Call centres don’t work. Outsourcing moves problems not deliver services

THE CHALLENGE

Call centres don’t work. Outsourcing moves problems not deliver services.

MY THOUGHTS

In the 1950’s and 1960’s old school management separated thinking from action with the educated managers making the decisions and the unskilled workers implementing the tasks.

Technology advances from the 1970’s thought to the 1990’s sought to automate this with “user requirements” or “business-requirements” often articulated by a senior technology manager rather than the “end-customer” in a manner that leaned toward a technology solution with measures and controls rather than “right first time” service delivery to customers.

This process has de-skilled the people answering the phone who are increasingly required to follow ill-thought-out scripts which seldom recognise the needs of the people calling. This results in confusion, failure, repeated calls and stalled an in-efficient services. The call is then passed around, dropped, lost, repeated perhaps many times.

This increases costs and reduces services. The only beneficiaries are the consultants hired to develop systems that they’ll never have to use, and technology vendors who will never have to answer to the customers whose data is keyed in, but whose problems remain logged somewhere in the ether.

I have taught on the CMI NVQ4 and NVQ5 Management Programme and when-ever I have talked about call centres I have always suggested that the focus should be on “income per call” or “value per call” rather than volume of calls. This is because logically staff incentivised by volume are not disposed to spending lots of time on the phone ensuring service but instead closing the call and moving to the next as fast as possible. Unsurprisingly not fixing the problem first time creates repeat calls, but ironically that is better for a work-force rewarded by volume rather than value.

Even if the call centre does want to spend lots of time on the phone ensuring service, the system doesn’t allow this since it assumes that the system (logic, code and scripts) understands and will solve the problem and the human should not (possibly due to legal, compliance, security or other risks) . Unfortunately life doesn’t happen in neat predictable ways that can be anticipated and coded for. Computers can do simple tasks really fast, but to do really complex tasks requires a human.

The reason more than 60% of IT Projects failing (either time, budget, scope)is that creating a system as clever as the human brain is simply not possible within the constraints of commercial or public funding.

The solution must therefore be to put the human at the centre of the process and instead only use the technology to support the mundane aspects. This should be a warning to e-government and government reform which seeks to amass big-data, sucking information in and making thinking redundant, rather than facilitating service delivery.

It might be informative to look at the investment and 10 year costs of technology solutions compared to the price of staff education needed to resolve the problems. I suspect the former will create lots of data and cost a fortune whereas the latter should reduce repeat problems and be more satisfying and beneficial overall.

YOUR CHANCE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE

I have recently The WHITEHALL Effect, by John Seddon which has caused me to reflect on my own experience in project and change management and in particular business transformation and government reform.

I am really interested in gathering peoples experience and recommended reading which might inform and direct my thinking and sharing with others. My long-term aim is to perhaps publish a guide, blog, perhaps some “Best Practice Papers” or book based on that research.

The WHITEHALL Effect, by John Seddon
http://www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2014/11/john-seddon-we-need-a-shift-from-whitehall-to-local-accountability.html

In the book..

Why don’t public services work very well? One key reason is that  they have been 'industrialised'. Part 1 explains why call centres, back offices, shared services, outsourcing and IT-led change almost always lead to service failure. It explains, in particular, why 'economies of scale' are a myth.

Part 2 proposes a better (and tried-and-tested) alternative to the alienating and unresponsive experience of industrialised public services. Good services are attuned and sensitive to peoples’ needs. Where the 'industrialised' approach tries to drive down costs but invariably drives them up, the better approach – managing value – drives costs down significantly.

Part 3 challenges conventional thinking and received wisdom about public services. Targets, inspection and regulation have to be part of the solution, don't they? Seddon explains why they're actually part of the problem and shows that the most effective lever of change and improvement is to stop 'managing' the people (public sector staff and managers) and start managing the system they work in.

Part 4 discusses some of the current fads in public-sector reform:  ‘choice’,  ‘managing demand’, ‘nudge’ and ‘lean’.  Politicians pursue them  because they are plausible and fit their narrative, the story they like to tell about reform. But these fads only make public services worse or, at best, detract from the opportunity at hand.

The opportunity John Seddon describes is breathtaking. We can undo the costly debacle of public sector 'reform', but only if we first change Whitehall. In Part 5 he describes how Whitehall is systemically incapable of listening to and acting on evidence and finally turn to how Whitehall needs to change if we are to turn away from the mistakes of the last 35 years and realise the profound opportunity.






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, and prevously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. 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. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Email: TimHJRogers@AdaptConsultingGroup.com
Mob: 07797762051 | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype timhjrogers

Most Projects Fail. PRINCE2 doesn’t work. NOT systems-thinking creates people problems.

THE CHALLENGE

Most Projects Fail. PRINCE2 doesn’t work. NOT systems-thinking creates people problems.

MY THOUGHTS

I’ve seen to many consultants burn-up chargeable time writing logs, reports and other documentation which doesn’t add value to the outcome. Most is an expensive by-product which sometimes costs more than the intended output/outcome. Gantt charts and to-do lists are evidence of activity, but sadly seldom of productivity. Projects don’t need project management. Instead problems need facilitation, and that facilitation isn’t about managing the people but about understanding the problem and removing the obstacles to allow people to succeed.

In an organisation which is trying to implement 100 projects all at the same time my experience suggests we need a system of governance, of management and control to allocate people, funding and other resources. We need tools, templates, guides to help orchestrate our efforts and evidence our activity and progress. The problem is that the chaos of trying to do 100 projects all at the same time becomes a bureaucracy that doesn’t deliver significantly faster, and actually costs more in administration and frustration.

But what if we took a different approach? The challenge in most projects is seldom technical, it is generally about people or politics and more often solved by communication than the delivery of a unique widget. This then suggests that rather than orchestrate tasks (which generally need about 10 reminders and still are not done properly) we are better to facilitate a deeper understanding of the problem.

The task based approach suggests step1, step2, step3 and like dominoes the solution is dependent upon everything working according to the system without any guarantee that this will resolve the problem. If I need plumbing done at my home listing step1, step2, step3 adds no value to me, nor the plumber (who knows how to do it without me having to manage him). Indeed if I did insist on project managing the plumber it would probably annoy him and increase wasted time, money, and problems.

A facilitation approach abandons the concept of system or hierarchy, status, control, management and instead puts the problem centre-stage. You then muster the team that has the capacity, capability and desire to address the problem and focus your efforts in delivering the tools and removing the distractions. Now management focusses on WHAT needs doing (plumbing, electricity, roofing) rather than HOW it is done, and is there to support process by PROVIDING the resources (time, money, tools, materials) rather than CONTROLING the people.

This suggests that we should switch our attentions away from project and programme management (the factory approach to managing labour) and move toward an artisan approach which rather than pile more to-do tasks into their in-tray instead re-skills (or if necessary removes) resources so that we have only the resources with the capacity, capability and desire to address the problems.

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE?

There are many problems with the idea of abandoning project and programme management! I’m not a fan of chaos theory becoming the tool by which we manage our corporate or individual goals.

What is your experience? What are your ideas? How do you manage goal delivery?

I have recently read four books which have caused me to reflect on my own experience in project and change management. I have listed them below and readily acknowledge that some of the ideas above have been shaped by their observations as much as my own experience.

I am really interested in gathering peoples experience and recommended reading which might inform and direct my thinking toward changing the way we manage projects and change and in particular business transformation and government reform. My long-term aim is to perhaps publish a guide, blog, perhaps some “Best Practice Papers” or book based on that research.

The WHITEHALL Effect, by John Seddon
http://www.triarchypress.net/the-whitehall-effect.html

MAKING SENSE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT by Esther Cameron &Mike Green
http://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Change-Management-Organizational/dp/0749464356

Winning, by Clive Woodward
http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Clive-Woodward/dp/034083630X

Winning, by Jack Welch
http://character-education.info/Money/books/Jack_Welch_Winning.htm



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, and prevously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. 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. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Email: TimHJRogers@AdaptConsultingGroup.com
Mob: 07797762051 | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype timhjrogers

Workshop Facilitation Skills – “10 Steps to Success”

Workshop Facilitation Skills – “10 Steps to Success”

1.         Workshop v Meeting – know the difference

2.         Setting the objectives

1. SMART definition
2. Engage the stakeholders early
3. Know what success looks like
4. Think “big picture” – what else could we get out of this meeting?
5. Mitigate the worst case

3.         Organising the logistics

1. Invites (placeholders and content)
2. Room booking
3. Travel
4. AV set-up
5. White boards / flip charts
6. Table set-up / seating plan
7. Stationery (pens, post-its)
8. Printing of meeting packs
9. Refreshments
10. Camera

4.         Defining the roles

1. Facilitator
2. Support /Minutes
3. SMEs
4. Plants?
5. Power balance?
6. Make sure people are aware and agree their role!

5.         Preparing the materials

1. Format (.ppt)
2. QA
3. Sent out well in advance

6.         Effective introductions

1. Personal intros / icebreakers
2. Confirmation of timings (including comfort breaks)
3. Reaffirming formal workshop objectives
4. Additional desired outcomes
5. Getting agreement on ground rules

7.         Keeping control of the workshop

1. Time keeping
2. Parking lot
3. Actions log – owner and due date
4. Capturing outputs – logical and clear

8.         Closing effectively

1. Ensure you have enough time for an effective close out
2. Replaying objectives and desired outcomes – have they been met?
3. Confirming actions/next steps
4. Thanking the attendees!

9.         Meeting outputs

1. Briefly summarise the key points of the meeting and send out actions via e-mail (ASAP!)
2. Meeting Notes can be created for more formal sessions such as board meetings, note Decisions and Actions, not War & Peace
3. Specific  deliverables (e.g. process map)
4. Photographs of

10.       Sharing experiences and lessons learned with the team

1. What could I have done better
2. I came up with an effective way of doing…

Choosing the right competitive strategy

ciChange

Competitive strategies

There are lots of theories on Competitive Strategies. Possibly the best known are Michael Porter’s in 1985 in his book "Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance."

Porter identified generic strategies "Cost Leadership" (no frills), "Differentiation" (creating uniquely desirable products and services) and "Focus" (offering a specialized service in a niche market).

The counter-argument to this idea of focus on price (Lidl) or quality (M&S) is the increasing demand from customers to do both “..Good food costs less at Sainsbury’s..”

The challenge is: Can you be both low cost and high quality without trade-off? Some argue to be “stuck in the middle” is the worst scenario, others that “ticking all the boxes” is the best.

This is interesting because choosing the right strategy for your organisation is important. As a Commonwealth Games triathlete my experience is that you need to balance swim, bike and run to achieve success. Excellence in one at the expense of the others will be sub-optimal. I believe the same is true in business and so the need to manage the trade-off is essential. This leads me to Apple and another argument about Competitive Strategies.

Authors Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersma describe three generic competitive strategies, or value disciplines: operational excellence, customer intimacy and product leadership. These are described in their book, The Discipline of Market Leaders (1997).

I would argue that Apple have great products (ipad, iphone,etc.) and are examples of Product leadership and this is at the expense of Customer intimacy, in-so-far as you can only “customise” using after-market products the Apple products are standardised and pretty locked-down.

Similarly would suggest buying a burger at MacDonalds is an example of Operational excellence. You know what you are getting and it is cheap, fast, efficient and standard. Note that operational excellence is not just about the product, it is about the entire value chain from sourcing, logistics, premises, people, and production. This is a marked difference from buying anything bespoke or customised to the customer’s particular requirement.

So what?

Rather like the argument “..Good food costs less at Sainsbury’s..” I wonder if pursuing an exclusive approach of operational excellence, customer intimacy or product leadership is a wise move or putting yourself into a corner.

Here the trade-offs appear to be less about the product (price, quality, functionality) and more about organisational design and core competency. The difference between a factory produced product and a craftsman produced product may be debatable but there is a big difference in the organisational design and core competency.

I suggest that you may be able to modify a product (price, quality, functionality) much more quickly than you can change organisational design and core competency.

This is interesting because choosing the right organisational design and core competency for your organisation may be a much longer-term and committing decision.

MORE INFORMATION

More information on Michael Porter and Competitive strategies
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_82.htm

More information on The Discipline of Market Leaders (1997).
http://www.marsdd.com/mars-library/competitive-strategies-in-operational-excellence-customer-intimacy-and-product-leadership/




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 

Is it right to raise the bar?

ciChange

Is it right to raise the bar?

There is an argument that if you can jump High Hurdles then you can jump Low Hurdles. But it isn’t necessarily true if you can jump Low Hurdles then you can jump High Hurdles. So logically you’d train for High Hurdles and be able to do both?

Not true!

That’s like saying if you can run 26.2 miles you can obviously also run 100meters, but you won’t find any marathon runners squaring up against Usain Bolt!

Over-capitalising, gold-plating or over-engineering solutions is more likely to cause failure than safeguard success: The demise of Saab motor company is probably a good example.

Likewise “… the enemy of a good project is the dream of a perfect project…” or my personal view on Project Management: 100% done is better than 70% perfect.


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 

If you were a car, which would it be, and why?

I recently attended a Leadership workshop which suggested that we should aspire to market ourselves as the human equivalent of the Burj Al-Arab: premium priced and top of the range, compared to a truckers café or the intermediate option, the Hilton. I understand the logic, but I am not convinced and here is why…

BRANDING, COMMUNICATION AND CONGRUENCE

If you believe in self-branding then you need to align what you say and what you do. You need to “walk the walk, as well as talk the talk”. Any mis-match between your words, actions and values will undermine you message, credibility and branding and loose you friends and followers who may perceive you as disingenuous.

Arguably branding and communication go hand-in-hand since the former is about perceptions and expectations (what’s in the head of the audience) and latter is about motivating and directing (the audience actions and outcomes).

Branding = Perceptions and Expectations
Communication = Motivating and Directing

If these are aligned then you will at the very least be a great communicator and probably a good leader because people know, understand and follow it’s like the music and lyrics coming together to make a song everyone can sing.

PERSONAL BRANDING

Rather than compare myself to the Burj Al-Arab I’d rather make a simpler comparison of myself as a car since more people can identify with a car than a hotel that most will never visit.

I’d not be an expensive sports car (too flashy, expensive and impractical) nor an old banger (cheap, nasty and unreliable) but perhaps a VW Van, at the comfortable end of the scale. Why? Because it is comfortable, practical, affordable, flexible, utilitarian and fun, as well as being versatile to different situations and appealing to different drivers for different purposes.

We could extend this branding idea further: What you wear, where you eat; what you drive. In my case I wear a smart suit, but not designer. I prefer a café and wholesome food to a flashy restaurant. I drive a van (when travelling to triathlons) and an estate (for carrying canoes, rowing kit, sailing kit, mobile gym etc.)

I’ll accept the vehicles and their reasons are uncommon, but a quick look in the car park and a walk through town suggests to me my choices are mainstream and that for every Porsche driving diner of La Capinina wearing a Gorgio Armani suit and Barker shoes there are at least 100 people more like me.

Why should I aspire to market myself as the human equivalent of the Burj Al-Arab? Surely to win friends and influence people (or do business with them) I should be more like them, so that they like me. Ingratiating yourself to social-economic class to which you don’t belong is unlikely to be sustainable.

This reminds me of the problems which led to the economic collapse: people spending money they don’t have, on things they don’t need, to impress people they don’t like.

CONCLUSION

You don’t have to be flashy or expensive to be successful. Indeed I would council toward being more down-to-earth and affordable.



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

Why should anyone aspire to be a leader?

ciChange

Why should anyone aspire to be a leader?

I have been recommended a book: Why Should Anyone Be Led by YOU? Authors Robert Goffee and Gareth Jones. I was alarmed at the idea that someone should think of me as a leader, or indeed that anyone should aspire to be a leader.

THE BOOK

I have ordered the book from Amazon and may offer an opinion in due course. However I have read a Harvard Review white paper by the same title which says..

If you want to silence a room of Leaders, try this small trick. Ask them, “Why would anyone want to be led by you?” We’ve asked just that question for the past ten years while consulting for dozens of companies in Europe and the United States. Without fail, the response is a sudden, stunned hush. All you can hear are knees knocking.

Leaders have good reason to be scared. You cant do anything is business without followers, and followers in these “empowered” times are hard to find. So Leaders had better know what it takes to lead effectively-they must find ways to engage people and rouse their commitment to company goals. But most don't know how, and who can blame them? There’s simply too much advice out there. Last year alone, more than 2,000 books on Leadership were published, some of them even repackaging Moses and Shakespeare as leadership gurus.

We’ve yet to hear advice that tells the whole truth about leadership. Yes, everyone agrees that leaders need vision, energy, authority, and strategic direction. That goes without saying. But we’ve discovered that inspirational leaders also share four unexpected qualities:

Humanity: by exposing some vulnerability, they reveal their approachability
Act: their ability to collect and interpret soft data helps them know just when and how to.
Do: Inspirational Leaders empathize passionately-and realistically –with people, and they care intensely about the work employees.
Themselves: they capitalize on what’s unique about them

You may find yourself in a top position without these qualities, but few people will want to be led by you.   Our theory about the four essential qualities of leadership, it should be noted, is not about results per se.  While many of the leaders we have studied and use as examples do in fact post superior financial results, the focus of our research has been leaders who excel at inspiring people in capturing hearts, minds and souls. This ability is not everything in business, but any experienced leader will tell you it is worth quite a lot. Indeed, great results may be impossible without it.

If you would like a .PDF copy of the Harvard Review white paper please email me timhjrogers@cichange.org

WHY NOT BEING A LEADER IS A GOOD THING

A quick look at history will give you many examples of leadership and in many cases the leaders may have been great at pursuing their agenda and adept at getting people to do their bidding, but it isn’t universally the case that their leadership was beneficial to others.

This is most obvious in the context of war: Hitler, Attila the Hun; Genghis Chan, were all great leaders but I don’t aspire to be like them and might worry about anyone who does.

It rather like the joke, we should never elect anyone who wants to be a politician, since power should be conferred to people who want to get things done, not simply in to those with the desire for power.

Being invited to join a Leadership Group and recommended a book: Why Should Anyone Be Led by YOU? Rather made me feel like Groucho Marks who said “I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member”

BEING A ROAD BUILDER

Instead I would prefer to be a knowledgeable road builder: tell me where you would like to go and I will offer the tools, techniques, templates and training to support your project. If it is interesting and rewarding you can also have my passion, drive and enthusiasm to help you along the way.

I’d like to be respected about the matters of which I am knowledgeable and consulted on the issues which affect me, and where I can add value. But I don’t seek to be a leader, and am rather disappointed that so much resource and attention is dedicated by so many, to so few, with such little success or benefit.

Despite 2,000 books on Leadership I see very little great leadership and would better value getting things done than having amassed many votes or having an adoring following.

I enjoyed a phrase quoted in a recent meeting “the enemy of a good plan, is the hope for a perfect plan”. I have often suggested that “100% done is better than 70% perfect” and there are many similar views and phases: “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” or “better to catch one rabbit than pursue two”. These truisms have in common the idea of just getting the basics right: This doesn’t require leadership.

Collaboration, co-operation, communication and community is about facilitation and generally more successful between equals rather than between leaders and followers. The advantage in being a consultants or a change manager is that you offer a neutral Switzerland for ideas, debate, discussion, discover and growth this is much more difficult when you are standing on someone’s career ladder.

I don’t doubt that the world is a better place for Martin Luther King; Ghandi and other great leaders but what is interesting is that their leadership was not sought but the outcome of circumstance.

Winston Churchill for example was a great war-time leader, but only put in office when circumstances demanded and quickly voted out when the state of affairs changed for the better. This idea is sometimes referred to as contingent leadership.

See http://www.practical-management.com/Leadership-Development/Contingent-Leadership.html

SIX LEADERSHIP STYLES

There are, of course, many types and styles of leadership

Here are six leadership styles Goleman uncovered among the managers he studied, as well as a brief analysis of the effects of each style on the corporate climate:

1.THE PACESETTING LEADER expects and models excellence and self-direction. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be "Do as I do, now." The pacesetting style works best when the team is already motivated and skilled, and the leader needs quick results. Used extensively, however, this style can overwhelm team members and squelch innovation.

2.THE AUTHORITATIVE LEADER mobilizes the team toward a common vision and focuses on end goals, leaving the means up to each individual. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be "Come with me." The authoritative style works best when the team needs a new vision because circumstances have changed, or when explicit guidance is not required. Authoritative leaders inspire an entrepreneurial spirit and vibrant enthusiasm for the mission. It is not the best fit when the leader is working with a team of experts who know more than him or her.

3.THE AFFILIATIVE LEADER works to create emotional bonds that bring a feeling of bonding and belonging to the organization. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be "People come first." The affiliative style works best in times of stress, when teammates need to heal from a trauma, or when the team needs to rebuild trust. This style should not be used exclusively, because a sole reliance on praise and nurturing can foster mediocre performance and a lack of direction.

4.THE COACHING LEADER develops people for the future. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be "Try this." The coaching style works best when the leader wants to help teammates build lasting personal strengths that make them more successful overall. It is least effective when teammates are defiant and unwilling to change or learn, or if the leader lacks proficiency.

5.THE COERCIVE LEADER demands immediate compliance. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be "Do what I tell you." The coercive style is most effective in times of crisis, such as in a company turnaround or a takeover attempt, or during an actual emergency like a tornado or a fire. This style can also help control a problem teammate when everything else has failed. However, it should be avoided in almost every other case because it can alienate people and stifle flexibility and inventiveness.

6.THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER builds consensus through participation. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be "What do you think?" The democratic style is most effective when the leader needs the team to buy into or have ownership of a decision, plan, or goal, or if he or she is uncertain and needs fresh ideas from qualified teammates. It is not the best choice in an emergency situation, when time is of the essence for another reason or when teammates are not informed enough to offer sufficient guidance to the leader.

See https://infopeople.org/sites/all/files/past/2006/exploring/cg_EI_leadership_styles1.pdf

Only in extremis would I step in to be a leader, not least because the moment you make the step from facilitator to leader you risk treading on the toes of the people you were seeking to support. That move may not be welcome!

POWER V POSSIBILITIES

It seems late in this blog to think about the definition of Leadership, but it is useful ahead of debate about leadership and power.

Leadership is…

1. the position or function of a leader, a person who guides or directs a group: "He managed to maintain his leadership of the party despite heavy opposition."
Synonyms: administration, management, directorship, control, governorship, stewardship, hegemony.

2. ability to lead: "As early as sixth grade she displayed remarkable leadership potential."
Synonyms: authoritativeness, influence, command, effectiveness; sway, clout.

3. an act or instance of leading; guidance; direction: "They prospered under his strong leadership."

4.the leaders of a group: "The union leadership agreed to arbitrate."

Becoming a leader appears to be significantly about the acquisition and use of power. There are many source of power, and all seem to be related to the management of people and resources.

Coercive power -The ability to impose sanctions or punishment to gain compliance
Reward power -The ability to provide rewards or recognition to gain compliance
Legitimate power -The right to influence the activities of others based on job or position
Expert power -Respect gained based on skills, expertise or experience
Referent power -Positive personal traits or integrity
Information power -Possession of or access to, valuable information
Connection power -Access to others who can provide rewards or sanctions

See http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2011/06-human-capital-leadership-power/

Being a consultant, change manager, facilitator or mentor I am more interested in the potential of ideas and growth through education and understanding rather than direction.

For example, my founding of ciChange.org and curatorship of TEDxStHelier.com is more to do with a passion for teaching, learning and sharing ideas and growth than the pursuit of politics or corporate commercial success.

LEADERSHIP FEEDBACK

I am interested in leadership.

If you have ideas which either agree with, or challenge the views in this blog please don’t hesitate to give me a call 07797762051 if you’d like to discuss on the phone, or send me a meeting invitation timhjrogers@cichange.org and I’ll buy the coffee.




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