Can You See Opportunities to Govern Change?

Governing Change means seeking out opportunities to innovate and adapt to the change which is taking place all the time in our business environment. It means having the flexibility, creativity and resourcefulness to ensure that we are commanding change, rather than simply reacting to it every day.

Where can we find opportunities to Govern Change? A useful place to start is to look for instances in which our idea of what is happening - what we want or expect to be taking place around us - is not matched by the reality. Wherever there is an incongruity between our vision of reality, and the actual reality, there is a chance to Govern Change.

In Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Peter Drucker cites an example of just such an incongruity. A pharmaceutical company salesman wanted to go into business for himself. He looked for an instance where the vision of what people wanted did not match the reality.

He found it in eye surgeons’ experience of conducting routine cataract operations. The surgeons were highly skilled and felt comfortable in conducting every stage of cataract procedures except one. When they had to cut a particular ligament and tie off the blood vessels the eye was in danger, and surgeons dreaded this short section of every procedure. The surgeons’ vision of how they would like to feel and the control they wanted to have did not match the reality of this section of the operation.

The pharmaceutical company salesman considered how this might be done differently in the future, and soon found an answer. An enzyme had been discovered in 1890 which would dissolve the ligament in question. At the time it was discovered, science did not have a method of storing this enzyme for any length of time, and so it had never been considered for use in cataract operations. The salesman set to work and in a few months had discovered a preservative which would extend the shelf life of the enzyme without reducing its power to dissolve the eye ligament. Within a short space of time, eye surgeons were using his patented compound to make this short section of the operation run to their satisfaction.

What would have prevented the salesman from Governing Change? If he had not asked questions about established practice, if he had not really listened to the people he wanted to do business with, if he had accepted the received wisdom that eye operations had always been done like that, if he had not dared to challenge the established procedure, he would not have been able to find a solution. He did not need significant research and development funding because the enzyme had already been discovered. What he did need was a willingness to ask questions, to listen hard and to see how what was already available to anyone who cared to look could be used to advantage. This is Governing Change.

Hidden Secrets of Management Training – Look Inside the Box!

I recently added 20 yards of distance to every club in my golf bag with no effort whatsoever (and the chipping now is sublime). For the non-golfers out there, this is quite a significant improvement. For the golfers out there, send cheques to…

I have played the game for about 15 years achieved a reasonable standard and plateaued, content in the knowledge that I know enough to be competitive and to enjoy myself. Over the years I have taken, on average, two lessons per year, read copious amounts in magazines, watched my heroes on the TV, dreamed of faultless rounds, practiced my bad habits at the driving-range and, of course, played once a week.

I would say that I qualify as a golfer. My discovery was so basic, so fundamental, that I had classified it years ago as something I already did and, therefore, dismissed it from the long list of possibilities for making improvements. This raises the question; what else do we discount as known and, therefore, applied?

In my first year with Mitchell Phoenix I remember a meeting I had with the CEO of Ferranti and fell into the trap of proudly telling him about everything we did. After listening patiently he said, “Yes. We do all that. What more is there?” Years later I came up with the perfect response. At that moment, I was flummoxed.

In management, “What more is there?” The answers are likely to have been staring us in the face for eons; it’s just that they were part of the furniture. When things are taken for granted it’s hard to see their true value. This is what managers are up against and the challenge is to rediscover the hidden power of simple truths that have disappeared from consciousness.

I see Mitchell Phoenix management training programs as containing the kind of insights to bring about substantial gains personally and corporately with little effort. Some of these insights may never be uncovered in an entire career in management. If you want to add 20 yards to every club in your management bag re-examine your application of everything you know. Look inside the box.

Management Development and the Middle Ages

The Four Pillars of Successful Management Development

Pillar 1: Focus on Results

Businesspeople are good at measuring a return. Stereotyped from at least the Middle Ages as bean-counters with abacuses, the Blackberry-wielding modern version of the medieval merchant knows how much things cost and how many of them s/he is selling. You measure the impact of lean manufacturing techniques on the bottom line. You measure the ROI of developing and marketing a new product. You can even measure how much each individual salesperson pulls in for the business.

But modern businesspeople are useless at measuring the return on investment in management development. Research conducted by DDI found that only around 25% of organisations formally measure the results of leadership development programmes. A recent IRS survey polled 74 organisations which ran management development programmes, out of which 13 said they were a failure, 22 said they hadn’t achieved a return on investment, and only six believed their programmes had been a great success. Both sets of findings suggest that today’s management development is a long way from the shrewd calculations of yesterday’s merchants.

What can the past teach us? In the times when Powerpoint, flip-charts and break-out groups didn’t exist, the closest businesspeople got to management development was the apprentice system. Of course, no-one would advocate asking managers to live in poverty for seven years, sleeping on their boss’s floor and only having Sundays off if they are lucky (if you recognise any of that, it’s time for a move - depressed job market or not). What is instructive about the apprentice system is that it asked apprentices to produce something to prove they had learned the skills of their trade. This “masterpiece” was visible proof of whether the apprentice had become a master or not.

Management development programmes which do not create measurable results are like apprenticeships where no masterpiece is required. In fact, they are like apprenticeships where no work is required at all. What guildsman would accept an apprentice into the stonemasons’ guild without visible evidence that he could carve stone to an acceptable standard? As turnaround specialist Ross Stuart observes, “if you can’t see any results, you have to question whether there are any.”

Management as we know it did not exist seven hundred years ago, but Mitchell Phoenix’ Kevin Yates is convinced that we should judge the development of our managers by the same yardstick that guildsmen used: the evidence of our eyes. “Only by creating results in response to the challenges of the workplace can managers truly measure their development,” he says, “and that’s the only way you will be able to accurately judge ROI.” Because of this, Mitchell Phoenix programmes are designed to create results from the first day. “Focus on results is one of the four pillars of successful management development programmes,” says Yates, “and in conjunction with a unique structure, robust content and expert facilitation, they will repay your investment many times over.”

Leadership Example - Berlusconi

More allegations about Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s Premier, have emerged in recent days. This time he is alleged to have exchanged business favors for sex from an escort. Call it sloppy management, a devil-may-care attitude or just bad luck, the whole episode reflects back on the vessel under his leadership.

What business is it of ours how leaders behave on their own time? Surely they are entitled to a private life? Of course they are, as long as it remains private.

Berlusconi has proved over many years that he is a flawed leader. He seeks the limelight and has frequently been accused of insensitivity, abusing his position and shady dealing. What, therefore, is his duty to those he leads?

The first principle of leadership is to demand the utmost of oneself. At one level it encapsulates the idea of setting an example. It is a very simple idea that provides a daily personal challenge. A leader’s example can inspire or dispirit in the same measure. Setting an example requires consciousness and an acceptance of responsibility.

As children you may have played a game called ‘Follow the Leader’. Luckily we get to decide if we want to or not in adulthood. Is Berlusconi a rascal or a rogue? Would you follow him?

The Emporor’s New Clothes and Management Theory

Andrew Billen of the Times said in this article yesterday http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article5860232.ece
that management theory has been shown up as modern day snake oil. In fact, he has taken a sawn off shotgun to it, citing various examples of how theory strips people and organizations of good old common sense. He has a point.

When you impose systems on people that are a substitute for management or even a compensation for lack of management, eventually there will be a collision between man and 'machine'. Systems and theories remove the decision-making from organizations since a process has already been decided. All that's needed is for the guidelines to be followed. When the system fails it is because people have let it fail either consciously or sub-consciously.

Billen is essentially pointing at management theory and calling it 'naked' concluding that there is nothing to it. About 15 years ago I was invited to a round table discussion at the London School of Economics between business leaders and academics. The question under discussion was "What does business need from academia to help it evolve.?" You won't be surprised to hear that nothing new emerged. In fact if you really examine the evolution of management theory you will see that the same ideas have been introduced repeatedly, only renamed.

Ultimately, there is no substitute for people and timeless principles of management that are as relevant now as they will be in the future. When you have a real strategy you will see immediately the reason for poor outcomes and systems are designed to support people rather compensate for them. People make theories and systems work not the other way around.

Do Managers Need Training?

It strikes me that the answer is no, judging by the amount of management training that is actually undertaken. £38 billion was spent on training in the UK in 2007, the majority of it in technical skills areas. You need people who can drive a forklift truck; you need someone who can put a spreadsheet together; you need an individual who can write a computer program.

It seems that management ability is a natural resource that springs to the fore with a promotion. There is rank, power and responsibility. What more do you need? It's common sense!

You know what's got to be done, by when and by whom. Easy.

Management training is not valued highly enough to figure in the budget. For one thing, it's hard to measure return on investment. Most of it doesn't work and the people running the courses just get you to do group exercises, put on DVDs to watch and read somebody else's powerpoint presentation. Another big risk is that people leave if you train them.

To think in the way described above is, of course, mistaken. It is false economy to have managers who do not have sufficient skills to plan, communicate and motivate others. Poor management is linked to high staff turnover and absenteeism. It can be a factor in long-term sickness and company morale. Managers have a huge influence over an organization's reputation in the marketplace.

Let us me know your views on whether or not managers are sufficiently well trained and whether quality of management effects the bottom line.