John Renesch, noted futurist and writer on social and organizational change, wrote a foreword to  Liberty’s book.  Renesch  quotes part of  it  in the May issue of  his newsletter,  FutureShapers Monthly.  ( The entire essay,   entitled Women at Work: Employing the Powerful Feminine is well worth a read;  its primary theme doesn’t concern us directly here but is a fascinating one. )

“Organizations, particularly business organizations,”  wrote Renesch, ” have unparalleled influence on our society today.  The business sector, and the economic system which fuels it, is the de facto leader of the industrialized world. This dramatic shift in global power away from traditional institutions like government has important implications. Never in human history has there been such a universal need for organizational leadership that acts responsibly for the good of all people. The hierarchical, top-down rule that dominated the Cold War era and the benevolent dictator models of some of today’s republics are equally unacceptable. A new, more mature leadership is needed — no, absolutely necessary — to assure that our children and grandchildren live in a time of greater civility, less apprehension about the survivability of the human race and greater compassion for all people on Earth.”

On somewhat similar lines,  management consultant Myra White,  in a recent article entitled  Seeking Competent Leaders,  poses a question that must  be  on the minds of many following  last year’s financial  debacle.  How did it happen that “may of the business leaders in whom we placed our faith, our trust and even our money” turned out to be ” incompetent or (in some cases) out-and-out charlatans”?

Part of the explanation,  asserts  White,  lies “with the fact that we often are more concerned with social skills, likeability and charisma in choosing our leaders than we are with their ability to be effective leaders.”

White identifies several leadership types prevalent in the business world today, all of which fall short of the ideal: the servant leader  who serves the people he or she serves rather than controlling them;  the emotionally intelligent leader  who has social charm , empathy,  self-awareness and self-control;   the transformational leader who provides people with a vision of a better world and motivates them to transcend their self-interest; and finally the charismatic leader – who emotionally energizes followers with an inspiring vision of the future and convinces them that he or she is the heroic figure who can make this vision real.

But even though many of these characteristics may be cause for admiration,  they do not necessarily mean that the leader we have chosen will deliver results.  “Research has not found that leaders who are socially adept or liked or admired are more effective.”

White acknowledges that likeability and charisma are desirable qualities.  They have value in energizing and  motivating followers to achieve a leader’s goals. But in a complex world where countries and businesses  are globally intertwined, can charisma be enough?

As White aptly puts it:  “Sport teams  pick people based on their competence and ability, not their social skills and charisma . Why shouldn’t  businesses and organizations follow suit?”

To consultant Dianna Booher, this is a scenario that’s all too familiar, as she points out in her Communication Tip of the Month e-newsletter:  ” People always assume the confusion happens on the other end of the communication–that what they themselves say is perfectly clear and that the other person just missed it somehow.”

Very nice – at least for your ego.  But in business communication, you may be asking for trouble if you assume too much.  Wise communicators never take their skills for granted.

Want a good gauge of your own clarity, or lack of it?  Beware the blank stare!

Need additional signs that your message just might not be getting through? Booher offers the following:

Lack of questions. (You call for questions at the end of a presentation, and there are none. Or, you bring up an idea in a meeting and you’re greeted with only polite smiles.)

Unexpected responses. (People respond irrationally to what you say, such as with anger, withdrawal, silence, or denial.)

Lack of coordination. Things “fall between the cracks” in coordinating projects.)

Low morale. (People feel discouraged that they can never “get it right” when, in fact, projects are frequently delegated without essential elements for successful completion.)

Rework. (Projects have to be redone because the instructions weren’t clear the first time. Or, extra work was completed “just in case” to “cover all the bases” because somebody wasn’t sure what was needed.)

Bottom line remains as always: fuzzy words lead – at very best – to fuzzy action. Only with clear words canyou expect clear action.

A woman tried to buy a Coke from a vending machine, but it malfunctioned and swallowed some of her money. By a happy coincidence, the worker from Coca-Cola who refills the machines showed up at that moment. Hearing her story, he apologized, returned her money and offered her a Coke for free. Praiseworthy in itself, but there’s more.

The woman insisted on paying for her drink,  but took the opportunity to express her shock at how much one had to pay for a bottle of Coke nowadays. The worker commiserated with her about how high prices were, but explained in the nicest way just how much the higher price of oil affected the cost of his product, from the oil used to make the plastic bottle to transportation costs. He mentioned specific percentages and dollar figures. He quoted how low Coke’s profit margin actually was on that bottle she’d just purchased.

A good ending, but how did he know so much?

So how did that potentially negative encounter with the Coca-Cola brand end?  The customer didn’t walk away believing that tomorrow she would be paying less for Coke than she did today, but she certainly left with a far more positive feeling both for the brand and for the way her concerns had been addressed. And that, after all, is what good customer service is all about!

But  how did the vendor maintenance man,  who presumably  ranked pretty low in the corporate pecking order, happen to be so knowledgeable on the intricacies of product costing?  One must assume, points out Ms. Sinickas, that he was appropriately briefed , whether on a formal or informal basis, by someone inthe company who served as an internal communicator. And the successful imparting of that knowledge requires a careful definition of goals followed by meticulous planning and preparation.

In Sinickas’ words:  “Especially in difficult financial times, the more we communicators can do to help our employees learn what they need to know in order to interact more positively with customers, the more we demonstrate our own value to the bottom line. Let’s be sure we actually measure that ultimate behavioral impact we have, not just whether our employees heard our messages.”

In other words, instead of “teachers” substitute “managers”, and replace “education” with “work performance” or “ability to do my job.”

Instead of, through their leadership, inspiring and molding the people under them to maximize their productivity and to actualize their full potential value to their organization – which is presumably what managers are paid to do – many modern managers seem to be doing just the opposite.

New research by British consultancy Hay, for example, as reported on management-issues.com, reveals that two thirds of British managers actually create negative working climates that leave employees resentful and frustrated. In a damning indictment of British managers, Hay concludes that fully 20% of British workers are frustrated in their jobs. Why? Because rigid bureaucracy and poor management structures hamper innovation and creativity.

In a penetrating piece on our site, training consultant Dan Bobinski cites Dr William Glasser of Choice Theory fame: “Bosses put a damper on creativity. They know how the job should be done and there’s only one way: Their way.”

Glasser distinguishes between two types of managers: bosses (the managers of the above quotation, those who “boss” people around), and lead-managers, those who truly engage their employees. “Bossed” workers make no effort to nurture their creative talents because they know no one will listen to them anyway. Lead-managers, on the other hand, will go out of their way to look for creativity in their workers, because they know it brings the worker satisfaction to contribute to the workplace.

Interestingly, Bobinski points out that many of the highest-level managers he works with believe they fell into the lead-manager category; open to input and ideas, and making themselves available to anyone who wanted to talk. Then when he speaks to the second tier of mangers in the same organization, they also see themselves as falling into the same category.

But – and this is the crunch – when asked about the level above them, almost all of the second-tier managers saw their leaders as falling into the “boss” category. And amazingly enough, if there are several levels of management, exactly the same pattern repeats itself at every level!

Clearly, the issue here is one that, thankfully, is now beginning to receive the rather belated recognition it deserves. Technical expertise is just not enough. Communication and general interpersonal skills – the so-called “soft skills” – are also a vital ingredient in the complex mix that could turn you into good leadership material.

In the Hay study, half of the workers believed that they did not have the authority to make decisions crucial to their jobs, with the same proportion complaining of being discouraged from participating in decisions that directly affected their work.

The researchers argued that managers were failing to design jobs in such a way as to capitalize on the talents of their workers. More than a third of the respondents believed their job did not make best use of their skills and abilities.

Ben Hubbard, regional director at Hay’s employee survey division summed it all up: The frustrated employee phenomenon poses a major business risk.

And a significant missed opportunity.