Spending time with managers and focusing on Making Leaders Better; commonalities tend to arise.

• Cognitive abilities are important. People need competent leaders
• Different levels of management require different competencies
• What leaders value they commit to
• Every leader has their own values, and commitments in individual ways to those values
• When people at the same level of managerial leadership have a common goal and purpose, the political games lessen
• Many managers are not in the proper roles to be successful
• Internal leadership development programs NEED a champion to block the shit from above and below for people to gain leadership skills
• It all returns to basic managerial leadership skills, and utilization of those skills.

These are constant conjunctions in the Humian sense, and what we attempt to do is determine the cause from the effect.

One epistemic belief I hold about managerial leadership with hierarchical organizations is that small changes in skill effect large results in the organization. Additionally that this is greater the higher you are on the managerial leadership ladder; AND that change in skill at any level creates large effects up and down the chain of accountability.

Where are you learning new skills?

How are you applying these skills to yourself?

Is this application to make the organization better? How do you know?

Is this interpretation of better, your definition or does your managerial leader and the company have clear and distinct standards of what better is?

In what ways may better be interpreted?

Who evaluates your skill sets?

Who evaluates your managers skills sets?

Who evaluates your manager once removed skill sets?

Who evaluates your subordinate once removed skill sets?

If you were to improve your skills, what is the minimum amount of time it would take for you to notice an improvement in the organization?

In what ways are you responsible for your own skill development?

michael cardus is create-learning

image by spettacolopuro