This article in Strategy + Business (click above to visit) makes a strong case for considering the impact that the growing economic clout and empowerment of women around the world will have on your business over the next 10 to 20 years. So much of the "growth market" focus has been on China and India that this shift has gone largely unnoticed. Interestingly, this is not strictly an "emerging market" (geographically speaking) phenomenon, as there are millions of women in developed economies who will also see greater opportunities by 2020.

One point the article makes is that the growing economic activity of women should help to ameliorate future recessions. That is because this evolution is more widespread than typical "emerging market" conditions, making the benefits easier for a wider range of companies to enjoy. Additionally, the reduced number of children combined with more aggressive tendency of women to share the benefits of economic gains with their children mean that future generations can be lifted through this trend.

So how do you capitalize on this in your business? A few ideas:
* Consider the impact on your workforce planning - how can you make your company more attractive to women, especially in developing economies?
* Can you offer products aimed both at educating and enabling women and serving them as new consumers?
* What impact will the broader social and legal / regulatory changes that may result from the growing clout of women have on your business?

Leadership promotes new directions; management executes existing directions.

The function of management

Management can do much more than merely keep things ticking over. It manages complex projects ranging from making a major movie to putting the first man on the moon. Managers can use facilitative skills to foster innovation. By sticking to a purely functional definition, we leave completely open the question of style. This liberating move means that managers can be inspiring. They can empower, nurture and develop talent. An inspiring leader influences us to change direction while an inspiring manager motivates us to work harder. Managers needn't be restricted to mechanical control, transactional rewards, bureaucratic methods or relating without empathy. Portraying managers in such negative terms was an accident of history that we now must put behind us.

To get the best out of knowledge workers, managers might set up self-managing teams. Here, the classic functions of management (planning, organizing and controlling) are delegated. But the function of management is still operating even though the manager is not personally doing it. This should dispel the myth of the manager as a control freak or bureaucrat.

By removing all style connotations, leadership benefits as much as management. No longer needing to be inspiring cheerleaders, leaders find it possible to exhibit quiet, factual leadership. This is essential in technical contexts, where a hard business case often moves stakeholders more than an inspirational delivery. Not being committed by definition to any particular style, both leaders and managers are free to use any style that works for the context in which they want to make a difference.

The function of leadership

Leadership needs to narrow its focus to promoting new directions as one-off acts to promote a better way...

...Key features of leadership reinvented

• It consists in showing a better way, either by explicit advocacy or by example.
• Those who are led may not report to the person showing leadership, even informally.
• No implementation is entailed. This is management's domain, getting work done through others, motivating people, developing them (more on management below.)
• It does not involve managing the people led or getting things done through them.
• It comes to an end once the target audience buys the need to change. It sells the tickets for the journey; management drives the bus to the destination.
• It relies on influence; since it’s not an actual role, it can't decide for the group.
• It can promote ideas developed by others; no need to be creative personally.

This is a very interesting assessment of the role of "leadership" and "management" abilities in an organization, why both are important, and why, in particular, it is time to re-elevate the view of management as an essential skill set for getting things done. Perhaps the best line in the paper is an analogy:

(Leaders) sell the tickets for the journey; management drives the bus to the destination.

This line emphasizes that both processes are necessary to achieve success. It is time to reduce the stigma associated with "management" - the belief that it is rooted in bureaucracy, a lack of creativity, and a defense of the status quo. Effective managers develop organizations, motivate teams, plan for contingencies, and, in many cases, provide warning when a goal is unachievable. Better management (specifically of risk) at big banks would have mitigated the depth of the recent financial crisis. Make sure that your organization is recognizing and rewarding managerial skills as opposed to becoming overly enamored of "one-off" leaders, lest you find yourself full of great ideas that remain unrealized.

OK, maybe this scene from The Office isn't what Michael Schrage had in mind in his article on Why Keeping Score Is the Best Way to Get Ahead, but the spirit is the same (minus the cheating, of course). Most people have at least some degree of competitiveness, and figuring out how to tap into that in a positive way can inspire individuals or teams to reach performance levels not originally thought possible.

I consider it a great day when I can see a juxtaposition of my passion for running (I saw this video on Dailymile this morning) and leadership (I read the blog post on keeping score this evening). This is another situation where professional motivation can be informed by personal motivation; as a competitive runner, I constantly strive to beat my last personal record (even, unfortunately, on too many of my training runs). As a professional, I'm always seeking a better, more effective way to deliver results. I don't think most runners or professionals are much different in that manner.

5. Train the Troops

While marketers have a tendency to focus on managing perceptions, Sunnie also had her eye on what she calls “reality management.”  “We needed to make sure that the idea of professionalism permeated the organization,” and this meant training all 35,000 of their independent sales reps to ensure perception communicated with the new brand strategy aligned with the reality of what customers experienced at various touch points. Channel partners established mandatory courses on estate and financial planning.   Noting that the sales reps were perceived as “too casual,” the company also suggested new standards for appearance, going so far as to arrange for discounts at appropriate clothing stores.   Similar deals were set up with beauty salons that coincided with a “make-over” contest, challenging sales reps to get their appearance in ship shape.  

The article referenced above (A 7-Step Guide to Brand Transformation, on the FC Expert Blog in Fast Company) shares lessons learned from Sunnie Giles efforts to reinvigorate the brand for Samsung Life Insurance. While life insurance may be quite a different field from your own industry, there are some valuable lessons in the article.

The most significant point, and one I've been meaning to right about for awhile, is #5, shown above. Marketing may set the direction for branding, but it is only through the everyday actions of anyone who is in contact with external stakeholders (most frequently and importantly, customers) that the brand promise is delivered. Therefore, part of any branding effort must include an appropriate investment in training and monitoring such teams as sales, customer service, accounts receivable, and even external channel partners, to make sure that their processes and behaviors are consistent with the brand message. No amount of advertising or promotional efforts can offset the issues that arise when a customer's experience with one of your team members is dissonant with the expectations you have set.

• The hierarchy is a circulatory system for messages of authority; specifically, for anything that can be expressed as a number. It is the means by which the organization seeks scale. It flows from and to the top: the CEO and then the shareholders or owners. It might be analogous to muscle coordination.
   
• The network conveys knowledge — in the form of gossip, guidance, information about opportunities, and anything else that people talk about easily. It is the means by which the organization develops its capabilities. It flows from and to a broad base of people throughout (and outside) the company. It might be analogous to neural networks.
   
• The market is the exchange of goods, services, and money within an organization and its value chain. It is the means by which the organization manages its workflow. It transmits anything that can be bought, sold, or traded, flowing ultimately to the customer. It might be analogous to the cardiovascular system.
   
• The clan is the family or community-like circulatory system, operating below the surface of every organization (and often subconsciously). It is the means by which a company’s culture is maintained, with a “core group” of its most important people at the center. The organization establishes its view of legitimacy through the clan. It might be analogous to the endocrine system.

• Create incentives that embrace failure and maximize learning. The example we use for this deals with a drink developed by Diageo: Smirnoff Ice, a mixture of alcohol and pop. It was the eleventh version of a sweet alcoholic drink that they had tried. Many organizations that try to innovate fail a few times and give up; they didn’t.
• Protect clever employees from “organizational rain.” Don’t harass them if they’re two weeks late handling their performance appraisals. Don’t expose them to politics. Talk to them straight, and don’t deceive them.
• Now, here’s something that is in contradiction with much of the old business literature: give them real-world challenges, with constraints. Don’t build ivory towers.
• Create a galaxy of stars, don’t just recruit one star. You create a great team by having a lot of great players who say, “I want to play for the Lakers, because they are really good.”
• Use expertise, rather than hierarchy. Provide boundaries, but don’t create bureaucracy.  Explain and persuade, but don’t tell them what to do. If you have a great [engineer or architect] and your task is to come up with the new swimming pool for the Beijing Olympics, that’s enough of a challenge. Don’t worry; they’ll apply their creativity and come up with something brilliant — like the Beijing “Water Cube.”

There is little doubt that "clever" employees, much like smart students, do require special consideration when designing roles and responsibilities, so that they do not become bored and frustrated (personal note - I can attest to this - as a "smart" student in elementary school, I found far too many ways to get in trouble when I was bored by the slow pace of classwork). These tips provide good suggestions on how to do this without giving the appearance that such employees are put on a pedestal or gaining special treatment. The goal is to set an environment where their energies are channeled to meet company objectives in a way that works for their style (which, on deeper thought, is not much different than your goal in defining roles for any employee).

I'm not sure what this guy's issue really is. Yes, I can appreciate that being interrupted in the middle of a task is frustrating. But why not take it on yourself to make it clearer that you are not to be interrupted (and provide a reason, other than you're a buffoon).

Sorry pal, but workplaces are about communication. If you have so much wonderful knowledge, I suppose you probably are a go-to person for your colleagues. That is one of your values to the organization. To hide it behind your surly nature is robbing from your company. So deal with it.

And if you're National Instrument, why do you want to be associated with this attitude? I'm sure there are engineers who find this funny, but is it the majority? I'm frankly surprised that you didn't choose marketing or finance as your target.

This seems to be spot-on, everything is urgent until the product is actually ready.

Now, I don't know what this guy's experiences with marketing have been, and I'm sorry if he's worked with amateurs who feel their "2 year associate degree" (his words, not mine) qualify them as gurus, mavens, experts, or lords of marketing. But the critique just doesn't stick when it comes to most of the outstanding marketing talent I have had the pleasure to work with.

Marketing and engineering will always be at odds, and the conflict can be healthy when managed appropriately and used constructively (there is a future blog post in that - jotting note to myself now). Yes, know-it-all marketers without technical knowledge can be dangerous. But in industrial and, in many cases, technology companies, many of the marketing team leaders have come up through engineering. I myself chose to leave the discipline because, as Steve puts it in his comments, I prefer to focus on solving problems for customers.

I wonder if this is the type of engineer who suffers from the "not-invented-here" mentality and closes their mind to customer feedback on what their real needs are, gets too wrapped up in product features without understanding how the customer values (or doesn't value) these features, and is more concerned about being the smartest one in the room instead of getting the business. As bright as you might be, you have a limited future as an engineer if you suffer from these maladies.

Just as I respect the role of engineering and recognize my limitations in my ability to perform their job, I'd expect the same courtesy of the engineers I work with to treat marketing as a professional discipline that requires specialized knowledge. Thank you.