The Future of Leadership?

I was recently afforded - and missed - an opportunity to write an article for an international journal on the future of the leadership.  The reality for me became that "the future of leadership" was overtaken by the "present demands" of business development and delivering on customer requirements.  A challenging balancing act at the best of times.  However, the seeds were planted and my thought process has been percolating ever since on what I could say about the future of leadership.

At the same time my thoughts on the future of leadership were being informed and impacted by what I was seeing and hearing on a number of fronts beyond my day-to-day experience.  For one, there were the ongoing developments in my ancestral homeland of Ukraine.  New leadership in Ukraine being challenged by separatist action on behalf of some of its citizens, aided and abetted by a powerful neighbor.  At the same time, other countries - and leaders - trying to assess how to respond, walking a delicate game of brinkmanship in terms of what actions and assistance might change the situation.  Moreover, trying to figure out how actions in supporting Ukraine might have the least impact on their own nations.  Leaders of Ukraine, Russia, the West, and a variety of other nations exercising leadership in an ever changing game of chess.

More recently, we also saw the Scots engaged in a referendum that would not only chart a new course for them but also drastically alter the landscape of the United Kingdom.  Leaders for "No" and "Yes" within Scotland trying to win the day.  Leaders from without weighing in with promises of new powers for Scotland should it ultimately choose to stay.  Others suggesting economic consequences as a result of a yes vote.  And despite the Scots voting no (this time?) they have not been alone in seeking to break apart old confederations - the split between Walloons and Flemish in Belgium, the not so distant history of the former Yugoslavia, the relatively constant turmoil and strife in the Caucasus region, the ongoing fracturing of Sudan and South Sudan, and so on.  And in my home country of Canada we of course have our history with Quebec.

At the same time, we also see rapid changes in technology and the human condition that continue to serve notice of how small this world really is and how promising - and frightening - the future is for us humans.  We recently saw the power of social media with the Arab Spring and we continue to see attempts by states to curb that power.  Russia just served notice that it will begin implementing new measures to deal with internet access, something China has already been successful with and that we see again with recent protests in Hong Kong.  At the same time, we do see successes "hackers" have had in taking over systems in both countries, still exercising their voice, and demanding their rights. 

And what to make of a movement like the new self-proclaimed Islamic State in Syria and Iraq that has risen to power on the heels of civil war and strife in both countries, that espouses a particularly vicious, intolerant, yet successful brand of extremism.  Like it or not this too is leadership.  And despite several interventions over the years commencing as far back as the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s and more recently the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, to say nothing of almost the entirety of Israel's wars, it doesn't seem to matter how many leaders of these extremist groups are eliminated others rise up to take their place.

On the health front, we see ever increasing reports of steps being taken forward on the battle against aging.  We see evidence of this reality in the increase in the average age of our populations - at least within developed countries.  Increasingly, its also just not getting older that is the measure of our success but so too is the quality of that aging - more active physically and mentally and making meaningful contributions to the world well beyond any artificially imposed retirement age.  What does it mean to be the leader of an aging population and workforce?  What could it mean to be led by a 100-year old leader?  What could it mean to have as much as an 80 year age gap or more between a leader and a new employee?

Recently we have also been reminded by the latest Ebola virus outbreak of both the fragility of the human condition and the potential for rapid spread of such viruses across man-made human boundaries.  This most recent outbreak has sparked fear for a number of reasons - it's high mortality rate (up to 70% by some reports), its ability to mutate, and concerns about transmission beyond any one country's borders.  If not this round of Ebola it may perhaps be another disease that may exceed our capacity to effectively respond in the short term.  What does a health threat like this mean for the future of leadership?

There are so many other factors to take into account when thinking of the future of leadership - and I have not even touched on the increasing diversity of our workplaces and the virtual nature of human enterprises in 2014.

What does this all mean for what it will take to be a successful leader in the future?  I don't have a crystal ball but I do believe there are some characteristics that leaders will have to cultivate in themselves now and into the future if they are to be successful.

First, flexibility and adaptability.  As evidenced by the small list of circumstances identified above, change is constant and dynamic.  Nothing is as it was nor is there predictability as to what might be coming down the road whether it be the newest technological leap forward, a new world order, or the latest health threat that could irrevocably change our landscape.  Get comfortable with ambiguity.

Second, be prepared to be on a continuous learning curve.  If our surroundings and imperatives can change on a moments notice, you have to be prepared to invest in learning and discard previous learning on a regular basis.

Third, given the pace of change and the constant need of learning/ relearning, you are going to have to become fairly humble as a leader and become ever more reliant on a team of similarly skilled, motivated and energetic people.  In this state of affairs the heroic leader has become ever more passe.  You are going to have be very humble, very inclusionary and very dependent on a highly diverse group of people.  There may even be a time where you have to pass the torch of leadership to someone else where you have to acknowledge that you don't have the skills to be the leader at the time.

Fourth and related to the point above, perhaps leadership of the future is going to be even less dependent than it is today on the concept of the singular leader.  Perhaps what we are going to see is a true evolution into self-directed teams, where leadership shifts as circumstances change. Perhaps we are beginning to truly see human leadership structures evolve into the equivalent of the V formation of geese.  The goal or direction is clear but leadership transitions as any one leader tires - or new skills are required on a particular phase of the journey - with the entire team in constant communication and the mission risk mitigated against if a leader does falter or fall out of formation.

Finally, leaders of the future will have to be possessed of even greater self awareness, self confidence and strength than they are today.  It's going to take immense intestinal fortitude to continuously adapt, continuously learn, rely heavily or entirely on others, and even to give up the reins of leadership on occasion.  What its going to be a successful leader of the future is certainly not clear to me.  The only thing I'm sure of is that its like nothing we have yet seen or imagined.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Fostering conflict...and building your team

Most of us been raised in environments - personal and professional - that cause us to view conflict as something to be avoided.  In its place many of us learn, perhaps through painful experience, that we should strive for harmony and defer to the directions of those in positions of greater authority.  Yet there are many classic examples where the leader, the team and the larger organization would have been better served by more open and honest discussion of issues and options, where a larger goal would have been served by a leader encouraging dissent and conflict.

It may seem counter-intuitive to suggest that conflict is the way to better teamwork but that is the premise for this post.  It builds from a previous blog on building a successful team where I described one of my best experiences in leading a team and an organization.  I offered that one of the key elements of our collective success was that all points of view were afforded an opportunity to be heard and acted upon.  Did I actually encourage conflict?  I believe I stopped short of encouraging physical confrontations and personal attacks but after that I wanted my team to bring forward issues, ideas, opportunities and challenges with all the passion they had in service of our larger shared goal.  In our case, the larger shared goal focused on providing the best health services we could for our rural communities. 

When I first entered the picture as the CEO of this particular organization it was experiencing more than a bit of stress - it was relatively new, it was experiencing the effects of significant budget cuts and service changes (including facility closures), it had poor relationships with many of its communities on more than a few levels, the board itself was split along a number of different lines, and the past CEO had been let go.  This was a team under siege.  Conflict could certainly have been the order of the day - with or without me encouraging it.

More to the point this was a team - or perhaps a collection of individuals - that could have easily fractured and engaged in all manner of destructive conflict focused on their personal preservation, desiring to maintain allegiance to the interests of their local community or other stakeholders, and more than willing to engage in personal attacks on others.  So how did it make sense to foster conflict?  It only made sense if we started with that larger goal in mind and engaged in conflict not about where we were headed but what might be the best strategies or tactics to get there.  Once we had spent the time and energy to clarify for ourselves that we were in fact on the same page we could move forward and give rein to our shared passionate, professional commitments.

I have no doubt that in the days and weeks leading up to my arrival and in the first few weeks that followed, there was a lot of anxiety about who and what this new leader was about.  It would be one thing to say I was looking for new ideas, energy and commitment but given recent history in the organization there is no question that a lot of the team were from Missouri in this regard - Show Me!  And together we did Show Us!  We did passionately debate a variety of issues, opportunities and challenges.  We respected the skills, abilities and experience that each individual team member brought to the table.  I believe we did successfully tackle problems and just as importantly avoided tackling each other.

For many outside of this "circle of trust" I'm sure they might have wondered how anything got done.  I'm sure they would have viewed our meetings and retreats as more than a bit chaotic.  The simple matter was that while we had some structure and parameters for our meetings and discussions we were more than prepared to change and modify - and improve - our direction because we were all allowed to show the courage of our convictions.  As a result, I believe we unleashed the potential of our individual team members and became a team capable of some pretty amazing feats - and all out of proportion to our size.

Further to this "environment of conflict", the trust we developed, and the respect we had for each other as professionals (and people) we were also more than willing to enforce a modicum of humble pie on ourselves.  We made sure that no one of us got too big for their britches.  This was done with humor and respect and a spirit of camaraderie.  And always with the big picture in mind - how were we going to get better and better at achieving our stated mission and do so in keeping with our stated values.



Long story short, as a leader your role should be to get as many different opinions and facts and positions and options on the table as possible.  You need to encourage diversity of opinion.  You need to encourage constructive conflict.  If you are the only one speaking or everyone seems to be agreeing with you quite readily you better start getting nervous.  At best you are headed for mediocrity.  At worst you are headed for your own Bay of Pigs.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
Executive Coach/Consultant
BreakPoint Solutions
gregh@breakpoint.solutions
780-250-2543

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.