I was out hiking the other day. Hong Kong - for those who don't know - has hundreds of miles of beautiful trails that wind through jungle, up mountains and over waterfalls. I know it is hard to believe, but it is true.
A group of friends and I are training for a well known mountain 'race' called Hong Kong Trailwalker. It is being held in November. I am the team 'leader' and was pleased to have got the team out for a walk on a warm and sunny Sunday morning.
About half way through the hike we came across a rare stretch of paved road that sloped gently downwards. My buddy and team-mate Mike (a far more experienced hiker than me) suddenly shouted out "C'mon team, are you ready to go for it?" He then broke into a jog and the rest of the team, myself included, followed along.
What interested me was my instinctive reaction to Mike's leadership. I said to myself: "Now why didn't I think of that? There is Mike gee-ing everyone up, pushing them along and injecting a bit of energy into the hike. What was I doing? Why didn't it occur to me to up the tempo and make it more interesting? What sort of rubbish leader am I?"
And then it struck me: leading in this way just isn't my style. I'm much more of a 'support from behind' kind of leader. I'm the one who waits with the slowest person while the others rush on ahead. I make sure everyone feels looked after, supported and valued.
Like many executives I wish I could be more of an 'Alpha' leader. But I'm not. It isn't natural for me to be this way; it doesn't feel authentic. And trying to be something I am not is be far worse than simply accepting my own limitations and working happily within them.
Once I had got over my immediate disappointment I saw that leadership isn't just about inspiring and motivating the team. It is also, crucially, about letting other team members share the leadership and do what they do best. I realised the best thing for me to do was let Mike set the pace. I did, and he did, and we moved along smoothly and happily.
My conclusion is that leadership isn't about us, the leader. It is about what our people need from us. On the hike that day my team needed me to let my charismatic buddy take the lead. I know there will soon be moments when they need me to help them keep going, even though they are exhausted. And when they do I will be ready.
I came to accept who I am as a leader and it helped me do a better job as a result.
the leadership coach
15 September 2010
13 September 2010
The simplest things
During the hot summer months I took my wife and children to Oregon to do some camping and mucking around on the beach. My wife comes from there and we had a marvellous time building sand castles, picking berries and catching big, juicy Dungeness crabs.
But it was something mundane my sister in law said during a simple car journey that has remained with me most strongly.
She and her husband were leading a small convoy of 'out of towners' from one place to another. When we finally arrived Estelle (the sister in the law) said, "When I'm leading the way the hardest thing to remember is that you guys have no idea where you're going!"
It sounds ridiculous to draw a comparison between this innocent comment and the world of corporate leadership, but what my sis-in-law observed is something I see leaders doing every day.
Enthused by the goal leaders often dash off, forgetting that no-one knows exactly where they are going or how they're going to get there. They forget that in terms of their vision everyone else is an 'out of towner' . It's only when they stop and look behind them that leaders realise everyone else got stuck at a 'traffic light' 30 miles earlier and is now horribly lost.
Most of the time only you truly know the route you are going to take. The people following are 100% dependent on you and need to be able to see where you are in order to follow.
Yes, you have to keep moving forward. But even more importantly you need to keep a close eye on the rear view mirror. Leadership isn't about blazing a trail and zooming ahead. It's about moving at a pace that even the slowest follower can match, even pulling over from time to time to let them catch up.
But it was something mundane my sister in law said during a simple car journey that has remained with me most strongly.
She and her husband were leading a small convoy of 'out of towners' from one place to another. When we finally arrived Estelle (the sister in the law) said, "When I'm leading the way the hardest thing to remember is that you guys have no idea where you're going!"
It sounds ridiculous to draw a comparison between this innocent comment and the world of corporate leadership, but what my sis-in-law observed is something I see leaders doing every day.
Enthused by the goal leaders often dash off, forgetting that no-one knows exactly where they are going or how they're going to get there. They forget that in terms of their vision everyone else is an 'out of towner' . It's only when they stop and look behind them that leaders realise everyone else got stuck at a 'traffic light' 30 miles earlier and is now horribly lost.
Most of the time only you truly know the route you are going to take. The people following are 100% dependent on you and need to be able to see where you are in order to follow.
Yes, you have to keep moving forward. But even more importantly you need to keep a close eye on the rear view mirror. Leadership isn't about blazing a trail and zooming ahead. It's about moving at a pace that even the slowest follower can match, even pulling over from time to time to let them catch up.
25 May 2010
The rise (and fall) of the 'player-manager'
I am reading a terrific book at the moment by Philip Augar and Joy Palmer called The Rise of the Player Manager. It resonates with me and the work I am doing because of the way the authors describe the dilemma facing talented individuals, especially in professional services firms.
In short, individuals who are good at 'producing' revenue are typically promoted away from the thing they love best (playing) into something most of them like a lot less (managing). However, rather than relieving them of their player duties and letting them just manage, modern businesses require these individuals to (quickly) learn to manage and continue to play.
The reason for this is economic. Modern businesses have phased out the layers of middle management they once had by 'down-sizing' and 're-engineering'. As a result there is no-one left to simply manage. Everyone except those at the very top actually have to do stuff, too.
In other words, the layer of managers who used to focus on vision, strategy, and developing people has gone. In their place are individuals who have to do it all. Needless to say, this presents some problems.
A classic example can been found in the modern investment bank.
Here, the most talented 'player' makes lots of money for the bank and also for herself. As she gets older and more experienced the bank promotes her until, out of the blue, she has the title 'Manager'. All of a sudden her job changes. Now she is expected not only to continue making bucket loads of cash, but she is also expected to manage the performance and the careers of six or seven individuals who look to her for guidance.
If each one of these individuals were as naturally talented as she there would be no problem. But they are not. They have a mix of aptitudes that require different management. Problem is, a) our manager can't take time away from making money to help them otherwise everyone suffers; b) the firm doesn't incentivise the manager to grow and develop her people, although it does penalise her if she doesn't make her 'numbers'; and c) she has never been shown or taught how to manage in the first place.
Speak to any HR professional in a bank and he will tell you the biggest challenge is getting bankers to commit themselves to 'soft-skills' training. Is it any wonder when these are not properly rewarded by the organisation or valued by shareholders?
I don't know what the answer is to this dilemma. All I know is that the most successful banks - Goldman Sachs to be specific - make it an imperative for managers to learn to manage as well as they play.
For all its faults Goldman recognises true talent leverage comes through proper people development. Goldman also recognises this doesn't have to mean days and days of time-hungry training. It teaches its managers how to give critical feedback and coaching on the spot so individuals learn how to do something more effectively in the moment. Any parent will tell you this is the most effective way to teach a young person how to be more successful.
So what do Augar and Palmer recommend. I have not finished the book yet. However, they do set out some of the key 'levers' the player-manger can pull to be more effective:
1) Set out the 'end game'. In other words, get your team together every quarter and tell them what they are trying to achieve within it. It doesn't have to be a flowery vision statment. Just a description of the key numbers is enough to get everyone on the same page.
2) Set out the 'game plan'. In other words, tell people the three or four things you're all going to do to achieve the goal. Are you going to sell more of one product and less of another? Do you want them to look for more cross-selling opportunities? What is your strategy for achieving the goal - and again, review this once a quarter for half and hour with them all.
3) Set out some benchmarks. In other words, what measures will you look at to make sure you are on track. You know, a bit like the cash 'thermometer' a church uses when it is trying to raise money to repair the vestry roof.
4) Enable teamwork. In other words, get them together as a team at least once a month for a drink or a bite to eat. Make people feel they are part of something bigger than just themselves. Remember, "No man is an island, entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent." (John Donne)
5) Give feedback. The central pillar of performance management - you must, must, must learn how to give critical feedback in the moment if your people are to have any hope of improving.
I would love to know: if you are a struggling 'player-manager', which of these levers would you pull first, and what help would you need to pull them?
In short, individuals who are good at 'producing' revenue are typically promoted away from the thing they love best (playing) into something most of them like a lot less (managing). However, rather than relieving them of their player duties and letting them just manage, modern businesses require these individuals to (quickly) learn to manage and continue to play.
The reason for this is economic. Modern businesses have phased out the layers of middle management they once had by 'down-sizing' and 're-engineering'. As a result there is no-one left to simply manage. Everyone except those at the very top actually have to do stuff, too.
In other words, the layer of managers who used to focus on vision, strategy, and developing people has gone. In their place are individuals who have to do it all. Needless to say, this presents some problems.
A classic example can been found in the modern investment bank.
Here, the most talented 'player' makes lots of money for the bank and also for herself. As she gets older and more experienced the bank promotes her until, out of the blue, she has the title 'Manager'. All of a sudden her job changes. Now she is expected not only to continue making bucket loads of cash, but she is also expected to manage the performance and the careers of six or seven individuals who look to her for guidance.
If each one of these individuals were as naturally talented as she there would be no problem. But they are not. They have a mix of aptitudes that require different management. Problem is, a) our manager can't take time away from making money to help them otherwise everyone suffers; b) the firm doesn't incentivise the manager to grow and develop her people, although it does penalise her if she doesn't make her 'numbers'; and c) she has never been shown or taught how to manage in the first place.
Speak to any HR professional in a bank and he will tell you the biggest challenge is getting bankers to commit themselves to 'soft-skills' training. Is it any wonder when these are not properly rewarded by the organisation or valued by shareholders?
I don't know what the answer is to this dilemma. All I know is that the most successful banks - Goldman Sachs to be specific - make it an imperative for managers to learn to manage as well as they play.
For all its faults Goldman recognises true talent leverage comes through proper people development. Goldman also recognises this doesn't have to mean days and days of time-hungry training. It teaches its managers how to give critical feedback and coaching on the spot so individuals learn how to do something more effectively in the moment. Any parent will tell you this is the most effective way to teach a young person how to be more successful.
So what do Augar and Palmer recommend. I have not finished the book yet. However, they do set out some of the key 'levers' the player-manger can pull to be more effective:
1) Set out the 'end game'. In other words, get your team together every quarter and tell them what they are trying to achieve within it. It doesn't have to be a flowery vision statment. Just a description of the key numbers is enough to get everyone on the same page.
2) Set out the 'game plan'. In other words, tell people the three or four things you're all going to do to achieve the goal. Are you going to sell more of one product and less of another? Do you want them to look for more cross-selling opportunities? What is your strategy for achieving the goal - and again, review this once a quarter for half and hour with them all.
3) Set out some benchmarks. In other words, what measures will you look at to make sure you are on track. You know, a bit like the cash 'thermometer' a church uses when it is trying to raise money to repair the vestry roof.
4) Enable teamwork. In other words, get them together as a team at least once a month for a drink or a bite to eat. Make people feel they are part of something bigger than just themselves. Remember, "No man is an island, entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent." (John Donne)
5) Give feedback. The central pillar of performance management - you must, must, must learn how to give critical feedback in the moment if your people are to have any hope of improving.
I would love to know: if you are a struggling 'player-manager', which of these levers would you pull first, and what help would you need to pull them?
11 May 2010
Where have all the leaders gone?
A number of readers have emailed me this week suggesting I write a blog on the Britsh General Election. "There must be lots of juicy leadership subjects to talk about" they said.
If there are, I can't see them. In fact, what the British election (and ongoing debacle) shows me is that politics, in Britain at least, is currently bereft of true leadership.
What do I mean? Quite simply this: in their personal drive for power Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg (Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat) appear to have forgotten what the nation needs is leadership. Instead what they are giving us is more politics.
The Labour party and Gordon Brown have made one last throw of the dice to try and keep the party in power. In a move that would see one unelected Prime Minister replaced by another, Brown has decided to stand down thereby opening the way for Nick Clegg to play a powerful role in the new coalition cabinet and have a hand in selecting the next Prime Minister.
The Convervatives are throwing more and more 'sweetners' into the deal with Nick Clegg. In a move that could lead to a considerable loss of power in the House of Commons, David Cameron has offered Clegg major electorial reform, which might see Britain move from 'First Past the Post' to 'Proportional Representation' by the time of the next election.
All the while the Liberal Democrats are sitting in the middle trying to decide which boy to go to the Prom with.
Whilst I am not a political expert what I can see is this: if these three politicians want to show true leadership they must get together to agree what is best for the country regardless of the impact on their party. I know politics is much more complex than this. But in a simplistic way that is exactly my point. A few political careers are being weighed against what is best for the entire nation. It is plain wrong.
Does the Labour party really believe that five years of a Conservative government would be a "disaster" for the country? Could Britain be in a more disastrous economic state? And what if Labour were to hang onto power. Would anything really change? Let's be honest: No. Does that matter? I'm not convinced. Yes, the country needs something fresh. But whoever wins in the end is going to have to do the same thing in pretty much the same way.
It's not exactly Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, is it?
Most frustrating of all is the fact that the three political leaders understand this point, and still they cannot give the country what it needs: certainty. As the financial markets wobble, the behaviour of Brown, Cameron and Clegg tells me all I need to know about their leadership instincts. And as a consequence I'm not confident the future's bright for Britain.
If there are, I can't see them. In fact, what the British election (and ongoing debacle) shows me is that politics, in Britain at least, is currently bereft of true leadership.
What do I mean? Quite simply this: in their personal drive for power Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg (Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat) appear to have forgotten what the nation needs is leadership. Instead what they are giving us is more politics.
The Labour party and Gordon Brown have made one last throw of the dice to try and keep the party in power. In a move that would see one unelected Prime Minister replaced by another, Brown has decided to stand down thereby opening the way for Nick Clegg to play a powerful role in the new coalition cabinet and have a hand in selecting the next Prime Minister.
The Convervatives are throwing more and more 'sweetners' into the deal with Nick Clegg. In a move that could lead to a considerable loss of power in the House of Commons, David Cameron has offered Clegg major electorial reform, which might see Britain move from 'First Past the Post' to 'Proportional Representation' by the time of the next election.
All the while the Liberal Democrats are sitting in the middle trying to decide which boy to go to the Prom with.
Whilst I am not a political expert what I can see is this: if these three politicians want to show true leadership they must get together to agree what is best for the country regardless of the impact on their party. I know politics is much more complex than this. But in a simplistic way that is exactly my point. A few political careers are being weighed against what is best for the entire nation. It is plain wrong.
Does the Labour party really believe that five years of a Conservative government would be a "disaster" for the country? Could Britain be in a more disastrous economic state? And what if Labour were to hang onto power. Would anything really change? Let's be honest: No. Does that matter? I'm not convinced. Yes, the country needs something fresh. But whoever wins in the end is going to have to do the same thing in pretty much the same way.
It's not exactly Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, is it?
Most frustrating of all is the fact that the three political leaders understand this point, and still they cannot give the country what it needs: certainty. As the financial markets wobble, the behaviour of Brown, Cameron and Clegg tells me all I need to know about their leadership instincts. And as a consequence I'm not confident the future's bright for Britain.
04 May 2010
The inestimable power of relationships
In my blog this week I want to talk about the power of relationships. I must admit I have nicked the idea from Jon Gordon, a leadership coach whose blog I follow.
Anyway, I was inspired by his latest entry in which he told the story below (taken from his new book, Soup):
"Nancy walked back to Soup, Inc., headquarters thinking about all the turning points in her life and realized that every great event happened because of one relationship or another. She had met her husband through a relationship. She had landed her first job out of college because of a relationship. She’d been hired at Soup, Inc., because of a relationship. She reasoned that the people we meet and the relationships we develop have the biggest influence on the course of our lives.
It was a lesson she wanted to impart to her kids and anyone who would listen: The world is a mosaic of people and opportunities, and when you make relationships your priority, the possibilities are endless. Great relationships lead to great outcomes. Develop as many great relationships as possible. Make time for them. Nurture them. Engage them. Not just at work but at home. In your community. On airplanes. At the ball field. Everywhere. You never know where your next idea, opportunity, or life-changing moment will come from or which relationship will be behind it.”
This struck a chord with me. Firstly because I realised how true it is. I have spent the last three months pounding the pavement trying to drum up business. Finally my hard work is starting to pay off. The secret to this (modest) success? Relationships. As I often tell other self-employed people, every single piece of work I ever got came through a relationship I built somewhere.
It resonated for another reason, though. Whilst I understand the power of building relationships, I still fail to make time to build and nurture them properly. Not because I do not like the people I am building relationships with, but because building relationships seems somehow frivolous. The hard, focused, analytical parts of work and life feel like they should be more important.
The reality is this: Failing to make time to build relationships because "I do not have the time" is like failing to see the wood for the trees. Without relationships we have nothing. They are the stuff of life, of work and of leadership.
Every relationship has, as Jon Gordon says, endless possibilities. Leadership is defined by relationships: nothing else really matters.
Anyway, I was inspired by his latest entry in which he told the story below (taken from his new book, Soup):
"Nancy walked back to Soup, Inc., headquarters thinking about all the turning points in her life and realized that every great event happened because of one relationship or another. She had met her husband through a relationship. She had landed her first job out of college because of a relationship. She’d been hired at Soup, Inc., because of a relationship. She reasoned that the people we meet and the relationships we develop have the biggest influence on the course of our lives.
It was a lesson she wanted to impart to her kids and anyone who would listen: The world is a mosaic of people and opportunities, and when you make relationships your priority, the possibilities are endless. Great relationships lead to great outcomes. Develop as many great relationships as possible. Make time for them. Nurture them. Engage them. Not just at work but at home. In your community. On airplanes. At the ball field. Everywhere. You never know where your next idea, opportunity, or life-changing moment will come from or which relationship will be behind it.”
This struck a chord with me. Firstly because I realised how true it is. I have spent the last three months pounding the pavement trying to drum up business. Finally my hard work is starting to pay off. The secret to this (modest) success? Relationships. As I often tell other self-employed people, every single piece of work I ever got came through a relationship I built somewhere.
It resonated for another reason, though. Whilst I understand the power of building relationships, I still fail to make time to build and nurture them properly. Not because I do not like the people I am building relationships with, but because building relationships seems somehow frivolous. The hard, focused, analytical parts of work and life feel like they should be more important.
The reality is this: Failing to make time to build relationships because "I do not have the time" is like failing to see the wood for the trees. Without relationships we have nothing. They are the stuff of life, of work and of leadership.
Every relationship has, as Jon Gordon says, endless possibilities. Leadership is defined by relationships: nothing else really matters.
13 April 2010
The only thing that matters is the results
I'm what some people call a 'touchy-feely' guy. I guess it comes with the territory. I'm a leadership coach and an Organisational Development consultant: people are my thing. I'm interested in what they do, what they think and what they feel.
Consequently I've always held the view that results are not the be-all and end-all of leadership and management. Vision, inspiration, passion, commitment: these are words I would have put ahead of "results" when thinking or talking about leadership.
Until the other day.
I was out running along Bowen Road - the jungly, pedestrianised road that cuts through Hong Kong's Mid Levels - thinking about how to talk convincingly to one of my clients about leadership. "Leadership is anathema to this guy," I thought. "All he cares about is results". Then it hit me. Leadership is all about results. Here's what I mean.
Most executives I coach want to "become a better leader". Together we read books, discuss case studies and talk about great leaders in history or in the world today. But there is one question I have not asked until now: "What results do you want to achieve?"
What do I mean by results? I mean traditional business results. Of course there are supplementary questions that go along with it: "When do you want to achieve these results, and over what time period?" But it is only when an executive has answered these questions sufficiently that I focus on the people. "In order to achieve these results, what must your people be able to do? To do this, what must they think? What must they feel? What must they believe?"
The answers to these questions lead to a final important question: "As a leader, what must you be, do and have in order for your people to achieve everything we just discussed?"
Regardless of what the leadership manuals say, this set of questions is the path to more conscious, insightful and better leadership. First figure out what results you want and work backwards from there!
Consequently I've always held the view that results are not the be-all and end-all of leadership and management. Vision, inspiration, passion, commitment: these are words I would have put ahead of "results" when thinking or talking about leadership.
Until the other day.
I was out running along Bowen Road - the jungly, pedestrianised road that cuts through Hong Kong's Mid Levels - thinking about how to talk convincingly to one of my clients about leadership. "Leadership is anathema to this guy," I thought. "All he cares about is results". Then it hit me. Leadership is all about results. Here's what I mean.
Most executives I coach want to "become a better leader". Together we read books, discuss case studies and talk about great leaders in history or in the world today. But there is one question I have not asked until now: "What results do you want to achieve?"
What do I mean by results? I mean traditional business results. Of course there are supplementary questions that go along with it: "When do you want to achieve these results, and over what time period?" But it is only when an executive has answered these questions sufficiently that I focus on the people. "In order to achieve these results, what must your people be able to do? To do this, what must they think? What must they feel? What must they believe?"
The answers to these questions lead to a final important question: "As a leader, what must you be, do and have in order for your people to achieve everything we just discussed?"
Regardless of what the leadership manuals say, this set of questions is the path to more conscious, insightful and better leadership. First figure out what results you want and work backwards from there!
25 March 2010
Two nights ago my wife and I sat down to watch a DVD.
Julie and Julia (starring the timeless and brilliant Meryl Streep) is the story of one of America's first TV chefs, Julia Child. And as I lay in bed afterwards it occurred to me that this phenomenal woman - so gloriously lampooned by Saturday Night Live - is a leadership role model in a number of interesting ways.
For those who don't know, Julia Child was married to American diplomat Paul Child. As he travelled the world on assignment with the US Foreign Service, Julia followed along as the dutiful wife. Yet she was capable of so much more. Of good East Coast stock Julia craved a purpose, and when Paul was transferred to Paris she found her calling.
Through sheer force of will she made her way into the male-dominated school of Cordon Bleu, an amateur alongside professionals. Here she applied herself with a blend of vigour and determination so powerful, she out cooked each and every one of them.
Upon graduating from Cordon Bleu she met and began to do business with two French women chefs - teaching American women in Paris how to cook French food. This turned into a book - the now famous 'Mastering the Art of French Cooking' - which took several years to write and a similar amount of time to publish. But publish it she did. And as it sold Julia's fame spread until she was approached by a TV station to bring her singular style and passion for food to a hungry nation.
What stood out for me in the tale of this remarkable woman was three things.
1) Passion: Julia had a passion for food and for cooking that seemed unquenchable. She embraced every meal, no matter how simple, as though it was the first or the last she would ever eat. She delighted in the materials and methods of her trade and this love infused her writing and her TV shows.
2) Humility: What shines out of the movie is that Julia was very humble. She had confidence in herself and a strong belief in what she could achieve. But I perceived she was not dominated by her ego (like many TV chefs are today: Gordon Ramsay!). This enabled her to connect with people in a an intimate way, and more importantly, meant she was always willing to learn new things from someone who knew more.
3) Determination: Perhaps the strongest leadership message was the importance of determination. When Julia set her mind to something she was going to achieve it, no matter what! The level of commitment she made to her work was inspirational. I get the feeling she could have achieved anything she wanted, not because of natural ability, but because of unshakability. This is a leadership characteristic that has lost its popularity over the last five or ten years.
Passion, Humility, Determination: I love the fact that such inspirational lessons can be found in the most unlikely of places. Watch the movie, enjoy the cooking and tell me what you think about the leadership.
Julie and Julia (starring the timeless and brilliant Meryl Streep) is the story of one of America's first TV chefs, Julia Child. And as I lay in bed afterwards it occurred to me that this phenomenal woman - so gloriously lampooned by Saturday Night Live - is a leadership role model in a number of interesting ways.
For those who don't know, Julia Child was married to American diplomat Paul Child. As he travelled the world on assignment with the US Foreign Service, Julia followed along as the dutiful wife. Yet she was capable of so much more. Of good East Coast stock Julia craved a purpose, and when Paul was transferred to Paris she found her calling.
Through sheer force of will she made her way into the male-dominated school of Cordon Bleu, an amateur alongside professionals. Here she applied herself with a blend of vigour and determination so powerful, she out cooked each and every one of them.
Upon graduating from Cordon Bleu she met and began to do business with two French women chefs - teaching American women in Paris how to cook French food. This turned into a book - the now famous 'Mastering the Art of French Cooking' - which took several years to write and a similar amount of time to publish. But publish it she did. And as it sold Julia's fame spread until she was approached by a TV station to bring her singular style and passion for food to a hungry nation.
What stood out for me in the tale of this remarkable woman was three things.
1) Passion: Julia had a passion for food and for cooking that seemed unquenchable. She embraced every meal, no matter how simple, as though it was the first or the last she would ever eat. She delighted in the materials and methods of her trade and this love infused her writing and her TV shows.
2) Humility: What shines out of the movie is that Julia was very humble. She had confidence in herself and a strong belief in what she could achieve. But I perceived she was not dominated by her ego (like many TV chefs are today: Gordon Ramsay!). This enabled her to connect with people in a an intimate way, and more importantly, meant she was always willing to learn new things from someone who knew more.
3) Determination: Perhaps the strongest leadership message was the importance of determination. When Julia set her mind to something she was going to achieve it, no matter what! The level of commitment she made to her work was inspirational. I get the feeling she could have achieved anything she wanted, not because of natural ability, but because of unshakability. This is a leadership characteristic that has lost its popularity over the last five or ten years.
Passion, Humility, Determination: I love the fact that such inspirational lessons can be found in the most unlikely of places. Watch the movie, enjoy the cooking and tell me what you think about the leadership.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)