Creating a golden thread, one of the six functions of the effective manager

In a recent blog I said that at People Based Solutions we believe that those individuals who lead the organisation must also manage it effectively.  I went on to say that mangers ensure that while undertaking the highly volatile business of the organisation, there is predictability and order.

I outlined the 6 key functions of the effective manager:

 

1. They set SMART objectives
2. They stay in control
3. They understand and manage risk
4. They operate a balanced scorecard
5. They create a “golden thread”
6. They plan for tomorrow.

In later blogs, I explained that in managing the organisation, effective managers set SMART objectives and exercise control, i.e. objectives that are Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound. These SMART objectives are used to effectively monitor performance to ensure plans and projects are being delivered.   I also stated that when deciding what objectives to set, effective managers use a balanced score card.  The balanced score card helps to ensure that managers can anticipate what’s going to happen in the future, as well as understand what has happened in the past.  I went on to write that the purpose of the organisation should be at the heart of the management system.  Consequently, there is a need to have systems in place that ensure managers understand how the business is operating.  The information from these systems will alert managers if it becomes necessary to take corrective action.

To effectively focus the efforts of staff it is not enough to set SMART objectives as part of a balanced score card.   Effective managers appreciate that those who work for them need to know how the work they do makes a difference.  Effective managers ensure that individual contributors understand how the objectives they have been set, and the actions and tasks they have been asked to perform, link to and deliver the strategic purpose of the organisation.

Effective Managers create a “golden thread”.  This links the objectives, goals and tasks set at every level, to the organisation’s overall purpose.   The effective manager ensures that these links are clearly visible to everyone in the organisation. They take every opportunity to promote the integration of work and tasks. Every task, including those at the lowest and most mundane levels, are linked to the strategic purpose of the organisation. 

Effective managers adopt a management style that promotes these links in everything that they do:

·         Staff are trained to appreciate and understand these links

·         Job roles are designed to ensure job tasks are aimed at delivering the organisation’s strategic purpose

·         Performance management, systems and structures, focus on how the delivery of individual tasks and objectives ultimately deliver the organisation’s strategic purpose

 

·         Communication systems are used to reinforce and promote the links between individual objectives and the organisation’s strategic purpose.

This article has been posted by Sean McCann, the Managing Director of PeopleBased Solutions an HR consultancy specialising in Management Development. If you would like to know more about the Effective Manager Programme, either public courses or in house for your organisation contact us at:

enquiries@peoplebasedsolutions.com

 

How the Co-op bank got it seriously wrong, a cautionary tale of the darkside of leadership

 

The Co-op, the “ethical bank” has surpassed itself! 

The latest events at the Co-op are in keeping with the recent events that have blighted the banking sector.

Two of the more high profile banking fiascos have been the demise of the so called HBoS 3  and the dramatic fall from grace of the ex-Chief Executive of RBS, Sir (now Mr.) Fred Goodwin.  

The so called HBoS 3, namely the former Chairman, Lord Stevenson, former Chief Executives Andy Hornby and Sir James Crosby.  These men, according to the Government's Commission on Banking Standards, led a bank whose business model was “inherently flawed”,  and served on a board that was a "model of self-delusion".  They managed to land the taxpayer with a £28bn bill for good measure.

Fred Goodwin , who, according to recent reports,   obsessed  on minutiae – from office hygiene to the design of Christmas cards – at the expense of the responsible strategic management of a world-leading investment bank, which collapsed spectacularly requiring a £45.8bn government bailout.

However, there is one thing that separates the so called HBoS 3 and Goodwin from Paul Flowers, the now disgraced, former Co-op Bank chairman; at least Stevenson, Crosby, Hornby and Goodwin had CV’s, if not personalities, that might suggest they were up to the job of running a major bank.

 In this blog I will be examining, how the very traits that make leaders successful, can develop in to dysfunctional dispositions that can cause them to derail.

In the Flowers case, there is a bigger governance issue, but again I am not surprised.  In the tradition of putting a DJ and television presenter in charge of a Broadmoor task force (any half decent background check would have shown that Saville was not remotely suitable).  The Co-op Group put a Co-op movement activist in charge of its bank (again any half decent background check would have shown that Flowers was not remotely suitable), for good measure, like Saville, Flowers had no qualifications to suggest he had the technical know- how to carry out the duties of the role.  These are issues about governance, and are for another day!   However, generally speaking, I am surprised at how often there are no meaningful background checks carried out for key executive appointments.

 

When selecting leaders most organisations look for the competencies they do want, rather than the behaviours and traits  they don't want.  In fact, some dysfunctional behaviours, when displayed by intelligent, educated middle class individuals, can be considered an  asset.  Bullies can be described as "not suffering fools...", egotist as "having self belief ..." , and recklessness as "being willing to take risks".   At certain points in the business cycle these personality traits can prove useful, but in the long term they are almost always unhelpful and destructive. 

The fact is, when considering individuals for selection or promotion to a leadership role, the focus is usually on the "bright-side" of the candidate’s leadership personality.  The bright-side of leadership personality reflects a person’s strengths and weaknesses when they are on their best behaviour.

  

 An example of the bright side characteristics we often look for when selecting or promoting leaders include:

·         Self confidence

·         Assertiveness

·         Tough mindedness

·         Attention to detail

·         Drive

However, when selecting leaders, we rarely consider the "dark-side" of their leadership

personality.  "Dark-side" characteristics are invisible at interview or assessment center, but become apparent when leaders  are under pressure, or when they let down their guard down.

It’s not difficult to see how Stevenson, Hornby, Crosby, Goodwin and Flowers have bright side characteristics that would excite interview panels, shine at assessment centers and impress on social occasions.

 

•  Goodwin has a very impressive intellect, an eye for detail, and was brimming with self-confidence and self believe.
• The HBoS 3 were bright, savvy, highly experienced business leaders with terrific track records
• Flowers, a politician and a “committee man”, is described as clever, persuasive and forceful

However poor leadership is not simply just the result of the absence of "bright-side" characteristics. Individuals can have “dysfunctional dispositions”.  Dysfunctional dispositions are strategies, often developed in childhood, but that continue to be used in adulthood in ways that are no longer effective.  The over reliance on these inappropriate interpersonal strategies, can become unhelpful and dysfunctional.  In many cases It is not that the person is inherently bad, but that they have employed the wrong strategies.  In that sense, people can be overly accommodating, overly attentive to detail, overly analytical or overly assertive.  They can, in fact, have "too much of a good thing”.

 

Paradoxically, the factors that have helped achieve success in the past in more junior, less strategic or less interpersonally demanding roles, can be the very factors that are responsible for derailment.  Studies suggest that when looking back on those whose careers have derailed, there are often little foibles and peculiarities, around social skills, and emotional regulation such as:

 

• Temper tantrums
• Sarcasm or bullying
• It’s never their fault
• Overreaction

Articles, biographies and press reports often point to the interpersonal idiosyncrasies of those people whose careers have derailed:

 

·        Fred Goodwin obsessed over minutiae from the colour of biscuits to the design of company    Christmas cards. He also bullied those around him, and often intimidated others from speaking their own mind, for fear of his reaction

 ·       Lord Stevenson claimed the reckless lending at HBOS was not his fault, because he was "only there part time"

·         In 2005 Sir James Crosby sacked Paul Moore, the senior risk manager of HBOS, for warning the bank that they were getting dangerously exposed.  He then replaced him with someone who had no risk management experience.  

·       Hornby has been criticised for establishing a “high pressure sales culture", and for pushing HBOS into risky lending to drive profits, with little regard for the long-term cost. 

·         A picture of Flowers is emerging as an individual with narcissistic self-belief. He has described himself as "known for an objective rigour and for asking the questions others might avoid".  He has been described by others as an insufferable and pompous person, who throws his weight around, and considers those less educated than him as peasants.  Also as some one who doesn't take blame or criticism.  When he was vice chair of the Rochdale Social Services Committee, it was heavily criticised for taking “at risk” children in to care, to protect them from alleged satanic abuse.  Although no evidence was ever found to support these claims, Flowers launched a passionate defence of the staff involved.

 

At People Based Solutions we don’t consider it inevitable that dysfunctional dispositions will prevail.  However, we do believe that organisations can make bad appointments.  Looking at the "dark-side" leadership characteristics and identifying  potential leadership derailers, can help reduce the liklihood of poor appointments.   However, mangers and leaders who are open and responsive to feedback, motivated to change, emotionally literate and behaviourally flexible, have the capacity to deliver effective leadership.  With appropriate training and coaching, to help manage and control their dysfunctional dispositions those in leadership roles can avoid the pitfalls of their potential derailers.

At People Based Solutions we offer a leadership selection framework based on the Hogan Suite  that helps identify candidates' "dark- side"  dysfunctional dispositions as well as their "bright-side" characteristics, and how a candidates values and believes accord with those of the wider organisation or team.  Allowing the organisation to decide whether to appoint or promote, and if they choose to appoint or promote, to identify where best to focus any coaching or development efforts.

 

We also offer a leadership development programme the Adaptable Leader with modules that:

·         Develop emotional intelligence

·         Encourage self-awareness

·         Promote behavioural flexibility

This article has been posted by Sean McCann, the Managing Director of People Based Solutions an HR consultancy specialising in leadership selection  and development. If you would like to know more about the Adaptable Leader Programme, either public courses or in house for your organisation, or about support for your leadership pipeline, contact us at:

enquiries@peoplebasedsolutions.com

 

Operating a balanced scorecard 1 of the 6 key functions of the effective manager

In recent blog I wrote that at People Based Solutions we believe that those individuals who lead the organisation must also manage it.  I suggested Mangers ensure that while undertaking the highly volatile business of the organisation, there is predictability and order.

I outlined the 6 key functions of the effective manager:




 

      1.      They set SMART objectives

2.      They stay in control

3.      They understand and manage risk

4.      They operate a balanced scorecard

5.      They create a “golden thread”

6.      They plan for tomorrow.

In a recent  blog I wrote about how effective managers understand and manage risk.  In this blog I will deal with how effective Mangers operate a “balanced score card”.

 Seeing the bigger picture

Effective managers keep their eyes on the prize. They appreciate that the business has a purpose and a business plan to achieve that purpose. They also understand that it is as important to manage what’s going to happen in the future, as it is to understand what has happened in the past.  The effective manager agrees with the old adage “what get measured gets managed”, but their focus is on management rather than measurement.  They understand that measuring performance is critical, however, they also know that there’s more to running an organisation than measuring past performance.

They appreciate that at the heart of any management system is the purpose of the organisation, and the plan to achieve that purpose.  Having specified the purpose and developed a plan to achieve that purpose, the effective manager puts systems in place to help them understand how the business is operating.   The effective manager understands that to do this they need more than financial Key performance indicators (KPI’s).  They understand that the data they need isn’t just financial and they are aware of the danger of suboptimal performance.  Efficiency in one KPI can be achieved at the overall effectiveness of the organisation.

Effective managers don’t just rely on financial performance, they judge business performance using a “balanced scorecard”:

·         They track financial performance: Return on investment, cashflow, budget compliance.

·         They gather information on what their customers want and need, and how they feel about the products or services they receive: market research, customer satisfaction, customer retention.

·         They understand and measure business processes: non-value adding activities, process bottlenecks and poor quality.

·         They have measures to understand their staff: skills profiles, training needs, staff turnover, staff absence, staff satisfaction, job performance.

 The effective manager tracks the performance of the plans to deliver the business objectives using the criteria outlined above. These 4 legs are often referred to as the “balanced score card”.  The effective manager appreciates it isn’t enough just to measure performance against each of the 4 legs, but they have to set strategies, goals, objectives, and tactics to make them happen. They use the “balanced Scorecard” to change and improve those areas where the business plan objectives are not being met.   They use the information from the “balanced scorecard” to create SMART objectives that ensure all operational activity is aligned with the strategic plan.   

This article has been posted by Sean McCann, the Managing Director of People Based Solutions an HR consultancy specialising in Management Development. If you would like to know more about the Effective Manager Programme, either public courses or in house for your organisation contact us at:

enquiries@peoplebasedsolutions.com

 

The McCririck Ruling a Victory for Common Sense!

The recent decision of the Employment Tribunal to uphold the dismissal of the 'unpalatable' John McCririck, effectively rejecting his claim of age discrimination, (Daily Telegraph November 2013) has reminded employers that employees who have a protected characteristic, as defined by the equality Act 2010, are not immune from work place rules.

It is a timely reminder that protected characteristics under the equality Act 2010 are there to prevent discrimination  of employees on the following grounds:. 

·         Gender re-assignment

·         Disability

·         Age

·         Marriage and civil partnerships

·         Pregnancy and maternity

·         Race

·         Religion and belief

·         Sexual orientation

·         Gender.

 The McCririck ruling should prompt employers to remember that the protected characteristics under the equality Act 2010 are there to prevent discrimination, harassment and victimisation, not to stop managers managing their business. Those employees who have a protected characteristic (which is all of us one way or another) can still be selected for redundancy, disciplined and even dismissed as long as this isn’t as a result of them having a protected characteristic, and the decision making process is fair and reasonable as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The Equality Act 2010, does no more than offer protection for those who have a protected characteristic by offering legal redress against the following:

·         Direct discrimination, that is treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably  than others.

·         Indirect discrimination, that is having rules or arrangements which apply to everyone, but when applied  treat someone with a protected characteristic less favourably  than others

·         Harassment,  that is unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates an employee’s dignity or creates an offensive environment

·         Victimisation, that is treating an employee unfairly because they’ve complained about discrimination or harassment

 The Act is not there to prevent the efficient and effective running of the business, just to ensure that it is ran in a manner congruent with current social values.

 The McCririck ruling has confirmed that whist it is wrong and unlawful to dismiss an employee for being “old”, it can be fair and reasonable to dismiss for other reasons including, in The McCririck case, being "unpalatable to a wider potential audience".  This case shows  that the fact an employee happens to have a protected characteristic isn't in and of itself a protection against dismissal.

A victory for common sense!

This article has been posted by Sean McCann, the Managing Director of People Based Solutions an HR consultancy specialising in HR advice and support. If you would like to know more about HR support services contact us at:

enquiries@peoplebasedsolutions.com

 

Understanding and Managing Risk 1 of the 6 key functions of the effective manager

In recent blog I wrote that at People Based Solutions we believe that those individuals who lead the organisation must also manage it.  I suggested Mangers ensure that while undertaking the highly volatile business of running  the organisation, there is predictability and order.

I outlined the 6 key functions of the effective manager:

1.      They set SMART objectives

2.      They stay in control

3.      They understand and manage risk

4.      They operate a balanced scorecard

5.      They create a “golden thread”

6.      They plan for tomorrow.

 

In my last blog I wrote about how effective managers set SMART objectives and stay in control.  In this blog, I will deal with how effective Mangers understand and manage risk.

   Understanding and Managing Risk

Effective managers realise that understanding and managing risk is a key part of their role.  They identify the risks faced by their business, project or operation, and assess the likelihood of that risk crystalising and  the impact on the organisation if that was to happen. 

Having identified a risk, the effective manager will develop a plan to deal with it proactively.

They develop risk management plans which utilise a range of approaches to deal with risks once they have been identified:

·         They may choose to avoid the risk completely, for example, not introducing a new process, such as a new stock-control software package, or deciding against transferring a contract to another supplier.  In situations where, for whatever reasons, the risks of introducing changes are considered likely to outweigh any benefits, the effective manager may choose to eliminate the factors that give rise to the risk.

·         They may choose to take out an insurance policy so if a risk does crystalise, they can claim on that policy to offset the risk; effectively transferring some of the risk to a 3rd party.  For example, if a flood risk has been identified, even if the likelihood is low, in the event of a flood operations could be halted. This could trigger other unwanted consequences,  such as a penalty clauses on key contracts. In such circumstances, effective managers may decide to take out special insurance, so the full financial impact would not be borne by the organisation.  

·        They may choose to reduce the likelihood of a particular risk occurring.  For example, the effective manager may identify that they are overly reliant on one supplier.  If that supplier, for whatever reason, was unable to supply them, this may prevent them from serving their customers.  In such circumstances the effective manager may choose to use more than one supplier, even if this proved to be slightly more expensive. Thus reducing the risk of being unable to meet their own customer demands as a result of events affecting that particular supplier.

·         The effective manager will have plans in place to deal with risks when they do occur.  This may be something as simple as having a list of mobile phone numbers if the phone system goes down or off-site back-ups of key IT systems and data, through to fully documented and rehearsed business continuity plans.

Effective managers appreciate that to manage risks they need to have identified their risks, and  have strategies for dealing with those risks. 

Having identified the risk and chosen how they are best dealt with, effective managers appreciate they must have plans in place to implement their chosen approach from the outset.

When it comes to managing risk, there are certain behaviours that effective managers avoid, they don’t:

·         Ignore risks, and pretend they don’t exist

·         Assume  their boss, or someone else, is responsible for identifying or managing  the risks in their department or section

·         Assume that risks, even those with a low probability, will never crystalise.

Effective managers understand that when it comes to managing risk, prevention is better than a cure , but they also know that often risks  can’t be totally eliminated, and have to be carried .   They appreciate that understanding the organisation’s “risk profile” enables them to design safeguards to prevent risk, or to develop plans to minimize the damage caused once a risk has crystalised.  Effective managers understand that creating detailed plans to proactively managing risk can pay dividends in the long term.

This article has been posted by Sean McCann, the Managing Director of People Based Solutions an HR consultancy specialising in Management Development. If you would like to know more about the Effective Manager Programme, either public courses or in house for your organisation contact us at:

enquiries@peoplebasedsolutions.com