Scene: a business simulation weekend outside Beijing, run by Cambridge Pragmatix with “Managing Business Today” (MBT), and with a single company group of managers from MND, a mining machinery company. The managers were drawn from MND’s senior teams in China, Thailand, and India. Although it was a well established simulation from a large range MBT have developed, some modification (translations for some of the sections of the board) to the standard simulation playing board have been made for the China market, but the language of the company and the simulation day was English.
An important feature of this version of the simulation was that it was credible for managers, some very senior, and was capable of realistic transfer into their own work world. This is not necessarily true of some other simulations, which limit the particpants' world view to say, a fruit business.
The most obvious early aspect of the simulation was that the facilitator needs substantial and in-depth knowledge of the game rules as well as of actually running it a good number of times in different situations. I suspect this is not something that can be quickly learned by a local licensee, and to an extent the credibility of the Cambridge Pragmatix / Managing Business Today simulation is therefore the quality of the person at the front of the room.
The Beijing facilitator on this occasion (flown out by Cambridge Pragmatix especially for the event) had to correct situations which only he could see were going to cause problems later on, and to know how to “roll back” from a decision by the teams. It was apparent that this is something that is in part handled by the well designed simulation, that has a degree of self-correction built in, but experience of running the process is essential. I doubt a start-up "localised" simulation provider could offer this degree of expertise, something worth bearing in mind if buying a simulation for a company.
It was also pretty obvious that there is a relationship between participant numbers and facilitation. To make the simulation come to life, one needs enough participants to make competing teams, but one cannot run with huge group sizes. In Beijing there were five teams of three and four people in each. This number of teams meant that a team of capable co-facilitators was needed. It would seem that in addition to an experienced facilitator, such co-facilitators are essential. The two from Cambridge Pragmatix working on this run of the simulation with Managing Business Today were able to handle a lot of the structure and transactions such as “the bank”, freeing the key facilitator to handle other issues and actually run the day.
The day (actually 2 – 3 days) really has to be very tightly structured, to ensure that the activity runs to a point of conclusion. At the same time, the participants need to learn the mechanics, or process of the simulation, and during day one they moved from conscious incompetence to conscious competence in the day. Again, the expertise of MBT and the Cambridge Pragmatix team showed through in making the simulation run to time, and at the same time to the right overnight point for day 1.
Senior managers, of whom there were several in the teams, have already exceeded "conscious competence" in many of the management skills they need to use at work. But they have to work within the environment of the simulation, so can’t fully use pre-acquired skills (such as business analysis) in the formative stages of "play". However, the relationship between the world of the simulation and that of the participants was well matched - they even named competing teams according to the real competitors in their sector, and were able to ascribe known business characteristics to these teams of competitors!
One of the things that often comes out with Management development is the way that managers get more pragmatic as they get older! The teams all have to buy into a degree of suspension of disbelief, and not spend time saying, “But actually, of course, we wouldn’t do that.” In work situations this pragmatism is a balance to the younger members of teams. But in the simulation situation, the less pragmatic will come up with remarks such as, “Oh, just spend a couple of `million and buy one!”, when really the case has not been well made. There is plenty of time for reflection on this behaviour and the consequences during the subsequent phases of the simulation.
The “world view” or “content” of the simulation also has an interesting dynamic when compared esimulations) the facilitator on this occasion (and to an extent the simulation itself) ruled out certain “content” which would affect the play. So for example in this version of the simulation the “workforce” represented zero cost, and another assumption was that the environment was tax-free. There was also an assumption that all the teams would start at the same financial position. But the simulation is capable of being skewed to represent established competitor positions, and so is applicable to real world learning needs. However, on this occasion changing the start position or the parameters would add complexity to the learning process that is not useful to the major objectives of the simulation.
Another of the characteristics of all training, (and of team building and role play in particular), is the what people learn outside the “taught content”. So for example, dominance and decision, making, impatience, analysis paralysis, are all visible to the participants and especially to the observer.
Whether these are brought out in the wrap up at the end is up to the facilitator and the commissioner of the day, and the purposes for which it is run. Naturally, with an established company team many of these incidental behaviours will not be a surprise, but with mixed company teams discovering these and their impact may be helpful learning capable of transfer back to the workplace along with other learning. This Managing Business Today simulation is also capable of use for, say competence assessment or language upskilling, but these might require a few adaptations to the realistic complexity it brings to business simulation as it is.
All in all, a very credible simulation, and one which engaged very senior managers for two days. Worth consideration if you are planning a management team build activity that doesn't involve trees and mud, and also produces strategiuc thinking. Not the cheapest, but value for money.
Tuesday
“I don’t suppose you remember the Beatles…”
Suppose you are in a strange town you need a bit of work done on your teeth, and you pop into the local dental business. While there you browse the magazines; “Punch” for 1964, the “Country Life” special issue on the Coronation, “Rave” magazine, featuring the Pretty Things. You then are called to the surgery – they don’t have an hygienist and the dentist greets you beside his chair, a creamy enamel contraption, leather seat, assorted brass fitments, and over it all, a collection of pulleys and drive belts that look as if they last saw action in Salts Mill. How’s your confidence quotient?
Do you have just the tiniest suspicion that this dentist may not be quite up to date? Do you also begin to have doubts about what he really knows about modern dentistry?
This last month I have been working on a stress reduction seminar. Touching on the matter of “Life Events”, and their contribution to the stressors we all carry around with us, I was using the fable of the camel and the final straw. You know? You do, don’t you? Surely? “It was the final straw that broke the camel’s back”. Yes, you knew it. I knew you would.
The thing is, many of the people I was casting my pearls before this month didn’t know it. Now, you can buzz away in the back of the pub all you like about, “School today eh? They don’t teach them like they used to!” But grumbling, although infinitely satisfying, does not address the real problem. Which is us.
The fact is often we are failing to get the message across because we are using a metaphor that is unknown to many of the audience. We are erecting a barrier for ourselves to overcome.
Several times a year I come across the enquiry about “a good video to use for Leadership Training”. And several times a year someone will recommend “In Which We Serve”. This movie, no this “film”, was made in 1942. It starred Noël Coward, Celia Johnson, John Mills, and Bernard Miles. All Dead. The story is loosely based on the exploits of Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten (dead). And over sixty years later, someone out there is seriously proposing that we use this to help us teach leadership to today’s team leaders? Good grief, the first challenge is to explain what World War two was, and who was on each side.
As trainers, our stories, our anecdotes, our references, have to be up-to-date to be credible. I heard someone the other day recommending “Chicken Run” for Leadership and Team building. That movie was released in 2000, so in ten years it’ll be about as current as “Spice World” is today. My dread is that in 2030, when I am well into my dotage, I’ll read on some internet message board that it is still being used as support material for Leadership and Team working. By then the trainer will have to explain what an aeroplane was, and possibly why people might want to eat chicken.
So I was thrashing around to find a modern metaphor for the stress in our lives, and that annoying thing happened to the computer that happens to computers, and that a computer user has to address by doing the thing that a computer user has to do – it froze. I hit the two buttons that bring up the list of processes and applications, and saw them, and realised, “This is my metaphor!” For down at the bottom was the “CPU Usage” bar, and gosh-oh-golly, it was bouncing around at 92% to 95%. Just like our resistance to stress when living this modern life – we simply have no spare capacity. Our CPU freezes and it has to be restored to functionality by a break, rest, holiday, and by closing down applications. We need to stop all the processes that are using up the capacity. “She just can’t take it, Captain!” (Another reference that is well past its use-by date).
I guess I’m saying this. If your training story, metaphor, example, begins with, “You might remember”; “There used to be”; “Some years ago”; or any variations on these, just stop right there. Go out, get some new stories. Or pretty soon you’ll be showing them “The Italian Job” and explaining what a bank was, or that Minis weren’t always German cars.
Do you have just the tiniest suspicion that this dentist may not be quite up to date? Do you also begin to have doubts about what he really knows about modern dentistry?
This last month I have been working on a stress reduction seminar. Touching on the matter of “Life Events”, and their contribution to the stressors we all carry around with us, I was using the fable of the camel and the final straw. You know? You do, don’t you? Surely? “It was the final straw that broke the camel’s back”. Yes, you knew it. I knew you would.
The thing is, many of the people I was casting my pearls before this month didn’t know it. Now, you can buzz away in the back of the pub all you like about, “School today eh? They don’t teach them like they used to!” But grumbling, although infinitely satisfying, does not address the real problem. Which is us.
The fact is often we are failing to get the message across because we are using a metaphor that is unknown to many of the audience. We are erecting a barrier for ourselves to overcome.
Several times a year I come across the enquiry about “a good video to use for Leadership Training”. And several times a year someone will recommend “In Which We Serve”. This movie, no this “film”, was made in 1942. It starred Noël Coward, Celia Johnson, John Mills, and Bernard Miles. All Dead. The story is loosely based on the exploits of Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten (dead). And over sixty years later, someone out there is seriously proposing that we use this to help us teach leadership to today’s team leaders? Good grief, the first challenge is to explain what World War two was, and who was on each side.
As trainers, our stories, our anecdotes, our references, have to be up-to-date to be credible. I heard someone the other day recommending “Chicken Run” for Leadership and Team building. That movie was released in 2000, so in ten years it’ll be about as current as “Spice World” is today. My dread is that in 2030, when I am well into my dotage, I’ll read on some internet message board that it is still being used as support material for Leadership and Team working. By then the trainer will have to explain what an aeroplane was, and possibly why people might want to eat chicken.
So I was thrashing around to find a modern metaphor for the stress in our lives, and that annoying thing happened to the computer that happens to computers, and that a computer user has to address by doing the thing that a computer user has to do – it froze. I hit the two buttons that bring up the list of processes and applications, and saw them, and realised, “This is my metaphor!” For down at the bottom was the “CPU Usage” bar, and gosh-oh-golly, it was bouncing around at 92% to 95%. Just like our resistance to stress when living this modern life – we simply have no spare capacity. Our CPU freezes and it has to be restored to functionality by a break, rest, holiday, and by closing down applications. We need to stop all the processes that are using up the capacity. “She just can’t take it, Captain!” (Another reference that is well past its use-by date).
I guess I’m saying this. If your training story, metaphor, example, begins with, “You might remember”; “There used to be”; “Some years ago”; or any variations on these, just stop right there. Go out, get some new stories. Or pretty soon you’ll be showing them “The Italian Job” and explaining what a bank was, or that Minis weren’t always German cars.
Wednesday
Disposable learning
An email from a friend in Argentian reminds me of a sequence my father and I used to play with. We were, even by my teens, talking about how the truth you are taught changes as you get older, and how successive teachers introduce you to "the truth"....
Primary School Teacher: "Well, little Johnny, I know your Mummy said so, but ....."
Middle School teacher:" Now then John, that won't do now that you're in middle school!"
Secondary Teacher: "James, That's childish nonsense! Go and read the text book"
Undergraduate Lecture: "You'll all have to get those silly school theories out of your heads"
Post Graduate supervisor: "Now you'll have a chance to find out what REALLY goes on, Jon....."
Dean: "And interesting little book Jim, a bit simplistic, but a good first attempt"
TV pundit: "Dr John clearly knows nothing about ......"
The truth is that we all suffer from the idea that learning is linear. It's not of course our idea, but an idea the teachers foist on us to protect their professional position. I can't blame them for that.
The linear argument is that "you can't learn that until you've learned this". It views learning as a ladder, of which each rung is the preserve of specially trained expert guides, and you are helped up it when your turn comes. So throughout your education you encounter new teachers who express amazement at how pathetic your edcation so far has been. "Now", they say, "we will teach you how it REALLY is!" That's because they judge everything from their rung of the ladder, and only see as "far down" as the rung at which they "take you on"
Linear learning is nearly always the most utter tosh. It doesn't stand even a cursory examination. Look.
One of the first things any child learns in school French is "S'il vous plait". a reflexive verb, which the linear thinking dictates you wouldn't learn until year 2. But you need "Please" at once, so you learn to use it at once.
It is only in the third year of your medical training that you learn about Malaria, its symptoms and treatments. It is in the first month of your job in Africa that, with no previous medical training, you learn all about it, what causes it, and how it is treated.
After much cross-disciplinary study, you find out that substantial improvement in the nitrogen content of the soil will greatly enhance the yield per acre of maize. As a listener to a radio gardening programme you learn in 30 seconds that putting a sardine into the hole before planting out the seedlings will make your "corn on the cob" grow like a triffid.
But teachers maintain the linear view. They have to, because they are also rewarded on that basis. Generally we value the university lecturer more than the primary teacher. We are paying them for how high they are on the ladder, for the time they have spent getting there. But really, it's the wrong way round. The people we should pay the most are those who make sure the child knows what a ladder is for, and how to climb it.
Primary School Teacher: "Well, little Johnny, I know your Mummy said so, but ....."
Middle School teacher:" Now then John, that won't do now that you're in middle school!"
Secondary Teacher: "James, That's childish nonsense! Go and read the text book"
Undergraduate Lecture: "You'll all have to get those silly school theories out of your heads"
Post Graduate supervisor: "Now you'll have a chance to find out what REALLY goes on, Jon....."
Dean: "And interesting little book Jim, a bit simplistic, but a good first attempt"
TV pundit: "Dr John clearly knows nothing about ......"
The truth is that we all suffer from the idea that learning is linear. It's not of course our idea, but an idea the teachers foist on us to protect their professional position. I can't blame them for that.
The linear argument is that "you can't learn that until you've learned this". It views learning as a ladder, of which each rung is the preserve of specially trained expert guides, and you are helped up it when your turn comes. So throughout your education you encounter new teachers who express amazement at how pathetic your edcation so far has been. "Now", they say, "we will teach you how it REALLY is!" That's because they judge everything from their rung of the ladder, and only see as "far down" as the rung at which they "take you on"
Linear learning is nearly always the most utter tosh. It doesn't stand even a cursory examination. Look.
One of the first things any child learns in school French is "S'il vous plait". a reflexive verb, which the linear thinking dictates you wouldn't learn until year 2. But you need "Please" at once, so you learn to use it at once.
It is only in the third year of your medical training that you learn about Malaria, its symptoms and treatments. It is in the first month of your job in Africa that, with no previous medical training, you learn all about it, what causes it, and how it is treated.
After much cross-disciplinary study, you find out that substantial improvement in the nitrogen content of the soil will greatly enhance the yield per acre of maize. As a listener to a radio gardening programme you learn in 30 seconds that putting a sardine into the hole before planting out the seedlings will make your "corn on the cob" grow like a triffid.
But teachers maintain the linear view. They have to, because they are also rewarded on that basis. Generally we value the university lecturer more than the primary teacher. We are paying them for how high they are on the ladder, for the time they have spent getting there. But really, it's the wrong way round. The people we should pay the most are those who make sure the child knows what a ladder is for, and how to climb it.
Tuesday
The rules of the game: writing work based projects for assessed courses
Over the years I have marked many "work based projects", and the main difficulties I have had in finding ways to pass candicdates have been because candidates just haven't followed the "rules of the game". Here they are.
Separate your "job" from the "project" . Your job, it is to be hoped, will go on long after the project you are reporting on. The challenge is to avoid distorting your job to produce your report, or to attempt to produce a project report that is simply "What I do at work". The project must be an identifiable and complete piece of work in itself.
So you need to select something as a project that can be defined as "finished" at the right time to report on it for your programme. In probability, given the time restraints, this will be a phase or sub-set of something you are working on, rather than the totality. You may have got as far as identifying the forces preventing change, or the problems that arise in the current situation. You may also have done some work on possible solutions. But it is unlikely you will have "finished". So define the project clearly for your marker as an identifiable part of the work you are doing that will be "finished" in the time scale. It never does any harm to specify your intended outcomes tightly, which also reduces the opportunities for people to say it's "unfinished".
The project also needs, absolutely needs, to demonstrate your application of the learning of the programme you have been on. It follows therefore that you really mustn't:
Do basic research. Really. You ought to know the major widely accepted and well known models, purely so that it isn't obvious you don't know them! You will find the internet is a fantastic source of useful information. And remember, it's only theft if you quote big chunks, quote without references, or claim as your own work that was actually done by a team at Wisconsin Hamburger College.
(Also useful can be to do an advanced Google search putting "files of type .ppt" in the box. This will return to you PowerPoint presentations from a wide range of organisations and managers who have worked on and presented to others in the area you are searching for. They are therefore effectively peer reviewed. You might not find the "Iowa State Library" relevant, but there will be in the presentation some basic, underpinning knowledge slides. And maybe some useful models and diagrams too. Another source is Wikpedia, but do be careful. The articles are not moderated, and can contain inaccuracies. Always triangulate Wiki articles with other sources. A final thought; enter "Training Course my search term" in the Google box. You will find in the online training catalogues programmes that give you a very good picture of the main issues a topic needs to cover. )
Remember you are on a Management or Leadership programme and your project has to reflect management and leadership work. You have to be really careful of the "technical expert problem". It is not a management project to describe the installation process for a citric acid plant in Selby. It is a management report if you are describing the people-management issues affecting your allocation of work, the contracting procedures you devised, the cost-benefit analysis you performed of locating the plant in Selby. (OK, the last is a bit far-fetched. York then.)
Do plan. A flipchart is helpful. When you set out your word count is like the first twenty minutes on the drive from London to Aberdeen, a long and daunting road. If you plan it, you will find it is actually made up of manageable sections, some quite short. It isn't really that horrible . But markers get as fed up with overlong reports as with underlength ones.
Get hold of the marking scheme. When the marker is trying to make sure they are neither favouring you nor being unfair, they will turn repeatedly to the scheme to validate the mark decisions they make. If the marking scheme says there are 5 marks for "Demonstrates understanding and application of motivational theories", then write a paragraph that clearly does this. Don't just write, "In establishing the process I used Maslow's Hierarchy of needs". Do write instead, "As many of the staff were feeling insecure, I addressed their concerns (at the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy) by stressing that the new processes would help to secure their jobs, and so protect their incomes". If the scheme says you should give targets and standards, give them, however feeble they may seem. Otherwise it will seem to the marker that you didn't bother. IF it says "Describes the candidate's role", describe it. "I am track hygiene officer at New Street staion" does not describe the role.
Ask. Ask. Ask. You have been given the luxury of tutor support for this piece of work, and say what you like about the tutor's strange taste in ties and the historical and distant past in which these poor creatures were students themselves, they do KNOW, you know? And on the whole, they like to help. Not to write the report for you, you understand, but to give you a nudge in the right direction, help out with a suggestion or two, point you to an idea. Ask them!
Separate your "job" from the "project" . Your job, it is to be hoped, will go on long after the project you are reporting on. The challenge is to avoid distorting your job to produce your report, or to attempt to produce a project report that is simply "What I do at work". The project must be an identifiable and complete piece of work in itself.
So you need to select something as a project that can be defined as "finished" at the right time to report on it for your programme. In probability, given the time restraints, this will be a phase or sub-set of something you are working on, rather than the totality. You may have got as far as identifying the forces preventing change, or the problems that arise in the current situation. You may also have done some work on possible solutions. But it is unlikely you will have "finished". So define the project clearly for your marker as an identifiable part of the work you are doing that will be "finished" in the time scale. It never does any harm to specify your intended outcomes tightly, which also reduces the opportunities for people to say it's "unfinished".
The project also needs, absolutely needs, to demonstrate your application of the learning of the programme you have been on. It follows therefore that you really mustn't:
- Submit a project that contains large amounts of work which was done before the course commenced. Ideally, the project will be something you started towards the end of the programme.
- Submit a project that doesn't demonstrate what you took the initiative for and did yourself. It cannot be about what the team did, although it can be about how you managed the team.
Do basic research. Really. You ought to know the major widely accepted and well known models, purely so that it isn't obvious you don't know them! You will find the internet is a fantastic source of useful information. And remember, it's only theft if you quote big chunks, quote without references, or claim as your own work that was actually done by a team at Wisconsin Hamburger College.
(Also useful can be to do an advanced Google search putting "files of type .ppt" in the box. This will return to you PowerPoint presentations from a wide range of organisations and managers who have worked on and presented to others in the area you are searching for. They are therefore effectively peer reviewed. You might not find the "Iowa State Library" relevant, but there will be in the presentation some basic, underpinning knowledge slides. And maybe some useful models and diagrams too. Another source is Wikpedia, but do be careful. The articles are not moderated, and can contain inaccuracies. Always triangulate Wiki articles with other sources. A final thought; enter "Training Course my search term" in the Google box. You will find in the online training catalogues programmes that give you a very good picture of the main issues a topic needs to cover. )
Remember you are on a Management or Leadership programme and your project has to reflect management and leadership work. You have to be really careful of the "technical expert problem". It is not a management project to describe the installation process for a citric acid plant in Selby. It is a management report if you are describing the people-management issues affecting your allocation of work, the contracting procedures you devised, the cost-benefit analysis you performed of locating the plant in Selby. (OK, the last is a bit far-fetched. York then.)
Do plan. A flipchart is helpful. When you set out your word count is like the first twenty minutes on the drive from London to Aberdeen, a long and daunting road. If you plan it, you will find it is actually made up of manageable sections, some quite short. It isn't really that horrible . But markers get as fed up with overlong reports as with underlength ones.
Get hold of the marking scheme. When the marker is trying to make sure they are neither favouring you nor being unfair, they will turn repeatedly to the scheme to validate the mark decisions they make. If the marking scheme says there are 5 marks for "Demonstrates understanding and application of motivational theories", then write a paragraph that clearly does this. Don't just write, "In establishing the process I used Maslow's Hierarchy of needs". Do write instead, "As many of the staff were feeling insecure, I addressed their concerns (at the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy) by stressing that the new processes would help to secure their jobs, and so protect their incomes". If the scheme says you should give targets and standards, give them, however feeble they may seem. Otherwise it will seem to the marker that you didn't bother. IF it says "Describes the candidate's role", describe it. "I am track hygiene officer at New Street staion" does not describe the role.
Ask. Ask. Ask. You have been given the luxury of tutor support for this piece of work, and say what you like about the tutor's strange taste in ties and the historical and distant past in which these poor creatures were students themselves, they do KNOW, you know? And on the whole, they like to help. Not to write the report for you, you understand, but to give you a nudge in the right direction, help out with a suggestion or two, point you to an idea. Ask them!
The leaders have arrived
Many of the leaders we need for a secure and prosperous future are already in the workplace.
Technically and occupationally competent, some of them have already been 'spotted' because of the respect they command through their technical abilities and their 'people skills'. They have perhaps already been promoted to the fast-growing category of 'team leaders'. Others will continue to arrive as the popularity of vocational options for a career grows, fostered by an explosive growth in the numbers of students being directed towards further and higher education. Every year City & Guilds alone accredits almost one million such individuals for their vocational skill and knowledge. More and more of these students are learning the basics of management along with their occupations. Alas, the basics of management, which may be all the management development that these vital new workers ever receive, do not go very far towards developing leadership competencies.
The combination of self-organising teams, the devolution of decision-making to the individual, and the widespread demand for lean and organic change, create a new demand for the development of pervasive, organisational leadership. Managers will, as ever, be responsible for the effectiveness of enabling frameworks for work, and these must be constantly reviewed to ensure the emergence of best practice and innovation. We must cease to regard leadership as what emerges when already-senior managers are sent off for a fashionable career break at a business school.
Effective leadership permeates the organisation. Not only do charismatic leaders inspire everyone in their organisations, but they also develop the qualities of leadership among others. Leadership is also firmly linked to innovation. A truly innovative organisation is not simply the product of effective management, but of leadership, vision and an ability to involve all the people in the excitement of new challenges.
Technically and occupationally competent, some of them have already been 'spotted' because of the respect they command through their technical abilities and their 'people skills'. They have perhaps already been promoted to the fast-growing category of 'team leaders'. Others will continue to arrive as the popularity of vocational options for a career grows, fostered by an explosive growth in the numbers of students being directed towards further and higher education. Every year City & Guilds alone accredits almost one million such individuals for their vocational skill and knowledge. More and more of these students are learning the basics of management along with their occupations. Alas, the basics of management, which may be all the management development that these vital new workers ever receive, do not go very far towards developing leadership competencies.
The combination of self-organising teams, the devolution of decision-making to the individual, and the widespread demand for lean and organic change, create a new demand for the development of pervasive, organisational leadership. Managers will, as ever, be responsible for the effectiveness of enabling frameworks for work, and these must be constantly reviewed to ensure the emergence of best practice and innovation. We must cease to regard leadership as what emerges when already-senior managers are sent off for a fashionable career break at a business school.
Effective leadership permeates the organisation. Not only do charismatic leaders inspire everyone in their organisations, but they also develop the qualities of leadership among others. Leadership is also firmly linked to innovation. A truly innovative organisation is not simply the product of effective management, but of leadership, vision and an ability to involve all the people in the excitement of new challenges.
The challenge of leadership - Jobsworth and his successors
In the British employment environment there often seems to be a strange tension between two apparently opposite beliefs. On one hand there is a move among many of the country's more 'progressive' organisations towards group and team-working, with a great emphasis on interpersonal skills, group dynamics, and, in many, that largely devalued term 'empowerment'. On the other hand there are the - too frequent - high profile disasters and corporate embarrassments that feature in the news pages rather than the business pages. Whenever these sad stories appear, blame falls like monsoon rain on the leaders of the organisations. Often the competence of these 'leaders' is called into question quite forcefully and publicly.
So is there a fundamental misunderstanding of the working of the organisation?
Some say that strong leadership, directed effort and respect for the authority of experience is the way to avoid corporate chaos. Certainly we seem at times to have a catastrophic lack of leadership in some very important and prominent organisations. But there are others who loudly proclaim that the best, indeed only hope for the future lies in more teams, and more interactive teams, better collective decision making, greater workforce 'democracy' and in meaningful 'empowerment'. This cunning suggestion of such stark alternatives implies that the question is legitimate. But it is really a failure to address the important issue, which is that problems are seldom due to a lack of leaders - or at least would be leaders - they are due to a lack of leadership.
A precise definition of leadership is often seen as problematical, but if one seeks a consensus, agreement of around 75% of the required competencies emerges. Leadership involves, in rather dry terms, visioning, establishing direction, developing strategies, communicating, inspiring, motivating and empowering. Or in more basic terms, leadership is seeing what the future should be, ensuring that others 'buy in' to the vision and enabling everyone to contribute to the achievement of the vision. Clearly then, leadership is not 'management re-badged'. True, there are aspects of leadership in effective management in terms of the need to motivate others. There must be elements of management in leadership, or nothing would ever get done. But leadership has a particular set of competencies to which we as a nation need to pay more attention.
Leadership is not like one of those exotic plants that suddenly appear in the midst of wasteland; it doesn't thrive on neglect. Unless some steps are taken to cultivate it, leadership will not grow. At the least, leadership needs the environment to be turned into something approaching a growing environment. Like any hardy plant, it doesn't ask for a rich loam, just a decent chance to grow.
Over the years we seem to have turned many of our workplaces into environments that have stifled the seeds of leadership. Looking back, some of these stifling factors can be readily identified. In the middle of the last century we had a generation of managers who came from 'National Service'. With them came 'never volunteer!' - old soldiers never volunteered, because they had learned that in a hostile world volunteering exposed them to danger. In the workplace of the latter half of the twentieth century, security was widely seen as more important than change. Undoubtedly this keen concentration on static 'security' by many managers in ponderous organisations contributed to the decline of the UK's manufacturing base in the late twentieth century.
It is one of the challenges of the twenty-first century that we will have to learn to manage in the fastest changing, highest pressure work environment ever known without the experience of many of these same managers, managers who, whatever their 'negative tendencies', nevertheless steered so many of our country's businesses through the exceptionally turbulent waters of corporate and industrial restructuring of the late twentieth century. The desire to keep a steady course is the positive and desirable face of a characteristic that can otherwise be called ponderous and adverse to change. Many of the new managers of today have only known the good times; they will need help to deal with some challenges we can't even imagine at present, but which will surely emerge during their tenure.
Back in the 1970s, another characteristic of industry brought with it, amongst a number of equally amusing epithets, 'mushroom management', or 'the management keep us in the dark and periodically shovel horse manure on us'. Too many workforces arrived at too many factory gates only to discover they had been sold, closed or abandoned through no fault of their own.
This created huge cynicism, and meant that many workforces never knew what the decisions being taken were, or why, or how. In most cases, not even the information on which these decisions were based was available to the people that mattered, the workforces. The fashionable position that 'our major asset is our people' partly addresses this, but some of its characteristic 'solutions', such as misdirected empowerment by unreconstructed employers have not helped to develop the right environment for leadership to emerge.
Another anti-leadership factor running through the past forty years, like a much loved but fatally flawed TV personality, is our old friend 'Jobsworth'. Jobsworth made absolutely sure that they could not be blamed if anything went wrong, even if by doing so they ensured that nothing ever changed for the better. It is interesting today to see HR departments desperately endeavouring to create a climate in their organisations where people are not singled out as scapegoats when inevitably some mistakes are made in the faster changing climate of today's workplace. The weasel words 'no blame culture' are trotted out too often by managers who will still unhesitatingly point the finger of blame at someone else when things go, to borrow a term from the twentieth century, 'pear-shaped'.
At the start of this new century we need leadership more than ever. It is effective leadership which will enable workers to make the best use of their skills and knowledge that is growing faster than at any time in the past. The new skills and knowledge enables us to do things we never dreamed possible, many of which are desirable, some of which we should, with good leadership, decide never to use.
So is there a fundamental misunderstanding of the working of the organisation?
Some say that strong leadership, directed effort and respect for the authority of experience is the way to avoid corporate chaos. Certainly we seem at times to have a catastrophic lack of leadership in some very important and prominent organisations. But there are others who loudly proclaim that the best, indeed only hope for the future lies in more teams, and more interactive teams, better collective decision making, greater workforce 'democracy' and in meaningful 'empowerment'. This cunning suggestion of such stark alternatives implies that the question is legitimate. But it is really a failure to address the important issue, which is that problems are seldom due to a lack of leaders - or at least would be leaders - they are due to a lack of leadership.
A precise definition of leadership is often seen as problematical, but if one seeks a consensus, agreement of around 75% of the required competencies emerges. Leadership involves, in rather dry terms, visioning, establishing direction, developing strategies, communicating, inspiring, motivating and empowering. Or in more basic terms, leadership is seeing what the future should be, ensuring that others 'buy in' to the vision and enabling everyone to contribute to the achievement of the vision. Clearly then, leadership is not 'management re-badged'. True, there are aspects of leadership in effective management in terms of the need to motivate others. There must be elements of management in leadership, or nothing would ever get done. But leadership has a particular set of competencies to which we as a nation need to pay more attention.
Leadership is not like one of those exotic plants that suddenly appear in the midst of wasteland; it doesn't thrive on neglect. Unless some steps are taken to cultivate it, leadership will not grow. At the least, leadership needs the environment to be turned into something approaching a growing environment. Like any hardy plant, it doesn't ask for a rich loam, just a decent chance to grow.
Over the years we seem to have turned many of our workplaces into environments that have stifled the seeds of leadership. Looking back, some of these stifling factors can be readily identified. In the middle of the last century we had a generation of managers who came from 'National Service'. With them came 'never volunteer!' - old soldiers never volunteered, because they had learned that in a hostile world volunteering exposed them to danger. In the workplace of the latter half of the twentieth century, security was widely seen as more important than change. Undoubtedly this keen concentration on static 'security' by many managers in ponderous organisations contributed to the decline of the UK's manufacturing base in the late twentieth century.
It is one of the challenges of the twenty-first century that we will have to learn to manage in the fastest changing, highest pressure work environment ever known without the experience of many of these same managers, managers who, whatever their 'negative tendencies', nevertheless steered so many of our country's businesses through the exceptionally turbulent waters of corporate and industrial restructuring of the late twentieth century. The desire to keep a steady course is the positive and desirable face of a characteristic that can otherwise be called ponderous and adverse to change. Many of the new managers of today have only known the good times; they will need help to deal with some challenges we can't even imagine at present, but which will surely emerge during their tenure.
Back in the 1970s, another characteristic of industry brought with it, amongst a number of equally amusing epithets, 'mushroom management', or 'the management keep us in the dark and periodically shovel horse manure on us'. Too many workforces arrived at too many factory gates only to discover they had been sold, closed or abandoned through no fault of their own.
This created huge cynicism, and meant that many workforces never knew what the decisions being taken were, or why, or how. In most cases, not even the information on which these decisions were based was available to the people that mattered, the workforces. The fashionable position that 'our major asset is our people' partly addresses this, but some of its characteristic 'solutions', such as misdirected empowerment by unreconstructed employers have not helped to develop the right environment for leadership to emerge.
Another anti-leadership factor running through the past forty years, like a much loved but fatally flawed TV personality, is our old friend 'Jobsworth'. Jobsworth made absolutely sure that they could not be blamed if anything went wrong, even if by doing so they ensured that nothing ever changed for the better. It is interesting today to see HR departments desperately endeavouring to create a climate in their organisations where people are not singled out as scapegoats when inevitably some mistakes are made in the faster changing climate of today's workplace. The weasel words 'no blame culture' are trotted out too often by managers who will still unhesitatingly point the finger of blame at someone else when things go, to borrow a term from the twentieth century, 'pear-shaped'.
At the start of this new century we need leadership more than ever. It is effective leadership which will enable workers to make the best use of their skills and knowledge that is growing faster than at any time in the past. The new skills and knowledge enables us to do things we never dreamed possible, many of which are desirable, some of which we should, with good leadership, decide never to use.
The project as Jigsaw Puzzle
The other day, working with an Action Learning Set who had a project to sort out, I was struck by a metaphor. Not literally struck, you understand, but metaphorically struck. And it seemed to me it was a very useful metaphor for the way groups work on joint projects. See if you agree.
Choosing the puzzle. Everyone has their preferences. Some like big scenes, some like small pictures. There are preferences for people and places, for movement and still life. Some like the historic puzzle, and some the futuristic image. Some people, not really fans of the jigsaw, or perhaps new to the game,
go for puzzles with big, easy to handle pieces. Others, perhaps with more experience, or simply for reasons of masochism, prefer the huge "thousand piece" puzzles, with their small, intricate pieces.
In determining the group puzzle therefore, all the players will put their cases, and a great deal of time will be spent determining which is done. Sometimes this will be by a process of consensus, sometimes a dominant player will take the lead, and others will acquiesce, later only giving "assent of convenience" to the activity. After all, they wanted "the one with the dogs", and the special shaped pieces! The danger is that during the activity, this disagreement will re-surface, and possible attempts will be made to put the selected puzzle back in the box - even if partly completed - and select another one.
Strategies for doing the puzzle. These include such basic issues as whether all members work together, all the time, or whether each "takes a section". Do the group divide the task into activities like sorting and placing, or do they all contribute as and when they can? are some people better at sorting, some at placing? If the later, does that mean it's OK for them to go off to the pub in the quiet moments?
Coherence. How do the team make sure one of the group is not quietly working away on the same pieces that another of person needs? Are the group going to assign some members to do the edges, the sky, the sea, and other features, or is the plan to group together pieces by colour and texture first, then see where they fit in ? What is the protocol for connecting pre-assembled sections and pieces ? Is it OK to force them into place, or may sections have to be taken apart in order to get them into the space they are needed in? How do people feel about their work being broken up and re-assembled?
Distribution of work. Is there enough work to go round? After all, the table is only so big. Many hands may not necessarily make it go faster, there will be times when one player sees that another has the pieces he wants. What is the protocol for combining these pre-assembled groups of pieces ?
The big picture. Who is going to direct, to oversee the progress, who, if you like, is going to keep looking at the box and making sure the individuals all have contributions that fit logically into the big picture on the lid? And who is responsible for making sure it all stays steady, and in place? Most of all, who is watching the clock?
Of course, with a project, unlike a jigsaw, the final assembled work will be capable of distribution. It does not need to be taken apart again ! But equally important, it needs people to look at it, and admire it. And that won't happen if there are big, obvious pieces missing that you only noticed at the end.....
Choosing the puzzle. Everyone has their preferences. Some like big scenes, some like small pictures. There are preferences for people and places, for movement and still life. Some like the historic puzzle, and some the futuristic image. Some people, not really fans of the jigsaw, or perhaps new to the game,
go for puzzles with big, easy to handle pieces. Others, perhaps with more experience, or simply for reasons of masochism, prefer the huge "thousand piece" puzzles, with their small, intricate pieces.
In determining the group puzzle therefore, all the players will put their cases, and a great deal of time will be spent determining which is done. Sometimes this will be by a process of consensus, sometimes a dominant player will take the lead, and others will acquiesce, later only giving "assent of convenience" to the activity. After all, they wanted "the one with the dogs", and the special shaped pieces! The danger is that during the activity, this disagreement will re-surface, and possible attempts will be made to put the selected puzzle back in the box - even if partly completed - and select another one.
Strategies for doing the puzzle. These include such basic issues as whether all members work together, all the time, or whether each "takes a section". Do the group divide the task into activities like sorting and placing, or do they all contribute as and when they can? are some people better at sorting, some at placing? If the later, does that mean it's OK for them to go off to the pub in the quiet moments?
Coherence. How do the team make sure one of the group is not quietly working away on the same pieces that another of person needs? Are the group going to assign some members to do the edges, the sky, the sea, and other features, or is the plan to group together pieces by colour and texture first, then see where they fit in ? What is the protocol for connecting pre-assembled sections and pieces ? Is it OK to force them into place, or may sections have to be taken apart in order to get them into the space they are needed in? How do people feel about their work being broken up and re-assembled?
Distribution of work. Is there enough work to go round? After all, the table is only so big. Many hands may not necessarily make it go faster, there will be times when one player sees that another has the pieces he wants. What is the protocol for combining these pre-assembled groups of pieces ?
The big picture. Who is going to direct, to oversee the progress, who, if you like, is going to keep looking at the box and making sure the individuals all have contributions that fit logically into the big picture on the lid? And who is responsible for making sure it all stays steady, and in place? Most of all, who is watching the clock?
Of course, with a project, unlike a jigsaw, the final assembled work will be capable of distribution. It does not need to be taken apart again ! But equally important, it needs people to look at it, and admire it. And that won't happen if there are big, obvious pieces missing that you only noticed at the end.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
