Leadership and the "Three Levels of Intelligence"

Because I see leadership as a key area of Lean Six Sigma and as part of my MBA in Leadership and Sustainability with Robert Kennedy College and the University of Cumbria, I discussed my own view on successful leadership by examining the effect of the “three levels of intelligence” on leadership.  Please feel free to send me a note if you agree or disagree with parts of the following article.  

Intelligence is traditionally measured by the Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Charles Darwin was estimated to have an IQ of 153, Albert Einstein 160 and John F. Kennedy around 120. But IQ is off course only used as an indicative estimate of the ability to reason logically. While IQ is still very much a factor of becoming successful in most areas of business, it is not of sufficient value for corporate success and will not ensure or even guarantee that you will shine above others. 

I can personally relate to the fact that a good IQ, or being well read even educated, can help you build a strong foundation but will not make you the bee of all. 

Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ) 

There has been much talk about EQ of late, and it certainly seems to be the flavour of the decade. With the key factor of EQ in my eyes being yourself awareness, made up from confidence, a realist view of one’s self, and not being scared of making fun of you, we can apply the above in various ways to make our daily life easier. Applied in the correct situations these can build great first and lasting impressions, and will make people around you feel at ease. Care has to be taken on when to apply which. I would be very careful about making fun of myself, when in a room filled with people of a strong cultural background that differs significantly from the traditional “Western View”. Although when you ask people in their sixties to eighties, they would argue that the western world has also changed and become a lot more accepting, and as such I would be cautious when surrounded by very Senior leaders with these ideals. 

One thing EQ will help you with is to read these situations correctly, so as to apply yourself in a manner acceptable, with the most successful outcomes. 

This brings me to the next cornerstone of EQ which is directly related to self-awareness and works well in conjunction with it, self-regulation. Knowing your limits will help you create trustworthiness and integrity. You will be comfortable in even the most ambiguous circumstances, and be open to change. I will go into more detail on this later when discussing the ability to adobt and change. With the combination of the two items above, we are strong enough to build the foundation of our motivation and drive, having an optimistic outlook, yet realistic in approach, and a full commitment to the outcome. 

Now this is where we start to tap into leadership. Taking IQ and these first few important parts of EQ, we are building a strong foundation, which displays openness, understanding and energy. However, this is where I believe many leaders fail. They stop there, and feel this is enough for them to succeed, forgetting that there are many more elements to be considered before we can call ourselves a well-balanced successful leader. 

Now although I would still include this following part in EQ, we are relating it to the social quotient (SQ). 

One area where many leaders, and some very ruthless ones fail, is empathy. This will result in not being able to sustain the great first impressions created, and dragging people with you in your “slip stream” of drive. In this world cross-cultural sensitivity is more important than ever. Living in Melbourne this is displayed on a daily basis, with the many cultures who have found a home in Australia, and kept their values. Without empathy, not only will we fail with our “internal customers” but we will also struggle to service our “external customers”. For me empathy is something that comes naturally, but for many people that have not lived in different environments, and/or have not encountered issues beyond their comprehension it is not natural, and this can often be seen as rude and provocative, although these individuals would not understand it, or even comprehend that this is what they are in fact doing. 

If you have ever come across a leader, that is very good at strategy, and running a tight ship, but will not listen to the voices of the customer (both internal and external), you will generally see the frustration that this creates around this person. And although they may have a tick against all of the above, if they fail with empathy, they are most likely doomed as a well-balanced manager, but could still have significant success in other areas. 

This brings me to the last point, the ability to adopt to change – or the change quotient (CQ). 

I briefly discussed the influence of self-regulation earlier which forms the foundation for the ability to change yourself, therefore enabling change around you. If you cannot change yourself, you would find it very difficult to change others around you, or even recognising that change is actually happening all around you. 

Not everyone is comfortable with change, let’s face it, we all get caught up in our every-day lives and routines, and it often takes a lot of strength to do something different. There was a song or ballad around in the 90’s, and one line was, do one thing different every day that scares you. This can be as small a thing as changing the way you get dressed, taking a different way to work, trying different food, wearing clothes that were traditionally seen as not matching. If you can get over this little hurdle on a regular basis, your eyes will widen. I have been practicing this for years now, and although I wouldn’t do it daily, I would relate it to my business world, and try unconventional things. 

One area that I have not discussed, and that sport has taught me is that you need to listen to your mind and body. The more you know about your well-being the more you can feel and take care of it, the more likely you are to translate this to the world and people around you. To many this may seem unrelated to business, but your physical state can affect your work, as it does involve how you feel and look which is directly related to confidence in most cases. Your drive and energy can be directly related to listening to your body, as if your energy levels drop, your mind will slow, and you will go through what most people refer to as “burn out”. Therefore I do believe that this is an important factor to be considered as well. 

In Conclusion 

We are only discussing a very small but integral part of successful leadership here, and I believe there is a lot more to it than just these items. These items do however form the foundation of a successful leader. Depending where this person is in their career, personal life, where in the world geographically, the type of organisation, etc. also play a heavy part in combining the above. You will find that some areas are more relevant in certain cultures than others, and are practiced and applied in different ways. 

A strong and successful leader will know how and when to apply his or her different levels of intelligence for the best outcome. I don’t believe there is one uniform way, or one glove fits all situations, as we are all different. This is the beauty about our world, as when we combine these differences, and listen to the other voices and are able to adopt, we become stronger by the day, resulting in better leadership at all levels. 

Best regards
Roland

5 Ways Process Is Killing Your Productivity

Yes, Process Improvement is what we promote, but within reason and the guidelines of a lean business.  Below is an article that shows how taking things out of context or trying to put your own spin on it, can actually be detrimental to a business.  We specialise in lean six sigma, and compare your business to world's best practice.  Based on the audit results, we tailor our programs to best suit your business, as there is no one glove fits all solution.  Take the first step to improving your business, it doesn't cost you anything, but the outcomes will be substantial in process improvement, culture, staff retention and your bottom line! Visit us at www.chaseperformance.com or call us on 1300 880 338.  You can email me direct at roland.weber@chaseperformance.com for more information.

Best regards and enjoy the re-produced article below

Roland Weber

Expert Perspective

5 Ways Process Is Killing Your Productivity

BY LISA BODELL | 05-15-2012 | 10:40 AM

This article is written by a member of our expert contributor community.

If your team spends its days asking for permission before executing, taking an hour to complete expense reports or time sheets, attending redundant meetings, or answering irrelevant emails, you’ve got a problem.

Processes are supposed to help organizations scale up, improve efficiency for new hires and existing employees, and so on--but they can quickly get out of control.

In a study of U.S. and European companies, The Boston Consulting Group found that “over the past fifteen years, the amount of procedures, vertical layers, interface structures, coordination bodies, and decision approvals needed...has increased by anywhere from 50 percent to 350 percent.” What’s more, in the most complicated organizations, “managers spend 40 percent of their time writing reports and 30 percent to 60 percent of it in coordination meetings.” No wonder people feel like they can never get any real work done.

Why do we love process so much? It offers a way to measure progress and productivity, which makes people feel more efficient and accountable. When used correctly, processes should standardize and simplify the necessary tasks that keep business running smoothly. They should enable organizations to undertake complex work, particularly as an organization grows. Expense reporting, for example, should have a process that every single employee follows every single time--that’s just common sense. Smart processes encapsulate bundles of organizational knowledge. And that’s a good thing.

But it’s not a good thing when there are so many processes in place that they restrain the people they’re supposed to help. If your team spends its days asking for permission before executing, taking an hour to complete expense reports or time sheets, attending redundant meetings, or answering irrelevant emails, you’ve got a problem. Exactly when are employees supposed to find the time to innovate when every task or topic is labeled “urgent” and every deadline is ASAP? Something will eventually give, and that something is going to be the part of the job they can keep pushing off until later.

Here are five ways process can kill production: 

1. Empowering with permission--but without action:It’s not empowering when people are given more responsibility, yet must still obtain an unreasonable number of approvals and sign-offs to get anything done. This signals a lack of trust.
2. Leaders focused on process instead of people: In an effort to standardize and sanitize everything we do, nothing at work is personal anymore. Leaders look to processes, not people, to solve problems--and it doesn’t work. Where’s the inspiration, the vision? This signals a lack of humanity.
3. Overdependence on meetings: “Collaborative” and “inclusive” are corporate buzzwords, but productive teamwork does not require meetings for every single action or decision. People become overwhelmed and ineffective when they are always stuck in meetings. This signals that politics have taken precedence over productivity.
4. Lack of (clear) vision: Great companies need a grand vision and important goals. Too often, companies have vision or mission statements laden with jargon but devoid of meaning. This signals a lack of purpose.
5. Management acts as judge, not jury: If the purpose of a meeting is to think, create, or build, management has to stop tearing people down when they propose new ideas or question the status quo. This signals a lack of perspective and openness.

Again, it comes down to priority. When we shift such a huge amount of an organization’s focus onto standardizing everything, other areas inevitably suffer. According to aBusinessWeek article called “Six Sigma: So Yesterday?,” the program ultimately did more harm than good when it was implemented at Home Depot: “Profitability soared, but worker morale dropped, and so did consumer sentiment. Home Depot fell from first to last among major retailers on the American Customer Satisfaction Index in 2005.”Over the years I’ve encountered organizations, large and small, that have essentially allowed process to becometheir culture. I’ve also seen businesses suffer when they assumed that if a process worked well for one division, it would work well for the company overall. Good processes can turn especially dangerous when they creep from manufacturing lines and finance departments into brainstorms and research labs. Some of the worst offenders have been companies that implemented overarching processes like Six Sigma, a rigidly data-driven quality-management program originally designed to tackle manufacturing problems. Fifty-three percent of the Fortune 500 have deployed it and of the Fortune 100, 82 percent have used it. Despite its manufacturing origins, Six Sigma has been used across many industries and sectors, and proponents claim it saved Fortune 500 corporations nearly a half-trillion dollars since its inception. If so many successful organizations are using it and saving money, what’s the problem, right?

Another oft-cited example of Six Sigma’s negative effects occurred at 3M. When former GE executive James McNerney took the helm in 2001, he instituted a rigorous Six Sigma program, which meant slashing costs, training thousands of employees to become program experts, and requiring extensive reporting on new products in the R&D pipeline. In the short term, especially in the eyes of investors, it seemed to work. Costs were brought under control, production speed increased, and operating margins rose from 17 percent to 23 percent by 2005. But researchers in the labs were stifled by the demands of the new metrics. 3M had a century-long history of innovation, but now R&D had been cut and inventors weren’t given adequate time to tinker with products before having to demonstrate successful commercialization. “We were letting, I think, the process get in the way of doing the actual invention," said Dr. Larry Wendling, staff vice president at 3M's Corporate Research Laboratory. 

After McNerney’s departure for Boeing in 2005--just four years after joining the company--3M began to reevaluate Six Sigma. In addition to the friction it caused among staff, its long-term growth potential appeared compromised and there were concerns that 3M had become “a less creative company...a vitally important issue for a company whose very identity is built on innovation.”

In recent years, 3M has significantly changed the way it uses Six Sigma. The company acknowledges that the program adds value in its factories, so it’s still utilized in manufacturing operations. Researchers working in the labs, however, are no longer beholden to the metrics and rubrics of Six Sigma. The shift has been successful--and there are metrics to prove it. One of the best measures of innovation efforts is the percentage of revenue that a company derives from products introduced in the last five years. At 3M, this number had traditionally hovered around 30 percent, but had dropped to 21 percent after Six Sigma’s introduction. In 2010, the number was back up to 30 percent and may soon surpass 35 percent.

I don’t mean to vilify Six Sigma unfairly. It’s just one example in a long list of top-down processes that people mistake as a silver bullet to improve their entire business. TQM, Lean Six Sigma, ISO, etc.--they all entrench organizations in policies and procedures, minimizing the organization’s innovation potential.

Today, managers are especially in a bind. They’re expected to efficiently produce outstanding short-term results, but the innovation they’re supposed to pursue could very likely hurt their careers. A 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers survey summarizes the quandary:

“Those in middle management... found innovation disruptive to their day-to-day activities and felt it got in the way of running an efficient operation--which is what they were paid to do.”

When people’s jobs depend on meeting metrics and maintaining the status quo, can you fault them for their reluctance to expend any energy toward creation and invention?

Reprinted by permission of Bilbiomotion. Excerpted from Kill the Company: End the Status Quo, Start an Innovation Revolution, copyright 2012 Lisa Bodell. All rights reserved.

[Image: Flickr user Deja Photo]

Here's an article from Forbes that makes some good reading.  Reflect on it and compare it to your own life and situation.  Where are you at?

By Jessica Hagy
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessicahagy/2012/02/28/the-six-enemies-of-greatness-and-happiness/

The Six Enemies of Greatness (and Happiness)

The Six Enemies of Greatness (and Happiness)These six factors can erode the grandest of plans and the noblest of intentions. They can turn visionaries into paper-pushers and wide-eyed dreamers into shivering, weeping balls of regret. Beware!

 1) Availability

We often settle for what’s available, and what’s available isn’t always great. “Because it was there,” is an okay reason to climb a mountain, but not a very good reason to take a job or a free sample at the supermarket.

 2) Ignorance

If we don’t know how to make something great, we simply won’t. If we don’t know that greatness is possible, we won’t bother attempting it. All too often, we literally do not know any better than good enough.

 3) Committees

Nothing destroys a good idea faster than a mandatory consensus. The lowest common denominator is never a high standard.

 4) Comfort

Why pursue greatness when you’ve already got 324 channels and a recliner? Pass the dip and forget about your grand designs.

5) Momentum

If you’ve been doing what you’re doing for years and it’s not-so-great, you are in a rut. Many people refer to these ruts as careers.

6) Passivity

There’s a difference between being agreeable and agreeing to everything. Trust the little internal voice that tells you, “this is a bad idea.”

Lean Six Sigma - Business Improvement - Business Excellence - Cultural Change - Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Sydney

www.chaseperformance.com

I hope you enjoyed this article as much as I did.  Best regards Roland Weber

Tim Woods - 7 + 1 Wastes (Taken from Toyota Way Fieldbook)

Here is some more information in regards to the seven plus one wastes often discussed around Lean Six Sigma.  To find out how we can help you eliminate these from your business through a cost neutral solution while creating the bottom line benefits for your organisation send me an email at roland.weber@chaseperformance.com or visit our web site www.chaseperformance.com.

With offices in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide & Brisbane we can assist you with a national program.  You will get access to all our experts, MBA's and back belts to maximise the benefits to your business.  We do not teach but coach.  We actively get involved on the floor, rather than just classroom style presentations.  Everyone participating in our programs will gain a nationally recognised qualification as an added bonus.

Transportation or conveyance. Moving work in process (WIP) from place to place in a process, even if it is only a short distance. Or having to move materials, parts, or finished goods into or out of storage or between processes.

Inventory. Excess raw material, WIP, or finished goods causing longer lead times, obsolescence, damaged goods, transportation and storage costs, and delay. Also, extra inventory hides problems such as production imbalances, late deliveries from suppliers, defects, equipment downtime,

and long setup times.

Movement. Any motion employees have to perform during

the course of their work other than adding value to the part, such as reaching for, looking for, or stacking parts, tools, etc. Also, walking is waste.

Waiting (time on hand). Workers merely serving as watch persons for  an automated machine, or having to stand around waiting for the next processing step, tool, supply, part, etc., or just plain having no work because of no stock, lot processing  delays, equipment downtime, and capacity bottlenecks.

Overproduction. Producing items earlier or in greater quantities than needed by the customer. Producing earlier or more than is needed generates other wastes, such as overstaffing, storage, and transportation costs because of excess inventory. Inventory can be physical inventory or a queue of information.

Overprocessing or incorrect processing. Taking unneeded steps to process the parts. Inefficiently processing due to poor tool and product design, causing unnecessary motion and producing defects. Waste is generated when providing higher quality products than is necessary. At times extra “work” is done to fill excess time rather than spend it waiting.

Defects. Production of defective parts or correction. Repairing of rework, scrap, replacement production, and inspection means wasteful handling, time, and effort.

Skill under utilised Losing time, ideas, skills, improvements,

and learning opportunities by not engaging or listening to your employees.