Opportunity is the third phase of the Leadership Development Process.
While Schooling and Apprenticeship are critical building blocks in the Leader’s Foundation, he will never become the Virtuous Leader he was born to be unless he has the Opportunity to actually Lead.
The more Opportunities a Leader has, the better at it he will be, and the more the Groups of which he is a Member will benefit from the Leadership he provides.
Although they are similar, the primary difference between Opportunity and the do-phase of Apprenticeship is responsibility for Outcome. In emerging from Apprenticeship to Opportunity a man takes on full responsibility for the success or failure of his efforts. He can no longer look to his master. He must now pass all of the praise and fully shoulder the entirety of the blame.
Most Organizations Do Not Properly Assess Leadership Experience
The success with which a man performs in his Opportunities should give a Leader’s Groups insight into whether he can be depended upon for increasingly important Leadership positions. We say “should” because this is an assessment that many Communities and most Organizations are unwilling or incapable of making properly. Despite the importance of Leadership to Community health and Organizational Effectiveness, the search for Leaders is often conducted without the customary due diligence performed for virtually any other position.
The one question an applicant can count on being asked in any employment interview is “do you have any experience with this kind of thing?” No matter what the actual job is, the interviewer is surely going to inquire into the degree to which the applicant has previously performed the same function elsewhere. All other things being equal, past performance is the best indicator of future outcome. Experience always matters.
Except, that is, when the search is for Leaders. In that case, Organizations and Communities constantly disregard inexperience, often to their detriment.
It should be the opposite. Any Group that truly understands and values Leadership would insist that its Leaders have multiple Opportunities to Lead and would be very deliberate about providing and assessing them. The process would be similar to the development of a pilot’s skills. A man first learns to fly a single-engine, two-seat and propellor-driven aircraft. From there (if successful), he moves progressively upward to bigger aircraft, dual-props, instrument conditions, jet engines and ultimately finds himself behind the yoke of a commercial aircraft with hundreds of passengers.
What passenger would place his life in the hands of a pilot who had skipped over some or all of those progressive steps in his development? No sane person would take that kind of risk with a pilot.
But Communities and Organizations take it all the time with Leaders. The forty-fourth President of the United States was elected despite having virtually no Leadership experience of any kind. There could hardly be a bigger more difficult Organization to lead than the executive branch of the United States of America, and yet that Organization put itself in the hands of a pilot who had never flown before.
There Are Three Reasons For Organizational Failure IN Leadership Assessment
1. Demand Exceeds Supply. The demand for Leaders so exceeds the available supply that Groups are forced to abandon experience as a screening criteria. When it comes to Leadership, Organizations are beggars who cannot really afford to be choosers.
2. Leadership Experience Is Too Rare To Matter. Since most people don’t have any Leadership experience there is no real point in asking about it. In other words, where all applicants are equally inexperienced, experience devolves into an irrelevant comparative criteria.
3. Ignorance Abounds.
Most Organizations don’t know how to look for Leadership experience because they don’t really know what a Leader is and does. In contrast, if an airline is looking for a pilot, it can ask an applicant how many hours he has in the cockpit of a particular aircraft. If a church is seeking a pastor, it can ask an applicant how many sermons he has given. But when an Organization needs a Leader, it doesn’t ask such specific questions to determine an applicant’s experience because the people asking the questions don’t know what to ask.
As a result, airlines and churches, being Organizations that need Leaders just as much as they need pilots and pastors, just end up relying on those same pilots and pastors for Leadership as well, with predictably mixed results.
The truth is that most Organizations and Communities routinely put themselves in the hands of Governance that has little or no Leadership experience. Moreover, most Organizations and Communities also suffer from a deficit of Leaders in their ranks. Consequently, most Organizations are Leaders-less, while some Organizations (the lucky few) have some Leaders.
Growing Leaders Is More Important Than Having Leaders
But simply having Leaders is not the key to Effectiveness. To be truly Effective, an Organization must be an Organization OF Leaders, because only an Organization Of Leaders will be efficient at growing new Leaders. Organizations Of Leaders don’t need to search externally for Leadership because it is part of their internal structure. Leaders are to an Organization Of Leaders as steel beams are to a skyscraper—they are what holds the thing up and together.
Leadership Opportunities are easy to find within an Organization Of Leaders. The culture of such an Organization makes experience an indispensable criteria for Governance. The most obvious example is the military.
My service was in the Army, but I saw enough of the other services to believe it equally true across the board. In the military, the Governance is appointed by a selection process that is largely dependent upon demonstrated Leadership performance in a man’s prior Opportunities.
In the Army, a non-commissioned officer (an NCO) starts as a fire-team leader of 5 men, moves on to be squad leader of 11 men, then to platoon sergeant of 40 men, then to first sergeant of 160 men and finally to battalion sergeant major of 500 men.
In between each of those Leadership positions an NCO will likely have staff jobs that are more administrative in nature, but even there his Leadership Skills and Character are evaluated. An NCO’s career is spent in one successive Leadership Opportunity after another, during which his capability of increasing responsibility are evaluated, honed and developed. Based on the results of that development he is selected for increased responsibility. He is systematically given bigger planes to pilot.
The Leadership Opportunities for commissioned officers proceeds along a parallel course. In my nine years in the Army, two were spent in Schooling of some kind and the remaining seven were spread across six very different job-Opportunities. My performance in each of those Opportunities was evaluated annually in writing by both my boss and his boss.
Among the things that the Army required my bosses to evaluate were these eight specific character traits that are inherent to Leadership:
6. Moral Courage
8. Moral Standards
For each of my six Opportunities I received a written evaluation report (called an OER) that addressed these Leadership characteristics. I still have all of my OERs in a loose-leaf notebook with the title The Good, The Bad and The Ugly written on the spine. I wrote that there 28 years ago because what I was reading in my OERs about myself was sometimes good, sometimes bad and often ugly, just like my performance as a Leader was. Just as it is now.
Rereading my OERs as we write this QPoint I can see how the younger version of me was having his Leadership Foundation constructed by the Organization in which I was a Member and Leader. It also reminds me of the pain involved in doing so. There were times when I questioned whether I had any of the eight characteristics in sufficient quantity to have been entrusted with the invaluable lives of young soldiers and the (merely) very valuable equipment that our nation purchased for our use in its defense.
At 22 years old I was a battalion Scout Platoon Leader with 24 men and $2MM worth of gear. At 53, I am now older than every man in that battalion was at the time and wonder if I had any business with that much responsibility at that age. On the other hand, I was not trying to do it alone. I was part of an Organization Of Leaders that was watching over me and my development. And that Organization was nothing if not Effective.
After my first Leadership position as a platoon leader, I had five more Opportunities, each with progressively more responsibility and complexity. Each job was very different but the evaluative criteria the Organization applied to my performance never changed. The same OER form was used by my boss and my boss’ boss regardless of the nature of the job I was doing.
Interestingly, the OER form does not provide a place to assess any of the actual skills associated with being a soldier. Thus, there is no block to grade how accurately I could shoot my rifle, how far I could throw a grenade or how far and fast I could march with a rucksack on my back. How could that be?
The reason is that the Army assumes its Leaders will be Competent in soldiering skills, while it promotes its Leaders on the basis of their character. Almost every other Organization does the opposite. Promotion to Governance within most Organizations is based upon demonstrated Competence within the skill set inherent to the Organization’s Articulated Purpose. So, the president of the Cordwainer Guild will likely be the guy who has been making the best shoes. There is some logic in that, but it does not fully follow that a man who is good at making shoes will be good at Leading an Organization of shoemakers. Making shoes and Leading shoemakers are two different skill sets, like playing basketball and coaching it.
The best players do not always make the best coaches.