What separates extraordinary leaders from managers? One way to distinguish the difference
is to compare the mindset of leaders and managers. Managers are great at solving problems. Leaders, on the other hand, exude their greatness by creating problems.
The Dilemma of
Creating Problems
People who are great problem solvers are often presented with the
opportunity to become a manager.
However, the keys to the
executive suite require that you develop new
skills and competencies. You must become comfortable creating problems for your people to solve.
Why would a leader create problems? Intentional problems can be the catalyst for a company to
make changes. Problems can evoke
the necessary motivation to make a quantum leap in revenue, innovation or
significant cost savings.
Yet, creating problems intentionally is counterintuitive. We are taught to fix problems, get rid
of them or find out who caused the problem and then get rid of them. Culturally, we reward people for being
problem solvers. Nevertheless,
when you look at extraordinary accomplishments of great leaders, one finds
quantum leaps were always preceded by a problem.
However, there is a catch to continuously making quantum leaps. It requires constant
learning and development as well as change. Can leaders continuously develop themselves to create
problems or more importantly, master change?
This article will focus on leaders who created problems and
created history in the process. It
will also explore what could happen when leadership stops creating
problems. In subsequent articles,
we will reveal the strategies extraordinary leaders implement to drive change
in their organizations as well as the kind of environment that must exist in a corporation
to fulfill on the leader’s vision of the future.
Before an environment can be created, leadership has to be
comfortable managing chaos.
Why? While change and
innovation are chaotic, they are also the competitive edge. If an organization is committed to
greatness, the leaders are called upon to drive and manage change. However, if leadership is not
comfortable with chaos, they are faced with a paradox: drive change and disrupt
the organization, or avoid it, and remain comfortable at the risk of
stagnating.
While change can be chaotic, stagnation can be fatal to the company’s future. Disruption, on
the other hand, can be managed by acquiring leadership tools.
When leaders of the past were the catalyst for historical events,
did they possess tools? Do today’s
leaders have access to those tools?
There have always been leaders who orchestrated change throughout
history. When you look at Sony,
Ford or even go as far back as the Founding Fathers of the United States, they
all demonstrated a set of skills and competencies for driving change and
innovation. Were they just lucky or did they possess special tools?
Necessity is
the Mother of Invention
In 1908 Henry Ford created a problem. He stated that he would make
it possible for most households in the US to purchase a car. This was at a time when only 2% of the
US population earned enough income to buy an automobile.
In the late 1800s, the cost of an automobile was $1,500. The average annual income in the US was
$750. This gave Henry Ford the
insurmountable problem of capturing 98% of the market. In 1908, he launched the Model T for
$850. By 1924, when most
households owned an automobile, the cost of the Model T was $290[1].
By building the assembly line, the problem he created was solved. He was able to significantly reduce the
cost of making a vehicle. As a
result, the Ford Motor Company successfully increased market share from 9% in
1908 to 61% in 1921[2].
In 1979, Sony brilliantly created the personal audio market with
the Walkman. The problem they
created was simple: develop a device that allows individuals to privately
listen to music anywhere, anytime.
These are excellent examples of leaders stepping out of the box
and creating problems for the enterprise to solve. Was it enough?
Creating problems requires that leaders have the competency called mindset or intrapersonal skills – a clear understanding of relationship with
self, failure, opportunity, the future, change and others – before they can
effectively managing chaos. Strong
intrapersonal skills can empower an individual in the face of risk or
uncertainty. It also contributes
to one’s ability to continue to learn beyond the proverbial comfort zone.
Sometimes success can be a corporation’s biggest enemy. In the case of Henry Ford, he did not
continually develop himself as a problem creator. Instead of managing problems
he intentionally created, he focused on solving a problem that had, for the
most part, been solved. What he
experienced next was a big problem.
For example, once most households owned a car, he stayed focused
on making the automobile still more affordable. As a result, the window of opportunity was left open for
General Motors. GM created the
next problem in the auto industry: people could now drive a car in various
colors and could select from a variety of new models.
In 1924, GM launched their innovative line of automobiles. As a result, Ford lost tremendous
market share. Ford’s market share
dropped from 50% in 1926 to 20% in 1950[3]. Conversely, GM’s market share increased
from 20% in 1926 to 50% in 1950.
In the case of Sony, they were the innovator of the Walkman. However, Apple dominates the digital
personal audio market with 78 percent market share in the U.S today. Could Sony have created the iPod? Or did the possibility of
changing their infrastructure to support a new innovative product look like a
problem?
In the midst of chaos, there is always the difficulty of
distinguishing opportunity from disruption. In most cases, it depends on your mindset/perspective. It is not that chaos itself is
inherently a problem. It is the
mindset of the individual that will determine how clearly they can see what is
occurring in front of them and the actions that ensue. It is analogous to a captain of a boat
steering a ship though a violent storm.
The captain must always keep his eye on what he is committed to accomplishing
– return to shore. Once his or her
mind drifts and focuses on how terrible things are, his or her ship is
sunk.
What
do you think? I’m open to ideas. Or if you want to write me about a specific
topic, let me know.
______________________________________________________________________
Footnotes:
No comments:
Post a Comment