America’s Talent Drain

For hundreds of years America was seen as the land of opportunity. Anybody who was willing to work hard could come to America to make a fortune. This caused a “brain drain” throughout the world. While other countries lost their best and brightest, American gladly accepted the entrepreneurs and innovators of the world. These immigrants and their offspring built the most prosperous and powerful nation the world has ever known.

But, the twenty-first century will be different. America is seeing the beginnings of a “reverse brain drain.” This reversal will affect the lives of every American, as well as every person living anywhere on the planet.

Several factors are exacerbating the reverse brain drain: an international talent “shortage,” countries offering great opportunities to young professionals, anti-immigrant American policies, and the destruction of the American public school system.

Articles in leading magazines and journals talk about the international talent “shortage.” Actually, there is not a talent shortage, it’s a talent imbalance.

America, in fact, does have a severe talent shortage in the leading-edge professions, science, and technology. But, countries like China and India have a talent surplus. That is why you see so many talented Chinese and Indian professionals currently working in the U.S. But, as the Chinese and Indian economies continue to grow, so will the opportunities for these young professionals who want to work in their homelands.

Not only China and India, but many countries now see the advantages of bring their talented expatriates home. Vietnam is bringing home 300,000 expatriates per year. Brazil is luring home thousand of engineers and scientists. The Irish government has a special fund to help Irish entrepreneurs repatriate. Iceland has created a high-tech center to attract young professionals.

While foreign competitors are working to attract talent, the Americans are initiating policies to keep talent out. In post 9/11 America, anti-immigrant feelings are rapidly rising. American companies that were already losing their competitive positions to new capitalist companies in China and India have fueled the fire that has lead to anti-immigrant legislation. This legislation is not anti-terrorist, it’s anti-immigrant.

All of the above comes at a time when the American public school system has become a national disgrace. At a time when home-grown talent is critical, we have failed to educate our best and brightest. The American public school system now caters to the dumbest and laziest, while the best and brightest are bored and unchallenged. American students score at the bottom internationally in math and science; and their English language and writing skills are shameful. Perhaps we’ve lost an entire generation.

Where will America get the talent it needs?

For more discussion on this and related topics, please visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Future Organizational Structures

For many years, we all heard predictions of intellectual assets becoming more important to organizations than tangible assets. We are now in the era of intellectual assets. In 1997, Stewart’s research found, "Capital spending on information technology, which in 1965 was only one-third of that of production technology, now exceeds it."

Information technology will allow organizations to maintain large databases of customer needs and preferences. The new customer-based operations will cause organizations to move away from traditional hierarchies toward inter-company collaborative ventures. These new structures will include suppliers, customers, and even old competitors.

In 1999, Dunning described three stages of market-based capitalism based on three key characteristics:

1) 17th and 18th Centuries:
primary source of wealth - land
spatial dimension - local
organizational form - feudal or entrepreneurial

2) 19th and 20th Centuries:
primary source of wealth - machines
spatial dimension - regional/national
organizational form - corporate hierarchy

3) 21st Century:
primary source of wealth - knowledge
spatial dimension - global
organizational form - alliances

These changes are the causes for the reconfiguration of value-added activities, the expansion of spatial dimensions, and the restructuring of organizational forms. These changes will result in "soft boundaries" for organizations.

While large corporations are downsizing the value-added activities they do in-house, "they are not replacing these with arm's length transactions, but rather with a series of on-going and hands-on technological and marketing relationships with their new suppliers, customers, and competitors" (Dunning, 1999, p.6).

Dunning offers the following comparisons of the old and new paradigms:

Old - an organizer of human and physical resources
New - an innovator and product improver
Old - gain competitive advantage with tangible assets
New - gain competitive advantage with core competencies
Old - "an island of conscious power"
New - a member of an alliance or network
Old - arm's length relationships with suppliers & customers
New - partnerships with suppliers and customers

The network structures of the 21st century will afford distinct advantages. Network structures will enable organizations "to gain many of the efficiencies traditionally reserved for large firms while remaining small and nimble" (Cummings & Worley, 2001, p.617). Network structures can quickly adapt to changing customer needs.

Is your organization, or your client’s organization, structured to compete successfully in the 21st century?

For more discussion about organizational structure, see chapter 8 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.”

For free articles and resources on leadership and organizational effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Organizational Political Savvy

It is a fact of organizational life: politics influence virtually everything that happens in an organization. Leaders, especially change leaders, must develop political savvy. I am not advocating unethical behavior, but I am recommending that leaders consciously fine tune their political awareness.

In organizations, individuals and groups are continually vying for scarce resources. Each one is attempting to maintain or enhance its self interests. Many leaders and consultants underestimate these powerful forces.

Any attempt to implement organizational change will invariably threaten one of these individuals or groups. Organizational change is frequently accompanied by conflicting interests, unethical behavior, and emotional turmoil. Change leaders must learn to navigate these dangerous waters.

Power and Change

The word "power" has positive and negative connotations. In this chapter, we will concentrate on the positive, ethical uses of power. Burke (1982) believes "for change to occur in an organization, power must be exercised" (p.127).

Let’s take a brief look at Richard Emerson's Power-Dependency Theory. Emerson's (1962) theory depicts a social relationship between two parties in which scarce resources (commodities and rewards) are controlled by one party and desired by another. Thus, power is inherent in any social relationship in which one person depends on another.

"Commodities" in power-dependency theory can include social commodities, such as respect, praise, influence, and information. French and Bell (1999) state, "We enter into and continue in exchange relationships when what we receive from others is equivalent to or in excess of what we must give to others" (p.284).

Bases of Power

Managers and consultants should be able to recognize the bases of power individuals, groups, and coalitions exert in organizations.

French and Raven (1959) suggest five bases of power:
1. reward power - based on the ability to reward another
2. coercive power - based on the ability to punish another
3. legitimate power - based on the holder's position
4. referent power - based on charisma (i.e. popularity)
5. expert power - based on knowledge or expertise

Mintzberg (1983) also speaks of five bases of power:
1. control of a critical resource
2. control of a critical technical skill
3. control of a critical body of knowledge
4. legal prerogatives (e.g., exclusive rights)
5. access to any of the other four bases

Additionally, Mintzberg believed the influencer must have both the "will and skill" to use his or her base(s) of power.

Salancik and Pfeffer (1977) also contribute some valuable insights into our understanding of power in organizational settings. They view power as a positive and necessary force for change and progress in organizations. They believe power bases can be created by the placement of allies in key positions.

Using Political/Power Skills

For change efforts to succeed, managers/change agents must develop and use power skills. The first skill required is the ability to analyze the current political situation. Failure in this assessment phase invariably leads to frustrated change efforts.

French and Bell (1999) believe, "one gains a quick understanding of the overall political climate of an organization by studying its methods of resource allocation, conflict resolution, and choosing among alternative means and goals" (p.286).

Greiner and Schein (1988) believe change agents must be able to assess their own power and to identify key stakeholders. Only after assessing their own power base(s) can they determine how to use it/them to influence others. This assessment will also reveal areas where enhancement of power is necessary. Some of these weak areas can be strengthened by developing allies in the organization.

For more discussion about organizational political savvy, see chapter 4 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.”

For free articles and resources on leadership and organizational effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Leadership Formulas

Do we really believe outstanding leadership is so simple that we can boil it down to a simple formula? Could any single formula explain the likes of Gandhi, Jack Welch, and Bill Gates? Of course not.

Individual human beings are amazingly complex. Interactions between individuals and groups are even more complex. Leadership represents one of the most complex forms of human interaction. In any given leader-follower relationship countless things are happening simultaneously: ego needs, security needs, needs for power, needs for approval, needs for affiliation, needs for achievement, etc., etc.

Nevertheless, many authors continue to offer simple formulas for leadership success. John Maxwell alone has written enough leadership books to fill your garage. Maxwell’s ideal leader would, no doubt, be effective in the church where he is the pastor. But, could you imagine a Maxwell-like leader being taken seriously in the business world or in the military?

Jim Collins, after writing his extraordinary book “Good to Great,” decided to simplify the leadership phenomenon to a few paradoxical combinations: humble and willful, or shy and fearless. He calls these paradoxical combinations Level Five Executive Leadership, “a necessary requirement for transforming an organization from good to great.”

Collins uses Abraham Lincoln as an example of a Level Five Executive Leader. While we all admire Abe Lincoln, could you imagine Lincoln as CEO of Microsoft or Amazon.com?

In my own articles and books, I offer a leadership model that is more complex than the “pop” models. It is more complex, but it also offers some practical guidance. My leadership model considers the characteristics of the leader, the characteristics of the followers, and the characteristics of the task.

In any leadership situation, of course, we want to look at the characteristics of the leader. My argument with the leadership characteristics described in the “pop” literature is against the tendency to be overly simplistic.

We must also consider the follower characteristics in a leader-follower relationship. An interesting body of literature about follower characteristics emerged several years ago. Unfortunately, this type of study has not been very popular because it does not appeal to the people who seek simplistic ideas about leadership success.

Finally, in my work, I have urged individuals and organizations to consider the characteristics of the task at hand. The highly effective tank commander in combat situations may not be the best choice to lead the new Sunday School at your church.

Leadership will continue to be a fascinating topic. Some of the best research on leadership is being conducted right here in Greensboro, North Carolina (where I live) at the Center for Creative leadership (CCL). The findings of CCL’s research may not be found at the top of the New York Times bestseller list, but reading CCL’s research is well worth the investment of your time.

For more discussion about leadership effectiveness, see chapter 11 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.” I also recommend the work of Marcus Buckingham. Buckingham’s work is based on his interviews with numerous executives.

For free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.