A decade ago in these pages, Goleman published his highly influential article on emotional intelligence and leadership. Now he, a cochair of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, and [...]]]> HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW ARTICLE
Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership
by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis
9 pages.  Publication date: Sep 01, 2008. Prod. #: R0809E-PDF-ENG

A decade ago in these pages, Goleman published his highly influential article on emotional intelligence and leadership. Now he, a cochair of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, and Boyatzis, a professor at Case Western, extend Goleman’s original concept using emerging research about what happens in the brain when people interact. Social intelligence, they say, is a set of interpersonal competencies, built on specific neural circuits, that inspire people to be effective. The authors describe how the brain’s mirror neurons enable a person to reproduce the emotions she detects in others and, thereby, have an instant sense of shared experience. Organizational studies document this phenomenon in contexts ranging from face-to-face performance reviews to the daily personal interactions that help a leader retain prized talent. Other social neurons include spindle cells, which allow leaders to quickly choose the best way to respond to someone, and oscillators, which synchronize people’s physical movements. Great leaders, the authors believe, are those whose behaviors powerfully leverage this complex system of brain interconnectedness. In a handy chart, the authors share their approach to assessing seven competencies that distinguish socially intelligent from socially unintelligent leaders. Their specific advice to leaders who need to strengthen their social circuitry: Work hard at altering your behavior. They share an example of an executive who became socially smarter by embracing a change program that comprised a 360-degree evaluation, intensive coaching by an organizational psychologist, and long-term collaboration with a mentor. The results: stronger relationships with higher-ups and subordinates, better performance of her unit, and a big promotion.

• Share on Linkedin
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

by Marcia W. Blenko, Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers

Artwork: Antony Gormley, Lost Horizon I, 2008, cast iron, 32 elements: each 189 x 53 x 29 cm, Installation view, White Cube, Mason’s Yard, London

Many CEOs assume that organizational structure—the boxes and lines on a company’s org chart—is a key [...]]]> The Decision-Driven Organization

by Marcia W. Blenko, Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers

Artwork: Antony Gormley, Lost Horizon I, 2008, cast iron, 32 elements: each 189 x 53 x 29 cm, Installation view, White Cube, Mason’s Yard, London

Many CEOs assume that organizational structure—the boxes and lines on a company’s org chart—is a key determinant of financial performance. Like generals, they see their job as putting the right collection of troops in the right places. If the battle is about innovation, for example, then the CEO’s duty is to create the best possible structure for channeling resources towards innovation.

This belief helps explain why reorganizations are so popular with chief executives. In fact, nearly half of all CEOs launch a reorg during their first two years on the job. Some preside over repeated restructurings. The immediate motives vary. Some are about cutting costs; others are about promoting growth. Some are about shaking up a culture; others are about shifting strategic focus. Whatever the specifics, though, reorgs almost always involve making major structural changes in pursuit of better performance.

Despite the fanfare that usually greets them, however, most reorganizations fall flat. A recent Bain & Company study of 57 reorgs between 2000 and 2006 found that fewer than one-third produced any meaningful improvement in performance. Most had no effect, and some actually destroyed value. Chrysler, for instance, reorganized its operations three times in the three years preceding its bankruptcy and eventual combination with Fiat. Each time, executives proclaimed that the company was on a new path to profitability. Each time, performance didn’t improve.  Link to full article.

• Share on Linkedin
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

The notion that some people are simply born artistic—and that there is a profile that can help organizations identify them—is quite firmly entrenched. All the talk of genetic determination nowadays undoubtedly has a lot to do with that. But the idea that creativity is a predetermined personality [...]]]> A Conversation with Choreographer Twyla Tharp by Diane Coutu

The notion that some people are simply born artistic—and that there is a profile that can help organizations identify them—is quite firmly entrenched. All the talk of genetic determination nowadays undoubtedly has a lot to do with that. But the idea that creativity is a predetermined personality trait probably appeals at a psychological level because it gives people an excuse for not innovating or initiating change themselves, reducing the problem of creativity to a recruitment challenge.

Link to full article – Creativity Step by Step

• Share on Linkedin
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend

by Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli

If one has misdiagnosed a problem, then one is unlikely to prescribe an effective cure. This is the situation regarding the scarcity of women [...]]]> Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership

Harvard Business Review Article

by Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli

If one has misdiagnosed a problem, then one is unlikely to prescribe an effective cure. This is the situation regarding the scarcity of women in top leadership. Because people with the best of intentions have misread the symptoms, the solutions that managers are investing in are not making enough of a difference.

That there is a problem is not in doubt. Despite years of progress by women in the workforce (they now occupy more than 40% of all managerial positions in the United States), within the C-suite they remain as rare as hens’ teeth. Consider the most highly paid executives of Fortune 500 companies—those with titles such as chairman, president, chief executive officer, and chief operating officer. Of this group, only 6% are women. Most notably, only 2% of the CEOs are women, and only 15% of the seats on the boards of directors are held by women. The situation is not much different in other industrialized countries. In the 50 largest publicly traded corporations in each nation of the European Union, women make up, on average, 11% of the top executives and 4% of the CEOs and heads of boards. Just seven companies, or 1%, of Fortune magazine’s Global 500 have female CEOs. What is to blame for the pronounced lack of women in positions of power and authority?

Link to Full HBR article – Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership

• Share on Linkedin
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend