

    Let’s deconstruct that a bit.  New managers were often very high performing individual contributors (ICs). The great thing about being an IC is that you only have to worry about one person – and that person is you.

    But your performance as an IC convinced us that you’d make a good manager of people. For the most part that’s true.

    One point that sneaks up on new managers is taking feedback on what needs to happen related to their team as failure on the part of themselves (the new manager).

    Here’s what I mean – If you’re managing other managers of people and some of those are first time managers, you’re going to spend more time talking about what’s going on within those teams than you will with a more experienced manager of people. You have to be the coach for the new manager.

    As you’re coaching that new manager of people, it’s important to separate their individual identity as a high performer from the brand new – and at times, scary – role as a manager of people.

    Example – someone on their team is struggling in a certain area, and the new manager delays a bit. Your job is to push as the director, but careful! Your feedback might be perceived as failure on the part of the new manager.

    I’ve always found the best way to handle that with new managers is to use the title of this post –“It’s not your fault, but it’s your problem.”  

    What I’m trying to convey with that is simple – “Look, you’re going to manage people who struggle in your life as a manager.  Just because they’re struggling doesn’t mean you’re a bad manager. It’s what happens next that is key – are you gong to address it, coach for improvement, etc. Or are you looking the other way?”

    The only way you lose is if you don’t get in there and address it. Bias for action is the key for new managers.  Left to their own devices, most will wait too long to address whatever performance issue is in question.

    “It’s not your fault, but it’s your problem.” by Kris Dunn first appeared on November 30, 2015 at HR Capitalist

  • Measuring Leadership in the Classroom

    Measuring Leadership in the Classroom

    By guest blogger: Scott Mayo

     

    Schools love to measure things. With accountability being the buzzword in educational circles, measurement has become an even greater priority. However, we often fall trap to measuring things that are easy to measure, not because they are the most important things. Leadership is one of those important things – we all want it – that has been notoriously hard to quantify. How do I know that I have a teacher who is a leader?

    Kris Dunn, HR professional and blogger, has suggested we consider the ideas of Leadership Gravity and Leadership Birth Rate to judge leadership results. Leadership Gravity describes the phenomenon of a manager whose department consistently generates the most internal transfer in requests. Simply put, leaders attract people who want to be part of what they are doing. Likewise, Leadership Birth Rate looks at the number of people influenced by that manager who go on to become leaders themselves in the future.

    How would those concepts play out in a school setting? Are those appropriate categories of thought for measuring leadership among teachers? Leadership Gravity wouldn’t be the same thing as saying which teachers are the most popular or have the most students requesting their elective.  But leadership in education isn’t a popularity contest. However, if students did flock to a teacher while also providing feedback of  “challenging” and “rigorous,” it might be a sign of classroom-based Leadership Gravity.

    Likewise, if students come into contact with a leader in the classroom in such a way as to make a lasting impact (e.g. major choice in college, career path), that could illustrate the concept of Leadership Birth Rate in an educational setting. In schools, some feedback on progress comes at every test and every report card. However, much of what schools do doesn’t come to fruition until years down the road.

    The long-term impact on leadership development in the students may be one of those harder-to-measure things. It is easy enough to track who steps up for student leadership roles (e.g. class and club officers) during the students’ tenures at the school. To neglect to take a longer view, though, might miss the impact faculty are having as they attract students to their disciplines and guide their life choices into adulthood.

    Maybe we need to take a more longitudinal approach to measuring leadership in education by measuring student success at various intervals post graduation. Longitudinal studies have been done to show the value of Pre-K . Could it be done to show the value of various other facets of education including teacher leadership?

    What can educators and private business learn from each other to develop more leaders in the classroom and in business?

  • Should we measure leadership by popularity?

    Should we measure leadership by popularity?

    “The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate.”

    What departments and/or managers do people in your company clamor to get into?  What drives this clamor? I’ve seen it before. No one wants to work in finance, but everyone wants to be in marketing. Or everyone is trying to figure out a way to work for manager A instead of having to report to manager B. What is driving the popularity of the department or the person, and should we pay attention to it?  Is the number of people who want to work for you a good way to measure your leadership strength?

    Kris Dunn calls it “Leadership Gravity” in his Workforce Article. But I think we need to get to the root of what causes the gravitational pull before we bank on it as a way to measure leadership success.

    Some recent coaching examples I’ve encountered may give us some insight on the pull….

    1. Leaders that are everyone’s best friend
    2. Leaders that hold people accountable for results and because they are held accountable, they grow. This is what Kris is talking about when he says,

    “All that interaction and observation means your employees know which managers in your organization are the best at developing talent, giving them interesting things to work on, challenging them, giving them the credit for great work and always approaching employee development with an eye on what’s best for each employee.”

    I’ve had a couple of clients who have brought us in to say, hey, we think something is up with John/Jane Doe’s performance as a leader. We need a 360o evaluation of them. Can you do one and then let us know what’s up?

    Sure we can.

    In completely unrelated instances, the “perception” of the leader in question is he/she being the guy/gal no one wants to work for. He/she is usually compared to a counterpart middle level leader in his/her area. The counterpart seems to be best buds with his/her direct reports- i.e., the popular one.

    We do the 360o. And we look at it by those that report to this person and those that don’t.   In both instances, the people who report to the boss in question don’t say he/she is the jerk. They cite he/she as being focused on accountability, and, surprisingly, they don’t complain about it. They may say something about wishing he/she was a little “warmer” as a person.  A little less closed off, but not a jerk.

    In contrast, those who are looking from the outside, i.e.-those that don’t report to this manager, and sometimes it is his/her own boss-  cite he/she as being the jerk.

    Maybe the manager in question needs to improve his/her interpersonal skills by lightening up a bit, seeing the personal side of things. We can coach on that. But, at the end of the day, they challenge people to get stuff done and hold them accountable for it, and the people who are held accountable don’t mind it. They grow. Maybe they just want the boss to ask about how their day has been a little more, but they are better because of their leader.

    So maybe the better question about how to measure leadership is not by popularity but by measuring what DRIVES that popularity.

    Is it because he/she is best friends with people and lets them coast or is it because he/she creates a vision and drives people towards that vision and holds them accountable for it?

    If I were the boss’ boss, I’d choose the latter. That one is making more leaders, and 9 times out of 10 those who are following, aren’t complaining about it. And the ones who are complaining, you may not want around anyway.

    What popularity contests do you see in your workplace?

  • Before You Can Measure It, You have to Define it: What is Leadership?

    Before You Can Measure It, You have to Define it: What is Leadership?

    We’re talking about measuring leadership here at Horizon Point this month.  In an increasingly prove-it-to-me through data world, one of the things that we don’t do a good job of measuring, and I wonder if we ever really will, is leadership.   It’s so complex.

    I think part of the reason we have trouble measuring it is because we have trouble defining it. What is leadership? What is great leadership?

    Most people will tell you that leadership is some form of influence.  It’s getting work done through others. True, but what do we want to accomplish because leadership is at work?

    Here at Horizon Point, we define the crutch of leadership as “Leaders make more leaders.”  It is both the definition and the measurement all in one.

    But how do you measure leaders making more leaders?   Leave it Kris Dunn to help us solve the conundrum.   He defines it as “leadership birth rate”.  Check out his Workforce Magazine article here for some more insights on this measurement here.

    Although we advocate for a multiple hurdles approach to leadership effectiveness measurement, if we need one measurement to look at whether it is leadership or any other dimension, go by how you define that dimension and measure that. For us, we’ll measure “leadership birth rate”. What about you?

     

     

    If you like this post, you may also like:

    All Leaders Need to Develop Others