Welcome to Management Culture...

A random walk through management theory with the occasional intercultural critique.






Thursday, May 14, 2015

10 Ways to Climb the Power Ladder

An article in the ET of Mumbai (24 April 2015) succinctly summarized a book by Stanford Business Professor, Jeffrey Pfeffer, “Power: Why Some People Have It – And Others Don’t.” The precept is that when considering ‘what does it take to get ahead’ the answer is not technical skills but ‘political prowess.’ Something which might be apt in large private organizations or the public sector, the author ‘breaks down common misconceptions about power and success and outlines strategies for achieving it.’
Here are the 10 ‘best takeaways’ from the book, along with further considerations (‘et alors’):
10 Ways to Climb the Power Ladder
Per the ET (abridged verbatim), the ‘best takeaways’ are 10 points, viz:
1.       Don’t believe the myth that some people are born to lead and others aren’t
Good performance neither acquires you power nor enables you to overcome organizational difficulties. If you leave too much to chance, people fail to manage their careers.
2.       Get over the idea that everyone needs to like you
Sometimes a reputation such as being ‘outspoken’ or ‘insensitive’ might not hurt you; it might actually help you!
3.       Recognize that performance is not everything
Your relationship with your boss matters more. Further, instead of a meritocracy, many organizations are actually gerontocracies – age and tenure matter more.
4.       Help powerful people feel good about themselves
‘CEOs like to put loyalists in senior positions.’ Enough said?
5.       Build an effective power network
‘Many studies show that networking is positively related to obtaining good performance evaluations and objective measures of career success.’
6.       Break the rules, especially early in your career
‘In every war in the last 200 years conducted between unequally matched opponents, the stronger party won about 72% of the time. However when the underdogs understood their weaknesses and used a different strategy to minimize its effects, they won some 64% of the time.’
7.       Get access to key resources
There is a reason why powerful and influential people are surrounded by followers – you need to get access to power to build your own power.
8.       Do an honest self-assessment
Contrary to ordinarily overestimating our own abilities, ‘when people focus on what they need to get to the next stage of their careers, they are less defensive.’
9.       Be fine with showing conflict and anger
‘Research shows that people who express anger are seen as “dominant, strong, competent and smart”.’ Further, followers anticipate that ‘high status’ people would feel angrier in a negative situation than ‘low status’ people – in other words it is, to some extent, expected.
10.   Carefully consider and construct your image
Don’t underestimate the power of your personal brand. Build an identity that will be useful for you: don’t expect to be asked to ‘step up’; instead position yourself as ‘next job’ ready.
Et alors
If these are the ‘best’ takeaways, I would hate to think what might have been the ‘worst’ takeaways! These ‘tips’ appear to be venal, base and principally self-serving at the expense of the organization and fellow colleagues. If you work in an individualistic environment and you want to climb the greasy pole sparing no casualties and standing on other people’s heads, then I can recommend you adopt some of Pfeffer’s tips; if however you consider that team work is more important than yourself and want to be a leader who gets followers to positively follow you for the greater good of the company, then don’t!
A ‘toned down’ version of the above might get closer to ‘good’ leadership rather than grabbing power individually so that you can eventually ‘instruct’ others what to do. I agree with the point that leaders are not born – leadership can be developed, but this is not just about managing your career! Similarly, not everyone will like you all of the time, especially if you have to dispense your duties as a manager; however leadership is about engaging people. Certainly, performance is not everything – working well in your own corner of the world is not going to get you anywhere: visibility, exposure, networking all help; but to what end – your own good or that of the organization? 
“Helping powerful people feel good about themselves” just sounds like completely deferring truth to power – something that if not balanced can lead to downfall (as any Greek drama will illustrate). “Building an effective power network” could be toned down to “building an effectivenetwork”– you need to build and maintain an ‘ecosytem;’ not just hitch your star to particular wagons… Break the rules – perhaps and within reason, but not everything is a war to be won or lost! Getting access to key resources is very useful, but again, to what end – yours or the organization?
So yes, do an honest self-assessment – everyone should and it is not easy, but a real self-assessment might go beyond a self-centered reflection of your own career ‘battle plan’! Showing conflict and anger is only going to lead to a toxic work environment unless you know how to carefully manage the rare times when it might actually be appropriate. Finally, “carefully considering and constructing your own image” might be somewhat reasonable advice, but to be sustainably successful it has to be authentic and that will go beyond just deliberating how to ‘climb the power ladder’! With apologies to the author, my criticism relates to the article in the ETwhich may not fully reflect the nuances of the book; however I leave it to others to read the book and make that judgement…

Thursday, April 16, 2015

3 Quick Points about Leadership

At a conference the other day, one of the speakers kindly promoted my book: ‘Developing your Leadership Skills: from the changing world to changing the world’ (2013, Createspace). Accordingly after the speeches, lots of delegates came to ask me questions about leadership. One of the simplest (and possibly the best question) was ‘what 3 things should I do to be a good leader?’ 
Here’s my response along with further considerations (et alors):
3 Quick Points about Leadership
There are three key things that a leader needs to ‘do’ and develop in order to be a good leader:
1.       Know yourself
If you don’t know yourself, you cannot lead. The only thing a leader needs to merit the title of ‘leader’ is followers; and followers will not follow someone who is not authentic or who is unaware of their impact on others… 
Knowing yourself is not as easy as it sounds; however there are many tools to help. Start with the ‘Johari’ window and seek feedback from trusted colleagues. Then look into your personality preferences with such tools as MBTI. There are also psychometric tests particularly targeted to leadership such as Hogan which can highlight both your potential (to develop) and your ‘derailers’ to manage.
2.       Know the difference between Management and Leadership
With management, authority goes with the desk and people do not follow you, they just execute your instructions because they subscribe to the hierarchy. Management is about planning, organizing and controlling. It is not something that is replaced by leadership, but to be a good leader, you have to know when to manage and when to lead.
Where management is about planning, leadership is about vision: having a long-term perspective that cuts through the all the challenges of today – it may offer a new path and should always give a sense of direction. Instead of organizing, it is about motivating – how do you engage your followers to do the right thing at the right time? Finally, instead of controlling, it is about communicating – how do you keep on getting the leadership message across and keep everyone going in the same direction?
3.       Know your Leadership Style
Daniel Goleman’s article on ‘leadership that gets results’ is probably the best introduction to leadership styles. His argument is that people will have preferences for a certain style, but like the golf professional, the leader will reach to their bag to select the appropriate style for the appropriate situation.
Leadership is often associated with ‘authority’ and ‘commanding’ (or being ‘coercive’) and these can indeed be effective leadership styles where appropriate; however consider the ‘democractic’, ‘affiliative’, ‘pacesetting’ or ‘coaching’ styles. If they are not your immediate preferences, at least learn how to apply them when necessary according to context and situation.
Et alors
It is sometimes arguable that leadership is about ‘being’ rather than ‘doing.’ It is all about who you are, how you react and how you engage followers. Without followers, you are not a leader, simple! To be a leader you have to know yourself first and foremost and then learn more. There is always more to learn: one of the key tests used to identify potential leaders is ‘curiosity quotient’ – if you want to keep on learning, the chances are that you will also be able to develop as a leader. So start with these 3 quick points about leadership…

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Corporate Leadership in India

“The leaders of India’s biggest and fastest growing companies take an internally focused, long-term view and put motivating and developing employees higher on the priority list than short-term shareholder interests.” This according to Peter Cappelli, Harbir Singh, Jitendra V. Singh and Michael Useem in “Leadership Lessons from India,” (HBR, March 2010). With statements from HCL (an IT company) such as “employee first, customers second” it really seems like successful Indian companies are focusing on their Human Resources. 
Here’s how successful corporate leadership is achieved in India along with further comments (“et alors”):
Corporate Leadership in India 
The authors state that the companies in India “typically attributed the success of their companies to employees’ positive attitudes, persistence, and sense of reciprocity, which the executives inspire in four specific ways:”
Creating a sense of mission
“Indian leaders have long been involved in societal issues, preemptively investing in community services and infrastructure… being encircled by throngs of destitute people, seeing that needs are stark and government intervention is inadequate”. Further, “the social missions of Indian companies are integral to their strategy and often the route to profits. Indian companies often interweave strategy and social mission.”
Engaging through transparency and accountability
“Indian leaders also build employee commitment by encouraging openness and reciprocity. They look after the interests of employees and their families, and implicitly (or sometimes explicitly) ask employees to look after the company’s interests in return. HCL’s ‘Employee first, customer second’ policy, supported by initiatives designed to make employees feel more personally responsible for the company’s offerings and give them a voice with upper management, does exactly this.”
Empowering through communication
“So that engagement will translate into action, Indian leaders go to considerable lengths to empower employees, although this challenges the traditional Indian deference to hierarchy. At HCL, for example, an online system allows employees to create quality-control ‘tickets,’ much like those on an assembly line. Further, “empowering employees by helping them find their own solutions, Jagdish Khattar, the former managing director of the automaker Maruti Udyog, echoes a sentiment common among Indian leaders: ‘Throw issues to them, let them examine and come back to you with solutions…’”
Investing in training
“Indian companies invest heavily in employee development—often more so than Western companies. This is partly to ensure that employees have the tools to do their best work, but it’s also designed to strengthen their commitment to the company.” For human resources development, ‘managing and developing talent’ was the focus of the majority of companies: “by and large, [Indian executives] see no trade-off between recruiting and development, and they expect their firms to pay attention to both.” 
Et alors?
The article goes on to consider if any of these ‘approaches’ of leading are transferable outside India and concludes that there are two (of the four) that can be applied anywhere: 1/ investing in training – even in a high turnover environment, where training might seem ‘risky’, it can actually help retention; and 2/ strengthening the social mission – not just the feel-good ‘make the world a better place’ but ‘real’ social missions that actively engage the staff and are in line with the business.
The other two approaches are referenced as particularly contextual. The organizational culture most likely to evolve in Indian corporations according to the national culture is a ‘family’ organization where one key senior ‘boss’ serves like the head of a family. This can be easily managed in a small organization, but for larger organizations, this ‘strength’ becomes challenging to capitalize on: hence the engaging through transparency and communication. India scores very high on Hofstede’s ‘power-distance’ index – in other words, there is a very strong sense of hierarchy. This can result in employees relinquishing responsibility ‘up’ the hierarchy so that only person taking decisions and being accountable is the boss! By empowering through communication, this ‘challenge’ is addressed.


Thursday, February 26, 2015

Why Diversity Matters

McKinsey (a consultancy) has produced a report, “Diversity Matters” (McKinsey Quarterly Feb 2015), which “examined proprietary data sets for 366 public companies across a range of industries in Canada, Latin America, the United Kingdom, and the United States.” The report compared financial results (such as total revenues, earnings before interest and taxes, and returns on equity for the years 2010 to 2013 and the composition of top management and boards (gender information, ethnicity, race, or both).

Here are the findings which highlight why diversity matters (along with further considerations ‘et alors’):

Why Diversity Matters

Some of the key findings per the McKinsey report (verbatim):

·         Companies in the top quartile for racial and ethnic diversity are 35 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians.
·         Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity are 15 percent more likely to have financial returns above their respective national industry medians.
·         Companies in the bottom quartile both for gender and for ethnicity and race are statistically less likely to achieve above-average financial returns than the average companies in the data set (that is, bottom-quartile companies are lagging rather than merely not leading).

The report further states that “the case for greater diversity becomes more compelling. We live in a deeply connected and global world. It should come as no surprise that more diverse companies and institutions are achieving better performance. […] That’s particularly true for their talent pipelines: attracting, developing, mentoring, sponsoring, and retaining the next generations of global leaders at all levels of organizations. Given the higher returns that diversity is expected to bring, we believe it is better to invest now, since winners will pull further ahead and laggards will fall further behind.”

Et alors

The insight is pertinent and the news is relevant, but the message is not new. Not least since this latest McKinsey report is a follow-up from the one they published in 2010 with similar results. Many large corporations have been attempting to increase diversity and inclusion for the last decade, but with limited results: they are trying to ‘win’ but ending up as ‘laggards…’ There are a number of reasons why diversity ‘initiatives’ may not work (lack of accountability, not ‘walking the talk’, having recruitment but not retention targets, etc.), so what can be done now that’s new; what’s the solution?

There was a very interesting interview with Renee James, the president of Intel Corporation, in the Economic Times of India, “Corporate Dossier” (Feb 13-19, 2015) where she highlighted their recent initiative to ‘walk the talk’ by dedicating $300 million to increasing workforce diversity. Part of a two step plan (1/ do the same as before but better; and 2/ ‘go public’ with the initiatives), she highlighted one of the key issues why diversity initiatives did not appear to work in the last decade: ‘micro inequity sensitivity.’ At the ‘macro’ level, companies and their staff are making broad gestures towards diversity; however at the micro level diversity becomes a ‘good cause’ but ‘someone else’s problem’. At the micro level, no one is accountable for their actions. This may not be malicious and/or ‘anti-diversity’ behavior – many staff will at once and the same time subscribe to the macro initiatives but sub-consciously still exhibit micro inequality when it comes to matters such as talent development.

An example might be if there are two candidates for a post, one of whom is ‘diverse’. In line with macro diversity initiatives, the senior manager will be glad to see a diverse candidate but then ignores that diversity: ‘there is no difference between these two candidates except for their experience and qualifications…’ But then the micro inequality starts to take effect when the senior manager selects only according to these criteria. Let’s say the candidates are equally competent but the ‘diverse’ candidate is female (whose experience was interrupted with a few years maternity leave) and is a graduate from a ‘foreign’ university which the senior manager is not familiar with; whereas the other candidate is male (with no interruptions to work experience) and is a graduate from a ‘local’ university which the senior manager is very familiar with. Who is going to get the job? There is therefore the need to highlight ‘micro inequality sensitivity’ principally amongst senior executives… Hence Intel’s initiatives to ‘go public’ (thereby increasing accountability at both the macro and micro levels) and directing funding to continue to ‘find out what is really going on’ when it comes to diversity…



Thursday, February 12, 2015

Leaders at all Levels

Based on their 2014 ‘global survey’ Deloitte (a consulting firm) concludes that ‘leadership’ is viewed as the highest priority issue amongst all executives, yet ‘most companies feel they are not meeting the challenge’ to develop leaders. This in “Leaders at all Levels: closing the gap between hype and readiness,” March 2014, A. Canwell, V. Dongrie, N. Neveras & H. Stockton. The report goes on to say that companies are ‘not equipping the leaders they are building with the critical capabilities and skills they need to succeed.’ With the environment demanding leadership agility, Deloitte’s research shows that particular leadership skills are in ‘high demand’.
Here’s the key leadership skills needed to succeed along with further considerations (‘et alors’):
Leaders at all Levels
‘21st Century’ leadership skills that a company might look to develop in today’s market environment which ‘places a premium on speed, flexibility and the ability to lead in uncertain situations’ are:
·         Business acumen: Understanding the core business well

·         Collaboration: Having the ability to build cross-functional teams

·         Global cultural agility: Managing diversity and inclusion

·         Creativity: Driving innovation and entrepreneurship

·         Customer-centricity: Enhancing effective customer relationships

·         Influence and inspiration: Setting direction and driving employees to achieve business goals

·         Building teams and talent: Developing people and creating effective teams
Et alors
Many management writers have asserted that too many companies focus on the first point at the detriment to the rest. Such companies are likely to be organizations where even the word ‘leadership’ is rarely used or perhaps only assigned to those at the very top. Companies whose focus is management (rather than leadership) are likely to overlook the importance of engaging staff with such things as ‘inspiration’ and ‘talent development.’ Low staff engagement equals low performance; hence the assertion from Deloitte that developing leaders at all levels is of paramount importance for the company to succeed in the 21st Century.
The report also mentions that instead of one ‘type’ of leader, a company might think to develop different types of leaders for different challenges. One company needed four leadership types: entrepreneurs to start up business; ‘scale leaders’ to build up business; efficiency leaders who reduce costs; and ‘fix-it’ leaders who ‘turn businesses around’. (It’s arguable that the fourth type is not needed if you get the first three correct…) Once leadership development is manifest at all levels in the organization, this is a further step the organization can put in place to not only engage staff but to become highly competitive. ‘Management’ companies beware!


Thursday, January 29, 2015

The Disciplined Pursuit of Less

Now that the year has started and corporate objectives have been clarified, it’s time to think about your own objectives! Whilst awaiting the bonus payments many an executive might be mulling over their career perspectives. In the “The Disciplined Pursuit of Less” (HBR, August 2012) author Greg McKeown gives some good insight as to how to avoid the “undisciplined pursuit of more” and proposes that previous success can actually act as a catalyst for future failure:

·         Phase 1: When we really have clarity of purpose, it leads to success.

·         Phase 2: When we have success, it leads to more options and opportunities.

·         Phase 3: When we have increased options and opportunities, it leads to diffused efforts.

·         Phase 4: Diffused efforts undermine the very clarity that led to our success in the first place.

He calls this the ‘clarity paradox.’ Here’s how to avoid it along with further considerations (‘et alors'):

The Disciplined Pursuit of Less 

Here are the 3 ways to avoid the ‘clarity paradox’:

Use more extreme criteria

If we look for “a good opportunity,” then we will find lots of ideas for us to think about. Instead, we can conduct an advanced “search” and ask three questions: “what am I deeply passionate about?”, “what taps my talent?” and “what meets a significant need in the world?” Evidently, there won’t be as many ‘search results’ to view, but that is the point: rather than a multitude of “good” things to do, we are looking for our absolute highest point of contribution…

Ask "what is essential?"

… And eliminate the rest! There are 2 key steps:  1/ Conducting a life audit. Consider which ideas from the past are important and pursue only those; otherwise “throw out the rest!” and 2/ Eliminating an old activity before you add a new one. This rule ensures that you don’t add an activity that is less valuable than something you are already doing…

Beware of the endowment effect

This refers to our tendency to value an item more once we own it. (Think of how something that you haven’t used in years seems to increase in value the moment you think about giving it away…) Instead of asking “how much do I value this item?” we should ask “if I did not own this item, how much would I pay to obtain it?” The same goes for career opportunities: we shouldn’t ask, “how much do I value this opportunity?” but “if I did not have this opportunity, how much would I be willing to sacrifice in order to obtain it?”

Et Alors

As the author says “if success is a catalyst for failure because it leads to the ‘undisciplined pursuit of more,’ then one simple antidote is the disciplined pursuit of less. Not just haphazardly saying no, but purposefully, deliberately, and strategically eliminating the nonessentials. Not just once a year as part of a planning meeting, but constantly reducing, focusing and simplifying. Not just getting rid of the obvious time wasters, but being willing to cut out really terrific opportunities as well. Few appear to have the courage to live this principle, which may be why it differentiates successful people and organizations from the very successful ones…” Food for thought as you consider ‘what next...?’



Thursday, January 15, 2015

What Really Matters in Leadership


Claudio Feser, Fernanda Mayol, and Ramesh Srinivasan conclude in “Decoding leadership: What really matters” (McKinsey Quarterly, January 2015) that there are 4 leadership behaviors that are important to the success of organizations. They surveyed 189,000 people in 81 diverse organizations around the world to assess how frequently 20 kinds of leadership behavior were applied within their organizations. The sample was then divided into organizations whose leadership performance was strong (top quartile) and those that were weak (bottom quartile). The findings were that “leaders in organizations with high-quality leadership teams typically displayed 4 of the 20 possible types of behavior; and these 4 explained 89 percent of the variance between strong and weak organizations in terms of leadership effectiveness.”

Here are the 4 leadership behaviors that really matter (along with further considerations “et alors”):

What Really Matters in Leadership

Per McKinsey, verbatim:

Solving Problems Effectively

The process that precedes decision making is problem solving, when information is gathered, analyzed, and considered. This is deceptively difficult to get right, yet it is a key input into decision making for major issues (such as M&A) as well as daily ones (such as how to handle a team.

Operating With a Strong Results Orientation

Leadership is about not only developing and communicating a vision and setting objectives but also following through to achieve results. Leaders with a strong results orientation tend to emphasize the importance of efficiency and productivity and to prioritize the highest-value work.

Seeking Different Perspectives

This trait is conspicuous in managers who monitor trends affecting organizations, grasp changes in the environment, encourage employees to contribute ideas that could improve performance, accurately differentiate between important and unimportant issues, and give the appropriate weight to stakeholder concerns. Leaders who do well on this dimension typically base their decisions on sound analysis and avoid the many biases to which decisions are prone.

Supporting Others 

Leaders who are supportive understand and sense how other people feel. By showing authenticity and a sincere interest in those around them, they build trust and inspire and help colleagues to overcome challenges. They intervene in group work to promote organizational efficiency, allaying unwarranted fears about external threats and preventing the energy of employees from dissipating into internal conflict.

Et alors

It is interesting that the first point relates specifically to ‘solving problems effectively’ rather than ‘decision making’ (1 of the other 20 leadership behaviors). Getting the right information at the right time in order to (then) make the right decision is evidently a critical leadership behavior that yields high dividends. It is also inextricably linked to ‘seeking different perspectives’…

A frequently observed analytical profile of leaders usually highlights great potential (learning agility, motivation, vision, change management etc) but inability to deliver because they cannot follow through on execution. All too often junior to mid-level leaders see themselves as the ‘creators’ but leave it to management and staff to execute.  To be a good leader you need to both start and finish...

‘Seeking different perspectives’ could be replaced by ‘diversity of thinking.’ Nothing will derail the effectiveness of leadership in the corporate world as much as ‘group think’ where everyone arrives at the same conclusion based on the same (limited) inputs. Looking ‘outside-in’ and encouraging diverse inputs are the keys to leadership effectiveness.

Being supportive can mean focusing as much on ‘feeling’ as ‘thinking’. Not all engagements are ‘rational’ in the sense that it is exclusively logic and analysis. If your leadership is to be effective there also needs to be a balanced consideration as to what people might feel – otherwise you can try and lead as much as you want but people might not always follow…