“What’s going on?” “Can we make this work?” “What do you think?” Three normal questions. Do we get honest answers? Jim Collins in Good to Great talks about facing the brutal facts; history tells us of lots of situations where groups working together failed to face the brutal facts - whether it be Hitler in the Führer bunker or airlines where the crew did not challenge each other with fatal consequences. The ability to gather all the information needed; to encourage the introverts to share, the nervous to be bolder and the reluctant to take some risks is a key leadership skill. Given the long term impact of many of the decisions we are making at the moment, leaders need the ability to ensure people are engaging in conversation, thinking things through robustly and challenging “group think”.

It is worth reflecting - next time you ask “can we make this work?” how do you get your colleagues fully engaged? How might you challenge them to raise their game in the next round of decision making?

‘Most managers look for golden opportunities when the good times are rolling. This is a mistake. The best ones often arise during downturns.’ So said Donald Sull, from Managing in a Downturn. Caret Consultant Tammy Tawadros recently wrote an article discussing how harnessing inquiry and capturing learning can often make the difference between an organisation that thrives and one that fails.

The current economic climate has left many organisations in the grip of huge anxiety and uncertainty about future survival. Many face grave external challenges. Internally, many are in a state of crisis. And crisis, like the proverbial cloud, carries within it the silver lining of opportunity. This is the kind of opportunity that can only be grasped and transformed into competitive advantage when there is space and the ability to think and learn collectively within the organisation. It is the very capacity that is diminished by crisis and the feelings of threat, danger and anxiety that it engenders.

It takes wise, humble and self-knowing leadership, with considerable ability, to enable the organisation to metabolise ‘toxic’ emotion, to resist overconfidence and the urgent call to action and, instead, to create the space to reflect and learn during crisis. Whilst it appears to be unfashionable still to talk about wisdom, the other qualities required by leaders at times of crisis have been well documented: humility and fierce resolve; psychological presence and personal authority; and emotional and social intelligence.

Just as each failure carries within it the germ of success, opportunities to learn abound at a time when so many leaders and organisations are in the grip of anxiety and uncertainty. But they are also, arguably, least able to harness them. Harnessing inquiry and capturing learning can often make the difference between an organisation that thrives and one that fails. During an economic downturn, successful leaders are likely to be those best able to capitalise on their personal humility and determination.

Click here to read the whole article

In the field of management practice and thought, one of my heroes is Bill George, the former chairman and CEO of Medtronic, which develops medical technologies to treat chronic diseases. In his latest book, 7 Lessons for Leadership in Crisis he points out the importance of being deliberately systematic in staying positive in a crisis. To help leaders do this, he advocates learning and living by seven lessons:

Face reality, starting with yourself.

Don’t be Atlas; get the world off your shoulders.

Dig deep for the root cause.

Get ready for the long haul.

Never waste a good crisis.

You’re in the spotlight: follow your True North.

Go on offense: focus on winning now.

George also makes this observation about leaders: “Everyone inside and outside the company is watching what they do. It is imperative that they stay focused on their True North as it sets a standard internally for principled business behaviour and will make their companies stronger over time”

Caret consultants Rob Sykes and Sarah Wood bring a lot of practical wisdom to bear on the subject of commissioning in the following article, published earlier this year in the Municipal Journal.

At a recent workshop attended by a mix of agencies, a clear message rang out.

Even before the economic crisis bites, commissioners are struggling to deliver the radical change in services which will meet users’ and carers’ needs.

There seem to be two issues:

1. It has long-been recognised that providers and stakeholders should be involved with the process, not least because they have the most knowledge of current services and what is possible. However, we were shocked to hear that in at least one health community, there is an increasing reluctance among providers to co-operate unless there are guarantees about the outcome of the commissioning process.

2. The second is not new, but may become increasingly important. We heard of providers becoming more sophisticated at managing the political process to protect their position. It shouldn’t be a surprise that providers and stakeholders use the media and politicians - that’s democracy. The issue is, what should commissioners do about it?

Well, the first thing is to pay as much attention to decommissioning as to commissioning. You can have the best strategy in the world, but, if the first time you close a home to replace it with a community service, the media and political attention is such that you have to backtrack, the strategy will be lost.

As we move into a very difficult period for public spending, it has never been more important to have first-rate multi-agency commissioning, but in the past, commissioning has all too often been seen as a bureaucratic process which needs assessment, specification and procurement.

Commissioners will need to be robust at managing markets, ensuring providers are helped to change, and introducing new providers to stimulate innovation. In a world of individual budgets, they will recognise that new approaches to the market are required.

Most of all, they will recognise that commissioning is a deeply political process. It’s easy to involve politicians in developing and opening things - the real skill is working with politicians to manage the decommissioning process.

Click here to download the article as a pdf

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.