Agents2Change - Smart Business Thinking

All Change is personal - so put the personality back into change management

Anyone in business or part of a large organisation will not have escaped the rise and rise  of change management programs, they are everywhere.  Executives fret over doing it ‘right’ and employees fret over having it ‘done’ to them.  But ask anyone to describe what it is and we often find that there is little consensus of opinion.

It was Heraclitus that said ‘Change is the only Constant’ as we see in the ever changing seasons in nature.  And yet it is the very act of change that seems to be so difficult for organisations, and the larger the organisation, the more difficult that change appears to be.  Yet the view of the ‘status quo’ is only an illusion that we cling to.  For the organisation that you step into today is not the same as the one that you worked at yesterday, even if on the surface everything appears as it was; indefinable changes in people, processes, customers or products have occurred in the intervening hours between one dawn and the next.

We do of course have to use the logical tools of change management (roadmaps, project plans, gap analysis etc.)  to make things happen when we want to effect a change in direction or performance, but only in as much as it is the navigation tools that help us along our journey.  The real change has to happen in the hearts and minds of the individual, there has to be an intention to change for it to be successful.

 

The important dialogue that needs to occur is around some fundamental questions such as:

• What is getting in the way of us making these changes? 
• What are we holding onto in terms of core beliefs, attitudes or ritualised behaviours that gets in the way of making these changes?
• Why do our people not feel empowered to make the required changes?

 

In organisations big and small it can often come down to issues such as:

 

1. A parent to child relationship between the employer and the employee –  a ‘we tell you do’ attitude that is pervasive though every level of management
2. Blame is the default reaction to problems – there is little or no tolerance to good old fashioned human error.  In fact it is preferred that mistakes are glossed over rather than unearthed and learnings taken from them.  It is more important in this type of culture for managers and leaders to ‘save face’ rather than hold open a discussion on potential shortcomings.
3. A belief that nothing can ever go wrong – this is particularly strong in growing organisations or those that have not yet plateaued.  A feeling of invincibility pervades the culture often resulting in early warning signs being filtered out until the issues start to seriously harm internal performance or customer loyalty.

But if we view change management as an organic process, we can see a more holistic and encompassing approach to managing change; one that is based on clear simple changes at the individual level of leaders, managers and operators.  By focusing on tangible steps, new patterns of working and allowing time for reflection and tolerance for mistakes, it is possible to create the momentum for change and give people the confidence to take the risks, make the decisions and try out new and unchartered paths.  This can be done by:

• stating the reasons for change, what the journey will look like and why the destination is better than the current position and sharing this honestly with all employees in simple and engaging terms,
• giving employees every opportunity to get involved and make things happen (and that also means not overcrowding the space with external experts – speaking as one) and taking some chances on the untested talent that comes forward,
• regularly informing employees of how progress is made, sharing the good, the bad and if necessary the ugly stories, so that they understand and can continue to feel engaged in the process.

What do you think?  Have you examples of change management from your organisations or projects that you would like to share here?

Agents2Change specialises in Change Management, Implementation and Performance Management.  For more information visit us at www.agents2change.com

Is your Performance Management System up to the job?

 

Many global organisations have a very robust and well thought out performance management system.  Typically it will include technical competencies, behavioural competencies, have a rating scale and be linked to an end-year calibration process.  And yet many of these same organisations find that the results seem to add up to less than the sum of the parts. 

But surely I hear you ask, if they follow the process and set the goals, the results will follow?  But somehow the goals get watered down or become detached from the strategic intent as they trickle down through the layers of management from the CEO to the grassroots worker.   The overarching strategic goals are somehow lost in the cascade process and the year-end results fail to hit their target. 

For performance management to underpin and achieve strategic goals a more holistic approach needs to be taken, one that rewards the greater efforts of the whole and not just the a few outstanding individuals.  For example:

• To rate or not to rate – that is the (frequently asked) question.  The answer depends on your organisation and culture.  Ratings are good and do give an easy way to compare across teams and occupational groups.  But other levers could be equally useful, such as performance of profit centres, talent management processes and 360 degree appraisals. Rather than get bogged-down in the debate about whether they are needed or not, think about what data will help you to make effective decisions and reward high performers.
• Data-driven decisions – Executives cannot hope to make informed decisions about performance, reward and succession unless they have good data to support them.  Investing in a good performance management system – some of which are quite affordable with the new SaaS (Software as a Service) model, can ensure that performance is taken in the round, against variables across the organisation and linked to overall achievement of strategic goals.
• Transparency motivates performance – Some of the reasons that performance management systems fail comes down to a lack of consistent reinforcers.  If employees cannot see a clear link between performance and success and its converse – poor performance and failure, then they are less likely to go the extra mile to achieve something extraordinary.  Why should they if no one notices?  So ask yourself if the relationship between effort and reward is clear in your organisation.  If you find yourself scratching your head for the answer then it’s time to rethink your succession and promotion processes.

Performance management at its best is hard-wired into the way things are done within an organisation.  Feedback about performance is not left until the review meeting but becomes part of the natural ebb and flow of conversations.  Goals are not poorly thought out tasks to get the dreaded yearly goal setting form out of the way, but are clearly linked to what the organisation has set out to achieve.  The best performance management systems give employees a sense of purpose and room to grow and develop in their current role, whilst having their sights firmly set on their next role.  If you can say that these qualities are evident in your organisation, then it sounds like you have a performance management system that lives and breathes the values of your organisation, rather than something that is done to you. 

Agents2Change is a specialist implementation consultancy that has been improving the performance of global organisations since 2006.  For more information visit www.agents2change.com.

Is Smart better than Wise?

Today’s companies – especially global players, tend to be run by people with MBAs and other lofty qualifications, many of top of the range educational institutions. But does all this education bring wiser decisions and better leadership of companies? If we look at the rise and fall of many major players over the last decade it would suggest that more than education is needed to make a success out of business.

Smart is about the command of Rational Intelligence; the ability to view a wide range of information, pick the most relevant for the situation and arrive at conclusions.

But what about being wise - a term that is not commonly used in the Corporate world, what does that entail? The subtleties of the difference are in how a wise person is ready to respond and not just interpret. Wise people have a sense of criticality, which means they will often ignore events that others seem intent on playing out, whilst addressing areas that are left ignored and unnoticed by others. This sense of criticality comes down to a more holistic thinking pattern; in being able to think through the implications, and the consequences (intended and unintended) before taking a course of action.

Modern leadership development however seems to rely almost entirely on the formal education process as THE way to develop Leaders. But more and more criticism at this Silo approach to Leadership which only focuses on the ‘Smart’ aspects of development is being raised. 

But can we have one without the other? We can have Smart without wise as is seen in many corporations that meet their downfall, due to the maverick (aka Smart) leaders at their Helm. Think Lehman Brothers, RBS (UK).

But can you have Wise without Smart? This is much harder to achieve. Certainly all of us will have met very wise people who have not gone through a formal education process and yet excel in their field. But I have never met a wise person who is not naturally curious. Wise people expend considerable effort in educating themselves in their chosen field. Think – Richard Branson, who without formal education has built one of the biggest brands in the world.

Some of the best ways to separate the wise from the smart is observing them in situations. How do they react to sudden changes of plan, such as an important meeting that has been cancelled at the last minute? Or how do they deliver difficult news to their team? When the pressure is on, where do they spend their time? Is it on their computer firing off emails, or is it with their team looking at options to relieve the pressure?

Of course some of this suggests that Smart people are always self-serving and Wise people are in service of the overall goal. Whilst life is never as simple and clear cut as this, there is something to be learned from observing your behaviour and those around you and asking – who am I really serving here and is this the right place to be investing my energy? This reflection alone will get you one step closer to wise.

Do you have observations and comments on the differences in Wise or Smart people. We would love to hear your comments here. Or contact us at: [email protected]

Related articles

Conscious Leadershp - some wise words from Deepak Chopra

The Rise of the Corporate Bully

What Does a Wise Man Do?

Distance From a Conflict May Promote Wiser Reasoning

Look beyond the skills, see the soul

Deepak Chopra is a hugely influential figure in the fields of Leaderships, self awareness and well being.  In this article he challenges the way that we find new talent for our organisations. 

Chopra reminds us that recruitment is not just a match of skills to role, but a connection of a people to an organisation, its culture and its values.  Here he gives us some great questions to consider when next recruiting. 

 

Since my life's work has always focused on self-awareness and well being, I have made those two attributes the criterion for people I want to work with. In my course, The Soul of Leadership, I advise employers not only to get references and bios from prospective employees, but also to engage with them before hiring in creating a "Soul Profile". Here are the questions that we ask when we create a soul profile:

via www.linkedin.com  

Take a look at the full article here.  Does this resonate with you?  Are these the type of questions that you can imagine asking of your candidates.  Type a comment here.  Or if you want to know more about how we can help you to get a soul based approach to recruitment, management and leadership, contact us at [email protected]. 

Conscious Leadershp - some wise words from Deepak Chopra

We spend a lot of time here discussing the behaviours of leaders and looking to how they can engage better with their poeple and be more effective as decision makers.

Much of the challenge for modern executives is the lack of any time to reflect; to think; and to weigh up options  before acting.   What are really essential attributes to be able to function well are viewed by many as luxuries that they can't afford.  The difficulty with this mindset is the negative impact it has on the person and on their organisation's performance.  Something we are all too readily reminded of by the global crisis caused by the unthinking actions of key executives across the banking and financial community. 

In his article, Deepak reminds us that if you examine the rise of a typical leader, the ability to look and listen decreases as power increases. That's a trend you need to be aware of. At the outset, a future leader often rises out of a group to present a grievance or to offer a new idea or way of doing things. Hands-on experience motivates him (or her), and the group supports his efforts because they recognize a need to be fulfilled.

 

But leaders at the top are often enmeshed in corporate politics and insulated by immediate aides. The notorious White House bubble that isolates presidents also encloses any leader who lives inside a small circle. Here are some pointers about looking and listening all the way up the ladder.

Read more ..

 

About us:

Agents2Change specialises in organisational change and implementation and supporting leaders to do this in an engaging and energetic way.  We would love to hear your feedback on tihs or any other issues and we can be reached on : [email protected]

 

 

Authentic Leaders Only - Apply Within

Authenticity is one of those words that is bandied around quite a lot these days, almost to the point where it loses credibility.  But before you are tempted to throw it in the ‘new age mumbo jumbo’ bucket, let’s just take a few minutes to consider its relevance for the modern business leader.

 

Today’s leaders are under constant pressure to perform, to engage their staff and to communicate to their shareholders.  It is far greater than anything that was experienced by leaders of the last century.  With the global economic crisis, this pressure has intensified considerably, as we see the fall of major corporations like Lehman Brothers, the finger has pointed not only to the policies and strategies of the corporation, but also the behaviours and characters of their leaders.

 

Authenticity is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘of undisputed origin’.  The word originally comes from the Greek word ‘Authentikos, meaning  'principal or genuine'.

 

If the global crisis had taught us anything it is the need to be principled and genuine in business.  Leaders of today’s global organisations need to be able to display a consistent set of behaviours and values that reflect steadfast and reliable principles in how business should be done, if they are to rebuild trust in their institutions and regain the support of their shareholders.

 

Qualities associated with Authenticity include:

 

• Being a really good listener – Authentic people know how important it is to understand and acknowledge other people’s perspectives.  This does not mean agreeing with everyone.  In fact most studies on engagement and communication show that acknowledging differences in opinion heightens rather than diminishes trust.
•  Admitting your limitations – Authentic leaders know that they are not super-human and therefore understand that creating an illusion of being all-knowing is a recipe for disaster.  Acknowledging your limitations openly has a counter-intuitive effect, in that it enhances people’s perceptions of your abilities.  Why?  Because you have displayed self awareness, one of the highest character traits for the authentic leader.
• Empowering others to be creative - Authentic leaders are really good at creating an environment of engagement and participation; it is second nature to them.  They do this because their leadership style is not driven by a power-hungry ego.  Instead, they see power, status and control coming through sharing responsibility across a wide network of players. 
• Deeds and words are in sync – perhaps the most important rule of them all for the authentic leaders is sticking to his or her word.  Reliability in actions is the ‘killer’ ingredient.  It only takes one or two slips on your promises to lose huge ground in the trust of your people. 

 

If you have some experience of authentic leaders, or the impact of not having authentic leaders, please do share your comments below.

 

If you would like to hear more about how our coaching packages can help you to become a more authentic leader, contact us at:  [email protected], for a free, no obligation chat.

 

We can also provide public speaking engagements on the subject of authenticity.  Contact us at:  [email protected].

The Rise of the Corporate Bully

One of the things that we have observed in our work is the rise of the corporate bully.  Bullying in the workplace has the same characteristics to the playground bully, and the motivations of the bully are also similar, but as they are masked in adult behaviour, they can often be ignored or even encouraged by organisations.

Why, I hear you ask, when so much evidence tells us that supportive and engaging leaders achieve more and get far greater levels of commitments than a bullying leader, would organisations encourage such behaviour?

One word – Fear.  The playground bully is a child that feels compelled to bully because he or she feels fearful.  This may be because they are not very smart in the classroom, or they observe dominant and bullying behaviours at home.  They bully to gain power and control.  They crave this because at a deeper level, at the sub conscious, they do not feel worthy of love or respect, and therefore believe that if they can’t have both, they will settle for respect, or at least what they misconstrue as respect. 

Those very same feelings that are observable in the school child of 10 or 12 years old, are virtually identical to those motivations behind the senior corporate bully.  The head of marketing who insists on humiliating under-performing team members; The Head of IT that shouts and screams when team members have missed an important deadline; The Head of Finance that forces his or her team to work late to fix accounting issues to ensure a positive report to the Board, each and every one of them is driven by an innate sense of their own unworthiness or likeability.  They mask the deep hole that these feelings bring by creating fear, distrust and keeping everyone at a distance.

But what of the bosses of these bully managers?  What motivates them to tolerate this behaviour, even if they personally do not sign up to such tactics?  The answer also brings us back to the same issue – fear.  Whilst their fear is not wedded to their sense of self, it is linked to poor organisational performance, a track record of poor delivery and a belief that something is needed to turn this around.  Often exacerbated, they turn to the corporate bully to pull everyone up by their boot-straps to ‘get us out of this mess’.  But does such a strategy work?

According to the CIPD bullying cost UK businesses over £2billion per year (2005 CIPD report).  A workplace bullying survey found that over 38% of Americans have reported bullying at work.  Corporate performance does not fare well in bullying environments.  In fact the losses may be even higher than some estimates have suggested, if we factor in reduced creativity, low morale, and increased turnover — all factors that weigh heavily on the bottom line.

Strategies to help you or your team if bullying is a factor:

• Have your targets and delegated duties written down.  If your boss has a tendency to change their mind, or blame you for not delivering something that was outside of your control, written documentation will help.  Always follow up with an email confirming your understanding of requirements.
• Find an independent mentor  (either in your department, or in another division) who can be a sounding board and the voice of wisdom when you are feeling under pressure.
• Think deeply about how important this role or this organisation is to your long term plans.  If it is very important, then start to network to build a wider span of influence beyond your immediate team to build support.  If it is not important, then start to consider your exit strategy and focus on what qualities and culture will be important in your next role.

If you are affected by these issues, website resource that might help include:

http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-topics/bullying-harassment.aspx

http://www.bullyfreeatwork.com/blog/

http://blogs.hbr.org/research/2010/03/create-a-bullyfree-workplace.html

http://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/being-bullied/

If you would like more personal support, then we can offer confidential, focused and targeted coaching package to give you strategies to support your needs.  Contact us at:  [email protected].

 

We can also offer engaging and highly participative public speaking and seminar sessions if you would like to bring this or matters of people and performance to your corporate event.  Contact us at:   [email protected].

 

 

The Four Temperaments – What’s your type?

These days there are a plethora of tools, models and frameworks designed to explain the human psyche and how we work, but many of them do not stand the test of time.  However one model, which is perhaps the archetype of all modern psychometric models is that of the four temperaments. 

Over 2,500 years ago in the time of Hippocrates the idea of different types to define the human condition was introduced; this was called the Four Temperaments.  The early thinking was that the differences in mood, emotions and behaviours could be defined by ‘type’ has been a recurring theme in human history.  In the middle ages, right the way up to the eighteenth century, the four temperaments had an enduring appeal, although at that time it was linked to the rather dubious idea of physiognomy; the idea that one’s outer appearance could define one’s inner attributes.  

Of course such thinking could easily lead to stereotypes and discrimination and gradually the concept of the four temperaments fell out of favour.  However it does provide a remarkably fresh and topical way of thinking about the differences in human nature, and deserves to be reviewed in a more judicial light.  Essentially the four temperaments are linked to elements that help to explain and describe the behavioural characteristics within them.

 

 

Sanguine – Air

Typically this temperament is associated with creative and artistic types.  They would have a reputation for being energetic, changeable and perhaps hard to pin down to long-term commitments.  They are outwardly focused and concerned about the world and the environment they live in.  People gravitate towards their energy and often find them inspiring. 

Choleric – Fire

As the element suggests, this is often seen as a strong personality.  Focused on goals, actions and outward success; Cholerics are good at getting things done and getting those around them to follow.  At their most positive they are charismatic and charming, however if less well developed they can come across as dogmatic and bullying.  They often excel in entrepreneurial and leadership roles.

Phlegmatic – Water

One of the top qualities often associated with this temperament is reliability and calmness.  They are seen as hard workers, who will get on with their work with minimum of fuss.  Whilst they can make good leaders, it is not something that they would naturally pursue, preferring instead to have their own space and time to do what they wish.  Rules and routines are important to them and they do not like to have these interrupted or changed unneccesarily.

Melancholic – Earth

This temperament like its element, has its feet firmly rooted in the ground.  They are concerned about the here and now, and do not like needless flights of fancy.  Action and roles must have clear purpose, and they are often the first to find fault in poorly put together plans.  They tend to be quiet and thoughtful, but are in danger of becoming obsessive, if they are left to worry too much about details. 

 

Using the Four Temperaments in your organisation

The temperaments framework, like any other gives us a common language to consider the similarities and differences that are evident between us and our colleagues.  As one of the oldest personality theories, it provides a useful, easy to way in which to reflect on how and why we work the way we do.  To help you to do this, consider the following:

• Which one is your type and how might this differ from your boss and your colleagues?
• Does that impact on how you influence others?
• Can it help  you to understand conflicts that emerge in the workplace?

In our next blog we will look at how the model has been updated and is evident in the Myers Briggs type indicator which is widely used today.

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and implementation issues.  We'd love to hear your thoughts on this blog, innovation or change in general.  Share your comments here or email us on [email protected]

Trouble at the Leading Edge - The Zuckerburg effect

As Facebook readies itself for floatation, the debate centres around what leadership is required to take it forward and whether Mark Zuckerburg is the right person for the job.  At the heart of the issues are concerns about how much power and influence he will have to veto shareholders post IPA.  But are they valid and does history suggest that they are right to be concerned?

Why does the Founder CEO make us so nervous?

We have in this blog looked at other founder CEO’s and the impact that they can have on an organisation.  The love/hate relationship that emerges because of  founders controlling and some might say over-bearing influence often causes frictions with shareholders, who are not used to playing second fiddle to a CEO. 

The front-runners in the category are obvious:  Steve Jobs, Michael Dell and Bill Gates.  It’s also interesting to note that a recent study by Wharton Business School, concluded that founder CEOs outperformed professional CEOs.  Their decisions tended to be longer-term, linked to a deeper understanding of core products and strategy; and less influenced by the whims and demands of shareholders. 

But there is the other equally tricky aspects of the founder CEO.  As can be seen in the biographies of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others; the archetype founder CEO often takes on a maverick role in how they run their organisation, and this is what makes investors and analysts most nervous about the Facebook floatation. 

An unswerving focus on the future

But what Founder CEO’s particularly in the technology field have proven again and again, is that there vision is beyond our grasp until it comes to fruition.  Apple were about to go down the ‘me too’ PC strategy until Steve Jobs returned in 1997 and took the radically different step of complete vertical integration.  A model that was seen as totally outdated at that time  (Amstrad anyone?).

Zuckerburg has also shown such courage, fighting off many law suits and rejecting many lucrative offers in Facebook’s history.  But he has also show an awareness of the need to bring in operators, who will spend time thinking about strategy and core operations, such as the appointment of Sheryl Sandberg.

As Facebook moves closer to becoming a founder-led public company many will feel ambivilant about whether the leader that brought Facebook to here, is the one that will lead it on to profitability in the future.  A profitability that is still relatively untested and in its infancy.

Certainly some of the pitfalls of the Founder CEO, are the tendency toward the Maverick.  A tendency to view one’s own opinion as superior and an intolerance to dissent.  But we have seen how even these poorly viewed leadership practices have brought out the best in some organisation’s performance, so we wait to see how well Facebook lives up to its early promise under Zuckerburg’s control.

Examining Culture #6 - 'That's just the tip of the Iceberg!'

In this mini-series, we are looking at the challenges of managing across a diverse range of geographic and cultural boundaries.   We have already looked at the key writers on National Culture.  Today we turn to organisational culture theory. 

Probably one of the most extensive writers of recent years is Edgar Schein of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MiT) who has over the years provided much insight into the complexities of understanding and managing cultures within organisations.  He introduced the concept of Culture as an iceberg, in that those things that are observable on the surface are but a small percentage of the issues that are occurring underneath the surface.  

Schein describes culture as multi-layered.  At the visible layer we see artifacts and symbols that represent culture, which in turn come from beliefs and attitudes.  These all stem from basic assumptions that are  deep-rooted and often held at the sub-conscious level.   We don’t often think about how culture is expressed in organisations, and yet its influence is everywhere.  From the organisational structures, to the brand identity to the communications and visual art observable within the office.  It all speaks to the values and underlying assumptions of what this culture represents.  Apple and Google are probably the best proponents of culture as a tangible asset to be encouraged and encompassed by all employees.  Other headquarters such as banking and insurance, exude power and status messages to maintain status quo.  One sector is about game-changing and the other is about the old order. Both are valid, just different.

Schein went on to describe Three Cultures that arise in distinct occupational communities.  The Executive culture is about hierarchy and control.  The Engineering culture is concerned with design and process.  The Operators culture is concerned with the hands-on day-job, whether that be manufacturing or service based.   

When we look at how global companies today are often a made up of many legacy companies that have come together through acquisitions, each with their own distinct history and culture, this therefore poses some challenges for the post-merger integration efforts. 

What we at Agents2Change have found useful is some a cultural mapping exercise to help explain the key differences that occur across organisations.  We will look at this in more detail in our next and final instalment in this Culture series.

What experiences have you had with cross cultural conflicts?  Does this model help explain the reasons for those conflicts?  Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at [email protected]