Is ‘niceness’ a leadership quality?

I’ve been contemplating the nature of leadership after the death of Tessa Jowell.  In the first comments when it was announced, what came over was her ‘niceness’.  ‘She got on with everybody’ was a common phrase, ‘a gem’, ‘a great person’, ‘her likeable personality’, she ‘exuded cheerfulness and gave even those she had only just met the sense of being one of her old friends’.

 Further reading demonstrated that she was an exceptional leader: respected by all regardless of politics, class or ethnicity and she got things done. It seemed that no matter the complexity of the issue, or the political sensitivity it generated, she was the person who could deal with it.

She had the tricky task of dealing with the DoH, was minister of state with responsibility for women,  minister for employment, welfare to work and equal opportunities.  Following the drive to improve standards she introduced health targets, maternity and paternity leave and Sure Start which supported and empowered young mothers. She became Culture Secretary and brought the Olympics to London, was given responsibility for looking after the victims of 9/11 and the London bombings.  She was in charge when the future of broadcasting was in the headlines and introduced Ofcom and adroitly handled the controversy of her husband’s involvement with Berlusconi.  Then of course there was her campaign for improved services for those afflicted with cancer.  

It was a record that any leader would be proud of and who can name any leader in the private sector who can say they were faced with the level of challenges she faced and dealt with them as competently?

So why did people default to her ‘niceness’ when describing her?  Could it be that, because leadership terminology is structured around male qualities of strength, determination, drive, power, they did not have the language to describe her undoubted leadership qualities?  That by her being female it revealed people’s unconscious biases about what constitutes leadership?

Further reading revealed that people also noted her ability to ask ‘penetrating questions’, her ‘passion, determination and a sense of mission’, a ‘visionary’ who saw how things could be, a woman with ‘internal steel’.  She consummately combined those qualities with a high degree of emotional intelligence to achieve what is now being lauded throughout the country.

So yes, I would say that ‘niceness’ is a leadership quality but it’s the niceness that’s also accompanied by a sharp intellect, a commitment and belief that anything is possible and the ability to communicate that to everyone within their sphere.  Alas, there are too few leaders like her, and too few who recognise and encourage that potential within others.

Philosopher or Coach?

You're the CEO in your business or organisation, or maybe an HR Director and you've taken the decision to commission some coaching to help improve productivity and decision making.  It's a wise move as there's a many a quote from CEOs of blue chip companies that they recommend having a coach for success.  Yet those at the very top are now reaching out to philosophers it seems. 

As Prof  Marinoff, from the City College of New York says in a Guardian article,“These are very intelligent people, who are also overworked, more so than most of us. And they don’t have enough time to reflect. A lot of what we do is to create reflective space.”

It's not just in the US either.  Joe Garner, Chief Exec of Nationwide also works with a Professor of Philosophy.  As mentioned in the article, 'A philosopher can nudge and question, take leaders on uncomfortable journeys, even be a disruptive force.'

I feel that our learned Professors are now being forced to seek alternative income generating streams and are promoting a methodology that is already in use; just assimilating it, claiming it for themselves as a new way of doing things. 

So, I'm sure they can do all that they say but, and here I'm going to admit to being a bit biased as I'm a coach, isn't that what good coaching does anyway? 

Yes there's different coaching models but the positive psychology methodology that I use provides that protected, reflective space.  It enables deep seated questioning of oneself, of one's approach and values - all the things that the philosophers state they do so much better than coaches.

I also encourage the client to take those uncomfortable journeys and believe me, it's not all sweetness and light.  They do question their strategies, their decision making and scrutinise their actions.  With the positive attention they have, and knowing they're not going to be interrupted they have time to think with quality, to step outside of the boxes they might have placed themselves within and become their own creative, innovative selves as a result.

I've seen amazing changes in direction from the client who had spent three days agonising over an issue to come up with a solution in less than 30 minutes because they had that protected, positive, supported thinking space.   With my challenge I've listened as the MD questioned their own assumptions about an issue and found a completely different route, a new strategy that made a significant impact on performance.

So no, it's not philosopher v coach.  It's just another model of coaching; a model that is already being used by experienced, qualified, client centred, positive psychology coaches.  We too provide an environment where you can nudge and question, even be a disruptive force. 

So welcome Prof Marinoff - just don't try and pass this off as something new because it ain't.

Where is leadership in the gender pay gap debate?

So, as of midnight on 4 April 2018 companies with over 250 employees have had to report on their gender pay gap.  It’s a milestone achievement to officially recognise that there is a gender pay gap, even though there are many who swear there is no such thing.  And the vitriol from those who think it’s a feminist generated plot to undermine men’s roles in society is astounding.

What’s interesting is the breakdown displayed so far.  RyanAir report the highest GPG at 71.8%, saying that it’s because pilots are the best paid (male dominated) and women make up the majority of the lower paid roles.  Conversely certain High Street brands report no difference, whilst 8% of those who have declared so far, report they pay women more.  The GPG in reverse as it were.

There’s also a clear sector differential with the highest gap being in the construction industry, closely followed by finance and insurance.  Yes these are traditionally male dominated industries but education, which is frequently declared to be a profession that attracts more females, is running a close fourth. 

Where then is the source of the issue and thus the source of the solution?

Stereotypes reinforce sector differentials

Of course it’s more complex than just one issue and one solution.  Parents, society, education, the media all have a role to play in challenging stereotypes and the sector differentials by encouraging girls to enter STEM whilst boys can make good careers within social care.

  

But can they?  Can either poles be truly equal?  Not currently because society puts different values against each option with unconscious biases regarding the skills and qualities required, labelling them as either male or female.  The reality is that we can all learn the skills and qualities – it takes an effort on the part of the industries themselves to change things.   And an effort it will be if this issue is to be fully addressed.  For what’s the point in reporting it if no action is going to be taken to change?

And then we have the huge bulk of businesses who employ less than 250 people.  Are they equally cognisant of the issue?  Are they recognising and, importantly, dealing with it?  They won't be immune from the fall out as customers and employees may well start to question them on pay differentials.  Certainly if they're part of a larger supply chain in government contracts they may well have to prove their credentials on this issue. 

A moral hysteria?

There are those who think it’s a flash in the pan, the latest moral hysteria that sweeps societies periodically.  Give it six months or so and things will quieten down.  There’ll be no penalties issued for those who do not report, no backlash if things don’t improve. 

Yes, things will quieten down and yes, there will be some who do not report and some who do nothing …  BUT

I sense a paradigm shift here.  There is a new wave of feminism driving this.  Not the hawkish, demanding feminism (or so it seems to be described now) of the 60s and 70s.  No, this is a quieter, more assured, socially, societally grounded feminism that recognises true equality between men and women.   And now it’s being accepted that it’s OK in the UK to talk about pay, about what you earn.   The more it is described within the media and the boardroom, over the water cooler and the sports fields, the more women, and men, will demand it.  That demand can only be fulfilled by the industries themselves.

Leaders must embrace a new paradigm

It takes excellent leadership to redirect the habits and practices within industries, to reshape the cultures and those unconscious biases mentioned earlier.  It takes leadership to take an organisation in a new direction and deal with the flack that always comes as a result of change. 

Some leaders have already recognised this and are actively making a difference.  Do you consider yourselves to be amongst them?  Would others agree with you or would they think you’re complacent or complicit?  Do you recognise leadership within your industry or community and if so are they supported?  Or are they bashing their heads against a brick wall? 

Leaders today have a decision to make.   They will decide whether to embrace the new paradigm and get the support to do so, or they will decide to wait and see.  The ‘wait and see’ brigade may well end up the ‘wait and decline’ squad as its workforce, and customers, gravitate to those who are fessing up and actively changing.  They will be the ones who have acknowledged the under-utilisation of 50% of the population as industry differentials are challenged.  It won’t be easy – leadership was ever thus – but it can be done. 

Prof Stephen Hawkins: the ultimate thought

I’ve just spent two days completely immersed in Nancy Klein’s Thinking Environment as part of developing my own coaching/facilitation skills.  We are encouraged to BE the Thinking Environment and in the middle of it all, it came to mind that perhaps the late Prof Hawkins was THE ultimate Thinking Environment.

I didn’t know the man, I haven’t heard his lectures and, I’ll admit, I haven’t bought or read any of his books.  I’m sure, like us all, he had his good and bad points but it seems from the eulogies I’ve read that he was always supportive of other people’s thinking and any contribution he made was erudite and incisive.  Apparently he credits his disability with his ability to think as comprehensively and with such quality as he did.

Thinking about situations where we think well, or not, and Nancy’s 10 components of the TE I pondered more about Prof Hawkins.  Certainly he gave his own thinking full attention and when others were in his presence he, of necessity would give them full attention.  So often we think knowing that we are going to be interrupted at some point, or that the listener will have the urge to drop in a comment, or finish our sentences.  That lack of respect, of equality, prevents us from true quality thinking. In Prof Hawkins’ case because he would not be able to instantly interrupt, the thinker in his presence would be at ease as a result – another of the 10 components.

Certainly the quality of his thinking was generative – his theory on black holes was revolutionary and his freshest thinking, that actually he could have been wrong about energy levels within them came about because he continued to have quality thoughts.  And perhaps he asked his own incisive question whilst he was thinking to have that change of theory – something that as coaches and facilitators we know the brain can do.

What lessons can we learn from him then that we can take into our own lives and organisations?  That we do not give ourselves enough time to just think?  That thinking is more creative, more productive when we have others that can help us to think?  That we should be open to proving ourselves wrong as a means of generating new ideas, new streams of productivity and new insights into how we solve the complex issues that face us?

From my viewpoint I will think more about how I can encourage such an environment for my clients and as Prof Hawkins said, ‘In my opinion, there is no aspect of reality beyond the reach of the human mind’.

Leadership and development funding available

Would you like up to 50% funding for coaching, leadership and development support?

If you are making, producing or assembling a product of any sort, and you're an SME in Sussex or Kent, then get in touch now with Robin Simpson, Manufacturing Growth Manager by phoning 07773 228 147 or email: robin.simpson@egs.live

The opportunity has arisen because there's European funding via the Manufacturing Growth Programme to help grow manufacturing capacity and job creation in the UK - and mtc2 ltd are one of the approved providers.

We often think of manufacturing as light industry in this area but it can be so much more than that! In East Sussex and Kent we know of major manufacturers of a range of products from top notch double glazing, to pumps and precision instruments, to micro-breweries and perfumeries.  Did you know that  processing food and drink also counts as manufacturing and can be covered by the grant so let your imagination run riot.

How much can leadership and development funding can I get?

It very much depends on the size of the project you want to undertake.  

The financial support available can provide you with up to 35% (excl. VAT) of the cost of an improvement project  but for for projects demonstrating significant job/new product growth and higher level of applicant contribution you could get up to 50%.  

Types of projects covered include: Strategic Planning,  Change Management, People Development and  Leadership and Management, all of which are in our remit. 

Typical project values are between £3,000 to £5,000 (ex. VAT), with an average grant to a business of about £1,400. The minimum grant though is £1000 which equates to a minimum project total value of £2860.

The process is very quick and easy and all you need to do is to contact Robin saying you want mtc2 ltd to provide you with leadership and development support.  

Get in touch with Robin now as this offer is time limited!


Currently available in the South East to manufacturers based in East Sussex, Kent and Essex; as well as across 14 other Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) areas manufacturers can get additional support via the programme.  If you want to know more about the overall programme then go to www.manufacturinggrowthprogramme.co.uk 

Where does thought sit in today's business world?

According to an IoD article in the Directors magazine, a  recent study by a Swedish university on brain plasticity found that the brains of the overworked are aging more quickly.  In addition it reports, the busier CEOs become, the slower their thinking.  Clarity and creativity decreases and they might make bad decisions.  

The warnings of professionals for many years of the pressures on all top tier levels of management, and indeed of their teams, is now made real.  As stress levels rise, absence levels follow and the quality of decision making is arguably declining.  What impact is this having on organisational growth?  How do we address the threat of declining quality decision making in our leading companies and organisations?  It requires a fundamental shift in not what we do, but how we do it.

‘“What do you think?” are the four most powerful words to use in any transformation.’

So says Rene Carayol, globally renowned Executive coach and broadcaster.   The problem in most organisations is that even when (or if) they ask the question, not only is the questioner not listening with full attention, but the person asked is never given the time and space to truly think.  As a result, opportunities are lost.

In Nancy Klein’s ground breaking work on the Thinking Environment, she found that we think least well when faced with ridicule, competition, cynicism, criticism, and self-doubt.  We think best when we know we are respected, are seeking the best idea, not trying to win; our questions are welcomed, when we are encouraged to think beyond the usual.   And practical application of the tools associated with the Thinking Environment have borne exceptional results with participants universally praising the reduction of time spent in meetings, the quality outputs arising from conversations and the enhanced level of decision making at all levels of the business.  Excellence in leadership is developed at speed.

In my own work with the UK Division of a global company allowing people to think in the presence of full attention, equality and ease has generated a major shift in focus.  Senior executives are more confident about the decisions they are taking and how the actions arising from high quality thinking will occur. Running meetings using this approach and then focussing on one or two incisive questions has also enabled people to speak out with confidence. Creative solutions have been found that they readily admit would not have occurred otherwise and there is a greater clarity on what makes the difference to their bottom line.   

Partnership working is frequently a battleground with different private and public sector organisations following varying agendas and miscommunication can be rife.  It can also be a challenge to gain agreement using a vocabulary that is understood and owned by all sides.  Asking that question, “What do you think?” and then waiting, curious to know the answer and then curious to know what’s coming next is revolutionary.  No longer do people listen purely to interrupt, or add, or counter and there is no space for conflict to feed itself.  The result is better quality thinking and decision making.   

The impact is just as powerful on smaller organisations and some would argue more so.  It is their nimble flexibility which makes them a challenge to the corporates, the disruptors of their industry.  Yet SMEs have their own stressors which can threaten their ability to be nimble and with fewer resources at their disposal to help them cope.  A few simple changes to how they interact within their own staff, customers and suppliers can cut through this.  Faced with a problem, the SME senior group encapsulated it within a question and then following the principles above, enabled staff members who, the Director confided never spoke up, to bring their ideas to the table.  They cut through to the core of the problem and proposed a solution that would have remained unsaid. 

“We did this in half the time it would have taken to come up with a solution, and I think had the workshop been run differently, the solution would not have been as effective.” Business development manager

Many of us work in environments that do not encourage real thought and if this is your reality, your organisation is ignoring a sea-change in how excellent leaders operate.  A survey by Southampton University on 15 organisations that do operate in this manner quoted this:

“I can positively say that as a result of our Thinking Environment culture, our business has improved by at least 20%.  And that’s measurable in financial terms.” Provincial director, financial services

Ask yourself this incisive question. 

“If I knew that by generating a thinking environment I would improve work practices and take quality decisions, what would I do next?”

Get in touch and tell me.