Change Management - Grief Management

In George Kohlrieser’s book “Hostage at the Table: How Leaders Can Overcome Conflict, Influence Others, and Raise Performance” (2006) the author talks about ‘change management’ from a human aspect. Most managers are familiar with various processes for managing and executing change; and many will have also heard of the ‘SARA (Shock, Anger, Rejection and Acceptance)’ dynamic of change acceptance; but if a leader wants to ‘overcome conflict, influence others, and raise performance’ a more ‘human’ understanding of reaction to change might be appropriate. In the book there is reference to the eight stages of grief: recognize and understand these and you might be able to better manage yourself and others through significant change.

Here are the eight stages of grief followed by further considerations (“et alors”):

Change Management – Grief Management

1.       Denial

Whilst experiencing grief already, people in this stage are ‘protecting’ themselves by suppressing emotion. For a limited time this can be beneficial; however it can be destructive to be in denial too long.

2.       Protest and Anger

People protest at ‘loss’ especially if there was a strong psychological attachment. Anger can become destructive – it needs to be the right anger with the right person at the right time.

3.       Sadness, Missing or Longing

The sadness is from deep inside which leads to missing or longing for what was. The act of crying is essential in completing this process; otherwise detachment and chronic loneliness can result.

4.       Fear and Anxiety

Now ‘separated’, the person feels in danger; however the crisis brings the person back to the ‘essence of who they are.’ At this point and without exception, the grief needs to be expressed and shared.

5.       Mental and Emotional Acceptance

The acceptance is in terms of both thoughts and feelings and this is often the most difficult part. Complete ‘detachment’ is not required as long as genuine acceptance of the change has occurred. 

6.       Forming New Attachments

Looking forward and focusing on the new paradigm, the new ‘attachment’ should be genuine and not just a substitute for the former paradigm (otherwise the person will remain grieving).

7.       Forgiveness

Here this means ‘being able to give again’ – being able to ‘give for’ others. Without forgiveness, the person might become either a ‘victim’ or a ‘persecutor.’

8.       Gratitude

Here, the person realizes that they are not the ‘center of the universe’ and were not the only agent of the change. ‘Reconnected,’ the person is able to become ‘thankful’.  

Et alors

Not many managers will have to deal with a change in an organization as profound as the principle causes of grief: death of or separation from a loved one; however the ‘human’ impact of significant organizational changes should not be underestimated. A major change can feel like a loss and accordingly individuals will go through the grieving process described above. If you can recognize that someone is still in ‘denial’ appropriate actions can be taken – similarly, for each of the other stages. The challenge might arise for the manager in two instances: first the manager might be ‘suffering’ grief him/herself and will have to deal with this first before being able to help others; secondly emotions (and tangible manifestations such as crying) are not always considered appropriate in certain organizational cultures. Here the manager will have to adapt (according to the prevailing culture); however holding meetings at various stages of the project where grievances can be aired will certainly help: human interactions such as empathy, understanding, dialogue and support address most of the points above.

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…

Work-Life Balance

The March 2014 edition of the Harvard Business Review was dedicated to “Work vs Life: Forget about balance – you have to make choices” – a fresh spin on how to answer the perennial question of how to “balance” work and life. With the question “can we give our all to our careers and still live full lives”, one of the most interesting articles to propose a solution was “Manage Your Work, Manage Your Life” by B. Groysberg and R. Abrahams, in which they suggest five key points as to how to make those critical choices (or plans) so as to balance both your work and your life…

Here’s how to achieve “work-life balance” followed by further considerations (“et alors”)

Work-Life Balance

Drawing on a five year study with thousands executives the authors found that achieving “satisfaction” in work-life balance tended to relate to making “deliberate” choices (or plans) regarding five key points:

Defining Success

The authors say that you cannot achieve success in terms of managing work-life balance without first defining what success means to you, individually. There is no common standard – the point is that you are not going to be content unless you know what you want to achieve.

Managing Technology

The choice here is in the form of your own “technology policy”. How do you define an urgent call that means you have to leave the Sunday family dinner? When will you switch your Smartphone on and off; and when is there a “blackout” period for emails…

Building Support Networks

You can’t do it on your own. The choice here is where to build your support networks: in or outside work (or both). Not just emotional support and “mentoring”, but actual support should also be considered such as child care and domestic help.

Travelling or Relocating Selectively

If you relocate you have to want to relocate otherwise it can potentially cause problems both for your work and for your life. Similarly careful consideration must be given to how much travel you are willing to commit to otherwise what sounds good on “paper” could damage your “balance.”

Collaborating with Your Partner

In a way, this is an extension of the first point – defining success in terms of work-life balance should be something decided on and agreed by both partners; otherwise tensions might arise which will not help the equilibrium!

Et alors

All the points above are straightforward and make a lot of sense. Defining your own terms of success and having a tactical plan to manage the always-connected modern communication technology will certainly help define what “balance” is and what it is not so that you can tend towards the balance. Support networks should not be overlooked – when you are trying to balance work and life, you might not have time to engage with everyone you would like to and share your situation; when in fact, that might help more than anything else. Similarly it seems like good advice to think about “contracting out” some of the domestic work to free up time for “life”…

The last two points are a bit more contentious. Making strategic choices about travel and relocating are all very well, but once in a job or an industry, travel and relocation can start to appear through the “back door” and it is not always a clear “choice” for the employee. It might come down more to “compromise” than “choice” in a lot of cases. For partner collaboration, the research of working executives highlighted that there was a large difference in the statistics between the sexes which might mean it could be more challenging for women to achieve work-life balance, viz: 88% of the men were married compared with 70% of the women. Of those, 60% of the men had spouses who did not work “full time outside the home” compared with only 10% of women…!

Why leadership-development programs fail

In the January 2014 McKinsey Quarterly Gurdjian et al., cite studies showing that only 7% of senior managers think that their companies develop global leaders effectively; and around 30% of US companies “admit that they have failed to exploit their international business opportunities fully because they lack enough leaders with the right capabilities.” Accordingly the authors’ then researched why leadership-development programs tend to fail along with reviewing some best-practice “solutions” to the common problems.

Here’s why leadership-development programs fail along with further considerations (“et alors”):

Why leadership-development programs fail

The authors’ research identified 4 common mistakes with leadership-development programs. Here they are along with possible solutions:

Overlooking Context

Problem: A brilliant leader in one situation does not necessarily perform well in another. In terms of leadership-development, “one size does not fit all.”

Solution: The company should consider exactly what they need their leaders to learn whilst encouraging diversity of leadership styles.

Example: If the company needs to consider operating in a more project-based transversal environment, leadership-development might focus on the art of influencing…

Decoupling Reflection from Real Work

Problem: Whilst off-site seminars allow time for reflection, “adults typically retain just 10% of what they learn in the classroom versus nearly two thirds when they learn by doing.”

Solution: The company should “tie leadership development to real on-the-job projects that have a business impact and improve learning.”

Example: One large international engineering company built a multi-year leadership program that included real business projects for participants to work on between modules.

Underestimating Mind-sets

Problem: Just “adding-on” more leadership skills does not address underlying behaviours which may continue, despite needing to be changed.

Solution: The company should identify some of the “deepest ‘below the surface’ thoughts, feelings and assumptions” of leaders and consider what needs to be changed.

Example: One company had difficulty improving their leaders’ ability to delegate until they realised that the typical participant was very “controlling”. The program was then subsequently  adapted.

Failing to Measure Results

Problem: Companies do not quantify the value of their investment in leadership development instead relying all-too-often on participant feedback.

Solution: Measure before and after effectiveness with reference to leader behaviour; team performance; or career development.

Example: One company used 360 degree feedback for leaders both 6 months before and 6 months after to assess if program participants had achieved constructive behaviour changes.

Et alors

On a personal note I was pleased to see three out of four best practices in place for the leadership-development programs for which I am responsible. The one where the challenge appears to remain open (according to McKinsey references) is “failing to measure results!” Reviewing the career development of participants is difficult if only because of the challenge of separating cause and effect: were the participants promoted because they were on the course, or were they on the course because they were going to be promoted and needed to develop into the new role? It is arguable that 360 degree feedback is more effective as a development tool rather than an assessment tool; and measuring team performance before and after is challenging not least with so much global diversity!

Three solutions are therefore adopted (which are not included in the McKinsey article). The first is related to the fact that participants on the course are not the clients; in fact, they are the “product” with the client being the hierarchy and/or the HR manager. These are the “real” clients whose satisfaction can be measured after the course according to how well their staff have developed as leaders. Second, behaviour diagnostics (similar to 360 degree feedback) can be captured on a “junior” leadership course and then again on a “senior” leadership course so that both the participant and the company can measure progress during the two courses. Finally, the “real” business projects can be measured in terms of actual business impact whether that is in terms of cost-savings or the amount of new business captured. With these three levers, the impact can be seriously captured!

Participative Leadership

Having a “say” at work is different than having a “vote”: participative leadership is not about “democracy”; rather it is about engagement. To ensure followers remain engaged, the leader must ensure that decisions are not “arbitrary, secret or closed to questioning.” So says Max De Pree in his 2004 book “Leadership Is an Art.” When individuals seek a work environment which meets “personal needs for belonging, for contributing, for meaningful work, for the opportunity to make a commitment, for the opportunity to grow…”, the leader needs to practice participative leadership. 

Here’s how to practice participative leadership along with further considerations “et alors”.

Participative Leadership 

Participative leadership begins with a belief in the potential of people and depends on relationships. There are five steps which are considered by De Pree to be the “starting points”:

Respect

Beginning with recognizing diversity, respect is all about leveraging persons’ unique talents as appropriate and at different times. Participative leadership increases motivation through empowerment.

Values

“As practice is to policy, style is to belief.” Personal value systems need to be “closely integrated” with values in practice at work. Participative leadership increases trust through authenticity.

Rights

Work “rights” need to be defined and should include the “rights” to be “involved, to understand the corporation, to be accountable, to appeal, to make a commitment.” Participative leadership increases engagement through inclusiveness.

Covenants

Contracts are one thing, but the “best people working for organizations are like volunteers” and they do not need contracts; instead they need covenants. Participative leadership increases the motivation beyond salary and status.

Relationships

Trust exists between people and is dependent on relationships rather than processes and/or “structures”. Participative leadership fosters environments in which people can develop high-quality relationships.

Et alors

When talking about leadership and engagement, it is (as the author says) all about people. When focusing on the interface between leadership and engagement, other studies (Right Management) highlight two key drivers: 1/ Recognition; and 2/ Development. Recognition refers to performance and a key part of participative leadership is knowing when and how to say “thank you!” Recognition of performance works within the above framework relating to respect, values and rights. Development refers to potential and this is what participative leadership is all about. Focusing on the person, participative leaders consider how to maximize others’ potential. In so doing, participative leaders will not only increase the others’ personal engagement, but will also increase the others’ feeling that the organization is engaging them; and the latter (“organizational” engagement), is vital for organizations to achieve success in today’s working environment…

Experiential Learning

“Action-learning”, learning-by-exposure and experience sharing (think “executive MBA”) are all the best practices for leadership development these days; however it appears that experiential learning is nothing new. Recently enrolled on a course myself, I received an article explaining the course teaching philosophy which referenced a 1975 article by Kolb and Fry, “Toward and applied theory of experiential learning”, cited in Cooper (ed), “Theories of Group Process”, London, John Wiley. Whilst “old”, this particular applied theory remains pertinent and is a good guide for leaders to accelerate and/or maximise their learning.

Here’s the four learning styles followed by further implications (“et alors”)

Kolb and Fry defined the process of learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” The subsequent model the authors propose is presented as a permanent cycle based on two axes: gaining knowledge, ranging from concrete to abstract; and transforming knowledge, ranging from reflective to active. The four points of the compass are then:

1.       Concrete Experience (north)

On the “gaining knowledge axis”, this is popular amongst busy leaders: being directly involved in a new experience and learning on the job. This is the start point of the learning cycle.

2.       Reflective observation (east)

On the “transforming knowledge axis”, this is “internally” focused. However concrete the experience, for true learning to occur, the leader has to stop and reflect on what this means.

3.       Abstract conceptualization (south)

On the “gaining knowledge axis”, this step is still reflective but not internal. Your own experience can be supplemented by the experience of others through books, hints and tips.

4.        Active experimentation (west)

On the “transforming knowledge axis”, this is acting on the outside world and back to experience: you can’t learn without trying what you think you have learnt!

Et alors

As the authors state, each step reinforces the other and the clockwise cycle continues, but it must be in balance: to act without reflecting can lead to “incorrect” learning; to reflect without acting can lead to inertia. A lot of leaders just want something “concrete” so that they can take away a toolkit and use it immediately – there is therefore a strong “buy-in” to the concept of experiential learning; however nothing is for free! The concrete experience is just the start point: for real learning and profound development to take place, the leader also needs to take time to personally reflect and also gain insight from others’ experiences before trying and adapting in a permanent heuristic loop. Learn by experience, but also take a moment to capitalize on that experience!

Leadership Development Paradoxes

When organisations realise that the world is changing quicker than they are and accordingly they need to adapt as soon as possible, among other things, leadership development suddenly becomes very important. How can the organisation develop leaders as of “yesterday”? In ever fast-moving Asia this is question which is often proposed to the Human Capital Leadership Institute (HCLI) of Singapore. They performed research in order to try and answer this and their results are published in the HQ Asia, Redefining Business Leadership magazine, issue 3, 2012: “Five leadership paradoxes: Accelerating leadership development in Asia.”

Here’s a summary of those paradoxes followed by further considerations (“et alors”):

Leadership Development Paradoxes

From every perspective of trying to find ways to accelerate leadership development, HCLI found that there were in fact five key paradoxes:

To foster learning, emphasise doing

Leaders learn most from undertaking challenging experiences. This can be in the form of special projects, but the emphasis is on doing rather than education. Experience takes time!

To accelerate development, slow down

Learning is not as powerful without time to reflect on what has been learnt. Jumping from one assignment to the next without taking time to reflect will not accelerate leadership development.

To excel at the task, harness relationships

The main differentiator between top leaders and others is not intellectual ability but rather interpersonal ability. Relationships cannot be built overnight – long-term is the focus!

To achieve success, learn to fail

The key is to “fail young, fail cheap and never fail to learn.” At the team or organisational level, putting in place a culture of both tolerance of and learning from failure can take time!

To develop greatness, practice humility

Leadership development is not just a journey from “a” to “b”. The end point is constantly moving and evolves with time: great leaders have the humility to recognise that the journey is continual.

Et alors?

Whilst the research was performed in Asia, the above paradoxes could apply anywhere! There is no shortcut to developing leadership and “best practice” organisations accordingly target their leadership development in the medium to longer-term. The advice is also clear for the leaders of “tomorrow” who want to get “started” as soon as possible: it would be wise to take note of the points above and slow down, reflect, learn from failure, consolidate experience and relationships and above all be humble! oHow cnHOHH

The Living Company

The world never stops changing and in the increasingly fast-paced dynamic the only constant is change itself! Despite the changing world, stakeholders in large companies often overlook the fact that nothing is permanent. In fact, the half-life of Fortune 500 companies is only approximately twelve years: in other words, through bankruptcy, break-up, mergers or acquisitions, 250 of today’s largest companies will have disappeared in twelve years’ time.  Nevertheless those companies “which had started to expand after they had survived infancy – during which the mortality rate is extremely high – continued to live on average for another 20 to 30 years.” So says Arie de Geus, former Corporate Planning Coordinator of Shell and author of “The living company”, Harvard Business Review, March 1997.

De Geus concluded that many companies die young because their “managers focus exclusively on producing goods and services and forget that the organisation is a community of human beings that is in business – any business – to stay alive”. His research set out to learn about long-term corporate survival by studying companies older than Shell: only 27 companies worldwide had “survived” for more than 100 years and his research centred on what these 27 had in common. He found four “shared personality traits that could explain their longevity.”

Here are the four traits that lead to long-term survival followed by further implications (“et alors”):

The Living Company

Conservatism in financing

The companies did not risk their capital gratuitously. Money in-hand allowed them to “snap up options when their competitors could not”.

Sensitivity to the world around them

All the 27 companies demonstrated that they had been able to adapt themselves to changes in the world around them. They were good at learning and adapting.

Awareness of their identity

No matter how diversified they were, their employees all felt like parts of a whole. A sense of community is essential for long-term survival.

Tolerence of new ideas

The companies tolerated activities in the margin, encouraging autonomous experimentation. They recognised that new businesses may be entirely unrelated to existing businesses.

Et alors?

There appears to be a paradox of having a strong identity and yet continually adapting; however identity does not come from business and behaviours; rather it comes from “clearly stated” values. The former can change (sometimes completely) while the latter remain constant. In this context, financing conservatism should not be equated to risk avoidance. To ensure the organisation continues to live whilst the world continues to change, leaders “must place commitment to people before assets, respect for innovation before devotion to policy, [and] the messiness of learning before orderly procedures…”

In a competitive environment, companies need to be more agile, quicker at adapting and faster at learning than their competitors. Constantly reviewing the outside world, the focus is to develop potential whether that is through new business, innovation or the development of talent (individual, team and company-wide). De Geus talks of “stewardship” where leaders pass on the corporation to the next generation in the same or better “health” than it was before. In order to do so and to nurture the sense of community, leaders need to both trust others and be trusted: a particular challenge in the very fast changing and often short-term focused world of today!

Leadership and Decision Making

Decision-making is fundamental to leadership: coming up with ideas, exchanging information, reviewing proposals and directing resources are all aspects of leadership and decision making. So how do you best make decisions as a leader? The answer depends on where you are in your career in terms of leadership: “senior”, “mid” or “entry” level and whether those decisions are made in public or in private. This is according to Brousseau, Driver, Hourihan and Larsson in their 2006 article, “The Seasoned Executive’s Decision-Making Style”, Harvard Business Review.

According to their research, approaches to decision making differ in two ways: the use of information (“satisficing” with little information or “maximizing” with more information); and the number of options generated (“single focus” with one option and “multifocus” with many options). Mapping these two axes yields four decision-making styles. Further, people appear to use different styles in public (the “leadership style”) than they do in private (the “thinking style”) and the most appropriate styles to use evolve according to leadership seniority.

Here’s a summary of the four styles and the evolution followed by further implications (“et alors”).

Leadership and Decision Making

There are four styles of decision-making:

1.       Decisive (little information, one option)

·         The private thinking style is direct, efficient, fast and firm

·         The public leadership style is action-focused and comes across as task-orientated

2.       Flexible (little information, many options)

·         The private thinking style is about speed and adaptability

·         The public leadership style comes across as social and responsive

 

3.       Hierarchic (more information, one option)

·         The private thinking style is highly analytical and considered “final”

·         The public leadership style is complex and highly intellectual

4.       Integrative (more information, many options)

·         The private thinking style is broad and uses many inputs for many solutions

·         The public leadership style is creative and highly participative

These styles show a particular evolution over the course of a leader’s development:

For public leadership, the most appropriate decision-making style at “entry” level is “decisive” whereas the least applicable is “flexible”. At the “mid” level these start to inverse and temporarily equate with the other two styles. At “senior” level, the most appropriate decision-making style is “flexible” (whereas “decisive” is relegated to last place).

For private thinking, the most appropriate decision-making style at “entry” level is “flexible” whereas the least applicable is “integrative”. At the “mid” level these start to inverse and temporarily equate with the other two styles. At “senior” level, the most appropriate decision-making style is “integrative” (whereas “flexible” is relegated to last place).

Et alors?

How you decide in public and private appear to be diametrically opposed; however this is not irrational. For a first-line supervisor, minimal information and a single option is appropriate for “decisively” leading task-orientated decisions “on the shop floor”. Nevertheless, in private, the “entry” level leader is actually “flexibly” thinking about various different options, even though reviewing lots of information might not be possible. For a “senior” leader, the accent is on flexibility in public – leading with options from little information. At the same time, the leader needs to think in an “integrative” manner to consider both more options and obtain as much information as possible.

According to the research of 120,000 individuals the hierarchical style never appears to be the most or least appropriate leading or thinking style. For both public and private decision making, the hierarchical style has mid-range prevalence at the “entry” level which then dips at the “mid” level before recovering to a higher prevalence at the “senior” level. Only amongst Europeans and only in private for thinking decisions did the hierarchical style prove successful at a “senior” level (above “integration”). What is interesting is that otherwise, having reviewed the results regionally, (Asia, North America, Latin America and Europe), these evolutions in both leadership and thinking decision-making styles “follow the same trajectory across all four continents”.

This has some implications for the development of global leaders: 1. If all leaders start their career thinking flexibly, they should develop and adapt this style into the public space to lead flexibly (more options even with little information). 2. Decisiveness has its moment early in a leader’s career but becomes less significant (both privately and publically) later. 3. Unless in Europe and in private and then only at senior level, the hierarchical style should be used with care! 4. For private decision making, the art of the “integrative” decision style should be developed: at senior level, seek more information to make more options – look outside and beyond your normal frame of reference.

How to lead by coaching

Peter Drucker once said that managers used to tell but in the future they will have to ask. If the corporate hierarchy is always telling the subordinates what to do (in an echo of school and military life) then how can anyone expect subordinates to take responsibility for their own actions, develop their competencies and realize their potential? The principle of coaching is to maximize the performance of the individual by unlocking their potential (which should not be confused with mentoring which is essentially experience transfer).

The process of coaching was itself first defined as “GROW” by John Whitmore. In his latest book, “Coaching for Performance: GROWing Human Potential and purpose – the principles and practices of coaching and leadership”, 4^th ed, 2012, Nicholas Brealey, his research shows that in order to retain the best staff, successful leaders lead in a coaching style rather than with “command and control”. Similarly, management and leadership style determines the performance of staff: a coaching approach delivers the highest performance.

Here’s how to lead by coaching followed by further implications (“et alors?”)

How to lead by coaching

Within the context of increasing awareness and responsibility, there are four key steps to the process:

Goals

End goals should be distinguished from performance goals. An end-goal might be a dream or a motivator but can actually derail performance if set too high. Focus on the mid-to-long term performance goals.

Goals must be “owned” by the individual. They should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, timely), PURE (positive, understood, relevant, ethical) and CLEAR (challenging, legal, environmentally sound, appropriate, recorded).

Reality

In defining reality, be descriptive, not judgmental. Choice and control can only be exercised over what we are aware of, “but what we are unaware of controls us”. The reality review is to try to move beyond symptoms to find causes.

Use “what, when, where, who and how much” to investigate rather than “why and how” (which can lead to conjecture, opinion and defensiveness). A thorough review of reality can sometimes throw up the “answers” before moving onto the next stages.

Options and Will

The purpose of options is not to have the “right” answer, but to create a list of as many alternative plans of action as possible. Avoid negative assumptions and hierarchising the options: instead objectively note the costs and benefits of each option at this stage.

The “will” is what the coachee will do: not “should” or “could”, but will! Further, it needs to be defined when it will be done, who needs to know, what support is needed and how that support is going to be obtained. If anything is less than certain, consider adapting the “will” to make it certain.

Et alors?

Notice the fact that “goals” are reviewed and formulated before assessing “reality”. It is quite often the case that reality is reviewed before setting goals, but as Whitmore says “goals based on current reality alone are liable to be negative, a response to a problem, limited by past performance, lacking in creativity or even counterproductive”.

Even if the leader is in an organization with a strong hierarchy, there is no reason for them to not coach their subordinates. Perpetuating the “command and control” by passing on orders is not going to maximize performance! Indeed, one of the key challenges for senior leaders is to develop talent and coaching is certainly one of the best ways to do it (in any culture)!

Leadership in a Global Context

One article and one survey result, both coming from McKinsey Quarterly, highlight the need for diversity and leadership particularly when operating globally. In the article “Is there a payoff from top team diversity” April 2012, Barta et al., conclude from their studies that between 2008 and 2010, companies with more diverse teams were also top financial performers. Studying return on equity (RoE) and the earnings (EBIT) of 180 companies from France, Germany, the UK and the USA and comparing them with the number of women and foreign nationals on senior teams, they found that companies in the top quartile of executive-board diversity had an average of 53% greater RoE and 14% higher EBIT than those of the least diverse companies.

In the survey of 4,666 executives at global companies, Acquila et al., conclude in “Managing at global scale” June 2012, that the respondents are “satisfied with their organisation’s overall capabilities but see room to improve in innovation and motivation. Better leaders are key.” Regardless of the company type or current performance, respondents indicated that “developing leaders who are culturally and functionally proficient across regions is a key to more effective multiregional operations.” Whilst reviewing the survey results for local strengths, organic growth advantages, and operational scale, the survey also focused on how executives thought that operations could be improved.

Here’s a summary of ways to improve operations followed by further implications (“et alors”):

Leadership in a Global Context

The top six suggestions by percentage of respondents who selected each statement as a way to make their organisation’s operations more effective are:

1.       Develop leaders who are culturally and functionally proficient across regions

2.       Improve formal and informal networks to maximise use of expertise across divisions and/or regions

3.       Drive innovation more effectively across regions and divisions

4.       Adapt organisational structure to improve balance between global standardisation and local responsiveness

5.       Strengthen performance culture and performance-management practices

6.       Build capabilities in a few key value creating processes and roll them out globally

Et alors?

Some of these are easier said than done (such as “driving” innovation); some are classic global/local dilemmas which are always a challenge (such as points number four and six); and some are more visionary than concrete (such as points two and five). However, they all come under the context of “global” leadership and the first point clearly summarises it with a feasible objective. As the authors state, better “leaders” are key when operating globally. What the respondents appear to want is more culturally “proficient” leaders who can effectively work across different national and corporate cultures. This desired improvement appeared to apply to all companies including those who were already succeeding with a global strategy. For a global company, besides education, exposure and experience, cultural proficiency amongst leaders might be more easily achieved by having a diverse talent pool from which to identify, select and develop leaders. Leadership and diversity appear to go hand-in-hand in a global context.

As the authors of the first article mention themselves, even though they have highlighted the correlation between diversity and performance, they cannot be certain of a causal link. For example, it might be that successful companies have more time and resources to dedicate to ensuring they are diverse rather than diversity being the cause of greater success. There is also the interesting case of France where contrary to the other countries in the study, for the more diverse companies the RoE was 6% less (whereas, like the other countries, the EBIT was still greater)! How could that be? Perhaps it is the French corporate focus on savoir-faire rather than savoir-etre whereas many other cultures rely on a mix of the two to ensure enhanced business performance with greater diversity mainly contributing to the latter rather than the former.

The other hypothesis is that the French culture is so strong that it is “immune” to diversity! The assumption in France is that non-French nationals arriving to work in France will have to “adapt” to the local culture in order to integrate. However, in cultural terms, a better interpretation of the word “adaptation” is most probably “assimilation”. The real expectation is that the foreigner will become completely assimilated into the French culture. Notwithstanding the relative merits (or not) of this philosophy, the end result is that by the time the non-French national is assimilated, all the possible benefits of diversity in terms of performance (for example, different and broader perspectives) are completely neutralised. Better leadership might be the solution! Not only might the operational performance of French companies operating globally be improved, but so too might the benefits of diversity be leveraged. Leadership and diversity appear to go hand-in-hand in a global context!

Extroverted and Introverted Leaders

Research into leadership development highlights that there is one key factor that differentiates leaders from others, and that is self-awareness. Many a debutant leader will therefore find themselves on a leadership development course with the results of an “auto diagnostic” tool such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator® or equivalent. Amongst other things, the participant will learn that he or she is an “introvert” or an “extrovert”. This is very useful information to increase self-awareness, but beyond that what does it mean in terms of leadership per se?

Much has been written on this subject and there is quite often an accent on the development of introverted leaders to become more extroverted (e.g. public speaking, etc.); but I recently came across an interesting study in a book by Cain: “Quiet – the power of introverts in a world that can’t stop talking”, 2012, Crown. Cain cites Wharton Professor, Adam Grant who launched studies to test his hypothesis that extroverted leaders enhance group performance when employees are passive, but that introverted leaders are more effective with proactive employees.

Here’s a synthesis of those studies along with further implications (“et alors?”)

Extroverted and Introverted Leaders

Two principle studies were conducted: 1. With a major pizza chain where the leadership style of the store manager was compared with weekly profits; and 2. Where teams competed with a menial task, but with two actors “planted” in each team to behave proactively or passively.

Extrovert Leadership

For the pizza chain study, extroverts achieved 16% higher profits – but only when “the employees were passive types who tended to do their job without exercising initiative”.

When the actors were instructed to act passively (which influenced the team’s behaviour), extravert leaders outperformed introvert-led teams by 22%

Introvert Leadership

For the pizza chain study, when introverted leaders worked with employees who actively tried to improve work procedures, their stores outperformed those led by extroverts by 14% higher profits.

When the actors were instructed to act proactively and suggest alternative processes to the leader, introvert leaders outperformed extrovert-led teams by 24%

Et alors?

In order to maximise results the key seems to be either matching or adapting leadership behaviour to that of the followers. In general, Grant concludes that introverted leaders might wish to continue what they are doing, i.e. encouraging employees to take initiative. In particular, in order to take advantage of opportunities in a fast-changing world, organisations will have to rely more on employees who are capable of taking initiative and who therefore might be better led by introverts rather than extraverts. For extraverts in general, Grant suggests that “they may wish to adopt a more reserved, quiet style”: it is important for companies to groom listeners as well as talkers for leadership roles!

The setting for Cain’s book and Grant’s studies was America. The central “lament” of Cain’s book is that the USA has been moving progressively from a culture of “character” (reserved and dignified) to one of “personality” (talkative and gregarious). The book therefore proposes rebalancing an essentially extravert society with the virtues of introverted behaviours. In Europe however, the challenge is slightly different: many countries and cultures are primarily introverted. Referencing McCrae’s work, 2005 (c.f. personality world map), in such introverted cultures, there is actually more chance that the rare extrovert takes the lead.

For leadership development this can pose a slightly different challenge: in cultures which are used to a rare extrovert taking the lead, best performance might be achieved with passive followers! McCrae has postulated that this might suit an “authoritarian” culture with power being concentrated amongst the few (extravert) leaders. This might work well for maintaining stable and conservative systems or organisations; however it might not work as well for promoting innovation, seizing opportunities and staying ahead of the competition in the ever-changing world! European organisations therefore might do well to promote the development of leaders from their large pool of introverts so that they, in turn, can encourage pro-activity and innovation to better help the organisation approach the future!

High Potential Status Transparency

Most leadership development programs are targeted to the organisation’s “stars”. These are people who have not only been recognised as having high potential but have also demonstrated high performance. The latter is, by its nature, transparent – the high performance is seen and is recognised not only by the management but by the organisation at large. The high potential status is something else entirely. Surveys suggest that in Europe only 40-50% of organisations openly communicate this “status”; whereas in the USA at least 80% of organisations are transparent with this labelling (ref. HBR inter alia).

So why the difference in approach and what are the pros and cons of being transparent about the “high potential” label? This led me back to one of the most definitive books on the subject “High Potentials: the competitive edge in your company” by Timmerman and Sabbe, 2007, Hudson. The book looks at the ever-increasing need for organisations to implement a “development” culture as opposed to the ready-now, performance-driven “succession planning” culture which is prevalent in a lot of organisations. In that context they give a complete overview of the pros and cons of openly communicating the “high potential” label.

Here’s a summary followed by further implications (“et alors”).

High Potential Status Transparency

The pros of openly communicating the High Potential status are as follows:

·         Shared responsibility – development becomes the responsibility of all involved: not just HR, but also management and the individual.

·         Transparency – not only a “moral” contract with the individual, but for the entire organisation, transparency can boost motivation in terms of visible opportunities.

·         Fairness – when not a secret, a formal and open policy regarding the unequivocal status requirements enhances the feeling of fairness and objectiveness.

·         Quality assurance – if transparent, the status evaluations and assessments have to be thorough enough to withstand scrutiny which thereby ensures quality.

·         Visibility – not only will the individual feel they have to prove their status, but the wider context of leadership development also becomes more visible to all.

The cons of openly communicating the High Potential status are as follows:

·         Assumed permanence – often the individual assumes that the status is permanent which can cause difficulty when the temporary status is removed.

·         No vacant growth positions – not achieving advancement due to hierarchical constraints can lead to resentment and cynicism by the individual and by the entire organisation.

·         Label abuse – externally the individual might be head hunted by other organisations; internally the individual might use the status as a “crown prince”.

·         Pressure – in one sense, the extra pressure placed on the individual by this status can be challenging; in another sense it can also be demotivating when the “spotlight” is removed.

·         Implicit negative status for others – if some are “high potentials” does that mean that the majority is “low potential”?  Beyond this one status, further clear communication is required.

Et alors?

Timmerman and Sabbe actually change the question from “should the status be communicated” to simply ask “how should the status be communicated”? In the context of moving to a “development” culture, transparency is almost a “given”. A lot of the cons referenced above only occur when transitioning from a “succession planning” culture and become redundant once a “development” culture is achieved.  The correct way to communicate the status is to formally publish the required criteria (which can have the added benefit of “awakening dormant talent”); then to have formal assessments to identify high potentials; so as to finally communicate that the achieved status is temporary, that there are certain expectations and that it is not guarantee of promotion. The end result is a jointly agreed development plan which is followed-up and in line with the organisation’s strategy.

Companies that have a “succession planning” culture might be more reluctant to communicate high potential status. According to McCall, a succession planning culture is all about “results” which can be best achieved by having the right people in “key functions”.  In order to be assigned a “key function” the candidate has to be “ready now” in terms of competences. The emphasis is therefore usually on expertise and in such an environment, open “high potential” status can cause more cons than pros. The alternative “development” culture is where “high potential” is not just a status but a whole management ethos. Being all about “learning”, the focus is on “development assignments” (to achieve results in the long- rather than short-term). Who can learn the most from a particular assignment is given that assignment in order to develop. The emphasis is usually on leadership and in such an environment, open “high potential” status can be more positive than negative.

Besides corporate culture the evaluation of employees’ potential is also quite often clouded by national cultural references. This presents a particular set of challenges for any multinational company that might have an ethnocentric culture (usually referencing the national culture of its senior managers and/or the location of the head office). Three different European evaluation philosophies and career paths that are quite different are the “Anglo-Dutch”, the “Latin” and the “Germanic” – see previous article for more information. “Outsiders” vis-à-vis any particular model therefore might not “fit in” the system – especially when a national cultural references are also combined with the common “succession planning” corporate culture! It therefore might not be a surprise that there are less European than American organisations that currently disclose “high potential” status…