Summary of “Why Highly Efficient Leaders Fail”

The high levels of efficiency that allow highly task-focused leaders to be so productive often come at the expense of a more people-based focus.
Highly efficient leaders often lose their focus on people due to a limiting belief that more people-focused activities will slow them down and impede their ability to execute, and to ultimately be successful.
The irony is that an intense focus on efficiency and getting things done makes these leaders less effective overall.
Great leaders are able to balance task-focus with people-focus.
Highly task-focused leaders tend to have tunnel vision in their drive for results, rather than applying a broader lens that recognizes the need to sometimes “Go slow to go fast”.
Leaders who balance task- and people-focus are equally driven and also strive for results, but they keep the broader organizational needs in mind.
In research conducted by Robert Anderson and William Adams for their book Scaling Leadership, they identified that the number one differentiator of effective leaders is strong people skills, and that six out of ten of their biggest strengths related to people skills such as listening, developing others, and empowering their team members.
Overly task-focused leaders also tend to be more reactive, operating from a position of fear, and often displaying highly directive, controlling, or perfectionist behaviors that can alienate others and be disempowering to their teams.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How Leaders Can Open Up to Their Teams Without Oversharing”

We typically find leaders asking themselves how much of their own worries they should reveal when leading their team down a challenging or unfamiliar road. The best leaders are honest about how they feel while simultaneously presenting a clear path forward.
Once you identify your feelings, you need to know how to manage them.
Address your feelings without becoming emotionally leaky.
“The best thing to do is to cop to it. Say to your team, ‘I’m having a bad day, and I’m trying my best not to take it out on you. But if it seems like I’m having a bad day, I am. But it’s not because of you that I’m having a bad day. The last thing I want is for my bad day make your day worse.” You don’t have to go into more detail, but acknowledging your feelings helps you avoid creating unnecessary anxiety among your reports.
A good formula to follow is: “Because of , I’m feeling and. But here’s what I’m planning to do next to make it better:. And here’s what I need from you:. What do you need from me?” This will help you address your anxiety without projecting negative emotions onto your team.
A good rule of thumb for figuring out if you’re about to overshare is to ask yourself: “How would I feel if my manager said this to me?” If it’s something that you’d be thankful to hear, chances are your reports will feel similarly.
If you think members of your team might be feeling anxious about the project, it’s okay to surface those feelings to help them feel less isolated.
If everyone has been working long hours to meet an impending deadline, you might say something like, “I’m feeling a little tired today, but I’m grateful for how well we’ve worked together and that we’re set to send the client a proposal we can all be proud of.” Again, always try to pair realism with optimism, and share when you sense it will be helpful to others.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The 3 Elements of Trust”

In our coaching with leaders, we often see that trust is a leading indicator of whether others evaluate them positively or negatively.
We looked for correlations between the trust rating and all other items in the assessment and after selecting the 15 highest correlations, we performed a factor analysis that revealed these three elements.
Further analysis showed that the majority of the variability in trust ratings could be explained by these three elements.
Another factor in whether people trust a leader is the extent to which a leader is well-informed and knowledgeable.
We wanted to understand how these three elements interacted to create the likelihood that people would trust a leader.
We compared high scores and low scores to examine the impact these had on the three elements that enabled trust.
We were also curious to know if leaders needed to be skilled in all three elements to generate a high level of trust and whether any one element had the most significant impact on the trust rating.
Think about which of these elements of trust you have a stronger preference for – and which you prefer least.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Unfixable: Several nations have tried to restore democracy after populist strongmen. It was never the same.”

Even in places where populists have already severely damaged freedoms, opinion leaders say democracy can be restored after those leaders leave.
Extrapolating lessons for the United States and other nations, the report notes that rebuilding democracy is arduous and hardly guaranteed, but that countries can potentially heal the wounds left by powerful executives who attacked it.
More recent populist regimes haven’t ended with a rupture or a reversion to democracy.
Citizens who lose faith in democracy and turn to antidemocratic tactics to oust populist leaders grease the slide toward permanent authoritarianism.
During long periods of true autocracy, especially in countries that have never experienced democracy, faith in democratic systems fares well.
In Thailand in the 1990s, after years of autocratic and military governments but before the rise of autocratic populism, citizens were similarly optimistic about democracy.
Autocratic populists erode faith in democracy itself – a faith already damaged in many countries by the failures of democratic politicians to deal with issues like inequality, migration and weak worker protections.
Similar declines in faith in democracy can be seen in several hotbeds of autocratic populism.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Are you a leader or a manager? Here’s the difference”

If you have a management title, you may think of yourself as a leader.
There are some stark differences between how leaders and managers motivate people toward common goals.
Halelly Azulay, founder and CEO of TalentGrow LLC and author of Employee Development on a Shoestring, says the main difference between leaders and managers is that leaders attract a following who believe in their vision, while managers have people who do work for them without necessarily any intrinsic buy-in to a particular vision.
“The primary distinction between a manager and a leader is that you don’t have to hold a management job title to be a leader, and a leader doesn’t have to have formal power over direct reports,” says Perkins.
While not all managers are leaders, both argue managers will be more successful if they develop their leadership skills.
These small steps can help you hone your emotional intelligence and help you become a better leader.
Being an effective leader requires listening to feedback.
Instead of telling people what to do, leaders ask for input from their team and create an engaged workforce who feel that their input makes a difference.

The orginal article.

Summary of “If Strategy Is So Important, Why Don’t We Make Time for It?”

Almost every leader wants to make more time for strategic thinking.
Yet in another study, a full 96% of the leaders surveyed said they lacked the time for strategic thinking.
First, it’s important to remember that strategic thinking doesn’t necessarily require large amounts of time; it’s not about taking endless sabbaticals or going on leadership retreats.
As productivity expert David Allen told me when I interviewed him for my book Stand Out, “You don’t need time to have a good idea, you need space. It takes zero time to have an innovative idea or to make a decision, but if you don’t have psychic space, those things are not necessarily impossible, but they’re suboptimal.”
Even with limited time and the same amount of responsibilities, it’s far easier to think strategically if you can clear the decks by doing simple things such as writing down all of your outstanding tasks in one place, so you can properly triage them and aren’t constantly interrupted by the feeling that you forgot something.
Second, it’s useful to be clear on where your time is actually going.
It’s not the easiest project to keep up, but the resulting data was invaluable in terms of helping me understand exactly where and how I was spending my time.
By becoming aware of the disincentives to make time for strategy – and taking proactive steps to embed strategic thinking into your life and professional schedule – you can stand up for a goal that you, and 97% of other leaders, recognize as critical.

The orginal article.

Summary of “If Strategy Is So Important, Why Don’t We Make Time for It?”

Almost every leader wants to make more time for strategic thinking.
Yet in another study, a full 96% of the leaders surveyed said they lacked the time for strategic thinking.
First, it’s important to remember that strategic thinking doesn’t necessarily require large amounts of time; it’s not about taking endless sabbaticals or going on leadership retreats.
As productivity expert David Allen told me when I interviewed him for my book Stand Out, “You don’t need time to have a good idea, you need space. It takes zero time to have an innovative idea or to make a decision, but if you don’t have psychic space, those things are not necessarily impossible, but they’re suboptimal.”
Even with limited time and the same amount of responsibilities, it’s far easier to think strategically if you can clear the decks by doing simple things such as writing down all of your outstanding tasks in one place, so you can properly triage them and aren’t constantly interrupted by the feeling that you forgot something.
Second, it’s useful to be clear on where your time is actually going.
It’s not the easiest project to keep up, but the resulting data was invaluable in terms of helping me understand exactly where and how I was spending my time.
By becoming aware of the disincentives to make time for strategy – and taking proactive steps to embed strategic thinking into your life and professional schedule – you can stand up for a goal that you, and 97% of other leaders, recognize as critical.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Trump Kim summit: Who are North Korea’s running bodyguards?”

The world once again got a glimpse of Kim Jong-un’s suited running bodyguards as they escorted his motorcade in Singapore.
The bodyguards running alongside Mr Kim’s limousine and those who walk in close proximity to him are part of something called Central Party Office #6, or formally, it’s known as the Main Office of Adjutants.
Walking, riding ahead, or in advance of Mr Kim are between three to five bodyguards including the director of the Main Office of Adjutants.
Despite carrying firearms, the bodyguards’ main defence for Mr Kim are their skills of observation, and neutralising any perceived threat with their hands and bodies.
Kim Jong-un’s bodyguards, in contrast to his father, are fewer in number and have a less obtrusive presence.
Guard Command personnel undergo a similar selection and vetting process as Mr Kim’s bodyguards in the Main Office of Adjutants.
In fact most bodyguards rotate out of the latter department into the GC. Recent observation and reporting about Mr Kim’s visit to Singapore noted that three planes arrived to the city state from Pyongyang.
While the running bodyguards are a striking image, it is the additional and not immediately visible layers of security further out that are the most sophisticated and extreme in the lengths they will go to ensure the preservation of the Kim dynasty.

The orginal article.

Summary of “5 Ways to Project Confidence in Front of an Audience”

Whether you’re presenting on an analyst call or speaking to your entire organization in a town hall meeting, you’re being judged on your confidence and competence, not just your content, and the way you appear and how you sound matters.
A study on CEOs giving IPO road-show presentations found that even hardened financial advisors judge a leader’s “Competence and trustworthiness” within as little as 30-seconds.
“In the military, it all starts with how you’re dressed the first time you meet a subordinate. Always dress a little better than everyone else and you’ll look confident.” You’ll note that he said a little better.
James Citrin, a leading CEO recruiter, once advised job candidates to dress 25% “More formal” than the prevailing dress code at the company.
In his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman writes, “If you care about being thought credible and intelligent, do not use complex language where simpler language will do.”
You gain credibility and respect when you’re able to articulate complex ideas in simple language.
Before an important presentation, consider gathering a few people to watch a dress rehearsal, even if it’s in your office or even your living room, rather than practicing alone in a mirror.
One tip is what body language experts call “Open posture.” Having two hands, palms facing up, above the waist would be considered open.

The orginal article.

Summary of “5 Behaviors of Leaders Who Embrace Change”

Part of the issue is how organizations view the human aspect of the closing date, which is usually treated as the end of the transaction, when it’s really just the start of change.
Leaders in the M&A environment are managing an organization that hasn’t existed before.
In this environment, change agility needs to be part of the new organization’s and leaders’ DNA. It can’t just exist in a few people in the organization; it needs to be the way business gets done.
Successful change-agile leaders at all levels in the organization respond to changes in the business environment by seizing opportunities, including throwing out old models and developing new ways of doing business.
Change-agile leaders demonstrate five integrated behaviors that, together, create a competitive advantage for the organization.
Promote calculated risk-taking and experimentation: Robert Kennedy, paraphrasing George Bernard Shaw, said, “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” Too often, our traditional organizations’ first response to a risk is to ask, “Why?” Change agility requires leaders to ask “Why not?” and to establish opportunities for pilots, prototypes, and experimentation.
Change-agile leaders and organizations are replacing functional silos with formal and informal organizations that allow for the rapid flow of information and decision-making around a product, customer, or region.
Seeing the opportunity to improve the employee experience and create cost efficiencies across the learning organizations, she brought together her fellow learning leaders.

The orginal article.