The summary so far

Let me summarise our progress so far. We are born with pre–programmed "drivers". Attacking these aggressively, especially in the earliest stages of our lives, creates massive anxiety. As little chaps, we do not have the experience or the capability to deal with such anxieties. We respond by turning a blind eye, fantasising, looking in upon ourselves and gradually this reaction becomes a habit and then an obsession. We become driven to succeed, find progressively greater glories to cover up our suffering, we have to win, we are never satisfied. Many such people know little personal happiness or contentment. They are unlikely to enjoy adult and equal relationships. Many become our leaders – because they are willing, as most of us are not, to put themselves on the line. Unfortunately they are often difficult to manage, difficult to work with, and they find it increasingly difficult to brook questioning or even a different pace of decision–making. Bound up in their own blinkered need to win, they can also appear – and in some cases are – almost oblivious to the feelings of those around them. Ironically they can at the same time seem extraordinarily, almost laughably, sensitive to any perceived criticism, seeing it as a spoilt child would see a refusal to be given his or her toy. They become personallyhurt, the critic becomes excluded, the leader becomes irrational.

Given this pattern, it is not surprising that many resist open debate and questioning. They have no wish, and probably do not know how, to listen (see chapter 5). They are "anti–learners". When we add in the natural inclination of all of us to find and then cling on to known solutions, rulebooks and the means of creating certainty in the otherwise inexplicable chaos we see around us, we are in danger of looking for anti–learning driven leaders and becoming comfort–zone obedient followers. This is a recipe for disaster. This is the fundamental justification for the need to create the Learning Organisation. It is also the most important challenge facing non–executive directors and coaches – ironically, one largely overlooked amidst all the bubble talk of corporate governance.

Contrary to common thought, great leadership is not about instant decision–making heroics by driven, lone but intuitive geniuses. In a later chapter we are going to focus on this in more detail (see Chapter 7). Jim Collins in his book "Good to Great"15 tells the story of Darwin E Smith, the mild–mannered in–house lawyer at underperforming Kimberly–Clark, who became, to his own surprise, CEO in 1971. Awkward, shy, humble, but also with a fierce resolve, not for himself, but for his company, Collins quotes Harry S Truman "You can accomplish anything in life, provided you do not mind who gets the credit". Darwin Smith took on a "stodgy old paper company where stock had fallen 36% behind the general market over the previous 20 years. He remained at the company for the next 20 years and turned Kimberly–Clark into the leading paper–based consumer products company in the world. Under his stewardship, Kimberly generated cumulative stock returns 4.1 times the general market, easily beating its direct rivals Scott Paper and Proctor & Gamble and outperforming Coca Cola, Hewlett Packard, and General Electric".

Jim Collins quotes Smith in retirement, reflecting on his exceptional performance, saying simply. "I never stopped trying to become qualified for the job". The Collins book goes on to introduce his concept of the Level 5 executive – leaders focussed not on their own immediate gains, nor on kudos and popularity for themselves, but instead thinking always for their organisation, its people, its markets and its success. The hierarchy of leaders as defined by Collins is given below:

table of leadership levels

Source: "Good to Great"

The greatest leaders in Jim Collins’s research are in it for the long haul; they are focused on winning step by step for the whole organisation, not just themselves. They stay to complete the job and throughout they are learning new things, questioning and probing, continually looking for feedback, always trying to find fresh insights, ways of checking out information better. the opposite of General Buller, who refused the use of "intelligence" or "spies" during the Boer War, dismissing it as "ungentlemanly." His apotheosis came when, without sufficient briefing, he instructed his artillery mistakenly to bombard one hill populated only by sheep, while the Boer Army looked on in mystification from an adjacent similar knoll! The leader’s thirst for ever better information and knowledge dominates the characteristics of the four studied by Eliot Cohen in his book

"Supreme Command" (Free Press. 2002 )

Cohen describes Lincoln, Clemenceau, Churchill and Ben–Gurion. Let us take Lincoln as an example. Throughout the American Civil War, he required short daily reports from the army. His learning and inquiring mind was balanced by a steely resolve to confront fears. Assistant Secretary of War, Charles Dana, remarked in particular on the lack of illusions: "He had no freakish notion that things might be so, when they were not so".

Like John Collins’s description of great business leaders, Lincoln’s mind seized on new technologies, new ideas, new approaches, so sadly lacking in the minds of our World War I generals. Cohen lists the development of the rifle, electrically–detonated mines, submarines and incendiary shells. Above all, Lincoln embraced the new world of the telegraph. "He almost lived in the telegraph office when a battle was in progress". Unlike Haig, he repeatedly visited his generals, the frontline and his men to check morale, strategy and thinking. The President used Dana as a "spy" to watch over and report on Grant, and so build his own trust in the great general, learn how he operated, and ensure he was leading him well.

Organisations that survive and prosper in the future will be learning organisations. They will know what their core purpose is, they will have worked out ways to legitimise openness, debate, and questioning. There is an expression that I don’t like, because it is so ho–hum, but it is true nonetheless that there will not be criticism so much as "feedback." Companies will regularly be asking their customers what they think about the product or service they supply. Those that really seek to understand will be seeing a path to success. The professionals will find this transition most difficult of all. Professionals, whether doctors, accountants, architects or lawyers, spend years of study, work experience and then practice, before they become directors or partners.

Throughout their working lives they continue to study, through a programme of Continuous Professional Development (CPD). This is in addition to the essential need to keep up to date with changes in legislation, trends in the profession and developments in fields such as materials, sciences, IT, medicine and other related technologies. They are tested and become admitted to their professional associations, where, in time, they can, with pride, become "fellows" and even members of the Council. All this is fine. For most they will be rewarded by a fulfilling career, focussed on being recognised as experts, knowing the right answer. For most there will be little management involvement – that is fine too; they did not become professionals to be business managers. However, for most there will also be an insidious downside. As their professional and skill commitment extends and increases, so they will be less and less exposed to the everyday give–and–take, ambiguities and uncertainties of the real world. They will increasingly be conditioned to working within their relatively fixed world, frame worked by convention, dominated by being correct, giving precise advice. Professionals really are dedicated to their learning. They work long hours – for most, indeed, their working lives are dominated, not by the client results they achieve, but by the hours of paid work they can record. There have been instances recently of great firms requiring 2400 chargeable hours per annum from their staff.

 

Ironically for firms so overtly interested in learning, they are less open to the vulnerabilities of holding, developing and building adult relationships. They turn a blind eye to the failed marriages, the burn–out, the depression. The process does little to prepare new partners for managing people, markets and clients. Suddenly, overnight, the new man or woman is catapulted out of the 20–30 year comfort–zone of study, practice, client advice and specific implementation, into a totally new world where nothing seems cut–and–dried. There are ambiguities, shifting attitudes, as well as the new speak of business and finance. There are few certainties. They will tend to be frightened of clients, unreasonably convinced that price, not quality of delivery, is what they want. They will find it difficult to talk with their customers, to hear what their needs are, to market and sell.

In the main, they are expected to take on their new roles with little help or training from their fellow Partners. There is usually little or no discussion even about specific plans, gaps, priority actions. Instead, a vote is taken, and the chosen professional becomes the new leader overnight.

But they are also very bright, and they can get there by embracing all the aspects of the learning company. This will legitimise open–thinking, and rapidly we can see:

 

  • partners with people–management and leadership skills fast–tracked to managerial roles; Given a normally accepted 200 working day year this implies 12 hours charged per day, every available day!
  • the growing use of imported expert units to help with Business Development, Human Resources and Management;
  • the amalgamation of similar and differing professions to create sufficient financial critical mass and range of service;
  • a 4–dimensional strategic understanding based on Clients, People, Cash and Systems;
  • a move away from measurement by "hours" towards one focussed on the delivery of world class value added.

 

Comment on this page