Leadership focus

Losing ‘yellow’ and ‘green’ and seeing ‘red’!

2010-07-23T03:07:00.001-07:00

The last few stages of the tour have really lit the touch paper and stirred up some controversy and more interesting leadership issues

Firstly it was the sprinters, with one of the leading contenders for the green jersey, Mark Cavendish, winning an important sprint stage only to find his right hand man disqualified and thrown out of the tour. Sprinters stand the best chance of winning a stage if they have a well organised team who protect their rider through to the last few hundred metres. The team achieves this by creating a line of riders with the final sprinter positioned as the last man, peeling off as they get closer to finish until the sprinter makes the final dash for the line (they are at 60-70kph at this point ). Other teams try and disrupt the line, which can result in some physical contact. On this occasion Mark’s last man’s physical contact was deemed excessive by the race judges as they approached the critical point. As you can imagine this is a highly charged situation, with big stakes and huge amounts of adrenaline flowing! It’s often in these situations where the fine line between ‘acceptable’ conduct is defined. What tends to be the defining issue is the response of the team after a decision is made. It will be the emotional stability of the team leader and the ability to help the team return to ‘normality’ which will often determine not just the outcome of the stage, but also the performance of the team in the future, thinking strategically, regrouping after losing a key player and thinking of the bigger picture .

This mix of emotional response, behaviour and experience is also a critical determinant of leadership capability in the business world. How do you deal with highly charged situations and ensure that your team remains focused on the long term goals?

The next controversy surrounded the overall race lead entering the critical and defining stages of the race in the high mountains of the Pyrenees. The two main contenders, Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador, had been marking each other over the previous few stages, neither rider wanting to give the other an opportunity to gain time and just a handful of seconds separating them. On one of the toughest climbs, Schleck decided to make a move and accelerated to try to lose Contador. At the critical moment, Schleck’s bike suffered a mechanical failure, leaving him on the side of the road, separated from his team and team support car trying to fix his bike. There is an unwritten rule in cycle racing that if this happens then you don’t attack your rival, but Contador did and gained 40 seconds, putting him in the yellow jersey. A lot was said between the riders after the stage had finished, revenge being threatened and innocence pleaded.

A fascinating dilemma; do you behave in the way you where trained (Contador to race, business to make profit, lawyers to make logical sense of situations, accountants to add up the numbers, etc) or in stressful moments revert to your values and integrity and the impact this may have on the future, and then act accordingly?

Many leaders in recent dynamic times (and Mr Contador) will undoubtedly reflect on these paradoxes and the long term outcomes of their choices. Those working in a developmental environment might seek a deeper understanding of their orientations, and be guided through a coaching process. This can provide insight into when and where they might ‘derail’ in the future – in today’s business world, they are probably unlikely to get to many chances to get it wrong again.

Tour de France update

2010-07-15T04:32:00.001-07:00

Since leaving the cobbles of Belgium we have seen three flat stages, a couple of high mountain stages and some interesting lessons in leadership.

Each stage requires team work that delivers a specialist to the front of the race just at the right time. The first of these specialists is the sprinter, and the guy reckoned to be the fastest man over the last 200m is a Brit called Mark Cavendish. His total focus for the entire three weeks of the event is to win the stages that involve a flat out sprint after his team has protected him throughout the stage.

It’s not too dissimilar to the situation in business when, as a leader, you have a technical or functional specialist who is only motivated when they are involved in their particular area of work. We often make the mistake of thinking their excellence will translate into leadership potential, only to be very disappointed when this doesn’t happen. To avoid that trap, a diagnostic tool such as the CHPD High Performance Motivator Questionnaire, can be very helpful in better understanding and focusing these technical experts.
In the case of Mark Cavendish, it takes five or six members of his team to lead him up to the finish line. They have to sacrifice any chance of winning for themselves to enable Mark to hit the final few hundred meters in the prime spot to execute his specialism. So the team tends to be built about the capabilities of one individual. This presents risk to the team (and their sponsors) and makes the reward structures and development of other team members challenging. We see the parallels in business – do you develop a strong pipeline of capability to support strategic intent or do you buy in people to fill specific gaps. As we know it’s probably a mix of the both and the cycling team managers struggle with the same dilemma.

The race has also now reached the ‘high mountains’ requiring another specialism – the ‘mountain climber’. Many of the hills are over 20-30km long with gradients of 10 per cent or more. This territory is where the overall race is won and lost, with massive time differences developing between riders, and the peloton often being split over many kilometres as the hills increase in their intensity and duration. The teams are then faced with a massive logistics problem. Racing cyclist can burn up to 8,000 calories during a race and are often riding close the edge of physical exhaustion. So a well developed behind the scenes back room staff is required to get food, water and energy gels to the right place at precisely the right time. It’s JIT logistics in sport.

The British ‘Sky’ team pays as much attention to the marginal gains in performance in this area of cycle racing as to the performance of the athlete. It’s often an area overlooked in business, in making sure the processes, systems and development of the back room keeps up with the guys on the front line. Success in this area can of course provide real competitive advantage.

Leadership lessons in the Tour de France

2010-07-07T09:10:00.000-07:00

This year’s Tour De France has begun and already we find some valuable insights for those of us in the business world.

What’s particularly interesting from a business perspective is the team dynamics in this event. Competitive cycling is a team sport; an individual cannot be successful without the support of the other riders in their team. Each rider in a team of eight has a clearly defined role and the team is lead by the ‘director sportive’ who doesn’t ride a bike but follows around in a car, in radio contact with the riders. More than that, the riders are supported by a back room staff of mechanics, masseurs, and coaches and, in the case of the British ‘Sky’ team, a psychologist. Each element of the team has to be at the very peak of their profession; the best at what they do. They may not all be riding the bike, but they do have to operate in a completely cohesive way and with a total focus on ensuring the success of the team both on and off the bike.

Each team will have riders with specialist capabilities (sprinters, climbers, etc) and it will down to the director sportive to deploy these resources on a daily basis, depending on the terrain, the team strategy for the day and how the race unfolds with the tactics of other teams. So it’s a very dynamic and fast changing situation which will be impacted by external factors such as the weather, mechanical failures and crashes!

The story so far
Day one saw an individual time trial, where riders set out over a set course, this time through the streets of Rotterdam (not all TDF stages are in France). The riders with more power tend to do better in these stages, but it rained and cautious strategies prevailed. Reacting to the conditions of the day is a valuable lesson for us in business who can sometimes find ourselves operating in a bubble.

Day two showed just how powerful a group can be. It was another day of rain and a crash involving the peleton (the main group of riders) enabled one rider to get away from the group, gaining three minutes on the other riders. There was then a group protest (refusal to compete) in protest about the conditions and all the riders rolled over the line together. The collective will power of the group vs the organisation being very much in evidence and something that should not be overlooked by leaders in business.

Day three gave us the opportunity to value the whole team in the event. Riding over cobbles and very narrow roads meant the race split up, with punctures, crashes and bike failures. With this stage more suited to the powerful riders who can ride hard and fast over the cobbles, it’s the role of the team to get the ‘climbers’ through the stage. On day two, one of the most powerful riders found himself with a dilemma; he had broken away from the main peleton, but his team captain and potential overall winner was back in that group, so did he ride for himself and the glory of winning the stage or hold back to minimise the losses of his team mate? Team objectives rather than individual glory won the day. Once again the business learnings are clear, performing for the longer term good of the team rather than pursuing individual objectives and agendas will see long term business benefit.

More to follow as the stages and race unfold …

Phil Braybrooke, CHPD

Fabio as football leader - room for improvement?

2010-06-16T07:06:00.000-07:00

The hype is over, the first game hangover is fading and we already have our scapegoat – it must be England playing at a major football (soccer) tournament!

While most of the British media has concentrated on Robert Green’s blunder, the slightly more concerning dip in form seems to be from a man who has, until very recently, put in a confident, no nonsense performance every time he has pulled on the shirt, or should I say the suit? Is Mr Capello’s halo starting to slip?

Managing any team can be tough, managing one in the glare of the national spotlight doubly so, which is why the appointment of Fabio Capello seemed like the perfect solution. Here was a man who had a proven track record as a winning manager, who believed in the psychological as well as the physical approach to the game, one who managed with authority and respect. And he’s certainly got many things right from a leadership perspective:

Discipline
Gone are the late nights, mobile phones, WAG’s (wives and girlfriends) and player cliques. By removing outside distractions and taking a firmer hand Capello has focused his players on the task at hand. This approach has obviously had a positive effect on the team as England uncharacteristically qualified for the World cup at a canter winning nine of their 10 games. Capello has, until very recently, been firm, fair and decisive and has not been afraid to make the tough calls or decisions. The players may not have liked the change this brought about but they have certainly respected it.

Built a team spirit and given his players confidence
“The manager is a strong manager and none of us want to let him down” - the words from England’s forward, Wayne Rooney, but they could have been lifted from any number of interviews with England players since Capello’s appointment. The players clearly enjoy playing for Capello. Part of the change in the team under his reign has been the confidence he has built, especially with some who were struggling to make their mark at international level. In his own words “It's more important to train the mind, to find confidence, create a group, create a winning mentality.” Capello knows that a winning team is more than just a collection of talented players, they need a winning mentality as well.

Recognised his mistakes and then taken action
Playing an unfit James Milner in the game on Saturday was a mistake that even the most rose tinted of fans would acknowledge. Any manager can make a mistake, what Fabio did well was to recognise this and then take swift, decisive action to rectify it.

For all of these positives, I’m afraid there is still room for improvement. In recent weeks we have started to see a different side to Mr Capello :

Poor communication skills
The media hype surrounding the captaincy, the announcement of the final 23 squad players via ‘tweets’ and the ill advised ‘Capello Index’ do not seem be Capello’s style. He may not have full influence over some of the announcements but he does seem to have made some poor choices recently in his presentation and handling of the media.

Indecision
No team should start a project if its members are unsure of their role. England have had plenty of time to select a goalkeeper for the World Cup and yet Capello went into the tournament seemingly undecided. If reports from the training ground are to be believed then Capello’s indecision looks to have done more harm than good. Capello needs to make a clear choice as soon as possible to end the uncertainty in the team and get their confidence back again.

Even with these recent blots on his copybook, I don’t believe we will see Signor Capello slumped listlessly on the bench or alone under his umbrella as England crash out of yet another tournament. First matches in major tournaments are not a good predictor for performance (as Italy will attest) and the USA game would have been won but for an unlucky piece of goalkeeping and some timid shooting at the other end (and the USA are no ‘mugs’ when it comes to international football having ended Spain’s 35 game unbeaten run). Capello’s record in club management and during qualifying speaks for itself. If he can get his communication and decision making back on track and rebuild the confidence in his goalkeepers then England will still be in with a chance of lifting the trophy on July 11th.

By Gary Cook, Group Systems Director at CHPD

BBC’s Big Personality Test

2010-06-02T09:21:00.000-07:00

It was fascinating to watch the BBC’s Big Personality Test on British television last night. For those of us steeped in the world of assessment and development, it’s really interesting to see personality tests and work performance talked about on peak time television, but a word of warning …

… this was a programme built for entertainment and perhaps not as scientifically robust as we in the world of occupational psychology might like. In particular, be wary of personality assessments which link job promotion and the ‘big five’ personality traits. At one stage in the programme we saw employees of a law firm put into different lifts according to whether they were ‘high, medium or low’ on the ‘big five’ personality traits. The lifts then went up or down according to how ‘successful’ the people in the lifts had been at work. While it made for visually impactful television, the best leadership models use organisational performance rather than career progression as the measure of success.

Models which identify competencies by looking at people who have been successful (achieved promotion) and then conclude that those are the competencies essential for high performance are not reliable. It may be that in a law firm with significant amounts of bureaucracy, career advancement can be influenced by how well someone can play a political game, rather than how well they perform. For this reason, we would always recommend using a leadership model which links personality and competencies with organisational performance.

Having said all that, do take the BBC’s Big Personality Test and increase your self-awareness. If we understand more about how we prefer to operate it can increase our performance, but do also look for models which link to organisational performance if you want to make a real impact in the workplace.

The best of 'frenemies'

2010-05-17T04:08:00.000-07:00

'Frenemies” is a horrible word. It sounds like a children’s action cartoon adventure circa 1985. Working recently in the US with a leading global publishing organisation, I noticed it was by far and away the word of the week. It describes those market players with whom we can both work and compete. Friend and foe; opponent and compatriot; Tory and Liberal. But once you decide to focus on the ‘friend’ part of the word, what does that mean to an organisation behaviourally? How do leaders in particular have to amend their way of working – and thinking? Seeing not opponents, but partners.

Let’s look at behaviour we see regularly at CHPD. Senior leaders in all walks of life can quickly become very single minded in the pursuit of organisational goals. Driven variously by shareholder demands, market sensitivity and personal ambition – a case of tunnel vision develops. They work towards the next shareholder report, the next election, the next winning tape. At CHPD we call this the ‘tyranny of the tunnel’. Three of our behaviours are chronically affected by this condition, while the rest can be impacted periodically. The chronic behaviours are concept formation; conceptual flexibility and influence.

Concept formation is essentially about creating ideas. The ‘tyranny of the tunnel’ can mean that a leader sticks rigidly to pre-existing concepts that are not anchored in relevant data. If new ideas are suggested they will reject them instinctively, citing how they could not work in practice. The analogy that springs to mind is the precocious chef, who rejects the concept of a new or altered menu.

The first cousin to this behaviour is conceptual flexibility. Having rejected even the notion of creating new ideas, this leader adopts a permanent strategy rejecting alternatives despite them being relevant and valued by others. It’s like a football manager sticking week in, week out, to the same tactical approach, regardless of opposition, because it has worked in the past. They refuse to alter their game plan regardless of the new available information on the opposing team. Only momentarily concerned with the loss of yet another match, they turn up at training on Monday with their ‘one last push’ speech.

Finally, influence. Given the closed approach detailed above, influencing by attacking others’ interests is inevitable. Leaders in this frame of mind are always trying to force other people down their preferred route through coercion and threats. Celebrity chefs and football managers again?

It’s very easy for any leader to enter the ‘tyranny of the tunnel’. The line between supreme self confidence and dogmatism is very thin, and what we see originally as purposeful leadership can mutate into belligerence. The contrast between former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher’s, early and late years in office are the most clear, recent examples of this behavioural cross over. Her political life ended because she rejected the formation of new ideas, refused to countenance alternative policy perspectives in any meaningful way and used stridency of argument in place of sophisticated negotiation.

In short, Thatcher’s approach to ‘frenemies’ was clear cut. You were either with her or against her, there was no cross over. In working with anyone she would often ask: “Is he one of us?”

Following the 2010 British General Election, many of us who follow current affairs have been astounded by the audacity of the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. Many people thought, including this author, that the arrangement would be a much looser ‘supply and demand’ agreement, not actually one where Cameron and Clegg share Government. However, what both party leaders have shown is how ‘frenemies’ could be a viable political, and business, strategy.

So what did the party leaders do? Firstly, the willingness to think differently about what was possible. Cameron saw that the result of the election, far from being a mousetrap for the party who assumed office, was an opportunity to reshape the political landscape. Behaviourally, his concept formation (creating ideas) was of a very high level. Given the disposition of the parties he saw that it was possible to reframe post war political assumptions – away from a centre left coalition to a centre right one. How many of us said as the results came in: “Yes, but the Lib Dems will never do a deal with the Tories”? To which Cameron said: “Says who?”

This daring, which showed an immense level of self confidence and political courage, brings us to another of the CHPD leadership behaviours: conceptual flexibility. The creation of the coalition exemplifies this behaviour at a very high level. As CHPD’s definition explains, the leader:

“Compares the merits of two or more realistic alternatives, by stating the pros and cons of each. [Creates] an over-arching plan or strategy as a result of this analysis, which maximises the benefits and minimises the downsides of the original options”.

We do not have space to recount individual policy conflation here, save to say that the output appears to be, as foreign secretary, William Hague, has said, “the best of the Liberal Democrat manifesto and the bulk of the Tory one.”

Once the strategy was set, the most difficult task was to begin for Cameron and Clegg: to persuade three key constituencies. They comprised of a) each other b) their own parties c) the public. The use of influence at a high level was now paramount. Convincing each other was the easiest part: when offered power most politicians will take it by gut instinct. How they influence their own parties was, and remains, the most formidable challenge. But, concentrating on the ‘friends’ part of ‘frenemies’ has worked wonders. Three examples: the abolition of the third runway at Heathrow appeals to the Lib Dems environmental instincts, as well as Tory parsimony; the rejection of ID cards meets Lib Dem civil rights concerns and again Tory parsimony; and the use of PR to elect the House of Lords appeals to Lib Dem electoral instincts and to Tory …well they have lots of other policies that will rebalance this. But how do they persuade the public? The simple answer is: they don’t have to … yet. The combined majority of the Con/Lib Dem coalition should keep them in power for a full five year term (this is almost assured by changing the ‘no confidence’ rules). Naturally, Clegg and Cameron will hope that their success in office will be the best influence on the electorate.

If a week is a long time in politics, half a decade is a lifetime. Asked what was his biggest challenge as Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan famously replied: ”Events, dear boy, events”. How this new kind of Government deals with these events will reveal if these best of friends can really avoid the ‘tyranny of the tunnel’.

Russell Deathridge

CHPD leadership consultant

UK party leaders need authenticity, trust and warmth

2010-04-28T09:34:00.000-07:00

After watching the second of the British Prime Ministerial debates on UK TV, and declaring it a three way score draw, I went to bed with a nagging thought: who did Messrs Brown, Cameron and Clegg remind me of? The Three stooges? The Three Witches? The Three Degrees?

Then I realised, they were the triumvirate of Roman leaders in Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra (I knew my A level in Eng Lit would come in handy one day). Not aware of who they are? The first is Anthony, 43 but aging fast. He thought he would be emperor on his own by now, but his strength may be on the wane. Second is the daring and handsome young new comer, Octavius Caesar, with his fresh ideas and smart haircut. Finally, Lepidus, who is politically weak, but a dogged fighter remaining upright in the battle much longer than anyone (including him) expected. How to cast this….tricky.

But what was the plot? Oh yes, they all try to grab power for themselves by courting the beautiful but wily and capricious Queen Cleopatra (in my analogy, that’s us, the voters).

So, if these three leaders were to woo us for one final time, what would they have to do to win my, and your, heart?

My advice, as Cleopatra, without fair or favour, would be this:

Cameron: Dave (sorry) Antony, you have clearly thought long and hard about what type of world you want to lead and how I fit into it. You would make me the centre of your ‘big society’. I like this and about 33% of me is attracted to you, but I have a nagging doubt … at our final romantic tryst I need you to speak straight to me, from your heart and show me an honest passion for what you believe in. Authenticity is what I need from you as a leader.

Clegg: Now then, fresh out of the box, Octavius, what would be my advice to you? Well I like your novelty and you certainly look me straight in the eye. Very good communications skills – you speak fluent human. You want to change the way we choose our lovers (sorry, leaders) and this is beguiling, it makes me feel as if my voice will be heard for ever more. But I need to be confident that you will not just become like all my old lovers and forget me after the fabled Election Day. Trust and consistency is what I need from you as a leader.

Brown: Last, but not least, Lepidus Brown. Ahh, my oldest paramour. Even though it was Blairius Caesar that dumped you on me and we have had our ups and downs, still over a quarter of me wants you by my side. I just don’t know which quarter. As other lovers rain down flowers and jewels, do you pour statistics and initiatives on me. Tip: at wooing time I prefer poetry and big, romantic ideas rather than policy detail. Stir me with your Scottish cadences, embrace me warmly with your passion for social equality but most importantly speak my language. Clarity and warmth is what I need from you as a leader.

And that’s all the advice I have. The problem with these new fangled ‘courting debates’ is that you leaders can only talk about what you will do rather than actually doing it. I have to take a lot on trust. So, speak kindly but with passion for …

… “I do not much dislike the matter, but
The manner of your speech”.
Otherwise I have a handy asp…

Russell Deathridge
Consultant, CHPD

Obama: In like a lamb, out like a lion

2010-04-14T03:07:00.000-07:00

There is a saying in the US about the weather in March which is ‘in like a lion, out like a lamb’. This refers to the changeable weather in March which can be cold, windy and snowing in the beginning of the month but soon after can be warm and sunny. This March we saw the same changeable nature in President Obama’s leadership style during the Healthcare Reform Bill debates and eventual signing into law.

When we look back at President Obama’s leadership style while he was running for the Presidency, his predominant style was one of visionary speeches, inspiration and aspiration, teamwork, inclusion and empathy. This appealed to the American public’s sense of a need for change; “Yes we can!” This understanding of what America wanted, at that point in time, led Obama and his team into the White House with a great sense of hope for the future. So what came next during the Healthcare Reform Bill debate shocked most Americans as it appeared this was not the same President that they had elected. Gone was the teamwork, inclusion and inspiration.

On the healthcare issue, America is divided once again. Instead of bringing together both sides of the aisle in Congress, the Republicans and Democrats have become even more entrenched in their views. This was shown by not a single republican in the House voting for the bill. During the debate, President Obama’s leadership style appeared to change and be more goal focused, directive, dominant, assertive and decisive. When comparing this to CHPD’s leadership behaviours and preferences, President Obama seemed to be using more of the achievement behaviours, as well as the power and achievement preferences to help him pass the Healthcare Reform Bill. This is in contrast to the thinking, developmental and inspirational clusters of behaviours and thinking and social orientations of preferences emphasised when he was seeking election.

At CHPD our research has shown that the most effective leaders will understand the environment or situation they are in and will favour the leadership behaviours which will achieve the greatest or desired results in that situation. This ability to flex leadership approaches does not come without a high degree of self-awareness. A clear understanding of which behaviours are necessary for each situation is required, alongside a degree of courage to be able to enact those behaviours. So did President Obama deliberately change his leadership style to achieve his objectives? I believe only time and more investigation will tell whether this change from lamb to lion was deliberate but what I do know is that on both occasions his leadership approach helped him achieved the objectives he had set.

Tim Kennedy
Client partner
Centre for High Performance Development (CHPD)

http://www.chpd.com/

Leadership success linked to eating chocolate?

2010-03-31T09:17:00.000-07:00

If only it were so ...

Sadly, for many chocolate lovers, our Research Lab has yet to prove a link between chocolate and leadership success, but we thought it would be fun to dream on April Fool's Day.

The good news is that there is lots of good research (much of it conducted by CHPD) about improving leadership performance, including the leadership behaviours needed to survive in today's complex and dynamic business environment.

Commentators have described this post-recession world as the ‘new normal’. The environment we operate in is no longer stable. The new normal is characterised by even greater complexity, running at a higher intensity and speed, with a higher likelihood of volatile events occurring and affecting our business operations on a regular basis.

In this environment, our leaders face a number of paradoxes and can be paralysed in their decision making as they discuss and debate the right thing to do. Leaders need to be able to understand the changing competitive landscape and respond with new and focused strategies. Success will come from tackling the short term needs while engaging in long term thinking.

A recent McKinsey Quarterly article confirmed these new requirements of our leaders, claiming that it is all about … “striking the right balance between thorough, unbiased decision-making processes, on the one hand, and timely action, on the other. While there’s no silver bullet, taking concrete steps to cultivate internal critics, safeguard diversity of thought, clarify assumptions underlying different points of view, and force tough choices between business priorities can help.”In this environment, CHPD has identified three crucial leadership behaviours which can drive success:

• Conceptual flexibility – the ability to see issues from many different perspectives and compare the pros and cons of at least two feasible options prior to implementation. This behaviour is essential in understanding paradoxes and better strategic decision making. It is also crucial in innovation, something that is essential if organisations are to survive and thrive in today’s highly competitive landscape.

• Teamwork – creating and developing cohesive teams within your unit and across related departments, functions or sectors. Better and faster strategy development can come from a combination of conceptual flexibility and teamwork. Kleiner Perkins’ Randy Komisar in a recent McKinsey interview said: “There’s a methodology I’ve used within companies for making big, hard decisions … It starts with assembling a group that is very diverse. If you look at my partners, you’d see an unruly gang of talented people with very different experiences, very different domain skills, and, consequently, very different opinions.” Great leaders are able to take advantage of really diverse teams and diverse opinions to form successful strategies.

• Empathy - finding out and encouraging others to express openly their real thoughts and feelings. If teamwork and conceptual flexibility are to be effective, then the behaviour of empathy is crucial. It enables leaders to truly seek to understand the ideas of others without ignoring or interrupting them.

It's worth checking to see if your leaders have strengths in these three behaviours, because CHPD’s assessment of thousands of leaders reveals that many consistently fall below the benchmark level required for high performing organisations.

To find out how you can assess and develop these much needed leadership behaviours, email info@chpd.com or call +44 (0)20 7940 5120.

Don't just wait for the Equality Bill to address diversity issues

2010-03-05T06:59:00.000-08:00

We are now a matter of weeks away from the introduction of the Equality Bill. Over recent weeks the Bill has provoked much controversy, with the head of the Catholic Church criticising its existence. So why all the attention?

The Equality Bill sets out to strengthen protection, advance equality and simplify the law. The aim of the bill is to ensure "different people will work together more happily and easily … A good mix of workers means a good mix of different skills and what people know. This will help us get through the bad times much better together”

This desire to create an inclusive working environment for all is laudable, but is it that simple? The Equality Bill aims to deliver a diverse and inclusive workforce, working in harmony to leverage creativity and drive high performance in turbulent times. In my opinion, this is a leap of hope too far.

For one thing, to truly drive a diverse and inclusive work force we must address years of society’s unconscious biases. We should look at a range of interventions; ‘branding’ roles differently to be ensure they are more attractive to a broader pool of talent and changing ‘unwritten’ cultural success criteria, to name just two.

Secondly, the behaviour of individuals must be assessed and developed in the right way to affect organisational change. CHPD research tells us that certain behaviours in many organisations are underdeveloped and undervalued and three of these – teamwork, empathy and conceptual flexibility – are critical to creating a more inclusive environment. Interestingly, women are very often naturally stronger in at least two of these behaviours - empathy and teamwork.

Putting clear legislation in place is a step in the right direction. This Bill will encourage organisations to review their existing practices and policies to ensure alignment and compliance with potential new legislation, which by default will put diversity back in the spotlight for 2010 and beyond, but without action to develop behaviours which help to create an inclusive environment, we won't see substantial change.
.
The danger is that organisations complying with new legislation only prevents obvious injustice or at worst encourages people to dress prejudice in different ways. Take this as an opportunity to address the behaviours that encourage diversity and begin the process of real change.

Written by Sonia Bate, consultant at CHPD.

Is Brown a bully in the workplace?

2010-02-22T09:12:00.000-08:00

Andrew Rawnsley claims that Gordon Brown is a bully in the workplace, leadership expert Susan Salomone from CHPD, deciphers the potentially thin line between bullying and tough management.

A Harvard Business Review article titled, ‘Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?’ says that inspirational leaders ‘…selectively show their weaknesses,’ and individuals who bully may use this rationale as justification for bullying behaviour. However, the article goes on to say that inspirational leaders actually show their approachability and humanity by allowing others to see these weaknesses. One would be hard-pressed argue that Mr. Brown’s alleged behaviour reveals his approachability.

When determining if someone’s behaviour is tough management or bullying, there are a couple questions to consider:

* First, how pervasive is the behaviour? A one-off verbal outburst could potentially be understood and forgiven; ongoing behaviour and physical aggression cannot. Tough managers will apply their standards, however high they are, to all staff members while bullies often target one individual at a time.

* Second, what environment is the behaviour creating? Bullying creates an environment of fear, where the victim and other individuals walk on eggshells for fear of triggering an outburst. It can also create a climate of indifference or denial, where individuals who are not targeted by the bully convince themselves that the victim deserves the treatment, pretend that it is not happening, or convince themselves that it is not that big a deal.

Tough managers create an environment where individuals know what the standards are and work hard to achieve those standards set. Anyone who fails to meet those standards knows what to expect from the manager.

Tough managers are also open to feedback about their behaviour and can modify it when it is unproductive. Individuals who are being bullied find it difficult, if not impossible, to give the bully feedback about their behaviour, not least because bullying undermines the individual’s confidence. Bullies also tend to be very savvy about controlling their image, particularly with individuals above them in the organisational hierarchy, which makes it even more difficult for victims to come forward and convince others of the severity of the problem.

The best way to improve performance in an organisation is to create a performance management system that assesses individuals against the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of performance:

* The ‘what’ of performance includes objectives, key performance indicators and targets

* The ‘how’ is the behaviour the organisation expects of its leaders.

Behavioural frameworks used for performance management should include both the positive expression of behaviours as well as the negative expression of those behaviours.

For example, CHPD’s High Performance Behaviour framework includes positive Influence - selling your ideas to others and looking for win-win solutions as well as negative Influence – belittling others’ ideas in an effort to make your own ideas look better.

Organisations that look only at the ‘what’ of performance almost inevitably drive a focus on short-term results, achieved through what often looks like bullying, while organisations that look at both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of performance drive sustainable results because their employees remain engaged even when times are tough.

New white paper ‘Leadership research – the latest thinking and HR implications’

2010-02-12T04:28:00.000-08:00

CHPD’s first white paper of 2010 is our most comprehensive to date. It covers leadership trends to emerge from recent research and our experts’ view of the implications for HR.

The 16-page report includes:
· Dr Nigel Guenole of CHPD’s Research Lab on the latest leadership research and which new theories to look at implementing

· Dr Mark Woodhouse, head of CHPD’s leadership practice, on the paradoxes presented by leadership in the new normal

· Sue Braybrooke, CHPD’s director of solution development and delivery, on the implications of the latest leadership research and the new normal environment on HR

This white paper is an invaluable document for HR professionals who want to keep up with the latest leadership thinking.

Please email us to request your FREE copy of the white paper. Once you’ve read the white paper, we would love to hear your comments on the blog.

If you have any questions or wish to discuss the white paper further please do not hesitate to contact us.

Power-crazed leaders are not what we need ...

2010-01-26T06:57:00.000-08:00

So the Work Foundation has just discovered what we have known for some time – power-crazed leaders are not what we need (The Guardian, Saturday 16 January 2010). The trouble is that’s exactly what we’ve got (I’m exaggerating to make a point).

Our global benchmark data for leadership behaviours explains this very dilemma.

The high performance benchmark level for each High Performance Behaviour (HPB) is indicated by the horizontal purple line.

Ideally what we would like to see is for all HPBs to be developed above the benchmark line. Clearly that isn’t the case. What we see is a skewed profile of HPBs across the world.

The well developed behaviours on the left side of the diagram are those needed to run a unit in a more traditionally structured organisation. This is characterised by people who are good at planning, can solve problems, they have good presentation skills and are able to build confidence in others and make things happen. These skills are important, but the Work Foundation claims that these aren’t so important today.

According to the Work Foundation what we do need is “a much more subtle, people-centred approach to leadership.” We agree, but if that’s what we want them we’ve got to do something about developing the behaviours on the right side of our diagram. Three HPBs in particular (empathy, team work and conceptual flexibility) are critical in building relationships and fairness, but as the diagram above shows they tend to be poorly valued and developed.

Without urgent attention on these HPBs in particular – and we’re talking reliable individual assessment to identify gaps and then tailored development to address them – the new, ‘people-centred’ leaders that we urgently need, will fail to materialise.

Father Christmas's leadership profile

2009-12-08T04:34:00.000-08:00

CHPD specialises in high performance and leadership. There is no better seasonal performer than Father Christmas, so this month we take a light-hearted look at his leadership profile.

CHPD’s research identified 12 leadership behaviours that underpin outstanding performance in dynamic, complex and competitive environments. We call these High Performance Behaviours (HPBs).

Father Christmas is world-renowned, universally popular and has a long-lasting, positive public image. Not only that but he has a magical workforce of happy and devoted elves who work all year round to help him achieve his goal and deliver presents to all the world’s children.

He understands what everyone wants
Father Christmas has created a system for finding out what the children want for Christmas every year by asking them to send him their list every December. This traditional letter writing scheme is an embedded part of the Christmas culture all over the world and everyone takes part in it. It enables Father Christmas to gather accurate data on his customer’s needs and is a great example of how to use the information search HPB at the strategic level five.

He works out a strategy to deliver
The thinking cluster of HPBs is crucial to coming up with and evaluating new ideas. Father Christmas has to be able to consider a number of different solutions for challenges like making the right toys, meeting tight production schedules and efficient delivery routes. Then he must weigh up the pros and cons of these and make a final decision about which to implement. The conceptual flexibility HPB encapsulates this process. It enables a leader to make the right decisions first time, rather than hoping for the best in a trial and error approach. An approach that would be too risky, for someone who’s reputation has been built on consistently high performance and meeting a fixed deadline.

He develops others and recognises diversity
By identifying Rudolph’s red nose as a special talent and asking him to guide the sleigh, Father Christmas found a way to develop Rudolph’s ability and turn him into a high performer. He took personal responsibility for Rudolph’s development and presented him with an opportunity to use his talent whilst supporting and encouraging him as he undertook the task. This is a clear example of the developing people HPB at level four; a high level use of the behaviour.

Areas for improvement
Nothing stands still and with the world changing more rapidly than ever, Father Christmas might want to consider some development to prepare for the future. An area for Father Christmas to consider for development is his influence. Strengthening his use of this HPB may help him with one of his biggest business challenges which is how to get all of those presents delivered in just one night. Creating ‘win win’ alliances with other people and identifying how their goals are aligned could help him gather support and achieve his goals more easily. So, if Father Christmas started to work with the Tooth Fairy, for example, and use her up to date knowledge of which children live where and the best access routes to their chimneys, then this would save him time on his rounds. In return, Father Christmas could offer to collect teeth from under the pillows of the children he visits on Christmas Eve and give the Tooth Fairy a valuable night off. Whilst their ultimate goals are different, Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy have a lot in common and by understanding these alignments they can work together to achieve their own interests more easily.

Are you a Father Christmas performer?
Whether you share Father Christmas’ HPB strengths or not, all leaders benefit from a better understanding of how they perform. An online behavioural questionnaire, such as CHPD’s Sentio, will reveal where you can improve your performance for a magical year in 2010.

Merry Christmas from all at CHPD.

Find out more about behavioural assessment from CHPD - Info@chpd.com

Writen by Caroline Warren, HPB assessor and Rachel Woolf, senior client partner, both at CHPD.

Trust me

2009-10-22T06:28:00.001-07:00

Part of my job is to keep track of leadership issues in current affairs. Each week I scan the media to see what the supposed great and the good are up to. This morning there are three stories I keep coming back to - the UK Royal Mail postal strike, the British National Party’s (BNP) invitation to appear on the BBC flagship news programme Question Time and the return, both in the UK and the US, of the dreaded question of bankers bonuses. Now all these are interesting stories in themselves and pose serious leadership challenges to the senior executives involved, yet I could not help wondering “is there a link between these stories and if so what is it?”

I had just started on my third coffee and was about to throw in the towel and watch Helicopter Heroes when I came across the stunning picture above. It is the winner of the prestigious Veolia Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2009 award announced today. The photographer is Jose Luis Rodriguez who said: "I wanted to capture a photo in which you would see a wolf in an act of hunting”. Bingo – I had found my link. The obvious presents itself doesn’t it? All the news stories involve hunting of some kind or other.

Yet, what I was really struck by in the photograph was the level of trust required to capture the shot; trust in Rodriguez’s own technical ability, trust in the custom-built camera, trust that the Iberian wolves would return to the same spot to hunt and, of course, for both man and beast to trust they would not turn on each other. Trust, or lack of it, was the common thread in the news stories.

Take the Royal Mail dispute. Dave Ward, the deputy leader of the Communication Workers Union, said that the Union could not trust the management negotiation team. Citing external forces “deliberately trying to undermine” a negotiated settlement he said talks could not continue when agreements reached in the negotiation room were, in his view, subsequently undermined by later statements by the Royal Mail management. The management themselves responded that this was not the case – and the merits of each position need not concern us here. Our real issue, rather, is how leaders striving for agreement need to be able to truly trust in each other. Ward said at the same press conference “without that trust there was no point continuing”.

At CHPD we regard trust as an essential characteristic of high performing leaders – particularly when building empathy. The bedrock of this behaviour can be summed up as to see issues, events, ideas, explanations or options ‘through the eyes of another’ - to really understand their mind-set. Building on this we recommend managers disclose their true feelings in order for others to do the same. It is at this, quite personal, level that the Royal Mail negotiations have collapsed – with insult and invective peppering the media exchanges on the eve of the strike.

Yet the other examples we are looking at today require a more strategic and long lasting view of trust and empathy. CHPD describes this behaviour at its highest level as senior executives building a climate of trust and openness in which people are valued for saying what they really think, feel and believe and can do so without any fear of criticism, judgment or punishment. As a manager myself I have encouraged my teams, and my team leaders, to create an atmosphere where this can happen. When teams address issues honestly without fear of retaliation they are much more efficient, effective and self supporting. And surely if it is right to create this culture internally, it is right to echo it externally. Enter the BNP at the BBC.

By the time this article appears the BBC Question Time programme will have aired but the leadership issue goes beyond one broadcast. Many people find the political and moral views of the BNP repugnant, yet the BBC gave them a platform for debate because they reached a level of electoral success and thus automatically qualified for an invitation. But was it right to invite a self evidently racist political party (their current constitution does not allow for non whites to join) the legitimacy the programme endows? For all major broadcasters there is a covenant of trust between them and the public and the question senior executives at the BBC will have to answer is: by inviting the BNP did we reinforce or undermine that trust?

Finally, just a year after the colossal bail out of banks across the globe by national governments (well, tax payers) the bankers are on the verge of awarding themselves eye-watering bonuses. The idea of a ‘covenant of trust’ between bankers and the public may seem risible but on both a personal and national scale we trusted the banks to do the right thing with our money. It would be unfortunate if in paying these bonuses the banking system repaid that trust by showing a collective lack of empathy with their paymasters.

This past year has seen the issue of trust in public institutions put under intense scrutiny. All leaders, in whatever walk of life, always need to earn that trust and can never take it for granted. These cases show how negotiations collapse without personal trust, how we all are forced to trust institutions to take the ‘right’ decision on our behalf and how trust can, sadly, be repaid. Trust is of course a two way thing: do we trust the wolf and does the wolf trust us?

By Russell Deathridge, CHPD Consultant
www.chpd.com

‘Liquid modernity’ drives us to be flexible and adaptable

2009-10-20T05:45:00.000-07:00

This month Trendwatching’s musings highlight the work of German philosopher Zygmunt Bauman and offer an interesting insight into the leadership qualities most needed today.

‘Liquid Modernity’ is Bauman's term for the present condition of the world. According to Bauman, we now have to splice together an unending series of short-term projects and episodes that don't add up to the kind of sequence to which concepts like ‘career’ and ‘progress’ could be meaningfully applied. Such fragmented lives require us to be flexible and adaptable — to be constantly ready and willing to change tactics at short notice and to pursue opportunities according to their current availability. In liquid modernity the individual must act, plan actions and calculate the likely gains and losses of acting (or failing to act) under conditions of endemic uncertainty.

This reflects our own leadership research. Flexible leadership is key to success during turbulent times and through to recovery. Without flexibility, leaders will become the ‘rabbits in the headlights’ of the business world.

There are certain key leadership behaviours which enable the flexible and adaptable approach that Bauman talks about. These are:

Conceptual flexibility – the ability to identify multiple solutions to a particular challenge, to hold different options simultaneously in focus and evaluate pros and cons

Continuous improvement – the ability to set challenging yet realistic goals and targets to continually improve performance. Measuring and reviewing progress towards goals and taking action to ensure these are achieved

Empathy - finding out and encouraging others to express openly their real thoughts and feelings

Teamwork - creating and developing cohesive teams within your unit and across related departments, functions or sectors

Contact CHPD to find out how to accurately assess and develop strengths in these high performance behaviours.

Request copies of CHPD’s white papers on flexible leadership and turbulent times.

www.chpd.com

Diversity of thought – the holy grail for UK boards

2009-09-08T02:38:00.000-07:00

As a white, middle-class man of average height and weight, with no major psychological disturbances or regional accent, I would struggle to find the organisation to which I was the diversity solution. If only I were gay ... But before I broach the subject with my wife, perhaps I am more diverse than I look. My brain could be very different to yours, you just can't see it. And this is where diversity really begins to bite from a business point of view.

Our human differences are important, and it is important to reflect the differences of our customers in our workforce. We’re trying to say, ‘Look, we’re just like you, whoever you are’. And psychologists will tell you that works; we are immediately attracted to people who seem to be similar to ourselves. The old saying ‘birds of a feather flock together’ has some truth about it; we tend to be attracted to people who most closely approximate our physical appearance.

Whilst to meet me you might think I am as non-diverse as it is possible to be, my brain, on the other hand, might not work in the same way as yours. You can tell this by locating your eyebrows. If they are further up your face now than they would normally be, you are experiencing some diversity, not of race, gender, sexuality or anything like that, but of thought and expression.

I spend my time working with leaders, individually and as groups, facilitating board meetings, coaching individuals and supporting their development. I do this across a wide range of industries and all around the world. The biggest threat I see to my clients is not change, (economic downturn, acceleration of technological advancement, emerging markets, changing customer needs etc.), but their response to it.

This is not a new phenomenon. One hundred and fifty years ago, Charles Darwin recognised the same feature in nature. Darwin is often misquoted as proposing the ‘survival of the fittest’. What he actually put forward was ‘the survival of the most responsive to change’, in other words the fastest and best at evolving to suit new conditions. Let’s run a little example to make the point. At some point in the peacock’s evolutionary history females started liking males able to display their resistance to disease (that, incidentally is why peacocks have big tails). Had all male peacocks decided to do this with a little jig (something their customer base simply doesn’t like – ask any female peacock) then we would have none of the pretty birds around today. Fortunately some experimented with a slightly gaudy tail, which did the job tremendously well. The result: the species is alive and well. The same applies to organisations. If the whole board responds to a down-turn in the economy by reducing fixed costs and streamlining operations, (because they all agree unanimously that this looks like the sensible thing to do), then what about alternative approaches like raising capital, buying competitors, divesting whole product lines, expanding into new markets etc, etc. Potential dodo-dom lies this way.

The challenge for leaders in organisations today is that the diversity argument leads to a perfect contradiction. We like people who are like us – so in order to appeal to the maximum possible customer base we try and recruit a fully representative workforce. (Incidentally race, gender, orientation, age etc have no correlation with capability – if you’re still unsure about that … I despair.) However, we can get great diversity with no diversity; we all look different but we think the same way. This is even harder to spot because leaders will tend to recruit in their own (psychological) image. Recruiting people who think like you, behave like you and respond like you is extremely hard not to do, because you won’t end up thinking, ‘this person is just like me’, you’ll think, ‘this person is good, right, personable …’ And say what you like, we often recruit and promote on personality.

Thinking similarly makes for an easy life; few arguments and more action, though arguably less sound, rounded, well considered decisions. Thinking divergently makes for more conflict and may take longer, but ultimately leads to better decisions. On a first meeting you may find these divergent thinkers difficult to get along with, but if you persevere you can form an excellent partnership. Humans understand this strange dichotomy because whilst ‘birds of a feather flock together’, ‘opposites attract’. This too is true. The best partnerships are formed on points of difference, not similarity.

If you’re concerned about convergent thinking in your management team (a good precursor of group think) then you can use the Centre for High Performance Development’s Leadership Orientations Questionnaire (LOQ) to find out just how diverse your thinking styles actually are. Is your team predominantly far sighted or near sighted; detail conscious or detail averse; factual or intuitive; risk averse or risk taking? More often than not we find some severe bias in most leadership teams. This doesn’t mean you have to change the team (necessarily) but it does alert you to the fact that you may need to learn to watch for certain gaps or tendencies within the team.

The diversity debate encourages us to seek to minimise apparent differences between the internal world of our organisation and the make up of the external world – and this is healthy and good. Possibly more important is the argument that diversity really lies in maximising the differences in management team’s thinking styles and approaches. Because with diversity comes a much better chance of survival.

www.chpd.com
dan.white@chpd.com

Men may be to blame, but where do we go from here?

2009-08-03T01:38:00.000-07:00

Robert Peston (BBC blog, Why men are to blame for the crunch, 29 July 2009) may be right, but will things ever change? Commission after commission reveals that discrimination against women at most work levels is only improving at a snail’s pace, if at all. In Norway, they’re tackling the problem with a minimum 40% quota of women on plc boards. But would that work here? Indeed, is it enough?

I’ve been coaching, developing and working with big business for many years and it seems there are a number of issues that need to be addressed – and soon.

We need diversity

The first thing to say is that this isn’t just about being ‘fair’, it’s about being better. With all-male boards and executive teams comes a very real tendency to think the same way and then develop similar solutions to the challenges the business faces. People have a natural tendency to recruit in their own image. Everyone agrees, so it must be the right thing to do. Organisations need diversity of all kinds; race, gender, style, experience, approach, background. Only with true diversity can organisations become more dynamic and creative in the market.

Cultures must change

Some organisations have recognised that they need to be more diverse; they’ve established ways of employing people from more diverse backgrounds, even setting quotas. But there is a significant risk that this will all be for nothing, unless the fundamental cultures of organisations are addressed at the same time. Too often organisations aren’t seeing the added value of diversity, because once, for example, women join, they soon realise that their skills aren’t really valued and they leave. Either that or they realise that they have to copy the dominant group to get things done. They become ‘more male’ in their approach and organisations fail to realise the true benefits of diversity.

Leaders need help

At CHPD we’ve been assessing and developing leaders for more than a decade and something continues to trouble me. The fact is that vast majority of leaders that come to us have weaknesses in the very leadership capabilities that they need to operate effectively in today’s complex and dynamic environment.

No individual leader can be expected to have strengths in all areas, but across boards and executive teams you would want to see a good spread of strengths. That’s why diversity is so important; in a team you’ll cover each other’s weaknesses and complement the strengths.

We find that the least developed behaviours are those complex interpersonal and cognitive ones which enable people to understand and value others’ perspectives, think outside the existing paradigms, and create powerful ideas within a group – we call them empathy, teamwork and conceptual flexibility.

Women are more likely to be naturally stronger in empathy, teamwork and conceptual flexibility, so there is a real chance that the right women could help redress the balance in the boardroom and beyond. However, in my view there is such a dearth of strategic strength in this area that we should look urgently at development activities for all genders to improve these key behaviours.

And finally …

So diversity makes excellent business sense. It can’t just be about quotas, it must also be about changing systems, structures and values, to create cultures which value and encourage diversity. And we need to help all of our leaders develop the vital skills that redress the imbalances that have contributed to our current economic predicament.

For all our efforts to date, we’ve done barely more than scratch the surface. Let’s stop tinkering and start shifting the paradigm.

More on leadership behaviours

Chris Parry, 2009

A lucky break for the English that first test

2009-07-30T10:22:00.000-07:00

The bloody English weather – now I’m convinced the English wish a miserable summer upon themselves!! After six years in London, it stands to reason that I would have accepted the UK weather for what it is. But alas it continues to surprise and disappoint! Towards the end of the first test I started to get very smug with the knowledge that Australia had it in the bag and went about my merry way. Imagine my horror, disgust and all round cue for Australian whinging when the game was a tie because of the rain! Yet again foiled by the weather.

Considering the options
But of course what was heading to be quite a convincing win assured me that the second test would be more of the same. It appears the Australians did as well and this could have been their downfall. It’s worked before so let's not change our strategy. Clearly the wrong decision. The second test was a different ball game in more ways then one. Without reflecting on Freddie’s man of the match game, and my esteemed colleagues views on Strauss’ leadership during the second test; the Australian press seems to be pointing in one direction – the bowling of Mitchell Johnson. To blame the loss of the test on one person seems quite unfair in my opinion, in my amateur opinion I think there wasn’t any consideration of the different factors going into the match.

Firstly this is Freddie’s last test before retirement – after his spectacular contribution in the 2005 test (difficult for me to say even now four years on) he’s going to be playing at the top of his game to go out with a bang – and some pundits are saying that apart from his playing skills he is also having a major psychological impact on his team mates – simply building their confidence to inspire them to a win. Coupled with the threat of not beating Australia at Lords for 75 years – there was a lot at stake regardless of what was happening on the field. Whatever the reasons it worked for them and we didn’t seem to take that into consideration. And now after the Aussie win over Northamptonshire at the weekend with all-rounders Mcdonald and Watson’s good games there is more than one option to be had. The final line up is still a mystery, but the key here is how Ponting retools Australia for recovery.

Building confidence
As it is in the business world, outstanding leaders inspire and excite. They encourage people to achieve or exceed challenging performance targets through their passion, pride and belief in their people and their organisation. Both Ricky Ponting and Aussie coach Tim Nielsen are standing behind Johnson - "We have had the last two years where we have played some pretty good cricket and Mitchell has been at the forefront of all of that. There have been a lot of times when batsmen and bowlers have been out of form and we have stuck with them and shown some faith unlike what seems to be the public or the press's point of view." They both know the importance of building the bowler back up from his less than perfect start to the season – help him to get his confidence back, which will in turn build the optimism of the team. Playing cricket in England is much different for us then it is at home – we don’t have the support of the crowd which can be a massive factor in our team’s confidence, so we need that extra confidence and inspiration from within the team. Ignore the press and listen to your leader, coach and team. And, as is the Australian way, we love to get behind the under-dog and build up their confidence so they can beat the odds and win.

Teamwork
The focus on one player or another in particular takes away from one very important point - there are 11 players! Sometimes it’s easy to forget that when one person does particularly well or particularly badly, but it’s the job of the leader to pull everyone back together. As we know the best results are achieved when we collaborate together and promote teamwork – capitalising on their strengths, using their collective knowledge to strategically respond to the challenges. The third test is an historical game for Ponting – he is on the verge of overtaking Aussie legend Allan Border’s mark of 11,714 runs to put him third in the all time list of highest test run scorers. And in 22 fewer test matches than Border himself. But Ponting is putting it aside - "I know about it," Ponting said of the record. "I have known about it since the beginning of the series … I have bigger fish to fry than that right at the moment.” His focus is putting the best team possible together, keeping the spirits up and making sure we don’t go into the fourth test 2-0.

And, as has been written better than me before, whatever happens we the Australian crowd will always be behind the wearers of the baggy green –

“Night or day, they're out to make us proud

To keep our flags a-wavin' in the crowd

Even gettin' zeroes

They'll always be our heroes

And keep us signing' come on just as loud

COME ON AUSSIE, COME ON, COME ON!”

Posted by: Rachael Gulliver, Client Partner at CHPD

Home cooking the recipe for Strauss and England

2009-07-27T05:18:00.000-07:00

With the Third Ashes test approaching and the ‘Fred’ appreciation society finally nursing its hangover, it is important to recognise a key factor in England’s turnaround: Andrew Strauss. The vultures were circling after Cardiff but the performance at Lords was down to Strauss’ leadership more than Flintoff’s hostile bowling. From the end of Cardiff through to the end of Lords, Strauss exhibited key leadership qualities that were vital to England’s success. These qualities ensured the team did not ‘dine out’ on the Cardiff escape and are great examples for any leader, especially within the current turbulent environment. Let’s have a look at the vital qualities that Strauss exhibited:

Confronting the brutal facts
After Cardiff Strauss was quick to highlight the underperformance of England’s specialist batsmen. He talked of pride not self-congratulation, with the plaudits going to the people who made the vital contributions. This put the onus on England to make the necessary changes for Lords rather than live in hope that the Aussies would under-perform.

Building on a core competence
As much as there was a post-mortem after Cardiff it did reaffirm England’s core competence under Strauss of being difficult to beat (the recent tour to the Windies apart). The application displayed by Collingwood, as well as Anderson and Panesar, on the final day in Cardiff demonstrated that Strauss has instilled the will and capability to get through a crisis. This galvanised the team for Lords as the players knew they had a platform to build upon.

Being the predator not the prey
As much as Cardiff may have been an escape Strauss talked of momentum for Lords and the need to play positive cricket. The opening session of Lords set the tone with Strauss leading by example in a very positive display. His 161 was the cornerstone of England’s first innings and ensured that England took the role of Predator not Prey for the remainder of the Test.

Considering the options
On the morning of the third day at Lords many thought that it was certain England would enforce the follow on. However, the weather conditions changed and the pitch became benign: Strauss then opted for England to go back in to bat. His ability to think flexibly and alter the plan based on new information ensured England was able to build a healthy total from which the Aussies could not respond.

Deploying the talent
The fifth morning of Lords was a great example of Strauss ensuring England played to its strengths. He allowed a fired up Flintoff to bowl continuously with a new(ish) ball and deployed the guile of Swann at the other end to provide uncertainty in the minds of the Aussie batsmen. Strauss’ ability to see how to best use his bowlers ensured that victory was swift and convincing.

The challenge now for England and Strauss is to ensure that these qualities are built upon for the third test at Edgbaston. Ponting was quick to take a leaf out of Strauss’ book after Lords: confronting the brutal facts and not dwelling on some questionable umpiring decisions. All is set for an engaging remainder of the series.

Posted by: Kieran Colville, Client Partner at CHPD

"Turn again, Margaret"

2009-05-05T03:29:00.000-07:00

Self confessed "man of the people" Russell Deathridge considers the leadership lessons that emerge from a particularly weighty anniversary falling this month.

There is an inevitability about discussions on the nature of leadership. At some point one name will emerge: Margaret Thatcher. Thirty years after her first historic election victory, we are seeing an examination of her style, policies and legacy. This is good, for, with the exception of Churchill, Thatcher is unique among post war British Prime Ministers: a generation after she was elected people still have incredibly strong opinions about her.

Ruthless, iron-willed, stubborn, necessary, visionary, energetic, “intransigent”, ‘inspiring, ‘direct and focused are just some of the more common (and printable) descriptions of Mrs T. Unsurprisingly ‘consensus’ never appears. The ‘ability to create general agreement‘ is not a skill that first springs to mind when we discuss Britain’s first woman prime minister. Once famously describing consensus politicians as ‘traitors’, she later publicly expanded on her theme:

“Consensus … is the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects … What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner ‘I stand for consensus’?”

The Sir Robert Menzies Lecture, Monash University, Australia,1981

When we skim the surface of Thatcher’s premiership this trenchant belief appears borne out by her behaviour: the implementation of the ground breaking 1981 monetary budget; the simple, single minded prosecution of the Falklands War; the trouncing of the miners; the “no, no, no” of her European policy and finally her implacable adherence to the notorious ‘poll tax’. In all these cases Thatcher showed a breathtaking disregard for the opinions of others. In some instances it worked for her (monetarism, the Falklands and the miners), in others it spectacularly failed. It was clear at the time that a combination of her contempt for the EU single currency and an almost messianic belief in the poll tax toppled Mrs Thatcher.

As experts in the nature of leadership, we at CHPD find that many successful leaders certainly need to have both the vision and drive to make things happen, but at the same time they need to build consensus and be open to different ideas. CHPD founder Dr Tony Cockerill defines this behaviour ‘conceptual flexibility’ and described it thus:

“It is the ability to compare the merits of two or more realistic alternatives. By examining, in detail, the pros and cons of each idea the leader may then create an over-arching plan or strategy. The outcome will be an approach which maximises the benefits and minimises the downsides of the original options. Without it the leader may be unable to persuade others of the benefits of the approach and ultimately fail”.

No politician, whatever they or their image makers may like us to believe, can reach the top without being able to think laterally both strategically and tactically. The ‘success stories’ noted above were achievable precisely because there were alternatives. In the case of the miners, Mrs Thatcher avoided a confrontation earlier because she was persuaded that neither the government nor coal board was sufficiently prepared for a long strike. Thatcher’s fall from power happened not only because of poor policy but also because she refused to think flexibly and, ironically, build consensus.

CHPD both assesses leaders against conceptual flexibility and a further 11 behaviours and helps them achieve a higher level of performance through training and coaching. To find out how your leaders stack up against the key benchmarks, email info@chpd.com. In the meantime, try the following tips to boost conceptual flexibility in your business:

Show staff how to evaluate pros and cons of several different options when planning
Establish a network of teams from different units or functions to solve problems and devise multiple strategies and visions
Recognise and reward flexible thinking behaviour
Create alternative visions for the future and predict their impact
Introduce scenario planning or modelling as fundamental processes to be used to help with flexible thinking
Task management and staff with multiple solution formation and short and long term planning – build this into the performance management process

One final thought, under the ‘30 year rule’, the Thatcher government cabinet papers will soon start to be released. Then we will see if she truly was the ‘Iron Lady’."

Russell Deathridge is a consultant at the Centre For High Performance Development.

“Ain't no mountain high enough”

2009-04-14T02:36:00.000-07:00

“The speed at which we'll recover will depend on the international cooperation we can achieve” Gordon Brown – Wall Street, March 25th 2009.

Nobody walked out, everybody had something to call a victory and they all got to bathe in President Obama’s spotlight. While debate will continue about exactly what the world leaders achieved at the London G20 summit, one thing is for sure: the work of the faceless diplomats behind the scenes was invaluable. These so called ‘sherpas’ (leading the mountaineers to the summit) have to prepare all the detailed ground work for their heads of government and draft various communiqués before the meeting has even taken place.

The sherpas' work involves numerous face-to-face meetings, conference calls and e-mail exchanges together with an ability to coax, manoeuvre and negotiate with their opposite numbers. The delicacy of this task cannot be understated. It requires forensic analysis of complicated issues, deft diplomatic communication skills and, most crucially, teamwork - one of CHPD’s core behaviours contributing to high performance leadership. The ability to create teams that truly work together is all too rare. In a recent snapshot of results from years of assessment of leaders in the UK, we found that, on average, leaders were under-developed when it came to ‘teamwork’. (see diagram below).

At CHPD we find that many leaders believe they are good at ‘teamwork‘ because the team themselves say “we have a great team spirit”. This is commendable and to be maintained yet it is actually the output of an entire leadership approach rather than the application of one behaviour like expert facilitation of the team and fostering effective team results.

CHPD’s definition of teamwork at a high performance level is as follows:

“The leader facilitates dialogue between two or more team members so they create shared ‘team concepts’, that are more powerful than any of the individual ideas that were contributed at first”.
This means that the team is constantly working together not only to complete group tasks but also to harness disparate ideas into team strategies and solutions. In essence it is the work of the perfect ‘sherpa’.

CHPD both assesses leaders against 12 behaviours and helps them achieve a higher level of performance through training and coaching. To find out how your leaders stack up against the key benchmarks, email info@chpd.com. In the meantime, try the following tips to boost teamwork in your business:

· Encourage teams to pool knowledge and develop a shared sense of purpose through regular update and progress meetings

· Promote participative decision making rather than imposition of decisions from above

· Promote the cross-fertilisation of ideas by bringing people from your own and other teams together to improve co-operation

· Task teams to talk things through to develop shared thinking and to integrate different perspectives where appropriate

· Build bridges between the ideas of team members by asking them to build on the linkages of their ideas to create broader team concepts

· Stimulate a wide-ranging debate amongst all your employees on the decisions that affect them; encourage team members to understand their colleagues

Having reflected on the use of teamwork you may start to question who had the real leadership behaviours at the G20 meeting – the mountaineers or the sherpas?

Flexing leadership in turbulent times podcast

2009-04-08T04:19:00.000-07:00

“Many leaders find it hard to transition between recession and recovery.”

According to CHPD founder, Dr Tony Cockerill, the behaviours needed in turbulent times are different to those we need in more stable economic situations.

Find out what these behaviours are and why they’re important in this podcast discussion between Tony and Kieran Colville, senior partner at CHPD.

Click in the window below to listen to the podcast

If you prefer you can download the podcast here

“Where are the Oscars for us mortals?”

2009-03-02T09:38:00.000-08:00

The news coverage associated with the Oscars underlined a lesson for effective leadership in times of economic dislocation. It makes one think "Where are the Oscars for us mortals?"

Kate Winslett, Sean Penn and Danny Boyle were recipients of much more than a small, gold statuette. They got something money can't buy - recognition.

In fact, it's something we all crave. As psychologist Frederick Herzberg found, satisfaction does not come from pay but from challenging work, responsibility and ... recognition. Maybe the business world can learn something from Hollywood in this challenging economic environment.

Pay cuts are becoming more commonplace than pay rises. If a salary and bonus ever could help you keep your talent, it's doubtful it could today. Recognition need cost nothing - assuming you don't go for the Vanity Fair party - yet too often it is forgotten. The issue has everything to do with two leadership behaviours identified by CHPD as crucial to high performance leadership - 'building confidence' and 'developing people'.

Dr Tony Cockerill, CHPD founder and expert in leadership, explains: “There are 12 behaviours that have been identified as making the difference between average and high performing leadership. Two of these are clearly linked to recognition; ‘building confidence’ ties in with the public or external recognition of good work, while ‘developing people’ links to the one-to-one feedback that you give people about their performance. As a manager, if you have strengths in both behaviours, you are likely to have staff who feel recognised and valued for their contribution.”

Strengths in both behaviours necessary for recognition can be rare. In a recent snapshot of results from years of assessment of leaders in the UK, we found that, on average, leaders were under-developed when it came to ‘developing people’ (diagram below).

CHPD both assesses leaders against these 12 behaviours and then helps them achieve a higher level of performance through training and coaching. To find out how your leaders stack up against the key benchmarks, email info@chpd.com. In the meantime, try the following tips to boost the satisfaction of your people:

Be specific with your recognition – don’t just say ‘you do a great job’, tell someone exactly what they did that has been appreciated. This way you not only make them feel valued, but they are also clear about what great behaviour looks like and what they need to focus on in the future.
Try a handwritten note – something that stands out from a regular email and that you’ve put some effort in to
Don’t combine praise and criticism – if there are issues with performance raise them separately from the praise, otherwise the recipient with only focus on the criticism not the praise you’re trying to impart. People are wise to the ‘feedback sandwich’ now – good thing, bad thing, good thing – and can be waiting for the ‘bad’.
Present your own Oscars – why not get hold of a few statuettes or certificates to hand out to worthy winners. Having them around the office and pinned to notice boards can stimulate positive conversations and ensure that colleagues know why someone has been recognised.

After all, if it’s good enough for Kate, Sean and Danny, it’s good enough for you!

For more information on CHPD's leadership behaviours email info@chpd.com or visit our website http://www.chpd.com/

Leadership in turbulent times

2009-02-13T06:28:00.001-08:00

CHPD’s newly appointed MD Jim Tapper outlines the first of three themes that should inform the thinking and commercial approach of organisations in this severe downturn.

“The contribution of leaders to business success increases markedly during turbulent times. During these times negative factors that create drag on organisational performance become impossible to ignore or work around. An organisation that is lacking in cross-functional teamwork or has opaque processes that hinder the effectiveness of its people will soon find itself slipping behind the competition. In a deteriorating economic environment such as the one now prevalent across the globe, crises start to regularly impact on an organisation. Accordingly the need for business leaders to maintain focus on their performance while thinking flexibly and building confidence and engagement with their teams rises sharply.

Around 40% of an organisation’s performance is determined by the capability of its leaders. Studies such as Weiner and Mahoney (1981) and Day and Lord (1988) illustrate this clearly; leaders’ characteristics have a significant bearing on variation in sales, earnings and profit margins over time. With the pressure on leaders expected to last throughout this recessionary period, we have identified a number of solutions that can address the varied challenges faced by businesses today.

1. Building the capability of managers to deal with the crisis:
The capabilities required by leaders during the crisis must be aligned to the business strategy. This entails identifying aspects of their personality and preferences that will equip them with the self-knowledge to direct their efforts to where they are strong and build teams to cover the areas outside their core skill. They must develop the required High Performance Behaviours to be effective at a strategic and operational level, senior coaching and leadership simulations play a key role here. Promoting diversity of mind to foster enhanced collaboration is also essential. As pointed out by our executive chairman Chris Parry in a response to an article published recently in the Observer, the upper tier of organisations must be heterogeneous and diverse; otherwise there is the risk of a stifling uniformity of thought and outlook descending.

2. Targeted cost reduction, not blanket cost reduction:
Cutting costs to the bone without a clear idea of the outcome is counter-productive. It is vital to find out the skills sets of your people, perhaps with benchmarking and diagnostics, and then deploy them where they will be motivated and effective.

3. Consolidation and mergers:
Measuring who is ‘fit for purpose’ can enable the retention of high performers and those with high potential to lead during disruption. However, in a downturn the easy ways to make efficiency savings and streamline your operations disappear. Leaders need to be ready to make these tough decisions without undermining morale in an organisation as it undergoes rapid change.

4. Retaining and motivating the best people:
Give them incentives to retain engagement and feel valued when financial reward is not possible. Consider also whether sufficient career paths are open to those with different skills and aptitudes, there may be valuable capabilities in your talent pool that do not easily fit a very tightly defined management structure.

Finally the case for investing now:
- During the recession of the early 90s the companies who continued to invest in their people thrived. Prices were lower, customers were scarce and discounts were deep. There is a real opportunity to lock in investment cheaply and reap the benefits when the upturn comes and your competitors find the bargains have disappeared.
- Studies have shown that there is a correlation between objective measures (e.g. profitability, productivity) and subjective measures (e.g. engagement, performance ratings) – enhancing the latter supports the former.
- Become the predator not the prey – companies that survive and thrive are pro-active and quick to respond to maximise opportunities.

A last thought from a recent study: 91% of strong performing organisations surveyed have a system that identifies high potential people. Only 67% of the weaker performers do.”

That was the speech that was

2009-02-06T09:43:00.000-08:00

Having survived being stranded in Switzerland, our roving consultant Russell Deathridge finds it hard to condemn presidents past or present for buckling under the strain of office. Find out how hard...

Lesson In Nixon

On January 20th 2009 I found myself in the only part of Zurich airport that had neither TV nor internet access. So I could only imagine what Barak Obama’s inauguration speech contained. Working for a leadership development consultancy you can imagine my embarrassment. (“So, Russell, what’s your opinion of the new President’s strategic view of the global economic crisis?” - “Profound” was going to be my stock answer) Then I saw it. He fumbled the Oath of Office. What? Obama couldn’t repeat words just read out to him? Even George W. could do that! What a start.

By spooky coincidence a few days later the film Frost/Nixon opened. There he was – the famous hanging jowls, the receding hairline, the dark rings under the eyes. Oh and there was also Richard Nixon. Nixon left us more than a tawdry suffix to describe a scandal. He gave the world 'détente' and dialogue with China as well as some great hallowe’en masks. Both the film and the original interview show that his disgrace is in the end a tragic essay in self-deceit. His embarrassed squirming when trying to square the circle between 'cover up' and 'criminal cover up'; his evident discomfort at Frost’s brilliant research; his anger as a catalogue of his taped quotes are reeled off lead him to display his famous paranoia “why are you reading out just those bad sections?”

Throughout, Nixon refuses to accept his guilt and apologise, he only accepts one thing: that he “let down the country and my friends and for that I am sorry. And I will have to carry that guilt for the rest of my life”. Bizarrely I found myself moved by this grudging apology. Frost had forced the President to look into the true heart of his administration: and there he found that for all its’ soaring accomplishments the Nixon White House had achieved, quite simply, power beyond its integrity. The actual 1977 interview may not have been an incendiary confrontation in real life, but the film brilliantly shades the facts to bring out a dark truth.

Perhaps Obama’s fumbled swearing in will have a salutary effect on him. If the new President ever discovers the truism that 'power corrupts' his mind may turn to that moment last month when he tripped on the words “to execute faithfully the office of president of the United States and to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution”. After all Nixon’s swearing went smoothly.

Down We Go

2009-01-13T06:43:00.000-08:00

At last Dick gets the respect he deserves from his underlings

A fascinating article appeared in the Sunday Times In December giving an insider's view of the decisive contribution Dick Fuld made to the eventual collapse of Lehman Brothers. From our perspective, it is the clear deficiencies in some key High Performance Behaviours that is helpful in understanding how he went from hero to zero. The list includes; negative Information Search as Lehman executives filtered out all information except that which confirmed their inflated estimates of the company' worth, negative Influence as Fuld and his inner circle demonised anyone who challenged their view of events and negative Teamwork, with business units forced to become isolated or combatitive. Used aggressively in this way by a dominant boss, the negative behaviours became a destructive force.

When the downward spiral accelerated, Fuld's last resort was to berate the US government for not bailing the firm out, abdicating responsibility to the very end. Disagreeable even by the standards of the financial world many will be hoping to never see his like again on Wall Street.

Challenging conventional wisdom…revisiting women’s workplace initiatives

2008-11-28T03:42:00.000-08:00

Flash back, for a moment, to the early to mid-80s. That’s when many US businesses determined to get smarter about creating work environments that met women’s needs in order to retain more women and working mothers in particular.

So, various programs were implemented under the general rubric of 'women’s initiatives' including on-site day care, facilities for nursing moms, more flexible work schedules and so on. Eventually, many companies chose to broaden these programs (as appropriate) to men but, especially in industries where the retention of women is an issue (law and accounting firms, for example) these initiatives are still focused on primarily on retaining women.

Now flash forward to the present.

According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women currently make up about 48 percent of the labor force. In 1988, that number was 45 percent. More women make up more of the workforce and never has the demographic landscape been as diverse as today. Women workers represent more ethnic and religious groups, people of color, language groups, people with disabilities, etc. than ever before. But, it can be argued, that one of the most significant demographics factors among women in today’s workforce is generational.

There are four generations of women in the workforce today who, in many cases, hold very different views about work. It is our view that companies seeking to attract and retain women today need to revisit the women’s initiatives of yesteryear to ensure that they engage women across all generations.

A look at the breakdown below of the age groups among the four generational categories used by demographers illustrates this fact, especially if you consider the different phases of life that women experience within those age ranges and in those historical timeframes. For instance, a woman born at the beginning of the baby boom who climbed managerial ranks was most likely was a minority solely based on gender. In many jobs, pregnancy meant an end to a career. Compare her experience to female millenials who start out on almost an equal footing (insert salary data here) with their males peers and you can picture how different the experiences that shape their attitudes about work really are.

Millennials Born 1979–2000 Currently ages 25–29
GenXers Born 1965–1978 Currently ages 30–42
Boomers Born 1946–1964 Currently ages 43–61
Matures Born 1909–1945 Currently ages 62–68

In addition, consider the differences in attitudes about work based on the life experiences among each category. Many studies have underscored how these dynamics affect recruitment, retention and succession planning.

Baby Boomers: While very dedicated and loyal to work, are facing retirement. They also need more time to take care of the elderly and/or adult children moving back home and/or grandchildren.
Generation X: This group is willing to work hard, but have families with small children to worry about. Many of the family issues fall on their plates.
Generation Y: Are really focused on leisure time and living life to the fullest. They want time to learn and develop in the workplace but also have flexibility to explore other personal interests.

So, if your organization has a women’s initiative with the intent of attracting and retaining more female employees, this might be a good time to revisit it with the knowledge that women are as diverse a group as any subset of your workforce and what will work for one generational group may not work for another.

Here are some general steps to take and questions to ask:

Understand who your audience is. What does your workforce look like today? What will it need to look like tomorrow?
Ask your female population what really matters to them. What engages them? What will make them more productive? What will make them most likely to stay and make your company successful?
Develop programs accordingly. And, periodically ask, are they still fulfilling their intent?

Employment of women by age group

Age range Percent of population employed
16 to 19 years 37%
20 to 24 years 64.3%
25 to 34 years 69.5%
35 to 44 years 72.3%
45 to 54 years 73.6%
55 to 64 years 54.3%
65 and over 10.7%

Article written by Keyonda Williams from CHPD's US-based parent company Capital H Group.
Article originally published in Capital H Group's 'News You Can Use' 2008

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics [Link to http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2005.pdf]

Why leaders need to be good communicators.

2008-10-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

When it comes to a crisis, most leaders will put their heads down and get on with solving the problem. Once the problem is averted, then they'll share the news.

Few of us feel comfortable telling bad news, we prefer to communicate only the good. Yet this strategy of simply getting on with it can alienate people, leaving them with the feeling that they are in the dark.

We have found that in turbulent times, communication is even more important than ever. Leaders need to make critical decisions about: when to communicate, how to communicate and engage their audiences, and select the most appropriate median.

At CHPD, we coach leaders to become better communicators so they can instill greater confidence, squash rumours and eliminate misconceptions.

Communications is at the heart of effective leadership. Listen to Rachel Woolf share her thoughts on everything from recent media coverage at the Ryder club to the communication style of Gordon Brown.

Arsenal's X factor

2008-10-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

The difference between a functional team and a high performance team is something that we all grapple with. Why is it that some teams have that extra something? At CHPD, we work with all types of teams to measure that 'x-factor' and create the synergy and vision that leads to high performance.

One of our consultants, Anthony Sheldon, recently spotted an interesting article in The Independent about Arsenal's impressive start to the football season. The article included confidential details of a motivational briefing delivered to the players by a sports psychologist.

The briefing was on an A4 sheet of paper with just 224 words. Nine times in the opening two paragraphs the word "team" is used, while there is also an emphasis on being "strong", having "belief" and "keep going until the end".

The messages were clear and simple, covering areas such as playing positively, rather than specific tasks given to each player.

Similarly, the psychologist's briefing calls for the team to work together and uses such words as "driving force" and "dynamic".

It also makes observations on how the players should behave off as well as on the pitch calling for a "positive attitude" and a demand to "stay humble and grounded as a player and a person" which, again, reflects their youth. Nothing, it adds, should be taken "for granted".

CONFIDENTIAL Team meeting 19th September 2008-09-22:

The team:
A team is as strong as the relationships within it. The driving force of a team is its member's ability to create and maintain excellent relationships within the team that can add an extra dimension and robustness to the team dynamic.

This attitude can be used by our team to focus on the gratitude and the vitally important benefits that the team brings to our own lives. It can be used to strengthen and deepen the relationships with it and maximise the opportunities that await a strong and united team.

Our team becomes stronger by:

Displaying a positive attitude on and off the pitch
Everyone making the right decisions for the team
Have an unshakeable belief that we can achieve our target
Believe in the strength of the team
Always want more - always give more
Focus on our communication
Be demanding with yourself
Be fresh and well prepared to win
Focus on being mentally stronger and always keep going until the end
When we play away from home, believe in our identity and play the football we love to play at home
Stick together
Stay grounded and humble as a player and a person
Show the desire to win in all that you do
Enjoy and contribute to all that is special about being in a team - don't take it for granted

Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/revealed-arsenals-win-that-was-all-in-the-mind-938723.html

For more information about how we at CHPD develop teams, go to http://www.chpd.com/ourservices/teamdevelopment or email us at info@chpd.com and one of our team will contact you.

Leaders in Literature

2008-09-17T05:55:00.000-07:00

An interesting aspect of leadership that is rarely considered is inspirational leaders from fiction. Naturally these are idealistic prototypes as they don’t actually exist but a skilled author can really bring to life such characters to life, especially if they include traits they have seen in real life.

Here are a selection, heroes and villains that we used in pitching to a prospective client in the book industry.

Heroes

R P McMurphy, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, Ken Kesey

One man against a repressive system, he empowers the lunatics to take over the asylum. Is this a welcome analogy in business? If you do not manage wisely beware the rebellious post boy who brings your empire down.

Claudius, I, Claudius, Robert Graves

By allowing others to take him for a fool on no real evidence, Claudius arrives at the top and shows intelligence beats duplicity. Moral; you have to be clever to reach the top and even cleverer to stay there.

Dwight Towers, On The Beach, Nevil Shute

Faced with certain death after a nuclear holocaust, Towers is the submarine captain who gives his crew hope and a sense of purpose to the very end. Never giving up even when all seems lost is not an easy task.

John Blackthorne, Shogun, James Clavell

The ultimate example of going native, crazy John really thinks he is an all-conquering samurai warrior defending his honour and homeland. Unfortunately for them, so do his enemies.

Villains

Fu Manchu, Sax Rohmer

One of the better criminal masterminds in fiction (if a bit controversial today). Criminals need good generals too, and is there really so much difference between helming an investment bank and a secretive organisation bent on skulduggery on a grand scale?

Kurtz, Heart Of Darkness, Joseph Conrad

He's good at what he does but the ivory man is mad, bad and dangerous to know, if you can find him at Africa’s dark heart. Yet the mystery of whether he is a good leader in a bad situation is left tantalisingly unresolved.

Who's reading what?

2008-09-17T02:41:00.000-07:00

Tom Boyle, one of our senior consultants, offers his top reads for leadership and development.

Resistance is Useless - The Art of Business Persuasion - Geoff Burch. He is the 'anti-christ' of managment gurus - plenty of lessons and honesty about managing all done by stories and humour.

The One Minute Manager - Ken Blanchard

Anything by Peter Senge.

Russel Deathridge has been telling us all to read:
Six keys to charisma by Jo Kozubska.

How to predict performance

2008-09-16T08:15:00.000-07:00

We released our latest leadership assessment tool, Sentio, back in July of this year. Sentio predicts job performance and measures talent. The data from this assessment is being used for recruitment, talent management, promotion and development. Here's your opportunity to learn more about Sentio and the report that candidates get after they have completed the questionnaire.

What we're reading this week

2008-08-19T02:07:00.000-07:00

We asked our staff to tell us what they're reading this week. This is what they came back to us with:

Now Discover Your Strengths – a good insight (for a change) into discovering what you’re good at and remembering to focus on this as well as development areas.

The Wisdom of Teams – the best book on team theory and team building (ever).

Who Moved My Cheese – a little gem of a story around change management.

The Prince – a great (historical) overview of what under-handed and non-legit techniques one could adopt for a more coercive leadership style!

Diversity in the workplace

2008-08-19T01:48:00.000-07:00

As a white, middle-class man I find it less than entirely encouraging to think about diversity. Given my “majority” classification I probably should be prey to just about every prejudice out there. If only I were gay, or even just a bit bi-curious, my diversity credentials would be much improved.

I’m average height and weight, with no major psychological disturbances or better still, a Birmingham accent. I’d blame my parents if they weren’t well-adjusted, intelligent, nurturing individuals who didn’t have the courtesy to put me through a messy divorce and custody battle. I’m right-handed. Even my relative youth (I’m 30) is rapidly becoming ... less relative. In conclusion then I am possibly the most boring person you have ever not met: average in every way. I would like to see the organisation in which I was the diversity solution.

It is reflecting in this (extremely useful) way that led me to suspect that I might be missing the point on this whole diversity thing. Our human differences are important, I get that, and it is important to reflect the differences of our customers in our workforce. We’re trying to say, “Look, we’re just like you, whoever you are”. And psychologists will tell you that that will work; we are immediately attracted to people who seem to be similar to ourselves. Imagine spending the afternoon with yourself:

“You’re so right!”, “I know what you mean!”, “I couldn’t have put it better myself!”

What a balanced, sensible, intelligent, witty (not to say attractive) person you are: who could fail to enjoy that! The old saying “birds of a feather flock together” has some truth about it. We tend to be attracted to people who most closely approximate our physical appearance. So, back to our weird afternoon in the company of ourselves, perhaps lunching in a smart restaurant. Cosy and agreeable. And then armed robbers burst in and demand everyone’s money. You, being a dynamic, quick thinking individual decide to attempt a heroic citizens arrest, and looking to yourself for a second opinion get a rousing sense of encouragement – and you both leap into action. While you’re both busy getting better acquainted with the business ends of a selection of automatic weapons someone at another table muses, “what a shame those two brave people never noticed through the window the police already on their way into the building”.

The lesson is clear. If you take yourself out for lunch, you will probably get shot.

OK – not very useful, but bare with me for two seconds. Hopefully I have demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs that whilst to meet me you might think I am as non-diverse as it is possible to be, my brain, on the other hand, might not work in the same way as yours. You can tell this by locating your eyebrows. If they are further up your face now than they would normally be, you are experiencing some diversity, not of race, gender, sexuality or anything like that, but of thought and expression. And this is where diversity really begins to bite from a business point of view.

I spend my time working with leaders, individually and as groups, facilitating board meetings, coaching individuals and supporting their development. I do this across a wide range of industries and all around the world. The biggest threat I see to my clients is not change, (economic downturn, acceleration of technological advancement, emerging markets, changing customer needs etc.), but their response to it.

Darwin is often misquoted as proposing the “survival of the fittest”. What he actually put forward was “the survival of the most responsive to change”, i.e. the fastest and best at evolving to suit new conditions.

Let’s run a little example to make the point. At some point in the peacock’s evolutionary history females started liking males able to display their resistance to disease (that, incidentally is why peacocks have big tails). Had all male peacocks decided to do this with a little jig (something their customer base simply doesn’t like – ask any female peacock) then we would have none of the pretty little birds around today. Fortunately some experimented with a slightly gaudy tail, which did the job tremendously well. The result: the species is alive and well. The same applies to organisations.

If the whole board responds to a down-turn in the economy by reducing fixed costs and streamlining operations, (because they all agree unanimously that this looks like the sensible thing to do), then what about alternative approaches like raising capital, buying competitors, divesting whole product lines, expanding into new markets etc etc. Potential dodo-dom lies this way.

The challenge for leaders in organisations is that the diversity argument leads almost to a perfect contradiction. We like people who are like us – so in order to appeal to the maximum possible customer base we try and recruit a fully representative workforce. (Incidentally race, gender, orientation, age etc have no correlation with capability – if you’re still unsure about that…. I despair.) However, we can get great Diversity with no diversity, i.e. we all look different but think the same. This is even harder to spot because leaders will tend to recruit in their own (psychological) image. Recruiting people who think like you, behave like you and respond like you is extremely hard not to do, because you won’t end up thinking, “this person is just like me”, you’ll think, “this person is good, right, personable” etc. And say what we like – we often recruit/promote on personality.

Thinking similarly makes for an easy life, few arguments and more action, though arguably less sound, rounded, well considered decisions. Thinking divergently makes for more conflict and may take longer, but ultimately leads to better decisions. On a first meeting you may find these divergent thinkers difficult to get along with, but if you persevere you can form an excellent partnership. Humans understand this strange dichotomy because whilst “birds of a feather flock together”, “opposites attract”. This too is true, the best partnerships are formed on points of difference, not similarity.

Had I only taken my wife to lunch instead of myself. She would have held my arm for just a second and said, “wait, think, look around!”. And I wouldn’t have got shot after all.

If you’re concerned about convergent thinking in your management team (a good precursor of group think) then you can use the Centre for High Performance Development’s Leadership Orientations Questionnaire (LOQ) to find out just how diverse your thinking styles actually are. Are your team predominantly far sighted or near sighted; detail conscious or detail averse; factual or intuitive; risk averse or risk taking.

More often than not we find some severe bias in most leadership teams. This doesn’t mean you have to change the team (necessarily) but it does alert you to the fact that you may need to learn to watch for certain gaps or tendencies within the team.

The diversity debate encourages us to seek to minimise apparent differences between the internal world of our organisation and the make up of the external world and this is healthy and good. Possibly more importantly is the argument that diversity really lies in maximising the differences in management team’s thinking styles and approaches. Because with diversity comes a much better chance of survival.

Of course, the diversity debate would be a lot simpler if everyone just had the same understanding of what it was all about…

In the words of Homer, “Doh!”

Dan White, internal consultant, CHPD

The drama of leadership

2008-08-12T05:32:00.000-07:00

The use of live actors has become an increasingly popular form of learning and development as people have become more sophisticated and their expectations of training have changed. It’s certainly worth considering this type of training and our experience has been particularly positive when it comes to using drama in performance management training.

Drama is born of conflict and this allows us to explore workplace issues in a very real and immediate way. We can create debate and use it to stimulate delegates to examine, reflect and ultimately change their own behaviour. As a result, we can achieve greater engagement, greater empowerment, and greater results.

In training, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ scenarios are often used to inform and change workplace behaviour. The danger with such approaches is that we risk disconnecting people from the learning experience. Too often the scenarios described are simplified or generalised to the point that they bear little relation to the trainees’ own experience. This is where drama can really help.

The other advantage of using drama in performance management training is that we can get to the heart of contentious issues much quicker. You often find that conflict and debate are avoided in training programmes. Take forced ranking, for example, arguably one of the most contentious issues in performance management. It normally takes half a day to get to this issue.

Organisations will follow the unwritten rule (really presumption) that delegates need to be eased into this issue, despite the fact that it is one they are very familiar with. Through the use of drama, we can address this issue very quickly, explore and at times expose any misperceptions about it. This can be a very powerful experience for delegates.

Performance management is a constant cycle and dilemma of how to manage different types of people in different situations. As a manager, how do you set challenges and keep pushing and developing people to maintain the motivation?

For example, a manager may have an employee who's a ‘safe pair of hands’. He's an average performer meets his objectives but that's all he is doing. I probably hear more stories about this employee in my research than anyone else. Through drama, you can present the challenges for both the manager and the person. We can explore their emotions of frustration, confusion and anxiety. These aren't uncommon experiences; it's just that we don't see them presented in training very often. Drama allows us to do this.

When considering the use of live actors, it is important to:

Develop characters and scenarios that resonate with your audience. Conduct focus groups to identify the common challenges that people face.

Think of how your characters can evolve and change across the performance management cycle, so that rather than presenting right and wrong, focus on the dilemmas that people face and how they evolve and how they do this.

Clearly identify the behaviours that you want to see rather than focus on the information you want to give.

Drama is an opportunity to look at the subtleties of how people manage and to promote the practices and behaviours you want to promote as an organisation. Training courses will predominantly instruct; drama will allow you to engage your audience.

For more information about who we are and what we do, go to our website on http://www.chpd.com/