Yesterday, the Growth Facilitators team tuned into a webinar by leadership guru retired Prof. John Kotter. Anyone who has studied anything at all about leadership and management will know his name. His work has stood the test of time, and his articles and books are as relevant today as they were decades ago when first written.
The topic of the webinar was "Urgency: How to make real change your company's top priority". This topic resonated with us immediately, as so many of our clients struggle with the issue of change. Indeed, now more than ever, all organizations, whether in the public, private or not-for-profit sector, MUST turn their collective minds to the issue of change – not just for change sake, but for relevance and survival.
Prof. Kotter listed 8 reasons why transformation efforts fail. His article: "Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail" which was first published in 1995, is now one of the Best of Harvard Business Review article series. It is a classic. Reading it again, I recognised many issues that we help our clients through as they try to transform their organizations. I also recognised many of the insights that our team has had, and that our solutions have not been far off the mark.
The webinar focused on the first error which is "Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency". Prof. Kotter made the distinction between false and true urgency. False urgency is when people recognise that there is a problem, but are not willing to take personal responsibility for the solution. A sense of "what I am doing is OK, it's what the others are doing that needs to change" sets in. False urgency is characterised by busyness and freneticism making it seem that one is dealing with the problem. It is characterised by a plethora of meetings, presentations, studies, reports, committees, task forces - sound familiar? False urgency is unsustainable as people soon burn out from the busyness for busyness sake, it is the breeding ground of cynicism and does not, indeed cannot, beget real change.
True urgency is when "people come to work every day determined to exploit real opportunities and mitigate real hazards". It is uncannily similar to GF's statement to our clients that "The only thing that people come to work everyday to do is to flawlessly execute strategy". What a difference! And what a difference in behaviour this approach generates! People now become focused on what’s important, they are flexible and adaptable, always searching for opportunities and solutions and most importantly they are passionate and excited about what they are doing. The role of leadership in creating and sustaining this sense of true urgency is paramount - encompassed in what the leadership says, but even more so what the leadership does. In even the most minute act of the leadership is a message to the followers of what's important and how important it is.
When we see that transformation is not taking place, we need to first look at the extent to which there is a sense of true urgency. Complacency, frenetic behaviour, rampant cynicism, prevalent and overriding negativism signal false, or no urgency at all. Today, take an honest look at your organization, and at yourself - is there a sense of true urgency? To what extent have you created a sense of true urgency? And to what extent are you sustaining it? If you are not seized with your own responses to these questions, go back to the drawing board and study Prof. Kotter’s article, and then take a critical look at yourself, and your own leadership. That's where the answer lies
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The fallacy of best practice
In the work that Growth Facilitators does, we often hear the term "best practice" typically used to indicate initiatives which the client desires to implement in order to achieve excellence. "Best practice" in marketing, "best practice" in human resource management, "best practice" in technology are spoken of with hallowed breath to indicate some tried and proven way to beat the competition.
It occurs to me that "best practice" is highly overrated.
Let’s first consider: what is "best practice"? Simply, it is a process or technique that has been applied repeatedly and that has consistently yielded superior results. We discern best practice by examining what those who are the best in the business are doing.
Why do I question this, for surely studying the best and doing what they are doing, must yield the best results? Here's why:
Best practices are things that were developed and applied in the past, perhaps in a different context, with different people and intentions. Just because something worked well in a previous time does not in any way mean that it will be the best possible solution now or in the future. 'History is no predictor of the future'. Indeed, an organization that is achieving superior performance is likely to have abandoned or moved on from the particular best practice that is now being touted by others. Further, an organization stuck in a best practice mode could actually be on the road to decline and mediocrity, sitting in the false smugness of doing what the best used to do.
What I believe companies need to do is to determine the best possible practice that is in alignment with their own vision. This may or may not be the best practice of others to date. For an organization to consistently achieve superior performance, it must constantly measure its performance, examine itself, learn and apply the new learning. It cannot be stuck in a mode of 'best practice'. Best today is not necessarily best practice. So, perhaps the only 'best practice' is to be constantly seeking and implementing your own "best practice", measuring the results and then learning from it and making it even better - or finding another one!
We used to sing this little ditty at school:
Good better best
Never let it rest
Till your good be better
And your better best
It still applies, except that in our turbulent world, there is no rest – just constantly making our good better, our better best, and our best even better.
It occurs to me that "best practice" is highly overrated.
Let’s first consider: what is "best practice"? Simply, it is a process or technique that has been applied repeatedly and that has consistently yielded superior results. We discern best practice by examining what those who are the best in the business are doing.
Why do I question this, for surely studying the best and doing what they are doing, must yield the best results? Here's why:
Best practices are things that were developed and applied in the past, perhaps in a different context, with different people and intentions. Just because something worked well in a previous time does not in any way mean that it will be the best possible solution now or in the future. 'History is no predictor of the future'. Indeed, an organization that is achieving superior performance is likely to have abandoned or moved on from the particular best practice that is now being touted by others. Further, an organization stuck in a best practice mode could actually be on the road to decline and mediocrity, sitting in the false smugness of doing what the best used to do.
What I believe companies need to do is to determine the best possible practice that is in alignment with their own vision. This may or may not be the best practice of others to date. For an organization to consistently achieve superior performance, it must constantly measure its performance, examine itself, learn and apply the new learning. It cannot be stuck in a mode of 'best practice'. Best today is not necessarily best practice. So, perhaps the only 'best practice' is to be constantly seeking and implementing your own "best practice", measuring the results and then learning from it and making it even better - or finding another one!
We used to sing this little ditty at school:
Good better best
Never let it rest
Till your good be better
And your better best
It still applies, except that in our turbulent world, there is no rest – just constantly making our good better, our better best, and our best even better.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
How Core Values are important to our organization
Values are core when they guide every decision, the way we conduct our business and build our relationships at work. We are most likely to have a successful organization if all are aligned around its purpose and philosophy by living its Core Values.
Top leaders know the power of strong values in forming the core of an organization in support of achieving its vision. They use Core Values to better guide and motivate their team members and to convey the message to their customers as to who they are as an organization, a clear, "this is how we do things here!”
It has become standard in our strategic planning process with our clients that we help them identify their Core Values and related behaviours. We guide them in exploring the extent to which current beliefs are aligned with the desired Core Values and how the beliefs of each individual might need to change to enable all to live by the Core Values.
More and more I reflect on our Growth Facilitators' Core Values FUN, LOVE, RESPECT and DISCIPLINE and how we live by them when looking for a “real life” example for our clients.
I believe where the leader is the founder of the organization, his or her core values most likely, consciously or unconsciously, become the Core Values of the organization. My real life example is the partners of GF, Marguerite and Robert. To me, Marguerite exemplifies our Core Values LOVE and FUN, and she and Robert are advocates in living these values.
LOVE - We at GF “nurture our Human Garden”. We look out for each other and support each other in our development, and when times get rough, at home or at work, i.e. sickness, children’s needs, broken down cars, deadlines with clients, pick ups from schools or airports and new born puppies. We are sad or happy together when reading the news in the morning. We share the fruit from our gardens and the food from our kitchens. We show empathy to those who get in contact with us, and we support schools and principals in their strategic planning via our Breakthrough programme.
FUN - We live in a colourful office. We celebrate birthdays, events, or achievements, usually with delicious cakes! Together we enjoy a good laugh, a football match, a cooking course in raw food, take on challenges such as being “Free and Laughing” at all times! Our smiley stickers and gift items, rewarded to those workshop participants who live our workshop values, are legendary with our clients.
RESPECT - We show mutual respect for one another and for our clients by listening and taking all concerns raised seriously and addressing them. We support each other in our personal development and in ventures outside the organization.
And how about DISCIPLINE - Here there is room for improvement, in how we organize ourselves, our evolution meetings, our time management and internal processes. I am reported to be the most disciplined in the team, reflecting my German upbringing. I would like to believe this, but have to admit that I have adapted to the cultural laxness on discipline in Jamaica. I may commit to challenge my team members more because I care about our effectiveness and efficiency and would like to support us to make discipline FUN! But am I really committed to taking on the challenge?
Do we choose a Core Value because we believe in it or because we want to behave more like this? I do believe we have chosen DISCIPLINE because we see a value in it and would like to achieve more of it. This is our challenge to us, let’s truly work on our beliefs and behaviours by asking ourselves: Why do we want to live DISCIPLINE and how?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
World class
Amazing talent + superb coaching = world class performance
World class performance + right alliance = world at your feet
Ask yourself: Does my organization have:
- Amazing talent?
- Superb coaching/management?
- Right alliances?
If not, you need to take a strategic look at yourself, and take action!
PS the photos were taken in subways and on the streets of New York City!
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Is America ready?
“Is America ready for a black President”? This is the underlying question, spoken and unspoken, on many people’s minds as the world watches with great interest the runup to the US Presidential elections.
The simple answer is “No”. To me this is a non-question, for people are never ready for change. When we think of instances in history of great leadership, we see that the role of the leader is to define the change and then to lead the people into it. Most people come kicking and screaming, denying, resisting and even sabotaging it. Great leaders don’t wait for the people to be ready. They seize the time and step forward to do the job, knowing that the big part of their job is to create the change despite, not because the people are ready.
South Africa was not ready for change – but Nelson Mandela defined it and led the people into it. India was not ready for change, but Gandhi defined it and led the people into it. And in the ‘60s, the USA was not ready for change, but Martin Luther King defined it and led the people into it. We see from all of these that it was not a simple task at all. It was never about just articulating the desired change and then assuming automatically the people would follow. There was much coaxing, negotiating, cajoling and compromising where necessary while holding fast to the core principles with the greatest of integrity, personal commitment and sacrifice. These leaders led by example, and took extreme steps to demonstrate their commitment to their vision – Mandela in prison for 29 years, Gandhi in his loincloth and his spinning loom, MLK at the forefront of marches, facing dogs, batons and bullets in the hands of those who held fast to the status quo.
In all cases of change, there are people who have reached a level of discomfort with the state of things, who know that something different needs to happen, who feel that it is time for something to change. At first this group of people tends to be fragmented and unfocused, knowing what they don’t want, but perhaps not yet clear on what they DO want. It is into this scattering of discomfort that a leader steps, providing the clarity of purpose that galvanises people towards a compelling future. This group of people starts out small relative to the entire population. This matters not. Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, once said “Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world: indeed it is the only thing that ever has”. It is never necessary that everyone is on board – it is only the small group of committed people, led by a person of vision and integrity that is required.
Is America ready for a black President? Probably not. And it doesn’t matter. What really matters is – there are many people who are extremely dissatisfied with the way things are, and there is a man, who is articulating a compelling vision of the future, and happens to be black, who is ready to be the President.
The simple answer is “No”. To me this is a non-question, for people are never ready for change. When we think of instances in history of great leadership, we see that the role of the leader is to define the change and then to lead the people into it. Most people come kicking and screaming, denying, resisting and even sabotaging it. Great leaders don’t wait for the people to be ready. They seize the time and step forward to do the job, knowing that the big part of their job is to create the change despite, not because the people are ready.
South Africa was not ready for change – but Nelson Mandela defined it and led the people into it. India was not ready for change, but Gandhi defined it and led the people into it. And in the ‘60s, the USA was not ready for change, but Martin Luther King defined it and led the people into it. We see from all of these that it was not a simple task at all. It was never about just articulating the desired change and then assuming automatically the people would follow. There was much coaxing, negotiating, cajoling and compromising where necessary while holding fast to the core principles with the greatest of integrity, personal commitment and sacrifice. These leaders led by example, and took extreme steps to demonstrate their commitment to their vision – Mandela in prison for 29 years, Gandhi in his loincloth and his spinning loom, MLK at the forefront of marches, facing dogs, batons and bullets in the hands of those who held fast to the status quo.
In all cases of change, there are people who have reached a level of discomfort with the state of things, who know that something different needs to happen, who feel that it is time for something to change. At first this group of people tends to be fragmented and unfocused, knowing what they don’t want, but perhaps not yet clear on what they DO want. It is into this scattering of discomfort that a leader steps, providing the clarity of purpose that galvanises people towards a compelling future. This group of people starts out small relative to the entire population. This matters not. Margaret Mead, the anthropologist, once said “Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world: indeed it is the only thing that ever has”. It is never necessary that everyone is on board – it is only the small group of committed people, led by a person of vision and integrity that is required.
Is America ready for a black President? Probably not. And it doesn’t matter. What really matters is – there are many people who are extremely dissatisfied with the way things are, and there is a man, who is articulating a compelling vision of the future, and happens to be black, who is ready to be the President.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Decisive Leadership needed in the Peoples National Party
Over the weekend, the Opposition Party, the Peoples National Party, voted to return Mrs. Portia Simpson-Miller as its Leader. The Party’s Constitution makes the Annual Conference the Party’s highest decision making forum and requires that the term of its elected Officers, including the President is one year. The Constitution also requires that elections (by delegates) must be held every year at Conference. In its first 69 years, the delegates dutifully returned the incumbent President unopposed. Elections for Party Leader have been held 3 times when an incumbent has retired (Norman Manley in 1969; Michael Manley in 1992; and P.J. Patterson in 2006). However in its 70th year, and for the first time, the incumbent was challenged.
This democratic notion of challenging an incumbent Leader is new to the Party and predictably has not been taken kindly by the incumbent or by those supporting her. The result has been a split in the party as Mrs. Simpson-Miller and her supporters have wrongfully confused democracy with trying to “beat her down” and “mash up the party”. We have witnessed the strident vice presidential races in the PNP where losers continued to work in the party. However there appears to be one code of practice for the Vice Presidential race and another for the Presidential race.
Now that the elections are over and Mrs. Simpson-Miller has been returned as President, where should the PNP go from here? Mrs. Simpson-Miller MUST meet with Dr. Phillips one-on-one and work out differences and agree what is best for the party. Mrs. Simpson-Miller and her supporters must also recognize and accept that it is OK, and in the spirit of democracy, to be challenged. Dr. Phillips MUST let his supporters know that the campaign is over, the party must move on and that there are more commonalities with, than differences between, other members of the party.
Mrs. Simpson-Miller has admitted that she erred on ascendancy to the Prime Minister in March 2007 by keeping Mr. Patterson’s team in place rather than making the required changes in the best interest of the Government and of Jamaica. In other words, faced with an easy choice of doing what people wanted her to do and with a difficult choice of doing what was right, she chose the former and attributed that to her loss in the General Elections. A key tenet of great leadership is to take decisive and tough decisions, even when it is unpopular. Mrs. Simpson-Miller chose the easy way out in March 2006 and is now faced with another choice. This time she must demonstrate decisive leadership and do what is best for the party. The choice is hers and, unlike what many commentators are saying, she has a free hand whether or not anyone wants to voluntary step aside. The Party Leader should take a leaf out of Captain Horace Burrell’s book who did not wait for Professor Simoes to step aside, but exhibited decisive leadership in taking a tough decision in the best interest of Jamaica’s football.
This democratic notion of challenging an incumbent Leader is new to the Party and predictably has not been taken kindly by the incumbent or by those supporting her. The result has been a split in the party as Mrs. Simpson-Miller and her supporters have wrongfully confused democracy with trying to “beat her down” and “mash up the party”. We have witnessed the strident vice presidential races in the PNP where losers continued to work in the party. However there appears to be one code of practice for the Vice Presidential race and another for the Presidential race.
Now that the elections are over and Mrs. Simpson-Miller has been returned as President, where should the PNP go from here? Mrs. Simpson-Miller MUST meet with Dr. Phillips one-on-one and work out differences and agree what is best for the party. Mrs. Simpson-Miller and her supporters must also recognize and accept that it is OK, and in the spirit of democracy, to be challenged. Dr. Phillips MUST let his supporters know that the campaign is over, the party must move on and that there are more commonalities with, than differences between, other members of the party.
Mrs. Simpson-Miller has admitted that she erred on ascendancy to the Prime Minister in March 2007 by keeping Mr. Patterson’s team in place rather than making the required changes in the best interest of the Government and of Jamaica. In other words, faced with an easy choice of doing what people wanted her to do and with a difficult choice of doing what was right, she chose the former and attributed that to her loss in the General Elections. A key tenet of great leadership is to take decisive and tough decisions, even when it is unpopular. Mrs. Simpson-Miller chose the easy way out in March 2006 and is now faced with another choice. This time she must demonstrate decisive leadership and do what is best for the party. The choice is hers and, unlike what many commentators are saying, she has a free hand whether or not anyone wants to voluntary step aside. The Party Leader should take a leaf out of Captain Horace Burrell’s book who did not wait for Professor Simoes to step aside, but exhibited decisive leadership in taking a tough decision in the best interest of Jamaica’s football.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Lessons in Leadership – Jamaica Football
Captain Horace Burrell, the President of the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) first assumed office in 1994 and boldly stated that he would take the Jamaican team to France for the World Cup finals in 1998. Although he faced many obstacles and hardships, he stuck to his vision, took tough decisions and delivered on his promise. One of the key factors in delivering on his promise was the hiring of Professor Rene Simoes as the Technical Director.
Captain Burrell relinquished the Presidency in 2003 to Crenston Boxhill and wrestled control once more in 2007 where he vowed once more to take Jamaica to the world cup finals, this time South Africa in 2010. Shortly after assuming the office the second time around, the Captain took a tough decision to dismiss then Technical Director Bora Milutinovic. He turned to his good friend Professor Simoes who arrived in Jamaica in January 2008. Over the last 14 years the Captain and the Professor developed a deep mutual respect for each other and were very close friends.
Jamaica was drawn in the proverbial “Group of Death” for the CONCACAF semi-final qualifiers alongside Mexico, Honduras and Canada. Everyone knew it was going to be tough to be one of the two qualifiers from this Group. Mexico, the perennial kingpins of CONCACAF was expected to go through, however Honduras and Canada were no walkovers. Having lost the first three matches, and with Jamaica’s chances of qualifying literally hanging by a string, Captain Burrell had to take a tough decision. The fact that it involved the future of Professor Simoes, his very close friend and one well loved by Jamaicans, made it very difficult. Shortly after 1 am in Honduras, the decision was taken and Professor Simoes was no longer employed to coach the Jamaica National Football Team.
What lessons can we learn? Some persons agreed with the Captain, while many said it was cruel – he should have waited. The fact is that as leaders we are always faced with tough decisions, we may not always take the “right” decision, but we must be decisive and work with what we have done.
I reflect on the tenure of Mrs. Portia Simpson-Miller as Prime Minister. She was faced with tough decisions regarding persons very close to her. Most notably was then Minister Phillip Paulwell who should have been held accountable for the cement debacle which crippled the construction industry for months. He should have been held accountable for the Trafigura Affair. Unfortunately, Mr. Paulwell was the greatest supporter of Mrs. Simpson-Miller leading up to the PNP Presidential race in 2006 and thereafter. It is my opinion that had Mrs. Simpson-Miller taken the tough decision and stripped Mr. Paulwell of his Ministerial responsibilities, she would most likely have won the General Election in 2007. Instead her popularity rating snowballed from in the 70’s in March 2006 to the 40’s by time the election was called.
Captain Burrell relinquished the Presidency in 2003 to Crenston Boxhill and wrestled control once more in 2007 where he vowed once more to take Jamaica to the world cup finals, this time South Africa in 2010. Shortly after assuming the office the second time around, the Captain took a tough decision to dismiss then Technical Director Bora Milutinovic. He turned to his good friend Professor Simoes who arrived in Jamaica in January 2008. Over the last 14 years the Captain and the Professor developed a deep mutual respect for each other and were very close friends.
Jamaica was drawn in the proverbial “Group of Death” for the CONCACAF semi-final qualifiers alongside Mexico, Honduras and Canada. Everyone knew it was going to be tough to be one of the two qualifiers from this Group. Mexico, the perennial kingpins of CONCACAF was expected to go through, however Honduras and Canada were no walkovers. Having lost the first three matches, and with Jamaica’s chances of qualifying literally hanging by a string, Captain Burrell had to take a tough decision. The fact that it involved the future of Professor Simoes, his very close friend and one well loved by Jamaicans, made it very difficult. Shortly after 1 am in Honduras, the decision was taken and Professor Simoes was no longer employed to coach the Jamaica National Football Team.
What lessons can we learn? Some persons agreed with the Captain, while many said it was cruel – he should have waited. The fact is that as leaders we are always faced with tough decisions, we may not always take the “right” decision, but we must be decisive and work with what we have done.
I reflect on the tenure of Mrs. Portia Simpson-Miller as Prime Minister. She was faced with tough decisions regarding persons very close to her. Most notably was then Minister Phillip Paulwell who should have been held accountable for the cement debacle which crippled the construction industry for months. He should have been held accountable for the Trafigura Affair. Unfortunately, Mr. Paulwell was the greatest supporter of Mrs. Simpson-Miller leading up to the PNP Presidential race in 2006 and thereafter. It is my opinion that had Mrs. Simpson-Miller taken the tough decision and stripped Mr. Paulwell of his Ministerial responsibilities, she would most likely have won the General Election in 2007. Instead her popularity rating snowballed from in the 70’s in March 2006 to the 40’s by time the election was called.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
