Category: Uncategorized

Welcome to the Institute for Optimal Leadership Presence, where your leaders of today are transformed into the inspiring leaders of tomorrow. Our mission is to partner with organizations to cultivate remarkable leaders that stand out, drive results, and foster an effective and impactful presence across teams, their organization, and communities.

Our approach combines the latest research in neuro-leadership science, psychology, the latest leadership theory and practical, hands-on experience with the century-old, time tested principles of Aristotle and his “wisdom of the ages” that still speaks to us as leaders.  We work closely with each participant, ensuring personalized growth that resonates with individual goals and organizational objectives. Whether we are working with executives, emerging leaders, or professionals aiming to refine their presence, we are committed to helping them achieve transformational success.

At the same time, IOLP is committed to the academic advance of Leadership Presence as an important and necessary framework for emerging leadership theory and for practical application of effective leadership development across functional disciplines and local/global organizations. We believe that the pursuit of Optimal Personal Presence can and should be recognized as a legitimate academic endeavor, with robust research, emerging data, and curated principles and frameworks.

Let us partner with you on this journey to help leaders from your organization discover their Optimal Personal Presence and take their influence to the next level.

Join us at the Institute for Optimal Leadership Presence and discover how great leadership can truly transform people and organizations.

The Purpose of a Leader

If you asked a roomful of people, “what is the purpose of a leader?”, you would probably get a number of answers equal to the number of people in the room. Everyone seems to have their own idea of exactly what leadership is, and for that matter, whether we even need it. From an organizational perspective, the answer to that question seems to be newly defined with every work generation that comes along. Certainly, ideas about what leadership is and what a leader does (or at least should do) in an organizational setting, are different today than they were even 8-10 years ago.

But while the perceptions of and, in truth, the reality of what leaders should do, have changed over time, I would suggest that the foundational purpose of a leader has stayed the same, especially in the organizational context. The purpose of an organizational leader, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, is to create the greatest level of value for the organization in everything they do. In other words, it is the perception of value that changes, the job of the leader has stayed the same.

Now, admittedly, we could say that in the day and age of the authoritarian leader, we were quite mistaken that organizations were, in fact, creating “the greatest level of value” with their top-down approach and “telling” rather than “seeking” tactics. We have learned today that this was never the most effective way of running an organization. However, that was a culture-wide phenomenon; one could equally argue that the employee mindset was as fixated on their mistaken need for absolute authority by leaders as leaders’ mindset was on leading that way.

And, not unimportantly, the definition of “value” was almost entirely focused in those days on financials: increased revenue, decreased expenses, capital investment, the bottom line and, for the “for-profits”, always the drive to increase stockholder share. Every decision that was made, every new process created, and every new hire brought in was, at its root, a financial decision. Today, these financial considerations are still front and center – it’s not like the push for revenue has gone away or will ever go away in the overall business environment. But what has become very clear is that the sustainable path to financial growth must include what, at least on the surface, seems to be some very non-financial considerations.

Today we believe (and I think rightfully so) that “greatest level of value” means a lot of different things at the same time, and a great deal of this is decided at the organizational level. And leaders, to fulfill their basic purpose, must align with the organizational definition of value, as defined by a new strategy, a new upgrade, a new process improvement or a new marketing initiative.

But there are ways that individual leaders can and should create the greatest level of value on their own initiative. For instance, when a leader takes action to increase team participation in formulating department goals, she is creating a pathway to greater ownership and engagement that research indicates also impacts productivity — in that way, she is creating greater levels of value for the organization. When a leader reaches out to establish higher levels of collaboration with a partnering group so that inter-department processes and handoffs will go smoother – he is creating greater levels of value for the organization. When a supervisor takes responsibility to infuse a greater emphasis on coaching employees, that supervisor is taking a personal stake in the growth and success of that employee – and they are creating greater levels of value for the organization. When leaders, on the other hand, opt not to do these things, they are actually detracting from value, and over time, disqualify themselves from being an authentic leader.

So, whether it is aligning with an organizational improvement or a new sense of direction, or seeking improvement or innovation within their own department, it is the leader’s calling to create the greatest level of value in everything they do. And because the organizational definitions of value change as time goes on, to be successful at creating the greatest level of value, the leader must embrace change, they must make the tough adjustments, they must be willing to move beyond what they are good at now, or what they are even naturally good at. To create value…leaders must be looking into jaws of personal growth all the time.

In some cases that growth can be just a matter of learning a new process or figuring out a new piece of software. Sometimes it may be redefining what you have always thought about what a team is supposed to be, or what collaboration looks like, or how to tear down a process and build it back better. And sometimes, it can be staring directly into the mirror to understand what and how you need to change something about yourself – something that you have always been – into something better and more effective. Yes, creating value can sometimes be a trip into the uncomfortable – into those hard places inside of yourself.

So, what are you willing to commit to? What are you willing to do to fulfill the purpose of the leader? What are you willing to do to create the greatest level of value for the organization? That answer probably has not changed over the years: “whatever it takes!”

That’s my opinion…what’s yours?

Leadership in the 21^st century has been a curious journey –and  I do mean that quite literally. These days you can put a question mark behind any business consideration — questions about resources, pricing, revenue,  marketing, process, quality, safety, policy,  and sometimes even product portfolios (are we really in the right business?).

Now, to be sure, business has always been about questions and seeking their answers – it’s not that the questions are really new. It’s just that they are coming at us today with such brute force – every day (seemingly every hour). A lot of that has to do with data, specifically the quantity of it. We have so many data points and so many data sources –and that data, instead of answering questions, seems to be unveiling even more of them. We find out that people have a problem with our level of service, even as we have been spending the last 18 months working tirelessly to grind out new processes that improve service.

But perhaps the most compelling questions that we as leaders face in the 21^st century are not about products and processes and systems and alliances – as challenging as those are – or even about our customers and pleasing them. Perhaps the toughest questions we face today are actually about the people that work for us.

Those questions used to be the easier ones, or so we thought. Mainly, the questions about keeping and satisfying our employees were purely financial. I will never forget my first “owner-boss” told me about how he calculated the cost of an employee by how many “nickels” he would need to string together for a yearly raise to keep the good ones. (I haven’t even heard the word “nickel” in a business setting for 20 years”).

Obviously, the questions we have at the overall organizational level about attracting, recruiting, hiring, onboarding, engaging and keeping employees (what I refer to as making employment “sticky”) are not a “nickel” proposition these days. In fact, organizations today face questions about their own workforce that can shake them to the very core.

I would argue, however, that the toughest employee questions don’t really happen at the organizational level at all – they actually happen at the local leader level – with the director, manager or supervisor of a group of people. And, in many ways, these are questions that a leader has never had to consider before, at least straight on. Those employee questions go something like this:

• Why should I accept you as my leader?
• Why should I believe you and believe in you?
• Why should I choose to follow you?

Those who are students of or proponents of the “traditional organization”, must sometimes be poking themselves to see if they are really awake when they hear those kinds of questions from company employees. “Really, you have the nerve to ask why you should accept someone as a leader who has been duly appointed by the organization to have that title?”  To them, I say “wake up” – it doesn’t really matter “why” (though I will offer up some answers below); what matters is that employees today are asking those questions – and no longer just internally, or even with one another at the coffee house after work hours.

The answers that leaders give to those questions are critical – to the employees, to the organization, and themselves and their future as leaders, and are quite revealing about their motivations and vision for themselves as leaders. One thing that I believe is certain is that if the answers that leaders give to those questions either in their own minds or in their implicit actions and words, are mainly because of “my place on the org chart”, or some other “title” related reasonings, then they may as well start putting their resumes together. Such assertions will not impress or gain the respect capital they need from their teams or probably even their senior leaders in the 21^st century workplace.

As to the “why”, there are a myriad of reasons we could offer up about the attitudes of younger generations in the workforce and why they are simply not that impressed with org charts or authority structures. One of the critical reasons is because, well… that’s the way that we have raised them. As parents and teachers, we have consistently preached to our kids about their rights, earnestly instructed them to “speak up” when they have an opinion or what they consider to be a better thought, urged them think critically and not shy away from a debate, and at work we have even encouraged them by validating that those at the front line or in an individual contributor role are the ones that have the real knowledge, they are the ones doing the real work and therefore they should be the ones who should be innovating and improving the way we do it. People in organizations today have taken all of that…and believed it.

Another reason for the “authority revolt” is that far too many younger people in the workforce grew up watching their parents become victims of being over-worked, over-stressed, or overwhelmed by their bosses. They have seen the stress, the tension, the ungodly hours and the physical and mental toll that such conditions have wreaked – and they have decided that they will not become victims of such behaviors.

For those reasons, and more, the younger generations at work will simply not “emotionally accept” leaders at work just because those leaders occupy a space on the org chart. That doesn’t mean they will necessarily start a revolt, but if they do not have a direct manager that fits their idea of “fair”, “just”, “reasonable”, “collaborative”, “communicative” and “humble”, it will impact the degree to which they are willing to commit and engage in the work.  Those seem to be the demands of the 21^st century workforce. And they look for those responses, not in words or promises, but in leaders’ actions every day in every situation.

One antidote to this problem would be for 21st century leaders to ask themselves those three questions I mentioned above on a regular basis as an introspective exercise:

• “Why should my team members accept me as their leader?”
• “Why should they  believe me and believe in me?”
• “Why should they choose to follow me?”

The purpose of this introspection is not to doubt your legitimacy as a leader, but to actually ensure that you are on the right track to meeting the needs and expectations of your team. You see, I am convinced that that the reasons why employees are asking those questions today is because they represent the needs they have to know and understand, to be appreciated and valued, and to catch a clear vision for their work and team. Today, employees want to be treated as full partners of the work, trusted and treated as if their thoughts and ideas matter. And if their direct leader does not give them that they will resist, withdraw, shut down and perhaps quit. And when those employee responses move from becoming individual and isolated situations to something that begins to emerge as a pattern, then organizational leaders begin to see the local leader as the problem and employees as the casualty.

So, when leaders ask themselves those three questions introspectively, what kinds of answers should they be expecting of themselves? It should probably go something like this: Because I have demonstrated that I care for and value every team member; because I have demonstrated that I will work with my team to develop a vision that represents the best work that we do and the best things that we can accomplish; because I have a respectful coaching relationship with each member of the team and I care passionately about their growth and development; and because I advocate for them before the rest of the organization…advocate for the right resources for them to do their job, and advocate as a champion for their talents, skills and abilities.

I believe those are the three right answers to three compelling questions. What do you think?