Forster N. - Maximum performance (2005)(en)

10 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

show how anyone can learn to become better at public speaking and, thereby, increase their ability to influence their bosses, colleagues, followers, customers and clients.

While Goleman, Nicholson, Ridley and many others believe that evolutionary genetics play a significant role in human development (and, as a result, our potential for leadership), all are cautious about coming to the simplistic conclusion that leaders are born, rather than made. And while there is a genetic basis for personality traits such as detachment and novelty avoidance, these too can be overcome to a considerable extent through personal development and learning (see, for example, Goleman et al., 2002). Recent genetic research has shown that even twins, who share 100 per cent of their genetic make-up at inception, often have personalities that are only 50 per cent similar by middle childhood. What causes this? The answer lies in unique social and environmental influences that they encounter after birth, within their families and sibling groups, at school and in peer groups (Ridley, 2003). Other research has shown that genes can change in a short period of time because of environmental influences. To cite one example of many, the Buraku people of Japan are a cultural minority that has been severely discriminated against in employment, education and housing for generations (similar to ‘the untouchables’ in India). Their children typically score 10–15 points lower than other Japanese children on IQ tests. Yet, when they have migrated to other countries such as the USA, the gap between their IQ scores and those of other Japanese migrants gradually disappears as each new generation emerges (Olson, 2002). One of the biggest longitudinal studies ever conducted, of 130 000 men and women aged between 21 and 60, showed that personalities can and do change during adulthood, even the ‘Big Five’ personality traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness and extraversion/introversion can fluctuate over time (Srivasta et al., 2003).

Another significant problem with the ‘leaders are born’ thesis is that many of those who become leaders in business or politics do not have parents who were themselves leaders of note. Of course, there are examples where leadership has run in families, such as the Churchill, Gandhi, Kennedy, Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties. However, these are very much the exception. While some writers argue that this can be explained by the miraculous synergy of the right combination of parental genes (for example, Nicholson, 2000), it can also be explained, with equal validity, by social causation. If we are born into wealthy families and/or a privileged caste or class and told, from our earliest years and throughout our school years, that we are part of an elite and that we will become leaders, we will probably do this or at least achieve

a high level of success in our chosen careers. For example, while private school pupils in the USA, the UK and Australia represent about 15–20 per cent of the entire school population of these countries, they still dominate the upper echelons of their societies in industry, finance, government, the armed forces, the judiciary, medicine and many other sectors. In the UK in 1999, 85 per cent of the Labour Party’s Cabinet, 70 per cent of senior judicial positions, 45 per cent of the top civil service positions and 60 per cent of the top financial jobs in the City were occupied by people educated at private schools (Halsey and Webb, 2000). Consider also the ‘old-boy’ and, increasingly, ‘old-girl’ job networks that exist for graduates of private schools around the world, as well as more shadowy networks such as Yale University’s ‘Order of the Skull and Bones’. George W. Bush and his main Democratic opponent in 2004, John Kerry, were both members of this fraternity. Many senators, congressmen and business leaders during the 20th century also belonged to similar elite clubs at Harvard, Princeton and other leading US universities.

I attended a private school in the UK, Ampleforth College in Yorkshire. Among the people I knew there, two have been Members of Parliament; four are surgeons; two are judges; one is a brigadier in the army (and a decorated veteran of the Falkland and first Gulf Wars); one runs his own food company; one has been an editor at The Guardian newspaper in the UK; two have become millionaire stockbrokers and another three are helping to run family estates, which they will inherit in the future. Other alumni include the England rugby captain Lawrence Dallaglio, the actor Rupert Everett and one of Princess Diana’s lovers, James Gilbey. Of course, this is not a representative sample, but illustrates the influence that money, privilege and a private school education can have on the aspirations, achievement motivation and self-belief of their pupils and, consequently, their potential for leadership. The practical implications of this powerful need for achievement, in the context of the motivation and empowerment of employees, are addressed in more detail in Chapter 4.

One important cluster of leadership traits that does stand out from the recent literature on leadership effectiveness is emotional intelligence (EI). Two psychologists, John Mayer and Peter Salovey, are credited with first defining the concept of EI in the early 1990s, but the person most associated with articulating and popularizing this idea is Daniel Goleman. According to Goleman, EI consists of five components: selfawareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills. How adept we are at dealing with each of these is influenced by an inherited almond-sized cluster of nerves – the amygdala – situated in the frontal area of our brains. This is responsible for processing emotional stimuli,

12 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

for storing emotional memories and also affects the fight–flight (stress) response in humans. Neuroscientists have shown that all information we receive from the environment is, initially, screened by this segment of the brain. An individual with a fully functioning amygdala is much more likely to be self-aware, self-disciplined, motivated, empathic, socially adept and more resilient to environmental stressors. According to Goleman and others, the ability to be sensitive to the emotional states of others is an essential part of the repertoire of effective leaders, because they are more aware of their own moods and the emotions of others. As a result, emotionally intelligent leaders are adept at managing interpersonal relationships and building networks of influence. They often have outgoing, ascendant personalities, modest self-confidence and a desire to be involved with people. They have a passion for the work they do, or the company they manage, that goes beyond status and making money.

Another consequence of the existence of EI is that the emotional state of the leader will have a direct impact on the emotions of their followers. You only have to think of situations in your own working life when a boss routinely comes in to work in a foul mood and the effect this can have on the morale and climate of a work group. Compare this with the positive impact of a boss who is always upbeat, optimistic and supportive. Goleman contends that EI is the single most reliable indicator of leadership effectiveness, far outweighing IQ levels. So, does this mean that we are born with these qualities? According to Goleman and his colleagues the answer to this question is ‘No’. They believe that the functioning of the amygdala can be improved through learning, practice and feedback, and also argue that EI qualities can be learnt and enhanced. There is also evidence to support the view that the EI principles can be learnt by organizations, leading to enhanced employee performance, productivity and bottom-line results (Goleman, 2002, 2004; Goleman et al., 2002).2

Hence, a balanced reading of the vast and often contradictory literature on this complex issue indicates that some of our potential for leadership may be shaped by our unique genetic inheritance, but this can only be actualized and realized through the socialization processes we experience after birth, from our families, peer groups, schools, social class and culture. It appears that most of our desire and potential for leadership is shaped by the influences we encounter after birth. There is of course another significant dimension that is often overlooked: the conscious decisions and choices that each of us makes during our lives. Our desire for leadership is a direct outcome of these decisions and choices, and may well contribute much to our potential for leadership. So, if we believe that we can make a real difference and decide to become a

leader, we will take the appropriate steps to realize this ambition, even if we come from humble backgrounds where leaders were very much the exception rather than the rule. Furthermore, we will then make a concerted effort to learn whatever new skills and competencies are required to achieve this objective. A real-life example of this is described in the next section.

Captain Marvel

The pivotal decision to become a leader and learn new skills and competencies to realize this goal often occurs in real life. One example of this is the very successful former Australian cricket captain, Steve Waugh. For anyone who may now be switching off at the mention of this ‘quaint’ English game, it’s worth noting that his team won the prestigious Laureus World Sports Team of the Year award in 2002, in competition with teams from American football and basketball, and the top European soccer teams. The team also received the Sports Industry of Australia Award in 2003. Before he was appointed in 1997, Waugh was routinely described in the media as ’quiet’, ‘surly’, ‘taciturn’, ‘introverted’ and ‘self-absorbed’. At the time, it was no secret that some Australian Cricket Board officials and ex-players did not want him to have the top job, and a few sports journalists were critical of the decision. Soon after Waugh was appointed in January 1998, John Inverarity, a former captain of the West Australian cricket team and an international player, gave a talk on leadership to a group of my MBAs in Perth. At the time, he believed that Waugh was a bad choice for the position because he lacked ‘the requisite leadership qualities’. The erratic performance of the team under his early leadership in 1997–8 seemed to confirm these opinions, with the team struggling for both form and results.

In spite of these early difficulties, Waugh did have some hidden qualities that were to stand him in good stead and would help to create a golden age of Australian cricket. These only became fully apparent after his appointment, and included resilience and hardiness, courage under fire, competitiveness, tenacity, honesty and integrity, a lack of pretentiousness, great self-confidence and self-belief and, when it was required, some Machiavellian cunning. In 2001, Waugh made these comments about his early experiences of captaincy:

I had to learn how to do this job along the way. To be honest, I was thrown in at the deep end – to sink or swim and so I had to learn fast, from former players, captains and commentators. But that only got me so far. I had to work out what I wanted and not rely on textbooks or my predecessors. So I sat down in bed and decided what I wanted [after two straight losses in his

14 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

first two international matches]. I wanted us to become the best international side in the world. I wanted us to be clearly number one, in both forms of the game. I wanted hungry, aggressive, ruthless players who also wanted to have fun and enjoy themselves. I made it my mission to work out what made each player tick and I wanted to get my players to have greater faith in themselves and their abilities. A captain’s responsibility is to mould the side into the way he wants them to play. I aimed to show faith in my players, show them respect and let them know that I fully supported them. I try to get them to believe that they can achieve things that they don’t even think they’ll achieve.

(Abridged from Stewart, 2001)

In order to achieve these objectives, Waugh began to utilize the history, traditions and stories of the game, believing that cricket history and mythology could be harnessed as motivational devices to help win matches. He encouraged all his players to don the ‘baggy green cap’ during international matches, as a powerful emotional symbol of, and link with, the great players who had represented Australia in the past. Waugh always wore his battered and frayed cap with evident pride for the duration of international games. He learnt to think outside the box, bringing in people from many walks of life to give motivational speeches to his players, during coaching sessions, at team meetings and before matches. He received coaching in media and public speaking skills. He spent many hours with each member of his team in private one-to-one conversations to find out what made them tick and how to get the best out of them. He was an inclusive leader who never allowed ‘in’ groups and ‘out’ groups to emerge. Perhaps Waugh’s greatest quality as a leader was his capacity to nurture and develop the self-belief of players who were at the margins of international cricket when he was first appointed, or who had been lacking confidence in their abilities to perform at the highest levels in the cauldron of international cricket (Conn, 2002).

In retrospect, we can see that he decided to develop his communication, motivational, team building and lateral thinking skills after he was appointed captain. While these attributes were not apparent prior to his appointment, one was visible throughout his early career: a real hunger for learning and self-improvement, and this attribute stood him in good stead during his captaincy. His personal journey into a more effective leadership role marked the beginning of a world recordbreaking run of 16 straight wins in international cricket and winning the World Cup in England in 1999. The Australian cricket team was the first to be officially crowned World Champions after a successful home and away series against South Africa during 2001–2002 and, as noted above, it was also named the best sports team in the world in 2002. When John Inverarity returned to give a second talk on leadership to my MBAs 18 months later, he was brave enough to admit that he’d got

it wrong about Waugh’s leadership potential, and commented that what had most surprised him was ‘how quickly he had grown into the job and how quickly he had learnt what was required of an Australian cricket captain’ (my emphasis).

By the time Steve Waugh’s captaincy came to an end in January 2004, he had become the most successful international cricket captain in history, with the most wins (41) and a winning percentage of over 75 per cent, well ahead of the legendary Don Bradman who had a 62.5 per cent win–loss rate. He created a team regarded by most international commentators as the best in cricketing history, and a legacy unmatched in Australian and world cricket. He promoted and encouraged a much more aggressive and exciting brand of five-day test match cricket, which contributed to saving the longer form of the game from the increasingly dominant one-day format. In early January 2003, in a match against England, Waugh also became the second highest run scorer of all time, at the same time equalling Don Bradman’s record of 29 scores of one hundred or more in international cricket matches. He even found time during his captaincy to establish a school for child leprosy victims in Udayan, India, and has since devoted a great deal of time, money and energy to supporting this cause. When Waugh retired, he was regarded by sports commentators and the general public as a national treasure; an exceptional leader who was also a cricket innovator, reformer and educator, and a model family man and philanthropist. In recognition of his many achievements, he was awarded the highly prestigious Australian of the Year award on 26 January 2004. The only question mark hanging over Waugh’s tenure as captain is would he have been regarded as being such an exceptional leader if he had been the captain of one of the other Test playing nations between 1997 and 2003? We will return to this question in the section on ‘followership’.

Conclusion: developing leadership

A final slant on the ‘innate or learnt’ debate concerns the issue of leadership education and development. Every year, tens of thousands of employees attend leadership/management courses all over the world, be this in the form of one-off workshops or through attendance at postgraduate courses, such as MBAs and other specialist postgraduate management programmes. All large companies in North America, the UK and Australasia run in-house leadership development courses. In the USA, for example, General Electric founded the GE Management Development Institute at Crotonville in 1956. When Jack Welch took over as CEO in 1981, he made the Institute a strategic priority, using it

16 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

as an engine of organizational change, and leadership/management development, for 20 years. He was a regular visitor and teacher at the Institute and conducted half-day leadership courses throughout the year. Thousands of aspirant leaders from dozens of US companies attend The Centre for Creative Leadership in Greenborough. In 1997 alone, US companies spent $US4.5 billion on leadership development programmes (Kouzes and Posner, 1997). In the USA there are more than 2000 ‘corporate universities’, up from about 15 in the early 1980s and 400 in the mid-1990s.

Many of Europe’s biggest companies have been setting up their own universities, and public sector organizations have followed suit, with the establishment of the Defence Academy at Shrivenham in England in 2002, and the creation of the UK National Health Service University in 2002–3 (West, 2002). The Cranfield School of Management in the UK has even run workshops in conjunction with the Globe Theatre on Shakespeare and Business, at a cost of $US2500 per person. Frank Blount, the former CEO of one of Australia’s biggest companies, Telstra, was critical of the leadership abilities of Australian managers during his time in charge of the company, and introduced a Centre for Leadership soon after his appointment. This designed and ran programmes for all Telstra management staff. Blount and his immediate management team spent four days a year running a programme for the 200 most senior managers in the company, who in turn ran workshops for about five thousand middle and junior managers. Blount introduced these in the belief that many of his managers lacked leadership and people management skills and, crucially, that many of these could be learnt and developed (Uren, 1998c). These examples indicate that many organizations believe that leadership and people management skills can be enhanced through appropriate development and learning strategies.

In summary, the smart answer to the question, ‘Are leaders born?’ is, of course, ‘All leaders are born!’ How could it be otherwise? But leadership is something much more complex than the sum total of our genetic inheritance or any innate traits we may have acquired during our formative years. Human nature is not fixed and immutable, it is flexible and adaptable. Even if it could be demonstrated that leadership truly is something that certain individuals are born to, this would not be particularly helpful to us during our leadership journey. As Peter Drucker once observed, ‘There may be born leaders, but there are surely far too few to depend on.’ This does not mean that everyone can become an influential leader: very few people can hope to emulate the sporting achievements of Tiger Woods and Annika Sorenstram in golf, Andre Agassi and the Williams sisters in tennis, or Herman Maier and Renate Gotschl in Alpine skiing. But anyone who has made the commitment to

work through this book carries within themselves the potential and the capacity to become successful leaders, because almost all leaders throughout history have achieved this through a combination of selfbelief, will-power, grit, determination, hard work and self-education.

Each one of us has within us the capacity to lead. (David Aronovici, HR Director, Trident Microsystems, 1998)

What leaders do

The hard stuff is easy. The soft stuff is hard. And the soft stuff is a lot more important than the hard stuff.

(Dr Tom Malone, CEO, Milliken & Company, 1995)

While it is clearly important to address the innate/learnt debate, a more practical approach to understanding leadership is to think about the behaviours and functions of real-life leaders and understand what leaders actually do, rather than what they are in some intrinsic sense. After the failure of early and more recent trait research to produce reliable or consistent results, a series of studies looking at the behavioural aspects of leadership were conducted in the 1940s, at the Ohio State University, by Bales at Harvard University, and by Likert and colleagues at the University of Michigan in the 1950s. What did they discover about leadership? This body of research indicates that, for leaders to be effective, there is always an optimal balance, depending on circumstances, between a concern for people and a concern for technical or task issues. This group of researchers was also the first to identify systematically the many different roles that leaders perform within organizations. These have been categorized under seven headings.

Goal setter and motivator

Leaders play an important role in organizational management by directing and motivating employees towards achieving organizational objectives in appropriate and time-effective ways. They are able to communicate the purpose of these objectives to their employees with clarity and commitment. They spend time with their people, walk the talk and consistently lead by example (described in Chapters 3 and 4).

Coach and mentor

Effective leaders treat their employees as intelligent human beings who have inbuilt hardand soft-wired capacities for improvement and

18 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

learning and will want to contribute more, given the right opportunities and appropriate rewards. They take time to get to know their employees as unique individuals. They reward them whenever they do a good job. They do not resort to punishments when they make mistakes but, instead, use these as opportunities for learning (described in Chapters 3 and 4).

Shaker and stirrer

Effective leaders always keep people sharp and on their toes. They discourage self-satisfaction and complacency, and promote continual improvement, change, creativity and innovation amongst their followers (described in Chapters 3 and 8–11).

Interpreter

No set of rules, plans or procedures can describe perfectly what must happen within an organization if it is to survive and be successful. Leaders make sense of situations where there is incomplete information available, or where clear guidelines, rules and plans for decision making and action may not exist (described in Chapters 8–11).

Linch-pin

All organizations are made up of sub-systems of departments, teams or groups. Leaders manage these, and are also the cocoordinators between these and the organizational sub-systems of which they are a part (described in Chapter 5).

Helicopter

Leaders rise above the minutiae and short-term focus of day-to-day organizational life, and plan and coordinate the collective and individual activities of their staff. This can be a significant part of the responsibilities of those at the top levels of organizations (described in Chapters 3–5 and 8).

White-water rafter

Leaders have to be able to envision the future, and encourage positive attitudes towards change amongst their employees. They must be able

to ride what has been described as ‘the white-waters of change’ these days or, alternatively, find different rivers for their followers to travel down (described in Chapters 8–11).

Before reading through the next section, please complete Exercise 1.1.

Exercise 1.1

Please write down all the roles that you perform as a leader/manager within your organization. Which of the seven categories do these come under? Then award yourself a mark, ranging from 1 (‘I perform this role well’) to 2 (‘I perform this role OK, but there is probably room for improvement’) to 3 (‘I don’t perform this role well, and really want to improve this’).

Make a note of the areas where you think there is room for improvement in the future. Refer back to these when you reach the chapters or sections that deal with any of the weaker areas that you may have identified here. By doing this, you can start to fill any ‘gaps’ between how you currently operate as a leader/manager, and how you would like to operate in the future.

How organizational contexts influence leadership styles

Looking at what leaders do provides us with a few more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, but this is still a long way from the complete picture. Both trait and behavioural approaches to understanding leadership ignore a very important dimension of this role: the context or situation within which the leader operates. Known in academic circles as ‘contingency theory’, this more recent perspective suggests that there is no single ‘best way’ to lead and manage others, and effective leaders possess a number of skills and behaviours which they can employ, as appropriate, in a variety of settings. This can be likened to the ‘tool-kit’ referred to in the Preface, that they can dip into as and when required. This approach also emphasizes the influence of contextual factors on leadership styles, such as formal positional power, group dynamics, the influence of subordinates and organizational culture. These can be highlighted if we look briefly at the different kinds of leadership and management skills that are required during the four main stages of a company’s life cycle.

The new kid on the block

The type of leader/manager required when a company first opens for business is someone who has real entrepreneurial drive and vision and