For many years we have been studying leadership, and it is the topic of development courses, books, workshops, keynote speeches, blogs, and so forth. Are leaders born or made? Who are our best examples of leadership? Is good leadership different today than twenty years ago? Who was a better leader: Lincoln or Patton?

We read the Harvard Business Review, participate in social media on the topic, belong to Mastermind Groups, and participate in forums to the point where the term "leadership" has almost become weak from overuse. I recently received a complimentary copy of "The Leadership Secrets of Santa Claus". Come on, people, how far is this going to go? How much longer will we exploit the topic of leadership while we change nothing in the places that really matter (Our governments, businesses, communities, and families)?

The fact remains that the more we study leadership, the fewer examples of great leadership we see. Are we simply more aware because bad leadership has been exposed recently, or are our leadership skills getting worse? Possibly both.

So, let's take this down to the simple truths about great leaders we have studied throughout history:

1. A Leader acknowledges something bigger than her and defers to it.
2. A Leader is a master communicator of the message, and knows he cannot lead where he will not go. All personal agendas are set aside for the good of the order. The cause is the leader's passion.
3. A leader is willing to serve by example: to suffer, persevere, build character, and maintain hope. The culture of the organization is a reflection of the character of the leader. She takes responsibility for it.
4. A leader is committed to ongoing self- development, learning, and improvement. The leader is a student.
5. A leader surrounds himself with skilled advisors, and others who will hold him accountable. He is a person who can be trusted to do what's right, taking into consideration his advisor's expertise.
6. A leader is willing to love and care for every person on her team, as a shepherdess tends her flock; and is never slow to let a non-performer (or enemy of the cause) go. She expects the best from everyone.

Two Major Cautions about leadership:

• Leaders are human so they are not perfect, and they need to remember that. (So do their followers, who should not put them on a pedestal, lest they will be disappointed.) We all fall short now and then.
• Leaders become more vulnerable to corruption as their power increases.

The higher the position, the more accountability they need. This is the opposite of what they are often willing to do, unfortunately.

A word about executive coaching:

The higher your position, the more you need an executive coach. Ideally, executive coaches should not to be hired to "fix" a problem (although that frequently is the case). Coaches are to be hired when the leader is well, whole and competent. To keep a brilliant leader fully engaged in her work, and keep her balance while producing record results, hire an executive coach to be on board. A leader without an executive performance coach alongside is asking for reduced performance and eventually burn-out or a fall. Don't wait until there is a problem before you hire a coach.

Copyright protected Julia Marrocco All rights reserved. Adapted by Sorrell Associates with permission.

Companies are constantly vying for "top talent," those candidates who possess the ability and skills needed to make them more productive and more profitable. What companies often fail to consider, though, is that talent is just half of the equation.

Yes, that's right ‒ talent is not enough. In fact, according to author and leadership guru John Maxwell, talent is never enough. (That, incidentally, is the title of his book on the subject.)

The other half of the equation is the person's desire, or whether or not they have the drive to be a high achiever. If they don't have that desire or that drive, talent is only going to take them ‒ and the company ‒ so far. They're not going to reach their full potential as an employee.

As a result, striving to hire "top talent" is a bit of a misnomer. At the very least, there should be a disclaimer attached to that statement. Rather, companies should search for "high-achieving top talent," since those are the types of employees who are more likely to reach their potential and push the company to new heights of achievement.

So . . . how do you find these employees? It's often difficult to discern the talented candidates from the talented, high-achieving ones. As a result, it's even more difficult to assemble an entire team of high achieving employees.

The answer lies, at least in part, in their lives outside of work. High Achievers are intrinsically motivated, which means their desire for accomplishment comes from within, not because of external motivators like raises and promotions. They want to achieve and be the best they can be simply because they enjoy doing so, and that kind of desire is reflected in all areas of their life . . . and not just at work.

So keep this in mind when you're looking for the best of the best. It could mean the difference between hiring talented employees who fail to reach their full potential and hiring those who exceed all expectations.

If you have any questions about this article, or about how we can help you with your current hiring needs, contact us.

Copyright protected, all rights reserved worldwide. © 2010 Gary Sorrell

How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?
Small firms: · Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. · Employ just over half of all private sector employees. · Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll. · Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years. · Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). · Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers). · Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises. · Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007. · Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

What is small firms' share of employment?
Small businesses employ just over half of U.S. workers. Of 119.9 million non-farm private sector workers in 2006, small firms with fewer than 500 workers employed 60.2 million and large firms employed 59.7 million. Firms with fewer than 20 employees employed 21.6 million. While small firms create a majority of the net new jobs, their share of employment remains steady since some firms grow into large firms as they create new jobs. Small firms' share of part-time workers (21 percent) is similar to large firms' share (18 percent).

What share of net new jobs do small businesses create?
Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 64 percent (or 14.5 million) of the 22.5 million net new jobs (gains minus losses) between 1993 and the third quarter of 2008. Continuing firms accounted for 68 percent of net new jobs, and the other 32 percent reflect net new jobs from firm births minus those lost in firm closures (1993 to 2007).

The Old Year has gone. Let the dead past bury its own dead. The New Year has taken possession of the clock of time. All hail the duties and possibilities of the coming twelve months!
~ Edward Payson Powell

Opportunities? They are all around us... There is power lying latent everywhere waiting for the observant eye to discover it.
~ Orison Swett Marden

A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be.
~ Rosalynn Carter

email: executivedirector@silverfox.org

phone: 713-467-5900

web: http://www.silverfox.org