Jul 4, 2011 | Collaboration, Leadership
A great team is better than a team of greats, an oft quoted maxim, I suspect coming originally from Vince Lombardi, the legendary Green Bay packers coach and cliché source. We pretty much accept this, but what happens when there is an exceptional person, is his performance enhanced by putting him/her in a team with mediocre but competent people? Is the team performance enhanced, or is it averaged out?
I can see Gary Kasparov alone beating a team of pretty good chess players easily, and putting Kasparov into a team of chess players, subjecting his brilliance to the consensus processes of a team being terminal to him making a brilliant contribution, averaging performance. By contrast, Benji Marshall makes the Wests team, without him, they are pretty average.
I think it just comes down to the activity, some things are best done by an individual, and only an individual can be brilliant, I don’t recall Hemmingway collaborating on any of his books.
So next time you are putting a team together to tackle a complex task, ask yourself if it would be better to assign a gifted individual, rather than a team, and if there is to be a team, ensure the roles are very clear to avoid the brilliant individual having his contribution averaged.
Jun 29, 2011 | Communication, Leadership
Presentations happen all the time, most are boring, usually because the presenter is talking about his favorite subject, “me, me, me” when the reality should be all about the audience, weather that be one person, or a thousand.
Successful presentations create in the audience a feeling of commitment and motivation, a recognition of shared vision, values, and purpose.
It follows that when a presenter comes across as a mentor, the impact will be greater.
Jun 13, 2011 | Leadership
I listened to the Rugby League game yesterday between the Broncos and the Raiders, an extraordinary game that the Broncos had won, almost lost, then won in a golden point “coin toss”
For no particular reason, the term “character” came to mind while listening. It is an overused term in Rugby league, every player doing something a bit good is suddenly a “hero” who showed “extraordinary character”, according to pundits, but this is not what post is about.
This is about the character of leadership, the person who can imbue an organisation with a set of behavioral norms that have a lasting and wide impact.
Wayne Bennett must be such a leader. I have never met the man, no longer follow League with any passion, but Bennett’s leadership record from the Canberra Raiders in their formative years, to the Broncos, and now St George is unmatched. Few would bet against him in his next iteration at Newcastle.
So, what is the character of a leader like Bennett?
Surely it is someone who can overcome the challenges presented by the complicated and multifarious environment we all live in, by developing and articulating a sense of inner moral certainty that impacts those being led. They seem to be able to make the leap necessary to subjugate their own needs and ego to those they are leading, effectively to be their leader by being their servant, getting their kicks from those being led, rather than from observers.
In this context it is about giving a bunch of very aggressive young athletes in a brutal contact sport who largely lack formal education, their own moral compass that makes them better players with reserves of determination and commitment they probably do not even recognise, but more importantly, makes them better people in a lasting way.
In other contexts, the impact of character is the same, it is just the names that change. Perhaps this is why we are so cynical about our political and institutional leadership, every time we wake up there is another example of someone in a leadership position demonstrating the lack of moral and philosophical depth by being “pragmatic”.
Jun 6, 2011 | Leadership, Management
How do you find the right people to contribute to the growth and prosperity of an organisation? This task is generally recognised as a core management function, but so often a new hire makes little real difference beyond delivering more of the same, if you are lucky.
How come it is so hard??
My view, it is usually easier to find someone with seemingly relevant experience along with the right set of qualifications and contacts than it is to find someone with the right attitude, someone who does not need to unlearn lessons learnt in a similar environment, someone with a contrarian view, who will fit into and contribute to a differentiated culture.
If you want more of the same, then continue as before, but if you want to create excitement, break the mould, change stuff, you need someone with the right attitude, skills can be learned.
Jun 5, 2011 | Collaboration, Leadership, Operations
Consider, what the people on the production line are thinking about right now, finishing work, the fishing trip on the weekend, the necessity to get the car fixed and registered by next Monday, how can they pay that huge electricity bill, the game last night?
Think how much more productive it would be if they were thinking about how to do the job better, quicker, with less rejects, less risk of injury, to tighter more consistent specs?
And then consider weather or not it is a failure of the management culture that they are not doing so?
Googles 20% time, the famous 3M time, works for them, why not for everyone?
It is not easy to engage employees in this way, very few are able to do it, which is exactly why it is worth doing, as it delivers a huge advantage.
May 26, 2011 | Governance, Leadership
Culture is most often defined by repeating Michael Porters assertion that “culture is the way we do things round here”. However, this leaves the question of what drives the way things are done. From my observations over many years, there are a number of elements:
- The way the boss acts, what he/she does, and the way it is done. People watch and listen, take their cues from the boss, and any inconsistency will be noted. When a boss says that employees are our most important asset, then fires a bunch of people simply because the numbers are down, that will have an impact on how much weight those left put in the “people are….” statement.
- What are the prevalent behaviour patterns in the place? Is it “blokey”, is being at the desk 9-5 important or is it the work done that counts, what are the accepted norms of dress, and so on.
- How is performance measured? Is it formal, 2 way, do performance reviews drive improvement strategies or result in condemnation, is it individual performance, group performance, or both, and so on. The old saying, “you get what you measure” is most often right.
- What “actions” (for lack of a better term) are encouraged? Is initiative rewarded for its own sake, or is conformity demanded, how does the place react to news, (good or bad), does it welcome change, and so on.
These four drivers of culture are an expression of the “values” of the enterprise. They describe the sorts of things that define the character of the enterprise, and create the foundations for getting things done in a commercially sustainable manner that is consistent with the expectations all stakeholders.
