Page 283 - The extraordinary leader

260 • The Extraordinary Leader

mountain, hiding the real summit from view. Many of those who profess to
be leaders are only halfway up the mountain.
Second, an emphasis on strengths is more palatable than looking for blem-
ishes and weaknesses. Most of us enjoy doing things we are good at. We con-
tend that it is much easier for a leader to find ways to magnify strengths than it
is to overcome weaknesses. It comes more naturally. Becoming really good at
something is more energizing than attempting to patch flaws. You are getting
“rewards” for the behavior you are enhancing from day one. That in turn
increases your aspirations, and in turn makes it easier to work on things you do
not do well. Fewer people will resist the message to get better at things they are
good at, in contrast with improving to average on some perceived weakness.
Third, people are more willing to practice skills they are good at. Recent
research on “expert performers” attributes extraordinary performance to dili-
gent practice, not to some unique quality bestowed by deity. Great musicians,
sports figures, and chess players got there the same way. Tiger Woods, it is
argued, is great because, with the help of a dedicated coach, he has practiced
about 10,000 more hours than most golfers, beginning at a very early age. To
get really good at anything requires practice. Leadership is no exception.
Fourth, we submit that by measuring the perceptions of subordinates and
peers, we have a tool for the immediate and objective measurement of
leadership. Frequent and precise measurements are possible and relatively
economical.
Fifth, change need not take forever. The authors frequently ask practitioners
of leadership development, “What are you doing that seems to be paying off?”
As we noted earlier, the most frequent answer is something like, “Well, it is too
early to tell.” Reading between the lines, the answer really says, “We can’t see
that anything is changing or has changed.” “We don’t want to be held account-
able for change, but we hope something shows up three or four years from now.”
Two things are troubling about this response. Leadership is all about
change, so if the leadership development process is not producing change,
then it probably is not working. Our experience with change suggests the
opposite conclusion from the one we hear about coming in future years.
Two professors at the Stanford business school taught quantitative meth-
ods in their executive program. They decided to write participants who had
attended the program and ask them two questions: “Did you apply any of the
content you learned in our session?” “If so, when did you do that?” The over-
all number of people who had done something was discouragingly low, but