One of the truths at the heart of popular business guru Jim Collins’ research is that it is disciplined people, disciplined thought and disciplined action that helps an organisation move from Good to Great. This is strongly reinforced by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers - which claims to uncover the secrets behind people’s success.

One of the key facts he comments on is the 10,000 hours rule  - based on German research on high quality musicians. They demonstrated with violinists that those who practised for eight thousand hours by the time they were 20 were good - those that practised for 10,000  hours were world class. This research was followed up with pianists yielding the same results. Later research reinforced the 10,000 hours rule with chess players, ice skaters, fiction writers, composers etc. Gladwell shows The Beatles got to be world class through 10,000 hours of live playing and practice together. Bill Gates did an incredible 10,000 hours of computer programming  by the time he dropped put of Harvard and set up his own software company. Clearly, talent and personality link in here - to give the drive to do all that practising. But the essential point from Gladwell’s research is that great performance is not an accident - people have worked at it.

Gladwell also looks at a list of the 75 richest people in world history - 14 are American men born between 1832 and 1839. This was an incredible time of opportunity and growth and these men used their vision and talent to great advantage.  Another group emerged in the 1950’s - well positioned to lead the IT revolution. So we have people with well honed skills and abilities who are able to take best advantage of the opportunities that come their way. Gladwell goes on to talk about matching these “advantages” with the ability to work with others

“No one - not rock stars, not professional athletes, nor software billionaires and not even geniuses - ever makes it  alone”

So how does this link to leadership and the challenges of facing change in the 21st century? To a degree Gladwell’s first book The Tipping Point gives some interesting pointers here. When does a change or trend become contagious? We have the recent case of British Airways trying to get staff to accept no wages for a month - will that remain an isolated incident or will every firm be doing it?  What habits will change over the coming years - will crime increase? Will everyone stop taking foreign holidays? Leaders need to watch for the signs - to observe when a trend suddenly becomes the accepted norm. 

That then leads to the question, does Gladwell give any clues on leading change in challenging times? He points us to look at those who have had their 10,000 hours of practice in leading change - those who have been successful either in leading extensive transformations in recent years, but also those who have mastered the process of handling change in past times of crisis and turmoil. Those who lead now - people born in the 1960’s and 1970’s - may be about to start a long period of honing their skills during times of change, innovation, more effective working. Their ability to emerge from this period as world class deliverers of change will depend on how much practice they get in shaping the future, how they find and utilise the talent and change experience around them and bringing people with them.

We are used to change; many organisations have almost become change junkies looking for the latest idea or the smartest improvement. There are different types of change - some is fast moving and potentially high risk e.g. I was once involved in a merger where huge change needed to be achieved within 48 hours to meet regulatory requirements. I have been involved in redundancy programmes that need to have pace so that people know where they stand as quickly as possible. Other change takes time; some of our finest examples of changing and thriving communities in the UK have taken 15 - 20 years to bring about. With these extremes in timescales and scope it is difficult to be prescriptive about the best way to achieve change.

What we do know, however, is that up to 70% of change programmes fail to deliver what they set out to do - some commentators put the figures higher. This means that change can be an extremely expensive, exhausting, all consuming waste of money. John Kotter, often viewed as the guru of change, states:

“The number one problem organisations have is all about creating a sense of urgency - and that’s the first step in a series of actions needed to succeed in a changing world.”

Kotter argues that urgency is essential. Gallup’s work suggests that this links closely with people knowing what is expected of them. Leaders need to articulate a clear, achievable and ambitious vision - it may need to challenge some attitudes, it must clarify what will happen next (and the realistic steps) and gain the commitment of a significant proportion of those delivering the change.

Change leaders know about the need for a clear vision, a detailed plan, the need to manage risks and key stakeholders. These are “the good practices of change”. David Maister makes a very telling point about change:

“Knowing that something is good for us is not necessarily a predictor that we are going to do it.”

The vision, the planning and the processes of change can be brilliant but ultimately it is the people element that plays a key role. Are the people who need to deliver this change committed to making it work? Some people just don’t want to change. The reasons can vary greatly but gaining that commitment to act in a time of great uncertainty and stress may well be the thing that will separate out the organisation’s heroes of 2009 from the organisational losers.

To comment click here

We know what Obama was like leading a campaign for change - he set out an attractive vision and created a strong and diverse coalition of support. His dreaming pre his inauguration as President was attractive and persuasive. Now of course he has to move those ideas into action. I wonder if his own energy and eloquence makes his Treasury Secretary look inadequate in comparison. President Bush in contrast looked increasingly isolated and inept in the second half of 2008 as the economic crisis gathered pace and his treasury team therefore were more clearly in the driving seat.

We know that Obama is inspired by the character and story of Abraham Lincoln. It is an example many of us could learn from. Doris Kearns Goodwin in her book “Team of Rivals” describes how one Cabinet member had previously described Lincoln as “A long armed ape” - other appointees were fiercely independent and had very different agendas from their President.

Lincoln set out some leadership principles that guided his behaviour. Let us remember the context he was in - America was deeply divided not just on the issue of slavery but on the balance of power between the various states and the role of Washington. Tensions grew into civil war - a bloody and costly conflict that tore the nation apart. Like Lincoln, Obama is leader at a time of historic challenge and significance. The analogy goes further; many leaders are in a similarly challenging position as they face challenges which in their combined impact are unlike any they have seen before. So Lincoln’s principles carry resonance for all leaders - they include “Surround yourself with whatever talent the given enterprise requires” “Welcome - indeed strongly encourage - principled dissent” “Appreciate effort but only reward performance” “Lead with firmness in the right”.

These are powerful leadership principles. One of the early tests of Obama’s Presidency will be how he handles the dwindling credibility of Mr Geithner. Some of this dwindling credibility is the direct result of political attack but some of it is about image and character. He needs to reinforce Geithner as part of his “yes we can - yes we will” campaign. He needs to let Geithner demonstrate strong leadership himself - perhaps he could lend his beleaguered some of his Lincoln books. America, and therefore the world, needs clear economic leadership at this time. The need to dream here about the type of world we want to live in over the next ten to twenty years is crucial. He needs really high calibre debate, the sharpest minds, and the most insightful challenges. Lincoln fostered robust debate; Obama needs to do this to in order to turn his dreams into reality.

 

“Most interesting was the horse. Since the eyes are mounted on the side of a horse’s head, the sharpness in the video screens was exactly opposite that of a human being. Humans see peripheral objects, at the corners of our eyes, as blurred and distorted; but we see the centre in sharp focus. Horses, at least according to this Japanese representation, see the peripheral as sharp. When they look, at the centre, the place where their eyes meet, the image is distorted and elongated”

When you consider the data on organisational change the facts are warrantedly depressing. Consider for example, the finding that only ten percent of all carefully formulated strategies are successfully implemented.  Perhaps the words of the great sociologist Emile Durkheim have something to teach us:

“When mores are sufficient, laws are unnecessary. 

When mores are insufficient, laws are unenforceable.”

This raises the need (when planning needed changes in your organisation) to consider how to get them deeply ingrained in the values, mindset, and skill set of individuals. Without this you might as well forget about it.

 Source: J. Stewart Black & Hal B Gregersen (2008) It Starts With One

Since President Obama’s election there’s been much talk of America under new leadership. Already plenty of policy has been introduced, changed, or revisited. Last week the New York Times reported on another element of change. Its article, “White House Unbuttons Formal Dress Code,” tells of an office under new management.

President Bush apparently was a stickler for formality and doing things by the book - he once locked Secretary of State Powell out of the Cabinet Room for turning up a few minutes late. The new boss is much less formal and predictable. He has surprised staff by dressing casually and by turning up unannounced in their offices. It also notes that the most powerful person in the world makes time to help his children pack for school. The article suggests a leader who is comfortable to be himself rather than follow convention. His style - and its impact on those he works with - seems deliberate.

Leaders inevitably shape the office culture within which they work but often this is done more by accident than intention. If your office came under new management what might people miss about the culture you shaped? What do you want your office culture to be like and what else can you do to steer it that way?

Senior Managers did not get to be Senior Managers by being stupid… okay, there are a few exceptions to the rule but they really are exceptions. Senior Managers are technically competent, they bring a lot of expertise and awareness to their roles. All things being equal, however, technical competence does not separate the good from the great - or the quick from the dead!

Relationships are key. Great Senior Managers are differentiated not by what they know, but by how they act. They do not constrain their capable people, take them for granted, or expect the impossible.

But they do challenge, release, enable. At times like these we need clarity of thinking, great decisions and excellent implementation. Great Managers realise the onus is not on them to provide these themselves, but to release them in others.

I remember an excellent Sales Director I worked with. We worked hard to produce a proposal for him that we really thought was the best way forward. He made us go back and trim something off it and we thought we were doing the impossible! But, as we worked at it we found ways to address his concerns. He had got us thinking ’til our brains hurt - and he was right to do so.

What is the value of sharp thinking to your organisation right now? What impact will it have if you can have some “breakthrough” ideas? How can you enable innovation? Your ability to enable your team “to bring their brains to work”, to fully engage the challenges and opportunities facing you, will have far more impact than your personal expertise alone. Peter Drucker once said, however:

“Half the leaders I have met don’t need to learn what to do. They need to learn what to stop”.

We often have behaviours that get in the way - we may be very competitive and hold others back, we may need to add our ideas and imprint to things and stifle objectivity, we may undermine others by our remarks, we may come across as negative - the list goes on. Do you understand the flaws that you have that can hold others back?

At Caret we see sharp thinking, new radical ideas, issues linking together, problems solved every day in our privileged role as organisational consultants. We also see many barriers to effectiveness, but we are convinced the talent, the ideas, and the need to succeed are there - go out and tap into it!

One of the great pitfalls leaders can fall into during the Credit Crunch is the belief that previous success guarantees future happiness - or, that what has worked in the past will work in the future. Clearly, the context many leaders are operating in is different. Not least are the changes in confidence, commitment, knowledge and awareness of their teams.

Indeed, Marshall Goldsmith - in his challenging book What Got You Here Won’t Get You There - argues that:

 “successful people become great leaders when they learn to shift the focus from themselves to the performance of others”.

He demonstrates how a high proportion of senior people overestimate their own contribution and skills and ignore many of their failures and errors.

The pressure is on leaders to step up to the mark, issue dictats, make heroic decisions. But greatness lies in recognising our own gaps and by skillfully utilising the expertise around us. George W Bush gives us a good example of how not to do it - as reported in The Guardian, 26/11/08:

“Bush could not tolerate any dissent, once telling a luckless economics adviser that any decision the President made was, by definition, good policy.”

Barack Obama seems to prefer strong characters, robust discussion, good listening, and then he will make decsisions.

We need new answers and new solutions. Of course, the past provides guidelines and principles, but they need to be tested out against the new risks, and barriers to success need addressing. Just looking to past successes contrains our thinking.

The challenge is to enable others - to motivate them to take diffcult decisions and think through the short and long term consequences. You need buy-in from key stakeholders. A key issue is that whilst the decisions you make are important, the implementation of those decisions is where “the rubber hits the road”.

Great leaders enable their organisation to implement and they consider the current capacity to make implementation work - not what happened in the past.

Studies have found that less than 10 percent  of effectively formulated strategies carry through to successful implementation.  Some 90 percent of companies consistently fail to execute strategies effectively.  One key to effective strategy execution is the fact that it results from executing the right set of strategic projects/work streams in the right way.  These numbers seem to chime with the experience and research of change expert John Kotter.

Referring to his work for the book Leading Change, Kotter explains:

“That book was based on the analysis of about one hundred efforts in organisations to produce large scale change: implementing new growth strategies, putting in new IT systems, reorganising to reduce expenses.  Incredibly, we found that in over 70 percent of the situations where substantial changes were clearly needed, either they:

• were not fully launched, or
• the change efforts failed, or
• changes were achieved but over budget, late, and with great frustration

We also found that in about 10 percent of the cases, people achieved more than would have been thought possible.  Surprisingly, at least to us, in those 10 percent a similar formula was used in virtually all instances”

Sound familiar?  What has been your experience?

Led by John Podesto (former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton), the Obama transition team has gone back 50 years to study other transitions, hour by hour in some cases, seeking to tease out key lessons.  The lessons they emphasised include:

• Getting going quickly but deliberately
• Being careful
• Being thorough in analysis

If you are managing a key transition in your organisation could you benefit from taking a leaf out Obama’s transition team?