If you were a business leader in New York City in 1886, what to sort of things might you be paying special attention? As it turns out, (as reported by Roy Williams), according to Manufacturer and Builder, the leading monthly journal of innovation and change, the big news in New York was the scandal over the proliferation of overhead electric lines.  And, there’s more. One of the most important discoveries reported in the journal was a new way to colour bricks red!!  But, what else was going on in 1886?  How about this as a starter for ten? 

• Crates containing the Statue of Liberty were being unloaded by dock workers
• Richard Sears was launching a company that would bring catalogue shopping to America
• In Atlanta, John Pemberton was finalising the concoction that would become Coca-Cola
• Gottlieb Daimler was completing the world’s first car - across the pond

As a leader, how might you make sure you are not so fixated on the slightly unusual (overhead electric lines!!) that you are blinded to crucial changes such as the birth of what was to later become the giant company Sears?

These are times of tension and paradox.  I am thinking of the need every organisation has for a clear and compelling picture of the future on the one hand and stubborn unpredictability on the other.  In some cases leadership is frozen into inaction as a result.  Some leaders however, choose instead to play with a range of scenarios of alternative futures. Last week a senior manager told me she was finding it very difficult to plan.  That was understandable given her understanding of planning:  that it is about predicting the future.  Things got a bit easier when she started to build and juggle alternative, supplementary, or contradictory pictures of the future and then begin to tease out resource implications and impact assessment.  How does planning work in your organisation?

How many lives have you got?  SecondLife, a free 3D virtual world, isn’t just for nerds; it’s a lively role - playing blogosphere of the imagination, one where role play is as real as it gets, partly because you choose what/who you want to be and in what kind of life - and feedback isn’t obligatory!

How might it help in ‘real’ life? It provides an opportunity to try things out safely. You have an alter ego where your real identity remains hidden. There’s a lot to be said for experiencing how it feels to be someone entirely different - gender, race, religion, historic time - can provide a huge learning experience. How about designing a spacecraft which looks more like a flying Tudor ship and being able to solve an organisational problem at a stroke? Or climate change? Or design a new hospital? Or local authority office?

Many universities now have second life sites; you can walk into the library, the students’ union, visit a lecture….

One of the most wonderful things is that SecondLife provides opportunities for the severely disabled to have an alternative life, to experience the same world as others in that second life community. Their voices are heard; they feel affirmed; they play.

What might all this teach us in the here and now? That profound things can be said where there is trust and no comeback; that mistakes can be made and learned from; that play is a basic need and one which enables ideas to sparkle; that we can all be innovators…

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”

Like a skilled surfer gracefully rides the waves, so managers must learn to surf well when it comes to change.

To say that we live in a world of change is to state the blindingly obvious.  But just because rapid and discontinuous change is an inescapable reality does not guarantee we will be good at handling it.  Every day you and I meet with or observe people who are living proof of Alvin Toffler when he said the future would shock us.  But the fact remains that the best way to prepare for the future is to understand change.  This is crucial given that in many cases when managers (or individuals!) plan for the future, we are comforted by assuming present conditions will continue - even when we are claiming things are going to be very different.

So what to do?  Many years ago, Leon Martel suggested the following by way of a strategy for mastering change:

1. Recognise the change is occurring

2. Identify changes likely to affect your business, your profession, and your personal plans

3. Determine type and probable pattern of each change

4. Rank changes by importance of effect and likelihood of occurrence

5. Make use of changes

On this final point of making use of or exploiting change I am reminded of Ralph Teeter.  His change was the fact that he was blinded in a childhood accident.  The person who drove him about turned out to be so erratic this caused Teeter to suffer from motion sickness.  This adverse change was used by Teeter in that he invented cruise control for use in cars and other applications.  What are your personal or observed examples that might illustrate points 1 to 4 of Martel’s suggested strategy for mastering change?

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”.

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.