When thinking of a great leader, does your mind wander to Mel Gibson in face paint and a kilt? Perhaps your idea of great leader is one that doesn’t wield an axe so much as the strong silent type, like Mahatma Gandhi. The definition of a great leader is hard to pin down because leaders themselves come in so many different forms. How then, with such a nebulous view of leadership, can a person learn how to become a leader?
How can an established leader improve their abilities if they do not know what areas to develop? Wouldn’t it all be so much easier if there was a nice, clean definition of what makes an effective leader? A good place to begin is to ask “what is leadership?” A quick internet search will reveal multiple definitions, opinions and explanations of what leadership is. Some will be similar, while others contradictory. at six leadership competencies:
Communication, Managing People, Setting Goals, Dealing With Change, Solving Problems, and Project Management. By far and away, the highest rated competency was communication (See Figure 1).
Consistently HR professionals indicated that communication was the most critically important of the six competencies. This was followed by dealing with change, managing people, setting goals, and solving problems. The average ratings for these four competencies were in the “very important” range.
According to the study, the industry or sector did not affect the rankings of leadership skills. This indicates that there are core leadership skills that are essential in all types of organizations and that those same leadership skills should apply to the laboratory.
The Clinical Laboratory Management Association (CLMA) similarly believes that there are certain attributes that make for an effective leader, which transcend any specific industry. Although their list of attributes is slightly longer than those examined in the Psychometrics study, there are strong similarities in the type of skills both groups say are essential to effective leadership.
Glen Dietz, a longstanding member of the CLMA Trillium Chapter Board of Directors, doesn’t see one particular attribute as fundamentally more important However, a common thread that runs through many definitions of leadership is this: getting people to work toward a common goal.
In 2010, Psychometrics Canada released a research report entitled, Feuding and Failure vs Performance and Innovation: A study of leadership in the Canadian workplace. The research project involved surveying 517 human resource professionals working in Canadian organizations. These individuals worked in business, government, consulting, education and not-forprofit organizations. As professionals who frequently observe the practice and outcomes of leadership, they provided great insight into the perception and needs of leaders in the Canadian workplace. The Psychometrics study looked than the rest. “All of the leadership attributes are important and applicable to leadership within the laboratory,” states Dietz. “The skill that will be most needed will vary depending on the size and scope of that particular lab and the situation the laboratory manager finds him or herself.” As with all areas of a hospital, resources for professional development are often limited. Is there a business case for why employers should devote resources for developing effective leaders? According to the Psychometrics report, the answer is a resounding yes. According to the report, the influence of good leadership can be found in a variety of organizational measures. HR professionals have seen good leadership result in increased motivation (85.5 per cent) and improved working relationships (85.1 per cent). Along with these positive effects on work engagement, good leadership also leads to higher team performance (80.7 per cent), better solutions to problems (68.9 per cent), and even major innovations (41.6 per cent). In addition, poor leadership can have a significant negative impact on an organization. HR professionals have witnessed good people quitting and a lack of morale (91.7 per cent), employees’ skills not being utilized (87.2 per cent), feuding staff members (68.3 per cent), and failed projects (60 per cent). Three-quarters (76 per cent) have also witnessed a disconnection between the organization’s goals and its employees’ work.
Despite the positive effects of good leadership (and the negative effects of poor leadership) we still find varying degrees of support for leadership training and development at the employer level. “I think you will find the commitment to leadership development varies greatly from organization to organization,” says Dietz. “Budgets and approaches to training are all different. The biggest challenge for aspiring leaders is that the training and focus that is available is usually not directed to the front-line staff and is only offered to people already in formal leadership roles.”
The result of this is that new leaders often experience a tough transition, as they have not received the appropriate training prior to taking on the leadership role. In the laboratory community, it is commonly the case that a front line lab professional is recognized for a combination of their technical skills and people skills. They are promoted to leadership positions based on those skills and are left to develop the key leadership attributes “on the job”.
“When a technologist begins their career, they are focused on technical training,” states Dietz. “However, technical training is not leadership training and so gaps usually exist when a technologist makes the transition to a managerial role.”
One reason that leadership skills are not developed earlier is that historically it has not been a point of emphasis in the curriculum of laboratory educational programs. Although Dietz is quick to point out that, “medical technology training programs are in the business of educating medical laboratory technologists, not laboratory managers. It would be wrong to assume that all lab technologists will become managers or directors.”
Dietz also acknowledges that leadership development training is available from multiple sources, even if there isn’t a uniform approach. Universities, colleges, employers and others provide training options for those looking to transition to leadership roles. The biggest challenge he sees is that those programs provide primarily theoretical, rather than practical training.
“The real value comes from putting education into practice and these programs lack the ability for new managers to test their new skills,” says Dietz. Providing practical experience was one of the underlying concepts of a leadership training program that Dietz helped to develop for London Laboratory Services Group. The program contained a combination of formal courses and laboratory specific content. The program was made available to both those in leadership roles and to employees who aspired to fill leadership roles. What really made the program unique was that it required participants to sit on committees where they could practice the skills they were learning. Participants were provided feedback so they could hone those skills as well.
“We found the program gave the participants a real sense of what would be required of them in a leadership role,” says Dietz. “Some of the participants realized a leadership role wasn’t what they thought it would be and chose not to apply for leadership roles when they became available. Others excelled in the program and went on to become productive leaders.”
Prior to the program’s launch, London Laboratory Services Group often usually had to look outside of the organization to fill leadership roles with qualified individuals. After the program was running, Dietz estimates that 90 per cent of the leadership roles were able to be filled with internal candidates. That represents a considerable savings to the organization in terms of recruitment costs. The London-based program highlights the fact that leadership skills are teachable. In other words, leaders are made, not born. This realization should come as a relief to lab professionals who are experiencing challenges in their leadership role and those who are looking to make the transition but are apprehensive about it.
For current managers looking to enhance their leadership competence, the Psychometrics study offers some straightforward actions. HR professionals endorse the following potential improvement measures:
- Clearly communicating how the organization plans to manage change (89 per cent).
- Talking less and listening more (81 per cent).
- Providing clear expectations (78 per cent).
- Having more informal interaction with staff (76 per cent).
- Assigning tasks to staff based on their skills rather than office politics (71 per cent).
- Holding people accountable (68 per cent).
- Giving employees more responsibility (65 per cent).
- Deferring to people with greater expertise (63 per cent).
- Overcoming resistance to change (48 per cent).
For laboratory professionals looking to make the transition to a leadership role in the future, Dietz suggests mentorship as a key to success. Dietz points out that the lab community is already very good at engaging in mentoring from a technical standpoint. “We often partner new technologists with experienced technologists to help them as they start their careers,” explains Dietz. “There is no reason why the same approach couldn’t be applied to leadership training. The key is fostering these relationships earlier, before a person attempts to move into a formal role.” In the end, the responsibility for developing leadership skills falls on the individual. As Dietz aptly points out, “people learn when they are ready to learn.” Employers can be proactive by making leadership development opportunities readily available to both existing and future leaders. Hospitals often speak of their people as their greatest asset. If that is so, then investing in those people should be a priority. As the London-based program has shown, that investment can pay long term dividends.