Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Interacting vs. Managing - GLF 2014|2015


Published on

Leaders currently spend 41 percent of their time managing, but if given the choice, leaders would nearly double the time they spend interacting and cut in half the time spent managing. And that shift would serve organizations well. Read more about how leaders spend their time. For a full list of findings from the Global Leadership Forecast 2014|2015, visit

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

Interacting vs. Managing - GLF 2014|2015

  1. 1. Where Spend Many leaders leading, and w taking a closer planning, doin spent in conve and customers successful lead authors wrote durable, comp leverage conve We found that average, 43 pe this is due to a leaders place m relationships. G they spend inte There is a high in how leaders job j satisfaction organizations s spent managin which in turn w DDI has evalu center process range of comp • Maintains • Listens and • Asks for he • Shares thou • Provides su • Facilitates Leader perform than one in thr managers perf e Sho ding T ask themselves which is more im r look at manag ng administrativ ersation with ot s. We hypothes dership than is that the quality petitive advanta ersations as rel t Australian and ercent of their ti perception am more value on m Given a prefere eracting and re h cost to organi s spend their tim n, higher turno signaled that ti ng, they likely w would be close uated thousands . In simulated l petencies, but a or enhances se d responds with elp and encoura ughts, feelings upport without discussions. mance on these ree displaying h form as poorly * Matson, E., & Pr Quarterly. uld Le Their T s: What’s the d mportant? We ging and intera ve tasks, sched thers, such as p size that interac managing. In a y of interaction age, and aptly l lationship capit d New Zealand ime managing mong leaders th managing task ence, leaders w educe time spen izations that ne me. A heavier over, and lower ime spent inter would have a st ely linked to su s of leaders usi leadership env also focus on ke elf-esteem. h empathy. ages involveme s, and rationale removing resp e interaction sk high proficienc as new frontlin rusak, L. (2010, Septe ** Busine, M., Wat ember), Boosting the tt, B., Wellins, R.S., & onversations: What L imensions Internation High-Quality Co Development Di Indicates re Boatman, J. (2013), eaders Must Do Ever nal. esults that are b Global Leadership based on the glo p Forecast 2014 | 2015 eaders Time? difference betw chose to refram acting. “Manag duling, etc. “Int peers, team mem cting is far mor aMcKinsey Qu ns has the poten label the ability tal.* d leaders curre (see the figure hat their organi ks than on inter would more tha nt managing by eglect striving f focus on mana r engagement a racting was as v tronger leaders uperior financia ing a highly va vironments, we ey interaction s s Be ween managing me the issue by ging” is time sp teracting” is tim mbers, supervi re critical to uarterly article ntial to create y of leaders to ntly spend, on e to the left). In zation’s senior rpersonal an double the ti y about 30 perc for a better bal aging leads to l among leaders. valuable as tim ship bench stren al performance alid assessment assess a wide skills: ent. (to enhance . (to build trust ponsibility. (to b e collaboration) t) build ownershi kills is sorely la cy.** Not surp ne leaders. acking, with les risingly, senior wledge Workers, McK Productivity of Know , Driving Workplace P ry Day to Be Effective obal sample. Performance Throug e, Pittsburgh, PA, 2 g and y pent me isors, e, the part, r ime cent. lance less If me ngth, e. t ) ip) ss r Kinsey gh No ow Wh 1. O rganizations m managers acco to o their interpe th hey accomplis en ngagement h pr roviding leade be e used as ben pe erceive them nsure that yo ystems includ nteraction ski romote leade kills rather th uilding positiv n our experien eaders, with y eavy dose of s ained and de thers. 2. En sy in pr sk 3. B In le he tr ot Organiza Benefit M all levels of equal proport and the resu ment of emplo ng way in back (which c n how others tions, lts oyee can and promotio asure of mains to selec their technica ership skills. n skills is not e ing thousand ice coupled w but leaders ca nteract better on ct or al easy. ds of with a an be r with Value Interac Austra at need to hold ountable, in e ersonal skills sh. Measurem as come a lo ers with feed nchmarks) on . our selection a de a valid mea lls. A bias rem ers based on t an their leade ve interaction nce with train ears of practi self-insight, b eveloped to in ations That V More cting ralia | New Zealan d