Distance does not separate people; silence does
Distance does not separate people; silence does
I recently gave a talk to a group of business professionals on the topic of Leadership Development. As I gave the presentation my mind kept returning to a thought that has troubled me for some time; the alleged perception amongst business leaders in general and CEOs in particular that there isn’t sufficient leadership talent to go round either today or certainly to meet the future needs of their respective organisations.
This can’t possibly be true I kept thinking… after all the world is full of Business Schools and various other organisations whose very existence is focussed on the delivery of ‘world class’ business education and leadership development programmes of one form or another. Furthermore, every organisation worth its salt has numerous internal initiatives targeted at developing their various ‘high potential’ pools of talented employees.
So given all this targeted investment how can we end up with such a gap in perception between requirement and availability of this vital resource?
As the evening wore on a clue to the answer to this conundrum began to emerge and was brought into sharp focus during the Q&A session.
“I’m currently working with my senior management team to develop some performance measures for our Leadership Development programmes and quite frankly we are struggling.” expressed one of the Finance Executives present “Have you any thoughts on how we might improve our approach?”
“Well, first of all it’s an area of concern for most organisations in my experience. The measures that the majority of organisations adopt fall within two broad streams neither of which really hit the mark.” I began.
“The first grouping tends to focus on the inputs to the process and consequently measure activity levels against various elements. You can recognise these organisations by measures such as ‘The number of managers who have completed particular stages of a programme’ or ‘The number of senior executives with an MBA or similar qualification’ “ I continued. “This group are primarily focussing on quantity and are assuming that, because they are using high quality training organisations, the quality is a given.”
‘ The second grouping attempt to measure the output of their programmes but this is notoriously difficult to achieve so the tendency is to measure some notion of business performance that should benefit from improved leadership performance. Whilst this seems a sensible alternative in reality it often belies what is really happening in an organisation”
“Hmmm, I think I follow you but could you give us an example of the second grouping?” responded the Finance Executive.
“Yes, sure” I continued. “An example arose recently when I was talking to a Departmental Head at my local University who was bemoaning the fact that his leadership was under scrutiny as the performance measures of his department had shown their first decline after several years of steady growth. In reality both he and his team were facing several adverse external factors as well as an internal reorganisation and relocation to a new building. His assessment was that his team were displaying far more leadership during this period of substantive change than they had done throughout the whole period of recent growth none of which reflected in the current measures.”
“ But surely the organisation must have been aware of the challenges it was facing and should have been able to adjust accordingly.” responded the Finance Executive.
“Yes, you would like to think so’ I continued “but in reality this is often not the case as the basis for the adjustment is as elusive as the measure in the first place! The major issue is that organisations have a tendency to confuse leadership performance with the performance of the leader, whereas in reality these are two very different activities. Developing leader performance is only one aspect of Leadership Development. Yes, it’s very important but if the environment, processes and capability of the organisation at large are not present then leadership will not flourish. The development of these attributes is equally if not more important than developing the leader.”
As the Q&A session developed my thoughts returned to the perception of the challenge facing today’s CEOs and how to channel their focus away from developing the leader to truly developing leadership within their organisations…..
A discussion developed during a recent Working Group review with a client leadership team that centred on the degree to which they should seek to influence the organisation’s culture as part of the proposed organisational change arising from the implementation of a new process. As usual in these situations there were as many views on the topic as there were participants in the conversation; each being argued with a greater or lesser degree of passion seemingly irrespective of the need to evaluate whether the need to change the culture was either required, supportive of the process change or even the degree to which they felt collectively or even individually able to assert such influence.
As the conversation continued to evolve it became evident that there was a general consensus that developing and sustaining a positive culture within the organisation was ‘a good thing’. What was abundantly less clear within the group was the reason why this was so or indeed how this was to be achieved. The meeting concluded with the general assertion that the group would continue to develop a positive organisation culture although no attempt was made to evaluate how this would either be defined or evaluated in the context of the organisational change.
As with many business attributes a positive organisation culture is largely invisible, or rather taken for granted, whilst the impact of a negative culture on the organisation’s performance is altogether too obvious. In this instance what was also of concern was the team’s inability to understand its role in developing a culture that was supportive of the change process.
Several days later I met with the Chief Executive over dinner.
“Have you had any further thoughts on the cultural aspects of this change following the team’s discussion the other afternoon” I enquired. “ I thought they raised some interesting issues but seemed a little unclear about their role”
“Yes, I would have to agree and yet we have spent a lot of time as a team working on this change but we don’t seem to have nailed down how to bring the organisation with us” she responded.
“I’m actually quite positive.” I continued. “The team appreciate that developing a positive culture will determine the outcome of the change process. What we need to help them with is how to influence the organisation’s culture as the change takes place.”
“Agreed” responded the CEO. “So any thoughts on where we should begin?”
“Well, we can start by emphasising with the team how important it is that everybody’s behaviours match the process change intent. It has to be clear how this change and the organisations strategy meet which gives us the route in to driving the correct behaviours.” I suggested.
“Yes, I can see that” she continued “but how can we use this to open up the dialogue with the extended team?”
“Just now we have the perfect opportunity. As we launch the change there will inevitably be a significant level of ambiguity in the organisation as everybody tries to understand what is required and what they need to do. “ I continued. “The organisation will open up as it seeks to deal with this ambiguity and it is this openness that is the route in”
“Ok, I can see that but I’m still not clear on the first step, where to begin?”
“Well how about starting with the ambiguity in the Leadership team…..”
“Have you noticed how much of the current popular literature on Leadership focuses on the high profile charismatic leaders and their success stories?”
This comment sparked a somewhat heated debate amongst a group of my students as to the validity of such literature and what contribution these types of books made to the overall understanding of leadership.
“It seems to me that to be a good leader one has to be first and foremost charismatic” he continued as if to emphasise his point.
“And male” retorted a somewhat aggrieved female from within the group much to the amusement of her sisters “well, come on, can somebody name a popular book on leadership that is based on the story of a successful female leader?”
The impact of this question on the group was considerable. After the initial amusement subsided there was an uneasy realisation amongst both sexes within the group that a characteristic that it is cited by many as a fundamental trait of a good leader was widely perceived in popular literature to be predominantly attributable to male leaders.
“As we all know” she continued “charisma is seen by many to be at the root of Transformational Leadership. It’s a key behaviour that defines a change agent in the eyes of the team. It affirms them as a role model, brings life to their vision and provides them with the authority that serves to empower the team.”
It was a pretty powerful and well-articulated argument and one which I, for one, had not really considered hitherto. Whilst it could be argued that the bias in popular leadership literature is a reflection of the relatively low number of female senior executives compared to their male counterparts closer examination would support a proposition that this was exclusively so.
“Interestingly” she continued “it can be reasonably argued that many of the other attributes broadly associated with transformational leadership are no better suited to leaders of either sex so this bias would seem to stem directly from this one attribute.”
The debate continued long into the evening without seemingly coming to a conclusion. Each argument was met with counter argument as to whether leadership skills could be classified in terms of gender or no and indeed whether this could be considered to be a useful categorisation in taking the debate forward. My conclusion, having listened to the various arguments throughout the evening, was that it would not be but I, along with the rest of the group, continued to be troubled by her initial assertion.
“It would seem to me that there is confusion between charisma and heroism in much of the literature” she stated as she rose to leave “and if that’s the case I’m pretty much certain that the attribute that is being described can be used both constructively and destructively with equal effect……”
Today I flew to Philadelphia courtesy of US Airways – nothing special in that you might think apart from the young lady sat across the cabin from me clutching a box to her chest and smiling with that profound sense of achievement that only arises in those truly special moments of endeavour.
Sure enough the 5 rings on the outside of the box gave witness that she had achieved something really special – she was a member of the USA Ladies Basketball team who had won a gold medal at London 2012.
The sense of achievement was infectious and was quickly shared amongst the many Americans throughout the cabin, there were many pictures (mine included)and much whooping and hollering in celebration.
She talked at length about the opportunity that she had been given by her parents, her school, her college and thanked each and every well wisher with a modesty that reflected a side to her nation that is not universally recognised throughout the world.
As a Brit I am immensely proud of London 2012 – it reflects well on our nation but as we celebrate, quite rightly, the achievement of Team GB let us remember and celebrate the opportunities that we have provided for each and every one of the participants of London 2012 – our legacy is far wider than we perceive.
With special thanks to Tamika Catchings… Gold Medal Winner London 2012, USA Ladies Basketball Team
A colleague of mine recently extolled “Anybody can be a leader – all you need is an idea and the ability to influence people” (1)
“Hmmm that rules out about 95% of us.“ I responded jokingly.
My colleague’s comment was delivered during a hugely successful Leadership Development programme and was supported by a lucid case in support of her assertion. I was initially drawn by the simplicity of the statement but over the last week or so I have returned to it repeatedly as I mulled over the skills that are required to fulfil the needs that underpin this apparently simple statement.
In essence the statement embraces both the internal and external attributes of a leader that are fundamental to the execution of good leadership by any individual.
The creation of an idea that is pertinent to a given situation requires intelligence that is both cognitive and experiential. Cognitive intelligence that draws on the ability to reason, analyse and embrace divergent thinking is combined with the experiential intelligence that delivers engagement through effective communication and relationship building. Whilst it can be reasonably argued that we all possess these attributes to a greater or lesser extent (and indeed we do) it is the combination of a highly developed capability across both perspectives that enables effective leadership to ensue.
The ability to influence on either an individual or collective basis can be viewed as being underpinned to a large degree by the leader’s level of motivation. This motivation provides two independent imperatives.
Firstly, the leader’s motivation delivers a consistency of purpose that yields a focal point for the team of followers; it serves to bring the vision to life. The second facet of the leader’s motivation is to provide the drive to deliver and most importantly also address the many issues that the team will face along the way.
The leader’s ability to influence a positive outcome will also depend on many other attributes including openness, integrity, tolerance, curiosity and a large dose of confidence to boot.
So the ensuing question for many of us is not whether we can be a leader or not it’s more about do we really want to be……
(1) – Dr Sue Bridgewater – Teach First Programme July 2012
A regular topic of conversation amongst the students at my local business school and indeed amongst many commentators in the field of business education is that of the value or otherwise of various types of leadership development programmes. Whilst much of the latter commentary is focussed on the cost/benefit analysis of pursuing formal programmes such as an MBA, (my students take a somewhat personal interest in this debate!), there is also a healthy dialogue amongst students and practitioners alike as to the merits or otherwise of the various types of “in-house” leadership development programmes.
“In your opinion which of these programmes yields the most immediate benefit for an aspiring leader” asked one of my recent MBA graduates.
“Well, first off, I regard Leadership as an expertise that is developed over time and therefore my perspective is that we are in it for the long-haul. Whilst some programmes can be used as a stimulus to achieve short-term objectives the more robust aspects of development are accumulated across a wide range of learning and typically over a considerable time period. A lifelong journey if you will.” I responded.
“But surely in the short-term I need to focus on the benefits that my MBA brings” responded the student. “I need to leverage the benefits of the qualification over the next three to five years to ensure that I get the most from it.”
By now other members of the group were keen to join the debate, expressing contrasting views of the best way forward.
“Yes, of course it’s important that you make your MBA work for you but you also need to think how it fits with other aspects of your development in both the short and longer term” I continued. “You might like to think of your development needs over time from three or maybe four differing perspectives.”
“Well if you’re unsure then what chance do we have?” challenged one of the group.
“Well ok let’s see if this helps” I responded taking up the challenge.
“First off, you all recognise that your MBA has a shelf life; so it’s really important that you pay attention to keeping yourself up to date. As you all know I’m an avid reader but I also regularly attend forum events and participate in Executive Education programmes across a broad range of topics. You might also like to think about a professional qualification if it’s appropriate – both breadth and depth are important to your long term career goals.”
“Ok, I don’t think anybody would argue with you there. Pretty much in line with the advice we get here at the school” continued the student.
“And so is the second” I continued. “I strongly recommend that you find yourself at least one and preferably two or three mentors. Typically the kind of individual who you can respect and have the confidence in to help you understand how you are developing as leaders and provide the support and guidance that you will inevitably need as your careers progress.”
The group members nodded their broad agreement.
“The third strand builds on what you have been doing here for the last 18 months or so; developing your network. Most of you are already reaching out way beyond your cohort into the alumni at large and throughout the School. Continue to nurture these relationships as they will stand you in good stead throughout your career.”
“Finally” I continued “there is the development that builds up over time from your previous and future job roles. This can be a challenging aspect of your development especially for those of you working in large organisations although it has to be said that there are aspects of these companies that can really work in your favour.”
“I’m not sure that I follow your logic. My view of many large organisations is that they can be very process oriented and transactional in their management style” responded the student.
“That is often so” I continued “but it’s precisely these attributes that can provide the real opportunity. Many of these organisations use the need for change as a leadership development tool. It enables them to release their aspiring leaders into cross functional teams who can embrace change across the organisation at large – way beyond the scope of their normal remit”
“Hmmm, that’s all well good but how can you establish whether the organisation you are looking to join operates in this way?”
“Well you could always ask them how they manage their change programmes at the interview……”
During a recent trip to the USA I met with a group of colleagues who were engaged with the senior executive team of a medium – sized organisation developing a change programme against a backdrop of difficult trading conditions. It seemed that the programme had been progressing well over the last six months since launch but was now showing signs of stalling as the team began to look towards developing the required values to support the future vision.
As we sat for dinner in the private dining room of the hotel’s restaurant this topic continued to dominate the conversation.
“These programmes are notoriously difficult to implement due to the long-term nature of the required commitment from the seniors and the overall expense” I commented by way of confirmation of their opinion. “As you are aware many of the Fortune 500 companies support these types of programmes with internal Leadership Institutes and the like to confirm both the commitment to and the importance of the programme to the rest of the organisation.”
“Hmmm, I’m not sure our Exec team are up for that sort of programme right now; they have a lot on their plate and I think that they would be looking for a lower key approach” responded one of the team.
“Perfectly understandable” I continued “but whichever way they address the challenge they need to ensure that they address the key issues. I’m assuming that they are proposing to lead this programme themselves with only a light touch from us”
“Yes that’s pretty much their thinking at the moment” my colleague continued. ”I think their thinking reflects both the appetite for the potential expense and I also sense some control issues too.”
“OK let’s look at how we can address some of the key issues” I started. “First off let’s make sure that we give them a clear picture of the challenges they face in taking the lead on this programme. As a team, they and most importantly the initial group that they choose to support them in rolling out the programme need to be the best ambassadors they have. If they are not perfect role models then cynicism will ensue and the programme will be undermined from day one. Also we need to ensure that they embrace in real dialogue not just dictum or they will fail to engender the necessary buy-in”
“Raises some interesting questions around how we select the initial cohort” my colleague responded. “We haven’t touched on that area with them as yet.”
“Ok, let’s think about that a little” I continued. “We need to ensure that they choose the people from the organisation who are already demonstrating the required behaviours and embody the required values. They need to be absolutely clear on their selection criteria and be able to commit to them consistently over time.”
“We also need to make sure that they are sensitive to how the organisation responds to the people selected to lead this programme” my colleague continued. “Whilst not necessarily a ‘Fast Track’ for promotion they need to ensure that successful participation in the programme is seen as a key element in career progression.”
“And finally, we need to make sure that they ring fence the funding for the programme” I continued. “Otherwise the programme will be cut at the first sign of a down-turn promoting the exact behaviours and values that they are seeking to eliminate.”
The discussion continued long into the evening as each issue was addressed and proposals considered. Tomorrow’s meeting with the Executive team was clearly going to be an interesting affair….
“I’m beginning to question whether we have spent sufficient time with the Leadership team preparing them for the months ahead. It’s inevitably going to be a difficult period and I don’t believe that they are well prepared to take on the changes that they need to make.”
Our discussion continued as we drove away from the plant. We had spent a considerable amount of time addressing the required restructuring of the group to improve profitability and competitiveness but precious little time addressing issues within the leadership team. Right from the beginning of our engagement the problem statement excluded any mention of the Leadership team and its role and yet clearly a lot of the existing issues had developed on their watch.
“Yes of all the groups in the organisation they are the least well defined, are under led and are certainly under resourced” my partner continued.
“It’s ironic, isn’t it, that the team that is best placed in the whole organisation to address these issues is the one that has most difficulty in doing so” I responded. “It’s as if they are too close to the issues to be able to make an objective assessment and take action.”
“You’re right” my partner continued “they lack both structure and direction probably as a result of the lack of independent input to their strategy and organisation.”
This last comment brought home to me the importance of external stimulus to the functioning of a Leadership team. It was clearly evident that this group had lost its way over the past years. Its purpose was unclear and its roles and tasks were poorly defined. And yet the irony is that, as a group, they possessed the highest level of authority in shaping their own working contexts.
“I propose that we get the group off-site somewhere to give themselves some space away from the day job to start addressing some of these issues” my partner was beginning to warm to the task ahead. “Probably needs to be over the weekend so that they won’t be missed by the rest of the management team. It will also help us to start breaking down some of the barriers and launch some team building work with them.”
His take on the situation was right on the mark. We needed to get the team to address their own shortcomings in a safe environment where they could begin to address how they as a group need to develop. The team dynamics did not support the strategy going forward and there were also some resource gaps in key areas that would seriously prejudice the successful implementation of the strategy.
The key issue now was how to broach this with the CEO in the morning. It was clearly going to be a delicate conversation…….
“This is my favourite time in any change management project. We’ve gone live and the organisation is beginning to find its feet. It’s fascinating to watch how the new relationships develop, the bonds are created and the whole thing comes to life.”
My partner and I had just left the headquarters of a medium sized group who we had been helping through a major restructuring programme.
“I agree; these are exciting times” I concurred as we drove through their security gates. “I share your fascination with this stage of the process. It’s going to be really interesting to see how the group adapts to the new structure over the next few months. They’ve brought a lot of new people in; some of them in pivotal positions“
The group’s senior management team had embarked on a major restructuring programme some nine months previously against a backdrop of reducing turnover and profitability. Whilst similar downturns had been experienced by the majority of competitors in the sector it seemed that our group had fared worse than the majority. The group had grown both organically and by acquisition over the last 20 years and served a wide range of markets competing primarily on the technical superiority of their products.
“Yes, it’s that part that worries me most” my partner continued. “Their competitive position is driven by their technology edge which is vested in key individuals within the organisation. I’m not convinced that this will be best served by the degree of centralisation that is being proposed”
As with most programmes that are executed in such circumstances the major thrusts were towards increased centralisation to improve control and stripping out several of the smaller non-core businesses to enable the group to focus on the more profitable elements of their portfolio. The group had also recruited several executives into senior leadership positions within the group to bolster what was perceived to be a structural weakness of the existing team.
“I’m still not convinced that the leadership team really understand how their teams function within each company.” my partner continued “The primary influence in the majority of the companies is the technical expert who not only understand the products but can also relate to the markets they serve. These are the people that the teams really trust and look to for guidance not the management team.”
My partner had highlighted a key issue facing the group going forward. The restructuring programme embraced a significant increase in the level of centralised control targeted primarily at increasing profitability through better allocation of resources and leveraging the group’s position to drive down cost. This would inevitably lead to a clash with the existing culture of informal technical leadership within the majority of the group. These largely self-governing groups are the cornerstone of their competitive position.
It looks like it’s going to be an interesting few months…..