Judging by job ads, a great number of organizations are looking for leaders. Not a big surprise, but it’s still something that’s important to look into. We have a financial situation that has led to massive layoffs, and the organizations are still looking for the same people as they were before the crisis struck.

Who are they looking for? Energetic people with a knack at finding solutions, that can be part of a team, as well as having a strong independent drive and work ethic, someone who thrives in a working environment where no two days are alike, where change is taken head on and embraced. Last, but not least, they are proactive. In my ears, this sounds like a search for a leader (and by leader I mean someone who can bring leadership to an organization, though not necessarily through his or her position).

What lens are you looking through?

Now, healthy leadership is important in any organization, but I also wonder if leaders are what organizations actually want. I ask this question because I had the pleasure of reading Tribes by Seth Godin recently, and his portrayal of leadership struck a chord.

Leaders are people that ask questions, look for new ways to reach goals and absolutely have the ability and drive to think for themselves. The question the status quo, and are willing to make changes to the current situation. That’s why I’m wondering whether some of the ad descriptions seen in the job ads today are partly a result of the image organizations want to show the public. As much as routine tasks, predictability and small change can be part of an organizations existence, it just sounds better with proactive, dynamic and excellent.

What happens when management lead leaders?

Another way to phrase the question could be: are the organizations’ environments conducive to the leaders they believe they want? Every organization (or even most groups) needs both leaders and followers. Of course, a good leader will know when he or she should take the role of either leader or follower, and as long as they remain followers, management may be more than happy. But what happens when they decide it’s time to change the status quo? Some scenarios could be:

1. The organization is fortunate to have people on board that can take full advantage of their leadership knowledge, and help lead it toward a successful outcome in a time of need.
2. Conflict ensues as top management and the “leader employees” butt heads over organizational strategies, resulting in them being removed (the easy solution that gets rid of the annoying factor).
3. Leadership leaves town. Being highly skilled and knowledgeable, and not being listened, or possible used as cheap labor, the prospect of finding somewhere new to hone their skills will probably seem enticing (and there will be others to hire them).

In short, leaders (and everyone else for that matter) need possibilities to develop themselves, grow, and have impact. I’m not talking about an egocentric way here, but just simply the need to make things better (regardless of recognition).

Does Mindset Influence?

I am currently reading Mindset – The New Psychology of Success by Carol Dweck at the moment of writing this post, and I am wondering if her thoughts on mindset should be a part of this discussion as well. In short, Dweck, based on her research, argues that there are two different mindsets that control much of our behavior.

• The Fixed-mindset argues that talent and abilities are inborn and remain stable over time. A person with a fixed mindset is prone to think that actually having to work for something is a sign of weakness. It signals that the person is not capable. If you have the talent for a task, it should always be a walk in the park.
• The Growth-mindset has a focus on learning and acquiring abilities, and sees these as improvable with practice and effort. A person with a growth-mindset will appreciate a challenge, and rather than seeing mistake as failure and walk away, he or she will see it as a learning experience and look for better approaches and try harder the next time.

Dweck exemplifies the fixed-mindset in businesses that make it a point to only hire the absolute top students, the best of the best, the ones with the natural talents (if you’ve seen some of the recruitment pages of the major consultant companies, this may sound familiar).

Of course this doesn’t mean that these businesses are comprised of fixed-mindset people, but maybe it could be that since some of these major players look for the proactive, independent, highly analytical, creative, resilient team players, other companies decide that this must be the winning formula. However, could it also be that you need an environment like the one you have at big consultant firms for these people to “work”. On the other hand, the turnover rate for the same companies are quite high, so… I’m open for input on this one, but I thought was an interesting angle worth adding.

In the end I suppose the keywords for this post might be organizational recruitment and job analysis as much as leadership.

Just a few thoughts on the subject. Let me know what you think. I’m open for different points of view.