Sylvania No Comments

Featured

Question of the Month: How much time will caring for and growing my people demand of me?
Caring for and growing people does not cost money, but it does require a considerable amount of time. Caring and growing people cannot be …
Vignette Case Study: Three Things I Learned When I Agreed Mid-Year Deliverables With My Team
In the Legitimate Leadership business, every 120 days we go through a process designed to generate clarity, focus, alignment, and growth …
Article: The Role Of The Leader When It Comes To Pay
As a generalisation, people in the corporate world seem to find it difficult to admit to being “happy” with their pay. A classic comment …
Video: Why Employees Are Disengaged – And Learning By Talking About How To Do Things Wrong
Polls consistently show that about two-thirds of us are disengaged at work. But about 20% of us are actively disengaged which means we hate what we do …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How much time will caring for and growing my people demand of me?
Answer:  Caring for and growing people does not cost money, but it does require a considerable amount of time. Caring and growing people cannot be done by email because it is, by definition, a face-to-face activity.
Care and growth gets done, as opposed to talked about, in three contexts: one-on-one discussions, team meetings, and in the ‘field’ where direct reports are getting the work done.
The starting point therefore is for leaders to spend sufficient time with their people. This often requires leaders to radically change how they are spending their time and what they are giving their attention to.
Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: THREE THINGS I LEARNED WHEN I AGREED MID-YEAR DELIVERABLES WITH MY TEAM
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
In the Legitimate Leadership business, every 120 days we go through a process designed to generate clarity, focus, alignment, and growth for our people. We call this process clarifying contribution and we believe it has clear benefits for our team members (specifically, the aforementioned clarity, focus, alignment and growth).
It has obvious benefits for our organisation as well, especially as each step in the process must be aligned with the organisation’s goals and strategy. What is perhaps less obvious is how valuable this process has been for me. Every 120 days I learn something.
In the most recent cycle – mid-year 2019 – I learned three things.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE ROLE OF THE LEADER WHEN IT COMES TO PAY
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
As a generalisation, people in the corporate world seem to find it difficult to admit to being “happy” with their pay. A classic comment which illustrates this point came from an individual who said “I am not unhappy with my pay, at the moment”. The implication being that at any moment now he would regress from “not unhappy” to “unhappy” almost as a default position.
Given the above, we at Legitimate Leadership have struggled with the wording in our Leadership Profiles pertaining to satisfaction with pay. We have settled with the proposition “My current level of remuneration positively acknowledges my contribution”, to which there are the following responses: Strongly Agree/Agree/Don’t Know/Disagree/Strongly Disagree.
The combined responses are reflected on a 21 point scale from +10 (everyone strongly agrees with the statement) to -10 (everyone strongly disagrees that their current level of remuneration positively acknowledges their contribution).
What we have found is that in any group of leaders the scores on this item very considerably. Why, one wonders, would this be the case if all respondents are subject to the same reward system?
One possible explanation is that in some areas in the company people are being paid fairly and in others they are not. If this is the case, leadership legitimacy requires that the inequities are addressed. It is only right that this is so.
My belief, however, is that in most instances, the variation in score reflects not so much the actual situation with respect to pay, but the individual leader.
Weak leaders are themselves unhappy with their pay and see themselves as fellow victims of the system. Their discontent is picked up and then shared by their people. The dissatisfaction at the top is then amplified down the hierarchy such that the negative score at the top becomes a negative score to the power of 10 lower down in the organisation.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: WHY EMPLOYEES ARE DISENGAGED – AND LEARNING BY TALKING ABOUT HOW TO DO THINGS WRONG
By Jeff Havens, an American keynote speaker and corporate trainer.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: We believe that people only go above and beyond and are truly engaged when: they are given a meaningful purpose or reason for going the extra mile; they report to a person who cares and grows them; and they are passionate about the work that they do. All three are leadership issues and need to be addressed. Successful leadership is about widening the leadership practices aligned to the care and growth criteria (a relationship issue) and leading change (realising a vision).
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: This is about employee engagement or the relative lack of it.
Polls consistently show that about two-thirds of us are disengaged at work. But about 20% of us are actively disengaged which means we hate what we do and that 20% costs (the US) over half a trillion dollars a year in lost productivity.
Now interestingly polls also show that most of us are satisfied with our jobs.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE