Recently in Leadership Category

Late last year I was at one of the usual round of Christmas parties I attend each year. Also as usual, I found myself talking to a new acquaintance explaining that I work as a Leadership Mentor when a third person joined the group. The conversation moved to executive remuneration and specifically CEO remuneration. During the conversation my new found colleague turned to me and said

“You'd know this — the CEO makes the difference”.

I replied “The CEO makes a difference.”

He was unconvinced and repeated his earlier assertion.

At this stage I deferred — neither of us was going to change our position. If my colleague is reading this I must say, with greatest respect, I still disagree with you.

And still, after 20 years as a consultant, I remain absolutely amazed at the predominance of this view. It is beyond the scope of this short piece to delve into a deep discussion of Wilfred Bion's Basic Assumptions, but it seems to me that the unchallengeable way in which this view of the messianic CEO is discussed in business almost indicates a very large group Basic Assumption Dependency.

Briefly, Major Wilfred Bion, whose task it was to provide therapy to thousands of soldiers returned from the Second World War, after studying the many many groups he worked with developed a description of group behaviour in which every group was, in fact, two groups — the Work Group and the Basic Assumption Group. The Work Group was the group that any observer could see. A group assigned to and attempting to complete a task. Bion suggested that in addition to this the group behaved as if some basic assumption were true — ie it was simultaneusly operating at two levels. The visible (work group level) and the invisible (basic assumption) level.

From his observations, Bion suggested that all groups acted with one of three Basic Assumptions: Dependency, Fight-Flight or Pairing. For the purposes of this piece I will only discuss the first of these — Dependency — and briefly at that.

Anything I write here will undoubtably reflect what has already be written by others, so I will simpy quote from ChangingMinds.org:

In this state, the group seeks a leader who will relieve them of all anxiety. This leader is thus invested with omnipotence and is expected to be able to solve all problems.

If this magical leader does not perform up to scratch, then the leader will be attacked and a replacement sought. Thus a cycle of leader-seeking, idealization and denigration occurs.

Does this sound familiar? The company is not performing as well as we want it to so we bring in a new CEO. If the CEO is any good, they can solve all the company's problems. If they don't solve all the problems then they are not up to scratch and everyone from the board to the business press will point out there shortcomings.

Yes, I have seen many CEOs and leaders who have almost single handedly wrecked their organisations and I have seen a very few individuals who have inspired their teams to achieve beyond their wildest dreams. But most CEOs I have met are somewhere in the middle. They lead a multi talented team — a team in which they had only a small part in putting together. Sure they can set the tone for the day to day work of the company's employees and they have the final say on the most important decisions. However, the company's success or otherwise depends first and foremost on the uniqueness of its products and services and the way they are marketed. This in turn is dependent on the company's culture. Something that is built into its DNA. The CEO can't change this. They can influence it. They can make decisions that make best use of it. They can affect the performance levels of their people to some degree. But they can't single handedly mandate and make happen large scale change.

I was reminded of this when I read this article by Greg Baum in Melbourne's The Age yesterday. For those of you from non-Cricket playing countries, I may need to tell you that the Australian Cricket Team has just suffered its first loss in a series at home since 1992/1993 (having lost the Second Test to South Africa.)

Baum notes the predictable reaction

In the aftermath, fingers of blame have been pointed in all directions: the selectors, the captain, Cricket Australia, Matthew Hayden, Andrew Symonds.

But

Captain Ricky Ponting has worn the brunt of the criticism. This is the captain's lot, but it is also a manifestation of the syndrome by which the leader of a sporting team — the captain in cricket, the coach in football — is made not only to account for his team, but personify it, so obviating the need for any more complex or subtle study. Hence, Ponting's failings are Australia's, Australia's Ponting's, all in one soundbite. (My emphasis added)

Again, does this sound familiar? The second sentence eminently qualifies Baum as a business analyst. Particularly the part I emphasised.

Buam hits the nail on the head regarding the problem with our belief in the messianic CEO. It is too simple and it obviates the need for any deeper study of the organisation.

This would not be so much a problem if the wellbeing of us all was not bound up in business. Our governments provide grants, low interest loans and incentives to business because they believe it will grow the economy. As we have seen in recent times, we all depend on a healthy economy. When the economy dips we all suffer.

How much more efficient would business be if it were not transfixed by the fantasy of a heroic CEO?

Welcome to the first edition of The Spiral Path – the companion newsletter to my Spiral Path blog.

In this newsletter, I refer to the concepts of Quantum Leadership® and The Spiral Path™. You can find out more about these concepts on my website.

Over the last half a year I have given a lot of thought to what I might write about in this the premiere edition of The Spiral Path. I’ve written myself notes and possible titles have come and gone in my mind. In the end though, I have come back to my very first thought – the concept of our Blind Spot. I am heavily indebted to C. Otto Scharmer* for the central insight of this article as well as many of his words that I will quote directly.

When we think about our blind spot, we think about something that is in front of us but we can’t see it. A colleague I was discussing this with recently observed “it’s something we don’t want to see.” There are certainly many of those, but I want to talk about a different view of the blind spot. Something that is within the range of our perception but is, in fact, invisible.

If we're so rich, why aren't we happy?

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced chick-sent-me-high-ee), C.S. and D.J. Davidson Professor of Psychology and Management at The Drucker School, Claremont Graduate University, is mainly known for his work in flow in creativity. Csikszentmihalyi describes flow as:

being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost.

According to The Monitor on Pschology

[Martin] Seligman describes Csikszentmihalyi as the world's leading researcher on a subject that is near and dear to his heart — positive psychology. He says Csikszentmihalyi's work on improving lives has been important in his own effort to encourage psychologists to focus on building human strengths. “He is the brains behind positive psychology, and I am the voice,” says Seligman. Csikszentmihalyi is working with Seligman to engage young leading psychologists to focus on prevention and building human strength.

Probably his most well know work is Flow the psychology of optimal experience

I have often retold the story of Winston Churchill visiting his old school, Harrow during the second world war.

According the story, the boys were told that Churchill, as Prime Minister of Great Britain was a very wise man and they should listen very carefully to what he would tell them. The were ushered into the school hall and sat ready to hear to words of the great man.

At the appropriate time in the assembly, Churchill was introduced to the boys. He stood up solemnly, looked at the boys and said "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never give in."

I was sure I first heard this story reading Martin Gilbert's work Winston S. Churchill: Finest Hour, 1939-1941.

I will have to go and re-read Gilbert's book because according to The Churchill Centre, Churchill actually gave a much longer speech.

Unless you've been asleep, hibernating, or out of the country for the last 12 months, you will be well aware that the Private Equity phenomenon has well and truly hit Australia.

I can't remember when it actually hit my radar, but the KKR bid for Coles [Updated 20/4/07] last year (ie 2006) was one of the first to come to my attention. I was certainly aware that KKR was part of the successful bid for Myer, but that didn't seem to be much cause for concern. Coles Myer hadn't known what to do with the iconic and once hugely successful Myer brand for a long time and its stores were floundering despite Dawn Robertson's best efforts. Count in that the consortium included the Myer Family and it all seemed like a good idea.

But then the separate semi hostile bid for Coles raised a lot of hackles in the community here. Coles was another iconic Australian brand grown from the battler success story of C.J. Coles — albeit suffering at the hands of the much more successful Woolworths. A lot of Australians just didn't like the idea of big money from the USA trampelling all over our heritage.

But the big one of course has been the APA bid for Qantas. There's nothing much more iconic than the Flying Kangaroo. Unlike Myer and Coles, Qantas is a succesful business. But Qantas represents more than an icon. It represents the working conditions of thousands of Australians and more than a million people in this country value (like me) our Qantas frequent flyer points. Now of course APA claims to be majority Australian owned and Australian controlled – it needs to be to satisfy the conditions of the Qantas sale act. However a significant amount of foreign money is involved in the bid and questions remain around the degree to which the act applies to Qantas' subsidiary Jestsar. What will happen to the working conditions of QANTAS and Jetsar employees. Will they all be moved to Australian Workplace Agreements, in the process losing hard won benefits? Will maintenance operations be moved overseas? And, for millions of Australians, what will happen to my frequent flyer points.

Notwithstanding that I think the last of these questions is really of much import, the others are of great concern to those involved and represent possible encroaching by example of the working conditions of millions of Australians.

However, to my mind, none of these is the most important concern. What bothers me most is whether the private equity partners in this deal (or any other for that matter) have any concern for what happens to their prey in the long term. Take Qantas as a case in point. APA cares for one thing and one thing only – the profit they can make from the deal. My concern is that APA will simply convert value into cash in its own pockets.

Now I might be wrong about this. Certainly the supporters of private equity argue that these arrangements enable owners to free themselves of the short-termism of public equity. They can be allowed to make losses, or at least not grow profit at the rate required by the market for extended periods. This, in our mind, is a good thing.

However, is this really what they will do?

I guess we will have to wait and see.

Julian Lippi's PhD thesis has been a rich source of reflection for me over the last few days.

Today, I was caused to think about mistakes I've made both in my professional career and in my personal relationships.

I was reading Jenny's story where she said:

... every professional mistake I've ever made in my life ... has been a failure to listen. I cannot think of any time ... I've got myself into hot water that couldn't be traced to a failure to engage with the other person's data for long enough, or at a deep enough level. Can't think of a time where it wasn't about listening. (p161)

This would be quite true for me as well, although I would add an important factor that comes into play for me. It might be the same as what Jenny is speeking about or it might be something different.

For me, I always relate my mistakes to my failure to engage with myselft. When I think about it afterwards, I realise that at some level I always knew what was going on. I knew what was going on, or at least I knew that something was wrong, but I suppressed that knowledge. More important than supressing the knowledge, I supressed what my feelings about or sense of what was happening. When I became uneasy, I would allow my natural optimism to overide the unease and used it as an excuse to not even allow my conscious mind to be aware of my unease.

In this way, my optimism is a defence against the conflict I fear would, and often would have, arisen if I had acted.

I regard myself, and most people who know me well regard me, as an insightful person. One colleague (who I would regard as a person with great insight herself) I worked with on a year long project remarked to me "You see things that others don't." In my heart of hearts, I fully believe this to be true. I don't like claiming it for myself because it sounds like I am boasting.

However, because of my fear of conflict, I have sometimes been stingy or mean with my with my insight. I have kept it to myself. In this way, I lose out on being acknowledged for what I bring to the situation and the other (or others) miss out on insight about themselves and how they might do things differently.

It has taken me a lot of personal work to know this about myself and to know when it is happening. It is still my greatest challenge. Each day and before each interaction, I need to prepare myself to be aware not only of what is going on around me but, more importantly, to be aware of what I am observing.