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

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

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.

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

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