For businesses in and around Exeter, Newcastle and indeed elsewhere motivating your people is an essential skill for great leaders. The Key question being how do I get my team to perform at a superb level for a sustained period? Financial inducements have always been seen as essential inducement but are they really?

The Candle Problem undertaken by Carl Dunker in 1945, where a candle and tacks were placed in a box with some matches on a table and those taking part were asked “how do you attach the candle to the wall, light it and prevent the drips from falling on the table”. It was reused by Sam Glaxberg who proved that the pressure induced by financial incentives made teams less efficient by 31/2 minutes. So money can work as an incentive for mechanical and automated tasks but not for tasks requiring creative and cognitive skill here the pressure builds with the size of the reward and the degree of complexity related proportionally to the paucity of the performance. So money is not the answer. Extrinsic rewards were very much part of the management of workers last century. Today’s team members prefer far more intrinsic rewards once they have met their extrinsic needs.

So what other inducements has a leader got to enhance his team’s performance?

Today’s employees unlike their predecessors like a degree of autonomy. They like to know where they fit within an organisation and where the organisation is going. They like to understand and fit the culture and the values of the organisation as they consider choice to be an essential part of modern life. But they like to feel they have some say and some control of what they do.

They like to feel that they are developing personally in their chosen occupation or role. There is a desire to be seen and recognised as an expert. So they need to see that they are progressing and expanding their knowledge and experience. They also need to recognise that there are opportunities to do this in the future.

The idea that money is king is balanced by a sense of purpose and this is the dichotomy the world is wrestling with now. How do you as an individual or unit survive comfortably and yet maintain a purpose and a contribution to the wider good in a very capitalist and media driven selling environment.

People need cash enough to survive in their chosen environment at their chosen status but they need much more from their employment if they are to be motivated within their employment they need purpose and control in their lives and that is part of modern freedom delivered when humans no longer need to be in a herd continuously to survive.

Sampson Hall are running a series of events in the South West in Exeter and the North East in Newcastle which cover topics such as this. Further information is available at http://www.sampsonhall.co.uk/services/course-dates-and-descriptions.html

Not very long ago, only the good guys did ethical leadership. All very well but it didn’t make much difference to the bottom line apparently.  Well life and times in the UK are proving otherwise -  get the culture wrong and you could be facing the wall.

How the BBC, NHS, most high street banks and now some food producers must rue the day they decided it was all about profit, targets and bonuses.  Ignore the culture in your organization and you ignore it at your peril.

And all the retail brands who ignored their customer needs must regret doing some simple market research.

Lack of checks or possibly blatant disregard will be bringing down a number of food producers in the next couple of weeks.  The culture of not checking deliveries properly came from a culture of tacit acceptance, lack of communication and probably management bullying.  The culprits will undoubtedly be facing irreparable damage to their reputation and possibly a date in court.

Barclays announced today it’s closing its tax avoidance unit ‘in a bid to repair its battered reputation’.    How life could have been so different if they had thought about their brand and their customer first, rather than focus solely on profit.

Everyone knows that the Mid Staffs hospital scandal is merely the tip of the iceberg.  Stories such as we heard last week can be replicated in many other hospitals around the country.  We’ve all heard or experienced shocking levels of care – or rather lack of it.

The common denominator here is poor leadership.  Of course, business leaders have to make a profit.  But they need to value and give value to their customers  – and that includes listening to them.  And finally they need to think about their brand and their culture.  Get it right within the organization and you are someway down the road to getting it right for your customers.

So Sampson Hall say you should answer four simple questions about every business decision any leader makes.

Is it honest?

Is it fair?

Is it right for our brand?

Does it provide value for all involved?

If some of the above had addressed these issues, the current headlines would be very different

Every leader has at least one person in their team who isn’t performing. You really want them to do better, but do you sometimes sabotage their progress that by managing them like underachievers? Well perhaps there is another way?

A leader always wants their people to perform at their optimum level. It’s good for every one involved in the team and drives organisational performance. Regardless of the leader’s personal intentions – whether they want to look good as a leader or they want to drive their business forward, all a leader wants is for their people to do their best at work.

As team members start to under perform, start to let the leader down, the leader’s initial impulse is to take back some control. Decrease team members responsibilities, control some of the project, or even micro manage them with a long screw driver just a little in order to make the leader feel more comfortable. This is human nature.  After all a successful outcome is being threatened, so the leader naturally re-assumes control. Good leadership some would say and in certain circumstances that is the right thing to do for the task although it may damage the individual team member.

But stop a moment lets reflect on how this impacts upon the under performer doing the work?

You lead top performers very differently from those under performers and perhaps that may contribute to their lack of success.  Two completely different approaches which achieve different results appear logical on the surface; however, it seems ludicrous when you think you are applying methods that inhibit under performers from learning and developing. Let’s break down the logic:

You do something new – and someone performs really well you give them control and let them get on with it with the belief and freedom that delivers success.

However you have someone that isn’t performing well doing the same new thing – and you really want them to do well – so you do something totally different, you take back control pressurising them and hindering their opportunity for learning and development

In other words, we manage high performers like high performers. And we manage underachievers like underachievers – even though we want everyone to become a high performer for the sake of the team and the outcome.

And a big component of this is the leader feeling in control. When we take control away from people, their ability to think critically, to problem solve and to control emotions and behaviours is compromised. As leaders, we tend to give our high performers a lot of control and our underachievers a little. We are imposing our way upon someone who may have a better but different way. Someone who may just need to learn how to do it and the best way of learning is experimentally. Hence our imposition of control might end up driving a self-fulfilling cycle.

In a recent study a group of people were given a problem solving test and their scores were recorded. Each of the participants was then asked to describe a person in their lives that they thought was controlling. For 15 minutes, they were asked to describe the person, their actions and specific situations. After this interview, they were given another (equivalent) problem-solving test and each and every one of them performed about 30% worse.

Interesting that just the thought of someone controlling us decreases our ability to problem-solve by 30%!

But it turns out actual control by the incumbent isn’t completely necessary. In many research experiments using computer tasks, just the feeling of control can reignite someone’s performance. As with most things, perception is more important than reality. We call this ownership and its all about feeling ownership of an outcome. Effective communication by a leader should leave a team member in no doubt about the expected outcome to be delivered and the boundaries beyond which they have to seek permission to pass in pursuit of that outcome. This creates the impression of control although a good leader will monitor unobtrusively until they have total confidence in that team member.

So as leaders how do we develop our under performers through empowerment through the feeling of more control.

1)    Be more organized in your delegation

To delegate well and give people control, you have to be more organized than when you simply do it yourself. You must clearly communicate expectations (the outcome) and boundaries. Give yourself and your direct reports realistic lead times, which allow them to get their work done, get some feedback and then redo it if necessary. When your direct report gets it wrong too close to the deadline, you have very little choice but to take it back and do it yourself but remember, if you can always, exploit a learning opportunity!

2) Delegate pieces of projects, rather than the whole thing

Remember people do things better if they like doing it.  So you’re bound to find things that people are more proficient at. The most effective leader develops their team members using challenge and support – too much of either is a poor recipe for learning. If you do not have total confidence  in someone give them pieces of the project that you are happy for them to control, rather than setting them up to fail by being over ambitious asking them to do too much. Time spent building trust and understanding is never wasted.

3) Create the perception of control

Ownership is important as people always need to feel like they control something. There are always things that we have no control over – such as deadlines. But there are also things that we can make sure people do have control over – that contribute to the way in which the outcome is achieved. Delivery of a small contributing piece of an outcome such as the provision of refreshments or even the colour of the binding for the final report without interference can afford a perception of ownership. These small things can actually make a big difference in the way team members perform whilst enhancing trust and cohesion.

People do their best work when they feel they are trusted; when they have a sense of control. Not when they are operating on fear or over worried about making little mistakes that make them appear stupid. They need to understand what they own and the expectations and boundaries and then be left to get on with it.

These simple things might just help your underachievers become high achievers and valued team members in the future. The value of experiential learning should never be missed!

Modern leadership in a time when the quick eat the slow has to be different from that which flourished in the industrial era. Sadly very few organisations and academic places of learning recognise the requirement for a softer set of leadership skills. Cognitive leadership is all about understanding the environment in which you lead and then applying the appropriate leadership style, tool or skill to the occasion.  This is beyond the broad definition of situational leading.

The modern leader needs to listen and watch passively to understand their situation and the needs of those they lead. Listening is an underestimated leadership competence that is recognised in some schools of thinking but watching or observing and noticing is rarely considered as a characteristic of leadership. Noticing skills are fundamental to cognitive leadership.

Lessons are learned harder and therefore learned better in failure and a vital component of the cognitive leader is the ability to forgive a mistake as long as it is learned from and not repeated. Humans are fallible and we all make mistakes it is how they are recovered from that makes the difference.

Using your experts many leaders believe they have to be expert at everything to have the right to lead. Experts are with you for a reason, use their expertise allow them to control when the situation is appropriate empower them to make them more effective. With the speed of information flow and the speed of business advisors are often better placed to react rather than just advise allow them the freedom to react appropriately to seize the opportunity before someone else does.

The bottom line in cognitive leadership is the ability to trust and be trusted. You will only be fully trusted by your team if you become a cognitive leader. A cognitive leader is someone who understands what needs to be done when, someone who has the courage and judgement to lead their teams through the toughest of ordeals and environments; someone who uses the cohesive power of the team and all its attributes. To become a cognitive leader you need to have complete faith in yourself and complete faith in those around you. Please do not confuse faith with arrogance.

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers it costs a year’s wages to recruit a member of staff and train them to the level of their predecessor and yet executives are still too busy to get it. Executives don’t pay enough attention to engagement – US statistics variously state that 66% of employees feel disengaged or that 60% are actively looking for new work and yet retention of talent is still underplayed in many boardrooms.

Let’s not just think about the cost of replacement but how much they cost when they are employed. A disengaged employer is far less effective in their role than an engaged employer, Keith Ayres notes that while a disengaged employee may be giving only 50% effort, we still pay them 100% of their salary. This means that a significant portion of payroll costs are valueless to the organisation as there is no effect. How much of your wage bill is frittered away without contributing to your bottom line? 

If the average salary of an employee in a 500 person organization is £25,000 then the annual cost of disengagement is over £4 million and £17, 200 a day. I think that deserves a CEOs and Board’s attention.

Instead of dwelling on the doom and gloom, consider another cost: opportunity. What would your world look like if instead of just studying your employees through your annual survey, you spent time actually engaging them in conversation about what they care about? What if you involved them in decisions that affect their life at work and the welfare of the company at large? What if you empowered them to do, to connect with each other, recognize one another for great work and truly collaborate? What could those sorts of employees do for your success?

Well this is the sort of opportunity that would be identified with Sampson Hall’s Gordian Model. Boards would be able to exploit this and many other opportunities which would be identified in the process as they drive their organisations to success. http://www.sampsonhall.co.uk/services/our-metrics/the-gordian-model.html

Anyone who watched the television last night will understand how each of us is programmed to ignore the evidence of failure and proceed in a positive way. That’s why we often harm ourselves through smoking, alcohol and unprotected sex even though we are fully aware of the consequences. So in our lives we always assume it will never happen to us and yet when it does in business we rarely see failure as a positive.  In life we are programmed to see a positive outcome otherwise we would not take risks and we would not develop and learn as a race. What we have to do is take the positives out of failure and use them in business as well.

When we plan to succeed there are automatic built in components of overcome failure because nothing worthwhile in life comes easy we are all more robust if we have and maintain a vision of eventual success.  Failure is not our enemy; but it is our friend. As a race we don’t always like adversity because it hurts. However, think of what adversity has delivered to our society in terms of a hunger and drive for success. It is not adversity that kills businesses. What kills businesses is a lack of understanding and education as to how things such as adversity and failure are actually assets, and not liabilities.  Every organisation if it is to exploit its opportunities should look for the positive in each situation. I like the old Chinese saying “I complained because I had no shoes until I saw a man who had no legs” makes real sense. Often it is only our lack of perspective that allows the fear of failure to control our thinking.  If we maintain perspective in terms of our real situation we can learn as much from failure as we can success.

Failure is not something to be avoided but something to be encouraged, all creative ventures yield to the maximum when failure is embraced rather than shunned.  Failure is often seen perceived as a weakness and yet we all have weaknesses as we are all flawed as humans that is in our nature! It is the strong man that knows his weaknesses. It is only when the limits of anything are known through it breaking or failing that we are we able to understand its flaws and  develop something new, it is only then that we have a  real need to change. That is as Donald Rumsfeld would say when an “unknown unknown” is possible because an “unknown known” has become a “known known”. Failure brings us knowledge and development and should always be viewed positively as long as it is not repeated too often because that only exposes an inability to learn the lessons of failure. If you keep on doing the same things you will always get the same results. As Albert Einstein said “the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and expecting a different result”.

A key skill for today’s leader is knowing what to remember and what to forget. Sometimes it is good to forget sometimes it is essential to remember this article assesses the importance of forgetting to leadership

Modern Leaders must be able to make clear decisions drawn from myriad bits of information; their decisions need to reflect a big picture understanding. With information becoming so abundant in this modern age, it is very easy to become overloaded and therefore not to comprehend the big picture. Total recall has often been associated with a high level of intelligence and hence achievement but this is not always so. When in a positions of leadership the opposite is more the case. Those with total recall often have difficulty differentiating the information and hence making strategic decisions. They more readily miss-understand the overall point or concept because they get so enmeshed in the detail. Detail is for managers and not leaders as forgetting, it turns out, has enormous value for leaders and big picture thinkers; forgetting and forgiving are both key attributes to good leadership. But timing is essential.

General Sir John Hackett as a commander in the 8th Kings Royal Irish Hussars employed a driver who had failed in battle as his own tank driver so showing compassion and leadership as he knew that the man would give anything not to repeat the experience of such failure and yet Hackett’s humanity and compassion would serve his reputation as a leader as they were quickly evident to the rest of his men! General Hackett had chosen to forget and forgive and General Hackett was an outstanding leader.

The other reason for forgetting detail is to enable strategic clarity. One of the greatest exponents of total recall was Solomon Shereshevsky who could recite entire speeches, word for word, after hearing them once. In minutes, he memorized complex math formulas, passages in foreign languages and tables consisting of 50 numbers or nonsense syllables. The traces of these sequences were so durably etched in his brain that he could reproduce them years later.  However, the issue was forgetting them and when Solomon was asked to make decisions, as chair of a union group; he could not see the big picture and tripped up as he was so entwined in irrelevant details. .   “Human memory is pretty good,” says cognitive neuro-scientist Benjamin J. Levy of Stanford University. “The problem with our memories is not that nothing comes to mind-but that irrelevant stuff comes to mind.”

“The act of forgetting crafts and hones data in the brain as if carving a statue from a block of marble. It enables us to make sense of the world by clearing a path to the thoughts that are truly valuable. It also aids emotional recovery after a traumatic incident. ‘You want to forget embarrassing things,’ says cognitive neuroscientist Zara Bergstrom of the University of Cambridge. ‘Or if you argue with your partner, you want to move on.’ In recent years researchers have amassed evidence for our ability to wilfully forget. They have sketched out a neural circuit underlying this skill analogous to the one that inhibits impulsive actions”.  Wilful forgetfulness aids self confidence and enables forgiveness of others.

Leaders need to learn when to remember and when to forget. Given that the best learning is experiential then the experience of failure must be built upon rather than being dwelt upon. Leaders must learn to accept failure as part of an individual and teams development however, they must also remember failures if they are repeated too often. They must also remember lessons from previous failures in order to prevent themselves from becoming involved in systemic failure. As Albert Einstein said ”the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and expecting a different result”.

Leaders benefit from selective forgetfulness of their own failings and others failings as well as forgetting detail to enable strategic clarity as detail is the domain of managers. For leaders there’s a time to remember and a time to forget!

We have entered the age of empowered individuals. Leaders use potent new technologies and harness social media to organize themselves and focus interest on their agendas and activities. Most are ordinary people with access to new information tools that can virally create large global audiences for their messages.

The more traditional hierarchical institutions of modern developed societies, whether they are governments or companies, are not prepared or ready for this new social power or leadership as the riots in London and the recent occupy campaigns in cities around the World exemplify.

This power has resulted in the emergence of a new dynamic form of leadership and new styles of leader – they are individuals who do not hold formal positions of authority, they operate and influence at every level within society virtually – top, middle and bottom. They are interested in political, social and organisational change. They challenge the status quo of the traditional institutions and the established concepts and practices of leadership. The speed of action of such groups implies revolution although given the pace of modern life it may just reflect more rapid evolution.

The world is changing and potential leaders now have phenomenal access through modern technology to potential followers; but are we really seeing the emergence of a new ‘grassroots leadership style’ or just a virtual reaction to current geo-political and economic issues and imbalances on global organisational and social stages?

This new technological advantage neuters traditional power and law enforcement and quickly turns virtual agendas into reality and action on an unprecedented scale. What we are seeing is the emergence of a new type of social leadership, irrespective of position or power or authority – relational rather than hierarchical. The concept of a fluid collective responsibility with time relevant ‘liquid leadership’  that builds, fades and morphs – where leadership comes to the fore at the top, centre, or edges of an organisation be it virtual or real. Leadership based more upon time relevant expertise, knowledge, and relational connection. It is a transient relationship where power is virtual and yet influence is real – a matter of permissive leadership with influence presiding over old fashioned traditional enforced authority, control and autocracy. Speed is of the essence and speed creates a phenomenal advantage for these new free running leaders. Accordingly, social power or the ‘power with’ rather than ‘power over’ provides the collaborative advantage even on the global stage. Witness the Arab Spring. This new leadership can be momentary and omnipotent, as powerful and transient as it is weak and ineffective. Predictable-maybe sometimes, yet surprise brings potency and it’s this new leadership’s unpredictability in terms of uptake or influence that can make it difficult to control.  A popular cause and the means of unfettered communication are at the heart of this new leadership. Alliances fostered in an information age where national agendas are undone by social perceptions.

This  new leadership has a precedent; it is  similar in shape to the old terrorism of Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Where a religious and social agenda created a fanaticism that spawned martyrs by the thousand. Where social agendas pampered to by a sensationalist press created a myth of omnipotence. Perhaps the new anti-establishmentarianism will be seen as  the new terrorism when viewed from an old fashioned state government perspective

This new leadership comes and goes dependent upon the social situation and leaders come and go dependent upon the relevance of their expertise and the access they have to social media and the scale of their audience. This new form is so dynamic it resembles a ‘liquid leadership’ of a group coalesced by only a  social strategy or  popular agenda.

These new groups herded together by social conscience or injustice often present a preferred response  to those transgressors they oppose. Their preference is for action, to engage, not ignore; work with each other, not against to resolve issues  by whatever means whether the establishment likes it or not.

Business needs to understand this new dimension of leadership, if it does not it will miss out on an opportunity. It needs to harness the social and economic power this new form of leadership affords  For to understand and develop a new business leadership culture based upon influence and empowerment will bring with it a quantum change to the  long established way leadership is currently practised using some of the somewhat antiquated autocratic leadership theory.

Effective communication is vital to success in modern business. Without it organisations fail and individuals go astray and become inadvertent saboteurs.

Effective communication involves moral courage, honesty and  the ability to give and receive feedback. Meetings that do not involve challenge and two way discussion are ineffective. The information passed may as well have been placed on a noticeboard. And yet all too often leaders waste such opportunities to benefit their organisations and develop their teams as effective communication is often misconstrued as challenging  a leader’s authority rather than supporting it.

Leaders have to accept that their ideas and concepts will be challenged if they are to develop and improve those ideas and achieve greater outcomes. If a challenge can be rebuffed by the leader then the concept is strong. If a challenge causes the leader to refine the concept rather than doggedly pursue a failing concept then the concept is improved and the leader better respected for their judgement. So why avoid effective communication? It is only when such challenges become personal that the effect becomes negative in its orientation. If it is depersonalised then either way a challenge is positive.

Followership also requires  followers to be prepared to challenge a leaders plans and concepts for the betterment of an outcome. To sit and watch a leader fail or not deliver an outcome in the most effective way is tantamount to negligence and yet how many times have we seen it happen and indeed been involved in it ourselves? Followers just like leaders need to be honest and require the moral courage to challenge their leader’s ideas and plans in order to improve them if they want their organisation to achieve greater things.

Effective communication is a two way street and a street that will only work if it is based in trust. All too often opportunities are missed because of a lack of trust and openness.  As humans are naturally competitive and some are more ambitious than others they use information as a source of power and control to the detriment of operational effectiveness. It is is the strong man that knows and exposes his weaknesses and it is the even stronger team that truly works together to ensure their individual vulnerabilities are not exposed. Mutual support ensures that the team is stronger in its completeness than the sum of all the strengths of the individuals who form it. Such a team has to derive its strength, honesty and openness from truly effective communication.

As businesses overcome the travails of the current economic downturn and as the world we work in becomes more complex and quicker, there is a strong need to review current thinking on leadership.  Leadership can no longer be just about an autocratic individual who heads up an organisation. And yet even the most successful organisations such as Hewlett Packard are still recruiting CEOs from without on reputation to try and lead the organisation. New leaders bring with them new cultures and new ways, they bring their past successes with them as baggage. However each situation, each organisation is different and it is the ability of a leader to impact and influence an organisation now that is so important ,not their previous record. We have to start considering a leader on the outcomes they have achieved through their followers rather than through their personal attributes. Leadership success is all based on gaining Followership.

Followership is about outcomes, it is about the leader, yes, but it is also about the organisation’s culture and ethos, it is about the environment, it is about the situation, it is about anything that impacts on any outcome. Great leaders often pale and fade when they are removed from their most natural leadership environment. Look at Tony Blair, Winston Churchill before and after the war. History is littered with great men that have achieved because the time and environment is right for them. Yet in other environs they appear like fish out of water

A leader must fit the social identity of the group he or she leads. They must fit in and this is achieved most easily if they originate from within the said group. To impose a leader from without takes time and can cause a change in organisational ethos and culture. Trust is key for effective communication and effective communication is critical to good leadership and trust comes only when mutual understanding is present.

Trust is vital in the development of an organisation to its true potential. Trust allows the fettles of control to be released and hence the frees up each individual’s potential within an organisation. Without trust the necessary speed of action required in modern business becomes impossible. With it an organisation can thrive and challenge itself into a cycle of continuous improvement. Leaders must create and preserve trust for it is with trust that the environment within an organisation enables true consideration of the environment without.

Protecting the natural environment we live in is a real tenet of modern business. It will not be long before disposing of a particular item will be more expensive than purchasing it! The social conscience of the developed world is awakening in a way that will challenge many of the ways we do business and leaders need to match that conscience if they are to create longevity within their organisation.

Profit will always be king, but profit may be measured in social equity rather than cash and it may soon be that the environmental costs are considered just too much for a market to bear.

Leadership development in such a changing and dynamic environment becomes awfully difficult. If an organisation is really to develop leaders for the future, rather than for the present, it has to give its leadership talent the skill sets to match the many different challenges and environments that may become reality in the future. No longer is leadership about just autocratic inspiration and individual attributes it is far more about inspiring and influencing those around you through trust and empowerment. Only then will an organisation maintain its competitive advantage over the long term.