Realising Our Potential

Realisi= ng Our Potential

Leading= the Way

by Roy Feltham

October 2003

The Government published its Skills Strategy in last June^{^[1]}.= The overall objective is to raise productivity and competitiveness, by investing in workforce skills. The Government intends that this strategy is integrated with other drivers of productivity that are thought to be innovation, enterprise, competition and investment.

The White Paper indicates that there are around 4.5 million people in the UK who have significant management responsibilities, and reports that there are deficiencies in the level of management skills^{^[2]<=
![endif]>}

This article examines the role of leadership in realising the potential of organisations and their employees. Some insights are given into the tools that are available to leaders= to improve the working environment and achieve organisational transformation.<= o:p>

A simple enterprise mode= l

It is not uncommon, or surprising, for businesses to concentrate their attenti= on on the technical and commercial aspects that determine the success of their businesses. Successful organisations ensure that they recruit people with the necessary technical = and commercial expertise and experience and they ensure that these skills are maintained in the light of changes in the business environment. However, in most businesses, and especially knowledge – based businesses, it is also essential for organisations to understand what it takes for a large group of people with a wide variety of skills and experiences and social backgrounds to work toget= her effectively, to achieve organisational coherence.

For a business to achiev= e and sustain success into the future there must be an appropriate balance betwee= n the technical, commercial and social processes and systems.

The Role of Leaders=

One often hears about the need to “motivate people”; or of leaders = who are “inspirational”, or who are “motivational speakers”. These sugges= tions imply first, that motivating employees is good and second, that it is somet= hing that can be “done” to people.&= nbsp; This outlook appears to be based on the assumption that people can be treated like objects, having no influence on the outcome. Employees may be seen as ‘resources’, or ‘units’, or ‘numbers’, = to be ‘managed’. A s= imilar approach may also be taken with external relationships; as being something = that must be ‘managed’. In fact, people can and do exercise choices, so it is simply not possible to t= ake any actions involving people that will guarantee a particular outcome. Whereas physical objects can be controlled, people can only be influenced.

And yet, there can no doubt that ‘motivated people’ are the greatest and, arguably, the most important resource that an organisation has. It is = an extraordinary paradox that “people are our greatest assets”, but investment in skills is often the first to be cut. The value of motivated emplo= yees is especially important when there is high employment, skills shortages in = many sectors of the economy, and strong competition between employers for the sa= me skills. So the key question i= s: how can an organisation ensure that its investments in technology or assets are fully realised, and its commercial strategy is implemented effectively, and that a high quality service is provided to customers, when these strategies= are dependent on the behaviour of its employees? i.e. Ho= w can an organisation ensure that employees are “motivated”; and are committed to the organisation?

In fact, the only person who can motivate an employee is the employee. Motivation is a matter of personal choice.

Employees who work in a favourable environment tend to be energised, highly engaged in the enterprise, creative, fearless, enthusiastic and, usually, successful.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It is the work of leaders in an organisation to create this environment where people choose to work effectively in achieving the business objectives.

Leadership or management?

It may be helpful to offer some clarification of the difference between ‘= ;management’ and ‘leadership’. Most ‘managers’ are also leaders, which tends to imply that the roles are synonymous. The terms are frequently used together, as if they are inseparable, or tautological. In fact, whilst the two roles may = indeed be simultaneous, they are profoundly different. The difference is associated with = the reference above to objects and people and is well captured by Stephen Covey= ^{^[3]<=
![endif]>} when he says that “you manage= processes and lead people”.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Processes must be managed to achie= ve predictable outcomes by transforming selected inputs.&= nbsp; The key to process management is to understand the causes of variati= on and use these insights to improve the processes.

It is not uncommon for managers to attempt to achieve specified outcomes by tr= eating people as objects. This form = of ‘management’ often succeeds in delivering results in the short term, by coercion, but will not create the sort of environment that enables people to contribute to the maximum of their capability. It will not stimulate creativity, process improvement, or business improvement. It will not create high performance working, or high energy. It w= ill not realise the potential of employees, or the organisation. The efforts of ‘management&#= 8217; are directed towards ‘controlling’ the workforce. The approach is difficult to susta= in and cannot be relied upon to deliver quality services or products. It is improbable that employees wh= o are controlled at work, or left to decide for themselves what they should be do= ing, will behave in a way that enables them to ‘engage‘ in the enterprise and deliver high quality work.&= nbsp; They may come to work, but leave themselves at home.

Leadership accountabilit= y

The Chief Executive or Managing Director of an organisation is accountable for creating an internal culture that supports productive relationships between employees. This also includes developing productive relationships with external stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, regulators, business partners, investors, and trades unions, so that adversarial relationships do not inhibit the performance of= the business.

The leadership style of the organisation is determined, directly or indirectly,= by the kind of working environment that is decided by the CEO or MD. Individual leaders sho= uld translate the strategic intent of the organisation into meaningful context for their team, so that their team members understand how their particular work contributes to the enterprise. If this context setting is done well, team members will be able to ‘follow’ their leader.

Once the CEO or MD has specified the kind of culture= that is to be created, every manager in the organisation should then be held to account for adopting and developing the espoused culture. A relaxed, or lai= ssez – faire approach towards leadership behaviour undermines the espoused behaviours and, in turn, inhibits the full potential of the organisation.

Assessment of the current culture.

An assessment can be made of the extent to which the current working environme= nt enables employees to achieve their potential. This assessment can be conducted by ‘estimating’ employees’ views about some of the most important features of their working environment, or carrying out an actual survey of staff, or by using= a third party to conduct an audit, so that actual responses can be obtained in confidence.

From experience in many organisations, the results of such surveys provide a reliable indication of the leadership style of the organisation and provide= a platform for organisational transformation.

The tools of leadership<= o:p>

The leaders in an organisation have 3 tools that can be used to achieve organisational coherence:

Lead= ership behaviour
Symb= ols
Syst= ems

Employees throughout an organisation observe the behaviour of their leaders. If the behaviour they observe is a= ligned with the espoused culture, it is easy for employees to build confidence and trust in the leadership. Conversely, if they observe behaviour that they rate as being inconsistent with the espoused behaviour, they are likely to be confused, at best. More likely, they may f= orm a view that the “espoused behaviour” described by the leadership = of the organisation is some form of deception, designed to encourage different behaviour among employees, whilst the leaders continue to behave in the same way towards employees. In the= se circumstances, it is unlikely that employees will respond enthusiastically = to the leadership of an organisation.

Symbols are non – verbal representations of the culture in an organisation. Symbols may include dress code, ri= tuals, logos, badges, gestures, the “house style” of the organisation, office layout and equipment, etc. &nb= sp; Such symbols provide evidence, or insights, into the behaviour of leaders, because this behaviour materialises in these various physical forms. Symbols are interpreted by employees, customers and other external stakeholders and reinforce their views of the organisation.= If it is intended to change the leadership style and culture in an organisation, changes in symbols are a powerful means of signalling, or demonstrating, this change. However, such is the power of symbols that changes that are seen as being inconsistent with the espoused culture will also undermine the effort= s to bring about change.

It is widely recognised that the design of systems has a major influence on the behaviour of people employed in organisations. This is reflected in the statement “systems drive behaviour”.&nbs= p; Systems are critical because they are the equivalent of the non-verb= al behaviour of the organisation. If there is a contradiction between what an organisation says, (i.e. through "mission", "vision" statements and policy) and what an organisation does (i.e. the way in which systems are designed and implemented) it is the latter that people will believe. The mismatch between= what people experience and what the organisation says also affects the credibili= ty of the leadership of the organisation.&nbs= p; It follows that the design of systems is a vital tool for leaders to transform an organisation. Su= ch systems include technical, commercial and, especially, the social process systems, such as selection, performance management, reward and recognition, succession planning and workforce development.

The role of leaders in relation to the Skills Strategy

The development of workforce skills, which is the subject of the Government Whi= te Paper, touches at the very heart of the role of leaders in organisations. T= he leadership role is about creating an environment that encourages employees = to contribute fully to the enterprise, to the maximum of their potential. This raises the ambition of employ= ees and increases the demand for skills.

Effective leadership will realise that the capability of employees is of profound importance to the well – being of the organisation. This discovery will be translated = into strategies for workforce development that are driven by the business object= ives and will enable the full potential of their employees and of their organisa= tion to be realised. The leadershi= p of the organisation will lead the way in realising their potential.=

Readers’ Comments

Please send your contribution by e-mail to us at : = comments

Matching individual and team purpose with corporate purpose

The author elegantly places the word ‘motivate’ in its correct perspective. Its link with motiv= e is clarified. In business the only high-level motive seems to be money bu= t in fact as we all know this is far to simplistic a view to hold. At the ‘operational’, sentient worker, level a job well done is f= ar more of an intrinsic motivator for people than ‘more money’. And this is, I believe, because any worker at whatever level knows deep-down th= at their job is part of a deal that they (sometimes reluctantly) agreed to in = the first place at a wage which, if they feel lucky, they can leave f= or a better paid job when ever they want.

As Myron Tribus remind= s us, the motive that all managers are fully responsible for stimulating within t= heir workers’ minds is that of continuous improvement. Without the know-how of the worker no process or business system can be improved. By inspiration and recognition the good manager can thus mobilize workers to 'motivate' themselves to do better.

In a free society and with the rate for the job fi= xed by mutual consent the natural human desire is to enjoy the task in hand and carry it out to the best of one’s abilities. Of course, doing your be= st is only part of the challenge. You have to know what you should be doing. T= he aim is both competence and capability.&nbs= p; One without the other will not be sufficient. The trouble arises when the job is ill-defined, ill-supported and results are under-appreciated by management. Early in the days of the ‘quality-movement’ in the = US I recall seeing a firm put up in its factories an enormous banners readi= ng PRIDE - to promote Personal Responsibility In Daily Effort. In due cou= rse it was sold to the highest bidder. Pity the proud workforce. Pride is, of course, the unwritten essence of the Toyota production system however the w= ord pride in not heard much these days, at least in the context of work. When workers have learned that their loyalty to their employer counts for little when push comes to shove there cannot be much room for pride until personal security has been assured. Thus the attraction of self-employment to so many people.

Which brings me to that wonderful word ‘purpose’. Sur= ely the leadership trick is to match individual or team purpose with corporate purpose. If the latter is expressed as no more than a platitudinous and un-memorable “mission statement” then = forget it. The ‘mission statement’ people are usually those that run ‘human resources’ and are sadly ignorant of the core issue= s to do with sustainable economic-quality. Purpose is, I maintain, paramount. However humble the worker’s task may be perceived to be, that worker = will generally accept to having a purpose (rarely a mission) even if it is to fo= ol the manager and do a better job!

Churchill stated that “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” I believe that this classic phrase is equa= lly applicable to corporate life in the form that “The Board shapes our business and thereafter the business shapes us”. So if the purpose is well shaped it is more likely that the business will be well shaped. W= hen in 1881 Collis P. Huntington determined that Newport N= ews would be t= he Atlantic deep water terminus of his transcontinental railway system he went on to establish the next logical element in his transcontinental transportation system – a deepwater port, free of ice year-round. His Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company was opened in 1888 and he made clear to= all over the main entrance what the purpose of his new business was. The enormous sign read: “We build good ships here; a= t a profit, if we can; at a loss, if we must, but always, good ships.” The sign remained in place until 1968 when the yard was taken over by a financi= al conglomerate.

This is perhaps the finest example of a statement of purpose that has ever graced any organisation in the English speaking world. It helped countless thousands of shipyard workers ‘realise their potential’ as a result of the o= wner ‘leading the way’.

David Howard

30 March 2004