The 7 Lies of Limiting Leadership

by Ian A Williams

Too many people fall short of their potential in the leadership game, and also fail to enable or enhance the leadership of others. Ian Williams provides an interesting insight into some of the barriers to great leadership. In this issue, Ian shares with us his belief about some of the common lies about leadership, and in the next issue we follow this up with his account of the seven truths.

My passion for good leadership often leads me to observe and reflect on what happens in the workplace for individuals and teams. I listen out for comments and frustrations, and have concluded that there are some common misunderstandings about leadership issues, which I have summarised as the seven lies of leadership.

1. I'm not a leader
The person who thinks they are not a leader is in denial, and has missed the point about leadership. Everyone is leading someone - whether or not they know it, recognise it or want it. Even if we are on the same level, we lead our colleagues in some respects. We may lead projects, team tasks, or even a staff outing! We also lead our children and others among our families and friends. At the very least, we leave ourselves - or at least we should! Our only limit on personal leadership is what we put in place for ourselves, or how we allow others to limit us.

2. They (or I) have been trained
The magic land of training is where organisations send people for a few days, and expect them to come back as leaders. A whole host of courses and events, or any kind of qualification, doesn't make a leader. Training and development will inspire people, inform them, give them practice, provide experiential learning, build confidence, build competence and skills - but all of this will not produce a leader. Too often I go into organisations, and they struggle to understand why their trained leaders are not leading effectively, despite the huge investment made. No human being can be fully trained in leadership, because it comes from within, and needs to be drawn out by line managers and others who are willing to coach people and give them the space to lead. As part of one-to-one coaching, they build experience and confidence and nurture the leader.

3. There's a personality clash
This is one of the most wonderful leadership cop outs. While personalities do clash to some extent, and ‘problem people’ do exist, the challenge is to deal with it, rather than use it as an excuse for effective leadership. Leaders are accountable for their own relationships, and the relationships around them. They need to rise to that challenge and find strategies for having people work together. Too much time and money is wasted in avoidance, and in living with the consequences of poor relationships. Get people focused back on the goals, find specific reasons to their difficulties, and facilitate finding and implementing the solutions. If necessary get some help, but making work, rather than listen to excuses.

4. They won't step up
This is often the concern of senior managers who feel that either their people will not step up to lead, or that they fail to step up to strategic leadership from operational. The key to this one is identifying the blocks. Is it a question of won't or can't? Are they willing? Are they capable? Are they confident? In my experience the ‘won't’ part of this question is the lie. If the block is about skills, abilities, and/or confidence, it falls back on the senior leader to coach. Sometimes, it's a case of making clear to people what you see as strategic versus operational. Ironically, the most common cause for people not stepping up is senior people holding them down. They too often hold on to strategic issues for themselves, tell people what the decision is, and then wonder why everyone is frustrated! If you want to grow strategic leaders, involve them in strategic leadership.

5. Not a people person
How does anyone walk the earth and deny being a people person. People are everywhere, and we can't avoid them. And if we want to get anywhere with anyone, getting along with people isn't a luxury but a necessity. So unless you're a hermit, or you’re in denial of your leadership role, you have to get on with people. You have to employ others who do this too. If someone is described as not a people person, they need to be given the feedback and required to do something about it, in order to lead themselves and other people. The key here is identifying the specific behaviour that causes the person to think this of themselves, or for it to be attributed to them. Then they need to do some self coaching will be coached. There are three aspects to balanced leadership: task, team and individual. If the leader is not a people person, they are missing two-thirds of their job; so in fact, they are not a leader but a person who just does jobs.

6. It's not my style
We read about and experience all sorts of leadership styles. There is no right or wrong, they are just different. Any leadership style becomes inappropriate if it is used in the wrong way, in the wrong circumstances, or at the wrong time. That is of course the essence of situational leadership. An effective leader is able to use a range of styles appropriately. They fool themselves, and everyone else suffers, when they are attached to one favourite style, come what may. You will have met the constant bully, the habitual delegator, and the absentee. Adopting just one style is simply me centred, and the leader has to listen, learn and adjust if they are to motivate people and achieve tasks. They need to model a range of styles, so that others are learning from how they operate practically. After all, what is at stake if you have a leader who is not leading effectively?

7. Know it all, done it all
We’ve all met the magic leaders who have made it! We had better sit and listen to them, and sit back while they either do it themselves or give the orders! Who are they fooling with this lie? Individuals and teams are always different. Situations, resources, tasks and circumstances are always different. No season is the same; there is no constancy but there is always change. We all bring our experience and knowledge, we bring the benefit of wisdom, but we still need a refreshing quantity and quality of ideas, and the excitement of discovering something new together. It’s this sense of contribution to creativity and synergy that keeps people engaged. No one has the monopoly on knowledge, wisdom, ideas and solutions. The know-it-all leader is living a lie and fools no one but themselves. Don't stand for their robbery.


I hope that some of these resonate with your own experience, and that you have found some ways to overcome the lies, and to stand up for the truths. Let’s stop kidding ourselves with all the hype about leadership, and get some of the simple things sorted out for ourselves and those we influence!

Ian A Williams is an author, speaker and facilitator in leadership development,
and a representative for Professor John Adair.
http://www.kairology.com/ ©Kairos Development Ltd. 2009 – All rights reserved. Reproduced by kind permission.

UK HR Update

Equal Pay Considerations

According to research done by The Fawcett Society is the UK’s leading campaign for equality between women and men 85% of the public are in support of equal pay audits. Their website provides the following gruesome statistics:

• 30,000 women lose their jobs in the UK each year simply because they are pregnant
• Only 11% of FTSE 100 company directors are women
• Nearly 1 in 5 women who work in London earn less than the London Living Wage.
• Women in London earn 23% less than their male counterparts

Fewer than one in five (18%) of private companies measure their gender pay gaps, according to other research produced today by IPSOS Mori for CIPD/KPMG. Even in the public sector, where equal pay monitoring is a statutory requirement, the study finds only 43% complete audits, with many of these described as "ticking the bureaucratic box rather than as part of an underlying effort to advance gender equality. Under the provisions of the Equality Bill - due to be passed early next year - the government is considering forcing companies with more than 250 staff to report their gender pay gaps by 2013 if too few of them are doing it voluntarily.

Companies should investigate pay structures from the perspective of fairness and equality whether or not legislation is introduced. Leading businesses will examine their pay gaps not because of government, but because they understand the impact to their reputation and possible legal damage of not getting it right.
Companies who wish to gauge how vulnerable they are to an equal pay claim should ask the following:

1. Is equal pay a consideration in your company's HR policy?
2. Does your HR team understand the implications of current and future equal pay legislation?
3. Is equality of pay embedded in the recruitment, retention and engagement policies of your company, including monitoring starting salaries by gender?
4. Does your executive leadership understand and sponsor the concept and implications of equal pay?
5. Do your managers understand the concept and implications of equal pay?
6. Does your company have a job evaluation scheme?
7. Does your company believe that the job evaluation scheme can manage the issue of equal pay in your company?
8. Does your company provide guidelines to help managers in performance management discussions and in the allocation of pay increase and bonus awards?
9. If challenged, would your company be able to justify gaps in base pay and annual bonus between a male employee and a female employee who have the same role and responsibilities?
10. Does your company have a process to deal with an equal pay claim?

If the answer is no to any of these then an organization should take urgent action to address the issues or face the possible consequences of a lengthy and costly tribunal claim.

Rule Changes on Medical Reports Allows Employees’ Veto

Employers could find it harder to obtain independent medical assessments for employees with health problems following new guidance from the General Medical Council regarding confidentiality issues. The guidance, which took effect on 12 October 2009, places doctors under enhanced duties when acting as independent medical advisers preparing reports for employment purposes. The guidance, which applies to all doctors states that they must:

 be satisfied that the employee is fully informed of the purposes and likely results of disclosing a report to the employer;
 point out that relevant information cannot be concealed or withheld;
 disclose only facts that are relevant to the employer’s request;
 offer to show the employee any report on their condition before it is sent;
 obtain the employee’s written consent before passing on the report.

Those who have actually treated the employees concerned are also subject to the provisions of the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988. While independent or occupational health doctors who haven’t treated the employees aren’t covered by this act, they can no longer supply medical reports to employers without following the above steps. The guidance has been designed to increase trust between doctors and patients, and to prevent the unnecessary disclosure of personal details. Under the previous rules, independent or occupational health doctors not involved in treating the employee concerned could give the employer a report without running it past the individual first. The guidance does not oblige employers to change how they seek medical opinions. It is now, however, even more important that employers set out clearly in writing the issues they are seeking advice on. Then doctors will have more clarity on the relevant information they need to provide. Employees, then, are more likely to consent,however, the introduction of a sign-off procedure means that employers could face delays in receiving reports, which could in turn prolong the absence management process.

The guidance does not give employees the right to amend reports, but it’s likely that most doctors will be willing to correct factual inaccuracies. It is less clear whether employees will ask doctors to alter reports in more subtle ways. Doctors have been advised that it is unacceptable to make changes under pressure from either employees or employers. If consent is withheld the report cannot be disclosed. This change may have unintended and unwelcome consequences for employers and employees. Employers disputing medical information received, for example, from GPs, may face difficulties obtaining independent medical opinions now employees can refuse disclosure. Organisations with limited medical information will be less able to implement reasonable adjustments and may be more likely to dismiss employees for ill health.
How to Manage a Re-structure – 5 top tips!

1. Identify the main objectives for your business re-structure and plan the most appropriate people structure to make your business more effective.
2. Identify which key skills you wish to retain in the new structure and ring-fence key individuals to particular posts; if they only have 70% of the skills required develop a skills development plan for each.
3. Recruit to the remaining posts either from within (first) and then outside the business.
4. Identify which individuals are not required within the new structure as they do not have the new skills required and set a redundancy management programme in place bearing in mind consultation and dismissal legal requirements.
5. Manage performance of the individuals in the new structure carefully and develop training and development plans as appropriate to ensure business success.

If you need support with a re-structure contact Sandra Beale on 07762 771290 or visit her website at http://www.sjbealehrconsult.co.uk