• The 60 Second Leader
  • Seven Secrets of Inspired Leaders
  • The Little Book of Leadership
  • Leadership Hub for Corporates
  • Learning to Live with Huntington's Disease
 

Phil's Leadership blog

What One Thing Can You Do?

…to make a difference to morale and the ability to get the job done in these tough economic times?

I was talking to Andy Cosslett recently. He is CEO of IHG, the world’s largest hotels company (Holiday Inn is one of their brands).

He said he spent two days working in a Holiday Inn a while ago and came back with a list of things head office could do to make life easier for people on the front line, delivering the service, running the business, making the money (because that’s what the front line do).

It reminded me of when Allan Leighton spoke to us at Leaders in London. The Chairman of the Post Office had turned up at the crack of dawn at a depot, unannounced. He asked the depot manager what was the one thing he (Leighton) could do to make the manager’s life easier.

The manager said that his posties came into work at 4am or earlier and that the coffee machine had been broken for over two weeks. The requisitioning process to get a coffee machine replaced took so long that his crack of dawn staff had had no access to coffee for all that time.

“They lose confidence in me as a manager, and I lose credibility, and it looks as if I have no interest in their welfare. That’s terrible for morale”, said the depot manager – or something like that: I don’t have my notes in front of me, so I’m paraphrasing.

“What do I need? I need a new coffee machine!”

So, Leighton went back to his office and arranged for every depot manager to have a £200 (or something like that) contingency fund to cover emergencies or situations where the central system just couldn’t deliver what the depot manager needed with enough urgency.

So, what can you do that is low cost but absolutely important in sending the right signals out to people who may be suffering low morale, and/or that removes a frustration or problem for them, and that shows that you are still fighting their corner?


Talk like a leader: use ‘fat’ words over ‘thin’ words

‘Fat’ words are heavy with meaning. Words like ‘life’ ‘love’, ‘liberty’ and ‘the pursuit of happiness’ are fat with meaning and speak to people’s hearts.

‘Thin’ words like ‘agenda’, ‘plan’, ‘structure’, ‘re-organization’ , ‘cost management’ are big in meaning, yes, but thin in terms of resonance – the emotions they evoke in people.

Most organizations are run on ‘management speak’ – thin-blooded words that slip too easily into jargon. So, it’s time to ask, now that we are in turbulent times when you need to inspire people, reassure them, get them to step up to the plate, possibly even fire them (we’ll get onto that in a blog post in a day or two) despite no fault of their own…should you change your language?

Not in the way that George Osborne is apparently being trained to remove the letter ‘t’ from his speech patterns – a Blairism that took over the world of political speak and still jars on my ear.

I mean, think about the language you and your other senior managers use at work. Would your kids or your mother understand it? Is it ‘real life’ language or management-speak? And, if your culture has slipped so easily into management-speak over the years, you can raise the bar by moving up to ‘leader speak’.

That doesn’t mean speechifying a la Obama or Churchill (see the post below). It’s just that the language of management commonly de-personalises and disconnects – on purpose in many cases. Whereas the job of a leader is to connect with people. As Jack Welch put it:

“Your job as a leader is to get into people’s souls.”

So, monitor the language you and your colleagues use. And if it’s too management jargon-ish, start training yourself in de-jargonising. Time to talk like a leader.


CEOs and Middle Managers – who is more important

I heard Sir Nick Scheele, now retired from his post as President of Ford Motor Company, say that at Ford middle managers were known by the top bosses as ‘the layer of clay’. That was in the 1990s, when de-layering, or removing vast swathes of middle management, was a corporate sport, sometimes known as BPE or BPR – Business Process Engineering or Re-engineering.

Led by the thinking of Hammer and Champy, bosses at the top spent the early to mid 90s re-engineering to improve their business results – slashing, mostly, for short-term financial gain and pretending that what they were doing was being ‘lean’and agile. Luckily, they had the enemy identified for them as middle managers and the hollowing out of businesses, under the pseudonym ‘de-layering’ , was a major blood sport for a time.

Now, I don’t want to defend middle managers en masse. As with any other ‘layer’ a proportion are good, a proportion are bad. But, I do like it when pendulums start to swing the other way. So, I like this post on BNet’s ‘Dog & Pony’ blog:

Now, ten solid reasons why You — Managing in the Middle — Are More Valuable than Your Company’s CEO:

  • You know how stuff really gets done. Let’s face it, process maps mean very little when you know that to get your PC up and running again, the fastest route is to buy a muffin for Oscar in IT.
  • You know what motivates individuals. You’re with them every day. Sometimes it’s cash, time off for a kid’s event, or just some simple recognition. Whatever the case, you’re in a position to help motivate both in- and extrinsically more than anyone else.
  • You know the customer well enough to get to the truth. You are them, they are you, and there’s a symbiotic bond. More than anyone, the customer will tell you exactly what they need and how to sell to them.
  • You know the vendors as well as the competitive landscape. All that shooting the bull with Marvin, who supplies the whole industry, really pays off when he tells you that your biggest competitor is never going to get that new launch off the line. With some tweaks, your firm can make a killing!
  • You don’t have to defend the original strategy. This is BIG! Since you didn’t devise the strategy, you aren’t obligated to defend it. Instead you can speak openly and tell it like it is. Do tell brothers and sisters…do tell!

The remaining five are on the Dog & Pony blog and you can reach it by clicking here (I know that’s a bit annoying, having to jump out of here to go there: But it’s not fair on them if I reproduce all ten points here so you don’t have to visit their blog. It’s dodgy ethically, kinda stealing their material instead of making you aware of it. So, I hope you don’t mind me sending you over to the authors for the remaining five points if you want them).


If Starbucks were a bank

The New York Times calls Umpqua Bank “Starbucks with tellers.”

Jerry Fritz of Madison-Wisconsin University told me he’d discovered a cool new bank several years ago, called South Umpqua Bank, that re-designed itself from the ground up . Now, as Umpqua Bank, it is possibly the coolest bank in the world (vying with Grameenbank, which is cool for completely different and more substantial reasons).

The CEO Ray Davis, who led what he calls a ‘banking revolution’ in re-designing Umpqua’s processes and its external as well as internal brand, has written a book on it, which I recommend, called Leading for Growth.

From the book jacket: “When Ray Davis took over the local 40-person South Umpqua Bank in 1994, many people in the industry poked fun at his insistence that employees answer the phone with a cheery “World’s Greatest Bank.”

Eleven years, $7 billion in assets, and 128 branches (or ” bank stores” in Umpqua lingo) later, the moniker seems quite apt. Other banks scratched their heads when Davis sent his tellers to Ritz-Carlton to learn customer service and were intrigued when he hired a cutting-edge design firm to completely re-think retail layout.

Now, with a top design award under their belt, a name change (there never was a North Umpqua bank), and a completely new definition of the banking business, Umpqua has become the darling of the entrepreneurial press and a growth powerhouse.”


How to re-invent management and leadership

Five steps to re-invent management and leadership

We once home swapped with some people who live in Half Moon Bay, just south of San Francisco. The small town goes by the proud title of “Pumpkin-Growing Capital of The World”, which means they must be doing good business in the run up to Hallowe’en right now. So, we ate a lot of pumpkin and wandered around their seven bedroom mansion, while they (the people we homeswapped with) were squashed into our two-bedroom flat in Chiswick, West London. We got the use of their talking Chrysler Le Baron (“Your seatbelt is still undone”). They got the use of our Nissan Micra. I think we won.

So, when Gary Hamel, whom the Wall Street journal rates as “The Number One Most Influential Business Thinker In The World” convened a big think tank in Half Moon Bay a week or two ago, I snapped to attention, as it seemed such a sleepy location for such a powerful think tank. It wasn’t just pumpkin soup on the menu (delicious, I recall) – It was the future of management (and leadership!).

I’d love to have been there, as Hamel brought together CK Prahalad, his former tutor and collaborator, Peter Senge (author of the Fifth Discipline, and pioneer of ‘the learning organization’ and systems thinking), Henry Mintzberg (the strategy guru who spoke to us at a previous Leaders in London), Ed Lawler, Chris Argyris, Jeffrey Pfeffer and other enormous management brains.

The event was called “Inventing The Future of Management”. For those of us who couldn’t be there to eavesdrop on their findings, Gary Hamel himself is coming to Leaders in London 2008 and I’m sure we can prevail on him to share some of the outcomes with us there.

The two days of debate concluded that we need to re-invent management using the following five principles:

1. Reconstruct the philosophical foundations of management

2. Orient individual and collective effort around a higher and broader purpose

3. Increase trust, reduce fear (My note: Boy, is that important right now in the turbulence facing all of us)

4. Substantially reduce the gravitational pull of the past

5. Reinvent the work of executive leadership

Powerful stuff. The gurus reported after the event, according to the FT, that “natural hierarchies require natural leaders, individuals who are able to mobilise their fellow human beings despite having no ‘positional authority’.

“A 21st century management model demands a 21st century leadership model – where leaders are no longer seen as grand visionaries, all-wise decision makers and heroic deal-makers, but are viewed instead as ‘social architects’, ‘constitution writers’ and ‘entrepreneurs of meaning’.”

I love that ‘Entrepreneurs of meaning’. Leaders make meaning. More to come from Gary Hamel when he presents his findings to us at Leaders in London 2008


There is no magic formula for leadership

Our Leaders in London 2007 speaker, Martin Sorrell, CEO of WPP, the marketing, advertising and media group, is profiled in the new book by our 2008 Leaders in London speaker Steve Tappin, author of The Secrets of CEOs, which was reviewed in the FT last week.

Martin Sorrell told Tappin and his co-author Andrew Cave:

“No-one has any magic formula” for leadership.

“Everyone obfuscates and makes it too sophisticated. Having a clear purpose, vison and strategy, having the right team and having them aligned to what’s important,” is the closest you can get to a formula for a successful leader, particularly a successful CEO, says Sorrell.

Richard Donkin of the FT says that although Sorrell says there is no magic formula, his (Sorrell’s) own formula for corporate leadership is still important. Sorrell likens himself “to a referee, a sort of consolidator or co-operator” who can bring all the parts of the company to work together,” says Donkin.

Tappin argues that the “idea of the solitary figure who tries to think through everything is no longer appropriate for complex international business.” Absolutely.

I also like this, from Steve Tappin’s book, where he quotes Archie Norman who, along with Allan Leighton and a close knit leadership team, turned around ASDA’s fortunes to move up from the bottom of the big four supermarkets in the UK to replace Sainsbury’s in coming (at the time – Sainsbury’s have since fought back, with the help of CEO Justin King, who was part of Norman’s ASDA leadership team) as second in the UK supermarket league table:

“I like businesses where people feel able

to shout at each other, in a professional way, of course.”

– Archie Norman

If your relationships with other leaders and the rest of the organization are strong enough to have ‘fierce conversations’ (see the book of the same name), based on passion for the business (not on ego and trying to get your own way) then you have a robust, healthy corporate climate that’s well-placed to make the right decisions in the current tough trading environment.

See a few posts ago for more on Steve Tappin and his core idea of the need to ‘build a fellowship’ of leaders. And you can learn from Steve direct at Leaders in London 2008.


How to make better decisions

Over at Slacker Manager, Phil Gerbyshak has been blogging about how to improve decision-making. As we are in a less forgiving economic environment, it’s all the more important that your decisions as a leader are mostly right. So, here are a few quick ‘sources of power’ on making better decisions:

1. Don’t assume the best decisions come from you. ‘The leader as decision-maker’ who answers everyone’s questions and makes the final decision at the end of every meeting, is old hat and based on the outdated notion of the infallibility of leaders.

2. Gary Klein’s book Sources of Power, despite its title, isn’t about power, but is actually about decision-making. It’s a powerful analysis of decision-making by people in life or death situations – firefighters, soldiers, doctors – and the techniques (often sub-conscious) they use. Klein experimented with getting a bunch of marines to work in a trading pit, applying the military’s decision-making system for battlefield situations. The trader who were also part of the experiment trounced them. No surprise there. However, when he took the same traders and the same marines and put them in a war game exercise…the traders trounced the marines again. Their use of 80% information plus instinct in a fast-moving situation beat the military’s need (at the time: they’ve learnt since) for 100% information before making a decision.

3. Take your time when you can. Yes, I chose the ‘trader’ example in 2., on purpose. The turmoil in the financial markets shows that what looks like great, fast decision-making – if you’ve been in the bearpit of a trading floor, you’ll know how fast and furious it is – can, when scaled up and cumulatively, be disastrous for overall strategy. It can even de-stabilize the structure. So, our third and last thought on this subject comes from Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, who is coming to share his leadership insights with us at Leaders in London in a couple of months (naked plug: book by tomorrow – Friday 26th – to save up to £500).

Giuliani advises us not to make decisions until you have to. The ability to reflect and ponder outcomes before acting is a sign of strength, not weakness, he stresses:

“One of the trickiest elements of decision-making is working out not what, but when. Regardless of how much time exists before a decision must be made, I never make up my mind until I have to. Faced with any important decision, I always envision how each alternative will play out before I make it. During this process, I’m not afraid to change my mind a few times. Many are tempted to decide an issue simply to end the discomfort of indecision. However, the longer you have to make a decision, the more mature and well-reasoned that decision should be.”


Two vital questions to ask in job interviews

What are the first and last questions you ask in any job interview?

What do you like to do?
What do you hate to do?

From an interview with John Catsimatidis on Forbes.com .

Recruiting the right people is a vital part of a leader’s job. And yet recruitment is treated, says the Brazilian entrepreneur Ricardo Semler, in a superficial fashion in most organizations. The applicants fill in a form, come and answer questions once or maybe twice. Then you appoint them. Or not.

That’s like getting married after meeting someone twice from an online dating site, says Semler. He’s right, of course. No wonder if you ask executives what their biggest regrets are, somewhere in the list will be a number of people they appointed who turned out to be not what the exec. hoped they’d be.

The knock-on effect to your plans of mis-appointing is huge and longterm. We all know people we’ve had to work around because they wouldn’t or couldn’t leave. The waste in terms of cost is enormous. The waste in terms of opportunity cost – if you had the right person in post – is even bigger.

The two questions, above, sparked off a big debate over in The Leadership Hub, where one person thought they were a joke, but a number of people say that these are vital questions, and have added a few questions of their own. The link, above, takes you to their comments.

What do you think of these questions?
What questions do you ask that help reveal the ‘real’ person beneath the outer shell that is an interviewee?


Bono on what makes a great leader

Interesting how celebrity and leadership connect today, isn’t it. I mean, for example, Bob Geldof going from pop…not ‘star’, since his had waned till he took up the mantle of leader of a world movement against poverty…’pop figure’, I guess, to a kind of world leader.

His Irish glimmer twin (that’s a Rolling Stones reference for you old enough to get it) Bono has become his co-leader. Equally articulate and passionate (what is it about the Irish and a beautiful turn of phrase: I’m a quarter Irish and I resent the fact that I don’t have a quarter of Geldof or Bono’s eloquence), he is blogging from the Millennium Development Goals summit at the moment in New York. In his latest blog he describes a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and throws in this description:

“Both the first lady and the president change the molecular structure of any room they are in – he speeds them up, she calms them down. A great team. “

‘Change the molecular structure of the room they are in’…what a great phrase for describing what leaders do.

Bono also says of the diminutive Sarkozy: “Sarko is a real physical presence in a room. He might even be taller than me… animated, funny one minute; annoyed the next. I admire his energy and vision.”

And he describes how Sarkozy reaches across and grabs his arm at one point, and how Carla Bruni, his wife, uses storytelling to capture the imagination.

So, if you want to read Bono’s posts there is a scattering of leadership learning jewels in there, such as:

1. How great leaders connect on a personal, intimate basis;

2. The power of leadership partnerships of contrasting styles (Sarko and Bruni sound like Hewlett and Packard – leadership partnerships haven’t been studied enough, and we focus as a result too much on leadership as being about individuals, whereas leadership is really something that happens between people, not something one person does to lots of others);

3. The importance of a leader as a generator or releaser of energy – in a meeting, in their daily work – and so on.

There’s also a powerful reminder of the point Al Gore and Kofi Annan made at Leaders in London last year – how the rest of the world needs a strong Africa that is not mired in poverty if the rest of the world is to be strong and prosperous, and that this is one of the biggest issues for world leadership today.

Bono’s blog, which dissects Sarkozy’s leadership style based on his meeting with him, is here


Viral leadership: pirates take off, hunger doesn’t

The Net enables a new form of leadership – changing people’s behaviour/behavior through the viral spread of an idea or a ‘meme’ as Richard Dawkins and others have called it, at an accelerated pace compared with pre-Net days. The connectedness provided by the Net provides a kind of souped up medium or accelerator for leading changes in how people behave.

So, I’ll repeat a question I asked this time last year. ‘Talk like a pirate day’ took off from a spontaneous drunken conversation in a bar between two friends, who then put the idea on the Net, and claimed last year to have several million people involved. Net claims of ‘several million’ usually have to be trimmed back by 90% or so, but that still leaves a vast number of people who spent last Friday, September 19th, talking like a pirate.

Then there’s flashmobbing and other examples of de-centralized leadership, usually co-ordinated initially by one person, but quickly taken over by the collective, so there seems to be an act of ‘common mind’ going on: a group of people thinking and acting as one.

And here’s the ‘but’. So, if Talk Like A Pirate Day gets millions of people involved each year, how come The Hunger Site, where you click to provide food for hungry people at no cost, seems to have plateaued at around 150,000 clicks a day for the past few years?

What is it about talking like a pirate for a day that’s more compelling than clicking for a couple of seconds to stop someone being hungry? That’s not an outraged, self-righteous criticism of everyone who talked like a pirate. It’s just bafflement. When The Hunger Site first appeared, I was emailed about it by people from all over the world. And I did my share of excited “Hey have you seen this? The Net could change the world here?!” emailing myself.

But, millions of people don’t click each day. Curious.

And just to be a killjoy: The only reason pirates, in every film ever made since Robert Newton played the archetypal pirate Long John Silver in Treasure Island, speak with an ‘Ooohhh’ and an ‘Arrrrr’ and the word ‘matey’ and all those other piratical cliches the cast of Pirates of The Caribean adopted with zeal, and millions of people were using last Friday, is not because pirates really talked like that. It’s because Robert Newton chose to give his pirate an exaggerated Cornish (West of England) accent in the old black and white movie. And every actor who had to play a pirate in a movie after just copied Newton.