Newsletter
April 2021
Share by Email
Featured
Why do managers in organisations generally not hold their people accountable?
Legitimate Leadership in the UK last month took up an invitation to address the Headquarters, Home Command, of the British Army.
In a major chemical plant, an ongoing problem was that its testing laboratory, which operated 24×7, was old and dirty, and the small team of analysts who staffed it were resistant to cleaning it properly.
“To be granted legitimate power in the workplace there needs to be a preparedness by the leader to let go of her need to control the outcome,” I pronounce. The faces of 16 senior executives stare back at me in silent disbelief.
When you say “I like” someone or something, you are expressing a positive feeling. It may dispose you to behave in a positive way, to engage in conversation with that person, or buy his latest book (if he is an author whose previous books you have liked).
The role that organisational values play in defining the way people behave in modern organisations is frequently overstated. It’s not that values shouldn’t play a leading role (we certainly believe they should), it’s simply that in most organisations they don’t.
Take it from someone who has run a virtual company for over a decade: trying to build trust without any kind of human contact is way more difficult. A big mistake that a lot of organizations have made is that because they’ve adapted reasonably well to teleworking they have missed the fact that many of the relationships pre-existed – they know these people.
For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com
Question of the Month
By Wendy Lamboure, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Why do managers in organisations generally not hold their people accountable?
Answer: When I have asked this question of managers, they have typically given me a list of reasons which fall into the categories of Willing (the leader lacks the courage or is conflict-averse or wants to be liked too much, or he doesn’t care enough and is prepared to tolerate less than the best especially if the results are good); Able (he lacks the knowledge/training to diagnose performance issues, or has not been taught how to have the “tough conversation”); and Allowed (the environment is not conducive to the leader doing so – there not enough time, he is too busy pursuing the result, he lacks the authority to discipline or reward, the procedures are too complex, or there is a lack of support up the line).
But a reason which is not given, and which I have observed over the years is actually the primary reason why managers do not hold their people accountable, is… Read the full answer by clicking here
EVENT: LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP PRESENTS TO THE BRITISH ARMY
Legitimate Leadership in the UK last month took up an invitation to address the Headquarters, Home Command, of the British Army.
Legitimate Leadership had been asked to address a virtual internal conference of the headquarters on leadership and change. Wendy Lambourne and David Harding, both of Legitimate Leadership, gave their presentation the title “Serve To Lead” because that is the name of a handbook used by officers at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.
The presentation and questions, which lasted for an hour, was held on 2 March 2021, and was attended by about 50 military personnel and 30 civilians.
VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: AN EMPOWERMENT MODEL FOR CLEANING THE LAB
In a major chemical plant, an ongoing problem was that its testing laboratory, which operated 24×7, was old and dirty, and the small team of analysts who staffed it were resistant to cleaning it properly. They variously said it was “just old” and would “just get dirty again”, and that “cleaning it would be like polishing a turd”.
Checklists which had been drawn up for cleaning were too long and were not adhered to. Not surprisingly, the dirtiness of the laboratory negatively affected the analysts’ morale.
Management did not have the will to change this and did not hold the analysts to account for their failure to clean – especially at night and on weekends, when no managers were present anyway.
But then things changed:
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE
ARTICLE: REDUCING CONTROL TO CULTIVATE ACCOUNTABILITY
By Angela Donnelly, Director, Legitimate Leadership Canada.
“To be granted legitimate power in the workplace there needs to be a preparedness by the leader to let go of her need to control the outcome,” I pronounce. The faces of 16 senior executives stare back at me in silent disbelief.
But this is a pivotal moment for me to slay some inherent leadership convictions of contemporary corporate culture. So I take a deep breath and jump right in.
This awkward moment follows a morning of exploring a leadership challenge: why some people seem to work because they have to and others because they want to. At least participants do agree that the latter is preferable.
But the corporate world is navigating the consequences of the prevalent profit-above-people approach to leadership.
Many companies respond to the thorny issue of attracting and retaining employees by plying them with “nice things”. And of course it is nice to provide award-winning workplaces. But when I saunter back to my desk after a game of foosball, smoothie in hand, Rufus bounding at my heels, to do some serious work ahead of my desk-side foot massage, yet my boss is still an asshole – then, let’s face it, all the nice stuff is for nothing!
ARTICLE: I LIKE YOU – WHO CARES?
By Maureen Collins, founder, Straight Talk.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Care, from a Legitimate Leadership viewpoint, is a matter of intent or motive. For those in authority at work, care is about whose interests are being served. Leaders who care are in the relationship to “give” to their people not to “get” something out of them. Whether leaders care about their people is evidenced in where they spend their time and what they give their attention to. When leaders don’t give time and attention to their people, their people will conclude that something is more important to the leaders then them. Care should not be confused with being “nice”. Leaders can be anything but “nice” as long as their tough behaviour is in their people’s best interests. Care, in other words, is definitely not a soft and fluffy thing.
THE ARTICLE: There is a world of difference between liking someone and caring about them.
When you say “I like” someone or something, you are expressing a positive feeling. It may dispose you to behave in a positive way, to engage in conversation with that person, or buy his latest book (if he is an author whose previous books you have liked).
Or it may not. We have Facebook to thank for making ‘like’ probably the most over-used verb in the world today. Online likes have become a metric by which popularity is measured. They may be used to guide a sales campaign, to which you, one of possibly millions who clicked “Like”, will be asked to respond.
Liking carries no commitment. There are many people you like, but make no effort to approach, think about, or spend time with. And unless you get to know them, and care about them, you won’t be there for them if they need help.
Care is an action verb. The dictionary definition is ‘to provide what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something’.
ARTICLE: WHEN LEADING REMOTELY, DON’T MISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT TO YOUR VALUES
By Ian Munro, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
The role that organisational values play in defining the way people behave in modern organisations is frequently overstated. It’s not that values shouldn’t play a leading role (we certainly believe they should), it’s simply that in most organisations they don’t. There’s no doubt that aligning organisation behaviours and practices with a set of aspirational values is hard and most organisations fail to get it right.
While today’s typical organisation probably does have a set of values on the wall behind reception for people to read on the way in, what actually happens on the floor is far too often (and occasionally radically) misaligned. Both leaders and team members have grown fatigued by hearing one thing and experiencing another. Yet, the move to remote leadership as the “new normal” for many leaders might be precisely the catalyst that organisations need to get their values off the reception wall and into the day-to-day behaviours and practices of their people on the ground.
There are three opportunities.
VIDEO: BUILDING TRUST WHEN WORKING REMOTELY
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership, and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY IAN MUNRO, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO: In this video Simon Sinek suggests that building trust in virtual organisations, especially where new people have joined the team, is far more difficult than in traditional companies. One of the reasons for this is the reduced opportunity to connect interpersonally between meetings – the so-called water cooler conversations. The Legitimate Leadership Model reasons that trust is built primarily in four ways – getting to know people, giving people time and attention, passing the intent test, and handing over control. The first three in particular are sincere demonstrations of care, which in turn set out the conditions for the fourth – an increased propensity to extend trust, or hand over control. We are, therefore, in strong agreement with the video’s recommendation that leaders proactively seek and create opportunities to connect at a personal level with their people. Good managers have respectful, professional relationships with their people. Good leaders go about building sincere, personal relationships. Another point of strong agreement is the assertion that workplaces are likely to become increasingly flexible in their remote working policies. An investigation carried out by Legitimate Leadership last year found that one of the most important expectations people have of the future of work is increased flexibility – particularly in supporting employees who see value in spending some or possibly all of their time working from home.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: Take it from someone who has run a virtual company for over a decade: trying to build trust without any kind of human contact is way more difficult. A big mistake that a lot of organizations have made is that because they’ve adapted reasonably well to teleworking they have missed the fact that many of the relationships pre-existed – they know these people.
But good luck building trust with somebody who’s entirely new to the team and has never physically met anyone.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
