ciChange is a not-for-profit forum for ideas and discussion, about all aspects of Change Management, including people, processes, teams and leadership. It is a place to share and exchange models, papers, ideas and information about change. We welcome participation from a broad audience, including business and change leaders as well as project & change providers.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Changing our view on what makes an effective board
Below is an article by Dr Jeremy Cross is a Leadership Psychologist and Director at Bailiwick Consulting.
The original of this is here
http://blog.icsa.org.uk/changing-our-view-on-what-makes-an-effective-board/#comment-91073
How do you select, manage and evaluate your board? Are you using the right information to ensure both effective compliance and effective performance?
A short digression to make a point. Until 2002, Major League baseball teams selected players using a combination of scout intuition and metrics first developed in the 19th century. But with only a third of the revenue of larger teams, the Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane, innovated another approach to stay competitive. That approach was to use evidence-based statistical analysis, which surprisingly revealed that different metrics – which earmarked previously overlooked and therefore cheaper players – were more predictive of success.
Using this new approach, the A’s not only won a league record 20 consecutive games, but their story also spawned a bestselling book and film (with Brad Pitt playing Beane) and fundamentally changed how baseball is now managed.
Why am I sharing this story? Well, it’s a bit like that with boards. Much of our received wisdom about what generally makes up an effective board does not stack up against the evidence base. Now more than ever, guardians of governance are being challenged over the quality of their board and are beginning to recognise that although following compliance guidelines is an important first step, these also do not guarantee better board performance.
There are three behavioural areas that I would pinpoint which support not only the effective leadership of directors, but of Chairman, CEOs and Company Secretaries in particular:
1. A focus on tasks and relationships
The best leaders are those that see their role as relational rather than simply technical. The ICSA Company Secretaries report corroborates this finding,
“Effectiveness is achieved through more than fixed administrative capabilities or technical knowledge… the role (has a) need for continuous engagement, using interpersonal skills to craft effective relationships”
2. Being more enabler than expert
Dave Brailsford former Performance Director of British Cycling and Head of Team Sky describes himself as “an orchestra conductor” and notes that,
“If I think the violinist isn’t quite in tune, the worst thing I can do is grab the violin and say ‘this is how you do it’, play a little tune which probably isn’t any better and hand it back. I’m not going to make things better and that person is going to feel totally undermined”
3. Focussing more on appreciating than critiquing
Research on individual relationships and teams shows that that focussing on the negative comes at a cost. This is especially true in the case of ‘board banter’, which may include excessive cynicism and sarcasm. For example, I have observed that lawyers – who are trained and paid extremely well to implement this critiquing mind-set in a courtroom – can create devastation in confidence when they are given a team or become part of a board.
The key message is that we must move beyond board composition features and focus more on behavioural dynamics if we are really serious about our board’s effectiveness. The diversity debate provides a good example. Although we must of course ensure appropriate board diversity for governance and equality law compliance, research on diverse teams shows that, if led poorly, diverse teams will underperform, but if led well, can outperform homogenous teams. The quality of the leadership and how this impacts the team dynamics is key.
So, although there is no guarantee that becoming more cognizant of board leadership and team behavioural factors will secure Brad Pitt as the star in your biopic, it will ensure you are doing all you can to maximise your board’s performance.
Dr Jeremy Cross is a Leadership Psychologist and Director at Bailiwick Consulting. He has spent over 20 years developing leaders and their teams, is an Associate Faculty member at Henley Business School and will be a panel member discussing the benefits of board diversity at the ICSA Company Secretaries Conference 2014. The full version of this article can be found in the October issue of G+C magazine.
COMMENTS BY CICHANGE
I have had the privilege of working with Jeremy and know that he both practices what he suggests and that this type of diverse approach of ideas and mix of personalities as well as challenge in a supportive environment really does get the best from people.
What organisations need to avoid is Group-Think where everyone blindly follows consensus and sleep-walks into trouble. Equally, teams which constantly snipe or compete internally become battle weary and easily defeated.
A balance needs to be struck between task (getting the job done) and people (getting the best from everyone). There are lots of tools to help this: one might be De Bono’s 6 Thinking Hats, but there are many others.
What is essential is to move away from the heroic CEO or Chairman on whom everything becomes dependant, because such dependency is unhealthy, and unsustainable. Having more people of a similar mind is little better: I often say “when two people always agree, one of them isn’t necessary”.
The aim should be co-operation, collaboration, communication and co-ordination of diversity. Mixed in the right way this should deliver competence, confidence, capacity and commitment.
If you want a formula it is 4C = C4 * d
ciCHANGE FEEDBACK
Please share your thoughts either directly by email or via Social Media
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ciChange
Twitter @ciChange https://twitter.com/CIChange
Linked-In http://www.linkedin.com/groups/CI-Change-4301853
ciChange is sponsored by Total Solutions Group http://www.tsgi.co/
THE AUTHOR
Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses.
Email: TimHJRogers@AdaptConsultingGroup.com
Mob: 07797762051 | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype timhjrogers
(c)thjr 2014 Model [4C = C4 * d] by @timhjrogers is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CULTURE OR DATA – WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT?
CULTURE OR DATA – WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT? In a previous posting I noted that the book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improb...
-
I have blogged about DISC as a means of categorizing people according to their behaviors. Dominance - direct, results-oriented, strong-wille...
-
MINDFULNESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESILIENCE I have recently run TEDxStHelier in Jersey which featured TEDx Speakers Garry Stern and Dr....
-
Below is an article by Dr Jeremy Cross is a Leadership Psychologist and Director at Bailiwick Consulting. The original of this is here h...
Great article- I especially like the clarity around point 2, this is really well described.
ReplyDeleteOn point 3 my experience is somewhat more stark- these teams become expert at broadcasting destruction and disruption, and become formidable blockers to change. They are also highly aggressive- both to other teams and departments, and to each other within the team.And every time I've witnessed this it is the team leader who has generated and propagated the culture. The problem with cultural issues is very few companies monitor, measure or actively shape it as an on-going concern.