Cutting Through The Grey

Coaching for Governance

Check out my chapter on business coaching at board level in:

'Coaching for Leadership: Writings on Leadership from the World's Greatest Coaches'.

http://eu.pfeiffer.com/WileyCDA/PfeifferTitle/productCd-0470947748.html

Publication date 1 May. Kindle download available now.

And my collaborative work with Dr Laurence Lyons developing Situational Intelligence, published in: 

 

'The Coaching for Leadership Case Study Workbook'.

"Beautifully crafted stories, which amuse and deliver the critical messages about effective business coaching. Laurence and Dr Fink provide engaging and valuable messages for busy executives."

Publication date 1 May.  

http://eu.pfeiffer.com/WileyCDA/PfeifferTitle/productCd-1118105125.html

Sharp Elbows or Courtesy

It is generally held that difficult trading conditions bring out either the best or worst behaviour in people. During this recession, the media has shared stories of ‘survivors’ in large organisation keeping their heads down, avoiding risk, breeding inertia. They are contrasted with ‘brave entrepreneurs’ who seize the day, boldly go where no man has gone before, get on their bikes to explore new pastures.

 

In a digital era, behaviour is viral. Instant, global connectivity brings increasing transparency. Reputations can be made and broken unconsciously. Technology enables mass mobilisation. Against this background, business leaders set the tone for their organisations. Their words and actions are emulated. Their impact on a wide community of stakeholders can be significant. They determine their own and their organisation’s brand values.

 

The spectrum of accepted organisational behaviour ranges from a focus on self, individual endeavour, competition for airtime and scarce resources through to a collaborative environment in which sharing and group achievement are highlighted. The former creates a sharp elbows mentality of ‘I win and you lose’. The latter breeds courtesy in the search for a mutually accepted solution.

 

Courtesy, described alternately as respect and consideration, is a commonly espoused value for public, private and third sector organisations with a focus on delivering value to customers.  But courtesy takes time to develop and deliver. It can be crowded out in a drive to action or sidestepped in a depersonalised digital environment.

 

Perceptions and expectations of courtesy differ across both cultural and generational boundaries. The cultural differences are far more complex than a simple east:west or more:less economically developed environment. Every society has different rules and norms. Generational expectations are created by the era in which individuals ‘grew up.’ Digital natives are used to virtual relationship creation and communication. Their parents and grandparents are, at best, digital immigrants. Their definition of courteous behaviour was formed before virtual arrived.

 

Business leaders face the challenge of navigating these behavioural waters. By developing Situational Intelligence™, they can build the rich picture of the context in which they are required to perform, identify the strengths they bring to the table and judge the most appropriate behaviour to achieve their objectives in a manner which is authentic and consistent with the values of the organisation they lead.

For more information on Situational Intelligence™,  go to the Weblink LyonsBateson.

 

Delivering 'Enlightened Shareholder Value'

The principle of defining business performance as more than commercial return is enshrined in law and regulation. Only today, the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has highlighted the importance of environmental and fiscal sustainability. Most importantly, there is a sea change in thinking among strategic decision makers. The majority of business leaders I have worked with over the last decade have readily embraced the notion that business decisions should be taken using wider criteria than purely financial performance. Translating this commercial and moral compass into embedded processes and behaviour, requires an effective process and active leadership.

The process for strategic decision making must be robust, seeking diverse insights, anticipating future trends and establishing strategic and ethical fit.

Shareholders, regulators, customers and ‘the public’ increasingly seek transparency in the behaviour of business leaders and the reputation and brand damage of not meeting these expectations can be significant.

In a world of instant and global connectivity, the effort required to deliver a consistent and authentic message to all stakeholders has increase. While expectations and motivations differ between the various groups of interested parties, common purpose must be established in order that the business leader can deploy capability in the way most likely to deliver value for all.

Only by visibly reinforcing their organisation’s definition of performance can the business leader build the environment of trust which characterises effective business relationships. It may take brave leaders and time to rebuild that trust in sectors and organisations where commercial return at all costs has been the governing principle.

Committed organisations are investing in developing Situationally Intelligent™ leaders to embed corporate governance principles and deliver ‘enlightened shareholder value’.

For more details on Situationally Intelligent™ leadership and the work of Anna Bateson and Dr Laurence Lyons go to:

Coaching for Leadership 3^rd Edition ISBN 978-0-470-94774-6

The Coaching for Leadership Case Study Workbook ISBN 978-1-118-10512-2

A Kindle version is available now. The hard copy publication date is May 2012

Leading across boundaries

The challenges of engaging with people across geographic, gender and generational boundaries seem to be preoccupying many business leaders. The three key questions my clients ask are:

Is what I want to say going to be heard in the way I intend?

Have I chosen a medium which is appropriate for creating a continuous flow and exchange of insights and ideas?

What brand and reputation am I creating for myself?

Choice of vocabulary is important in establishing common understanding but is not sufficient to ensure that intended messages are heard. The context in which language is used determines meaning. For example ‘Yes’ can have many interpretations.

Yes, I have heard you.

Yes, I see that is your point of view.

Yes, I agree with what you have said.

Yes, I am prepared to help you.

Yes. (Because if I say that you will leave me alone).

Recognising how your words are heard is essential to building dialogue.

The medium we choose is partly determined by our generation. Digital immigrants from the boomer and X generations still refer to ‘mobile’ telephones and seek visual confirmation of the impact of their conversations. Generation Y and Millennials are digital natives. They live in a permanently connected world and chatter continuously with people they have never met.

The technological infrastructure which enables this continuous flow also creates levels of ‘noise’ to which previous business leaders were not subjected . Providing and valuing reflection time has become essential in a world which encourages instant decision making.

In recessionary times, it takes more effort to protect investment in networking opportunities, both virtual and physical. Without these opportunities, the shared insights that lead to the development of new products, services and markets may be delayed or lost.

Personal brand and reputation are created with each conscious and unconscious action. Authenticity and transparency are highly valued in business leaders seeking to build trust across boundaries and attract talent to their organisations. With a clear understanding of your brand values and an understanding of the impact you have on others, you are able to actively manage and reinforce your brand and reputation.

Sources worth checking out include:

Richard D Lewis @ Richard Lewis Communications on geographic/cultural boundaries

Prof. Paul Redmond @ Liverpool University on generational differences.

Lesley Everett @ Walking Tall on personal brand and reputation.

Diversity is........

Diversity is a 'State of Mind'

The logic goes something like this:

Diverse boards are more likely to recognise and understand the diverse needs of their customers and the communities they operate in.

By structuring boards to be diverse and creating an environment in which alternative insights are expressed and listened to, these boards are more likely to make better strategic decisions.

Better strategic decisions, well executed are more likely to lead to improved business performance and deliver the value which the board is responsible for creating.

Given this compelling argument, why is the reality often different?

Diverse boards means having to listen to people who don't think like you, which may be exciting but is also challenging and often uncomfortable.

'Because I say so' may work for small children but not for those approaching adulthood and certainly not in a boardroom of highly talented individuals.

The goalposts are moving daily. The rapidly changing business environment is shortening strategic planning timescales and requiring business leaders to engage across a complex web of geographical, gender and generational boundaries. The language (vocabulary and idiom) for dialogue is continuously developing and it is easy to be left behind.

What does this mean for boards?

The challenge is to create a board with a shared vision but different perspectives.

Board recruitment and succession planning need to be imaginative, seeking to complement rather than replicate existing knowledge, skills and experience.

Board development needs to recognise the merits of creative tension and create a respect for difference. When evidencing diversity, the use of age and gender are simplifications.

Facilitation - To make easy or easier

The 2010 business year might be characterised as one of review, reorganisation and in some cases of retrenchment. The focus was often internal. The question for many was 'How can we do more with less in order to survive?'

By contrast, 2011 is bringing many requests to 'facilitate' boards as they shift their focus a little further ahead and seek to identify and choose between alternative paths to that future.

These requests are often for a magic process 'Which will enable us to create our strategy in the four - six hours which we have set aside for that purpose.' The assumption is that it is merely a matter of bringing together the key decision makers in the same place with a 'facilitator' and the right answer will emerge.

There are many organisations and individuals providing this 'service' at a variety of price points. When selecting a 'facilitator,' experience shows that the critical due diligence questions need to include:

What experience has the facilitator of working with boards?

Who can you talk to who has already worked with this facilitator?

Who will the facilitator need to meet to establish the rapport necessary to maximise the effectiveness of the relationship?

What questions do you want to answer together?

What analysis is already available in relation to those questions?

How can you build a tailored process together with the facilitator, which recognises the need for preparation, discussion, reflection and strategic decision making?

A great deal of time, energy and money is wasted going through the motions of a blind process provided by a transaction based supplier. Those boards which have invested in building a relationship and have undertaken the rational and emotional journey of strategic thinking with a skilled 'facilitator' will describe a very different and valuable experience.

Values alignment

The accepted wisdom is that supply chains with values alignment are more productive. Clearly achieving that alignment calls for transparency in both processes and behaviour.

The values articulated and evidenced so compellingly by Body Shop founder, Anita Roddick, are now being emulated by organisations across a variety of sectors. When Body Shop was taken over by L'Oreal, many waited for the values to be watered down by commerical imperatives and stories exist to support and counter this expectation.

More recently, the sale of 200 year old British firm Cadbury to US Multinational Kraft for £11bn has excited much discussion about compromised values. Cadbury's ex CEO, American Todd Stitzer, was a firm advocate of leading through shared values, coining the phrase 'Performance Driven, Values Led.' The deal with Kraft was welcomed by hedge fund shareholders and has been followed by pre deal promises broken, the relocation of the head office from UK to Switzerland, a fine on Kraft levied by the City Takeover Panel for their conduct, a knighthood for former Cadbury Chairman, Sir Roger Carr for brokering the deal and on Friday the report that the Dairy Milk bar is going to be reduced in size so that customers do not have to pay more.

Perhaps it is not surprising that the operating environment is becoming increasingly uncomfortable for the entrepreneurial team who lead organic chocolate maker Green and Black's. Having been part of the Cadbury family for six years and experienced one style of parent, media stories point to their spirit being crushed by their new parents at Kraft. Since late in 2010, there has been talk of Green and Black's leadership team lobbying Kraft to entertain an MBO. It must seem a far cry from the ethical and organic origins of the business founded in 1991 by husband and wife team Craig Sams and Josephine Fairley of Whole Earth Foods.

Once again we are reminded that one of the main reasons for failing to realise value post acquisition is values misalignment.

'How did you decide that?'

'Well, we identified a whole range of options...'

'Was one of them to do nothing?'

'That wasn't an option.'

'Why?'

'Because the business would go belly up....run out of money.'

'So you decided based on some financial criteria?'

'Sort of. We decided which option would make the most money quickest.'

'Make the most money for whom?'

Leaders are increasingly being asked to defend their business decisions by a whole range of interested parties. The media are delighted to cover the post rationalisation of decisions often taken by dominant individuals or groups, based largely on personal preference. The criteria most quoted are financial and often these are presented as the only basis of choice. The commercially expedient option is the obvious winner.

Remember the recent tone of wounded indignation when the 2010 FIFA bid process awarded the World Cup for 2018 and 2022 based on a non-transparent decision making process which appeared to ignore the published criteria.

This week the OPLC will decide on the use of the London 2012 Olympic stadium after the games. Alternative bids have been provided by West Ham United FC and Tottenham Hotpur FC and the media positioning battle has raged over the weekend. Karen Brady, Vice Chairman of the Hammers and Daniel Levy, Chairman of Spurs, have both made strong cases based on different interpretations of the decision criteria. OPLC have published five criteria, some essential and some desirable. Lord Coe has reminded everyone of the promises made by the 2012 Olympic Bid Team and highlighted both the commerical and moral filters which should be applied to the OPLC decision. And the media watches and waits for the decision - due on Friday.

In an increasingly regulated business environment, the process of strategic decision making is under close scrutiny. Transparency, objectivity  and fairness must be proved as business leaders grapple with determining which option takes them in the strategic direction they have determined in the way they wish to travel. Long term stability and a moral compass balance short term commercial pressures in the search for effective corporate governance and stewardship. 

 

D I V E R S E

The simple premise is that Boards who bring together diverse insights and provide an environment in  which open debate and discussion occurs, make 'better' decisions, which translate into business performance.

In many cases, diverse is used as shorthand for gender. In October and November 2009, the UK Government published 'Increasing diversity on public and private sector boards.' Much of the available research data pointed to this shorthand.

Alternative and wider definitions of diversity are provided. Katherine Klein, Professor of Management at Wharton, points to diversity of values and attitudes, highlighting that "...using age and gender as indications of diversity is a simplification..." Together with Dr Laurence Lyons, we have been mapping diversity of motivation across boards and other leadership teams, as a way of deploying situational strengths and making strategy happen.

As countries and organisations seek to ensure that their leaders reflect the populations they represent, a range of strategies are being deployed. The scale goes from hopeful policies at one extreme, through positive discrimination enabling parity to the active creation of critical mass for under represented minorities.

Over the last 20 years, the language and imagery associated with diversity has developed. Glass ceilings have become glass cliffs and individuals now wield glass hammers. The topic is political. Opinion continues to  be divided. Position taking is common. Nicki Gilmour, founder of The Glass Hammer network, describes Diversity 2.0 as fixing the system, not the women.

Virtual and physical forums proliferate. The questions they ask are remarkably similar. The answers recognise that every situation is different. The solution for each country and organisation needs to recognise these differences and build leadership that is both fit for purpose and fit for the future.

In January 2011, The Institute of Directors launches a new programme, providing a forum for reflecting on insights from successful female leaders and exploring how to deploy situational strengths to meet organisational challenges.

Check out www.iod.com

'Women as Highly Effective Directors' 

Board Dynamics

Insights from practitioners

In conversations with Chairs and CEOs from across the private, public and third sectors, a number of clear themes are emerging on HOW TO create and sustain effective Board dynamics in tough times. The insights fall into three key areas:

Develop effective connections:

Meet Directors on a 1:1 basis between formal events to build relationships based on a real understanding of each individual's strengths and ability to contribute to Board discussions.

Identify how each Director operates, the way they prefer to engage and the format in which they can digest information to inform their decision making.

Check out assumptions to make sure they are well founded. Don't fall into the trap of ascribing views to individuals based on your own perceptions.

Create continuous dialogue:

Tell the whole story to everyone, not partial stories to different audiences. They are all instantly connected and will know.

Tell the truth. It builds confidence and trust, which will create resilience in tough times.

Listen to insights and challenges, particularly from stakeholders who hold different views.

Build understanding of context:

Focus the Board on strategic discussions and avoid tactical game playing, however satisfying for individual egos.

Develop the big picture but ensure that operational reality checks also occur.

Ensure that there is collective understanding of risk appetite and that it informs your discussions.

And the final message from practitioners:

"Don't try and bounce the Board!"