LEADING THOUGHTS

Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook, wikis, and blogs are making their way into organizations, in many cases brought in by employees rather than as part of an enterprise strategy. Some organizations, however, are proactively exploring how new collaborative tools can change the way people work for the better.

Andrew McAfee, principal research scientist at the Center for Digital Business at the MIT Sloan School of Management, sizes up this trend in the book Enterprise 2.0: New Collaborative Tools for your Organization’s Toughest Challenges. In this interview with McKinsey Quarterly, he discusses some of his findings.

At the 9:08 mark (note: the video clock counts down), McAfee talks about the top-down versus the bottom-up approach to adopting new technology. In the end, he believes culture change is more likely to result when it is led by senior managers.

At 6:26, McAfee talks about the forces that can undermine Web 2.0′s enterprise-wide adoption.

And at 3:54, he talks about what Web 2.0 means for middle managers. If you see yourself as a gatekeeper of information, McAfee says, you’re in for a rough ride. “If you have another view of yourself, which is that you’re someone who’s responsible for output, you’re someone who’s responsible for making good things happen in your team, then these tools should be your best friend.”

CEO of Yahoo! Carol Bartz argues in The Economist (Nov. 13, 2009 issue) that, in the age of ubiquitous information, traditional management is “impossible, or at least ill-advised.”

“The hierarchical, layered corporate structures in which company information was carefully managed and then selectively passed down the line have crumbled,” Bartz writes. “The online era has made command-and-control management as dead as dial-up internet.” Ouch.

The problem, she says, lies in the stream of 24/7 commentary and instant opinion and gossip generated and amplified by bloggers, tweeters, and their ilk. It makes it impossible to control the message and hampers decision-making. So what’s the answer?

Learn to live with it, for one thing. Develop a thick skin. And understand “how important they [leaders] can be to their own team by interpreting both the news and the disinformation that swirls around them,” Bartz writes.

Bartz advises leaders to identify and mentor thought leaders, employees who have the ability to digest and interpret information for others. “Grooming these in-house ideas people helps foster a culture of openness to fresh thinking—the greatest energy an organization can have.”

photo credit: nregimbal

As part of a larger project studying productivity differences between the U.S. and the UK, researcher Kieran Mannion (Dept. for Employment and Learning, Belfast) asked some 40 American HR practitioners and academics who had worked directly with Northern Ireland owner-managers for their thoughts on the main differences between the Irish manager and their American counterpart. This is what he was told:

• While Northern Ireland (NI) managers are just as highly intelligent, motivated, and hard working, their biggest limitation is that they “think too small.”
• With a lack of role models, NI managers tend to lower their own growth ambitions.
• While planning skills are generally excellent, the execution of those plans is generally poorer compared to other countries.
• NI managers do not sufficiently plan for success and future growth. Activity was often an end in itself.

“Leadership. . . for success”, by Kieran Mannion; Leadership and Organization Development Journal (Vol. 30 No. 7, 2009; pp. 639-648)

The UK suffers from a 30 percent productivity gap with the U.S., which translates into 85 working days per worker. Research has shown that up to half of that gap is due to how U.S. competitors deploy resources within their businesses, which in turn is traced to different management and leadership practices.

Kieran Mannion (Dept. for Employment and Learning, Belfast) wanted to figure out why U.S. managers seemed to be more productive than their British counterparts. He discounted the usual reasons trotted out, such as cultural differences or the fact that American managers work longer hours.

Instead, Mannion conducted interviews with 45 American HR managers and leadership development practitioners with first-hand experience working in both the U.S. and the British Isles. And what did he learn?

Higher instance of degree-level education among managers in the U.S.
Most respondents said business leaders in the U.S. were generally better qualified than their counterparts in the UK. “In the private sector, managers expressed surprise that so many of their UK colleagues had not been to university, pointing out that a degree, or even an MBA, was simply the starting point in the recruitment process in the U.S.”

More focus among students on business as a career
Again most interviewees said business management was more highly regarded as a mainstream profession in the U.S. “The perception was that European business was dominated by professional accountants rather thabn marketers or other generalist leaders. . . On the other hand, fewer people in the UK enter directly into management.”

Greater mobility among U.S. managers
Many of the managers interviewed from multinational corporations said American leaders were more mobile compared to colleagues in the UK and Ireland. “In the U.S, business leaders tend to take a much greater level of personal responsibility for the management of their own careers. This leads to much more proactive job searching and generally lower tenure in any one job.”

More flexible employment laws allow for non-performing managers to be weeded-out
While the HR specialists interviewed recognized that labour laws in the UK and Ireland were among the most flexible in Europe, the predominant view was that it was difficult to terminate the employment of a non-productive manager.

Greater use of leveraged compensation packages and stock options
Variable pay schemes, including bonuses and profit sharing, form a much larger proportion of the US managers’ overall compensation package than is the case in the UK.

Greater development and adoption of business strategy theories
“The sheer volume of research into business strategy and management techniques and practices in the U.S. had created a clear role for business process engineering that had given the U.S. a competitive advantage.” Factoid: As recently as the 1980s, UK universities had little involvement in the business world.

More prevalent geographically distributed management teams
American corporations could pioneer standardized management practices because the U.S. is a single large marketplace with no currency, language, or cultural barriers. This encouraged much higher growth levels and more widely distributed management teams. This, in turn, forced U.S. companies to find ways “to ensure consistency across widely geographically distributed managers to replicate the same standards of performance across different regions and markets. In turn, the development and adoption of standardized management practices helped these companies to achieve higher productivity, better returns on capital and even more robust growth.”

“Leadership. . . for success”, by Kieran Mannion; Leadership and Organization Development Journal (Vol. 30 No. 7, 2009; pp. 639-648)
photo credit: R4vi

For organizations to be highly innovative, they must be skilled in creativity (R&D) and production (operational execution), with the two sides working together effectively. Seems simple but in most companies, the two capabilities are difficult if not impossible to integrate, say Booz & Company consultants Zia Khan and Jon Katzenbach.

Writing in Strategy+Business, Khan and Katzenbach refer to the two parts of an organization: the formal side with its codified processes, reporting structures, and decision rights (where production mostly sits), and the informal side, with its social networks, shared values, and mutually understood rituals (where the creative work flows).

Organizations tend to favour one side or the other. As a result, there is either wasted effort in chasing too many ideas or an arid environment in which innovators cannot plant roots.

Khan and Katzenbach offer advice on how achieve the production-creativity balance.

“Figure out ways to shape the formal and informal structures together, integrating them from the beginning.” One way is by mapping informal networks to identify patterns in how information flows. Then plant creative and socially adept people in these positions and make use of their networking talents to sharpen ideas and win support.

“Capture budding ideas from the widest possible net and collect them centrally.” Use formal structures to harvest ideas that come up at the water cooler. Example: Starbucks.

“Involve multiple perspectives in ‘go/no-go’ choices from the outset, and thus make them stick.” Find ways to get marketing, finance, and engineering together at the same table for “rigorous and synchronized debate.” Focus the debate on a new idea with these three questions: Will customers want it? Can we produce it? Will we be able to make money from it?

“Motivate the right behaviours.” Celebrate failure as well as success. Use informal communications and formal incentives to support focus and cohesion. Apply the lessons of failed projects to other projects.

The article includes a short case study of Bell Canada as an example of a company getting the creative-production balance right.

“Are you killing enough ideas?” by Zia Khan and Jon Katzenbach; Strategy+Business (Issue 56, Autumn 2009)

Link to Strategy+Business

photo credit: kana76

They are smoother than glass and have the conscience of a stone. They have an almost mystical ability to ingratiate and fool people with their wiles. They are sociopaths, and woe is you if you cross their path in your organizational travels.

In Organization Development Journal, psych profs Joseph Cangemi and William Pfohl (Western Kentucky U) offer seven short case studies of sociopaths in leadership positions — stories that will probably make you squirm. And the authors offer some insight on how to unmask a sociopath. Namely:

:: Sociopaths are very charming in public but away from the spotlight they lie, steal, and generally behave unethically, usually getting away with it. Lesson: Take note of how leaders behave in more private moments.

:: Sociopaths, particularly those with educational credentials, are adept at making others doubt themselves, often by fudging information. Lesson: As Maslow advised, develop a healthy skepticism in relationships with others.

:: Sociopaths are envious and will have no reluctance to destroy competition by any means. Lesson: This behaviour, which is lauded in leaders in competitive industries, can easily be turned on colleagues or underlings.

“Sociopaths will take advantage of others whenever they can, whenever they sense individuals involved with them show great respect for them, are naive – or fear them,” Cangemi and Pfohl write. “The recipient must expose the conscience-less predator for what he/she is – face-to-face. No excuses. The sociopath must be exposed and must know the individual is aware of what is going on and is not afraid.”

But have no illusions: exposing a sociopath does not mean he or she disappears. Either you will have to always keep up your guard or leave the organization altogether.

“Sociopaths in high places”, by Joseph Cangemi and William Pfohl;  Organization Development Journal (vol. 27 no. 2, Summer 2009; pp. 85-96)

If you cannot find this journal is your local library, email me for a copy of the article at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: L-plate big cheese

If you were to identify the 10 most important skills that leaders must have and compare it to the 10 skills that leaders actually possess, how closely would those two lists overlap?

The Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) set out to answer that question in a study involving 2,200 leaders from 15 organizations, conducted between 2006 and 2008. The CCL’s conclusion: there is an alarming leadership gap or deficit.

In the CCL survey, seven leadership skills are consistently viewed as most important now and in the future:

• Leading people
• Strategic planning
• Managing change
• Inspiring commitment
• Resourcefulness
• Doing whatever it takes
• Being a quick learner

Of the top five needed skills, only resourcefulness is considered a top 10 skill. The four most important future skills “are among the weakest competencies for today’s leaders,” the report concluded. Other areas where there is a significant gap between the needed and existing skills levels are: employee development, balancing work and personal life, and decisiveness.

“These data show that many leaders’ strengths are not in areas that are most important for success,” the report concludes.

For a copy of the report, send me at email at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: splityarn

The UK-based CIPD just released a report designed to stir interest in the benefits of organizational “shared sense of purpose.” CIPD defines shared purpose as an organization’s “identity and ‘the golden thread’ to which its strategy should be aligned.”

In a CIPD survey of 3,000 UK employees (May 2009), just under half said they experience a strong sense of shared purpose at work compared to 28 percent who certainly do not.

Based on this survey data and a literature review, CIPD researchers list six factors that drive a strong sense of shared purpose.

1. An invigorating organizational purpose
This goes beyond making money or making shareholders happy. The strongest driver is “creating a better world for customers, stakeholders, or society” (as long as the organization can deliver, of course).

2. Effective leadership
These are leaders who actively develop shared purpose and mobilize people’s energy, often through the use of storytelling.

3. A compelling vision and strategy
“Both vision and strategy need to be grounded in clear goals to be achieved and employees need to understand how their roles contribute to delivering those goals.” Don’t forget to celebrate progress toward achieving those goals.

4. A meaningful employee voice in decisions
Employees need to be consulted and to feel they have opportunities to be involved in making decisions.

5. Effective performance management
Employees need to understand what’s expected of them and receive clear feedback and coaching from their boss.

6. Common practices
Common practices, such as the adoption of a shared approach to quality, can break down functional and physical boundaries.

The CIPD report includes a “shared purpose in practice” case study of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

To download a copy of the report, go here or email me at Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: mrlerone