Understanding Your Own Brand

Two Canadians recently published a book that deserves a wide audience, but may not get it because of the title: "Made in Canada Leadership." Canadians tend not to read self-congratulatory works, apparently preferring outright criticism.  That may help them make changes, but there's a time to step back and assess the value you've achieved. At it happens there's something here for everyone interested in leadership, both good and bad... and not just for Canadians either... as well as some good advice for going further.

As a former Senior VP of Human Resources for a 70,000 person national retail chain and now a coach, consultant and speaker on leadership skills, I've read and surveyed a wide range of work in the area. Both reading the book and hearing the authors present, I was struck by how much territory they covered in a very readable-sized work.

They begin with a solid summary of what leadership is, how it feels and how most people get there and they go on to identify what is truly unique about one particular leadership approach - the one most common among Canadians. This distinguishes and gives us an identity we seem to have almost given up searching for. Others will benefit by looking at how they've analyzed this one brand and examining how their own may differ, whether it's stronger or could stand to borrow features.

If they are correct that Canadian leadership skills are appreciated, respected and admired by many around the world, as other nationals have told them, this makes clear why. Leadership is the most complex and challenging human activity - and the most powerful force for change. Our style leans toward combining people's strengths and recognizes that the overall best comes from a collaborative approach, where no one person (or one country's approach) can claim to be the best alone. We specialize in seeking a broader understanding of what's needed for ultimate success. Too often leaders err by insisting on finding a single "best" when the fact is we need cooperation more than unilateral rule.

Without detailing too much, they make an excellent distinction between those who feel innately "called to lead" and the majority who fall into such roles "accidentally." From there it's easy to see that both groups need development. Even for those who feel innately called the actual skills of leading don't come naturally. They note that most will say they got no training at all until they reached the workforce and were actually promoted to supervise. Even then, many receive only minimal support, coaching or programmed assistance. The sad fact is that even today, when so much is written about truly exploding needs for more leadership, we often assume by then people either know, aren't trainable or should be able to learn on their own.

The authors call for a national approach that could benefit any country. They emphasize the need to educate and develop more effective leaders from an earlier age right on through to the most senior. They cite successes in improving education elsewhere as great examples of how wide consultation can be translated into consistent action over many decades to deepen and improve even such complex areas as this. And they point out what should be obvious to us all, that if the world does not step up to this challenge and strengthen leadership everywhere we will miss perhaps our only opportunity to truly build the world we all want to live in.