Creating Better Business Leaders
Founded in 1970 with financial support from the Smith Richardson Foundation Inc., the Center for Creative Leadership today is recognized as one of the largest institutions in the world focusing solely on the study of leadership. The nonprofit educational institution has campuses in five cities: Brussels, Singapore, Greensboro, N.C., Colorado Springs, Colo., and San Diego.
CCL annually serves leaders from more than 2,000 organizations across the public, private, nonprofit and education sectors world-wide. CCL's clients include such organizations as the Economic Development Board of Singapore, DaimlerChrysler AG and the U.S. Air Force.
The Wall Street Journal recently spoke about leadership education with John Alexander, CCL's president. Here are excerpts.
* * *
What differentiates a manager from a leader?
We see leadership and management as tasks or activities rather than traits of an individual.
We like to say there are three leadership tasks. The first is setting direction or creating a vision for the future, followed by creating alignment in the organization. The third thing is gaining commitment from a team, group or organization to support the alignment or movement in a certain direction. Those are the basic tasks of leadership.
Management tasks are more tactical and day to day but also important. They include activities like creating a budget, setting goals, creating metrics to achieve those goals, and fielding new technology into a workgroup.
Looking at the two categories as tasks rather than traits can free you up from the false distinction between the two. That said, I do think some individuals in organizations are better at one than the other. Some organizations come to us and say they have good managers but want them to be better leaders. Our philosophy is that more people in an organization should participate in the leadership process. It's not just for people at the top. It has to be shared across the organization. We have clients coming to us saying that they want more people actively participating in the leadership process.
CCL maintains that leaders in business and politics need hard, knowledge-based skills as well as emotional-based skills. Why is possession of both important? And can leaders or managers really be taught emotional skills?
We've done a lot of research on executive derailment, looking at executives whose careers plateau or who just don't reach the potential everyone saw in them. We've done this research in North America and replicated it in Europe; we are now doing so in Asia as well. The No. 1 factor for derailment is poor interpersonal skills―our inability to get along with other people.
Those are exactly the soft skills that we have taught for many years. It's all about emotional intelligence―the ability to communicate, get along with others, team build, and get in the direction you want to go as a group. So in a sense, these soft skills are really the hard ones. And yes, these skills can be taught. Some people are obviously better than others at interpersonal relations, but everyone can learn and improve in this department.
How do you teach emotional intelligence?
We offer 360-degree feedback and other psychological assessments on how individuals are viewed by others. We can all speculate about how good we are at interpersonal skills. What really matters, though, is our behavior on a daily basis, our day-to-day interactions with others. We help them in a very confidential, customized setting to learn about themselves, their values, and how their behaviors come across to other people. We help people receive this feedback in a way that allows them to learn from it. And then we help them set goals to improve.
Of course, it's tough to be assessed so personally, but it's also empowering. For instance, it's liberating to learn that you are seen as an excellent listener and you really hadn't ever known this before. At the same time, you may learn that you aren't very good at managing a meeting, so you could focus on improving those skills during your coursework. We set very practical goals that the participant can implement when he or she goes back to the workplace as well. We also appoint learning partners, such as an executive coach to help reinforce good behavior once back in the workplace.
What do your executive coaches do?
They're like adjunct faculty. They may have their own consulting practices or work as professors, but they work with CCL on a contractual basis. A coach works one-on-one with an individual in sessions lasting up to three hours. The two look for patterns and themes in the participant's behavior. The coach helps draw out those themes and the individual decides what he or she wants to accomplish during the coursework. The coach and participant can stay in touch by telephone or email after the course.
In Europe, our coaches speak the local language, so an individual can request a feedback session in his native tongue even though classes are taught almost exclusively in English. We are moving to this model in Asia now, too. In Asia we have 30 coaches in Singapore who are bilingual in English and Mandarin Chinese. And we are exploring the same in India. So the trend towards executive coaching is not an American trend, but rather a global trend.
You work a great deal with executives from public and private sectors alike. How do the skills and approaches of leaders differ from sector to sector?
They are more different in degrees rather than in absolute kind. In the U.S. nonprofit sector, for example, you have to be good at working with a very large and diverse board. That's different from the country's corporate sector, where you have a very small board and the CEO also serves as chairman or chairwoman. Both have boards, but the nonprofit executive has to be more tuned in to how to deal with his board, because it's larger and has more power and works more independently.
Another thing that's different between the various sectors is vocabulary. There are different words used to describe the same thing in the military, the nonprofit, the educational and the corporate world.
But more interesting than sector difference is all the other factors that can enter the equation. If you are a global corporation, for instance, the issues related to that global context could trump whether you are in aerospace versus financial services. It's sort of four-dimensional. The size of the organization, the location can matter a lot as well. There are various contexts to which you must be sensitive. In the government sector you run into the political arena, and there you need other skills once again.
Since we work with leaders in so many different sectors we can bring them together and have them learn from one another. We have access to leadership in military, nonprofit and other sectors and learn how similar some of their problems actually are. We have tried to address that for our clients through Leadership at the Peak, a course for senior executives from different organizations, sectors and countries that we offer in Colorado Springs as well as in Europe several times a year.
How different are the kinds of skills possessed―or needed―by American, Asian and European executives? Are there certain global similarities among all executives, regardless of their origin or professional upbringing?
We don't have the final answer on this. We have a big research project under way called Leading Across Differences. We are studying leadership in more than 20 countries around the world, looking at both similarities and differences.
We do believe there are important differences, but it's all about context. One thing: Showing respect for others seems to be a consistent theme of leaders who do well, regardless of country. But how this respect is defined can be very different from country to country. How it plays out behaviorally, the nuances from culture to culture, differs.
The complexity of this research is rather daunting. For one, it's a misnomer to refer to Asian or European executives, because those in South Korea versus Malaysia are very, very different. We're trying to steer away from the idea of an Asian approach to leadership versus a European one.
And we are finding that there are many nuances. If we want to say that respect is one thing shared by all leaders, we want to be able to say here's how it looks in this cultural setting versus that one. Because when we go somewhere, we're asked. "What does that mean for us in our country?" In the Middle East, for example, hierarchy is still very important. If you are an American executive posted there, you need to understand that to be a good leader you must operate through a hierarchy; if you're not aware of that you'll get into trouble very quickly. In the U.S., this style would be viewed as passé.
How do CCL's executive-education offerings differ from programs at other schools? What is your unique selling point?
We focus on leadership and leader development and we think that's our unique advantage. We don't teach the things that leading business schools teach, such as marketing and finance. We don't teach or consult in the area of strategy. We are in the leadership arena, and that is our strength.
Individual leadership development is our forte, but we also are working increasingly with groups, teams and even whole organizations. So our ability to scale over a group of hundreds of executives and sometimes over a period of several years is another unique selling point. We worked with the Canadian civil service on an executive-education program for more than 1,000 senior civil servants, for instance. They now offer the course in-house, after we worked with them for five years. That's an example of the success we've had over time.
CCL has a diverse list of clients. How does one center serve the needs of so many?
We see the diversity of our client base as one of our strengths. Our mission is to serve society, and we would not be serving society broadly if we were just working in the corporate sector.
It is a big task, though. It means that the way in which we work is complex. In order to serve such a broad client base, we have staff from a variety of different sectors and backgrounds. For instance, when we work with the U.S. military, some of our staff will be retired military officials. We can't do it perfectly, but most of our clients want to work with a staff member who understands their context. We spend a lot of time interviewing a potential client, learning their organization's vocabulary and building it into the coursework. We spend time up front understanding the context of what leaders in this organization are doing.
We have close to 100 full-time faculty members but we have a cadre of adjunct faculty too; some teach in the classroom but many act as executive coaches. We have about 350 to 400 adjuncts, and that gives us a lot of reach.
Where do you see the greatest opportunities in executive education in the next five years?
We are seeing rapid growth in Europe. We've had a presence there for more than 15 years but it's growing rapidly. We are taking a pan-European approach since leaders in Europe have to take that same approach. That said, the former Eastern Europe, particularly Poland, is booming.
Asia is, of course, huge. Since 2003 we have had an office in Singapore, which serves the entire Asia-Pacific region. And like everyone else, we are trying to figure out how to best work in India and China in the coming years. We are working in India right now with domestic companies there and are exploring opportunities in China. The language is a challenge, but we are bringing on board adjunct faculty and staff for this. We are also in the process of translating our feedback assessments and other course and coaching materials into about 10 different languages.
We see a growing demand for leadership research in coming years. We just put together our new budget and are increasing by 40% our investment in research and innovation this year; a lot of that will go to Europe and Asia. As of this year, we will have research based in Europe. We are also launching a new virtual research center in Singapore, which we are doing in conjunction with the Singapore government to fund research about leadership in various Asian countries.
How does your status as a nonprofit organization affect its approach to executive education programming?
We see it as an advantage because it allows us to take a long-term view. Daily or weekly numbers don't drive us. We can invest heavily in research, take a long-term view, and try not to get wrapped up in educational fads of the moment. We try to do the research and find out what the long-term trends are.
CCL's mission is to advance the understanding, practice and development of leadership for the benefit of society world-wide. That's a tall order. How does an educational program aimed at executives and politicians benefit society at large?
It's a very lofty, broad mission but it's inspiring. We think that by helping leaders to become better at what they do, we can improve the quality of leadership in different organizations and even in a sector such that they are operating at a higher level of importance and thus working to solve the complex challenges of broader society.
Look in the corporate sector at the growing emphasis on corporate social responsibility. I don't think any one organization is exempt from making a better world. We honestly think that if we help people to improve within their context, they will improve the practice of leadership and thereby help the world. That can be at the top level, but it can also be lower down within an organization. After all, when the baby boomers age out of the work force, younger people will move up through the ranks.
培养卓越的商界领袖
1970年在Smith Richardson Foundation Inc.的资助下成立的Center for Creative Leadership目前被认为是世界上最大的单纯面向领导力教学的机构之一。这家非营利的教育组织在五个城市设有分校：布鲁塞尔、新加坡、北卡罗来纳州的格林斯博罗、科罗拉多州的科罗拉多斯普林斯，以及圣地牙哥。
CCL每年为来自全球2,000多家公立、私有、非营利和教育部门的领导人提供培训。CCL的客户包括新加坡经济发展局(Economic Development Board of Singapore)、戴姆勒-克莱斯勒(DaimlerChrysler AG)和美国空军。
《华尔街日报》(The Wall Street Journal)最近就领导力教育问题采访了CCL的总裁约翰?亚历山大(John Alexander)。以下为摘选内容。
经理人与领导人的区别在哪里？
我们认为领导和管理是任务或活动，而不是个人的性格。
我们一般认为，领导的任务有三项。首先是为未来制定方向或是树立目标。其次是建立组织内部的合作关系。第三件事情是获得团队、团体或组织支持这种合作或向某一方向发展的承诺。这些都是领导的基本任务。
管理任务则更多地倾向于具体的日常工作，但重要性也同样不可低估。他们包括建立预算、制定目标、确立实现这些目标的考核标准，以及督导在工作中采用新技术等等。
将这两个范畴视为任务，而非个性可以把你从对领导和管理的错误区分中解放出来。也就是说，我的确认为组织中的一些人在某一领域比其它领域更加出色。一些组织向我们表示，它们有优秀的经理人，希望他们能成为更好的领导人。我们的理念是，组织中应有更多的人参加到领导过程中。这不仅仅是管理层人员的事情，而应该在整个组织内分担。我们有的客户就表示，它们希望能有更多的人积极参与到领导过程中。
CCL认为，商界或政治领导人既需要过硬的智商，也需要良好的情商。为什么拥有这两方面的技能都很重要？领导人或经理人真的需要学习情商方面的技能吗？
我们针对管理人员的失误行为进行了大量研究，分析职业生涯止步不前或本身没能发挥出其公认潜力的管理人员。我们已经在北美进行了此项研究，在欧洲也如法炮制；现在我们正在亚洲进行此项研究。导致失误的第一要素是与他人沟通的人际关系技能方面的不足。
这些正是我们已培训了多年的软技能，都是关于沟通、与人相处、团队建设、确立组织方向等情商方面的能力。因此在某种意义上，这些软技能都是实实在在的能力。而且，它们也的确可以通过学习而掌握。有些人在人际关系方面明显要好于其他人，但所有人都能学会和提高这方面的能力。
你们如何讲授情商课？
我们对某个人在其他人心目中的形象提供了全方位的反馈和其他心理评估。我们每个人都可以猜测我们在人际关系方面的表现如何。不过，真正重要的是我们每天同其他人沟通的行为。我们通过秘密的、定制方式帮助他们了解他们自己、他们的价值和他们的行为给别人留下的印象。我们帮助人们获得这种反馈，使他们能从中有所收获。然后我们帮助他们制定改进的目标。
当然，要做到这么具体的评估难度很大，但仍是可以做到的。比如，当知道你被视为良好的倾听者，而你以前并不知道这点时，你会如释重负。与此同时，你也可能了解到你不是很擅长管理会议，因此你可以在上课期间重点提高这方面的技能。我们制定了切实可行的目标，参加者再回到工作岗位后也能够运用。我们还指定了学习伙伴，如行政指导帮助在回到工作岗位时巩固良好的行为。
你的行政指导做些什么？
他们的作用就像客座教师一样。他们可能有自己的咨询业务或担任教授，但他们也要为CCL履行工作合同。在3小时的上课期间，行政指导会一对一地进行交流。两个人按参与者的行为寻找模式和主题。行政指导帮助起草主题，学员个人决定希望在课程期间实现那些目标。课程结束后，行政指导和参加者可以通过电话或电子邮件保持接触。
在欧洲，我们的行政指导都说当地语言，因此学员可以要求用他们的母语讲述反馈内容，尽管所有课程基本都是用英语讲授的。我们也在将这种模式推广到亚洲。在亚洲，我们在新加坡拥有30名通晓英汉双语种的教师。我们正考虑在印度做到这些。因此，行政指导的发展方向并不是美国趋势，而是全球化趋势。
你同公共和私人领域的管理人员打过很多交道。不同领域领导人的技能和做法有何不同呢？
他们主要是程度，而不是性质上的不同。比如，在美国的非营利领域，你必须擅长处理同形形色色的董事会的关系。这与美国的企业就有很大不同，企业的董事会很小，CEO可以同时担任董事长。两类组织都有董事会，但非营利机构的管理人员将更多的精力用在处理同其董事会的关系上，因为董事会更大、权力更高、工作也更加独立。
不同行业间的另一点不同之处是词汇。在军事领域、非营利机构、教育领域和企业中描述同一件事情使用的词汇不同。
但比行业差异更有趣的是其他影响因素。比如，如果是一家跨国企业，那么无论是在航空业还是在金融服务行业，同全球业务有关的问题就显得更加重要。这相当于一种附加条件。组织的规模、地点的选定也可能非常重要。你必须对不同的内容高度敏感。在政府领域，你是在政治舞台上表演，就还会需要其它技能。
因为我们同众多不同行业的领导人相处过，我们能够让他们聚到一起，彼此学习。我们能够接触到军事、非营利机构和其他领域的领导人，研究他们的问题有哪些相似之处。我们一直试图通过每年在科罗拉多斯普林斯和欧洲举办多次的Leadership at the Peak课程为来自不同组织、行业和国家的高级管理人员解决问题。
美国、亚洲和欧洲的管理人员拥有或需要掌握的技能有什么不同？尽管所在地和职业教育背景不同，所有管理人员是否存在一些全球化的共性呢？
我们对此还没有最终答案。我们有一个叫做Leading Across Differences的大型研究项目。我们正在研究全球20多个国家的领导人，寻找共性和差异。
我们认为存在重要的差异，但都是同所在环境有关的。比如：无论在哪个国家，尊重他人都是好领导人的永恒主题。但如何界定这种尊重在不同国家存在很大不同。不同文化的细微差异导致具体的行为方式也各不相同。
这项研究的复杂程度令人吃惊。比如，亚洲或欧洲管理人员这个说法本身就存在问题，因为韩国和马来西亚的管理人员之间就存在非常大的差异。我们正在试图放弃亚洲人的领导风格和欧洲人的领导风格这种想法。
我们也发现存在许多细微差别。如果我们说，尊重是所有领导人共有的特点，我们也可以说，这应存在于某种文化背景下。因为当我们到某个地方时，我们会问道，“这在我们国家意味著什么？”比如，在中东，等级观念非常重要。如果你是在那里工作的美国管理人员，你需要了解要成为好的领导者，你必须按照等级观念行事；如果你没有认识到这点，很快就会遇到麻烦。而在美国，这种风格已经不合时宜了。
CCL的管理培训和其他学校的课程有哪些不同呢？你的独特卖点是什么？
我们专注于领导力和领导人的培养，我想这是我们的独特优势。我们的课程中并不包括营销、金融等顶尖商业学校的授课内容。有关战略方面的内容我们也不涉及。领导力是我们的特色，这是我们的长处。
我们的专长是个人领导能力的培养，不过我们和团队、甚至是组织的合作越来越多了。我们能够提供针对上百名管理人士、有时持续几年时间的课程，这也是我们的独特卖点。举例来说，我们和加拿大行政部门合作，为1千多名政府高层官员开设了一个管理培训项目。在合作5年之后，现在这个项目已经成为了政府的内部课程。这就是我们通过数年的辛勤努力取得成功的例子。
CCL的客户多种多样。一个CCL如何能满足这么多样的需求？
我们认为客户多样性是我们的一个优势。我们的使命是服务社会，而如果只为企业界工作，那么就不能广泛地服务于社会。
不过这个任务十分艰巨。这意味著我们的工作方式比较复杂。为了更好地服务于这样一个广泛的客户群，我们的教员来自各行各业，背景也各不相同。比如，当客户是美国军人时，我们的一部分教师就会是退伍军官。我们的工作也许还有不足之处，但大多数客户希望教师了解他们的工作背景。我们花很多时间和潜在客户面谈，了解他们的行业语言，并写入课程。我们会事先花时间了解领导者在这个组织的工作情况。
我们有全职教员近100名，也有一些客座教师；有些教师在课堂上课，但也有许多充当行政指导的角色。我们的客座教师大约有350至400人，这极大地拓宽了我们的服务领域。
你认为未来五年管理培训在哪里的发展前景最好？
我们在欧洲的发展十分迅速。我们在欧洲的发展已经超过了15个年头，但增长速度依然很快。由于欧洲领导者需要有面向全欧洲的视角，我们也采取了同样的角度。前东欧国家──尤其是波兰的发展十分迅速。
亚洲当然也是个巨大的市场。2003年我们在新加坡成立了为整个亚太地区服务的办事处。和其他机构一样，我们也在研究如何在未来几年更好地在印度和中国发展。我们正在和印度国内公司合作拓展印度业务，也在中国寻找发展机会。语言是个挑战，不过我们会为此请来客座教师和员工帮忙。我们还在著手将反馈材料以及其他培训资料翻译成10种不同语言。
我们预计未来几年对领导力研究的需求将越来越大。我们刚刚编制出新的预算，今年将在研究和创新方面增加40%的投资；其中一大部分投入欧洲和亚洲。今年我们的研究将在欧洲展开。我们还将在新加坡设立新的研究中心，与新加坡政府一起为亚洲国家的领导力研究提供资金。
CCL非营利组织的地位对管理培训项目有怎样的影响？
这是个优势，因为我们可以从长远考虑问题。一天或一周的数字不会影响我们。我们可以加大研究投入、作长期打算、努力摆脱时下教育潮流的影响。我们希望通过研究发现长期的趋势。
CCL的使命是为了全社会的利益，增进人们对领导力的理解、提高其实践和发展水平。这个要求很高。一个针对企业管理者和政府官员的教育项目如何能够造福全社会？
这个使命确实非常崇高而且宽泛，但也富于启迪意义。我想通过塑造更出色的领导者，我们可以提高一个组织的领导水平，如果这些领导者的位置非常重要，我们甚至可以提高一个行业的管理水平，因此我们是在为解决全社会面临的艰巨挑战努力。
企业界越来越强调企业的社会责任。我认为在创造一个更美好世界这个方面，所有的组织机构都责无旁贷。如果我们帮助人们提高了业务水平，他们就将成为更好的领导者，这也有益于世界的发展。能力提高的可以是高层人员，也可能只是组织中的普通一员。不过当婴儿潮一代退出劳动大军，年轻一代总有一天将担当重任。
