Bruce Dold and Governor Blagojevich: Read this Book.
Jim Collins has done it again.
Not Jim Collins of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, the other Jim Collins. The former Stanford Business School professor and two-time NY Times Best-Selling author.
Collins first wrote Built to Last, a study of the greatest companies of American history and what made them great. His follow-up, Good to Great, identified mediocre companies that became great companies, outperforming not only the stock market but their own sector of the economy, and examines what caused the turn-around.
His latest book applies the principles of Good to Great to the public sector, including government and non-profits. Good to Great and the Social Sectors is subtitled "Why Business Thinking Is Not the Answer" and seems to point its lead directly at the Chicago Tribune editorial board and the Republican Party (Ron Gidwitz and Jim Oberweis take note):We must reject the idea - well-intentioned, but dead wrong - that the primary path to greatness in the social sectors is to become "more like a business." Most businesses - like most of anything else in life - fall between mediocre and good. Few are great. When you compare great companies with good ones, many widely practiced business norms turn out to correlate with mediocrity, not greatness. So then, why would we want to import the practices of mediocrity into the social sectors?
Collins then goes on to argue that the principles he explores in Good to Great -- disciplined people engaged in discipline thought who take disciplined action to build institutions greater than themselves -- are not mere principles of business, they are principles of greatness across all sectors of life.
What kind of a leader does it take to turn a mediocre institution into a great one? According to Collins, his "Level 5 Leaders":
- Embody a paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will;
- Set up their successors for even greater success;
- Display a compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated. In contrast, two thirds of the comparison companies had leaders with gargantuan personal egos that contributed to the demise or continued mediocrity of the company;
- Look out the window to attribute success to factors other than themselves. When things go poorly, however, they look in the mirror and blame themselves, taking full responsibility;
-Began the transformation by first getting the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it;
-Were rigorous, not ruthless, in people decisions. They did not rely on layoffs and restructuring as a primary strategy for improving performance.
and, lest you think Collins means great leadership is all hugs and kisses:Level 5 leadership is not about being "soft" or "nice" or purely "inclusive" or "concensus-building." The whole point of Level 5 is to make sure the right decisions happen - no matter how difficult or painful - for the longterm greatness of the institution and the achievement of it's mission, independent of consensus or popularity.
There's much, much more wisdom in the 210 pages of Good to Great, and the 30 pages of Social Sectors, which retail for about $35 combined. A good investment.
So, let me ask the question, who are the Level 5 leaders in Illinois goverment today?
11 comments:
Knowing you and your propaganda YDD you probably think Blago is.WWrrrong I don't think he would make the top 50.
We have NO leaders that are great in Illinois currently.
There may be some with some potential. There are some good ideas. There are some very few but some who are true to their principles.
YDD,
This is a fascinating post, but the writer seems to miss the issue no one wants to speak about.
The political culture (a mix of parties, entrenched insiders, powerful outsiders, etc.) simply acts to destroy the type of leadership qualities you are speaking of.
"Disciplined people engaged in discipline thought who take disciplined action to build institutions greater than themselves?"
Those are exactly they type of people the system immediately identifies, and makes sure never get the clout to improve the system.
If you haven't read it, check out the first book in Asimov's "Foundation" series. It's science fiction, but by the end of the book you'll see how prescient the "sociology" is.
____
"Run Like a business?"
I tend to agree with your view that we should be wary of "running a "social structure" like a business, but for different reasons.
OTOH, the reason that some people gravitate toward that view is that they perceive that business is "accountable" at one level or another to their customers.
I'll grant that government has some level of accountability (yet elections rarely count any more). I'll also grant that many business have precious little accountability as corporate pigs bankrupt their companies and walk away with piles of cash.
The fact remains that there is still a bit of a benefit to "business thinking," in that people in social institutions could benefit by asking "Who are our 'customers' and what would best serve them?"
___
In closing...
"the wrong people off the bus?"
Illinois' "social institutions" are an entrenched set of systems that virtually guarantee that the "wrong people" will succeed in making sure the that the "right people" will never get a shot.
Great post nonetheless though.
It's gotta be great having session over and having all this free time YDD, life is good huh?
Thanks for the recommendation, YDD. Seriously, it actually looks like a very interesting read. One comment on the Level 5 leader idea, and perhaps this is addressed in the book: the problem is that in our political system, such leadership is often attacked as “hubris,” “arrogance,” and/or “ignorance.”
How does a level 5 leader get rid of the dead weight union member? This question will have to answered before any quality leaders change the government. Take a trip to the local driver license office and watch inefficiency in action.
even level 5 leaders will find it difficult to "get the wrong people off the bus."
Ten bucks said YDD didn't even read this book.
Fritchey is good
Quinn has some good ideas
Lauzen is true to his principles
Raushenberger had some good ideas
most others suck
Anon 7:41: If I thought Blagojevich was a Level 5 Leader, do you think I'd be suggesting he read the book?
extreme wisdom - We can blame the system all we want, but in the end it is voters who choose show horses over plow horses. And businesses are not accountable to customers, they are accountable to shareholders, and I'd say that's pretty much how government works too, except it's the aggregate shareholders, a.k.a. "special interests", that tend to get heard the most.
Anon 11:10 -- Collins actually gives some great examples of how great leaders got the right people on the bus within the constraints of a tenure system, both at the collegiate and K-12 level. He also talks about how great leadership changed the culture of the NYPD, also a union shop. Keep in mind that the most important policy and leadership positions are not union positions anyway, and while it is the frontline employees we like to blame because they are the ones we see, it is management that often sets the example and defines the office culture.
And I don't know where you get your driver's license, but I can tell you it's 100 times better than when George Ryan was in charge. I just went in to get my sticker and there was no line, in and out in five minutes.
Anon 1:38 - I want my $10.
GOP - I think you need to read the book. Level 5 leaders are humble, not arrogant, but with incredible determination. If anything, I think they're most often described as wonkish in our culture. Collins points to Abraham Lincoln as one of the few, perhaps only, Level 5 Presidents in history.
YDD, thanks, I plan to. But I think you're missing my point. I understand that is what they ARE, and I certainly wish there were more examples of them in every level of government. I'm just saying those are some of the things that their detractors are likely to say about them. It doesn’t mean that it’s true, but that has hardly ever stopped people before in politics, has it? Remember, Lincoln was called a tyrant by his critics, despite what we have come to understand of him.
Do you think that would be different today? You really think that a leader who “makes sure the right decisions happen…..independent of consensus or popularity” isn’t going to be derided as arrogant? You think their disregard for public opinion in favor of what they understand to be right won’t be attacked as hubris? That’s all I was trying to say.
Level 5 leadership is an concept that appeals to the idealist in me as well, YDD. I just couldn’t hold the realist in me back from bursting the bubble.
Post a Comment