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.

The high incidence of mediocre performance suggests that the route to remarkable does not lie in the typical approaches to managing, training or developing people. One key is strong and relentless focus on putting people’s strengths to best use. But organisations can develop ingenious ways to mask mediocrity.

Incompetent - what a useful word! Shorthand for useless, inept, hopeless, bungling, unskilled, and ineffectual, organisations strive to avoid or overcome incompetence at any cost. But, as a strategy, is it worth the effort? In the words of Peter Drucker:

 “It takes far more energy and far more work to improve from incompetence to low mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence… The energy and resources - and time - should go into making a competent person into a star performer”.

Competency: a useful but limiting concept? While competent is certainly an improvement on incompetent, we intuitively recognise that the concept describes something far from remarkable performance. Think Tiger Woods! Think Yo Yo Ma! David Beckham! Gary Kasparaov! In describing these remarkable performers, ‘competent’ would be a woefully inadequate term.

It is my sincere belief that most people do not go to work with the intention of achieving mediocre performance. But something happens as a result of how they work, how they are trained, managed, and developed. Developing the skills and discipline to achieve remarkable performance is not an easy route - but then it seems the road from incompetent to mediocre is no short-cut either. Some navigation tips can certainly make for an easier journey.

Click here to link to the whole article

For most Senior Managers and their organisations, times are tough. So tough, in fact, that paying attention to internal relationships can seem an indulgence. But, it gets worse. There’s growing anecdotal evidence that some managers use today’s business pressures as an excuse to neglect staff or to be rude.

If the managers reporting to you do not evidence this problem that’s just great. If, on the other hand, even just one of them shows a pattern of incivility you have to take action. So, why the urgency? This toxic behaviour of incivility corrodes performance.

Professors Christine Porath and Christine Pearson set themselves the task of gauging the impact of incivility on performance. As they put it, ‘”To understand the impact of incivility on performance, we polled several thousand managers and employees from a diverse range of US Companies about their responses to rudeness at work.”  They learned that among those at the receiving end,

             48% decreased their work effort,

            47% decreased their time at work,

            38% decreased their work quality,

            66% said their performance declined,

            80% lost work time worrying about the incident,

            63% lost time avoiding the offender, and

            78% said their commitment to the organisation declined

 At a time when organisations have no resources to spare (people, goodwill, money), we can ill afford incivility by managers.

Abraham Lincoln remains one of the main influences for President Obama. Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin is probably the leading authority on Lincoln. In her book Team of Rivals, she emphasises the following about Abraham Lincoln:

• Abraham Lincoln’s genius was to manage the ambitions and egos of his rivals to form a team that could confront the challenges of the civil war
• He demonstrated great ability to create a team of rivals which was rooted in an extraordinary level of emotional intelligence. He learned from his mistakes, he shared responsibility for the mistakes of others, and he did not hold grudges
• Lincoln’s experience, like that of other presidents in times of emergency, gives hope that the United States and other democracies will weather the current crisis

These are quite challenging qualities but does that mean Lincoln had no weaknesses? Goodwin says:

“He had flaws, of course; every leader has flaws. Lincoln’s greatest flaw came out of his strength, which was generally liking people and not wanting to hurt them. He always wanted to give somebody a second or even a third chance. This weakness proved disastrous with George McClellan, who was head of the Union Army for some months near the beginning of the war.  Lincoln should have fired McClellan within weeks of seeing how narcissistic and insubordinate he was. In part, Lincoln didn’t because at the time he didn’t have enough confidence in his understanding of military affairs.”

So, back to the question, in terms of your leadership journey, do you have a Lincoln equivalent and what would be the benefit of that? (Click title to comment)

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.

Clarifying vision and compellingly casting it wide through soaring rhetoric. Do you remember that during the US elections? What a strength this was in the then Senator Barak Obama.  If I remember correctly his strap lines included the likes of ‘Change We Can Believe In”. He certainly spoke very passionately of bringing change to Washington.

Now, with the elections a fading memory, Mr Obama is actually in Washington and needs to prove himself to be a dreamer in the sense meant by T.E. Lawrence, when, in Seven Pillars of Wisdom, he said:

“There are dreamers, but not all human beings dream equally. Some are dreamers of the night, who in the dusty recesses of their mind dream and wake in the morning to find it was just vanity.  But the Dreamers of the Day are dangerous people because they act their dreams into reality with open eyes. And, as the past seven years show, the people of Dunham and Company are Dreamers of the Day”.

My money is on the President successfully transforming the economy but it is perhaps going to be a lot tougher than the election trail may have suggested.  Consider, for example, the need for all his team to have consistent and planned visibility as part of implementing the vision.  In The Times newspaper, Tom Baldwin observes that Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, “…has cut an increasingly forlorn and embattled figure in recent weeks”.  For all we know Mr Geithner could be technically brilliant but if he does not do something about his visibility and ‘presence’ he could well put his job and his boss’ election promises at risk.  Indeed, Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, has recently said that his confidence in Mr Geithener is “waning every day” and that “If he keeps going down this road, I think he won’t last long”.

Clarity of vision is indeed critical but the capacity to combine substance and symbolism in executing the vision is crucial for both the main leader and those around him or her.  What do you think?

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.

Warren Bennis (one of the world’s leading authorities on leadership) recently said:

‘In discussing various approaches to leadership, I often note a distinction made between two nineteenth-century British prime ministers. It was observed that when you had dinner with William Gladstone, you left thinking, “That Gladstone is the wittiest, the most intelligent, the most charming person around.”  But when you had dinner with Benjamin Disraeli, you left thinking, “I’m the wittiest, the most intelligent, the most charming person around!” Gladstone shone, but Disraeli created an environment in which others could shine.  The latter is a more powerful form of leadership, an adventure in which the leader us privileged to find treasure within others and put it to good use.’

When you think of the really effective leaders you have known, how many could be characterised as Gladstones and how many as Disraelis? What made them warrant the label you have given these leaders?

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?

Poor “Big Phil” Scolari - the impatient owners of Chelsea left him with the team his two predecessors built and expected wonders. Given his impressive record with Brazil you can see why their expectations were high. He has had precious little time to build his team, create a new culture and set new standards. He had more time than Tony Adams who also suffered from having some of his best players sold and a team that produced some good battling displays against the leagues top teams. Is there anything we can learn for leadership in organisations on the fate of “Big Phil” and Tony?

The first lesson is the impatience of people at the top for results. The second is that things could get better if you bring in a new leader. Does that make you feel a little uncomfortable if you are in a leadership/management role? It should do, because in both these cases I suspect both people gave the job everything they had - lots of experience, passion, energy, commitment - and it did not satisfy their Eastern European owners.

Let’s look at Martin O’Neill. I have to confess a bias here - I am a Villa fan but Martin has been given the time and the backing from his boss. Indeed the support has been wonderful and Martin has repaid it with thoughtful signings and attractive play. We use Jim Collins work on ‘Good to Great’ in Caret and he talks about getting the right people on the bus. O’Neill has done that - he has not gone for the highest of profiles but he has gone for people who are good team players. Combined together these team players become confident, committed, and happy. You see them out and about together in Birmingham - they support and value each other and Martin continually goes out of his way to praise their excellence. Villa is definitely a team where synergy is at work. They are better than the sum of their parts.

Chelsea are not better than the sum of their parts and the question is - was Scolari given enough time to make this happen? He certainly created a strong team spirit in Portugal and Brazil when he managed their national sides. But this is not a football blog - it’s about leadership. The challenge to us as we lead in challenging times is: have we got the right people on the bus? Is my team better than the sum of its part? Have I got the backing of my boss to keep improving this team? Are they aware of my standards? Do I regularly encourage them when I see good performances? The world of work needs more Martin O’ Neills who realise that a laser-like focus on team commitment can bring great results. How’s your team doing?