A very good friend was trained at Sandhurst. He took a patrol out on night manoeuvres through a dense wood - trying to avoid being discovered by the enemy. His team came to a break in the woods and had to cross a road. This was a danger point threatening the patrol with discovery - and defeat - in the exercise. He gathered his men in a ditch by the side of the road, they synchronised watches and agreed that when he signalled them they would move quickly across the road, keeping low and throw themselves in the parallel ditch. The signal came, my friend kept low, crossed the road and flung himself in the ditch, only to find the rest of his patrol were still in place where he had left them. He was a leader without followers. However clear or urgent his instructions had been he was in one place and his team were in another.

Ira Challeff created the term “followership”. As my friend’s story illustrates, it is the actions of followers that determine the success of a leader.  We were fortunate enough to spend some time with Ira recently. He describes follower as a role not a personality type. We decide whether to take that role. As Ira points out people do not like to describe themselves as a follower.  We may be reluctant followers, we may be compliant followers - or we may be courageous followers. Ira points to the well-chronicled failures of followers - failure to pass on important information, failure to challenge wrong decisions, failure to respond to challenges. Followers were ineffective in Enron, Andersons, Lehman Brothers - but of course, the reason for that failure is strongly linked to the leadership culture. Effective leaders engage followers, they encourage and actively enable openness and challenge. they respond positively to the bad news or the reality checks that come from further down the organisation. In turn this leads to empowered followers who have the confidence to make decisions, be proactive, be innovative - and support the success of the organisation. 

In times of challenge and change it is so easy (and tempting) to revert to a command and control style of leadership. This creates compliant followers. The more courageous leader wants to tap into the passion and intelligence of their teams, to find the new and more effective ways of working, to have front line staff who can be powerful ambassadors for the organisation. Ira’s book ‘Courageous Followers’ gives a refreshing insight into the impact of leadership - it is an essential read whether you are on night manoeuvres or have bigger battles to fight in the day to day challenges of enabling organisation change.  

Leadership does not happen in a vacuum – good leaders in one situation can be terrible leaders in another and different situations demand different leadership qualities from us. In Caret’s recent Catalyst publication, Professor Prabhu Guptara looked at how it is not only our qualities as leaders that is important; but also the fit between those qualities and the environment that we are in.

Environmental scanning is an essential part of any strategy development but a global economic shift is largely out of our control as organisations and individuals. What we can do is manage our teams. As we try to fix an uncertain future, how do we keep our teams motivated?

It’s partly a matter of communication and reassurance, but I suggest it has a dimension we don’t always consider - in strategy discussions do we look only to our own wisdom or that of our top colleagues and professional advisors, or do we take into account in an active and deliberate way the advice we can get from customers and political leaders?

The more diverse perspectives you can get into your strategy process the more likely you are to come up with a range of possibilities that makes sense. Teams will be much more reassured by the actions you take to ensure this wide and diverse input into decision making because that will demonstrate that you are doing things in a way that takes political and economic uncertainties into account.

Read more…

The Work Foundation has just published some work called Exceeding Expectations: the principles of outstanding leadership. It looked at outstanding leaders. Three key themes emerged that we believe help organisations move from Good to Great and are worth ‘benchmarking’ yourself against.

1. Reaction follows action: outstanding leaders understand their impact on others. They empower others to make a difference, they stretch people to unleash energy
2. Performance comes through people: organisational outcomes e.g. productivity, quality, innovation and great customer care are all achieved by engaging others, enthusing them, growing them, building confidence, creating trust and passing on power
3. Their impact comes through others: outstanding leaders are comfortable about acknowledging their own weaknesses, keen to empower others and have great self awareness

We like this ‘high impact leadership’ thinking! Very useful for 2010

“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?

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”

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”.

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

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?

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?

Can you teach Authentic Leadership? from Caret on Vimeo.

A quick video we shot this morning after two colleagues, Rob Sykes and Steve Botham,  had spoken at a really enjoyable Caret breakfast event in Birmingham.   Rob was outlining some of their shared work on the Power of Authentic Leadership, followed by searching and astute questions from the 20 or so city leaders who joined us.

An article by Steve and Rob expanding on the issue of Authentic Leadership appeared in a recent issue of Municipal Journal.