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.

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!

Jugaad Innovation

“Deep scarcity, major demographic shifts, rapid technological change and accelerating globalisation are creating the most complex business environment since the Industrial Revolution.”  Meanwhile, Western organizations have been “institutionalizing” innovation (think R&D processes) that has led to a “structured” approach to innovation which has “three clear limitations: it is too expensive and resource consuming, it lacks flexibility and it is elitist and insular.” This from Radjou et al., in their 2012 book “Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate Breakthrough Growth” (Jossey-Bass).

The authors’ proposed solution for Western organizations to innovate “faster, better, cheaper” in the contemporary environment is “Jugaad” innovation. Jugaad is “a Hindi word meaning an innovative fix; an improvised solution born from ingenuity and cleverness; resourceful.” (It can be loosely equated with “D-I-Y” in America and “Système D” in France.)  Based on extensive research both in emerging economies and elsewhere, the authors identified the “universal” principles of Jugaad so that this “improvisional and frugal art of responding to complexity” can be applied anywhere.

Here are the principles of Jugaad innovation followed by further considerations (“et alors”)

Jugaad Innovation

The authors found that “Jugaad can be distilled into six guiding principles, which anchor the six practices of highly effective innovators in complex settings…” The six principles are:

Seek Opportunity in Adversity

If there is a harsh constraint, it can be looked on as an “invitation to innovate.” It is reframing the perspective to redesign, re-engineer or rethink the business model.

Do More with Less

Work with what you have; do not try to work with what you do not yet have. The essence of frugality is to be “highly resourceful in the face of scarcity.” 

Think and Act Flexibly

The mindset required is that of one who “constantly questions the status quo, keeps all options open, and transforms existing products, services and business models.”

Keep it Simple

It isn’t about “seeking sophistication or perfection by over-engineering products, but rather about developing a ‘good enough’ solution that gets the job done.”

Include the Margin

Hitherto, the focus has been on “mainstream” customers; now “jugaad entrepreneurs intentionally seek out marginal, underserved customers…” Solutions have to be affordable by the target.

Follow Your Heart

Knowing your customers and your product intimately, market research and focus groups might not be necessary: the mindset required is that of those who “trust and follow their hearts.”

Et alors

The above is only the headlines; the book then elaborates with many excellent examples of how these principles have been and can be achieved. Principally however, in an organizational context (rather than an environment as large as a market itself) the key drivers appear to be autonomy and delegation. The authors cite Haier whose CEO has made the “organizational structures flat, thus empowering frontline employees to swiftly sense and respond to changes in customer demand…” Most directors of centrally-controlled large Fortune 500 companies would love their staff to do “more with less” and perhaps “seek opportunity in adversity”; but who amongst those in power actually give “space” to others in the organization to just do a ‘good enough’ job, to “think and act flexibly” and to “follow your heart”? If the leaders want their corporation to survive and even flourish in the “most complex business environment since the Industrial Revolution”, it might be prudent to consider more delegation and more autonomy!

Global Organisations

The Economist recently reported that “companies in developed countries do themselves nothing but harm if they fail to think globally” (Schumpeter, “Bumpkin bosses,” 10 May 2014). The focus of the article was that despite the global credentials of many organisations, the C-Suite executives tend to remain not only local but parochial in perspective; and as a consequence, opportunities are often lost (from emerging markets worth $20 trillion by 2020 according to McKinsey). Citing a study by Bain & Co, Western companies with subsidiaries in emerging markets increased their profits there by an average of 15%; however comparable companies from those emerging markets were increasing their profits in the same period by 23%. So what seems to be the problem?

Only 12% of the CEOs from Fortune 500 companies hail “from a country other than the one in which the company is headquartered.” Those companies that do have a “foreign” CEO tend to have up to 50% of senior managers who are also “foreign”; those that don’t have only 10% equivalent. The relative parochialism can “impose huge costs in terms of reduced creativity, missed opportunities and cultural blundering.” Worse, things look bleak for the future: it is becoming more difficult to recruit high potentials abroad who tend to look at these statistics and hence prefer to work for local companies; and simultaneously the proportion of expats overseas in the biggest multinationals in the biggest emerging markets is reducing (56% to only 12% in the 10 years to 2008). So, what to do?

Here’s what global organisations can do to make sure they really act global, along with further considerations (“et alors”):

Global Organisations

The Economist suggests three things an organisation should do to avoid the “evils” of parochialism:

Move Managerial Functions

By moving location, parochialism can be avoided. Proctor & Gamble relocated its global cosmetics and personal-care unit from Cincinnati to Singapore; General Electric moved its X-Ray business from Wisconsin to Beijing; and Schneider Electric moved its CEO from France to Hong Kong.

Move Managers to Headquarters

By increasing the proportion of “foreign” managers, parochialism can be reduced. The article refers to Bertelsmann as posting “successful local managers” to head office for a few years; and Daimler-Benz has “decreed that half the participants in its programmes for young high-flyers must come from outside Germany.”

Move Managers to Emerging Markets

By getting managers out to emerging markets, managers can become more cosmopolitan which will help the organisation be more multinational in outlook and behaviour. IBM and FedEx are cited as encouraging their executives to provide consulting services to emerging-world subsidiaries. 

Et alors

These are all good ideas and many multinational organisations already do all of the above; yet the corporation still might not be achieving its full global potential. It’s not what you do or where you do it, it’s also how you do it. Many “international” organisations with one principle headquarter tend to be “ethnocentric” in nature, viz: “centred on the culture of origin of the enterprise (head office) which keeps all the principal authority (centre of decisions) and distributes its values to the entirety of Group subsidiaries. Communication is principally by instruction from the head office to the subsidiaries and head-office management occupy key posts in the subsidiaries.” (O. Meier (2008, 3rd ed.), “Management Interculturel. Strategie, Organisation, Performance.”)

Moving managers out from head office to emerging markets can actually maintain the parochialism; as can moving foreign talent to head office and then simply returning them to their country of origin. To defeat parochialism and to truly benefit from being global, managers should not be thinking of a career centred on any one particular head office: instead all talent should be moved in all directions. If your head office is in the USA and there are worldwide subsidiaries including (say) China, the organisation needs to think beyond just sending Americans to China and vice versa; instead the Americans might go to China and then somewhere else – likewise the Chinese might go somewhere else first without passing by head office and or keep on rotating. Only then will the company start to be truly global both in outlook and behaviour!

Leadership and Psychopaths

A recent study, “Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk” (2010 Mar-Apr; 28(2):174-93, Behavioral Science the Law journal) by Babiak, Neumann and Hare, found that approximately 3% of those assessed in a “management development program” study “scored in the psychopath range” – well above the incidence of 1% in the general population. (By reference “only” 15% of prison populations are estimated to be psychopathic.)  This confirms much cited anecdotal evidence and was picked up in Forbes magazine last week which ran with an article “The Disturbing Link Between Psychopathy and Leadership.” So what is the link and what can corporations do to make sure psychopaths don’t end up running your company?

Here’s the link between leadership and psychopathic behaviors and what to do about it (followed by further implications “et alors”).

Leadership and Psychopaths

Hare and Babiak also published a book in 2006 called “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work” in which they described two types of psychopath: either the aggressive “brute” who is unlikely to succeed in the workplace; or the type “who is willing to use their ‘deadly charm’ to con and manipulate others.” Psychopaths can be witty and charming and the latter tend to exhibit three behaviors that might be read as “leadership” skills in the workplace:

1.       Psychopaths “are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities…”

2.       Psychopaths “come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people…”

3.       Pyschopaths “are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.”

Given the real potential for harm, what should an organization do to ensure that psychopaths do not ascend the hierarchy of the organization? According to Forbes, the priorities are:

Internal succession planning

“A well-conceived internal succession program is the best way to protect the organization”, as the study should (presumably) take years rather than just hours to make the promotion.

Focus on verified, tangible results

When recruiting externally, focus on “real substantive accomplishments that can be verified – more than on personal charm and force of personality!

Glean whatever you can about the moral and ethical character of a candidate

Not always easy with a psychopath as “they can manipulate a situation and tell interviewers what he or she believes they want to hear”! Persist and pick up on subtle clues!

Et alors

“The hallmarks of psychopathic behavior are egocentric, grandiose behavior, completely lacking empathy and conscience” said Forbes magazine; many readers will ascribe the same characteristics to someone senior to them in their organization! However whilst at the “surface” level the similarity might look amusing, it is when there are “real” psychopaths that the organization has to be very wary. The good news with the proposed action plans is that they are all preventative controls; however that leaves the question: how do you deal with a psychopath who has already got to a senior position? The chances are they will stay there unless they make an egregious mistake resulting in eviction by persons outside the organization (for example due to criminal charges). For this, there are no readily available solutions: it remains a very difficult situation for anyone working in such an organization!

Building Smart Trust

There is a business case for trust which does not need much explanation: business requires trust; and if there is no trust, business might not even be possible. However trust in business cannot just be “blind” trust – as the proverb goes, leaders should perhaps “trust but verify.” This is what Covey et al. address in their book “Smart Trust” (Free Press, 2012). For the authors, “smart” trust is the defining skill that transforms managers into leaders. The principle theme of the book is how to build “smart” trust to both be more effective in business and more effective as a leader.

Here’s how to lead with trust along with further considerations (“et alors”).

Building Smart Trust

The authors identify five key steps to building “smart” trust:

Choose to believe in trust

Belief is founded on “instincts” which encourage us to believe that we are 1/ worthy of trust; 2/ that most people can be trusted; and 3/ that extending trust is a better way to lead.

Start with yourself

Behave with trust – start with your own actions! It will be easier for people to trust you if you are seen as honest, straightforward, dependable, and genuinely concerned about their welfare.

Assume the positive

Assume positive intent in others! The authors cite the advice of Goethe: “Treat people as if they were what they ought to be, and you will help them to become what they were capable of being.”

Do what you say you’ll do

Declare your intent and fulfill your promises! Doing what you say you are going to do is a “global standard” in building trust which transcends cultures.

Take the lead

Lead the way by trusting but verifying! Don’t be gullible (high “propensity to trust” but “low analysis”); rather show “judgment” (high “propensity to trust” and “high analysis”).

Building this “smart” trust can have an enormous impact on employee engagement (think: leadership) and business (think: commercial relations). When did someone last trust you and what effect did that have? Now give that trust to others (but also do your homework)!

Et alors

A recent missive about trust in organizations (from Berkshire Consultancy Limited) stated that “because trust is a perception, it is often a hidden variable that is difficult to understand, measure and improve…” In international organizations, it is difficult to even define a single and common definition, let alone measure it! The Covey book seems to be positioned in the context of North American contemporary culture that might be argued to be neither “high” nor “low” trust but in fact somewhere in between the two. The proposal of the book is to build “smart” trust – something applicable for both “high” and “low” trust cultures; but by focusing on “giving” trust, the steps tend to suggest a move towards “high” (or at least higher) trust culture.

“Low” trust cultures might not be comfortable in “giving” trust. In such a culture, trust has to be earned: the starting point is that there is no trust and it has to be accumulated (which is in contrast to the “high” trust cultures where trust is already given: the starting point is that there is full trust that is there to be lost). If you think you are in a “low” trust culture, then the steps might be more difficult to achieve as “giving” trust might be an unusual and potentially unilateral event. Nevertheless, as a leader, you will always have the potential to create your own culture for your followers and so if you wish to build “smart” trust, there is nothing to stop you “giving”! In any culture, “starting with yourself” and “doing what you say you will do” can only help build trust which can only help engagement and commerce!

Making Human Resources Decisions

When decision making concerns human resources, the stakes might be higher than other resource allocation decisions: simply put, there are people involved. An investment decision might involve a certain level of risk and if it goes “badly”, there are consequences, but people move on; however for human resources decisions (e.g. regarding performance improvement, potential development or career choices) then the risk might be considered higher because if it goes “badly”, the person involved will potentially have to carry the consequences for the rest of their lives. Considering this, Korte, in “Biases in Decision Making and Implications for Human Resources Development”, (in Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5, Nov. 2003, pp. 440-457) researched and concluded on how to optimise decision-making in such an HR context.

Here’s how to make effective HR decisions followed by further implications (“et alors”):

Making Human Resources Decisions

Decision making in the HR context is “a complex process rife with social and political agendas, individual biases and rapidly changing relationships… the decision-making process must include an explicit examination and challenge of the assumptions and biases underpinning the process and a prescription to mitigate the stifling effects of these orientations.” Korte accordingly recommends five optimising processes for decision making in HR:

Bias Analysis

Identify, assess and challenge the orientations and underlying assumptions of the decision-makers.

This is sub-optimal if the assumptions and orientations of the team are “glossed over.”

Information Gathering

Challenge the information gathering process to overcome biases from 1/ visibility, 2/ timing, 3/ limits of understanding, 4/expectations, 5/ comparisons and 6/experience. Do not settle on a definition of the problem or solution until as late as possible in the process.

This is sub-optimal if the sources of information are based on 1/ experience, 2/visible sources and 3/ preferred sources.

Information Processing

Challenge the information analysis process to overcome biases from 1/ inconsistency, 2/conservation, 3/miscalculation, 4/inertia, 5/overconfidence and 6/ anchoring. Explain reasons for processing information and justify the reasons based on the data.

This is sub-optimal if data is analysed 1/ with inconsistent use of criteria, 2/ to support preferences, 3/ with overconfidence on biased data.

Information Response

Enlist several non-aligned sources for reality checks of analysis, definitions and solutions. Attend to the perceptions, expectations and impulses of the stakeholders throughout the process.

This is sub-optimal if you unduly hope for the best and overestimate the degree of control or the ability to fix things later.

General Problem-solving

Consider that the problem can never be completely defined or completely resolved. Avoid the impulse to act early in the process (unless to just as a test of ideas and solutions).

This is sub-optimal if you just focus on a single definition of the problem and the solution or if you follow a linear, mechanistic problem-solving process.

Et alors

That is quite a lot of things to take into consideration all at once; however the points are worthy of consideration if only because the stakes are high when making HR decisions! One of the key messages is to overcome biases in the early stages of the decision-making process; however, these assumptions, orientations and biases might be cultural. Whilst people consider that they are making optimal decisions, in fact, there are underlying cultural references that are (usually) implicit in the assumptions being made by people in arriving at their decision. This might be expedient where the whole context is mono-cultural: “collective programming” or “shortcuts” might be the very definition of culture with the benefit of expediency; however what about in a multi-cultural context? Then there might be a challenge as all the parties in the process might not consider the process (or the solution) to be optimal as it would only be so in one culture or the other (but not both).

So is there an intercultural solution (for example for career management systems in a multicultural organisation)? Potentially not! I have concluded from my research into intercultural leadership that cross-cultural understanding and trans-cultural leadership are possible and feasible when the stakes are not too high and/or the situation is not “personal”. When however, there are individuals involved (such as in decisions relating to HR) and when the stakes are increased because they relate to important human conditions such as love, conflict, power or wealth, then each respective culture tends to revert-to-type. In such cases, cross-cultural understanding tends to evaporate! So overcoming biases etc. in a mono-culture is one thing; whereas it is quite another challenge to overcome biases etc. in a multicultural context when there are “human resources” at stake!

Generic Strategies in a VUCA World

The term VUCA – volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous – is currently very popular in business and strategy analysis but it is fast becoming an excuse for inaction! What can be done when everything is VUCA? As Bennet and Lemoine say in “What VUCA Really Means for You” (HBR, February 2014), VUCA is easy to use “as a crutch, a way to throw off the hard work of strategy and planning…” To help address this type of reaction, the authors therefore propose some generic strategies and methods for dealing separately and in turn with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity.

 

Here’s how to deal with a VUCA world followed by further implications (“et alors”):

 

Generic Strategies in a VUCA World

 

The authors have classified each sub-term according to 1/ “How well can you predict the results of your actions [“Predictability”]” and 2/ “How much do you know about the situation [Knowledge]?”  Putting the two together yields the following:

 

Volatility

 

The challenge is “unexpected” or “unstable” but it’s not necessarily hard to understand and further knowledge is often at hand.

 

It is high predictability in the context of high knowledge.

 

The generic approach is therefore to “build in slack” and “devote resources for preparedness” (for example building stock to cover variations in demand).

 

Uncertainty

 

Whilst uncertain, the event’s “basic cause and effect are known.” Change is possible but not a given.

 

Knowledge of the situation is high but predictability is low.

 

The generic approach is to therefore use the current “knowledge” to increase predictability (for example running scenario planning).

 

Complexity

 

With many interconnected parts and different variables the volume or the nature of the event (or “situation”) can be overwhelming.

 

Knowledge is actually low because you are missing the key parts, but predictability can be high.

 

The generic response is to hire experts or develop your own specialists to address the gaps in the understanding.

 

Ambiguity

 

Causal relationships are completely unclear – this can be the domain of the “unknown unknowns.”

 

Both knowledge and predictability are low.

 

The generic response is to advance with try-and-see approaches to “test” the ambiguity. Invest in real-time feedback loops.

 

Et alors

 

In a positive sense, these strategies are very simple – for example the approach to volatility might well rank as “common sense”. (However the real challenge with volatility comes from recognising the potential for volatility and planning for it an advance before it happens…) For the other sub-categories, whilst the strategies are sound, the way of dealing with uncertainty and complexity might be subject to cultural preferences. Scenario planning is in some way accepting at least some uncertainty, whereas some cultures which are less accepting of uncertainty might propose heavy planning processes as a strategy to really increase the “knowledge”. (The use of experts however does seem to be a globally generic pan-cultural solution to complexity…) The strategy for ambiguity is, well, ambiguous from a cultural point of view: some cultures would prefer to try-and-see in a practical, pragmatic sense whereas others might try-to-see through rationalising and reasoning…

 

High-Performance Teams

Katzenbach and Smith in “The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organisation,” (1993, McKinsey) suggest that organisational high performance can only be achieved through high-performance teams. If the organisation remains simply a collection of individuals, the organisation will never achieve its maximum potential. Their research revealed interesting insight into what makes a team a high-performance team.

Here’s what makes a team’s performance “high” followed by further implications (“et alors”).

High-Performance Teams

The authors’ research into team performance led to five “common sense” findings that made a significant difference in team performance:

A demanding performance challenge tends to create a team

- A “hunger” for performance is more important that team-building exercises.
- A team will fail to become a high-performance team without a genuine challenge.

The disciplined application of “team basics” is often overlooked.

- Team basics include size, purpose, goals, skills, approach and accountability
- High-performance requires all of the basics to be in place.

Team performance opportunities exist in all parts of the organisation

- Team basics apply to all different groups e.g. task forces, work groups, management teams.
- Despite differences, all high-performance teams share the same commonalities.

Teams at the top are the most difficult.

- Complexities, long-term challenges, and time pressure reduce senior team performance.
- Senior teams that do achieve high-performance tend to have fewer members.

Most organisations intrinsically prefer individual over group accountability.

- Job descriptions, pay, careers and performance evaluations focus on individuals
-  High-performance teams emphasise group accountability.

 

Et alors

These are the “common sense” findings about high-performance teams and indeed they do appear to be intuitive: get the basics defined, have a clear challenge and agree to be collectively accountable, then you should be on track. Leaders should take note that the authors found that “team leaders are best distinguished by their attitude and what they do not do” – focusing on team building for example is not always a route to high-performance.  Finally, one of the key “uncommon sense” findings is also worth noting here: high-performance teams “learn.” "By translating longer-term purposes into definable performance goals and then developing the skills needed to meet those goals, learning not only occurs in teams but endures…”

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…

Diversity Quotas

Back in Norway this week I was reminded of the diversity quotas for publically traded companies: the board of directors must comprise of a minimum of 40% women and a minimum of 40% men. This law has been in force for almost 10 years now and any company that does not comply is simply delisted. The quotas appear to work and they are rarely the subject of debate in Scandinavia. Elsewhere, diversity quotas are not always so readily accepted: on the one hand “talent” wants to be promoted only on merit without “help” from a quota; and on the other hand detractors assert that quotas or any form of affirmative action forces companies to hire or promote less qualified candidates.

Hence it was very interesting to come across a potentially paradigm-changing piece of research in respect of quotas in the article “Gender Quotas Attract More High Qualified Women Applicants” posted online in ‘The Glass Hammer’ on 1.8.13. Referencing work by Muriel Niederle, Stanford University; Carmit Segal, University of Zurich; and Lise Vesterlund, University of Pittsburgh (published in “Management Science” Journal, 2013) the research showed that having female quotas could attract highly qualified women because they “become more willing to compete for positions when they learn that quotas are being instituted.”

Here’s how followed by further considerations (“et alors”)

Diversity Quotas

The researchers designed a series of tests based on mathematical problems where the events and consequential results were in three stages:

1. No affirmative action

For the tests, people could choose 1/ to be paid a small amount for each right answer they came up with (akin to low risk – low reward); or 2/ they could decide to enter a “tournament”, in which they would receive a significantly higher payment for each right answer, but only if they won the tournament; however if they lost the tournament, they got nothing (akin to high risk – high reward). With no affirmative action, the results were:

·         Men were much more likely to chose the high risk – high reward (“tournament”) option

·         Women were much more likely to chose the low risk – low reward (“initial”) option

2. Affirmative action introduced

The researchers then notified participants of new tournament rules: for every male winner, there would have to be a female winner. The affirmative action changed the “tournament” entry substantially (with responses exceeding that predicted by changes in the probability of winning). With affirmative action, the results were:

·         The number of men entering the high risk – high reward slightly decreased

·         The number of women entering the high risk – high reward significantly increased

3. Affirmative action analysed

Monitoring the results of all the tests, the researchers were able to identify “high performing women”. Analysing the results further showed that in the “tournament”:

·         Before the affirmative action, women who could have won weren’t playing; and

·         The institution of the quota increased the participation of high performing women.

According to the authors, the research suggests that to attract a greater proportion of “high performing women” to competitive jobs “companies need to loudly and frequently proclaim their desire to increase the percentage of women they employ, as well as discuss the programs they have instituted to support them.”

Et alors

The focus of the research is in attracting talent and the quota introduced appears to enhance the perception of equality of opportunity for one of the groups of persons, in this case being the women. When the opportunity to advance is perceived to be equitable, participation increases. The other group, in this case being men, appeared to have a similar perception of the equality of opportunity both before and after the affirmative action. This seems to cut to the very chase of the diversity issue (howsoever diversity is defined, whether gender, ethnicity, education, etc.): it is all about equality of opportunity and if that is perceived by the “diverse” group to be unequal, then some of that “diverse” group will actively not participate. According to a separate report by Bain and Co this year, only 15% of women in large organisations believe they are being afforded the same opportunity to be promoted to senior executive positions on the same timeline as men. Considering that it can be the “ones who could have won” who retreat from the “tournament”, this is a worrying consideration for organizations that wish to attract and retain high quality “diverse” talent.

Leveraging Diversity

Put simply, diversity is a source of creativity. Without it organisations are going to struggle to innovate and adapt in an increasingly fast-paced and ever-changing world. So says Groysberg and Connolly in the article “Great Leaders Who Make the Mix Work”, HBR, Sept 2013. From interviewing the CEOs of global companies that had a reputation for “inclusiveness” they concluded that advancing diversity was a business imperative (staying competitive) and a moral imperative (value-driven). So how is diversity leveraged within an organisation? The answer lies in moving from “diversity” to “inclusivity”: diversity is about the mix of people; inclusiveness is about making that mix work. Here are the practices which have been the most effective at “harnessing” diversity:

Leveraging Diversity

Of the 24 companies that had most successfully leveraged diversity (measured by employment statistics, leadership attitudes and third-party recognition), the CEOs cited the following 8 practices as the most effective in leveraging diversity:

<1.       <Measure Diversity

What gets measured gets done. This is not just about diversity targets; this is about inclusion sentiment that can usually be measured through employee engagement surveys.

<2.       <Hold Managers Accountable

Not just about numbers, this is about actions. Each manager should be able to demonstrate that they have done something to leverage diversity (e.g. mentoring, training, sponsoring events).

<3.       <Support Flexible Work Arrangements

For both males and females, balancing personal and professional commitments was considered the biggest barrier to diversity. Flexible hours and working-from-home can help break this barrier.

<4.       <Recruit and Promote from Diverse Pools of Talent

Not just at the entry level; promote diversity from within otherwise senior diversity will never change. Extend quota systems to ensure a diverse pool of candidates to choose from for any post.

<5.       <Provide Leadership Education

Not just at senior levels, leaders should be developed at junior levels where there is generally more diversity. Diversity training should be for the “norm-group”; not just for the “diversity”.

<6.       <Sponsor Employee Resource Groups and Mentoring Programs

With a senior business sponsor, resource groups can provide structured professional development opportunities e.g. internal think-tanks and mentoring programs for affiliation groups.

<7.       <Offer Quality Role Models

Diversity at the top promotes diversity throughout the organisation. One thing is the “talk” but it needs to be seen to be “walked” at the very highest levels.

<8.       <Make the Chief Diversity Officer Position Count

A “CDO” position “institutionalizes the process and the intent.” Once formalized, it can be the anchor to develop metrics and subsequent follow-up (see point #1…).

Et alors?

Some leaders remain undecided about the merits of diversity. Ironically, this can be because the diversity is present in the organisation but it is not yet considered to be “delivering”. Leaders would be right to reflect on their own moral imperative for diversity and their particular business imperative relative to their project; however “diversity” cannot be relied on to “deliver” on its own – leaders cannot stand back and ask diversity to “prove” itself since this will set a new standard for measuring diversity i.e. do the “diverse” talent deliver as good as or better than the “majority” or “norm-group” talent? In such a case, not only is diversity not leveraged but this puts a barrier in place since to “prove” themselves, diverse talent would have to assimilate into the “norm-group” culture thereby losing all the benefits of diversity! Diversity should be included so that all talent can deliver to their maximum potential whilst remaining authentic (and not being measured by “norm-group” references). In short, if a leader is open to diversity, there is a chance that it will succeed; if however the leader is sceptical about diversity, the outcome is already known! In the context of the above 8 steps, it all starts with the leaders’ attitudes…

Leading with Shared Vision

Having a vision of the future and communicating that vision so that followers are inspired and engaged to act on your proposed changes is a good definition of leadership. Research by Kouzes and Posner, published in “To Lead, Create a Shared Vision”, HBR, 2009 confirmed this with nearly one million responses to their “Leadership Practices Inventory” where 72% of employees stated that the key attribute they were looking for from a leader was to be “forward looking”; however their research also reviewed leadership effectiveness and found some interesting results which differentiate those who simply lead with vision and those who lead with shared vision.

Here’s a difference of the two and how to “share” along with further considerations (“et alors”).

Leading with Shared Vision

Vision

The “classic” case according to the authors involves leaders “posing as emissaries from the future, delivering the news of how their markets and organizations will be transformed.” The trouble is that this vision might not inspire or engage followers because it does not “draw others in”.

Shared Vision

The “best way to lead people into the future is to connect with them deeply in the present.” Followers want visions of the future that link with their own aspirations – they want the leader’s vision to tie in with their hopes for the future. They are then much more engaged.

Et alors

Creating a shared vision is like leading by diversity as the leader has to often connect individually on a one-to-one basis with many different constituents rather than just always broadcasting in a one-to-many fashion. In a way, this is like leading with influence rather than leading (or managing) with authority: this leadership can happen at any place in the hierarchy and it applies to all leaders at all levels. From another perspective, it is like leading with emotional intelligence rather than with logic and analysis since the connection is on a human level. All these things “play” to the idea of creating a shared vision.

There are however many organizational cultures which might inhibit such a style of leadership. When the organization is conservative and not naturally inclined to change or if the culture itself is very strong and not adaptive, then leading with a shared vision might be more challenging (yet ironically more necessary)! In strong hierarchies, power might gravitate to the desk rather than the person and management might become more prevalent than leadership. Good management is very important, but for organizations looking to do more: to change, to adapt, to grow, then the organization needs leaders who can lead with shared vision!

The Principles of Organizational Behavior

Research into organizational behavior recently took me to political science and in particular Montesquieu’s 1748 discourse on the “The Spirit of the Laws”. His comparison of monarchies, despotisms and republics branches into sociology and might be considered one of the first inter-cultural reviews of political science (analyzing why post-revolutionary Britain was not a republican democracy and comparing it with the “absolute” monarchy of France.) Not only still pertinent for the comprehension of modern government, his work also offers a potentially interesting insight into organizational behavior in the modern corporate world.

 

Here’s a summary of Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws” and how it applies to modern-day organizations (“et alors”).

 

The Principles of Organizational Behavior

 

Over and beyond the way of organizing a state, Montesquieu asserted that what was important was the “spirit” of the laws: the principles that motivate members of that state to behave as they do. Relating one to each type of state, the principles are as follows:

 

Monarchies

 

The principle is the “love of honor”. Besides wishing to attain greater rank and privilege, the monarchy would be supported by everyone wishing to be “honorable”.

 

Despotisms

 

The principle is the “fear of the ruler”. If there are no fixed laws that constrain the authority of the ruler, then the “monarch” is actually a “despot” who rules by fear.

 

Republican Democracy

 

The principle is the “love of virtue”. Citizens would make the state run smoothly by being willing to forego self-interest in the pursuit of the common or collective interest.

 

Et alors

 

Such an analysis of the motivators behind citizen behavior could also be equally applied to employee behavior in (usually large) organizations. The obvious link is with a strong corporate hierarchy. When there are few if not any checks and balances on the execution of authority, there might be a sense of fear amongst the staff and then the corporate “monarchy” might actually become “despotism”. Such a “culture of fear” can become pervasive, e.g. fear of losing the job or status; fear of being chastised / humiliated; and generally a fear of failure. As such, how would the “principle” of despotism be good for the business?

 

An alternative to despotism is monarchy. In a corporate context however, it might not be the best organizational “principle” to have everyone being motivated by attaining greater rank and privileges! Such an organization would be a collection of individuals spending most of their time competing with each other rather than collectively competing externally to improve the business. In addition, the concept of “honor” might be culturally specific thereby inhibiting multiculturalism in global organizations. As such, how would the “principle” of monarchism be good for the business?

 

The only category remaining is “republic democracy” – a term which appears almost anathema to corporate organization; however here the key is that the “love of virtue” principle is expressed by the “demos” (the people; whereas the “republic” could still be a corporate monarchy or aristocracy…). Can this happen in corporations? Well yes, if people are inspired and motivated to unite behind a common cause; and for this, the organization would require a leader to powerfully visualize it and acquire a collective followership! As such, just how good would the “principle” of republic democracy be for the business?

American and French Leadership

Can American-style leadership work in France and vice versa? Hofstede considered this in some of his early work focusing exclusively on his review of “power distance” (the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally) and “uncertainty avoidance” (the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these). In “Motivation, Leadership and Organisation: Do American Theories Apply Abroad?” in Organisational Dynamics, Summer 1980, Hofstede surveyed and then plotted the power distance and uncertainty avoidance of 40 national cultures which resulted in 6 different clusters. If we further assume that leadership is related to organizational culture, then by cross-referencing Hofstede’s work with Mintzberg’s organizational cultural categories, we can address the question: can American-style leadership work in France and vice versa?

 

Here’s an overview of Hofstede’s and Mintzberg’s work focusing on American and French cultures before answering the question (in “et alors”).

 

American and French Leadership

 

The American and French national cultures (Hofstede) appear to relate to certain organizational cultures (Mintzberg) as follows:

 

American

 

With a low power distance (40%), hierarchy is only established for convenience, superiors are always accessible and managers rely on individual employees and teams for their expertise. Both managers and employees expect to be consulted and information is shared frequently. At the same time, communication is informal, direct and participative.

 

American culture is uncertainty accepting (46%). Consequently, there is a larger degree of acceptance for new ideas, innovative products and a willingness to try something new or different, whether it pertains to technology, business practices, or foodstuffs. Americans tend to be more tolerant of ideas or opinions from anyone and allow the freedom of expression.

 

Clustered with Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries (which all exhibit low power distance and low uncertainty avoidance), American culture tends to correspond with Mintzberg’s “Adhocracy” organizational configuration. The “key part” of this configuration rests with the managers and support staff who ensure there is a “mechanism” of mutual adjustment (i.e. continually adapting).

 

French

 

With a high power distance (68%) power is highly centralized and hierarchy is needed if not existential; the superiors may have privileges and are often inaccessible. In management, the attitude towards managers is more formal, the information flow is hierarchical. Even the way information is controlled is associated with power and therefore unequally distributed.

 

France exhibits one of the highest uncertainty avoiding cultures (86%). Certainty is often reached through academic work and concepts that can respond for the need of detail, context, and background. Teachings and trainings are more inductive. In management structure, rules and security are welcome and if lacking, can create stress. Therefore planning is favored and some level of expertise is welcome; however change is often considered stressful.

 

Clustered with Latin counties (which all exhibit high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance), French culture tends to correspond with Mintzberg’s “Simple Structure” organizational configuration. Like a “family”, the “key part” of this configuration rests with the “strategic apex” (top management) who ensure there is a “mechanism” of hierarchical supervision (and is generally conservative).

 

Et alors?

 

The reason Hofstede focused his early work on power distance and uncertainty avoidance was to answer the question, “do American theories apply abroad?” Given the above, it is clear that in France the answer is no and this equally applies to French theories (relating to motivation, leadership and organization) in the USA. Given the cultural context there is little, if any, compatibility meaning that it is unlikely that American-style leadership will work in France and vice versa.

 

In Mintzberg’s “adhocracy” American-style leaders will have full delegation to advance in a pragmatic manner with projects and will be rewarded for not only succeeding but learning from failure. In the “simple structure” the French-style leaders will revert all decisions to the strategic apex and constantly pass detailed information up the hierarchy (and failure is not tolerated). The differences between these two organizations suggest that is unlikely that the leadership-styles are transferrable!

 

With both Hofstede and Mintzbeg’s work there are some similarities and overlaps with other cultures. For example Latin cultures might find it easier to engage and work with Asian cultures which exhibit high power distance (even though they generally exhibit a different attitude towards uncertainty avoidance). Whilst there are overlaps with some cultures, there is no overlap with American and French cultures making it difficult for leaders of either culture to operate effectively in the other.