The best of 'frenemies'

'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

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

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/

Is Brown a bully in the workplace?

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.

"Turn again, Margaret"

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.

That was the speech that was

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.