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.

Understanding Unconscious Bias

By Carolyn Sheppard

At a seminar I attended a short while ago (on the subject of Leadership During Challenging Times), all of the four speakers, from very different backgrounds, mentioned the issue of unconscious bias and the effects it has on leadership, followership and the organisation. Unconscious bias is the underlying, subconscious prejudices that every single person has, due to nature, nurture and experience.

As an illustration of this, one of the speakers (an eloquent and impressive French IT Director), recounted a particularly relevant story regarding her employment at a company in the US. She said that no matter how good her performance and results, she could never succeed because of the culture of the organisation. She struggled in the company for three years. The company talked a good ‘diversity and inclusion policy’, but the behaviour of the employees (right down to the woman who assumed that any other female in the organisation must also be a PA), set the culture based on their own unconscious biases. Changing the entire culture of a huge, Texas-based heavy industry company was not a task she desired to take on (and probably not an achievable one) so, with no sense of failure but a great deal more understanding, she moved on.

That’s the negative side of unconscious bias – acting out a bias that is discriminatory or prejudiced. But the positive side of unconscious bias is that it is a basic survival instinct. Our brains recognise situations or scenarios that get right down to the ‘flight or fight’ principle. However in these times, for most of us, there is much less need for these responses – there is not the physical danger that required us to develop these instincts. We can transfer them from physical to verbal or even intellectual responses – but your brain is still crying out for a reaction of some kind. Our biases are there for a reason, your brain has learned to react in a certain way because of an experience or learned behaviour (eg prejudice demonstrated by parents, culture or other external influences).

Your experience may include, for example, knowing an extremely argumentative red headed person (whatever example I use, it will demonstrate a bias!). You automatically, therefore, are on your guard when you talk to any red head, no matter what their personality.

Unfortunately instinct is not discriminatory – and it takes a lot of training to overcome those gut reactions (take for example being a fire-fighter – deliberately moving towards a threat that you would naturally wish to flee).

Can you train the bias out of an individual? The answer is probably no, you can’t easily ‘undo’ the conditioning or personal preferences of an individual, but you can educate them to recognise unconscious bias in themselves and in others, and to consider the consequences of their actions and reactions in the context of their bias. By making individuals and teams aware of the biases that operate personally and in their culture or organisation, they can make a tangible difference in changing behaviour (if not beliefs) and increasing the opportunities for diversity and inclusion. As a result the organisation can tap into the broad range of talent that may be within their reach that they otherwise may have ignored.

A good example of this is the ‘selling more toothpaste’ story. Instead of just sitting in the boardroom wondering how they could sell more toothpaste, the MD asked everyone in the factory what ideas they had. One shop floor worker put his hand up and said ‘make the hole bigger’. There was the answer they needed – and it wasn’t in the marketing team or in product research. It was right there on the shop floor. This story is many years old, from a time when there were far more class distinctions in society and in the workplace. By disregarding their bias (which was perhaps not so unconscious then, admittedly), the owners of that toothpaste factory achieved a very positive result and sold more.

When you are next in a training room – look around at the people you are with. What unconscious biases have you already applied just in looking at those people? What assumptions have you made about the place you are in, the behaviour of others, the likely outcome of the day? Whether you are a delegate or a trainer – consider those unconscious biases you hold that will be positive or negative be aware how they could affect your behaviour and the results you will get.

Resources:

On-line Implicit Association Testing: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Training on unconscious bias: www.angela-peacock.com/unconsciousbias.html

The 4 Secrets of Leadership

by Mike Brooks, "Mr. Inside Sales"

Can you name the one or two best sales managers, or business owners you ever worked for? If so, how did they make you feel? What qualities or traits did they have in common, or which ones do you most try to emulate in your own company?

I work with a lot of business owners and managers, and I can tell you that the most successful ones all have at least four core characters in common.

Many of them possess other qualities as well, but these four "Secrets" as I call them are always at the center of their power and charisma.

As you read through them, ask yourself which ones you currently have, which ones you’d like to strengthen, or which ones you can develop. Once you master them all, you will be able to lead any team and any company to greatness.

Here they are:

#1: Unbounded Optimism. Ask any great leader to describe the future, and they will always tell you it’s a wonderful place. Leaders are extremely goal oriented, have clearly identified what it is they want and what they are willing to sacrifice to get there, and they radiate an optimistic glow because they already live there in their mind’s eye.

Because people want to feel good about themselves and their futures, they naturally gravitate to winners. People want to work for and, in fact, work harder for people who are optimistic. Plus, optimism is contagious.

A great leader can often turn an organization full of negativity around, and the excitement they inspire can result in greater morale and greater results.

If you’re in a position of authority, ask yourself if you’d want others to catch your attitude. If not, then focus on ways to become optimistic – you’ll be a much more effective leader when you are.

#2: Rock Solid Confidence. Great leaders are convinced they can do anything they set their minds to. I love a saying of Napoleon’s: “The improbable we’ll do at once. The impossible will take a little longer.”

A leader’s attitude is: Whatever the challenge, we’ll find a way to overcome it.

Confident leaders create confident followers, and a company, family, or team with an “I Can” attitude is unstoppable. The confidence of a great leader always inspires the best performance of his/her employees, and their team’s success just adds to and confirms the leader’s confidence.

#3: Integrity. In a recent survey about what qualities employees wanted from the managers and business owners they worked for, integrity was the most desired trait people picked. Integrity, including honesty, fairness and consistency of attitude and action, are traits that build confidence in a leader and that build loyalty in the people who report to them.

Leaders with integrity genuinely care about the company they are building or the job they are doing, and this helps everybody feel as if their work has meaning and makes a difference in people’s lives. Most people spend a third of their lives at their jobs, and while we go to work for a pay check it’s the intrinsic satisfaction someone gets from their work that helps them feel fulfilled. Leaders with a high degree of integrity help foster this feeling by setting the example.

#4: Decisiveness: All great leaders are decisive and committed to the actions they take. This doesn’t mean they act capriciously, on the contrary, they fully weigh out and think through their options, but the key characteristic is that they aren’t afraid to make a decision and implement a plan of action.

Most employees tell many tales of bosses who are afraid of making a decision, or who frequently go back on them, and this habit of hesitation undermines their authority and the confidence of everyone in the organization. Leaders, on the other hand, may not always make the right decision, but they can be counted on to make a well thought out one, and then to take action on it. If facts change or results warrant it,they are flexible enough to reevaluate and make another decision.

If you’re in a leadership role, don’t shy away from decisions. Evaluate the data at the time and the relative need of making a decision and then choose the best course of action and commit. Making a decision – even if it’s the wrong decision – is better than making no decision at all.

If you are in a position of authority and wish to become an effective leader, then find ways of developing or strengthening these four characteristics in yourself. Remember, everyone is counting on you for guidance, and it is your ability to lead that will determine the ultimate result in your team or company.

Mike Brooks, author of "Complete Book of Phone Scripts" and "Inside Sales".

Mike Brooks, Mr. Inside Sales, works with business owners and inside sales reps throughout the US teaching them the skills, strategies and techniques of top 20% performance. He offers a FREE audio program designed to help you double your income selling over the phone, as well as an internationally acclaimed FREE ezine. If you’re looking to catapult your sales, or create a sales team that actually makes their monthly revenues, then learn how by
visiting: www.MrInsideSales.com

Complete Trainer Academy is Launched

The Complete Trainer Academy is a brand new offering which features an incredible on-line resource. We first saw this product a while ago and knew we wanted it for the Complete Trainer portfolio. You have access to thousands of in depth articles, assessments, book reviews, a management newsletter and an on line coach.

The site is easy to use, the material well written and you can navigate the site quickly and easily. The Academy provides learning pathways which is a guided route through the site. It takes you through a selection of articles and learning exercises that are relevant to the topic you want to study and gives you a commentary and explanation. Pathways are a bit like programmes or courses and cover a wide range of subjects.

In the current economic climate, the pressure is on training budgets. This system is affordable, flexible and accessible. With an increasing number of employees in disparate locations and improved internet access, the ability to collaborate over the web is rapidly becoming a learning imperative. As well as being web-based, we believe that the engine that drives the Complete Trainer Academy is unique:

• Easily integrated into a blended learning solution
• You can create your own customised learning paths
• It is quick and easy to implement – all you need is a log in to the Academy
  
• The Academy tracks and measures activity, performance and even changes in behaviour
• It provides a flexible way to increase the learning of your people without the impact of taking them away from the workplace
• Very cost effective – at just £200 per year per log in, you could train as many as ten managers for less than £6 a day!

The Complete Trainer Academy launches on 1st July 2009 and we are delighted to give our site members a unique opportunity to ‘try before you buy’. Please contact us for a trial log in and we will give you full, unlimited access to the site including:

• Access to over 40 different learning topics
• More than 100 exercises and assessments
• Over 50 different ‘top ten tips’
• Articles from luminaries such as Edward de Bono
• Book reviews, case studies and much more

We are really excited about the Academy here at The Complete Trainer. Contact us now for your free trial log in*.

* Your log in will expire after two working days. Please bear this in mind when you ask for your log in so that you can make the most of this opportunity to explore our on line Academy.

Leadership in tackling crime

A leadership case study by Niall Kennedy MMKtng

When I lived in New York, it was a very scary place. 42nd Street was a disaster and crime was everywhere. Within a few years it was one of the safest cities in America. There is no doubt that the transformation was a result of excellent leadership. There is debate about which leader transformed New York City and it was probably a combined result of the Mayor, Police, Transit Authority and Borough Leaders. So no matter what state your environment is in it could not be as bad as New York with rampant murders and other terrible events. So if you want to improve your working environment here is the checklist on how the leaders turned New York around.

Shattering complacency: The leaders reminded people that it was not OK for New York to be as bad as it was.

Fixing broken windows: Broken windows were identified as the first sign a neighbourhood was going to fall to crime. Broken windows were fixed immediately to keep a positive environment.

Charging the community: There was lots of media and communications ensuring everyone knew they were fighting back. It was a reminder that everyone is on the same side.
Identifying struggle points and hot spots and deploying resources: There were heaps of problems with job descriptions and demarcation lines. These had to be straightened out across all departments.

Hitting the King Pins: get these king pins on your side and half the battle is won: If you do not have the support at the top do not bother starting.

Framing the challenge: You have got to correctly label the exact challenge. This is vital and if you get it wrong everyone will be working on different directions.

Walking the talk: Many people slip up here. It is a bit like “we are going to have an open transparent workplace and do not tell the accounts people”. Your people will not get behind you and you are doomed if you do not walk the talk.

Getting beyond “This is the way we always do it”: Really successful leaders anticipate pushback and the saboteurs never get a chance to railroad your plans.

Building an environment of continuous improvement: There is a Chinese saying that states a truly great leader will never be content. Everything can be improved. An Australian organisation recently announced that they had no room to grow as they had expanded every possible area for customers. Their share price is still sliding and thankfully there is a new leader taking the reins.

Niall Kennedy works for http://www.lionglobalhr.co.uk/ who run leadership development programmes . You can find products from Lion HR on our website (bullying), as well as further leadership resources.

For more about the Mayor of NY - the leader who is acknowledged as a major contributor to these amazing changes - you may wish to read more on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

Leadership in tough times

By Ian A Williams

The current challenging economic climate is a great time to test the strength of your leadership in business. It really does sort out the capable and resilient from those who simply give up or hide in their shell. Where are you today? Are you in your shell or out there fighting for your future?

Leadership is defined as a journey, a course that is set – and every journey has its challenges. By nature, leadership involves everyone. While those who own, run and manage organisations are the ones who are called or appointed to be in a leadership position, everyone in an organisation has a leadership role to play, simply in leading themselves in doing their best in the team, and in enabling others to do their job well too. Just being efficient and effective in your own role means you are part of leading – if only leading by example! Recent UK research suggests that leadership has two distinct aspects: developing recognised leaders as individuals, and developing leadership as culture and practice in the whole organisation.

So when the times get tough it’s a great opportunity for you as the owner to get all the help you can from those around you in leading your business to continuing success. When the pressure is on, your choice is to visualise and lead growth, or to survive and tread water. That choice will be very apparent to those around you. A downturn is the time for vision and growth in bringing all the creative skills of your team together to plan for the future. So let's look at some key leadership characteristics as defined by John Adair. Sometimes these qualities don't sound very businesslike, but they are really the heart of your business and your leadership if you want to achieve to achieve success:

1. Enthusiasm - passion and zest
2. Integrity - the bedrock of good leadership
3. Toughness and fairness – demanding, but no favourites
4. Warmth - cold fish do not make good leaders
5. Moral courage - to face and confront unpleasant situations
6. Resilience - the ability to bounce back after setbacks
7. Humility - lack of arrogance, being on the same level as others

How do you measure up? Ask those you trust. In his action-centred leadership model, John Adair defines leadership into three simple key elements which distinguish task, team and individual needs.

Task needs
Task relates to the purpose of your business. It's not just about what you do, it's about why you're in business and what you want to achieve. A downturn may be a great time to review this, getting clear on what industry you're in, what you want to provide for whom, and what results you're aiming at. In getting this clear you will need to get ideas from people in your business about a more efficient ways of working, new initiatives, and a renewed enthusiasm for what you do. After all, as the old saying goes, if you do what you always do you'll get what you always got.

Team needs
Meeting the needs of people around you is essential to achieving what you need to achieve. It sounds obvious but this gets amazingly low priority in most businesses. Having the right mix of people with the right skills, having their roles clear, maintaining good communication, confidence, integrity and humour is invaluable. We are social beings and we need to work effectively with other people.

Individual needs
People need to feel valued, not only by you as the leader, but by the whole team. They need to feel that their time, energy, skills, talents and resources are being well used in the team and adding value to the task in hand. From you as the leader, this requires tact, fairness, compassion, consistency, honesty and humility.


TM – John Adair


The three circle model of action-centred leadership is about keeping these three needs in balance, and of equal priority. Sometimes of course one of these aspects may require more of your time attention and energy, but the important thing is to keep them all maintained.

The seven key leadership characteristics need to be role-modelled by you as the leader personally, and also be part of the leadership culture that permeates everyone in the organisation. That’s the kind of culture that will get you through any downturn, maintain productivity, encourage people to bring in their ideas and energy, and ensure that you have a really engaged workforce, enjoying what they do and the people they do it with. After all, as the old Japanese proverb says, ‘No man will find the best way to do a thing unless he loves to do that thing.’

John Adair is the author of action-centred leadership, and the world’s first professor of leadership.
johnadair.co.uk

IAN A WILLIAMS
Adair leadership coach, author and speaker
kairology.com

Kairology® ian@kairology.com

©Kairos Development Ltd 2008 – All Rights Reserved

Leaders are Readers

At a conference a few weekends ago, the jazzy speaker (the VP of an American networking company) said 'leaders are readers'. He talked about how in his 29 mile commute to work along one of the busiest highways in LA, he would have audio books on in his car.

He was an excellent speaker and the company he runs (Xocai)- with his family - very successful. During the conference, which was about network marketing, he continued to return to the theme that leaders are readers. Today I received a newsletter from an NLP training company, and their opener was a quotation from Mark L Fox:

“Rich men tend to have large libraries… Poor men tend to have large… TV’s"

I love reading and also find audio books extremely handy for long car journeys. I have listened to Max Maltz on Psycho-Cybernetics (forerunner of NLP in many ways) and listened to many of Chris Cardell's marekting CDs too.

If you don't have the time to read a book, consider the time you spend in the car and, if you can find it, buy an audio book. Leaders are readers, but they are listeners too.

The success of talented women leaders

I read an article on McKinsey's site (you need to register to read their articles) about women leaders. It talks about a new leadership model, 'Centered Leadership' and about the importance of happiness and not about work-life balance, but:

"We’ve found that work–life balance is a myth—so the only hope women have is to balance their energy flows."


McKinsey getting all ethereal? Not exactly:

“flow”—a sense of being so engaged by activities that you don’t notice the passage of time—were more productive and derived greater satisfaction from their work than those who did not. Further, it energized rather than drained them.

The more I read the article, the more it made sense. They have developed their leadership model with an understanding that Women Are Different. It takes into account emotional and physical differences and applies the models of success from their research.

Why should leadership be different for women? In a thread on the UK Business Forum, they question Are women-specific business initiatives necessary?. At last look, the poll was 84% 'no'. But McKinsey pointed out that:

"Many women come home from work only to sign onto a second shift - 92% of them still manage all household tasks such as meal preparation and child care."

In my mind that puts a different perspective on things. No matter how fair we want the system to be, statistics prove that top level management has a significantly lower proportion of women than men. Maybe because doing two jobs really is a lot to ask of one person, be they male or female?

There are many leadership programmes and development schemes for women; this is the first time I've seen a leadership model specifically designed around women and developed in response to looking at why, and which, women are successful.

Conflict!

The CIPD say:

"Poorly managed conflicts in the workplace are crippling British business. The average UK employee spends over two hours a week dealing with conflict, which means in total more than 370 million working days were lost last year at a cost to British employers of more than £24 billion.

The statistics are from a new global report Fight, Flight or Face It, jointly authored by business psychology firm OPP and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)." *

Now those are eye opening figures! But what do we mean by conflict management? Isn't managing conflict a "state too late"? Shouldn't it be conflict resolution we are all interested in?

Conflict management as a solution is destined for failure, because conflict resolution demands leadership, not management. Management provides compromises on issues under debate, but does not deal with the root causes of the conflicts. Leadership deals with the fundamental roots of conflict, not just the topic on the table, so what should leaders do?

For a start, leaders need to recognise that few conflicts are really about the issues people are disputing. Conflicts often arise from the different ways in which people view issues. We look to leaders not to get rid of conflict once and for all, but to channel the energies created by conflict into something constructive and creative. Not all conflict is necessarily bad; without conflict as the grit in the oyster, organisations can stagnate and die. When conflict presents a new view on a subject or a procedure, it can result in solutions not previously explored.

But can you teach people how to cope with conflict? The OPP/CIPD report says 'yes'!

"Where training does exist, it adds value: over 95% of people receiving training as part of leadership development or on formal external courses say that it helped them in some way. A quarter (27%) say it made them more comfortable and confident in managing disputes and 58% of those who have been trained say they now look for win–win outcomes from conflict."

But does that mean any old training will do? I would hesitate to say yes, you need to ensure that the training delivered has a real focus on the issues that face the organisation and aren't just 'off the shelf'. The Thomas-Killman conflict instrument (which is managed in the UK by OPP!) is perhaps the best known and, of course, highly successful conflict management tool, but what else is out there?

Using tools is one way of addressing a problem, whether it's a leadership model, communications model or conflict tool. Using them in the right context and with the right knowledge and understanding of the whole issue though is crucial to the learning having a real effect in the workplace.**

Keith Patching, previously a Director at Cranfield School of Management, says:

"In the area of conflict, for example, so many of the underlying assumptions have been that there is such as thing as a 'conflict' to manage. By objectifying (or 'reifying', as we philosophers say) 'conflict' it becomes in people's minds the thing that has to be dealt with. But, in reality, 'conflict' is not a thing to be managed or dealt with. The reality of conflict is the people, and their different views, attitudes, and perceptions."

Keith comments on the lack of tools out there for training leaders in good conflict resolution:

"There are many conflict management tools around these days, but the problem is as big today as it has ever been. Why don't the tools do their job? The answer is that most of them forget that conflicts do not exist on their own. Conflict resolution needs leadership, because conflicts are about people. You can't manage conflict if you can't lead the people involved in that conflict."

This is why Keith has partnered with the Complete Trainer to create a great one day leadreship programme that specifically addresses the areas that are lacking in many 'conflict management' training programmes. The LCS leadership and conflict programme helps leaders understand and deal with the causes of conflict, not just try and treat the symptoms.


* If you want to find out more about that report, either visit the OPP website or contact:

Gavin Collins / Orva Smith
Mandate Communications
E: gavin.collins@yourmandate.com or orva.smith@yourmandate.com

** For further information on the leadership and conflict training programme, developed using the Leadership, Character and Strategy model, then visit: http://www.completetrainer.co.uk/LCS_Leadership/Leadership_Conflict

Going Ape! Experiential team activities

I just finished a call with one of my suppliers; he wasn't in his office yesterday because he and the team had 'Gone Ape'. They'd been for a team day at the local Go Ape' activity centre.

Even though he is unhappy at heights (and he went up to 40 foot at one point), he'd spent a day up in the trees with his colleagues. And he enjoyed it! Trainer brain in gear, I asked if they'd rounded off the day with any learning outcomes or summary? "Oh no, we didn't do any of that stuff. People would only say what was wanted anyway." Cynical? Realistic?

Makes me wonder about experiential team development. I have done paintballing (shooting the sales team in a former life with a computer company), and laser shooting (with a training company) but I've never had to build a bridge or roast rats over an open fire... well, not for work, anyway.

This is what he said once I'd told him I was blogging this subject:

"I would say that having traversed these heights with colleagues I do not have that much contact with that this did help us to bond. Sharing fear can really drop barriers quickly. I enjoyed it immensely, not least because it was genuinely something I thought I would not manage."

I personally found the laser shooting demotivating, not just because I was on the losing team either. I am not motivated by other's failing through my actions (which is basically what the objective of this exercise was), I am motivated by helping others to succeed and in creating my own success. I think I would quite like to do the tree thing though.

These outdoor, experiential training days are still highly popular. Are they, in fact, a motivational 'gift' disguised as training so we don't have to declare them on the P11D?

I'd be interested to hear more views on these outdoor training activities. Do they put people outside their comfort zone? Are they actually destructive to teams or individuals any way? Do the benefits outweigh any negatives?

Of course a good trainer will know their delegates' comfort zones and just how far outside to put them. But how can an external trainer know the limits and abilities of everyone in a group?

I'd welcome an article from someone on this - someone who either delivers, or has experienced, or has studied how experiential learning activities like these really affect delegates and whether they add to learning.

Team building or team fixing?

I have issues with 'team building' programmes. Surely the term 'team building' means creating the team - getting the people you need into the team and ... or is that team creating?

Team creating, well .. I guess you could run some training on how to identify personality types and see what kind of a mix would be good for a team (I'm thinking psychometric and behavioural profiling here). But, by the time the word training comes into play and the consultant has been called in, the team is usually already in place and you are stuck with your personality types (all neatly given their own box to sit in with an appropriate description and preferred learning/communication/etc style).

Team development. Sure! Let's develop those people in the team - we can teach them how to work well together, how to consider others ... loads of great stuff (and we won't forget Bruce Wayne Tuckman's superb forming, norming, storming, performing model). Sometimes you can develop them all the way out of the team! But...

Team fixing. Is what most companies want when they call in the management development expert actually a 'team fixer'? And by the time the real dynamics of the team are dissected and the difficult issues identified do the team care? Was it all a 'management' problem anyway? Are the team all pointing fingers at leadership? Well, that could mean the team itself is actually fine.

Team communication. That's probably key to all successful teams. Understanding not only their role in the team, but how to communicate their role and what is expected of them and what they expect of others. Oh, and understanding (with those useful psychometric and behavioural analysis) how people like to be communicated with.

So - innovative trainers out there - who's going to be brave and present a 'Team Fixing - for those awkward beggars who aren't performing' programme?

No takers? Ah well, this is just me thinking out loud having read yet another 'team building' article and letting it rub me up the wrong way.

What do you think?

Leadership and Politics

Well meaning but misguided people often advise aspirant leaders not to ‘get involved in the politics’ of organisations. They infer that there are different kinds of people: the bad guys who, ‘play politics’, and the good guys who don’t.

‘Playing politics’ means a number of things to different people, such as:

Power games
Empire-building
Stabbing people in the back
Seeking personal gain above corporate gain
Manipulating others

Not many people would recognise their own behaviours here. In most organisations, people are accused of involving themselves in this kind of negative politics. It is rarely you, however, who does this kind of thing. It is almost always ‘the other guys’.

In leadership, everything has a political dimension. Whenever a leader wins an argument, he or she has used influence of some kind to do so. This is politics. It is not inherently bad. But if you are the one over whom the leader has succeeded, it feels bad from your point of view, and it helps soothe the wounds to describe the other person’s success as ‘playing politics’.

When, on the other hand, you win the day, you do not feel that you have ‘played politics’, simply that good sense has prevailed, and that you have done the right thing for the organisation.

So, are you a political player, or a leader who understands organisational politics?

Trade descriptions act violated?

Over the past few years, a great deal of management development has been improperly branded as ‘leadership development’; mostly because it sounds better, not because it really is about developing leaders.

This could be construed as fraudulent! However, trainers and developers get away with it because so many providers, clients and managers have bought into it.

It’s time to stop the hype and sort out the tangles. ‘Leadership’ is not just a sexy name for management. It is fundamentally different from management, and one day, someone is going to call the bluff on everyone who is peddling management training under the banner of ‘leadership’.

Take a look at your own training programmes. Are they management, are they leadership, or are they, like so many offerings around today, a bit of this and a bit of that?

Why is This Important?

With the rapid increase in flatter organisations, matrix structures and the demands placed on good employers to meet the changing needs of Generation Y-ers, there is now a greater need for effective leadership.

Trainers and developers recognise this, and have risen to the challenge. However, even in some of the most prestigious institutions, I have seen old management development programmes simply rebranded as ‘leadership development’, with little or no substantial alteration to the content or style with which they are being delivered.

This kind of misbranding turns off real leaders, sends mixed messages to organisations, and dilutes the potential value of both management and leadership development.


So What is the Difference?

When you think of the phrase “manager of people”, what comes to mind? What is that person doing? What do you expect your manager to do when he or she manages you? Consider your responses to these questions.

When you think of the phrase “leader of people”, what comes to mind? What are your thoughts? How is this different from “manager of people”?

Even a simple set of questions like these tells us that management is different from leadership, but I think we ought to be more thorough.

In short, management is an institution; the exercise of authority of one person over another; a set of organising processes that ensure stability, control and continuity. It is embedded within the concept of organisation. Leadership is a relationship; the way one individual influences another; preparedness by one person to follow and rely upon the guidance of the person who leads. Good leaders may not be good managers, and vice versa. It follows that management development should be very different from leadership development.

To be well managed, you need good processes; to be well led, you need good people. Systems need to be managed; people need to be led.


The Difference is in the Detail

MANAGEMENT
LEADERSHIP
Defined by rank
Not a function of rank
Doing things prescriptively
Implies discretion
Systematic
Personal
Depends upon authority
Depends upon relationships
Relies on technique, which can be taught
Grows out of character, which can be developed, but not taught
Demands process capability
Demands emotional maturity

Let us look more closely at some of these differences.

Rank
One of the reasons why people confuse management with leadership is that it has become commonplace to use the word ‘leader’ to define anyone in a senior role within an institution, be it organisational or political. People refer to senior managers as ‘the leadership’, simply because they happen to be near or at the top of a hierarchy.

I have come across better leadership at the lowest ranks of many organisations that I have found at the top. Being senior does not make someone a leader; it simply means this individual has potential for leadership. Whether they exercise this potential is another matter.

Discretion
One of the defining features of being in a leadership role is the amount of discretion an individual has: how he or she actually decides what to do, why, and how to do it.

But how much discretion does anyone actually have? This is as much a matter of attitude and character as it is of rank. Budding leaders within almost any organisational context are often those who feel they can take discretionary action, and do so. Leaders often differentiate themselves from others, not by what they do, but by how they do it; how much they take the initiative and create the space to put their own stamp on even the most menial and trivial roles.

Leaders seize discretion; managers, as such, do not and should not.

Individuality and Character
No two leaders will lead in exactly the same way. To succeed in leadership, lacking the formal authority of management, demands that people are willing to follow. They will not do so unless they believe in you.

So much of the research into successful leaders shows that what people buy into is not your ideas, your policies or your arguments, but you. It also shows that the essence of the ‘you’ that people buy into is your character.

The research has identified a direct link between leadership and leaders’ characters. It shows that individual leaders are most likely to be effective if their strategies for leading are closely aligned to what they believe in, and how those beliefs manifest themselves through character.

Successful leaders act with the integrity that comes from being true to themselves and what they believe in. Good leadership comes from being good at being who you are.

Managers, as the word implies, manage organisations, systems, processes, as well as people, all of which demand a degree of uniformity across the management population. Good management comes from being good at what you do.

Managers gain much of their authority from their position in a hierarchy. Even poor managers can get people to do things, because they have that authority over them. Leaders rely on influence.

Technique
Managers need to operate within the system; leaders transcend systems. Managers need to acquire knowledge of and skill in the techniques that make an organisation’s systems and processes work smoothly; these are things that can be taught. Leadership grows out of individual character; this cannot be taught, but can be developed.

Emotional Maturity
Managers know when they are getting it right; the systems and measures within an organisation provide confirmation and certainty. Because a leader has discretion, and because leadership is demanded in ambiguous, uncertain and complex situations, leaders need the qualities of emotional maturity – self-belief, emotional resilience, a sense of purpose, empathy for others, and social skills – to be effective.


Developing Leaders

Leadership cannot be taught, but leaders can be helped to develop. This can only be effective when our leadership development programmes and interventions are designed, developed and delivered with leadership, not management, as the focus.

It is in the nature of management development that the focal point of any intervention is the organisation. Management development starts with the systems, processes, competences and behaviours that managers need to learn about and respond to. Implicit in management development is the message, “This is how we want you to do things.” One of they key tasks of management developers is to teach managers how to acquire the skills and capabilities to do those things in the desired ways.

A management development programme is about getting people to behave in certain ways. Managers adapt their behaviour to fit the norms of the organisation.

Because leadership comes from character, leadership development starts with the individual. A leadership development programme is about helping people to acquire insights into themselves, their character and personality, and how they differ from, or share certain similarities with others. This enables each and every leader to discover and develop their own personalised strategy for leadership. Leaders develop behaviour to influence the norms of the organisation.


Management Development is not Dead

We still need good management development programmes. Organisations that are all leadership and no management are likely to collapse in very short order, just as organisations that are all management and no leadership will stagnate.

The trouble is that, unless we in the industry clearly separate these two development streams, we are likely to be delivering neither good management development nor good leadership development, but a confused set of potentially contradictory messages that may confuse even the most enthusiastic participants.


What’s in Your Portfolio?

Here’s a challenge. Look closely at what you are offering and delivering to the market or your internal clients. Is each intervention clear about whether it is true management development or true leadership development? Are you calling your management development activities, ‘leadership development’, just to be trendy? Do your clients really understand the differences between management and leadership? Are you delivering management development, leadership development or both? If it is ‘both’, how clearly do you differentiate between the two?