Potential versus Performance

Approximately only one in five companies uses an empirically validated model for assessing the potential of its participants on executive courses. How therefore, are future leaders being selected in 80% of the cases: answer – mainly on past performance. Unfortunately however, the key to success in a new leadership role is usually highly dependent on the individual’s potential – the ability to learn and adapt; rather than the individual’s experience and competencies. This is according to Claudio Fernandez-Araoz in the June 2014 HBR article “21^st Century Talent Spotting: why potential now trumps brains, experience and ‘competencies.’” On the assumption that 1/ you are a manger who wants to develop potential; and 2/ you work in one of the 80% of companies that don’t have empirical ways of assessing potential, how might you detect and assess potential?

Here’s what to look for in terms of potential along with further considerations (“et alors”)

Potential versus Performance

According to the author, performance factors such as intelligence, experience, surpassing objectives and specific competencies “particularly the ones related to leadership” should not be overlooked when hiring or promoting “talent”; however the key to getting the right people into challenging positions is to seek potential. Here’s what to look for:

Motivation

“A fierce commitment to excel in the pursuit of unselfish goals.” Ambitions should be big and collective but expressed with “deep personal” humility with a desire to continually develop.

Curiosity

A “penchant” for seeking out new experiences, knowledge and candid feedback. This should be along with an openness to learning and change.

Insight

The ability to gather and make sense of information in order to suggest new possibilities. It is not just research or analysis but a “what could be done” perspective.

Engagement

A “knack” for using emotion and logic to communicate a persuasive vision.  The key is to engage others and “connect with people.”

Determination

The wherewithal to fight for difficult goals despite challenges and bounce back from adversity. With the drive to succeed many things can be made to happen…

Et alors

Not many companies ask managers to assess the potential of their staff and yet at the same time they might have a myriad of executive education courses targeted at “high potentials”. If the company does go some way to formalizing its high-potential detection process, the system inevitably falls back on detecting high performance. The only way to break out of this cycle is to educate managers on the detection of potential: it’s not just if the junior manager appears to be “one of us”, or has done a good presentation, or works long hours, or is “correct”; rather it is all about motivation, curiosity, insight, engagement and determination. Above all, it is learning agility that makes the talent have the “best chance of success.”

Making a Pitch

As Mark Twain said, “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.” Communicating succinctly is always a challenge, both written and verbal. If you are leading, you need to permanently communicate your mission and goals and this can be done at any opportune moment – but usually the moment is short, so you need to be succinct! Being in the USA this week I was reminded of the “elevator pitch” concept and sought out guidance on how to do it well. The article “How to Make Your Case in 30 Seconds or Less” by Wreden, 2002, Harvard Management Communication Letter does just that. Whilst American in nature (with implicit references to and a focus on making a sale), the advice is nevertheless pertinent for any leader needing to influence others.

Here’s how to make a very brief case along with further considerations (et alors).

Making a Pitch

The goal of an elevator pitch is not to get funding, a job or a project sign-off; rather it is to get approval to proceed to the “next step” whether that’s a referral, an invitation for a further conversation or a request to correspond. The secret of a strong pitch is to “grab” the attention of the listener, define mutual benefits and set the stage for a follow-up. Here’s how:

Grabbing Attention

Provocative, contrarian or counterintuitive statements work well to grab attention but the assertions need to be justifiable. Clarity is more effective than jargon.

Mutual Benefits

SWIIFT – so what’s in it for them? Without this in mind, the pitch becomes less effective. The pitcher needs to know the subject and know the audience so as to always relate the offer to them.

Setting the Stage

The pitch needs to be well organized to lead the audience from the introduction, through the challenge (with solutions for the listener) to conclude with setting the stage for the follow-up.

Finally, the author also emphasizes the importance of presentation. With only 30 seconds it’s tempting to talk as fast as you can; however this is counterproductive. Slowing down, changing tempo and even adding a small pause can all help effective delivery.

Et alors

Perhaps it was because I have been staying in a hotel with only three floors, but I was originally skeptical of the whole “elevator pitch” concept! (As a matter of fact, the author retorts that to improve the effectiveness of the pitch, it should be delivered in 15 seconds.) However as chance would have it, I had an opportunity to try a pitch recently and this simple formula seemed to work – I set the stage and secured a follow-up. Focusing your goal on achieving a follow-up changes the whole idea of getting you point across and should work beyond American culture – for it is when you do the follow-up that you can adapt culturally either going again for a slightly more elaborate pitch or getting into the details (or something in between)… Focusing on the audience is also very good advice for leaders anywhere – don’t just broadcast a standard one-size-fits-all message, adapt the message to each audience!

Addressing the Blame Game

Organisations that are looking to become more innovative often cite the need to promote a culture where failure is not only tolerated but accepted. Failures can be key learning points for both the individual and the organisation (they just need to be early, cheap and not repeated!). For organisations that do not yet accept failure, there can be many barriers to getting there, not least if there is currently a “blame” culture in place. In such a culture, when things go wrong, when there is a perceived failure, instead of analysing the root cause, instead of learning from the event, time and energy are expended working out who to blame! In such a culture, the dysfunctions can easily compound: not only is there blaming, but blame is often misplaced and credit can also be misplaced!

 

Besides hindering innovation, a blame culture can result in employees hesitating to make decisions which results in inefficiencies and potentially reduced organisational growth. So what constitutes blame culture and how can the resulting atmosphere of distrust, disillusionment and fear be addressed? Research led me to a recent book on the subject by Ben Dattner and Darren Dahl: “The Blame Game – How the Hidden Rules of Credit and Blame Determine Our Success or Failure”, The Free Press, 2011. The authors’ cite research that people by nature are inclined to take too much credit and not enough blame; and to construct a “positive culture” of admitting mistakes and taking responsibility is almost counterintuitive. Within this context, the authors assert that there are three distinct personality types that “tend to figure prominently in the assignment of blame”.

Here’s how to address the “blame game” along with further implications (“et alors”).

Addressing the Blame Game

In order to move to a positive culture which does not involve blame, leaders must take responsibility; learn to learn; give and receive constructive criticism; and “accept some of the blame some of the time”. Along with improved self-awareness, this requires leaders to act with humility and take an “even-handed” approach to assigning credit. Leaders should assess whether they or their immediate colleagues display any of the following three distinct personality traits, and if so, adapt accordingly.

Extrapunitive

These individuals consistently blame others. “Extrapunitive bosses frequently lash out at people and create tension.”

To deal with such people, approach them during calmer, quieter moments. Highlight the fact that immediate compliance might have been achieved at the expense of longer-term “commitment”: employees will be performing to the letter but will not usually deliver on the boss’s wishes.

Impunitive

These individuals protect themselves by deflecting blame or refusing to acknowledge their responsibilities.

To deal with such people, clearly and explicitly explain your expectations. Highlight the fact that deflecting blame will usually result in misplaced blame and “an unfair blamer” will lose others’ respect and trust. People generally expect and want fair treatment.

Intropunitive

 

These individuals are generally insecure and, as micromanagers or perfectionists, usually accept an “inordinate” amount of blame. Similarly, “taking credit often makes them uneasy”.

To deal with such people reassure them and ensure that all situations are reviewed objectively. This is particularly important for people who are depressed and are accordingly “more likely to blame themselves for things that go wrong”.

Et alors?

Research showed that “when individuals blamed others they were actually worse off for doing so – both emotionally and physically”, so why are people doing it? The authors suggest that a blame culture in an organisation is more likely when employees have a fear of losing their job or a fear of not “advancing” as much as they would want to (i.e. promotions and/or opportunities). Such fear breeds blame which in turn results in a fear of blame! The culture can quickly spiral to one of “toxic poison”. It might be tempting to “blame” (!) this initial fear on “external” factors such as the recent great recession; however the authors’ research highlighted that “companies that accept collective blame for poor performance instead of blaming factors out of their control achieve higher stock prices over the long term” (21 year study of 14 public companies). Without becoming “intropunitive”, the starting point to address the “blame game” is to look to yourself!

Distributed Leadership

A leader might not be able to be all things to all people all of the time. Making sense of complex issues, providing motivating visions of the future, engaging people and aligning operations and strategy might be too much for one person to do constantly and consistently. So says Ancona et al, in the 2007 HBR article, “In Praise of the Incomplete Leader”. The solution is to focus on leadership rather than leaders and in particular to “distribute” the leadership so that complete leadership is not achieved by just one person but rather via a team.

Here’s how distributed leadership works with further implications (“et alors”):

Distributed Leadership

The starting point is for the leader to recognize that they have both strengths and weaknesses. By using the capability analysis below, leaders can then work with others who can provide the capabilities that might be missing in order to achieve a more complete leadership:

Sensemaking

·         Capable if you constantly understand changes in the business environment and interpret their ramifications for your industry and company.

·         Incapable if you feel strongly that you are always right; frequently get “blindsided” by changes in your company or industry; and feel resentful when things change.

Relating

·         Capable if you build trusting relationships balancing advocacy (explaining your viewpoints) with inquiry (listening to other viewpoints) and cultivating networks.

·         Incapable if you blame others for failed projects; feel others let you down and cannot be trusted; and frequently experience frustrating arguments with others.

Visioning

·         Capable if you create credible and compelling images of a desired future that people in the organization want to create together.

·         Incapable if you often wonder why or does it matter?; feel a lacking sense of purpose; and can’t remember the last time you felt excited about work.

Inventing

·         Capable if you create new ways of approaching tasks or overcoming seemingly insurmountable problems to turn visions into reality.

·         Incapable if you notice gaps between your firm’s aspirations and the way you organize your work; and if you find that things often revert to “business as usual”.

Et alors?

The principle is to achieve all four capabilities by distributing the leadership to others if you are incapable in one or more areas. This might be easier said than done in some firms where the principle organization is hierarchical. The authors note (with despair) that in some hierarchies, listening is not often performed because advocating your viewpoint is almost the definition of leadership in such an environment. The solution? Each leader has a choice with their subordinates, despite how they themselves are treated by their superiors. It is up to the individual to distribute the leadership…

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

In large organizations employees can be members of more than one team at any one time and many of those teams are geographically dispersed and may only be temporary in nature. Working in different and/or distant teams, the team members need to be all the more conscious of the team dynamics in order to make sure that the teamwork is a success. Unfortunately, there are many pitfalls to effective teamwork which can derail the performance or the potential of the team.

A very succinct overview of common pitfalls which hinder effective teamwork is given by Lencioni in his 2002 book “The five dysfunctions of a team”, Jossey-Bass. He warns however that the five dysfunctions cannot be treated as five distinct issues that can be addressed in isolation of the others: “in reality, they form an interrelated model making susceptibility to even one of them potentially lethal for the success of a team”.

Here’s a summary of the five dysfunctions followed by further implications (“et alors”)

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team

Absence of Trust

Stemming from an unwillingness to be “vulnerable” within the group, team members who are not genuinely open with one another “about their mistakes and weaknesses” make it impossible to build a foundation of trust.

Fear of Conflict

If conflict is feared (usually as a consequence of a lack of trust) then the team is “incapable of engaging in unfiltered and passionate debate of ideas.” Instead the team resorts to veiled discussions and comments are “guarded”.

Lack of Commitment

Without having stated their opinions in the course of passionate debate, team members “rarely, if ever, buy in and commit to decisions”. Agreement may only be superficial and decisions taken in plenary may not be adhered to.

Avoidance of accountability

Building on the previous dysfunctions, accountability becomes unlikely. Without committing to a clear plan of action, even the most focused and driven people “often hesitate to call their peers on actions and behaviours that seem counterproductive.”

Inattention to results

Inattention to results can easily occur when there are conflicting agendas (personal or otherwise). When individual needs are put above those of the collective goals of the team, collective focus is lost.

Et alors?

So what to do if there are dysfunctions in a team? Apart from “attacking” each dysfunction “head-on”, the other approach would be to consider the “essential” for a team to function well. In a nutshell, this might be considered to be communication. Underlying all the possible dysfunctions is effective communication. Without trust (the first “dysfunction”), communication becomes difficult but without communication, trust becomes difficult. The best performing teams are those who communicate effectively and regularly, but that level of communication has to be built on trust.

Communication becomes even more essential and yet at the same time more of a challenge in a multicultural setting. Communication challenges are exacerbated by (for example) the notion of explicit and implicit communication. Explicit cultures where direct, frank and open communication is the norm might not initially trust more implicit communication from other cultures (and vice-versa). Once this “barrier” is erected, trust also becomes difficult. Trust does not always mean the same thing in different cultures, so in order for different cultures to trust each other both parties in the dialogue have to understand the other. To understand, we are back to communication again – it’s essential!

How to Communicate as a Leader

“The command and control approach to management has in recent years become less and less viable. Globalisation, new technologies, and changes in how companies create value and interact with customers have sharply reduced the efficacy of a purely top-down model of leadership.” This is according to Groysberg and Slind in their article “Leadership is a Conversation: How to improve employee engagement and alignment in today’s flatter, more networked organisations”, June 2012, Harvard Business Review.

Their central argument is that leadership should be a dialogue rather than a monologue. Whilst this presents a challenge for the “old corporate” model of leadership communication, it is now also an opportunity in the “new organisational” model. Due to technical advances, there are more means available to have these conversations; however the new leader has to be more engaging with staff because the new technology blurs the frontier between the organisation and the public.

Here’s how to move from the old style to the new style of communication along with further implications (“et alors”)

How to Communicate as a Leader

The authors suggest that there are four main elements of organisational “conversations” with each having implications as to how the leader should communicate:

Intimacy (how leaders relate to employees)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, information was primarily top-down and formal;

·         … in the new organisation, leaders communicate personally and directly. Informal, leaders place emphasis on trust and authenticity.

Interactivity (how leaders trust communication channels)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, messages were broadcast with a predominance of newsletters, memos and speeches;

·         … in the new organisation, leaders talk with employees not to them with an emphasis on face-to-face dialogue.

Inclusion (how leaders develop organisational content)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, top executives controlled messaging and employees were “passive” consumers of information;

·         ... in the new organisation, leaders emphasise content over control and employees become “active” consumers of information.

Intentionality (how leaders convey strategy)

·         Whereas in the old corporation, communication was fragmented, reactive and ad-hoc with leaders using “assertion” to achieve strategic alignment;

·         … in the new organisation, leaders have a clear over-arching agenda which is clearly explained to employees and strategy starts to evolve in a bottom-up fashion.

Et alors?

There may be many leaders who find themselves in an “old corporation” but wish to be in a “new organisation”. Making the change from the old to the new could take time as this would be a cultural change. There is however the possibility for any leader becoming the bridge between two worlds: above, the old corporation; below, the new organisation. The “transitionary” leader who wishes to change the culture would for some time have to maintain a challenging position of having to “suffer” the old from “above” whilst simultaneously “benefitting” the new organisation “below”.

The authors’ recommendations for communication are very valuable for any leader; however they are immediately applicable in an American culture. Elsewhere, they might be more difficult to implement since, as in some cultures for example, employees are sometimes meant to be nothing but passive or “reactive”. Nevertheless, in most cultures, and as the authors assert, dialogue rather than monologue increases individual’s engagement and commitment. Similarly, no one is as clever as everyone: if not everyone’s voice can be heard, where will the new ideas come from?

How to lead by coaching

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

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

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

How to lead by coaching

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

Goals

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

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

Reality

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

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

Options and Will

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

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

Et alors?

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

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

Leading Temporary Teams

Is there a difference between leading a temporary team rather than a permanent team? Not just a question of timing, temporary teams are now often multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural and multi-locational; in other words there are many challenges to leading this particular type of team. I was therefore very interested to come across an article by Amy Edmondson in this month’s Harvard Business Review, “Teamwork on the Fly”, April 2012.

Instead of seeing temporary teams as a problem, Edmondson sees them as a solution as to how companies can adapt to an ever-changing world; and potentially as a solution to bridging different national, organizational and occupational cultures. The author states that “in today’s fast-moving, ultracompetitive global business environment, you can’t rely on stable teams to get the work done. Instead, you need ‘teaming’”.

Here’s how ‘teaming’ is best achieved followed by further implications “et alors?”

Leading Temporary Teams

The author proposes that several project management principles (scoping, structuring and sorting) help leaders facilitate effective ‘teaming’; and cross-boundary collaboration can be achieved with leadership skills (emphasizing purpose, building psychological safety and embracing failure and conflict). Here’s the summary:

Scoping

Scope the challenge, determine the expertise and clearly outline roles and responsibilities. This includes continually articulating the best possible current definition of the work.

Structuring

Boundaries and targets need to be established along with teamwork tools (conference and webinar communications, chat rooms, internet site and shareware).

Sorting

Reciprocal interdependence (as opposed to sequential) is required with back-and-forth (almost constant) team communication in order to mutually adjust according to progress.

Emphasizing Purpose

Articulating purpose is always important but even more so in a temporary team. Answering why the project exists is fundamental and can “galvanize even the most diverse, amorphous team”.

Building Psychological Safety

To encourage the sharing of information, leaders must exemplify a safe environment by exhibiting their own weaknesses and acknowledging ignorance where appropriate.

Embracing Failure and Conflict

Rather than avoiding them, accept and learn from failures! With conflict, reflection takes less time than fighting: replace advocacy (explaining and teaching) with inquiry (curiosity and listening).

Et alors?

The author states that “‘teaming’ can help to change a culture from localized hierarchical decision making to horizontal collaboration” (as demonstrated in Danone with ‘teaming’ known as “Networking Attitude”); however it is also arguable that some corporate cultures might more easily accommodate ‘teaming’ than others. Trompenaars defines four different corporate cultures according to the level of formality and centralization. Centralized cultures might not readily accept ‘teaming’, namely informal/centralized (the “family”); and formal/centralized (the “Eiffel Tower”). Decentralized corporate cultures where ‘teaming’ might prevail are informal/decentralized (the “incubator”); and formal/decentralized (the “guided missile”) which is similar to what other commentators call an “adhocracy” where teams come together temporarily to achieve common tasks... Nevertheless, the author’s principle argument is that with the rapidly changing world, ‘teaming’ is becoming more and more important and by implication, some corporate cultures might need to become less centralized.

The author cites conflict as a great source of creativity, but investment has to be made both in the team and beyond the team to ensure that cultural diversity does not in itself become a conflict. For example, for one of the ‘teaming’ projects, “the project leaders facilitated the successful outcome by assigning those rare specialists who had deep familiarity with both Chinese and Western culture to spend time in each other’s firms helping to bridge differences in language, norms, practices and expectations.” Multi-cultural, multi-locational teams might therefore be better comprised of individuals who have already been expatriated. One of the key points from the article – inquiry rather than advocacy – could be equally applied to all inter-cultural relations. Otherwise, leading a permanent team is reasonably similar to leading a temporary team. Notwithstanding the added urgency with a temporary team to define scope and purpose, implement structure and safety, the key difference in terms of leadership for a temporary global team is the need for the leader to be culturally sensitive.

Skills for Global Leaders

Peter Drucker once said, “The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn’t said.” For this management “guru” who introduced the concept of the “knowledge worker” (1959, “The Landmarks of Tomorrow”, Harper & Bros.), communication was one of the most important skills for any leader or manager. Above all else, without being able to communicate effectively, neither leadership nor management can be fully achieved. “Hearing what is not said” can be even more challenging in a global context because the communication might be between different cultures which exhibit different ways of communicating. 

One of the earliest articles on intercultural leadership focused on this key skill of communication. Ruben, in “Handbook of Intercultural Skills”, Vol 1, 1983, Pergamon, identified key skills “being associated with effective transferring of knowledge in a multicultural environment”. Whilst relatively old, these key points have been cited as recently as 2007 by Moran et al, in their 7^th edition of “Managing Cultural Differences – Global Leadership Strategies for the 21^st Century”, Eslevier. They appear to be “common sense” but worth repeating because they are often overlooked.

Here’s a synthesis of key skills for global leaders and further implications (“et alors”).

Skills for Global Leaders

In order to effectively communicate knowledge in a multicultural environment, the global leader should exhibit the following skills:

·         Respect. The ability to express respect for others is very important. To do this, the leader must be acquainted with the cultural norms of the host or visitor.

·         Tolerating Ambiguity. The ability to react to new, different and unpredictable situations with little visible discomfort or irritation. Persistence and perseverance are also required.

·         Relating to People. Too much concern for the task and neglect of “people maintenance” can lead to failure in transferring knowledge.

·         Being Nonjudgmental. The ability to withhold judgment and remain objective until one has enough information. This requires empathy.

·         Personalising One’s Observations. An ability to accept the relative subjectivity of one’s own knowledge and perceptions, knowing that they are not necessarily universally applicable.

Et alors?

As Moran states, these skills are “often not demonstrated by multinational managers or supervisors of minority employees in one’s own culture”! This article was first published almost thirty years ago and one of the key points was acquaintance with cultural norms of the host or the visitor. In other words, when doing business, it is not just a case of “when in Rome, do as the Romans” but to extend the old adage further, “when the Romans visit, do as the Romans”! Yet thirty years on, even the most culturally-aware managers tend to put the onus of “respect” on the visitors rather than the host. To effectively transfer knowledge in a multicultural environment, all the cultures have to adapt when communicating. This does not mean that each visitor has to adapt to each host, rather that both host and visitor have to find a way to show respect and, amongst other things, perhaps “hear what is not said”.

According to Ruben’s proposed skill set, some cultures might find it “easier” than others to effectively communicate knowledge in a multicultural environment. Some cultures prefer to focus on the relationship rather than the task; some do not avoid uncertainty and can easily tolerate ambiguity; some are “reactive” with a tendency for high empathy; and some are “particularist” rather than “universal” in their approach to truth. The need for respect in a multicultural environment means that both host and visitor should make the effort whether it is easy or difficult to adapt; however motivation might be another question and here an imbalance might appear. By virtue of being a visitor, the visitor might be ready and willing to adapt; but the host might not always be so inclined especially when there is one “principal” host and many visitors. Despite the advice of the Handbook of Intercultural Skills, many international companies therefore remain today multinational but not multicultural.