“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?

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.

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?