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.

Away days are often seen as an unwelcome interruption to normal day to day running of the organisation, like an unwanted present or visitor. So the preparation, if any, is typically rushed or sparse. Many managers do not clear the everyday operational clutter in their minds to make space for focussed thoughts on the agenda or issues for the day.

Yet the preparation for away days is critical. The thinking time and shifting of mind sets away from the normal day to day operational realities enables participants to contribute and be engaged with the topic of the event. The world back at the office can operate without you - it does when you are on holiday - but on those occasions we tend to plan more and put things in place.

Away days are also opportunities to build on existing or new relationships as well as tap into each others’ expertise, experience and knowledge. Interestingly more and more people who join an organisation attend away days even before or soon after they start work. First impressions can be lasting impressions in these instances; someone new to an organisation needs to prepare well with disciplined thoughts and disciplined action in creating a positive credible impression. This may augur well for long term collaborative working and quicker access to resources.

In fact the G20 meeting is an away day for the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the world. We can see all participants have issues back at home, but despite this they have a common purpose and their preparation has been thorough in looking to:

• Stabilise the Global Economy
• Introduce a more rigorous controls on the financial sector
• Put the economy back on track for sustainable growth

All of these have a huge impact on what is going to happen in the future. The French and Germans seem to favour more rigorous regulation and have even before the away day made their feelings clear by trying to influence the event. They could not have done this without some disciplined thought beforehand. Obama is new to the team so he will be using some of his time to make a credible impression for building and maintaining new relationships with other nations.

Are these the right things for the G20 to focus on or will they disappear into the Bermuda Triangle like some other G20 issues like the eradication of poverty!?

Team away-days (it seems to me) can be real fun and as an objective this can be valuable in its own right.  In many cases however, managers and their teams go into these experiences needing and expecting far more than a brief detour from the harsh realities of day-to-day business.  The aim is sometimes stated as, “…creating a more resourceful and collaborative team environment that is not restricted to ‘away-days’ only”.  Somehow, something is lost in translation.  

In respect of this problem, I find Jim Collins’ idea about discipline really helpful.  He talks about organisations needing: Disciplined Thought; Disciplined People; and Disciplined Action.  Otherwise, great promises and plans degenerate into something of a Bermuda Triangle where ideas disappear without trace.  Of course, measurement is crucial in terms of making and keeping things happen.  That is, if we measure the right things and not too many things!!  

What are your observations and experience?

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.

I just want to point you in the direction of a strong article written by the Dan Oestreich, an American writer, on how to handle redundancies in a way that is consistent with how your business would also handle growth:

There is no beautiful way to do reductions and layoffs. But pain can be reduced significantly if the process is guided by values greater than the dollars that must be saved. I am not suggesting that the need to cut costs should be avoided; I’m saying the “what” and the “how” should be guided by how the enterprise has already defined itself. Either the values it says it lives by are important or they are not. One thing that I am certain about, given my line of work, is that most of us contain a highly sensitive wire about others’ hypocrisy. As a consequence, we keep looking for advice about how reductions can be conducted without setting off the wire.

It’s a long and thoughtful piece and you can find the rest here.  Image from Pulpolux !!! on flickr.

 

“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”

Gary Neilson wrote a good article recently on the Secrets to Successful Strategy Execution. He argues that a lot of things get in the way of organisations turning ideas into action.  I think he has some very useful insights.

• Structural change is very tempting at times but it often ignores the root causes of an organisation’s weaknesses. 
• Poor decision making clogs up the organisational arteries. Do your decision making processes help to get things done, or do they slow them down?
  Is everyone clear about the decisions and actions they are accountable for, or are the guidelines unclear?
• Can key up-to-date information – market changes, customer concerns, finance worries – get through to the decision makers quickly bearing in mind that often decision makers are on the ‘front line’?
• Are decisions second guessed with people further up the hierarchy changing things? Where too many people vet decisions, accountability and commitment to get it right declines. When managers interfere with decisions they are in danger of undermining local experts and managing their own time unproductively.
• Does information flow freely or have you got silos? Do managers have enough information to make joined-up decisions?
• Do front-line managers have the information they need to understand the bottom line impact of their decisions?

I see some of these errors repeated in most of the organisations I work with, and I make some of them myself. In today’s climate, however, we need to be looking at unproductive behaviour, and some of these can be really expensive!

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.

A few years ago, my good friend David Stanley died. Prior to his death, David had been a Director at Caret and it was a real joy (if challenging!) to work with him.  One of his favourite pastimes was to identify and challenge orthodoxies in a team, business, or industry.

Recently, I thought of David as I read Mark Stevens’ book Your Management Sucks. In it he says:

 “The overriding message of this chapter is to challenge conventional wisdom. Look closely, and you’ll see that what is often deemed to be the smart thing is actually stale thinking masquerading as the truth. It is a set of assumptions that have gone unchallenged by creative minds for years and gather a presumption of absolute/time-tested/unassailable truth; precisely because they have worked their way into so many minds they are deemed to be fact.  But all they really demonstrated is staying power”

So, what is it in your organisation or in your individual ways of working that could benefit from the David Stanley Treatment?