Conservatives and Lib Dems - Are we really a team?

All the press talk is about whether the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition will hold together.  This provides a real challenge for the PM and his deputy.  It seems they have made a good start, but what next?  As I was thinking about this, I was drawn to Tuckman's classic model of team development which describes the 4 stages that a team goes through before it achieves maximum effectiveness.  Understanding each stage can help a group to become high performing more quickly and less painfully.

The 4 stages are described as:

• Forming: as the group comes together individual behaviour is driven by a desire to be accepted by the others.  Serious issues and feelings are avoided and people focus on being busy with team organisation, setting dates, roles etc.
• Storming: as important issues start to be addressed the conflict will begin to surface.
• Norming: the 'rules of engagement' become established, and roles and responsibilities are clear and agreed.  Arguments settle down, people listen to each other and appreciate skills and experiences.
• Performing: not all groups reach this stage.  Everyone knows each other well enough to be able to work together and trusts independent activity.  Roles and responsibilities change according to need in almost a seamless way.  The high degree of comfort means the energy of the group can be directed to the task in hand.

The challenge for the leader is to provide direction and support for the team to get through the difficult first two stages, holding your nerve and recognising that this is normal!

So how can we accelerate the process of team development and move easily through the stages?  A model I use when coaching and facilitating teams is Lencioni's 'Five Dysfunctions of Teams'.  He  states that "a true measure of a team is that it accomplishes the results it sets out to achieve" but that on the way they have to overcome 5 dysfunctions by embodying the behaviours described for each one (slightly shortened for this blog):

1. Absence of Trust: members of great teams trust one another on a fundamental, emotional level...they can be completely open.
2. Fear of Conflict: teams that trust one another engage in passionate dialogue around issues and decisions.  They challenge and question to find the best answer to make great decisions.
3. Lack of Commitment: all opinions and ideas should be considered, giving confidence to team members that no stone has been left unturned.
4. Avoidance of Accountability: teams that commit to decisions do not hesitate to hold one another accountable for adhering to those decisions.  They don't rely on the leader as the primary source of accountability they go straight to their peers.
5. Inattention to Results: teams that trust one another, engage in conflict, commit to decisions, and hold one another accountable are very likely to set aside their individual needs and agendas and focus almost exclusively on what is best for the team.  They do not give in to the temptation to place their departments, career aspirations, or ego-driven status ahead of the collective results that define team success.

I think the fifth dysfunction is particularly interesting given that we are talking politics.  Let's see how they do.  But in the meantime ask yourself, "Are we really a team?"

New MPs - have you got what it takes?

Michael Watkins in his book 'The First 90 Days' states that "the President of the United States gets 100 days to prove himself; you get 90. The actions you take during your first three months in a new job will largely determine whether you succeed or fail". So the clock is ticking for Cameron, Clegg and you, the new MPs.

I noticed a discussion on Linkedin about whether our new MPs needed coaching and it got me thinking. Perhaps they do, research has indicated that the vast majority of new hires or promoted people fail in their positions.

There are many models of leadership and competencies for high performance leadership, but those developed by Hartley & Fletcher are particularly focussed on the ten capability dimensions of effective political leadership:

1. Public service values - the extent to which you make clear the public service values that underpin your work.
2. Questioning thinking - the extent to which you challenge yourself and others in ideas and suggestions.
3. Decision making - your effectiveness at making decisions.
4. Personal effectiveness - your skills at dealing with others and in your own self-awareness and self-control.
5. Strategic thinking & action - the extent to which you think and act strategically in your work.
6. Advocacy & representation - your skills at representing others.
7. Political intelligence - the degree to which you show astuteness and political awareness.
8. Communication - your skills in listening and talking.
9. Organisational mobilisation - your ability to bring about major changes in your organisation.
10. Systems & tasks - the degree to which you are able to ensure the implementation of policies and practices.

So MPs, how would you rate yourselves against these capabilities - fully meets, meets most of the time, sometimes meets, needs further development, uses in a negative way that undermines or inhibits others?

So, how do you feel about the next 90 days?  Do you think you have what it takes to make sure you don't fail?

"I Agree with Nick"

As I watched the BBC News at lunchtime today, I heard the political correspondent use the word 'compromise' to describe how the Conservative and Liberal political coalition might work. My immediate reaction was "No! We need more than compromise we need collaboration!" As the two leaders are being forced to trade policies they will inevitably encounter conflict. How they deal with this will be a real test of their leadership skills.

In my coaching of individuals and teams I frequently use the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument to help people understand their behaviour in conflict situations. It describes behaviour along two dimensions of ASSERTIVENESS and COOPERATIVENESS. These two basic dimensions are used to define 5 specific methods of dealing with conflict:

• COMPETING is assertive & uncooperative. It is about power, pursuing one's own concerns at the expense of others.
• ACCOMMODATING is unassertive & cooperative. The opposite of competing, it is about neglecting our own concerns to satisfy the concerns of others.
• AVOIDING is unassertive & uncooperative. It may take the form of diplomatically sidestepping, postponing or withdrawing from a threatening situation.
• COMPROMISING is intermediate in both assertiveness & cooperativeness. It is finding an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties.
• COLLABORATING is about attempting to work with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both. It involves really digging to identify the underlying concerns of both parties and being open and creative to find alternatives that satisfy both. Collaborating is not easy and can take time, but will often get better and more sustainable results.

So how do you resolve your conflicts? Do you always get the results you want?

Who knows what you might achieve by understanding your overused and underused styles and trying a different approach.

Let's see how 'David & Nick' use these skills in their new partnership!

How to keep your TOP TALENT

An article in the Harvard Business Review magazine this month offers some interesting insights into talent management. The Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) studied 20,000 'emerging stars' in 100 organisations. Their conclusion was that most managers struggle when they try and develop the next generation of leaders because they make misguided assumptions about these employees and take actions that actually hinder their star's development.

CLC identified 6 common mistakes:

• assuming high potentials are highly engaged - one in four intended to leave in a year. They found that many of these employees set very high expectations of the organisation to treat them well and were likely to leave if not. They were confident in their abilities so would happily look for alternative jobs.
• equating current high performance with future potential - 70% were found to lack the critical attributes essential to their success in future roles. CLC identify that you should consider ability, engagement and aspiration in the selection of future talent.
• delegating down the management of top talent - development opportunities and talent is often hoarded by line managers rather than shared.
• shielding rising stars from early derailment - many companies ensure the stars are placed in training assignments that offer a bit of stretch but little risk of failure. However this can mean that they are never truly tested and the company is left with a sizeable group who can't meet the demands of the most challenging opportunities.
• expecting star employees to share the pain - freezing or cutting salaries across all staff can seem fair, but it erodes the engagement of the stars. They put in 20% more effort than other employees so feel they should be rewarded.
• failing to link your stars to your corporate strategy - confidence in their manager and the corporations' strategic capability is one of the strongest factors in engagement.

The report concludes that senior executives need to affirm that 'high potential' is not an acknowledgment of past accomplishment but future contribution. They should challenge and cultivate rising stars not just celebrate current achievement.