The Extraordinary Leader

Key Concepts

Results are not linear; great results only come with extraordinary leaders.

“Poor leaders (those up to the 20th percentile) had poor results, whereas leaders above the 80th percentile achieved exceptional results. Looking at only those two data points, the relationship appears fairly linear, but in each case where we examined those leaders with good results (20th to 80th percentiles), they achieved approximately the same level of outcomes even though their effectiveness ranged from the 20th to the 80th percentile.” (p. 16)

Strengths based development is preferable to looking at weaknesses

“It is far better to magnify strengths, or create strengths out of those characteristics that are in positive territory but not fully developed. Leaders who are moderately effective and preoccupy themselves with incremental improvement of less positive issues will never move from good to great.” (p. 20)

Assessments are less effective if they show a leader relative to the mean as opposed to extraordinary

“By contrasting results with a mean average, the message is communicated, ‘The goal is to be better than average.’ Contrasting the results with levels of extraordinary leaders shows people the distance that they need to move to achieve a higher level.” (pp. 40-1)

Sixteen behaviors that make a difference in how leaders are perceived by others (p. 98)

Character

• Displaying high integrity and honesty

Personal Capability

• Technical and professional expertise

• Solving problems and analyzing issues

• Innovation

• Practicing self-development

Focus on results

• Focus on results

• Establish stretch goals

• Take responsibility for outcomes/ initiative

Interpersonal Skills

• Communicating powerfully and prolifically

• Inspiring and motivating others to high performance

• Building relationships

• Developing others

• Collaboration and teamwork

Leading Organizational Change

• Developing strategic perspectives

• Championing change

• Connect internal groups with the outside world

One should look for the intersection of Competencies, Organizational Needs, and their Passions (COP)

“A mismatch hurts a person's chances of success, and everyone needs an environment where he or she has a reasonable chance to succeed.” (p. 119)

Ten Fatal Flaws that Consistently Lead to Failure in Leadership (pp. 152-9)

1. Not inspiring due to a lack of energy and enthusiasm

2. Accepting mediocre performance in place of excellent results

3. Lack of clear vision and direction

4. Loss of trust stemming from perceived bad judgment and poor decisions

5. Not a collaborative, team player

6. Not a good role model (failure to walk the talk)

7. No self-development and learning from mistakes

8. Lacking interpersonal skills

9. Resistant to new ideas, thus did not lead change or innovate

10. Focus on self, not on the development of others

Quotables

“Incremental improvements in good leaders will not, however, show up in improved bottom-line results. The next jump does not occur until the 70th, 80th, or 90th percentile. Extraordinary leaders will consistently achieve results that far exceed those of the good leaders. They will create even western over, motivate employees to a much higher degree, and satisfy customers to a much higher level.” (pp. 37-8)“

A by-product of the phenomenon is that employees are rarely more effective than their bosses. That is good news if the boss is an extraordinary leader. The direct reports tend to rise to that level. But we observed over and over that employees are only as good as their bosses. Bosses set the standards, high or low.” (p. 46)

“The problem is not an abundance of bad leaders; the problem is the universal acceptance of good leaders and assuming they don’t need to be any better.” (p. 49)

“No emphasis has been given to taking a relative strength and making it ‘off-the-chart’ strong. Unwittingly this has contributed to our general pattern of ‘aiming low.’” (p. 87)

“Leadership Development Includes Everyone, Not Just a Few Elite, So-Called HIgh-Potential People. In contrast with most businesses, which go to much expense to test and assess in an attempt to identify future executives, the Marines train everyone to lead. They don’t build a gulf between followers and leaders but assume instead that everyone should be trained to lead.” (p. 206)

“The main decision appears to be the choice between an elitist approach and a more egalitarian posture. Many organizations in the past have focused all their leadership development efforts on a small handful of people who are currently in senior positions or who were perceived as being ‘high potential’ because of some psychological testing and interviewing or assessment center procedures. In marked contrast are the organizations such as the U.S. Marine Corps and Southwest Airlines, which have concluded that the organization will be stronger if everyone is a candidate for development.” (p. 241)