Global Leadership Competencies

In researching on the internet to find a suitable set of competencies for one of my speaking engagements, I came across the article "Internationalising corporate leadership competencies through 'behavioural diversity'".

Leadership competencies are generally defined as the observable behaviors that support excellence in leadership. In this article, Stephen Martin notes that many of the existing competency models, while giving a nod to cultural sensitivity, define successful behaviors from the perspective of the dominant culture. As an example, the Career Architect competencies from Lominger Limited defines the competency "Standing Alone" including as an example of skilled behavior, "willing to be the only champion for an idea or position".

In a culture where collectivism is valued over individualism, Standing Alone would not be valued. There may be a high need for people to champion an idea or position, but it needs to be done by involving others, rather than by standing alone. In looking at the competency model Global Leader of the Future Inventory written by Marshall Goldsmith, the competencies are defined more in terms of the outcomes, rather than the specific actions. For example, Standing Alone are captured in "courageously stands up for what he/she believes in". In the US that might mean standing alone; in Asia, it might mean building a collective understanding.

As competency models are developed and propagated within a company, consideration should be given as to whether they provide flexibility and adaptability to the country cultures or whether there is only one way to get the work done.

Avoids Political Behavior

A leadership competency in the area of "Demonstrating Integrity" is "Avoids political and self-serving behavior". Is it really true that in corporations of today, a leadership must avoid political behavior? I disagree. Yet, this a behavior identified the Global Leader of the Future Inventory written by Dr. Marshall Goldsmith in collaboration with Al Jacobson.

A definition of politics is “the process by which a community's decisions are made, rules for group behavior are established, competition for positions of leadership is regulated, and the disruptive effects of disputes are minimized.”* This is a neutral definition; politics is one of the structures of behavior – common to all human relations. It is a process or set of rules overseeing decision-making, group behavior, competition for leadership and dispute handling. I would argue that the savvy senior executive needs to be skilled in using politics, with integrity. Politics is about influence. It is about understanding people's motivations and needs. It is about recognizing the network of relationships in an organization. It is about constructing that meet the organization's needs and influencing the response by being aware of and accommodating, if practical, the needs of various internal stakeholders.

Further in this inventory, we find these additional competencies:

• Builds effective partnerships across the company
• Builds effective alliances with other organizations
• Creates a network of relationships that help get things done.

I wonder, aren't these "political behaviors"? Perhaps a better Leadership Competency would be "Engaging in political behavior in the best interests of the company". For more on political skills, see my earlier blog posting, Office Politics: Playing the Game.

What do you think? Should leaders avoid political behaviors?