Productivity - Management or Government

The Australian Financial Review today ran a front page article headlined “Managers blamed over productivity”.

The article is an example of the pointless either/or nature of the argument over the causes of low productivity in Australia and who should show leadership in addressing this problem.

Mediocre management

McKinsey (and others) conducted the survey cited in the article and they found that mediocre management leads to mediocre results – and Australia's score of 3 for management performance on a 1 to 5 scale is mediocre!

The US and Germany are only a little less mediocre.  It would appear that mediocrity is the global standard for management performance.

Attribution error

Managers, like everyone else, seek to blame external factors (government, unions, foreign companies) for poor company performance but attribute good performance to their own capability.  This known to social psychologists as “attribution error”.

On this, McKinsey found that government regulations restrict management action but management capability was the primary driver of company performance and that protection from competition allows poorly managed companies to survive.

McKinsey also stated that a 6% gain in productivity follows from moving the management performance score from 3 to 4.  The Total Quality Management (TQM) movement of the 80s and 90s proved that the level of waste in companies could be the equivalent of 30%-50% of revenue.

Boosting productivity through Leadership

It is clear that if business groups (and economists) want Australia’s productivity to improve they must show leadership and promote modern techniques such as Lean Enterprise.

The government must also show leadership and address restrictive labour practices and boost competition between businesses.

For further information on boosting productivity, please check the Library on my company's website

My personal philosophy of leadership, mentoring and coaching

Leadership skills and behaviours

The fundamental principle of leadership is concern for the success and well-being of followers.  The purpose of leadership is to make one’s followers successful, for through their success the leader will also be a success.  But the well-being of followers is also crucial.  There is no point winning a battle if all one’s soldiers lay dead on the battlefield.

How should a leader behave in adhering to this principle?  Firstly, a leader must always strive to make the ‘right’ decision.  Not just the correct decision, but one that is morally sound.  It is not valid for leaders to say “they had no choice”.  Leaders must not embrace determinism – that is moral bankruptcy.  Having made a decision, a leader must engage directly (face-to-face, wherever possible) with followers to develop a shared understanding, and to help followers make sense of the decision.  In these engagements, the leader must always be truthful and consistent – actions must match words.  Whatever the consequences of the decision, a leader must take responsibility for the outcome, accepting blame for failure while giving credit to the followers for any success.

Secondly, a leader must focus on “making a difference”, not on trivial matters.  Leadership is about leaps, not steps.  A leader must focus on the higher purpose of their organisation’s existence – whether it be to serve customers or a community.  This higher purpose both defines success and unites followers behind a common cause, at the same time motivating followers to strive for success.

Finally, a leader must seek to develop followers, in both their technical competence and their emotional maturity.  This requires a leader to coach and mentor followers so that they may create success for themselves.

Facets of Poor Leadership

There are three dangers or lapses that make for poor leadership.  They arise from a leaders misconception of their own capability.  Leaders fail when they believe that they are omniscient, omnipotent and infallible.

Omniscience

Leaders may suffer from attribution bias – believing that the success of their organisation (business, team, nation) is due to their own knowledge and competence.  Any failure or under-performance is due to external factors (government policy, weather, foreigners).  Leaders who believe themselves omniscient make decisions for their followers and supervise their activity.

Good leaders understand that followers know more of what is the actuality, and that they should be given support and encouragement to take appropriate action themselves.

Good leaders also understand that they are not the only possible source of leadership.  The leadership “need” depends on the context, and a good leader knows when to defer to a “better” leader.

Omnipotence

Poor leaders believe that they can lead by commandment, that what they say must happen will, in fact, happen.  Good leaders understand that this is not the case, and they devolve power to their followers.  This not only empowers the followers but, by placing power where its effect is more directly seen and felt, a leader reduces the risk of accidentally causing “undeserved harm”.

Infallibility

Good leaders accept that they will make mistakes.  They also understand that mistakes lead to improvement.  When accepting that mistakes are inevitable, a good leader takes action that minimises or mitigates the consequences of mistakes.  A good leader is always in control, without needing to exercise overt control.

Leadership Skills and Building Trust

I found two interesting papers by The Ken Blanchard Companies, Critical Leadership Skills and Building Trust, on the internet.

Critical Leadership Skills

The article reports on the findings of four studies conducted by the company, and that the critical skills are:

1. Communication/listening skills - reflective listening, use of a variety of styles, and providing relevant information
2. Effective people management skills - adapting the leadership style to suit the individual follower and the situation, modeling desired behaviours, and coaching
3. Emotional intelligence/empathy - putting the needs, issues and concerns of followers ahead of the leaders own; empathy, concern, engagement; valuing others, preserving their dignity.

Close to my own philosophy, if not performance!

Building Trust

The "high cost of low trust" has these components:

1. Low morale
2. Lower productivity
3. People 'quit but stay'
4. Increased turnover

The report finds that four elements (ABCD) of trust are:

1. Ability - demonstrated competence
2. Believable - acting with integrity
3. Connected - demonstrating care and concern for other people
4. Dependable - reliably following through on what one says one will do

The "trust busters" are

1. Lack of communication
2. Dishonesty
3. Breaking confidentiality
4. Taking credit for another's work

The "trust builders" are:

1. Giving credit
2. Listening
3. Setting clear goals
4. Honesty
5. Following through

The 8 things a leader should do to improve trust:

1. Demonstrate trust
2. Share information
3. Tell it straight
4. Provide opportunities for everyone to win
5. Provide feedback
6. Resolve concerns 'head on'
7. Admit to mistakes
8. Walk the talk

This reinforces the "critical skills" but adds more on 'how to'.

The Real Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs!

Here, in summary, are the general leadership lessons form Walter Isaacson's blog piece*.

A good leader:

1. Clearly articulates the intent of the organisation and ensures the whole organisation understands it, and conducts itself in accordance with that purpose and mission.
2. Understands the essence of the organisation's purpose and eschews activities and complications that absorb people's time and spirit, and wastes organisational resources.
3. Ensures that the organisation takes responsibility for its complete value chain - from its suppliers' suppliers to its customers' customers.
4. Encourages continuous improvement and couples this with "breakthrough" innovation 
5. Guides the organisation so that it remains true to its intent, purpose, mission and values
6. Thinks in terms of what people need, not what they want; makes a difference to the world.
7. Knows that people have more in them than they realise.  To rise to a challenge they must be motivated, and the motivation comes from their leader's confidence that they can do so.
8. Addresses not just the material needs of his/her follower, but considers (and uses to advantage) their emotional and spiritual needs.
9. Want his/her followers to have pride in their work.  This pride motivates them to do great deeds.
10. Expects his/her followers to do great things.

This is the beginning of the statement of my personal philosophy of leadership, mentoring and coaching.

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 10 - Tolerate Only 'A' Players

This piece* seems a bit confused.  It starts by reporting on Jobs' trait of being "impatient, petulant, and tough" on employees.  Although "not laudable", it emanates from his perfectionism and desire to "work with only the best".  But Jobs inspired people and many stayed loyal to him for long periods.

Presciently, Isaacson warns other CEOs that they "should not emulate his roughness without understanding his ability to generate loyalty".

Unfortunately, it's easier to be rough than it is to generate loyalty!

Perhaps the more general leadership lesson comes at the end of this section of the article where Isaacson quotes Jobs as saying that "by expecting them [followers] to do great things, you can get them to do great things".  But does expectation have to be so aggressive?

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

What do Leaders Do?

The inaugural issue of Momentum, the University of Queensland Business School magazine, answers this question using the research and views of five of their Professors and Lecturers.
The five components of their answer are:

1. Leaders create trust
2. Leaders facilitate strategy
3. Leaders drive change
4. Leaders manager emotions
5. Leaders build teams.

A summary of the answers is given below with my comments (in italics).

Leaders create trust (Dr. Nicole Gillespie)

Trust is important for "without trust, how can a leader engender commitment" according to Dr. Gillespie.  Trust can be built in six (6) ways - empowering, coordinating, coaching, developing common values and goals, modeling competence and integrity, and benevolence.
This view is quite similar to Onora O'Neill's response to the "crisis of trust".

Leaders facilitate strategy (Dr. John Steen)

Strategy formulation, says Dr. Steen, should be a continuing conversation facilitated by the leader.  This describes a coaching role for the leader - in this article Dr. Steen has made "leader" synonymous withe "CEO".

More generally, a leader should be having "sense-making conversations" with his/her followers to maintain a shared understanding of what is required and what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

Leaders drive change (Prof. Victor Callan)

Change must be planned and driven by the leader, according to Prof. Callan.  To do so, business leaders must have self-confidence and conviction.
This is a very "directive" view of the change managers role, perhaps missing the many other entities that create change in an organisation.  A bit too "heroic" for my taste!

Leaders manage emotions (Prof. Neal Ashkanasy)

Professor Ashkanasy's research looks into how emotions get one into "the top job" and "makes you successful" once you become the leader.  The Profs piece touches on rhetoric as motivation, modeling appropriate emotions, and emotional intelligence. 

This, to me, is somewhat akin to Kant's imperative that people be treated with respect.

Leaders build teams (Dr. Neil Paulsen)

The Doctor sees that a leaders contribution is "not about having all the answers" but is in "coordinating and connecting ideas and resources" to enable team success.  He also believes that effective leaders should "manage the context" in which the team operates.

This view of the purpose of leadership being the success of the "followers" is very much in line with my thinking on leadership.

Reflection

This is a very interesting article and quite informative.  It is one of the best I've read in the "popular" press on the topic.  And not just because the writers agree with me!

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 9 - Push for perfection

Toy Story, the iPhone and the iPad are given by Isaacson* as products where Steve Jobs' showed his "push for perfection".  If one considers Steve Jobs as a product designer this conclusion seems fair.  But a leader wouldn't necessarily aim for perfection in a product, activity or outcome, in my view.

A leader would want his/her followers to have pride in their work.  That pride would motivate them to achieve great deeds (and deliver great products).

Next: Lesson 10 - Tolerate Only "A" Players

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Reflections on 21722 so far (2) ...

Robert Kennedy and the Death of Martin Luther King

The rhetoric of great US political leaders

The documentary on Bobby Kennedy's speech reporting the death of King was touching and inspiring.

US political leaders so often are very good orators; their rhetoric is so often inspiring with its blend of logos, pathos and ethos.

My favourite piece

Part of a documentary I once saw about Malcolm X contained my favourite piece of political rhetoric.  Malcolm was discussing equality, refuting it as an objective of American black people.  He asked why blacks would want to be the equals of whites - those who had subjugated them, insulted them, lynched them.  He saw blacks as better than that and that they should act accordingly.

Truly inspiring.

Reflections on 21722 so far ...

A personal philosophy of Leadership, Mentoring and Coaching

The MD of King Gee at the time of the closure of the Kempsey factory had an interesting, unusual and praiseworthy approach to the closure.  He wanted staff to "leave with dignity" to celebrate the "life" of the factory rather than mourn its "death".  During class discussion, a comment was made that as MD he had "no choice" but to close the plants.  But I believe that managers always have a choice.  He could have refused to be involved, although this may not have been the best option for his employees.  He perhaps could have worked to have the factory handed over to local management and staff.  He may have had the ability years earlier to choose an approach that wouldn't lead to closure.

Hard decisions

The "hard decisions" of leadership are not necessarily those forced upon the leader or the ones that involve them sacking their followers.  The hard decisions are the ones avoided, ignored or not noticed;  that are made by default and are left unchallenged.

Competence and Morality

The structure of university management courses means that broad and underpinning topics - such as "Leadership" and "Change" - are addressed as self-contained almost independent subjects.  But I see a connection between management competence and morality.  For example, women represent 50% of the population but only 3-40% of managers are women (depending on level and industry).  Given that men and women, across the population, are of equal intelligence, an organisation where women are under-represented in management has a lower level of competence (or potential competence).
Similarly, employees who are treated as mature, honest, intelligent people (not "assets") are happier and more productive (as described in the Service-Profit Chain).
An organisation striving for high performance would therefore employ moral leadership.  Not to do so is incompetence.
The majority of organisations have incompetent management (see "Management Matters").  Improving the overall competence of management would therefore lead to more moral leadership of these organisations.

Incompetence and harm

Managers lack competence but not power.  Power allows undeserved harm to be done both deliberately and accidentally.  Even highly competent managers are capable of doing undeserved harm.  This capability can be prevented from causing harm when power is devolved.  Management approaches such as those of W Edwards Deming and Ricardo Semler devolve power to employees and so limit the potential for its abuse.
But such approaches are not the stuff of business schools.  The doing of harm continues.

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 8 - Impute

The Oxford Online Dictionary defines "impute" as meaning to "assign (a value) to something by inference from the value of the products or processes to which it contributes."

In his article, Isaacson* relates this to Steve Jobs' sense of design; in particular to his emphasis on the form and packaging of a product.  He saw it as "a signal rather than being functional".

Extending this from design into the more general world of leadership, this may be interpreted as the need for a leader to address not just the material needs of his/her follower, but to consider (and use to advantage) their emotional and spiritual needs.

Next: Lesson 9 - Push for Perfection

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Interesting talk last night

Last night I attended the 'launch' of a leadership coaching company, AltusQ, and enjoyed the event immensely.  A great venue (MCA rooftop), friendly crowd, and a very interesting and thought provoking talk by Andrew Mackenzie, the CEO for Australia.

Decisions not excuses

It was entitled "Don't make excuses ... make decisions" and emphasised that we shouldn't be afraid of making decisions - we make them all the time.  And we shouldn't avoid making decisions because of worry about what people may think about our decisions.  Quite insightful and motivating I thought.

Managers Leading 

This "coaching experience" conducted by Andrew was directed at the senior managers in the audience and rang true.  What interested me just as much was Andrew's comments about leaders (senior managers) setting an example, making decisions that were moral and which had employee interests at heart.  He also talked about being successful by making those who work for you successful (this is my interpretation).

This is where managers can truly be leaders - taking their employees (being, hopefully, their followers) to a "better place" in terms of how the company operates and how the employees are respected as human beings not "assets".

It reminded me again of the Deming and Semler styles of management leadership.  And made me think further about Leadership vs Management.  Will this never stop!

Leaders, "Get in Costume"!

What?

Brad Rex writes that leaders should "get in costume".  By this he means that a "leader" (he later defines leaders as "executives and managers") should spend some time working as "frontline employees".  In fact he did this for "over 1000 hours" while working for Walt Disney World (averaging around 7 hours per month).
Why?

Working with his followers, Brad learned about barriers to them providing "outstanding service" and this knowledge allowed him to fix those issues when he was "back in the office".

Real leadership

I wouldn't want to dissuade any executive or manager from spending time with their staff, but there is a "leadership" alternative.  A true leader would create an environment where employees can address the "barriers to outstanding service" themselves.  This would be much faster and more efficient than waiting for the boss to visit.  Although, to Brad's credit, he does take calls from frontline people, with whom he has "developed relationships", about new policies.
How Brad Manages Labour
He does it "intelligently", by being "acutely aware of guest traffic and deploy[ing] labour accordingly" - managing them in 15 minute increments so that their are never too few or too many staff serving customers!

Perhaps this is why the employees can't fix the problems themselves?

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 7 - Bend Reality

According to his colleagues, Steve Jobs used a "Reality Distortion Field" to push people to do the impossible* and he believed that "life's ordinary rules didn't apply to him".  When a supplier complained that over confidence would not overcome real challenges, Jobs' replied "Get your mind around it.  You can do it".

A leader often has to ask the seemingly impossible of his/her followers, and followers often rise to this challenge.  The leadership lesson is that people have more in them than they and their manager or leader realise.  To rise to a challenge they must be motivated, and the motivation comes from their leader's confidence that they can do so.

Next: Lesson 8 - Impute

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Managers and Leaders

I'm continuing to clarify and make cogent and coherent my thoughts on managers as leaders.  The current vogue is the make the two synonymous when talking about CEOs, in particular.  I believe that this is simply "spin" - the Management "brand" has been soiled, now we have the New! Improved! Fresh! Leader running our businesses.  Unfortunately this has given CEOs a false sense of their competency and contribution, allowing them to present themselves as experts in business, economics and politics.

Are managers also leaders?

Certainly there are times when managers are required to lead.  But one can only be leader of people, not a business or an asset or resource.  Generally, managers supervise people.  In the day-to-day events of a business, leadership is not required.  A managers responsibility is to ensure an organisation serves its customers; from this service benefits will flow to the other stakeholders.  To serve its customers, the people, activities and resources of the organisation must be planned, organised, directed and controlled, in some fashion.

Are leaders also managers?

Not necessarily, certainly not in a supervisory manner.  Followers can organise themselves.  The leaders responsibility is to serve the organisation's followers - its people (employees, in a business organisation).  This is a secondary responsibility of managers.

Managers following Leaders

Semco is a business where senior management have come closest to being leaders.  In Semco, the business is managed by the employees (the followers).  In most businesses, supervision rules, and leadership a mere platitude.

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 6 - Don't Be a Slave to Focus Groups

Think in terms of what people need, not what they want.

Make a difference.

Albert Scheiwtzer (1875-1965)

Next: Lesson 7 - Bend Reality

Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Reflections upon the last two lectures

Thinking about Leadership

We were asked what we had found affirming and disturbing over the past few lectures

Affirming

I found that my misgivings concerning the current management paradigm - both its theory and practice - were affirmed.  Although leadership is not just about management, the two have become conflated (see my post from the 16th of April on "Leadership Competencies")  and, rather than address its low competency in management, those in management have shifted our focus to leadership.  We now have poor management and poor leadership.

Disturbing

At the core of this problem is the hierarchical approach to management so common in the modern economy.  The approach creates management problems and comes up with new approaches to address them.  These new solutions are then misapplied, causing further problems.

Hard Decisions

It is common the read of managers describing how it was necessary for them to make the "hard decisions" such as sacking workers and closing factories (such as in the King Gee immersion experience).  Hard for the worker, not as hard for the manager!  The hard decisions were those not made by the managers; the ones that may have allowed the factory to be more productive; the ones that would have given the workers machinery, facilities etc to start their won textiles business.  This would have meant hard work and arguing (with their management).

Positive Organisational Scholarship

I find the topic fascinating but disturbing!  Such an effort to make a positive workplace when the standard management approach is so negative.  Again, new tools to fix problems that are inherent in the system.

The End of Leadership - Barbara Kellerman

In her new book, Kellerman decries the gap between "the teaching of leadership and the practice of leadership" and expresses her concern over the rise of the "leadership industry, of which she is a part.  She, in the extract we read in class, also seems to conflate "leadership" and "management".  Why do we need 24x7 leadership?  Why do we need a specific leader?  Why do we need 24x7 management? Why do we need a specific manager?   We we don't.  But when we try, we create more leadership and management problems.

Ricardo Semler and W. Edwards Deming

These two gents provide solid and successful examples of a different management/leadership paradigm.  Deming in Japan and around the  world; Semler in Brazil at Semco.

If the many solutions tried don't solve the problem, then perhaps we are looking at the wrong problem.

Summary

So far I've found the Leadership, Coaching and Mentoring course to be confronting, revealing, enlightening, provocative.  Oh, and formative in a visceral sort of way.

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 5 - Put Products Before Profits

Jobs' view was that Apple should be "an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. Everything else was secondary.  Sure it was great to make a profit, because that was what allowed you to make great products.  But the products, not the profits, were the motivation".  Isaacson sees the leadership lesson as "put product before profits", but isn't this too narrow for a leadership lesson?  Doesn't this reflect Jobs' staying true to Apple's purpose (see Lesson 1 - Focus)?

An organisation (company, team, government) needs a clear purpose and must stay true to it.  This doesn't mean that all other aspects are ignored.  The organisation must continue to exist if it is to achieve its purpose, but mere existence is not its reason for being.

Next: Lesson 6 - Don't Be a Slave to Focus Groups

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Toyota - Altona, Values ...

Altona
ABC Online reported (April 18th) that Toyota has "assessed more than 3,000 workers at the site and says it is firing those with the lowest ratings".
Federal Workplace Relations Minister Bill Shorten says "last night and tonight people will be at home their kids will be asking them mummy, daddy did you lose your job because you are a slacker and that is not the case".

Values

Toyota's Values include "Respect for people".

... and Leadership?

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 4 - When Behind, Leapfrog

Isaacson* believes that an innovative company isn't only one that comes up with new ideas, but one that "leapfrogs when it is behind".  He cites the iTunes-iTunes Store-iPod combination that changed the industry - making CDs obsolescent for swapping music -  when Jobs discovered his error in not providing the Mac with a CD burner.

The broader lesson is that continuous improvement must be coupled with "breakthrough" innovation for a company to progress and dominate its markets.  The lesson for those who are passed by is that competitors don't always respond to competitive disadvantage by emulating the successful player(s).  They may also change the game and send everyone else "back to zero"**.

Next: Lesson 5 - Put Products Before Profits

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

**Barker, J. A. 1993, Paradigms: The Business of Discovering the Future, HarperBusiness

Multiple Leaders - an afterthought

Thinking about David Clutterbuck (see yesterday's post "Multiple Leaders"), led me to recall how this can be an effective approach in practice.

Project and Product

When I was involved in bespoke software development, we used a project structure that had a Project Manager (PM), as the overseer of the whole project, and a Technical Director (TD) who had responsibility for the quality of the "end-product" (the software and its associated documentation etc).

Different responsibilities, different people

This approach was recognition that a person who could plan, organise, direct, and control (and yes, "lead") a team was not necessarily someone with the technical skills and experience to build the product.  This was the responsibility of the Technical Director (TD).  Both were required, at times, to be leaders, but in different situations and in different ways - and they had different traits, competencies and power sources.

Recent experience

On a recent engagement in an IT department, I noticed that they appointed a PM but not a TD.  The PM carried technical responsibility.  My observation was that this was risky and led to a poorer outcome.

Put the data to work!

Timberland

In the Timberland: Commerce and Justice case study covered in the 21722 lecture on April 14th, Jeff Swartz (p. 2) "believed finding more quantitative or analytical ways to demonstrate the link was becoming an imperative" to showing that Timberland's investment in social programs was critical to its business success.

Sears

This reminded me of an article I read a long time ago about how the US retailer Sears, Roebuck and Company implemented their Employee-Customer-Profit Chain (Rucci, Kirn & Quinn, 1998).  This model "tracked success from management behavior through employee attitudes to customer-satisfaction and financial performance" (p. 83).

Science!

Without relating the article, their approach to measurement was standard scientific method:

1. Ask a question
2. Do background research
3. Construct a hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis using an experiment
5. Analyze data and draw a conclusion
6. Communicate the results

Cause and effect

Sears used an econometric statistics firm to analyse the enormous quantity of data on training, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction, revenue and more that they had been collecting over the years.  The experts uses "causal pathway modeling" (p. 90) to explore the connections.  Their work clearly showed that employee attitudes (5 unit increase) drove their behaviour, which determined the helpfulness of the service they provided, which determined customer impressions (1.3 units), retention and recommendations and finally resulted in revenue growth (0.5%) and profit.

Employee-Community-Profit?

The Sears approach might be applied to Timberland.  The company has collected a lot of data on employee attitudes and involvement, social investment and financial performance.  Economic. demographic and social data might be available for US Federal, State and Local governments where Timberland and its community partners operate (and don't operate).  Then, causal analysis may quantitatively show the relationship between commerce and justice that Swartz is convinced exists.

Postscript - Sears "Leadership Skills"

The Rucci et al article also relates the skills expected of its managers:

Rucci, A. J., Kirn, S. P. & Quinn, R. T. 1998, 'The Employee-Customer-Profit Chain at Sears', Harvard Business Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 82-97.

Talent and Leadership

Multiple leaders

In the Australian Financial Review today, there's an article  (pp. 58-59) titled "Talent spotting gets it wrong most of the time" by Fiona Smith.  Two quotes from David Clutterbuck ("management author") related to leadership, management and their respective competencies took my fancy - and fed my convictions on these matters:

1. "unless the talent looks like them, managers just can't see them"
2. "organisations need different kinds of leaders for different situations"

On the second point Clutterbuck describes how firefighters need "one leader who manages, organises and makes things happen" for one situation and when things get hot (my lame joke) they need "someone they would follow into hell".

Managers not Leaders/Leaders not Managers

The first situation described above supports a typical "management" role - making the hum-drum happen and continually improving performance using, perhaps, both positional and personal power.  The second doesn't necessarily require someone with positional power, just personal power.  They do not necessarily need to have legitimate power.

But does the first have to be someone in formal authority?   Why could a team not have a person or person who organises etc?  Couldn't it also have multiple leader(s) who take charge depending on the situation?

Leadership competencies

How firms now select a CEO

During our recent 21722 lecture, we heard how an internationally successful executive search firm - Egon Zehnder International - assesses leadership skills.
The example assessment shown here is from CIO magazine and highlights competencies such as "Team Leadership", "Strategic Orientation", "Collaboration & Influence", and "Results Orientation".  Others include "External Customer Focus" and "Commercial Orientation" and indicate that the competencies are more fitting a "senior manager" than "leader".  Are they the same?

How firms used to select a CEO

Levinson (1980) listed 20 behavioural dimensions of chief executives under the categories of "thinking", "feelings and interrelationships" and "outward behavior characteristics" including "judgement", "sensitivity [to] others' feelings", "sense of humor", "vision", "integrity" and "social responsibility".  Behaviours that seem applicable to any leader, not only CEOs.

Begone!

In their 1985 book "A Passion for Excellence", Tom Peters and Nancy Austin (p.265), declare that the Manager (the "dispassionate analyst, professional, decision maker, naysayer") must give way to the Leader ("cheerleader, enthusiast, nurturer of champions, hero finder, wanderer, dramatist, coach, facilitator, builder").

It seems that "leadership" and "management" have become conflated since the 1980s.  But why?

Peters and Watson believe that Hayes and Abernathy's "Managing Our Way to Economic Decline (1980) was the "cornerstone of the corporate revolution" that they describe as "attacking the "MBA/number-only mentality of American managers".  Hayes and Abernathy themselves declare that there had been  "broad management failure" of "vision and leadership".

Leadership sells

Who would now admit at parties that they were a "manager"?  Who would answer a job ad the spruiked a "management" role?  The word has become a pejorative.  Better to be a "leader" even if the job description hasn't changed!  Just as "frozen food" is hard to sell but "fresh frozen food" walks off the shelves, so is "leadership" sellable while "management" has passed its use-by date.


Peters, T and Austin, N. 1985, A Passion for Excellence - The Leadership Differences, Collins: Glasgow.
Levinson, H. 1980, Criteria for choosing chief executives, Harvard Business Review, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 113-120.
Hayes, R. H. & Abernathy, W. J. 1980, Criteria for choosing chief executives, Harvard Business Review, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 67-77.

The Secret of Leadership - Black Turtlenecks!

"Wannabe bosses take a leaf out of Jobs book"

Well, it has happened.

The WSJ reports that Jobs' disciples are proliferating.

Oooweeee!  This leadership thing is sooooooo easy.

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 3 - Take Responsibility End to End

Unlike Microsoft, Apple did not surrender control of its complete offering (except for a short time during Jobs' interregnum when an OEM was licensed to produce a Mac clone).  This meant that Apple did the integration for its customers, enhancing their user experience.

The broader lesson here is that an organisation can't simply see itself as a supplier.  It must take responsibility for its complete value chain - from its suppliers' suppliers to its customers' customers.

Next: Lesson 4 - When Behind, Leapfrog

*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Please excuse the break in transmission.
Easter and multiple assessments intervened.

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 2 - Simplify

According to Isaacson*, Jobs had the ability to zero in on the essence of a 'thing', aiming for a 'simplicity that comes from conquering' complexity.  What does this mean for leadership?  It means understanding the essence of the organisation's purpose and eschewing activities and complications that absorb people's time and spirit, and wastes organisational resources.

Next: Lesson 3 - Take Responsibility End to End


*Adapted from "The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson, in hbr.org. 

Moral Leadership and Multi-culturalism
Going back to my first 21722 lecture last Saturday, I remember thinking about how Australia has changed in its cultural diversity.  When I was at school my suburb was mainly Anglo-Saxon with a smattering of Mediterranean.  Now, I'm told, it's Somali!
While my 21722 classmates were introducing themselves, the wide range of backgrounds became apparent.  Of course, many were international students, but many others had emigrated to Australia from all parts of the world.

As I said, it wasn't always like this.  Things changed in the mid-seventies when the Fraser government decided to accept thousands of Vietnamese refugees.  This was quite a change and Malcolm Fraser showed great moral leadership and deserves heavy praise.

Not that I ever voted for the bloke!

The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs
Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs official biographer, has written a very interesting article, with the above title, for hbr.org.  To me it doesn't present any lessons, but describes how Jobs worked.  The danger of treating the article as a guide to leadership is that one may "make a dangerous mistake" by adopting some aspects of Jobs' style but not others and so miss the benefits, or worse.
But there is a lot to learn from Jobs and this article so, over the next week or two, I'll provide my interpretation of the lessons presented in the article, starting here with "Focus".

Steve Jobs' Leadership Lesson 1 - Focus

Isaacson describes how Jobs restricted his attention to a small number of matters, be they products, people or problems.  More generally, one could say that Jobs had a clear purpose and mission - consistent with Collins and Porras' company Vision approach.  A good leader clearly articulates the intent of the organisation and ensures the whole organisation understands it, and conducts itself in accordance with that purpose and mission.

Next: Lesson 2 - Simplify

Mass and Velocity

Yesterday was the first lecture of my 21722 Leadership, Coaching and Mentoring subject and it was thought-provoking and enjoyable, although for those who haven't completed 21800 Management and Organisations with Dr. Walter Jarvis it may have been hard going.  A number of ideas and observations will lead to blog entries over the next week or so, but the first one that struck me has to do with public scrutiny of leaders.

This is very readily apparent whether it be of politicians, companies and business people, or sports stars.  But modern communications is making it all the more difficult for leaders to 1) avoid scrutiny, 2) evade being caught mishandling the truth, and 3) avoid being damagingly misquoted or misrepresented.

Mobile phones, social media, and other technologies expand both the audience (mass) and the velocity of communication of a leader's words and behaviour.  Any gaffe is very soon widely known.  Further, the images/sound are digitally recorded and saved in many places, allowing them to be replayed and compared.  Any inconsistencies or errors are easily detected and themselves rapidly and widely communicated.

But this doesn't apply just to a leaders own activity.  A critic's view can also "go viral" particularly if it is sensationalist.  Witness how quickly the resignation note of the Goldman Sachs employee sped around the world.  This happened without any corroboration being supplied (or perhaps even considered).
Consistency and the Truth

This intense scrutiny is therefore very dangerous for a leader if he/she fails to handle it well.  Of course, PR companies are onto this and must be madly seeking the big money that is available to protect reputations through "spin".  But how should a moral leader behave?

I read somewhere some time ago that its much easier to tell the truth than lie.  This is because, if one lies, one must remember what one said if asked again later - it's very hard to lie consistentl.  However, if one is always truthful, one simply repeats the truth.

A leader, then, must always be honest to survive the intensity of public scrutiny in this new age.

Leadership and Tragedy

The Sydney Morning Herald today (March 21, 2012) published an article on the tragic shooting at the Ozar Hatorah school in Toulouse, France.  It reported that the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, "cancelled campaign appearances" and flew to the school.
Although Mr Sarkozy is fighting a hard presidential campaign, it is not uncommon for national and state leaders to drop what they are doing to travel to the scene of such a tragedy.  We can see that in Australia with Prime Minister Julia Gillard visiting flooded areas recently and Premier Anna Bligh of Queensland stepping in when Brisbane was flooded.  It is now seemingly expected that leaders will do so, particularly after the criticism that President George W. Bush experience when he failed to personally visit New Orleans after it was devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

But why is this the case?  It wasn't always so.  President Roosevelt didn't rush to Pearl Harbor, although Winston Churchill did tour London streets after bombings during World War 2.  Perhaps faster travel makes more common an involvement that has always been expected - that a leader should lead from the front?  Even in business, CEOs are lauded when they drop in on the factory floor, or walk around the office chatting to employees, rather than locking themselves away on the top floor with their management team.
The experience of politicians suggest that the modern business leader should spend more time with employees, building their morale and level of engagement.  Not to do so risks criticism and perhaps lower company performance.