Four traits of successful leaders.

Four traits of successful leaders.

The characteristics of leadership we expect from the local nonprofit or sporting club, to the largest businesses in the country, to the Prime Minister, are pretty much the same.

Trust.

We need to trust them. Trust is earned by the behaviour we observe, never just given. It is also incremental, built over time, but is also fragile, and can be brought down in a minute by one bad example. The test, if there is such a thing is whether we believe that the private conversations the ‘leader’ is having are the same as the public ones, and would they be prepared to say those private things on the 6 O’clock news. By this test, many in prominent so called ‘leadership’ roles in this country fail. Dismally.

Dependability.

This has many forms, from delivering on the big promises made, to turning up on time for an appointment with the local hairdresser. In any leadership role, no matter the size, when a real leader finds themselves from time to time unable to deliver, they do not walk away from the fact, they acknowledge the failure, learn from it, and move on. To many, this is the essence of leadership, to me, in it’s simplest form, it is just common courtesy painted on a wider canvas.

Competence.

Someone placed in a leadership role, who is an example of the Peter principal is corrosive to the rest of the organisation. Those being led must believe that the leader is someone they can follow, and learn from. That does not mean they never make a mistake, it does not mean they are never unsure of themselves, or exhibit human frailties, it just means that we believe that they have the wisdom, skills and experience to get the job done.

Humanity.

We are herd animals, we rely on those around us for safety, and security. We have evolved and prospered as a species because we are able to collaborate and care for one another and rely on our neighbours in times of stress and crisis. In short, we care about others. Someone in a leadership position who does not care about those being led, is not a leader, at best they are a manager, dispensable and easily replaced.

When an individual displays these four characteristics, followers just seem to appear.

Header by DALL-E, who cannot be made to spell correctly no matter how hard I try to get its digital brain cells to listen!!

NOTE: Before posting this, I saw I had written an almost identical post a few years ago. While the four parameters are the same, the way I expressed them is a bit different. So, rather than scrapping it, as i have done before when realising i am repeating myself, I elected to post it anyway. Repeating a good idea is rarely a bad thing.

Australia slips another 9 places down the complexity rankings.

Australia slips another 9 places down the complexity rankings.

 

 

The latest economic complexity rankings put out by Harvard were recently released. Australia dropped from 93 in the world to 102. One place ahead of Yemen, one behind that manufacturing innovator, Senegal.

I had missed the report until an article in the auManufacturing LinkedIn group brought it to my attention.

The best that can be said about Australia’s drop from 93 in the previous ranking to 102 in this current ranking is that we have made possible the performance of the 101 countries that are above us.

This includes such stunners as Bangladesh at 100, Honduras at 97, Uganda at 96, and the home of Voodoo, ranking as one of the world’s poorest countries, Benin at 99.

To be fair, the ranking methodology struggles to adequately quantify the benefits accrued by services in its calculations. This compromises the ranking of Australia which has an advanced but hard to count services sector, while exporting mostly commodities, which is easy to count.

Nevertheless, while politicians are ensuring the public debate (aka playground squabbles) is around irrelevancies like the chairman’s lounge, long term challenges in education, aged care, housing, equality of opportunity, and economy wide productivity go uncontested.

Take education for instance.

This is a very substantial sector generating billions in economic activity by educating the children of our Asian neighbours. Many see it as a road to residence, which will benefit our economy doubly, as they have paid for their own education. However, many return home, enabling the ‘connections’ highlighted in the report as critical to complexity to be made. Meanwhile, for our own kids, we have continued to make getting an education more expensive to the point where it is becoming unaffordable in the absence of parental support.

In our wisdom, we are in the process of ringbarking this pathway to complexity.

How stupid can we be?

I recall in 1980 then Singapore PM Lee Kuan Yew warning that Australia was destined to become the ‘White trash of Asia’. It seems his warning is coming to pass.

PS. November 22. This ‘Visual Capitalist’ graph of the 30 largest exporters came into my feed today, adding some flesh to the bones of the index. The make-up of exports of several of them should lead to some deep thought. For example, Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, even the battered UK, where there are no hydrocarbons or minerals in the mix,  outrank our commodity driven export mix. This is a solid indicator of the ‘complexity’ to which we should be building.

 

The only 5 tools in a leaders toolbox.

The only 5 tools in a leaders toolbox.

 

We tend to think that the person on the top of the pyramid has the power to do whatever they wish within the boundaries of reason and the law.

To some extent this is true but there remains only five tools they can use.

Volume.

Price.

Costs.

Culture.

Strategy.

Everything in a business stems from these five fundamental tools when they are focused laser-like on customers..

A leader that has at their fingertips a few simple metrics that reflect these five tools, and focuses attention on the drivers will be successful.

The first three are quantitative. The fourth, culture, is much harder to define quantitatively. However, there are measures that will deliver insight, such as staff churn, Surveys into items such as psychological safety, diversity of training, thought, and experience, and team collaborative success.

Strategy is also qualitative, in that it cannot be measured except in hindsight, by which time, it becomes useful only as a lesson, and driver of future strategic choices.

The combination of culture and strategy, when they are mutually reinforcing, and aligned is a potent combination, that drives the quantitative allocation of resources, measured in outcome by revenue, price and costs.

Header generated by the newest shiny thing in a subsection of the toolbox: AI.

 

Innovation: How to see the invisible problem.

Innovation: How to see the invisible problem.

Evolution has given us this ability to act on ‘autopilot’, or habit, while subconsciously remaining attuned to our surroundings. Our brains have limited capacity, so it needs to save as much as it can to allow it the space to deal with the unexpected, crises.

Our ancestor woman while walking to the stream on autopilot is thinking about getting the water, wondering what the hunters might bring back for dinner, and how to keep the kids in the cave. A slight rustle in the grass, will immediately focus all her attention on where it came from, adrenaline rushing, just in case it is a predator.

This autopilot mode is highly beneficial for efficiency. It is the way we evolved. It frees up cognitive capacity for more immediately important things, consigning to habit the things that do not require the effort of thought.

It also obstructs innovation.

In our modern world, the predators in the grass have been largely eliminated, so we are not subconsciously looking for them anymore, and our situational awareness has degraded, creating ‘blind spots’. This prevents us from seeing opportunities for innovation. The problems we learn to work around become invisible, and the solutions we become accustomed to seem unchangeable.

Take luggage as an example. For decades, travellers endured dragging heavy suitcases through airports. In two iterations, 16 years apart, two people, thinking from first principles which is often an antidote to habitual thinking, added wheels. Vacuum cleaners all lost suction as their bags filled, until James Dyson challenged the accepted norm. The QWERTY keyboard, originally designed to prevent mechanical typewriters from jamming, is still used today despite its inefficiencies for modern typing.

Seeing hidden problems that become opportunities requires intentional, conscious practice.

  • Regularly ask yourself, “Why do we do things this way?” Document even small points of friction. Observe how others interact with products or processes and take note of any struggles or workarounds.
  • Approach familiar tasks as though you are experiencing them for the first time. Seek perspectives from individuals outside your field.
  • Question assumptions, especially those that are widely accepted without scrutiny.
  • Step away from problems periodically and return to them with fresh eyes. Study analogous challenges in other industries. Try explaining processes to a child—their innocent questions often expose hidden assumptions.

To innovate effectively, we need to develop our ‘peripheral awareness’: the ability to notice opportunities on the fringes of our focus. This requires maintaining a state of relaxed alertness, where you are engaged in the present task but also open to noticing details that others may overlook. I use my phone and notebook to note interesting things on the go. I regularly transfer these cryptic notes into an ‘ideas bank’ kept in One-note on my computer.

Every major innovation begins with someone questioning the status quo.

The next time you find yourself thinking, “That’s just the way it is,” take a moment to challenge that assumption. You could be on the verge of a significant discovery. While our brain’s efficiency is a valuable asset, it can also limit our potential. By honing our peripheral vision for innovation, we can transform these mental shortcuts from obstacles into pathways for creative thinking and, hopefully, distinctive, and innovative solutions.

9 questions to avoid a poor hiring decision.

9 questions to avoid a poor hiring decision.

 

 

The cost of a wrong hire is huge, and for an SME can be devastating. Not only do you lose the money put into the process, but you also lose the time of those engaged, the opportunity to find that perfect candidate, and perhaps most importantly, the damage that a wrong hire can do for the implementation of the key activities for which they were hired to do.

The damage that a wrong hire can do to those remaining and the culture of the organisation after the problem is fixed can also be devastating.

There are a lot of fancy consultants out there with all sorts of testing regimes that claim to uncover the best candidate. They can add considerable value when used well.

However, we humans evolved successfully by being able to pick those with whom we could work harmoniously and productively, those who could earn our trust, and on whom we could rely. While we make mistakes, trusting our instincts drawn out by that most primitive of communication methods, talking, is the real test.

Over the years I have done a lot of recruiting for those for whom I worked, as a manager and advisor. Not all worked, mistakes are made, but a significant majority went on to add great value to their employers.  When you make a mistake, recognising it early, and correcting it quickly benefits both parties in the long run. However, there are a range of conversation starters, often called questions, which can reveal the ‘fit’ a candidate will have with, and the contribution they can make to an organisation.

Why are you here today? This can reveal the personal motivation of the candidate, rather than enabling them to just respond about the skills they bring to the role. It turns it around to look at the ‘why’ they are seeking a new job.  Having a real motivating driver is way better than just a general, ‘I need a job’ sort of response.

How would you like to be remembered? This can be asked in several ways, so that the response to those with whom you worked, and those to whom you were linked in more personal ways.

Would you rather be respected, liked, or feared? Often the response to this can reveal the leadership style they have, or believe they have. There is no right answer, but the ‘fit’ to the context of the role they may be walking into is important.

How would those around you now describe your personality and management style?

Very few are able with any accuracy to see themselves through the eyes of others. However, the response to this question can tell you a lot about their own self- image.

What would your current boss say if I rang him asking for a reference?

As with the question about how their peers would describe them, this question goes to their self-image. It also will provide cues about how they relate to the formal hierarchy

Tell me about the times you have failed? This question often puts people off, as they are cued into thinking about the success they have had, and how they might translate into the environment for which they are interviewing. Failing is a part of learning, and you can learn a lot from a conversation about the failures of a candidate, what led to them, how they responded, how they worked themselves out of the hole. And indeed, is it one of the failures that led them to be sitting in front of you now?

What did you want to be when you were a kid? This one can be a good conversation starter, and lead to discussion about the path towards where they are now, and why they took the choices they did along the way

Show me how you walk the talk. A conversation will always reveal what people want to be revealed, particularly the more personal things, hobbies, personal style, passions they may have commented on, so I dig into them. Once while interviewing for a plant engineer, I asked a candidate that question, and his response was along the lines that he was able to get people on the line to talk freely to him, to help him diagnose problems and opportunities they faced every day. Then he surprised me by saying ‘let me show you’. He stood up, grabbed a dust coat and hat from the stand in the corner of my office, and said let’s go. We walked into the plant where he demonstrates conclusively the ability he had just spoken about. He did a terrific job for a number of years afterwards, before being poached for a much bigger job, which he also did with distinction.

Can you tell me a joke? I would leave that to late in the day, but it can reveal how well they think on their feet, and communicate in an awkward environment, and connect to those with whom they are communicating.

 

Header cartoon credit: Dilbert’s mate aces an interview question: courtesy Scott Adams.

 

 

The critical trade-off made in a remote work environment.

The critical trade-off made in a remote work environment.

 

Amongst the tsunami of gratuitous advice on the web about how to manage remotely, whether you be the team leader, or a team member, there is a critical piece missing.

Depth of strategic thinking.

Regular and managed team video gatherings, as well as a range of individual catch ups for assistance, follow up, mentoring, and all the other things that go on, are tactical.

Particularly in times of crisis and high stress, it is sensible and natural to focus on tactical execution. However, tactical can only take you so far, and in the absence of a strategic framework, can lead you astray quickly.

Consider breaking out specific sessions for the discussion of the strategic issues and questions that emerge. They remain in place irrespective of the current crisis, whatever that may be.

Strategic depth is not something generated in a series of quick meetings. It requires data, forecasts, scenarios and deep discussion and contemplation by people who know the box from the outside, as well as from the inside.

These deeper questions of strategy usually reside in the ‘very important but not urgent‘ basket. In the absence of being addressed, they will be forgotten. Worse still, they will be over-ridden by short term tactical outcomes that would not have been allowed to evolve with sensible strategic oversight in place.

We are social animals, our best work is done when people get together, and together look to solve problems and pressure test assumptions. This takes time and human engagement.  Verbalisation of ideas, questions, and explanations is only a small part of ‘Communication’. Face to face, there are a myriad of non-verbal nuances and contextual contributors to ‘communication’ that are lost over Zoom or Teams.

Failing to accommodate these human interactions will destroy your capacity to generate the insight necessary for deep and productive strategic thinking.

Header credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist. Thanks again for encapsulating a difficult idea in a cartoon.