Page 269 - The extraordinary leader

246 • The Extraordinary Leader

attending a session. Clearly, their presence sends an important signal
to the organization. Willingness to commit time to this activity is one
measure of support. We concur with those who say that key executives
need to be spending one-third to one-half of their time in people-
development activities.
● Ownership. It is clear that up to this point, the staff owns the leadership
development process and the senior executives are bystanders.
Beginning at this level of support, the senior executives feel a strong
sense of ownership. They set the objectives. They review and approve
the activities. They often come to participate in the development
process. A prime example of this behavior was Jack Welch going to GE’s
Crotonville every two weeks for 15 years to participate actively with a
variety of managers as they went through parts of their development
process. Welch proudly stated, “I have never missed a session.” 8

Top-executive ownership is the surefire way to avoid the “snicker factor” in
an organization. If people see that the executives are solidly behind the devel-
opment process, then the snide remarks about “not walking the talk” go away.
One key issue is how the senior team handles people who are openly hos-
tile or who show disdain for the leadership development effort. This is an acid
test of leadership.
Senior leaders’ willingness to act as mentors to younger, promising staff is
another way of displaying serious commitment to the leadership development
effort. They can provide useful insight into organization culture, explain unwrit-
ten rules of conduct, ensure that the younger person navigates around pitfalls
and traps, give encouragement during difficult stretch assignments, and in gen-
eral provide access to the thinking of the people at the top of the organization.

Focus Development Efforts
on Strengths
John Flaherty, in summing up Peter Drucker’s thinking, writes:

Drucker was unashamedly dogmatic and took an absolutist stance on the
proposition that human performance capability depended on strengths and not on
weaknesses. Of course, weaknesses had to be acknowledged and neutralized, but
they were incapable of producing results. In his consulting work he followed the