One of the simple truths about becoming a boss is that you were probably selected because you were different. The selectors saw your skills and abilities and decided you were going to make things happen - and felt some of your rivals would not deliver. In our experience working with leaders in a wide range of top organisations, there are clearly a range of “differences” that sort the leader out from the pack. Three types to consider are the visionary, the commander and the innovator.

Visionaries can see ahead - they have a clear picture of the future they want to create. Misunderstood visionaries fail to take the practical implementers with them. I worked with the Principle of a College who was forced to resign because he was envisioning a future that in reality was two to three years ahead but he made it seem like it should happen tomorrow - even though the college had not got the capacity or resources to change that quickly. He was a passionate ambassador for the change, but some saw him as an unrealistic and intimidating force who was not managing the present as well as he was managing the future.

Commanders make things happen; they love deadlines, they thrive on creating the impossible. They work really long hours and have the energy and drive to almost single handedly hit targets, deliver change and rearrange the Universe. I worked on a major change programme with a Commander: he was driving a large structural change that would deliver a £6million saving. As the different project streams moved on it became more and more apparent that there were a number of significant risks but the Director refused to consider them as he felt this would take people’s eyes off the goal and slow delivery. The risks duly materialised and cost the organisation an unnecessary £3million.

Innovators can be addicted to change. They are ambitious and energetic, and every situation gives them the opportunity to develop a new idea. They create a huge range of new initiatives - often one after the other appears even before the previous initiatives have had the opportunity to take root. They are ambitious but can forget to put time into the basics and their organisation can become punch drunk when the initiatives are not scheduled properly or the leaders fail to look at the organisations capacity to implement. One Charity we worked with eventually banned their CEO from producing any more initiatives for six months whilst they played catch up!

In all three scenarios, capable, driven, enthusiastic people - selected for their talent - failed to consider their impact. They were misunderstood; more than that they often infuriated and frustrated people.  Each one needed people alongside them to help shape the implementation of their ideas and challenge them.  Operating on their own without listening to others their strengths became dangers. Having trusted, open and committed colleagues who will argue for the best outcome can help these people become stars. As Elvis might sing of these key friends/advisors  ”they bring me hope and consolation, they give me strength to carry on”.

I am sure you too have come across situations where, in hindsight, senior managers seem to have missed the obvious. It was hidden in plain sight. But, while other members of the organisation could see what was going on, the leaders needed hearing aids and night vision.

For a leader seeking collective wisdom on a particular situation, what questions might they use as part of their night vision? In her book ‘Motivate like a CEO’ Suzanne Bates suggests the following questions:

What’s going well? Why?

What’s not going well? Why?

What would you change if you could?

What would be the impact of that?

How would you go about that?

What other ideas do you have?

Why would we do that?

What would be the impact?

How would you know we had succeeded?

What role would you enjoy playing?

How would you like to apply your talents and skills?

What else should I know about this that you haven’t already told me?

It is very easy, as a leader, to be seduced by the idea of having all the answers all the time. In a recent conversation, a senior executive put it rather well when he said, “in this industry, if you don’t appear confident you will be swiftly replaced by someone who does”.

Perhaps an interesting place to start is with a question like, “What was the most effective question I asked during this last month in my role as a leader?”

Enjoy your night vision.

Taken from Caret’s Catalyst Magazine Issue 20

Fad words seem to enter the language on an almost daily basis - and there are many to choose from in the world of management speak. A current favourite is “collaboration” and we can understand why it has risen up the “fad words hit parade”. Collaboration is about bringing different agendas and experiences together to produce shared outcomes. We can see it at many levels; from collaboration within different departments through to collaboration between departments and directorates. There is clearly a growing focus on collaboration between different parts of the public sector - not forgetting collaboration with the wider public themselves. In the commercial field strategic alliances are growing.

Collaboration makes a lot of sense. Within departments teams need to be proactive in sharing information, ensuring colleagues are aware of risks and emerging issues, and working together to achieve results for the team whilst protecting its credibility with clients. At leadership level collaboration is a central element of a high performing team. Dysfunctional teams do not collaborate, they hide information from each other, they do not follow up on decisions they agreed together, they reach compromises rather than commitment. A truly collaborative team shares accountability and is therefore proactive in supporting each other so that they can create a high level of focus on delivery. 

Collaboration will be a key element in surviving turbulent times. Leaders will need the input, the ideas, the challenges, the support and the energy of colleagues. Marshall Goldsmith commented that in today’s world as we progress in our organisations, what got us into our role - our technical ability - will not be what moves us forward. Leaders technical ability is assumed, he argues, it is their relationship building ability that makes all the difference.

Many organisational leaders are sociable and outgoing and can network well. But it is not universally true. What is true is that every leader needs to be a key player in the brave new world of collaboration. So is this the sound of a heavy door closing on the career aspirations of introvert but ambitious managers and leaders? Not necessarily so. We work with a lot of organisations and individuals in the field of change. It is clear that change comes to a halt when individuals fail to turn good intentions and good plans into specific actions. As the Chinese famously say “Each journey of a thousand miles begins with one step”.

What are the deliberate actions you can take to ensure you are seen as a contributor to greater collaboration?

I suggest there are five key steps to getting you started.

 1. Draw up a list of your key network or main stakeholders (you may wish to construct a table)

2. Against each one ask: what do I know about their key priorities and concerns - what do I need to know?

3. Then ask: how well do they understand my priorities and concerns - how can I improve their understanding and (more importantly) gain their support?

4. What can I do proactively to develop collaboration - how can I ensure this is seen as open, supportive and relationship building (avoiding impersonal emails and circulars)?

5. What do I need to do to my time to ensure I give enough attention to collaborative working?

Collaboration will be key. As has been said “change works in units of one” - it starts with the leaders in organisations acting as role models of collaboration and moves to their whole team being seen as integral to future success.

Image: ’ants carrying a fly’ by adelle roux on flickr.com

One of the key characteristics of these times is an increase in uncertainty. Not surprisingly, the key thing that staff and other stakeholders are looking for from their leaders is an antidote to this uncertainty. The response of most leaders to this very human need is to put on their ‘superperson’ vests and gallop like the cavalry to the rescue, finding ways to reassure everyone that things will be fine and there is no need to worry. The unspoken assumption is that the leader should know all the answers and thereby be able to reduce the anxiety.

The problem is, not only that leaders do not have all the answers to the current crisis, but also that the very idea that they should creates an unhealthily dependent relationship. Blanket assurances from the leader either seem to lack credibility or merely pass anxiety from the staff back to the leader. Only the most confident leaders have the strength to be truly authentic and admit that they do not have all the answers, showing their vulnerability, their not knowing. In the words of Mother Theresa:

“Honesty and transparency make you vulnerable. Be honest and transparent anyway.”

Those that do show their vulnerability create a whole different psychological contract with their staff. Instead of a parent-to-child relationship - “Don’t worry you can depend on me, I’ll sort it out” - you get an adult-to-adult relationship where the leader says, “I don’t have all the answers and we are in this together to make sense of these changes”.

Click here to download whole article as pdf

Making the right decision can be a tricky balance. Speed may be of the essence in these challenging times, but judgement can be severely impaired by haste – in the words of author and mountaineer Jim Collins, “Those who panic die on the mountain.”

So, strike whilst the iron is too hot and you may end up burning your fingers! On the other hand, a protracted delay can be equally damaging. Aside from the risk of missing the boat altogether, a key negative factor in the decision making paradox is too much information.

In a recent presentation, Malcolm Gladwell – celebrated author and story teller extraordinaire – described the work of psychologist Stuart Oskamp, an expert in the field of attitudes research.

Oskamp studied the attitudes of a panel of clinical psychologists and psychology students in their assessment of a 29-year-old subject, Joseph Kidd. Participants were given a brief extract of Kidd’s case study and then asked to complete a questionnaire and estimate the accuracy of their responses. They were then given a second extract and asked to repeat the questionnaire and again estimate their success. This was followed by a third and fourth extract, building a series of actual scores and accuracy estimates. The results were quite illuminating. Despite the accuracy of their answers increasing by only 2% after 3 additional extracts, the panel’s assessment of their judgement had grown by a further 20% - a disturbing level of over-confidence!

With the weight of a fragile economy pressing down on organisations, it is tempting for some decision makers to be seen to act quickly - often at the expense of careful reflection and logical thought. Conversely, as our work with senior leaders often reveals, there is often a level of over-caution that stifles opportunities. Fortunately, poor judgement is a leadership sickness that can be remedied with effective coaching support and intentional strategic reflection.

As Oskamp’s research demonstrates, sometimes it is unwise to agonise. Make your decision and organise!

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.

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?