I am not a big fan of Formula One - it’s a sport I have never attempted to understand. But even an ignoramus like me spotted that Jenson Button won the World Championship. Are there any lessons for leadership in the boy from Frome’s historic win?

I think there are two key things for me:

1. It’s not just one race - it’s a championship: in today’s challenging environment we may feel we are judged race by race. At the beginning that was good news for Button - he won event after event. But there came a time when he looked uncertain and others literally overtook him. But the challenges facing many leaders are more than on race - can they prove their long term capacity to win the World’s ‘most engaged staff in a crisis’ challenge, at the World’s ‘making difficult financial decisions’ drivers championship

 2. It’s about the delivery vehicle - Button without the right vehicle would be a nobody. Brawn emerged from very difficult circumstances at the beginning of the championship to create a winning car and driver combination. What’s your delivery vehicle - is it the organisation that works for you? Is it a lean, clean, driving machine? Does it perform like a dream or like a three legged hippo on ice? Will it take the difficult corners at speed? Is it robust enough for the drive you want to take it on in the next few months? Will the vehicle get you where you want to go next year, or does it need time in the pits?

In sport, last year’s car is often not good enough to beat this year’s. In organisations, next year’s vehicle will be taking a very bumpy and fast moving ride…is yours ready to help you win the championship?

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?

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

There are a few small words that should strike terror in a leader. They can destroy a team, derail a major change programme, even kill an organisation… “I don’t trust him/her”.

The lack of trust may be driven by clash of personalities, conflicting agendas, or lack of understanding - it is not always about someone’s character or integrity, but it can be corrosive. I know an organisation where two Senior Directors dislike each other, they avoid going to meetings they know the other is attending, they jockey for position, team members who work with ‘the enemy’ are interrogated, “Why did you talk to him? Why did you let him into the office?” Between them they share responsibility for millions of pounds of key investment and there is no way they will commit to a joined-up, effective strategy.

I know another organisation where the CEO sacked a Senior Director who was doing a great job in her own area, but was not acting as a team player. The CEO recognised that without high calibre corporate working, her desire to raise performance in the organisation would fail. A senior player who did not trust her colleagues and, in turn, could not be trusted was ultimately a liability. The CEO realised the essential truth that it is the leader’s role to address dysfunction.

Increasingly, as organisations look to be more effective, we notice the need to ‘mind the gap’. There are many ‘grey bits’ in an organisation, many areas of shared responsibility. Organisations need managers who can collaborate effectively and manage the gaps between them. They need to share accountability for results. As soon as we get into a situation where one side blames the other, refuses to share information, or under-contributes, we get inefficiency. Read on…

Click here to download whole article as pdf

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

“People are always for change in general and then they begin to worry about particulars“.  Those were the words of Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, in an interview about the health bill currently being debated in Congress.  She is right, both Republicans and Democrats agree something needs to be done but vehemently disagree on what should be done, how it should be done, and who should pay.  This seemed illustrative of the dynamics of recession-triggered change and transformation taking place in many organisations.  People tend to agree to something needs to happen but….

Leaders in organisations could benefit from taking a leaf out of the book of Dupont’s CEO, Ellen Kullman, who advocates four principles for moving ahead during turbulent times:

• Focus on what you can control
• Adopt a new trajectory by re-thinking your business model
• Communicate, communicate, communicate
• Maintain pride around your organisation’s mission

Kullman’s organisation employs 60,000 people in 70 countries so she decided to adopt the idea that:

“If you try to change everybody at once, you are changing nobody, so you really have to start in one area, or a couple of areas and show success”. 

The impact of her disciplined implementation of these principles can be measured in many ways, not least of which are employee engagement and financial metrics.  If you were to take a leaf out of her book what might that look like?  Or, maybe you are already doing so - in which case, tell us some of your stories.

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