Distance does not separate people; silence does
Distance does not separate people; silence does
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
“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…..
“I’ve been really impressed with Colin since his appointment to the Board at WireCo; he’s really blossomed – way beyond my expectations. I really didn’t think he had the necessary skills to make it to the top.” My colleague was expressing a view that was shared by many within the organisation; I can remember the disbelief that greeted the news of Colin’s appointment to the senior ranks.
“Yes, his appointment raised a few eyebrows at the time. Sure he had a good reputation but it was more for being a safe pair of hands. Very capable but not somebody with the potential to make it right to the top was the view” I agreed. “It makes you think about how many others there are like him in their organisation. How much potential is being overlooked by their inability to recognise those who can truly lead?”
“How do you mean; they have one of the best Leadership Development programmes around and some of the best leaders I know” retorted my colleague.
“Yes, I know but much of that is driven by the investment in training and coaching that they make post appointment. Like most organisations I suspect they have a wealth of leadership talent that they’re not tapping into” I continued “It’s a paradox that organisations face when looking for talent”
“Hmmm, I’m not sure I’m following your line of thinking – care to enlighten me?”
“Ok. First off I’d like you to share with me your views on how WireCo approach the selection of their potential leaders” I asked.
“Well pretty much like most organisations, I suppose, they focus on their high achievers. The individuals within the organisation they view as having high potential and who, as a matter of course, get things done. The individuals who routinely excel on a personal basis and typically possess boundless energy and drive.” You could almost feel their commitment oozing from his description.
“You’re right – that’s exactly what they do. They look for people within the organisation who have a strong orientation to achieve.” I responded.
“Well that seems to me like a pretty reasonable place to start” he continued.
“Yes but as you quite correctly say much of this is driven by their personal need to achieve which often results from either their ego or a need for power. But what the organisation needs from its leaders is the ability to set the context for the others in the organisation which is a very different skill set” I concluded.
“Let’s think about Colin for a moment. The surprise at his appointment was mainly the result of his lack of conformance to the model you suggest. Yet throughout his career he has been consistently demonstrated an ability to influence those around him. Not just his own team but other teams across the whole organisation along with his peers and most importantly his seniors. To my mind it would have been surprising had he not made it to the Board” I argued.
“So what you’re saying is that organisations should look to who the key influencers are when thinking about their future leaders”
“Well as you would say … it seems to me like a pretty reasonable place to start”