Harvard Business Publishing

Tony's analysis of the impact of environmental factors on leadership, only confirms the age old saying "Man is cicumstantial beast" However, the beast could be a lion or a sheep. This quality of being a lion or a sheep is typically an intrinsic quality which evolves in every human being.

Leadership style depending on contextual scenario is definitely a good trait as contextual intelligence will help being a leader in one way...i.e taking decisions. I find that one very important trait of a leader is in giving solutions to issues and taking decisions. Many leaders think that as a leader, they have to just ask the relevant questions. Yes..that is important, but a leader starts commanding respect when they analyse the context, take views from the team and take a decision and stand by it.

Another change in 21st centure leadership is that the team being led today across organizations is different from what it was earlier. Earlier we had listeners and agreeers...but today the team consists of thinkers and debaters...hence the new leaders leadership style should accept that the team is also evolving and accordingly modify the leadership style.

Now and evolving into the future, I believe alligiance is going to play a pivotal role in defining what it takes to be a great leader. In turn, I do not believe our future great world business leaders are going to be Americans.

We in America are "the consumate masters of deal making." We have the ability to go globally to seek out deals and bring home the gold. Yet, our biggest leaders are beginning to look at our country as being a future wasteland. We are shifting more and more of our business resouces to other countries, of couse, in the name of "global diversity". This shift on our part, is usually done with no significant thought of the future impact of how this will affect our infastructure (because very little in the way of knowledge or skill is returning to this country).

Several foreign organization, on the other hand, have a vastly different approach. While they are becoming active players in this global economy, the active structure and business philosophy is totally different. Their "significant" business leaders prime purpose in the global race is two fold...to promote their organization and to build their country. It is not necessary to mention any of these by name, if one would just look around, their presence in plain to see. The wealth of these companies in terms of knowledge, skill sets, and yes, even monetary is being diverted back to their homelands to promote their country's survial.

I believe a "great leader" is a person who will be effective in the global market while insuring the greater value is returned to their country and it's future survival.

The greatest influence emerges when a leader establishes his credibility with others. So, to earn people's respect and trust, leaders need to demodtrate their character, competence, and influence.

I believe when Mr. Mayo talks about Contextual intelligence, he talks about something that is influencing the industry that the person is currently in and not just a HR internal stuff. On this, I have a few points to comment:
Most Business Leaders happen to be in a context that is driven by the countries ambitions in a certain sector. If you look at growth of some companies, we find that the market (country) he focussed on initially was identified as a growth area by the goverment at the first place. A single brain cannot be influential unless he has support from other quarters especially goverment and within the industry bigs. He therefore is pursuing the ambition which is the overall ambition of the country, goverment and the indsutry. This makes him successful
We find that there was a time when electronics indsutry was treated as driving economies. then it shifted to services and entertainments. Now most economies are looking at tourism related indsutries as growth areas driving economies. Who ever fans this ambition with full support from their respective economies through good networking will become successful

leadership is the art of motivition, not a one man show

Leadership is about creating a larger context for everyone and enlarging the capacity for people to achieve more than they could on their own. Leaders who create and extend this power to an organization have greater influence and support than those who rely solely on position power.

After listening recently to HBR's June article by Tony Martin on How great leaders think, Jim Collins' article on Level Five leaders, and read Jaques and Clement's Execuctive Leadership along with Peter Drucker's Effective Leadership, I am impressed with Jaques and Clement's analysis of how "managerial leaders" process information and the amount of complexity they can assimulate and hold in their minds. Their research, from a Europeon perspective, seems to contradict the current leadership emphasis currently so popular in the US.

There are a million and one books, audio tapes, research reports, and articles on leadership..and we continue to probe the identity of an excellent leader. I'm sure when the concept of a "servant leader" came out, we thought we figured it out..and I'm sure a new theme will arise. But I hope we don't forget some of the basics..

- Passion for the Mission (You maximize your influence by loving and embracing the mission you lead)
- Passion for the people (Loving who you lead)
- Passion for integrity (Love yourself, know your values, walk in truth)

Sounds "soft" but if the base is cracked, the house is compromised..

From what I've seen, contextual intelligence is only one piece of the leadership pie. Emotional intelligence is equally, if not more, critical. That is, being able to adapt one's leadership/management style based on the environment is important, but the delivery and the ability to size up the tenor of the room/those on the receiving end of the message can make or break how a person is perceived. More importantly even, it can mean the difference between one's ability to affect change and have a widespread impact. Daniel Goleman pegged it in his book, Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace.

So, perhaps we should broaden the definition...perhaps a leader is one who has a solid sense of self, but is also a savvy chameleon of sorts. True leaders have the ability to adapt and respond both contextually and emotionally in any given situation.

Leadership: from experience, leadership in a global context requires first and foremost excellent communication skills combined with listening skills. That is how context and cultural sensitivities (corporate/country/regional/community) are sensed and converted in suggestions and actions.

Business leadership: This focusses more on implementing strategy succesfully through people, using experience to revise plans and assign/coach junior leaders to take charge and grow into the next generation leaders.

Great Business leadership: The effect of business decisions have great impact on sustainability of environment, on the productivity and health of the population, balanced short/long term profits etc.
How to care for the needs of the weak using the power of the strong is what brings greatness, not only to the leaders, but to the human race.

The simple reason why some leaders have more influence than others and get things done better revolves around the way they ask questions. Great leaders know how to how to ask "beautiful questions", while mediocre and self crowned leaders ask ugly questions.

Contextual leadership is indeed an important aspect in a fairly rapidly changing business world especially as senior leaders interact with a generation of younger executives who have been brought up in completely different milieu in the 90's.

However, a few key aspects of leadership would continue to remain relevant :
1.Ability to lead from the front and be most visible in a situation of crisis.
2.Maintaining channels of open communication with the rank and file of the organization.
3.Precision in understanding one's strengths and weaknesses and having individuals in the team who complement the skills.
4.Leading by example-on values like discipline and ethics.
5.Earning respect of the team by continuously upgrading skills relevant to the organization.
6.Candour-courage to own up a mistake publicly rather than doggedly pursuing a failing strategy.

In my experience as a consultant in the strategic communication and behavioural change areas, I've seen far too many leaders trying to lead by telling everybody what should happen and why, rather than seeking to engage with the motivations of the people and teams involved - both individually and collectively.

The most useful model for influence I've found is on pages 176-184 in "Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense" by Pfeffer & Sutton (HBSP).

The four influencing tactics (paraphrased based on responses to them from within workshops I have led) are:
1. Create dissatisfaction with the status quo. Offer either a burning platform or a positive shared contribution to others (or a personal benefit as second best option) in a new future.
2. Establish a clear direction for change.
3. Exude confidence in a positive shared outcome, but temper it with genuine expressions of self-doubt.
4. Acknowledge that any change - like a satisfying, well-lived life - is messy.

The context for these influencing tactics will always change, but we need rules of thumb to manage effectively, and in my experience many managers find these four principles to be an excellent guide to effective influence.