Happy 100th Birthday Peter Drucker!

Peter Drucker, the man who is credited with modern management thinking would have been 100 years old last week. Let's not forget his vision and wisdom. Here are some quotes from many of his writings and interviews.

"In fact, that management has a need for advanced education – as well as for systematic manager development – means only that management today has become an institution of our society."

"The best way to predict the future is to create it."

"Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things."

"What's measured improves."

“Efficiency is doing better what is already being done."

“People who don't take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year. People who do take risks generally make about two big mistakes a year.”

“The most important thing in communication is hearing what isn't said.”

“The purpose of business is to create and keep a customer.”

“When a subject becomes totally obsolete we make it a required course.”

"Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility."

"To focus on contribution is to focus on effectiveness."

"People in any organization are always attached to the obsolete – the things that should have worked but did not, the things that once were productive and no longer are."

"Wherever you see a successful business, someone once made a courageous decision."

“The worker's effectiveness is determined largely by the way he is being managed.”

“A superior who works on his own development sets an almost irresistible example”

Sport’s Contempt for Management Shines Through

Take a manager who has never played rugby before. Make him captain of England for his very first game. What would happen?

Martin Johnson was a fantastic player. Journalists struggled to put into words just how fearsome he was: “beetle-browed”, “lion-hearted”, “indomitable.” We are regularly reminded that he “achieved everything in the game.”

Johnson the manager is a different proposition, and the press are channelling their own fearsome aggression at him. His England are desperately lacking in creativity, it is said; in 18 months they have gone nowhere.

Sport’s contempt for management is so complete that “achieving everything in the game” is often enough to qualify a famous player to become manager of a top-flight team, when they have had little or no experience of management. Johnson had served no apprenticeship of any kind. He had not spent a single day managing a club side. As a player his qualifications were matchless. Under “Management”, his CV was blank. But, sport seems to be saying, what is management compared to playing? What is the ability to mould a team, to create long-term strategy, to forge agreement where there had been none before, to deal effectively with a host of interested parties, compared to the thrilling exploits of the people on the pitch? “Crash-bang” wins every time.

What is at the root of the attitude to management that is on display here? Simply, that it is not understood. No manager would be promoted to playing for the England rugby team on the basis that he had won everything in management. Why not? Because what it takes to play for England is clear for everyone to see. The physical attributes – strength, stamina, technique – are obvious, and playing just five minutes of international rugby without the wherewithal would have gruesome results. What seems to be less clear to those who make the appointments is what it takes to be a manager.

Consider the challenges which might face a manager. How to create an environment in which others can excel, how to unite disparate elements of a team, how to forge understanding between a range of stakeholders, how to mould a way of playing which utilises the strengths of the players available. There might be some overlap between the skillset of the indomitable player and some of these situations, but not much. What is available to the star ex-player once the chance to lead by example on the pitch has gone? Whatever managerial gifts he was born with, and no more.

Last week a function was held to celebrate those football managers who had presided over 1000 games or more. What was the characteristic they all had in common? “All the lads here who've done 1,000 games worked their way up the ladder,” said Harry Redknapp. “They've not gone in at the top and taken over a massive club. They had to learn their trade and that's why they survived so long." In other words, they treated management as a separate skill from playing, and learned it for itself. What is being asked of the admirable Martin Johnson now is that he learn to be a manager not while managing a low profile club side, but while managing England. Such is the contempt in which management is held that Johnson is being criticised for every mistake he makes as he learns his new job. The attitude seems to be, if he could achieve so much doing all that exciting stuff on the pitch, surely he can turn his hand to this boring behind-the-scenes chat.

Johnson’s erstwhile colleague Josh Lewsey recently criticised the coaches under the England manager, exasperatedly pointing out that one of them achieved nothing as a player. Clearly Johnson still commands great respect among players, as Lewsey confined his comments to those who report to his former captain. But who do the coaches work for? Who is responsible for moulding the talents and input of those beneath him into a coherent approach? That is management.

Can You See the Business Opportunities?

As economic conditions improve, it will be those managers and organisations which can see the opportunities which will flourish. And what we see is a function of how we think.

We normally imagine that things work the other way round: that we see, and on the basis of the evidence in front of us, we alter our thinking. But without a certain level of understanding, we cannot interpret the evidence we are looking at. It is tempting to think that Galileo looked through his telescope and saw the evidence for the Earth orbiting the Sun. In fact, if he had not had the benefit of Copernicus’ theories which argued that that this was so, Galileo might have looked through his telescope and not understood what he was seeing. In other words, Copernicus thought it, then Galileo proved it – not the other way around.

What do most senior managers think? They think that they have been in management, and been successful at it, for long enough that they don’t need any further input to sharpen their thinking. Or they think that there is no-one out there who can develop their understanding in such a way that when they look at their business again, they see it with fresh eyes.

With most senior managers thinking this way, this in itself is an opportunity to gain an advantage. Where can you find a programme which will develop senior managers’ thinking, and create results as a consequence? Mitchell Phoenix have been developing the leadership and management capabilities of senior managers for over twenty years, opening their eyes to new possibilities:

Puts a completely new perspective on managing. A truly inspirational course.
Paul Skipton, Aalco

The course has allowed me to look at myself and others in a differing way and will allow both my own and others’ potential to be fulfilled.
Robert Hillman, Watts International

The course is excellent in opening your mind to managing your business, people, targets, time, etc and is invaluable in everyday use. I would recommend this to anyone who would like to develop as a manager and personally.
Paul Temple, Aalco

How equipped are you to see the opportunities – both internal and external - which will arise over the next period? How sharp is your thinking? Can you see
the way forward?

The Power of Silence

A couple of years ago I phoned a client who told me that I had just made him $40K. He was negotiating a pay off and wasn't satisfied with the first offer. He simply remained silent while the offer grew and grew. The generous fellow that he is credited his Mitchell Phoenix experience to the result.

I received an email from another client yesterday asking if I had watched "Into the Storm", a movie covering Winston Churchill's war years. On the Governing Change program there is a story about how Churchill became Prime Minister. Lord Beaverbrook, the newspaper tycoon, made Churchill promise that he would remain silent for 3 whole minutes before giving Halifax the okay. Below is the clip from the movie showing the power of silence. It is a 1min 22secs. (Thank you, Piers)

The Power of Silence

Management Development or How to Make a Soufflé

The Four Pillars of Successful Management Development

Pillar 3: Structure

You are choosing a management development programme for yourself or others in your organisation. Of all the factors you take into consideration – the cost, the content, whether the course is residential or not, whether you’ll be able to swim and sauna before the gourmet evening meal at the venue –probably the last thing to cross your mind will be the structure of the programme.

Of course, you might discount a week-long programme on the basis that you can’t afford the time out of the office (or alternatively you might choose to shortlist it because you’ll do anything to get away for a few days). But beyond the length of the time commitment, what else is there to consider?

Management and leadership are activities which are done, not known. It is one thing to know the recipe for a soufflé, for example (any good cookbook or search engine can furnish you with the relevant knowledge), but it is something else to be able to walk into a kitchen and make a soufflé. Similarly, it is one thing to sit in a seminar room and receive input on how to lead and manage a team, and it is another to go back into the workplace and actually lead and manage your team.

You would not teach someone how to make a soufflé without asking them at some point to go and make a soufflé. There is little to be gained from management development programmes which do not demand that managers to go back into the workplace and apply what they have learned to create results. This is like training chefs but never asking them to cook, like coaching golfers but making sure they never go out on the golf course, like banning aspiring swimmers from getting wet.

The only structure which will produce a real return on investment in development is a structure in which delegates attend the first part of a programme, then go and apply what they have learned in the workplace to create results, then attend another section of the programme, then go and apply what they have learned in the workplace, and so on. This is the only way we learn how to do anything – from our own experience. If opportunities to accumulate experience – and a strong demand to create results – are not built into the structure of a management development programme, you can be certain that no real experience has been gained, and no results created.

After over 25 years in management development, Mitchell Phoenix’ Managing Director Kevin Yates is convinced that the only viable structure is a day a month. “A day a month is often as long as senior people can be away from the office,” he says, “and it keeps the focus firmly on the delegates and their responsibility to use the material to create results. The quality of the results which come back gets stronger and stronger as the programme goes on and participants gain in skill and experience, so that the results on day 6 are often much more sophisticated than those reported on day 2. The whole process is cumulative, and designed to spotlight the participants and how they are changing and adapting what they are doing in the workplace.

“On the other hand, programmes which are geared towards input for the delegates, rather than output from the delegates (ie results), are often more cost effective and conveniently accessed via a book.”

Few CEOs Cite Paint-Balling as their Chief Leadership Influence

The Four Pillars of Successful Management Development

Pillar 2: Robust Content

Few CEO’s Cite Paint-Balling as their Chief Leadership Influence

Rare quotations:

“I paint-balled my way to the top”
“karaoke made a leader of me”
“I now run all meetings on an assault course”
“all new employees have to fall backwards off a desk”
“the Captain and flight crew improved safety 14.6% by singing light opera”

One morning, walking back to your cubicle from the kitchen, you detect a subtle change in the atmosphere of the office. You look around and realise none of your colleagues are at their desks. A fan buzzes. On a notice board, sales targets flutter in the breeze. The first pellet catches you on the leg. The second and third thud into your chest, splattering blue and yellow dye. A fourth pellet smacks into the mug you are holding, and you feel a scalding sensation as you throw coffee all over your shirt and tie. “That leadership through paint-balling course,” you think to yourself, “has caused more trouble than it was worth.”

For comedians training is one of the most fertile areas of business life. The tenuous links made between a host of activities – from actors’ trust games to orienteering – and our working practices are hilarious because we can all recognise the scenario. Whether it is making the accounts team go through an army assault course or asking the production division to do a karaoke for leadership programme, everyone knows someone who has done something ridiculous in the name of development, or – worse still – has had to take part in something ridiculous themselves.

And, if you have spent your development budget on paint-balling, cooking and actors’ games, you should have gone to the pub instead.

If you want a development activity which is useful, rather than simply entertaining, what should you look for? After more than 25 years in development, Mitchell Phoenix’ Kevin Yates concludes that there are four pillars of successful development programmes. “Look for expert facilitation, an unwavering focus on the creation of results, a structure which will allow the creation of results, and tried and proven content,” he says.

What should this content consist of? First of all it should be usable in the workplace. Under pressure in a real life work situation, anything overly complicated, such as a theoretical ‘model’, will not come to mind or be used. Second, content should be useful, so that when it is applied it will solve a problem and/or generate concrete results. This means the content should focus on how to conduct the key activities managers and leaders undertake. Whether the focus is delegation, persuasion, motivation or anything else, concrete detail on how to do each of these things is vital. It is not enough to define the problem, the content must take us towards the solution and then prompt us to take action back in the workplace.

“Perhaps most important,” says Yates, “is that the content is based on strong, ethical business principles which senior managers can relate to, and on which they can build. They must see clearly how what is being suggested to them fits with the business principles they already hold, or with principles they aspire to and are likely to adopt.”

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.”

Management Training Needs Expert Facilitation

When choosing a leadership and management development programme, one is likely to encounter courses which promise “facilitation by experts.” The experts will have a background in a particular industry, and will draw on this background as they develop managers from the same industry on their programme.

In this way, ex civil-servants will train other civil servants, ex manufacturing directors will instil leadership and management disciplines in those working in manufacturing, ex-lawyers will develop other lawyers, and ex IT professionals will inculcate “soft skills” in current IT professionals.

When the development focuses around technical information, it is easy to understand why those with a background in a similar industry might be preferable. Non-lawyers will have no grasp of technical aspects of law, non-IT professionals will know little about the technical issues facing those working at the front line of IT.

Where leadership and management attitudes and skills are to be developed, it is less clear why those with a particular industry background will be a useful choice. An impressive track record working in a particular industry suggests a person is expert at working in that particular field, rather than in developing others to do so. Further, the more impressive the track record, the stronger the hold it will exert over the person’s thinking. Hard-won experience is even harder to relinquish. Yet anyone who wishes to develop wider understanding must do just that: let go of the particular, loosen their grip on their individual insights and begin to see further than their own autobiography.

Developing and inspiring others is not the same as doing oneself, as footballers who turn to management often discover. Who had a better track record than Sir Bobby Charlton? In terms of industry experience, of “been there, done it, got the medals to prove it,” at one stage he was peerless in the English game. His management career underlined the gap between doing oneself and mobilising others. (His choice of subsequent activities shows how fast he learned this, and how shrewd and adaptable he is.)

What qualifications should one look for from those involved in management development? Expert facilitation: facilitation by those who are expert at facilitating, rather than those who are expert at something else, however relevant that may appear. Development by those who have a proven track record of developing others, and who can show measurable results from their work. Management based on principles which hold true for any environment, rather than tactics which worked in certain circumstances, but may not in others.

Hamsters on Wheels

“Time Management” is a myth. No matter how slowly time seemed to drag in the meeting you just attended, no matter how quickly a deadline appears to be thundering down on you, time passes at a constant rate. We cannot manage the passage of time any more than we can influence the phases of the moon.

What we can do is make decisions about how we fill the 24 hours we have in each day. Time management is really decision making on how we spend our time.

Yet most of the advice on time management available to businesses and individuals tacitly assumes that these decisions have already been made. Type “time management” into any search engine and scan the results. You will find tips on making to do lists, prioritising activities, and putting those activities in a diary. There is information on stopping procrastinating, filing documents so you can find them quickly and motivating yourself to press on and achieve your goals.

The question is how did you arrive at those goals? When you stop procrastinating, what exactly are you going to do? After all, the major decision is not to pursue a certain goal between three and five o’clock, but to work towards that goal at all. The available information on goal setting mainly revolves around how we should formulate and subsequently achieve them. In other words, traditional time management does not cover what you do, merely when you do it.

Imagine everybody in your department improves their time management. They choose goals, focus on them, and stick to their schedules scrupulously. Unless major decisions had been taken about the department’s strategic aims and how they will be distributed and achieved on a team and individual basis, everyone will simply get better at doing what they were already doing. The status quo will be maintained even more efficiently than before, like hamsters taking steroids so that they can run on their wheels for an extra hour every night.

In the second half of 2009 sound decisions around our time usage are more important than ever before. The recession has inspired a new more frugal attitude to what we really need: businesses have slashed costs and profligate practices, over-staffing is a thing of the past and in its place is a hard focus on what investment actually produces profit.

Kevin Yates, Managing Director of Mitchell Phoenix, sounds a warning note about our appetite for time management, “as we creep out of the recession, everyone is over-stretched. Clever diarising doesn’t help staff who are covering more than one position, or teams operating at half the strength they had two years ago. This is a problem for senior management. Only informed, strategic decisions about time usage from the top of organisations will create the conditions for more profitable behaviour throughout the business and ultimately secure the future.”

The 'will' to lead

I was recently asked what I considered to be the most important attribute of a leader. It's a challenging question since we all seem to have our own idea about this and quite a few of these ideas are not shared. Perhaps it is not possible for all the people to share the same description all of the time. But if we take a step back and ask what could a leader become proficient at, given the will to do so? The answer is surprising; most leaders could learn almost all the skills of leadership you care to come up with. Charisma may escape this concept, but it would not have been on my list in the first place as it is a product of application. Other qualities deliver charisma (or not) through their use.

So I believe now, and have done so for some time, that the most important characteristic of leadership is the 'will' to do so, all the important other skills can be learned. While all else can be learned, not all is learned and I believe this dichotomy has a bearing on the quality of leadership and is a complex mix of the the same will to learn and the sense to guess that there is more to learn. This sounds a little absolute but I am interested to open up this area, our modern society needs new type of leadership as followers are much better informed and become sceptical of those they perceive as charlatans.
The will to lead is the most important attribute of a leader, the will to learn follows quickly.
Kevin Yates
Mitchell Phoenix London

Mitchell Phoenix Newsletter February '09

Mitchell Phoenix Newsletter 02/09

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Newsletters Periodicals & Report coaching creativity

Mitchell Phoenix Newsletter December '08

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Periodicals & Report coaching creativity

Welcome to Mitchell Phoenix 'Live'

I have finally been dragged into the 21st century - I have a blog! Well, to be precise Mitchell Phoenix have a blog. You can look forward to hearing views, ideas and opionions on all matters related to leadership and management in business. We welcome comments and discussion on the posts presented.