Robert was quoted in this article on Transparency in Public Board changes:
http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20081123/lead/lead3.html
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Leadership in times of crisis - when everything is melting down
Yesterday I addressed the Caribbean Association of Indigenous Banks 35th Annual Conference on the topic “Leadership in Times of Crisis”.
At this conference, the association members examined a number of issues that will or are affecting their organizations, and the Caribbean financial system in general. These include the European Economic Partnership Agreement, Global Financial Regulations, the Sub-Prime Crisis, Financing Opportunities in the Tourism Industry and Enterprise Risk Management. The factor that will pull all of this together and galvanize action is leadership.
As I prepared my speech, I found that the root of the word ““crisis” (Greek): krisis = decision. The dictionary further tells us that a crisis is a condition of instability or danger leading to decisive change. A crisis is therefore a turning point, or a time to decide, not to be paralysed. Our normal response in a crisis is to PANIC! We become paralyzed, not so much by what is happening but by our FEAR of what has happened in the past and that could happen in the future. The terrible thing about fear is that it feeds upon itself (contagion effect), and soon everyone else is in a panic. One cannot see clearly in this state, for a state of FEAR clouds our vision and therefore our ability to make decisions. Ironically, this is the very time that we MUST make decisions!
It is well known that the Chinese symbol for “crisis” is the same as for “opportunity”. Therefore, how do we see the opportunity within the crisis? This is the fundamental function of leadership – to see the opportunities, to give hope of a brighter future, since the present is so bleak and most people can’t see beyond that and to provide forward momentum – make decisions, keep vision alive
I identified 6 things that the leader must do:
C = Communicate
R = Respect
I = Independent
S = Stay on message
I = Invincibility
S = Smile
C = Communicate to build community; communicate not just to share and give news, but to invite feedback and gather information so that you can make better decisions. Communicate via all media possible – in person, by e-mail, intranet, bulletin boards – fill all information voids early, for failure to do so will result in speculation which is the food of fear
R = Respect the feelings and views of others. Allow people to vent their worst fears and insecurity. Listen more than talk
I = Independent – do not get pulled into the panic. I know of a CEO in Jamaica who locks himself in the bathroom every morning and laughs for 5 minutes. This immediately puts him in a good mood that last throughout the day. This allows him to stay clear and focused, aloof from, yet observing the panic, and so able to make the tough decisions that these times require
S = Stay on the message e.g. Obama – “yes we can”. Nothing must keep you from the message. Find something that resonates with your team, and stick to it. Every communication, every speech, every action must reflect this message. A good message to start with is “This too shall pass”
I = Invincible – help others to have courage, and the feeling that they can conquer the crisis situation
S = Smile - The July 17 issue of Time Magazine featured Nelson Mandela’s 8 lessons of leadership. Lesson #6 was “Appearances matter — and remember to smile”. The article noted about Mandela when he was running for President in 1994: “But more important was that dazzling, beatific, all-inclusive smile. For white South Africans, the smile symbolized Mandela's lack of bitterness and suggested that he was sympathetic to them. To black voters, it said, I am the happy warrior, and we will triumph. The ubiquitous ANC election poster was simply his smiling face. "The smile," says Ramaphosa, "was the message."
In closing, I reminded the conference delegates to find the opportunity in crisis, to remember what they need to do as a leader – C (Communicate) R (Respect) I(Independent) S (Stay on message) I(Invincibility) S(Smile), and to keep hope alive.
At this conference, the association members examined a number of issues that will or are affecting their organizations, and the Caribbean financial system in general. These include the European Economic Partnership Agreement, Global Financial Regulations, the Sub-Prime Crisis, Financing Opportunities in the Tourism Industry and Enterprise Risk Management. The factor that will pull all of this together and galvanize action is leadership.
As I prepared my speech, I found that the root of the word ““crisis” (Greek): krisis = decision. The dictionary further tells us that a crisis is a condition of instability or danger leading to decisive change. A crisis is therefore a turning point, or a time to decide, not to be paralysed. Our normal response in a crisis is to PANIC! We become paralyzed, not so much by what is happening but by our FEAR of what has happened in the past and that could happen in the future. The terrible thing about fear is that it feeds upon itself (contagion effect), and soon everyone else is in a panic. One cannot see clearly in this state, for a state of FEAR clouds our vision and therefore our ability to make decisions. Ironically, this is the very time that we MUST make decisions!
It is well known that the Chinese symbol for “crisis” is the same as for “opportunity”. Therefore, how do we see the opportunity within the crisis? This is the fundamental function of leadership – to see the opportunities, to give hope of a brighter future, since the present is so bleak and most people can’t see beyond that and to provide forward momentum – make decisions, keep vision alive
I identified 6 things that the leader must do:
C = Communicate
R = Respect
I = Independent
S = Stay on message
I = Invincibility
S = Smile
C = Communicate to build community; communicate not just to share and give news, but to invite feedback and gather information so that you can make better decisions. Communicate via all media possible – in person, by e-mail, intranet, bulletin boards – fill all information voids early, for failure to do so will result in speculation which is the food of fear
R = Respect the feelings and views of others. Allow people to vent their worst fears and insecurity. Listen more than talk
I = Independent – do not get pulled into the panic. I know of a CEO in Jamaica who locks himself in the bathroom every morning and laughs for 5 minutes. This immediately puts him in a good mood that last throughout the day. This allows him to stay clear and focused, aloof from, yet observing the panic, and so able to make the tough decisions that these times require
S = Stay on the message e.g. Obama – “yes we can”. Nothing must keep you from the message. Find something that resonates with your team, and stick to it. Every communication, every speech, every action must reflect this message. A good message to start with is “This too shall pass”
I = Invincible – help others to have courage, and the feeling that they can conquer the crisis situation
S = Smile - The July 17 issue of Time Magazine featured Nelson Mandela’s 8 lessons of leadership. Lesson #6 was “Appearances matter — and remember to smile”. The article noted about Mandela when he was running for President in 1994: “But more important was that dazzling, beatific, all-inclusive smile. For white South Africans, the smile symbolized Mandela's lack of bitterness and suggested that he was sympathetic to them. To black voters, it said, I am the happy warrior, and we will triumph. The ubiquitous ANC election poster was simply his smiling face. "The smile," says Ramaphosa, "was the message."
In closing, I reminded the conference delegates to find the opportunity in crisis, to remember what they need to do as a leader – C (Communicate) R (Respect) I(Independent) S (Stay on message) I(Invincibility) S(Smile), and to keep hope alive.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Why do we do the things we do?
“Why do you want to?” I incredulously asked the security officer at the Norman Manley International Airport in Kingston yesterday, in response to her request to feel my hair. Granted, I do have a lot of hair, enough to ensconce a pound or two of drugs, is what she was probably thinking. Opening her eyes wide, shoulders bracing with all the power invested in her uniform and position, she responded “So you are not allowing me to feel your hair?” I replied quickly, seeing that this could get ugly, and that I was in HER space, not mine, that I did not have any such problem.
The next line was Immigration. I stood behind a lady who was being asked by an Immigration officer to turn off her cell phone. Energised by my encounter with the hair-hounding security detail, I asked him why. He looked at me aghast, smiled and said “Because this is a sterile zone”. So, I asked him what that meant. He repeated his statement. I proceeded to the Immigration counter, to another officer and asked “Why can’t we use cell phones here?” “Because it is a sterile zone”. I pressed on, and got a series of responses with the ultimate declaration that this is the way it is in here as in all Immigration zones throughout the world and well, just … because.
This got me pondering – why do we do the things we do in our organizations? Why do we have the systems, processes and procedures? Why do we have certain regulations, systems, procedures and processes in our government? Presumably, they were put in place for a very good reason, and they served a useful purpose when they were instituted. But do we ever stop to question why we still have them and whether they are still useful?
Further, do our organizational team members know why they do the things they do? The security officer should have been able to respond to my question, for it was a reasonable one – she wanted to put her hand on my person, my body, my space. I wanted to know why she would want to do such a thing, which frankly, I consider an invasion of my privacy, and maybe even fraught with health issues (like, how clean are her hands?) And surely Immigration officers, highly trained and educated, should be able to tell me in one sentence or less why cell phones are not allowed in their space. “Because that’s the way it’s done all over the world” is not an appropriate answer to my question.
There was a time when all of us used to ask “Why” constantly – the time was called “childhood”. Unfortunately, the adults in our lives quickly beat this out of us (figuratively, and some even literally) and we soon learned that asking “Why” was not a good thing to do, since the only response it elicited was “Because I say so”.
As organizational leaders, we need to constantly be asking “Why”. This is how we create organizations that are efficient, effective and profitable. This is how we create organizations that truly serve the needs of our customers and create unassailable competitive advantage. We also need to encourage our team members to ask “Why”. They are the ones actually carrying out the processes and procedures, and who receive direct feedback from those on the receiving end i.e. your customers. When they ask “why”, it is important to be open to the feedback and give them straight, honest responses. If “because I say so” is the only response you can muster, then you need to get back to the drawing board and redesign (or eliminate) your systems, processes or procedures.
The next line was Immigration. I stood behind a lady who was being asked by an Immigration officer to turn off her cell phone. Energised by my encounter with the hair-hounding security detail, I asked him why. He looked at me aghast, smiled and said “Because this is a sterile zone”. So, I asked him what that meant. He repeated his statement. I proceeded to the Immigration counter, to another officer and asked “Why can’t we use cell phones here?” “Because it is a sterile zone”. I pressed on, and got a series of responses with the ultimate declaration that this is the way it is in here as in all Immigration zones throughout the world and well, just … because.
This got me pondering – why do we do the things we do in our organizations? Why do we have the systems, processes and procedures? Why do we have certain regulations, systems, procedures and processes in our government? Presumably, they were put in place for a very good reason, and they served a useful purpose when they were instituted. But do we ever stop to question why we still have them and whether they are still useful?
Further, do our organizational team members know why they do the things they do? The security officer should have been able to respond to my question, for it was a reasonable one – she wanted to put her hand on my person, my body, my space. I wanted to know why she would want to do such a thing, which frankly, I consider an invasion of my privacy, and maybe even fraught with health issues (like, how clean are her hands?) And surely Immigration officers, highly trained and educated, should be able to tell me in one sentence or less why cell phones are not allowed in their space. “Because that’s the way it’s done all over the world” is not an appropriate answer to my question.
There was a time when all of us used to ask “Why” constantly – the time was called “childhood”. Unfortunately, the adults in our lives quickly beat this out of us (figuratively, and some even literally) and we soon learned that asking “Why” was not a good thing to do, since the only response it elicited was “Because I say so”.
As organizational leaders, we need to constantly be asking “Why”. This is how we create organizations that are efficient, effective and profitable. This is how we create organizations that truly serve the needs of our customers and create unassailable competitive advantage. We also need to encourage our team members to ask “Why”. They are the ones actually carrying out the processes and procedures, and who receive direct feedback from those on the receiving end i.e. your customers. When they ask “why”, it is important to be open to the feedback and give them straight, honest responses. If “because I say so” is the only response you can muster, then you need to get back to the drawing board and redesign (or eliminate) your systems, processes or procedures.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Just a pretty face?
After all the strides that women have made in the past century, does it really still all come down to "just a pretty face"? Is this the key determinant of success?
This is what occurs to me when I read about the popularity of Governor Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential nominee in the United States General Elections. Pretty Gov. Palin certainly is – she actually is a former beauty queen. What else does she bring to the table? Looking at what she has actually done is another matter - nothing really spectacular, and some quite unspectacular except for the smell of corruption or impropriety.
I am quite incensed that the GOP would think that Gov. Sarah Palin could possibly be a counter for Senator Hilary Clinton. This seems to have been the thinking in the Republican party - let’s get Hilarys disgruntled 18 million supporters by proposing a woman as VP. Indeed, this was presented as a real trump card, particularly since Senator Barack Obama went the more conservative route and selected an older, white male as his running mate.
There is no doubt about Senator Clinton’s intelligence, savvy and ability to think big and bold. Indeed, many believe that she is the brighter of the Clinton duo. To counter her, one would need someone equally intelligent, savvy, seasoned and competent. Surely there must be many such women in the GOP? So why did McCain and his crew think that Gov. Sarah Palin would be a good candidate for mobilising the voters?
Listening to and reading what Gov. Palin has said and done, I cannot but help think that it is because of her looks, for I can see little else. She has played the classic female line to the T – from the soccer-mom ("I’m JUST a soccer mom" in her syrupy sweet tone) to the constant parading of her baby at all hours of day and night in all sorts of situations that could not possibly be healthy for the child. She has failed to address the issues – sort of an "I won’t worry my pretty little head about such things" type of approach. And her spending of US$150,000 for wardrobe and grooming falls right into this plan. She looked quite fine to me before – why the need for this makeover, except to play up the one thing she brings to the table - compelling good looks?
It is sad that in 2008 I could even be wondering such a thing. It is sad that it seems that this actually matters to a significant number of voters in the United States. It is sad that McCain and the Republican party could be so desperate for power that they foist on the world the possibility of Sarah "Prettyface" Palin as Vice President, and more frightening, Sarah "Prettyface" Palin as President.
Lest you wonder, I have no problem with pretty faces and good looks. I love to look at beautiful people. I spend a lot of time trying to make myself beautiful, but that’s secondary to what I bring to the table in terms of my intelligence and competence. What I have a challenge with is when this is seemingly the major competence that someone brings to the Presidential candidacy. Not even in beauty contests nowadays is a pretty face enough - why in the world would one think that it could be enough for the election to the Vice Presidency of the United States of America?
This is what occurs to me when I read about the popularity of Governor Sarah Palin, Vice Presidential nominee in the United States General Elections. Pretty Gov. Palin certainly is – she actually is a former beauty queen. What else does she bring to the table? Looking at what she has actually done is another matter - nothing really spectacular, and some quite unspectacular except for the smell of corruption or impropriety.
I am quite incensed that the GOP would think that Gov. Sarah Palin could possibly be a counter for Senator Hilary Clinton. This seems to have been the thinking in the Republican party - let’s get Hilarys disgruntled 18 million supporters by proposing a woman as VP. Indeed, this was presented as a real trump card, particularly since Senator Barack Obama went the more conservative route and selected an older, white male as his running mate.
There is no doubt about Senator Clinton’s intelligence, savvy and ability to think big and bold. Indeed, many believe that she is the brighter of the Clinton duo. To counter her, one would need someone equally intelligent, savvy, seasoned and competent. Surely there must be many such women in the GOP? So why did McCain and his crew think that Gov. Sarah Palin would be a good candidate for mobilising the voters?
Listening to and reading what Gov. Palin has said and done, I cannot but help think that it is because of her looks, for I can see little else. She has played the classic female line to the T – from the soccer-mom ("I’m JUST a soccer mom" in her syrupy sweet tone) to the constant parading of her baby at all hours of day and night in all sorts of situations that could not possibly be healthy for the child. She has failed to address the issues – sort of an "I won’t worry my pretty little head about such things" type of approach. And her spending of US$150,000 for wardrobe and grooming falls right into this plan. She looked quite fine to me before – why the need for this makeover, except to play up the one thing she brings to the table - compelling good looks?
It is sad that in 2008 I could even be wondering such a thing. It is sad that it seems that this actually matters to a significant number of voters in the United States. It is sad that McCain and the Republican party could be so desperate for power that they foist on the world the possibility of Sarah "Prettyface" Palin as Vice President, and more frightening, Sarah "Prettyface" Palin as President.
Lest you wonder, I have no problem with pretty faces and good looks. I love to look at beautiful people. I spend a lot of time trying to make myself beautiful, but that’s secondary to what I bring to the table in terms of my intelligence and competence. What I have a challenge with is when this is seemingly the major competence that someone brings to the Presidential candidacy. Not even in beauty contests nowadays is a pretty face enough - why in the world would one think that it could be enough for the election to the Vice Presidency of the United States of America?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Raising Teachers salaries without transforming education gets us nowhere
Earlier this week the week the Government and the Jamaica Teachers Association signed a landmark agreement effectively bringing the compensation of the nation’s teachers to 80% of market. Senator Dwight Nelson, the Minister responsible for the Public Service indicated that the impact on the budget would be somewhere between $15 Billion and $18 Billion. Minister of Education, Hon. Andrew Holness remarked that with the increase he will be holding teachers accountable and now expects a significant increase in their performance. I am concerned that the Minister believes that by simply raising the teachers’ salaries he will automatically get increased performance.
The statement by Minister Holness implies three assumptions. Firstly, the teachers were holding back on performance because they were poorly paid. Secondly, teachers were not being held accountable because they were underpaid. Thirdly, the main problem for our pathetic level of performance of the Education system was due to teachers and that simply paying them more will magically boost the performance.
The Task Force Report on Education outlines a comprehensive way forward to transform education. Properly paying the teachers is one of several recommendations. The most significant one to my mind however is the leadership required at the school level. This requires that the Board and Principal must have the authority and autonomy to manage the school rather than being literally puppets of the Ministry of Education. The proposed shift of authority from the Central Ministry to the new Regional Authorities is really only a cosmetic shift. The call by Minister Holness that he will hold teachers accountable will not go very far unless he holds everyone accountable, including himself. As my colleague Marguerite Orane said in her blog, being accountable to actions and being accountable to results are not the same.
The fact is that if we have a poorly performing education system with underpaid teachers and all we do is raise teachers salaries with all else remaining as is, all we will end up with is a poorly performing education system with well paid teachers
The statement by Minister Holness implies three assumptions. Firstly, the teachers were holding back on performance because they were poorly paid. Secondly, teachers were not being held accountable because they were underpaid. Thirdly, the main problem for our pathetic level of performance of the Education system was due to teachers and that simply paying them more will magically boost the performance.
The Task Force Report on Education outlines a comprehensive way forward to transform education. Properly paying the teachers is one of several recommendations. The most significant one to my mind however is the leadership required at the school level. This requires that the Board and Principal must have the authority and autonomy to manage the school rather than being literally puppets of the Ministry of Education. The proposed shift of authority from the Central Ministry to the new Regional Authorities is really only a cosmetic shift. The call by Minister Holness that he will hold teachers accountable will not go very far unless he holds everyone accountable, including himself. As my colleague Marguerite Orane said in her blog, being accountable to actions and being accountable to results are not the same.
The fact is that if we have a poorly performing education system with underpaid teachers and all we do is raise teachers salaries with all else remaining as is, all we will end up with is a poorly performing education system with well paid teachers
Monday, October 20, 2008
Accountability for performance in government
Last Thursday, the news broke that the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Bruce Golding, had demanded the immediate resignation of the board of the Urban Development Corporation. The report in the Jamaica Gleaner further stated:
Up to late yesterday there was no official word from Jamaica House, but senior government sources told The Gleaner that the board members had been instructed to resign because the prime minister was not pleased with their performance. According to the sources, while some members of the board might be returned, the Prime Minister was disappointed with the level of infighting on the board and its failure to deliver on several promises.
"The prime minister is getting tough and demanding performance, and other boards could also be fired shortly," one source said.
This news was greeted with cynicism by the Opposition party, who immediately pointed to this as a failure of the government. I see it differently - I see it as the first step in demanding and insisting on the accountability of public institutions and officials, and a step that should have been taken long ago.
Here's where the Prime Minister now faces a challenge however. He indicated that he is not pleased with their performance, but does he know, and has he (or anyone else) been clear, on how the performance of this, and other public sector institutions is measured? And by measurement I don’t mean activities carried out, I actually mean results, or outcomes. This begs some other questions such as:
What is the role of Government?
What is the mandate and role of each public sector institution?
How are all these institutions to work together to ensure delivery of service to the Jamaican citizens, with minimum waste and maximum effectiveness?
If the Prime Minister does not have these questions answered, then he will simply appoint new people to the Board with the same results - non-performance. This is important because non-performance of public sector institutions is a drain on the public purse and further impoverishment of the Jamaican people.
And then he, or the new Board, needs to go further and hold public sector employees accountable for their performance - again, not the carrying out of activities, but performance as indicated by the achievement of desired and stated results. It is high time that people be released from their government jobs if they fail to perform. This is actually the humane thing to do - there is no joy for someone to be in a job where they know they are not performing and there is no joy for those whom they are supposed to serve (the citizenry).
If there is one single thing that needs to be done to make Jamaica a desirable, peaceful place to live it is to set clear, unambiguous standards of performance throughout the public sector and hold people accountable for the results. If not, then the Prime Minister will find himself out of his job - for non-performance!
Up to late yesterday there was no official word from Jamaica House, but senior government sources told The Gleaner that the board members had been instructed to resign because the prime minister was not pleased with their performance. According to the sources, while some members of the board might be returned, the Prime Minister was disappointed with the level of infighting on the board and its failure to deliver on several promises.
"The prime minister is getting tough and demanding performance, and other boards could also be fired shortly," one source said.
This news was greeted with cynicism by the Opposition party, who immediately pointed to this as a failure of the government. I see it differently - I see it as the first step in demanding and insisting on the accountability of public institutions and officials, and a step that should have been taken long ago.
Here's where the Prime Minister now faces a challenge however. He indicated that he is not pleased with their performance, but does he know, and has he (or anyone else) been clear, on how the performance of this, and other public sector institutions is measured? And by measurement I don’t mean activities carried out, I actually mean results, or outcomes. This begs some other questions such as:
What is the role of Government?
What is the mandate and role of each public sector institution?
How are all these institutions to work together to ensure delivery of service to the Jamaican citizens, with minimum waste and maximum effectiveness?
If the Prime Minister does not have these questions answered, then he will simply appoint new people to the Board with the same results - non-performance. This is important because non-performance of public sector institutions is a drain on the public purse and further impoverishment of the Jamaican people.
And then he, or the new Board, needs to go further and hold public sector employees accountable for their performance - again, not the carrying out of activities, but performance as indicated by the achievement of desired and stated results. It is high time that people be released from their government jobs if they fail to perform. This is actually the humane thing to do - there is no joy for someone to be in a job where they know they are not performing and there is no joy for those whom they are supposed to serve (the citizenry).
If there is one single thing that needs to be done to make Jamaica a desirable, peaceful place to live it is to set clear, unambiguous standards of performance throughout the public sector and hold people accountable for the results. If not, then the Prime Minister will find himself out of his job - for non-performance!
Friday, October 17, 2008
Key phrases in urgency
Some great phrases came from Prof. Kotter in his webinar on Thursday and his article "Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail". Here are a few that resonated with me and the meanings I ascribe:
Team of prima donnas - this is a leadership team that think they know everything and parade around extolling their brilliance. They are untouchable, and infallible, or think they are. They are so focused on boosting themselves that they become hindrances to any real change effort
Relentless urgency killers - these are the people who kill the sense of urgency by their negativism, cynicism and downright sabotage. They have honed their urgency-murder to a fine art and are often subtle, but very very effective
Urgency generating machine - the people/person whose "job" it is to establish and maintain the sense of urgency. Best if the CEO considers this to be his/her role - but then aims, by example, to get more and more people operating likewise
Power-dispersed environment - an environment where power is not concentrated at the top, and where people feel and are empowered to act and make decisions on that generate real change
Aggressive cooperation - cooperation focused on the achievement of results and which is underpinned by a true sense of urgency
Paralyzed by the downside - this is where people are so consumed in the "what ifs" that they are unable to take any action at all
Which of these phrases apply to you or to members of your team? And what do you plan to do about it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
