"What Leaders really do"

Following on from my last blog about the need for real consultation and engagement in the public sector cuts, I was interested to see in the July edition of People Management an article focussing on the need for a "boost in capability" in public sector leadership. 

The CIPD chief economist, John Philpott, comments that the politicians may not have fully considered the "enormous management challenges" that measures to reduce the budget deficit will create in a workforce that will be increasingly demoralised.  He warns that the public sector is "numerically overmanaged" and "qualitatively undermanaged".  The editorial points out that whilst there are some capable leaders, there are not sufficient to deal with the degree of transformation required.

Whilst I reflected on this, John Kotter's classic Harvard Business Review article "what leaders really do" sprang to mind, in which he says that "they don't make plans;they don't solve problems; they don't even organise people.  What leaders really do is prepare organisations for change and help them to cope as they struggle through it".

So, how to lead this change?

There are many leadership models, and one of my particular favourites is Daniel Goleman's Six Leadership styles, as it is so well researched.  His model identifies successful leaders as those who "use one or more of 6 distinct leadership approaches and skilfully switch dependent on the situation".  So here they are:

• Visionary: they inspire and explain how efforts contribute to the 'dream'.  Through empathy and clarity they move people towards the shared goal.
• Affiliative: creates harmony that boosts morale and solves conflict.  A useful style for healing rifts or motivating during stressful times.
• Participative: a superb listener, a team worker, collaborator, influencer.  By valuing people's input they get commitment through participation.
• Coaching: by listening and helping people identify their own strengths and weaknesses, they encourage, delegate and improve performance by building long-term capabilities.
• Pacesetting: a strong drive to achieve, high personal standards and initiative, pacesetters get results from a competent team.  But too much and employees feel stifled and have less room to grow.
• Directive: this style demands compliance, and is more effective in a crisis situation.  It is least effective when used with capable and self-motivated employees.

So having read the leadership styles, which ones would you say you use effectively, under-use and maybe over-use?

Hopefully this has given you a little 'food for thought' in managing through tricky times!  I would love to hear from you, on how you are implementing changes.

"Ministers ask public sector staff to suggest savings" - BBC News 24th June

This article appeared in the news last week, and I was intrigued by the fact that David Cameron and Nick Clegg have emailed or sent letters asking public sector staff to help find "fair and responsible" cuts.

Nick Clegg said that the government was "prepared to look at any innovative idea, however bold, however radical, however off the wall it might seem to people, if it could save money in a way that was fair and protected frontline services".  He went on to say that "all serious ideas would be passed on to officials for consideration and that workers would be invited to discuss their suggestions face-to-face with civil servants".

When I first heard this news on Radio 5 Live I was excited by the possibility of engaging people in looking at their own jobs and identifying waste and non value-adding activities.  In my experience, people are more likely to embrace change when they are truly involved.  However, I was disappointed by the second comment, as I immediately imagined the bureaucracy, endless committees and advisers 'blocking' and making any changes difficult to implement.  Too many layers stifle innovation, creativity, decision making and most importantly, individual responsibility.

So my advice to our political leaders is to ASK but make sure you REALLY LISTEN.  Then two things: on the 'easy stuff', let the people just get on with it; where it is more difficult, delegate that responsibility giving them the power and authority to implement it quickly, and give them access to the top when the 'blockers' start to surface.

So, David and Nick, be brave, be bold and take a risk.  You might be surprised by what people can achieve when they are given the chance!

I would love to hear about your experiences of these cuts.

Touching the Summit

I have just returned from a weekend away climbing Snowdon with my son and his Scout Group and have been reflecting on some of the stories of personal triumph and leadership.  

The group I was assigned to were young Scouts keen to reach the summit first.  Whilst this played to my competitive spirit, it was rather in conflict with getting the whole Scout Group to the top.  I had to remind them of the children's Ice Age film - that we are a herd and we stick together.

My son (aged 8) hit the 'wall' halfway up resulting in some tears.  But he was encouraged to think about breaking the challenge down into smaller chunks to overcome the seemingly impossible task of reaching the summit that he could see the whole route.

Another Scout commented within the first mile that he "doesn't do hills" and proceeded to offer more elaborate excuses as the journey progressed.  The Scout Leader had to respond with ever more imaginative responses, but felt a great deal of personal satisfaction in getting him to the top.

One Dad got an 8 year old girl to the top by distracting her with conversations about her favourite things.  Whilst another Dad told how, with the summit in full view, he got a Cub to lift his finger and 'touch the summit'.  This proved highly energising to the young boy, who was frequently seen reaching out.

So what can we learn from this experience?

Robert Greenleaf wrote 'Servant Leadership' in 1977, in which he said that "service ought to be the distinguishing characteristic of leadership".  What we as a group of parents and Leaders did was to forego our own goals and come together to work unselfishly to help the children achieve, what for many was, a tremendous challenge.

I wonder, if we all did more of this in our business life might we achieve more?

I'd love to hear about your experiences of Servant Leadership.

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.