Iranians used Twitter to expose the corrupt elections and political turmoil in 2009. It had a profound ripple effect on how Social Media is used. And it was an A-ha moment for Recruiters globally.

Just like the stifled Iranian protests that seeped through Twitter feeds, 2010 will be about controlling what the outside world thinks about your company.

This is where Recruiters enter and exit…

Enter….

Recruiters use every social media websites to find candidates, right? But Recruiters also deal with the bad pub that is generated on blogs, comments, tweets, pictures, and anything on the web. So, attracting top talent is a BIG challenge if the company doesn’t have a good reputation.

Now Exit…

How your company maintains its employment brand (or in some cases cleans it up) will NOT fall into the Recruiters role.

This means…

Employment Branding Campaigns will be controlled by HR and where Recruiters just chip in to be a pair of hands.

The very place you find candidates will also be the platform for HR to deploy Employment Branding initiatives and programs.

Your job, the Recruiter, in 2010 is to find talent and deliver a uniform message or “The Employment Brand”.

Think about it….

Using Social Media to deliver a positive message is part of the job now. AND, Recruiters will take to social media websites a uniform message to attract top talent and at the same time counter the bad public image it already has.

Iranian politics has something in common with Employment Branding Projects – social media sites (like Twitter) will be under a watchful eye and controlled at all times.

——–

Read recent blog post Welcome Back Eager Beavers

Are you so old that you remember when Memorial Day was called Decoration Day? Are you so ancient that you remember when Memorial Day was sacrosanct – it fell, year in, year out, on May 30th? Are you so decrepit that you remember when Memorial Day was more than the beginning of summer – when its sole purpose was to honor the men and women who died defending our country?

If the answer is yes, you’ll know that Memorial Day was draped in the American flag. It was among the most deeply felt and quintessentially American of our national holidays, evoking strong feelings of patriotism and deep pride in the United States of America.

On this particular Memorial Day, though, we face a question that can no longer be ignored. Nor should it be, not even on a day dedicated to our fallen heroes. The question is this: What is the role of nationalism in an international world? Perhaps it’s a bit blasphemous to pose the question at just this moment, in connection with our commemorations. But it could be the exactly right time to ask out loud whether the 21st century will be kind to those who say, “My country, right or wrong.”

The fact of the matter is that as we gear up to select the next chief executive, the next commander-in-chief, the world in which the US is situated is changing dramatically. On one level we know this, of course. We know that Europe is now vigorous in its own right and entirely self contained; that countries such as China, India, and Brazil are becoming behemoths that need the US little or not at all; that Russia is becoming again what it was, distant and difficult; that the Middle East is the proverbial powder keg over which Americans have nearly no control; and that several countries in Africa remain in desperate need of outside intervention, if only to contain catastrophe.

Moreover we know full well, intellectually if not yet viscerally, that many of our most intractable problems are impossible to solve by the US acting alone. The war in Iraq, the threat of terrorism, the energy crisis and global warming – these are only some of the mountains that can be climbed only in tandem.

The issue is overarching. The issue is that we live in a world in which neither institutions nor individuals yet grasp how outmoded is our leadership, and how outmoded are the governance structures within which leaders necessarily operate. For all we think we know about globalization, about the shrinking planet, we know not a lot about how actually to accommodate it. To take just a single example, when disaster strikes, as it did recently in Mayanmar, national boundaries can preclude us from providing help. In fact, outsiders eager to parachute in with supplies in tow were reduced to being bystanders. Why? Because for weeks on end both national states and international organizations chose to abide by the old rules of nonintervention, even as they violated the much older rules of common decency.

Memorial Day is an occasion to pay homage to those who gave their lives for their country. But we are not precluded from concluding that the nationalism of times past must now be supplemented by – not supplanted by, supplemented by – an internationalism in keeping with the changing times. Nor are we precluded from finding and favoring leaders with vivid imaginations – so they can conjure how the world might work.

See the original post here, by Barbara Kellerman @ Harvard Business Publishing

Yikes! What a response! All I did in my most recent blog was point out the obvious: that when Hillary Clinton ran for president she had certain advantages. The fact that some of these advantages – widespread name recognition, for example, and lots of money in her political pocket – grew out of her previous position as First Lady seemed to me to be clear. My mistake. What was apparent to me was not apparent to every one else.

OK, so let me ask you this: Would the response – both pro and con – have been so strong had I written not about Hillary Clinton but about Nancy Pelosi? In 2002 Nancy Pelosi was elected by her colleagues as Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives, and in 2007 she was elected Speaker. In both cases, she was the first woman in American history to be so honored.

It does not detract one whit from Pelosi’s accomplishments to point out that, like Clinton, she could capitalize on her close relationship to a powerful politician. For Nancy Pelosi is Nancy D’Alesandro Pelosi. She is the daughter of Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., who for several decades was one of America’s most prominent Democrats. D’Alesandro was elected to Congress five times. Then, for twelve years (1947-1959), he served as Mayor of Baltimore. Given that Pelosi was born in 1940, it’s clear she grew up in a household suffused in Democratic politics. And it’s equally clear that from an early age she used her connections to pursue her interests – which not incidentally mirrored those of her father.

As a young woman, Nancy D’Alesandro interned for Senator Daniel Brewster and future House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer. After she married and moved to San Francisco – where her brother, Ronald Pelosi, happened to be a member of the City and County of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors – she took time off to raise her children. By 1977 she had re-entered politics, serving as party Chairwoman for Northern California, and later joining forces with one of the leaders of the California Democratic Party, Philip Burton. Pelosi waited to run for elective office until her youngest child was a high school senior – then she went full tilt. She was elected to Congress in 1987, and again every two years after that.

Would Pelosi be where she is now had she not been her father’s daughter? Maybe. But who would want to argue that the household in which she grew up, and the experiences it provided, and the connections it afforded, were of no relevance whatsoever to her political career?

To their everlasting credit, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi did on their own achieve a great deal. Moreover aspects of their journey are instructive, and should be considered by those who would follow in their wake. But there is another truth as well, which is that both women have had benefits the rest of us cannot readily replicate. These include not only family ties, and family more generally, but also money. During the course of their lives Clinton and Pelosi, along with their husbands, became rich, really rich, with assets of many millions of dollars. They are not, in other words, like you and me. Or, at least, not like me.

Original post here, by Barbara Kellerman @ Harvard Business Publishing

It’s among the worst places in the world to live. In recent years the situation’s gone from very bad to even worse. And in recent months it’s hit rock bottom.

Among the different countries on the African continent, Zimbabwe is, or should have been, among the most advantaged. After it gained independence – formerly it was Rhodesia – there was reason for optimism. The English had left behind a good infrastructure, arable land was plentiful and producing surplus for export, and natural resources were in abundant supply.

Instead, under the ghastly leadership of Robert Mugabe, the now 84-year-old liberation hero who has been in power for almost three decades, Zimbabwe has dropped slowly but certainly to the bottom of the heap. Since 2000 well over five million people have left the country. There is nearly nothing to eat and no work to be had. Despair and decay are everywhere. Life expectancy is the lowest in the world (mid thirties). Inflation is the highest in the world. And there are more orphans per capita in Zimbabwe than anywhere else on the planet.

Moreover in his old age, Mugabe has gone mad. How else to describe a leader who is so desperate for power that he will do whatever it takes to keep it, up to and including murder and mayhem. As the New York Times summarized the situation, the presidential runoff election scheduled for Friday has been preceded by “a calculated campaign of bloodletting meant to intimidate the opposition and strip it of some of its most valuable foot soldiers.” Things got so bad that Mugabe’s main rival quit the race, saying he could no longer take part in the “violent, illegitimate sham of a process,” nor could he ask of others that they risk their lives on his behalf.

But this grim and grisly story is much less about Mugabe, who is a fiendish freak of nature, than it is about other leaders, who years ago should have weakened and even disabled him. Highest on the list is South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki, who stood by and watched as the situation next door deteriorated. To be sure, Mbeki was in good company – other African leaders did no more. But South Africa is the strongest country by far in the region. So Mbeki’s passivity sent a signal to those who ended up his equally passive counterparts: Being a bystander is being presidential.

Western leaders – presidents, prime ministers, cabinet secretaries – followed suit. To a person they flunked leadership. Oh sure, there’s been lots of tut-tutting. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said recently that it was time for the “leaders of Africa to say to President Mugabe that the people of Zimbabwe deserved a free and fair election.” England’s Prime Minster Gordon Brown went on to caution that the “eyes of the world” were on Zimbabwe. And United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon insisted just a few days ago that the election in Zimbabwe would not be credible unless the government brought to a halt its harassment of the opposition.

Meantime more anti-Mugabe activists have been killed, more injured, and more jailed. No getting around it: While Zimbabweans burned, others fiddled, none more achingly than those at the top.

Leaders and managers in government and business tend to mind their own business. They occupy themselves with those who are, most obviously, their followers, their subordinates, their constituents. But in this day and age, when the planet has shrunk, and when the technology is such that everyone knows everything, that’s just not good enough any more. The time is now for a more expansive view, for a view of leadership that transcends the group or organization for which we are directly responsible. In the mad, sad case of Zimbabwe such inter-group leadership, exercised in a smart and timely manner, could have made all the difference.

Read the original here, by Barbara Kellerman @ Harvard Business Publishing

During the last week the tut-tutting morphed into screaming and yelling. But it was too little too late. Despite all the recent hand-wringing and blame-gaming by many of the world’s most powerful and prominent leaders, Zimbabwe’s longtime despot, Robert Mugabe, received 85.5 % of the vote in Friday’s sham election. So without further ado he went ahead before the weekend was over and had himself sworn in, for the sixth time, as president.

The question now is what can be learned from this experience. What happened in Zimbabwe is not, of course, idiosyncratic. Human history is chock full of examples of bad leaders, even evil leaders, who do what they want when they want in spite of what others think or say.

Let’s be clear-eyed then. Let’s admit that Mugabe got away with murder. He reminded us, because apparently we still need reminding, that leaders who have power and authority, and who are determined at all costs to keep what they have, can do so. More precisely, they can and they will do so unless and until someone from somewhere, from inside or outside, stops them.

Bad leaders, especially the really bad ones, do not wake up one fine morning, see the light, and on their own volition reform. Not on your life. In fact, history teaches just the opposite. The worse leaders are, and the more deeply embedded they are, the more willing and able they are to defy their enemies and squelch the opposition.

What, then, is to be done? Are we destined, doomed to be bystanders? Are we destined, doomed, even when faced with the worst of the worst, to being ineffectual altogether? Or are there some things that can and should be done, some things that we, as followers, can and should do to stop or, at least, to slow, bad leadership? Recall that though I am talking here about a tyrant, bad leadership in its various guises is ubiquitous.

So the question of what to do is not exactly exogenous. It arises in everyday life, in the workplace and in the market place, as well as in world affairs. Here, then, are some rules to effect, in so far as humanly possible. They can guide all of us who encounter bad leadership, be it in public or private settings, and whether we are participants or simply observers.

• Have the punishment fit the crime. Mugabe, for example, could be tried at some point in The Hague, at the international tribunal which has been increasingly empowered by public opinion to consider cases resembling his. Nor should corporate leaders be exempt from this general rule. They too must be held to account for wrongdoing.

• Institutionalize checks and balances. Again, this applies not only to the public sector, but also to the private one, in which agents such as boards and shareholder activists are, in fact, being emboldened to take on errant chief executives.

• Institutionalize term limits. Whether a large group or a small organization, this is a simple enough device, intended to preclude people in positions of authority from abusing their authority over a long period of time.

• Obtain independent information. Never take the party line at face value. The party line is just that, no less and decidedly no more. Those of us lucky enough to be free agents owe it to ourselves and to others as well to take the time and trouble to secure information that is relatively objective, as opposed to subjective.

• Find allies and if necessary take collective action. Going out on a limb to take on the powers that be is generally risky, and mostly ineffective. Better to act in concert, than to be a lone ranger.

• Act early. The more deeply entrenched the bad leader, the more difficult he, or she, is to uproot. Timing, then, is all. Waiting to spring into action until things trend from bad to worse is a mistake, nearly without exception.

View original here, by Barbara Kellerman @ Harvard Business Publishing

Those of you who occasionally read my blog, or who in some other way are familiar with my work, will not be surprised to learn that every time there’s a story about the powerless intruding on the powerful, I get interested. For in the last couple of years I have become convinced that those who are usually thought of as followers – that is, those without obvious sources of power, authority, or influence – are edging out those who are usually thought of as leaders.

This is not to say that leaders no longer matter, they do. But I have got to the point where I consider the study of leadership pure and simple simply old-fashioned, grist for the 20th century but not for the 21st. In today’s world leaders everywhere are vulnerable in ways they have not been before. And conversely – as the result of changes both in culture and technology – followers everywhere are empowered in ways they have not been before

Each week I could point to numbers of stories that illustrate my point which, given our love affair with leaders, remains counterintuitive. But here’s my favorite recent example. In an item that hit the front page of the New York Times, but that nevertheless remained under the radar, it was reported that an all-important decision rendered by the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago was based on a factual flaw.

The Court had ruled that the death penalty for raping a child was unconstitutional. In reaching this decision, the Court relied on an inventory which seemed to reveal that only six states currently permitted capital punishment for child rapists, while the other thirty states that had the death penalty did not permit it to be used in these kinds of criminal cases. The Court further took into account the various jurisdictions of the federal government, finding that none extended the death penalty to child rapists.

According to the Times, this inventory was a “central part of the court’s analysis” and “the foundation for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s conclusion in his majority opinion that capital punishment for child rape was contrary to the ‘evolving standards of decency’ by which the court judges how the death penalty is applied.”

There was just one small problem – the Court was wrong. Justice Kennedy’s assertion about the absence of any federal law applying to cases of child rape was misplaced. In fact, as a military law blog pointed out, Congress had revised the Uniform Code of Military Justice as recently as 2006 to add child rape to the military death penalty. Who was the blogger who publicly humiliated and indeed bested the justices of the Supreme Court? He was Dwight Sullivan, a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, who now works for the Air Force on death penalty cases.

Here’s my point. No doubt that Colonel Sullivan is a man of great distinction. But, whatever his accomplishments, he does not rate right up there alongside the nine men and women who have lifelong appointments to the highest court in the land. Did his lesser status stop him? Did it deny him access or preclude him from taking on arguably the most august leaders in the land? Not on your life. Not in this day and age. Sullivan posted his blog – and in the process gave the Court one of its worst black eyes ever.

See original here, by Barbara Kellerman @ Harvard Business Publishing

Before I give you my non-paid sales pitch about Linkedin and how to use Linkedin. Let me explain the background information needed to understand sites like Linkedin, Facebook & Twitter

First thing you want to know is that all social networking sites are part of the Web 2.0 evolution of online applications. Back in 2004 Tim O’Rielly of O’Reilly Media was credited with first using the term, “Web 2.0″.

This term was used to describe the evolution of traditional websites from one way communication to two way communication to all out user driven content and interaction.

The strange thing about the concept of Web 2.0 is that in 2004 Tim Berners-Lee who is the inventor of the World Wide Web, said the following:

 ”I think Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.” (source: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html)

Fast forward to 2010, Mr. Berners-Lee now has a Linkedin profile: Click here to go to his Linkedin profile

Keep in mind, that Mr. Berners-Lee was trying to say that there is no difference between Web 1.0, 2.0 or even Web 1000.993 when we get there. To him it is all the same; a means for people to interact and connect.

Enter Linkedin. Socio-Professional Interactive Application Extraordinaire!

If you are a working professional, then you need to be on Linkedin. It is an incredible networking site and everyone that matters is on it. It is not a job site, although 80% of recruiters use it. And 90% of users are open to hearing about opportunities. Even still, it is not a job site. It is a social networking site for professionals.

The information you post on Linkedin can be used to find jobs, build relationships within your industry or just give people a place to find you on the web.

Check out this Linkedin demographic chart, it should give you an idea of what kind of people are on it:

Here are some key stats from this chart:

69% of Linkedin users earn $60k – to more than $100k

75% of Linkedin users hold a Bachelors degree or greater

68% of Linkedin users are 35 years old and older

What do these stats tell you? They tell me that the educated working professionals with money are on Linkedin exchange ideas and opportunities with one another.

Sounds like they kinds of people that I want to know and would like to introduce myself to. What you don’t want to be is that person who gets on Linkedin after they have lost their job. It does not work like that.

You have to build some sort of network equity before it can be of any use to you. So get started now before something better comes along, then you will be even more behind the times.

Also, don’t worry if you don’t have a bunch of connections at first, that is not the point of being on Linkedin. You want to build as many quality connections as you can. These are connections are people of influence within your industry.

Keep in mind that it will take time to build up your professional contact list, but once you have done it; the value of it can not be quantified.

A perfect example of a well utilized Linkedin account is of Nayeem Chowdhury, North American Recruiting Manager for one of the worlds largest conglomerates.  Click here to check out his Linkedin profile

While you are on his profile go ahead and send him an invite. Go ahead and send me an invite to, I will gladly accept: My Linkedin Profile

You will notice that Mr. Chowdhury is connected to 2,800+ professionals. But they are not a random 2,800, they are all high value contacts within the Oil & Gas industry. Through these contacts, Mr. Chowdhury is able  to establish his presence in the Oil & Gas industry. He is also able to follow people around as they change jobs, move to different cities, etc…

Some of you are thinking, “my email does that.” Sure, your email is a place for you to be contacted online, but no one is looking for your email address.  The people who have social profiles up are the ones who are being found online and get first dibs at the best opportunities.

Here is the bottom line, being on Linkedin will not break your career. But there are a lot of great connections and opportunities that you are missing out on. Since I have been on Linkedin, I have made numerous friends with quality backgrounds who I know will help me if I ever need the help and I will gladly help if they ever need it.

If want a great presence on Linkedin, but don’t know how to achieve it. Then shoot me a message and I will gladly answer any of your questions. And if you come back to my blog in a couple of days, I will have posted a, “How to Use Social Media to find Jobs Video.”

Till then, Make it Happen!

Visit: http://www.akajohsanders.com to see the rest of my blog posts and videos on jobs.

Original post: ERE.net Community

Searching for a job is time consuming. Finding a job that you will enjoy and stay with will likely take even longer. However, if you aren’t currently working it is probably best if you approach your job search like you would your typical job, full time. A few hours a week won’t get you very far in the job market so if you are serious about your job search plan on putting some quality time into your efforts.

If you do decide to put in 40 hours a week here is a suggestion on how you should break your schedule down to accomplish your goals.

40% Job Searching – Whether you choose to look on the major job boards or the newspaper or go to job fairs you should be using the majority of your time to find the perfect opportunity. Out of the box ways of finding jobs that would also introduce some fun into your life include: Local networking events, attending Chamber of Commerce Meetings, Happy Hours near the closest business park in your area, joining a local alumni association/meetings. You can also focus on reading the career newspapers in your area, the classifieds ads, craigslist ads, or networking with local professionals you know. Remember: the more ways to get your name out in the ears of hiring managers the better.

25% Interviewing – Whether it is a phone interview or face to face interview you should be fully prepared for your interviews. Make sure everything is pressed, you’ve gotten enough sleep, you have extra copies of your resume, etc. One common mistake is that candidates for the job do not make sure they know how to get to the interview beforehand. Prepare by going by the location first, timing your route, making sure there’s no construction, and so on. A great way to kill your interview is to show up late.

15% Resume Writing – As I have mentioned in previous blogs it is essential that you format your resume and cover letter to reflect your experience as it relates to the job qualifications and requirements posted on the job order. Resume reformatting is not easy and it is easy to become dejected when you apply to so many jobs and make your resume specific for each one. However, do not underestimate the importance of this practice. Its logical to assume that if you use the same resume for every job you will likely get the same results every time.

10% Follow Up – Make sure to write thank you letters, follow up with the hiring managers, and accurately track your interview progress. Follow up is essential to know how you did, where you can improve, or if you are in contention for the position.

10% Personal Time – Use some personal time to get your mind off the job search. You know you take personal time at work so you should do it in this case as well. Common studies suggest that taken time to yourself during the workday can actually increase productivity.

by Stephen Lytle

Original post created by: ERE.net Community

What organization can afford to sideline or lose nearly three out of five of its most talented workers? That’s the risk uncovered by the Center for Work-Life Policy’s latest research on off-ramps and on-ramps, published last month in the Harvard Business Review. Some 58 percent of high-echelon female talent experience career interruptions that sidetrack them from traditional lock-step linear career paths, penalizing earning power, sabotaging long-term promotional prospects, sapping ambition and causing many women to switch employers or quit work altogether.

Since our original 2005 study, a growing number of influential companies have fundamentally changed their views about the value of female talent, putting into place policies that support and sustain women’s ambition despite the detours that life throws in the way.

For example, in 2004, the overwhelming reason for accomplished women to downshift from their high-speed career track — or even get off entirely — was childcare. Now, programs like Goldman Sachs’ “Great Expectations” Maternity Strategy strengthens the firm’s comprehensive maternity leave with “Keeping in Touch” days for returning mothers, assigning maternity mentors (women who have successfully returned to work after childbirth), and training managers to support their employees throughout the maternity cycle. Similarly, Intel’s New Parent Reintegration Program supports new parents — both fathers and mothers — struggling with the transition back to full-time work by permitting them to coordinate flexible work arrangements, including telecommuting and part-time and staggered hours, for as long as they and their managers agree.

But our new survey, which used the same questionnaire and sampling a similar pool of women, discovered that the ground had shifted.

Although childcare is still the main impetus for off-ramping, eldercare is becoming an important concern, cited by 30 percent of 2009 respondents compared to 24 percent in 2004. The bump is likely due to demographics, as a larger proportion of the American population moves into old age. And while off-ramping for childcare tends to occur at the mean age of 31, when a woman is at the beginning of her career trajectory, off-ramping for eldercare hits baby boomers at the peak of their powers, sucker-punching their careers and prematurely eradicating a company’s top talent. That’s where programs like Moody’s Backup Childcare and Eldercare makes a huge difference. Through a partnership with Bright Horizons, a national provider of work-life services, the program offers employees up to 20 days of care, at rates far below the average market price. Employees are even able to utilize the eldercare program from other states; for example, a New York City-based employee with a sick mother in Florida can request a caregiver to visit her mother in her home.

But that’s not all. Over a quarter of the women in our sample were single and 38 percent of them were childless. Yet even without the pulls of childcare, these women off-ramp in significant numbers — 14 percent of single, never married women have taken a break at some point during their careers, as do 31 percent of childless women. Moreover, 44 percent of childless off-rampers cited an unsatisfactory or disappointing career as a major factor in their decision to depart, while 28 percent said they felt stalled.

No matter what their reason for taking a break, the vast majority of highly qualified women want to return to work. Yet just 73 percent of highly qualified women who want to get back to work succeed in finding a job, and only 40 percent of these were able to find full-time, mainstream jobs.

With the majority of college degrees going to women, the face of future talent is predominantly female. Rather than stand by as the off-ramp undertow wreaks havoc on the career ambitions of their accomplished women employees, corporations have a unique opportunity to throw them a lifeline. Realizing a woman’s potential for a non-linear career path is only the first step. What can your company do to attract and retain the best and brightest over the long haul?

Carolyn Buck Luce is the Global Life Sciences Sector Leader for Ernst & Young in New York and co-founder of the Hidden Brain Drain Task Force. This post was written with Carolyn Buck Luce.

The original is here, by Sylvia Ann Hewlett @ Harvard Business Publishing

Too often I hear the word “leader” misused. It’s a sad fact that many business professionals don’t see themselves as leaders, mainly because “leader” is a term typically linked to people in positions of formal authority. This is a fallacy that undermines performance, in all aspects of life.

Someone said to me recently, “I don’t see myself as a leader. I do not feel comfortable embracing that label. I feel like it isn’t something I have earned.” This is a dangerous point of view – and it’s certainly inconsistent with what our new president called for in his inaugural address! All of us must lead if we are to create sustainable change and make our world better.

If, for whatever reason, you don’t think you’re a leader, then give me a minute or two to offer a couple of observations that might help you see things a bit differently. Do you know of anyone in a management role who doesn’t know how to mobilize people toward valued goals? Do you know people who have no hierarchical authority but are great at leading others? My guess is that the answer is yes to both these questions.

Leadership is not about position. Nor is it about career stage, gender, or culture, although the way leadership plays out is influenced by these and other factors.

“But I don’t have the talent,” some say. How do you become an effective leader, in a way that fits who you are and who you want to become? There is a clear answer to the irksome question, “You can’t teach leadership, can you?” It’s true, teaching leadership is pretty much impossible. But you can – indeed, I would say you must – learn how to lead. Even people who do think of themselves as leaders still need to practice in order to get better.

Leadership is a performing art, and you can never be too good at it. It’s like sports or music. You cannot be too good at playing the saxophone, for example. Think of your favorite athlete or musician. Was he or she as good at 17 as at 32 years old? Probably not; great performers devote themselves to increasing their capacity to perform. It’s the same with leaders. The best ones commit to learning continually, because they want to make a difference.

You have to choose to be a leader. Easier said than done, but it really is that simple. Becoming a better leader is as much a state of mind as anything else. You can develop your leadership capacity, if you want to, no matter how many people (even if none) are reporting to you as their boss. Is there anyone stopping you? The only person who can do so is the one in the mirror.

Read the whole story here, by Stew Friedman @ Harvard Business Publishing