What Kind of Leader Are You?

As many readers may know, I have been serving as a Chief Financial Officer these last 18 months. I was therefore very interested to come across an article by Martin Hill in the ‘IMA CFO Connect’ magazine of November 2015 entitled ‘What kind of CFO are you?’ Having read the article I found that a lot of the comments and insights were equally applicable to leaders in general. Further, the author makes the general point that ‘there is a link between the leadership style of business leaders to business growth, profit and change…’

Here are the different kinds of leader you might be, along with further considerations (“et alors”):

What Kind of Leader Are You?

Citing research performed by Epicor Software together with Redshift Research who studied over 1,500 key decision-makers at larger companies in 11 countries, Hill suggests there are six different types of leader:

1.       The ‘traditionalist’

The traditionalist tends to be ‘stereotypically strict’ and prefers ‘to work within existing systems’ and is ‘usually not influenced by reputation, politics or personality when making decisions.’

Whilst objective, they may not be very strong on building relationships. With a tendency to be bureaucratic, they might not be very open to change; but they can be efficient administrators.

2.       The ‘revolutionary’

The opposite of traditionalists, the revolutionary tends to be charismatic and will ‘think outside the box.’ Operating outside formal systems and processes they can change the corporate culture.

Being risk takers, they can be bold which means things will get done, but some mistakes might happen. More intuitive than analytical, they may miss out important details.

3.       The ‘politician’

Politicians are cautious leaders who are ‘inclined to delay a decision rather than risk making a mistake.’ With a methodical team-based approach, the preferred decision making style is ‘consultative.’

Delaying decisions can lead to missed opportunities and reduces a business’s ability to change quickly. Prioritizing data accuracy, they can make convincing arguments to get people ‘on board.’

4.       The ‘carer’

Carers are ‘open to change but only when it is well planned, implemented methodically and not rushed.’ Each decision is treated as a ‘one-off’ and can take time. Like politicians, they like to build consensus.

Happiest in a ‘low-risk’ environment, carers can be left to ‘get on with it’ without the risk of incurring unexpected costs to the business.

5.       The ‘conductor’

Conductors like to ‘set tough challenging goals for themselves and their staff.’ Living in an ‘ethos of team work’, they provide direction, coaching, support, and encouragement to their staff.

Focusing on efficiency improvements they can be decisive where necessary; however ‘they are often reluctant to consider radical change’ and ‘tend to be strong defenders of corporate culture.’

6.       The ‘visionary’

Visionaries are ‘creative, high on flexibility, often take decisions based on experience and intuition, and are oriented more towards action than caution.’

Whilst embracing change, their ‘big picture’ perspective and eloquent articulation of the future can convince others; however visionaries often underestimate politics and personal agendas.

Et alors

Many readers might conclude that they exhibit some of each ‘type’ – and that is arguably the path to effective leadership: being able to adapt according to circumstance and followers. I’m also reminded of Goleman’s leadership styles and commentary therein: ‘it is like a golf pro reaching to his bag’ – in this case the different ‘clubs’ are different leadership styles which should be selected by the leader as and when appropriate. Meanwhile those with a tendency to be ‘revolutionaries’ and ‘visionaries’ might want to extend the analysis of individual styles to collective styles – in other words, what is the corporate culture where you work? If your corporate culture is like that of a ‘politician’ you might have to become one yourself if you want to change that culture!

PS

This is the last blog of this series.

After 4 years, 44,000 hits (and still growing at 30 per day), it is time to close this project…

… Meanwhile whether you are returning or a first time visitor please enjoy the other 129 articles besides this one; and don’t forget to check out my book Developing Your Leadership Skills

Gender-neutral Leadership

Gender-neutral Leadership

A recent article in the Economist, ‘Sex in the boardroom’ (Schumpeter, 6 June 2015) argued that ‘claims that women manage differently from – or better than – men are questionable.’ Drawing on McKinsey articles which are ‘fond of being quoted’ by persons who do think that women manage differently, the article criticizes the studies for firstly only being ‘snapshots’ of managers’ changing opinions which are likely to be influenced by politically correct ‘hokum’; secondly for ‘lumping women bosses together’ which ‘obscures huge differences between them’; and thirdly for overlooking the fact that men and women continually change and adapt their leadership styles according to circumstances. 

They also cite another study from Norway which found that ‘men and women do not have different styles of leadership.’ In that context, the article is promoting a type of gender-neutral approach to leadership, and they cite three further studies which highlight that ‘there is a lack of solid evidence that putting more women into senior jobs improves a business’s performance.’  Here are the three points followed by further considerations and counter counter-arguments (‘et alors’)

Gender-neutral Leadership

To counter the argument that women manage differently from or better than men, Schumpeter cited the following three studies:

Performance

A study of a large sample of American firms by Adams and Ferreira found that ‘the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative.’

Effects

A large study of the influence of diversity on group performance in companies by Hans van Dijk found that ‘gender diversity has no overall effect.’

Results

Two studies of companies in Norway (following the implementation of the minimum 40% female board participation legislation) found that ‘increasing the number of women had a negative effect on profits.’

Et alors

The only thing I find positive about this article is the allusion to gender-neutral leadership. Indeed, why not make leadership and gender two different matters? There are some very good female leaders; and there are some very good male leaders, so why not just take ‘gender’ out of the definition of good (or bad) leadership? It can be argued that leadership is an inter-personal event that is about the adaptability of the leader to the context and the situation of the followers; it is not about who the leader ‘is’ whether male or female. However, the article is very strongly asserting that any gender differences are questionable and appears to have an agenda of ‘balancing’ all the ‘politically correct’ studies and articles that are being published on the matter. I would like to reply to that reply:

Firsts, ‘androgynous’ leadership might be achievable by both men and women; but not everyone can and there are some proven correlations between gender and leadership characteristics. Consider ‘judging’ preferences per the MBTI personality type indicator – significantly more females than males prefer to make decisions using their feelings in preference to thinking. Vice versa for males, but of course, some males prefer to ‘feel’, and some females prefer to ‘think’; but my point is that if we are to achieve ‘best’ leadership, whilst we might need a balance, that balance might be best achieved within a team. A collection of diverse individuals can achieve it more readily than one person. Don’t neutralize gender, benefit from it in a collective sense!

Second, it is not just merit but opportunity that defines careers in organizations. The gender-neutral arguments assume that everyone has the same opportunities. Gender-neutrality might be another barrier since the (predominantly) male senior executives review the merits of their junior female managers and think that they are assessing their merit in a gender-neutral manner. But they are not! They are actually assessing the females on (predominantly) masculine corporate culture and values. Only those females who exhibit these characteristics are promoted, thereby reinforcing the masculine culture, whilst ‘at the top’ the senior executives congratulate themselves on their gender-neutrality!

Third, whilst there are strong arguments for gender-neutrality in leadership, the problem is that these arguments might just be used to close any debate on the matter. Everyone is the same, so it’s ok – nothing to talk about… Well, yes and no – yes, anything that helps overcome prejudice and improve meritocracy; however, no: the corporate world is perhaps not ready for this yet. There is a corrective dynamic in play and that needs to continue until we do have gender ‘diversity blindness’ – until that time, any argument that closes (rather than opens) the debate should be treated with caution…

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…

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.

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

‘21^st 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 21^st 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!

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...?’

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…

Indian Leadership

India is not a country - it is a continent; and India’s corporate cultures are as diverse as its 1.2bn people, so to talk about ‘Indian Leadership’ in the corporate environment might run the risk of being so general as to not even be typical.  It was therefore with delight that I came across Pillai and Sivanandhan’s book, “Chanakya’s 7 Secrets of Leadership” (Jaico, 2014) which looks at Indian leadership from a different perspective: here ‘Indian Leadership’ is an ancient model of Indian Leadership which is then applied today in the corporate environment (Indian or otherwise).

Here’s a summary of ‘Indian Leadership’ followed by further considerations (‘et alors’):

Indian Leadership

In the 4^th century BC, Chanakya’s teachings were documented in the Arthashastra. One of the teachings therein is the seven pillars, (or ‘secrets of leadership’). Book 6, Chapter 1, Verse 3 of the Arthashastra states the qualities of a ‘Swami’ (Leader) are:

Intelligent and dynamic

Intelligence must be applied through research, study and analysis in the pursuit of ‘solutions.’ The ‘dynamic’ of a leader comes from being able to implement the solutions! Some people never start; others start but do not finish; whereas leaders start and make sure they finish. 

Associates with elders

This means learning from those who are more mature and experienced than you are. Some people learn from their mistakes; others never learn from their mistakes; whereas leaders learn from others’ mistakes. To keep learning is a great quality of a leader.

Truthful in speech

Speaking the truth is important, but before that a leader has to “understand the truth.” Intuitive leadership is the highest form of leadership. Intuition comes from insights which come from maturity which comes from understanding the truth.

Does not break promises

It is not just the promise you made to others that you have to keep; instead it is the oath “you made at the start of the journey” that you have to keep. Leadership is all about delivering what you promised – to put it in modern terms, the leader has to “walk the talk.”

Grateful

Gratefulness means humility. A man once asked his guru how to develop humility: “help someone lower than you” was the reply. However, having done so many times and returning to the guru asking if he was now humble, the guru eventually replied “only when you can no longer find someone lower…”

Desirous of training

Both being trained and training others. To avoid complacency, don’t just learn; rather unlearn, relearn and continuously learn! Great leaders build good training programs in which they are involved themselves, thereby sharing their knowledge and wisdom. 

Easily approachable

A leader makes himself available when the followers require him, not just when he requires them. Followers look to their leader for hope and need a “father, mother, friend, philosopher and guide.” A leader is like a “ready and available resource for any problem in an organization.”

Et alors

These ‘ancient’ teachings strike me more of a guide as to how a leader should ‘behave’ rather than what a leader should ‘do.’ In a sense, it is relating to ‘how to be’ rather than ‘what to do’ even though the prescriptions relate to actions. Whatever the perspective, these behaviors of a leader might be applicable anywhere, not just in corporate India. As for applying these ‘secrets’ locally, that is where an understanding of the local culture is paramount; and for Indian culture – that may well be the subject of a future article…

Female Quotas

In “A Nordic Mystery” (Schumpeter, 15.11.14), The Economist picked up on the first “substantial study of Norwegian reforms” principally relating to the introduction of board membership quotas. Since 2003 the board of directors of public companies in Norway must comprise a minimum of 40% women and a minimum of 40% men; moreover any companies that do not comply are simply delisted. Throughout the world, the ‘Norwegian’ model has been heralded as a success (cf. my article of last year diversity quotas) and as an example for others to follow in terms of managing quotas; however has it really worked?

There are now more women on the boards of public companies; however companies “fled the stock market as the quotas were phased in: Norway’s stock of listed firms fell from 563 in 2003 to 179 in 2008.” Furthermore, only 6% of listed firms had a female chief executive in 2013 (cf. 2% in 2001, but cf. 5% of USA Fortune 500 companies today). Besides quotas at the ‘top’ of the corporate environment, the Norwegian society affords both generous social policies and an egalitarian culture that facilitates equality at the ‘bottom.’ The challenge remains in the ‘middle’ and in particular for women leaders: “visit a typical Nordic company… and you will notice the senior managers are still mostly men.”

The study (by Univ. of Chicago Booth business school) concluded that “there is no evidence that these gains at the top trickled down.” They have not improved the career prospects of highly qualified women below board level; not helped close the gender pay gap; and not encouraged younger women to go to business school. Why? It appears that at the ‘top’ the quotas are “too prescriptive” for only a select group in a select role which does not strengthen the career ladder for women as a whole; whereas at the ‘bottom’ ‘female-friendly’ social policies “makes life easier for women but does not encourage them to aim higher.”

Evidently there is a dynamic in play that needs to be strengthened. Here’s how:

Female Quotas 

The quotas were put in place to redress the balance of women in business. 60% of graduates in Scandinavia are female: the principle is not just to ensure the balance at the top, but at everylevel in the corporate environment. Schumpeter proposes two key ways to strengthen the female quota dynamic:

Leadership Pipeline

If the target is to have 40% female senior leaders, then the leadership pipeline might need to start with 60% female junior leaders. Companies should “include plenty of women among the high-flyers selected for challenging assignments.”

Senior leaders “should take their role as mentors seriously.” Mentoring is vital for leadership development especially when female leaders have to navigate difficult-to-see, negative cultural forces.

Making a Balanced Environment

“Employers should encourage, not penalize, fathers who take parenting breaks, and let them work flexible hours so they can do the school run.”

“Selection committees should stop putting so much emphasis on continuity of service, and penalizing women who take career breaks to care for young children.”

Et alors

Interesting points, but it might be possible to go further already. Within the context of considering female quotas to be a temporary measure to redress the balance, why not have quotas at every level in the corporate hierarchy to strengthen the career ladder? These quotas could be removed once full equity has been achieved; but without which there is likely to be a ‘whole in the middle’ for a while to come. If the female career ladder is not strong enough then the companies might resort to looking to recruit externally to achieve the ‘top’ quotas: this potentially then worsens the situation by demotivating and discouraging internal candidates in the ‘middle’ levels. It may even lead to reduced retention of female talent as they either retreat from the ‘tournament;’ or, to ‘win the tournament,’ they start to change companies themselves.

Regarding absences, it also might be possible to go further. When women have a child, some cultural norms tend to frame the question as ‘child or career’; whereas when men have a child, the same cultural norms do not present the same question: the man may assume there is noquestion and/or a child and a career can both be achieved without any detriment to either. There is a twofold approach to solving this which builds on Schumpeter’s suggestions: 1/ make sure parental absence for either parent is not detrimental to their career, not only avoiding the penalization of absences in career planning but actually promoting, encouraging and rewarding absences; and 2/ more specifically to men – make paternity leave mandatory – this is assuming the first point is fully addressed and might also change the cultural norms…

There is also a possible further key issue to address. How to break the indifference of men who currently hold the senior leadership positions? This is potentially one of the biggest barriers to the promotion of any type of diversity. The male senior managers might not be against diversity per se, but it’s just not on their agenda. Further, if they do stop to think about diversity, then they might suggest that some women will ascend the career ladder if they are ‘good enough’ – a genuine (albeit misguided) belief that there are no barriers and there is equal opportunity… To take male business leaders ‘beyond’ this, female quotas need to be ‘sold’ (and not just ‘imposed’). The benefits of diversity (and the need for quotas) should to be ‘marketed’ so that the current senior leaders know ‘what’s in it for them.’ When the male senior managers themselves start to actively promote diversity, the male-female balance in the workplace might start to be fully redressed!

What do people want from their leaders?

Moving into new media, the Harvard Business Review now produces ‘video insights’ (available direct on www.hbr.org or as podcasts) which, amongst other things, includes “Management Tips.” On the 18^th November I viewed “What do people want from their leaders?” by Gareth Jones of the London Business School. His principle concern was that there is very little trust in the capitalist system right now (think of the publics’ opinion of bankers) and this might further extend to business leaders. In order to promote trust in leadership, we should no longer ask the question ‘what makes a good leader;’ rather start with the question ‘what do the followers want from a leader…?’ 

Here’s what people want from their leaders followed by further considerations (“et alors”)

What do people want from their leaders?

In the context of the definition that ‘effective’ leadership excites people to exceptional performance; and having conducted 1000 interviews, Jones concludes that there are four key things that followers are looking for in their leaders:

Community

Followers want to feel part of something, be it a team, a department, a business or a project.

Authenticity

Followers want to be led by someone who is authentic – a real person they can trust.

Significance

Followers want leaders who appreciate their contribution – feedback is sought.

Excitement

Followers want a leader who can transform (make changes) and enrich (add value).

Et alors

It could not be simpler! Make everyone feel part of a team and lead with vision to engage everyone behind a single goal or objective. Work on your self-awareness and be authentic (not whom you think you should be, but who you really are). Give feedback well (both constructive and positive) and then energize people with your enthusiasm (and ability) to make changes and increase value. Its simplicity belies the fact that it appears to be very culturally specific. This might apply to Anglo-Saxon followers (but I’m not sure as the sample profiles were not given); however it might not apply to other cultures.

Some cultures already have a very strong sense of community in everything and anything they do without leaders having to highlight it for them; followers may prefer their leaders to focus on other aspects. Some cultures don’t necessarily want their leaders to be ‘authentic’ personas – instead they might prefer someone who maintains a formal distance that (as such in that culture) strengthens the leader’s power. Some cultures might prefer their leaders to maintain the status-quo and (whilst not destroy value, at least) maintain value. Apparently, in most cultures, people are always searching for feedback; however the way in which it is done is very important and culturally specific. In short, as a leader, focus on your followers and ask them what they want, but don’t expect the response to be uniformly consistent across cultures!

Five Challenges for Total

Having an eye on ‘management culture’ and in particular French leadership styles, it would be impossible to write anything this week other than to pay homage to the former CEO and Chairman of Total who died in a plane crash on 21 October. The global reaction to his tragic and untimely death was testament enough to a leader who evidently touched the lives of many people. In the French corporate environment, which tends to lean towards ‘management’ rather than ‘leadership’, he stood out as a leader first and foremost. He formulated clear visions of where the group needed to go and spent time communicating those; he engaged people with his energy and determination; he was empathetic and could relate to each counterparty individually; he established a truly global and senior network; and above all, was a very good communicator. He will be missed.

With all the news agencies covering the story this week, most also focused on the challenges ahead for the energy group. The most succinct of these was penned by the WSJ (“5 Challenges for Oil Group Total”, 21 October 2014). Here they are along with further considerations (“et alors”):

Five Challenges for Total

Verbatim from WSJ 21.10.14:

European oil major is a French institution

Managing Total is no easy task. The company is invariably in the political, media, and environmental spotlight. It is France’s biggest energy group by market capitalization, equivalent to nearly $130 billion, making it the second largest on the Paris bourse, and second only to Royal Dutch Shell among European oil and gas companies. Boasting nearly 100,000 staff working in more than 130 countries, Total is as admired by investment analysts for its growth potential as it is under scrutiny by environmentally-sensitive politicians and lobbyists.

Go where the oil is

Under Christophe de Margerie, Total has proved anything but risk averse. The company placed a big bet on Russia, which indirectly contributed 9% of its oil output last year—up from less than 1% a decade ago—but now has to contend with the sanctions western countries have imposed. Total’s recent investments include projects in Kazakhstan and Uganda.

A mega project turned sour

Total—along with Shell, Exxon and others—has invested heavily in one of the world’s biggest oil fields, Kazakhstan’s Kashagan, which remains unproductive after tens of billions of dollars of investment and years of delays.

Making the most of an African oil champion

Total is one of the oil and gas companies with the most experience of operating in Africa. The continent has large untapped hydrocarbon reserves but also a reputation among its governments for frittering away oil wealth, leaving many countries with large energy deficits amid robust economic growth, rapidly increasing populations and sometimes unstable politics. Africa contributed more than 28% of Total’s oil and gas output in 2013, ahead of the Middle East and Europe.

Re-inventing Total as an energy group

Under Mr. de Margerie, Total has put more effort into diversifying from oil and gas into new sources of energy. Total has chosen solar power and biomass as its preferred sectors while eschewing the big bets that rivals have made on unconventional sources of oil and gas. Total has a 65% stake in Silicon Valley-based SunPower Corp. Total’s New Energies division broke-even in 2013.

Et alors

Christophe de Margerie leaves some very big shoes to fill and to meet these 5 challenges, effective leadership will be necessary to helm this ‘French institution’ going forward. The analysts appear to be pleased with the nomination of Patrick Pouyanne as CEO.  In any succession, success is rarely achieved by replicating the predecessor’s leadership style; however, for the new CEO, there is a ‘sixth’ challenge, namely which ‘leadership style’ to adopt? Without imitating his predecessor exactly, there are potentially some points for the new CEO to carry forward from the late Mr de Margerie: vision, engagement and communication.

Toxic Leadership

Certain leadership skills are appropriate at different stages in the leader’s career. For example, the ability to step back and see the “helicopter view” is not as useful to a first-line leader as a senior executive. It is essential to have the right leadership skills at the right time; otherwise what might ordinarily be considered as a “good” skill suddenly becomes inappropriate. Beyond inappropriate leadership skills, leaders might also exhibit “dark” behaviours (e.g. aggressive, arrogant, bullying etc.). Then we can have “toxic” leadership; but is this entirely the leader’s “fault” or is the root cause contextual?

According to Einarsen et al., toxic leadership destroys value and can manifest itself against the company (i.e. disloyal) or against the employees (i.e. tyrannical). Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser proposed that toxic leadership is actually a consequence of three interdependent forces and is not just a case of the leader behaving badly. Their theory (which appears in The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 2007, pp176-194) asserts that three forces have to be present in order to witness toxic (or “destructive”) leadership.Here’s a summary followed by further considerations (“et alors”).

Toxic Leadership

When all of the three forces are aligned and noted as below, then the leader can become destructive:

The leader...

·         Is charismatic but functions narcissistically (e.g. egotistical, intolerant of others, etc.)

·         Is motivated by personal power (individually or in the organisational context)

The followers...

·         Are insecure or “vulnerable” and need to be led

·         Are in agreement with the leader if they are ambitious

The environment...

·         Exhibits cultural preferences to avoid uncertainty

·         Exhibits instable “governance” and there might be a sense of “menace”

Et alors?

At first glance, the above is actually good news as it appears that just one of these forces needs to be removed to ensure that toxic leadership does not emerge; however, this is easier said than done! Moreover, it seems that unfortunately, none of the forces are stand-alone and can therefore not be singled-out or isolated. For example, even the high personal drive on behalf of the leader – the motivation for personal power – might be contextual. According to Herzberg, “satisfaction” motivators include achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, advancement and growth. So why are some people more motivated by “power” (responsibility and advancement) rather than a sense of “development” (achievement and recognition)? The references can be cultural: both corporate and national.

In a hierarchical corporate culture where power is usually centralised and limited to the “top”, employees might be motivated to “advance” so that they can actually have some power. In cultures with a high “power distance”, there is (according to Hofstede) an acceptance and an expectation that power will be distributed unequally. At once and at the same time the “followers” need to be led and there might be a greater motivation on behalf of the “leader” to obtain that rare-but-significant power. Further, if the prevailing culture is one where uncertainty is ordinarily avoided then the leader can assume power by providing certainty (e.g. taking bold decisions).

So if bad leadership is principally contextual, what can be done to avoid it? Depending on cultural references, “followers’” who need to be led cannot always be changed; and in the wider context of the “environment” and again culturally, it is difficult to address (for example) uncertainty avoidance. It would appear that the only thing that can be changed is the leader. When a particular cultural context means that there is a higher risk that bad leadership might emerge, then even more attention has to be paid to developing leaders! In particular, timing is everything – leaders have to be equipped with the right leadership skills at the right time in their development so their leadership skills are, if not “good”, then at least appropriate!

Changing World, Changing Management

McKinsey&Company (MKC) have been publishing their “Quarterly” for 50 years and are therefore celebrating by looking to the next 50 years. In an article by Dobbs et al, (“Management Intuition for the Next 50 Years”, September 2014) they suggest that the “collision of technological disruption, rapid emerging-markets growth, and widespread aging is upending long-held assumptions that underpin strategy setting, decision making and management.” This ‘collision’ is so significant that “much of the management intuition that has served us in the past will become irrelevant…” Their research has led to some interesting analysis and insight:

·         The world saw 5 exaflops of computing capacity added in 2008, 20 in 2012 and 40 in 2014. “Global flows of data, finance, talent and trade are poised to triple in the decade ahead, from levels that already represent a massive leap forward.”

·         By 2025, MKC estimate that more than 45% of Fortune 500 companies will come from emerging markets (c.f. 5% in 2000) and nearly half the growth of global GDP between 2010 and 2025 will come from 440 cities in emerging markets (95% of which are small or medium-sized).

·         60% of the world’s population now lives in countries with fertility rates “considerably below those needed to replace each generation.” Germany estimates that in 2060 its population will have shrunk by 20% (and its working population by 28%).

Changing world, Changing Management

So what are the implications for management? MKC propose 5 focus points to address the “magnitude of the coming changes…”

Setting Strategic Direction

MKC estimate that 66% of a company’s growth is determined by momentum (i.e. the environment): to continue to capture that momentum companies will now have to be more agile just to keep up… For strategy analysis, instead of thinking of national markets broken into value ‘segments’, think of multiple offers varied by city, distribution channels and demographic segments…

Managing Technology

Technology has to be seen as a strategic issue; it is no longer “simply a budget line… it is an enabler of virtually every strategy.” Executives need to think about how specific technologies are likely to affect every part of the business and “be completely fluent in how to use data and technology.”

Managing the New Workforce

Machine intelligence needs to be used in innovative ways as soon as possible to change and reinvent work itself. Displaced workers (est. 140 million FTEs globally) will need to be retrained. Developed and emerging markets will experience issues differently – the challenge for global companies is paramount.

Rethinking Resources

Combining IT, nano-science, biology and industrial technology should yield “substantial resource-productivity increases” enabling wealth creation for economies becoming more consumer and service orientated. More ‘productive’ natural resource use is vital to support growing consumption.

Breaking Inertia

MKC research showed that “companies almost always allocated resources” on the basis of pastrather than future opportunities; however the most active companies in resource allocation achieved on average 30% higher total returns than the least active. Be forward looking!

Et alors

The world is changing fast and MKC suggest we are at an inflection point. The ‘intuition’ that current management has gleaned during the last 20-40 years is rendered redundant by the multiple changing paradigms. Is the easiest solution simply to replace the ‘old guard’ with the new generation? No – the change is too significant and too rapid for it not to be addressed immediately by ‘new’ and ‘old’ alike. So what to do? Two key words are going to determine the potential for success in the very near future: adaptability and agility. Both need to be accelerated in all areas: riding the wave of emerging market growth, seizing opportunities and mitigating threats from demographic shifts and being at the forefront of technological change!

Twelve Absolutes of Leadership

There have been many books written on leadership (including mine), but there is one book that seems to have everything covered. Whilst it is not a simple “two step” approach, by virtue of listing twelve “absolutes” it is nothing if not complete! Gary Burnison is the CEO of Korn Ferry International and with his experience as such (delivering leadership “solutions” to many clients) he published “The Twelve Absolutes of Leadership” (2012, McGraw Hill). For anyone who wants a “definitive” overview of what a corporate leader should do, there are few guides that are better.

Here’s the twelve absolutes followed by further considerations (“et alors”):

Twelve Absolutes of Leadership

The first “absolute” (of all “absolutes”) is “lead” itself, after which there are six “elements” – purpose, strategy, people, measure, empower and reward. Then there are five “links” (“activities in which a leader must be constantly engaged”) – anticipate, navigate, communicate, listen and learn.

Lead

Leadership is about “self-discipline, distinguishing between the urgent and the important so that you can rise above the immediate.” It is not just about reacting – if problems are encountered they should be converted into opportunities shifting from “I to we…”

Purpose

“Purpose creates change, inspires possibility, and raises the altitude of the organisation.” With long-term vision, “purpose is the constant through all the upsets and setbacks…” Inspired by purpose “others will become more and achieve more as they give more…”

Strategy

“Strategy, rooted in values and purpose, gives encouragement through times of ambiguity and uncertainty. Strategy without purpose and values is a short-term plan that is directed toward shallow goals.”

People

“Leaders are facilitators on the sidelines, but they are never removed from the front line. The leader can’t be the star player, scoring all the points. Rather, the leader must be committed to helping others to do their best.”

Measure

“Never confuse measurements with data.” The real added value is knowing what the results mean. Besides the insight, action is also needed to be an effective leader. “Measuring, monitoring and metrics matter”, but in the right way…

Empower

“Be behind your people in success and in front of them in defeat.” “Empowerment means enabling and equipping others to make decisions. It means delegating authority so that hundreds of people can make thousands of decisions that are directionally in line with your vision.”

Reward

“Employees work harder for leaders who demonstrate respect for their work.” “A leader can build his reputation with employees by using purposeful praise – spending a significant amount of time praising workers’ specific efforts and actions, and noticing what they are accomplishing.”

Anticipate

“As a leader, you must always have your focus on the horizon.” Looking to the outside (economy, market, industry, competitors) you need to anticipate you plan of action and countermoves. Defining the present, you ground the reality and look forward (using both your intellect and intuition).

Navigate

“As a leader, although you do not have a complete view of the future, you must define it through navigation and action – in other words, through decision making. Navigation happens in the moment with adjustments in speed, altitude, and direction as needed.”

Communicate

“Communication is not merely telling people what you think and what you know. It is a process in which you seek first to understand what others think.” Messages need to be inspiring and “without ownership, your words – whether written or spoken – will have little impact.”

Listen

“It is gravitational for communication to cascade down, but it is far harder for it to bubble up. As a leader you must create freedom of speech through an information-sharing culture.” The “tone at the top” has to be one of listening for this to happen.

Learn

“To be an effective leader, you must have and demonstrate learning agility – the ability to learn from experience and to apply that learning to new or first-time situations.” “Distinguish your leadership not only by what you know, but also by your open and curious mind… Learning never ends!”

Et alors

Here we are talking about “corporate” leadership and however “asset-based”, “long-term” or “certain” the business, actually the whole “play” is in a dynamic which can be very suddenly impacted by changes in customer and competitor behaviors, the economy, the market, the industry, technology etc, etc. In other words, the “play” is in a permanent dynamic and change is inevitable. My vote for the most important “absolute” of leadership is therefore “learning”; moreover, Korn Ferry themselves say that this is the greatest predictor of success for any potential leader! Keep learning!