Newsletter
February 2022
Share by Email
FEATURED
Why, in the Legitimate Leadership Model, is clarification of expectations so important for enabling contribution?
In a gap in his career, a manager, Lee Thomas, who had gone through the full process of a Legitimate Leadership intervention at his former company years before, applied what he knew to turn around a business which was in a steep down-spiral.
After close to a year as a Legitimate Leadership consultant I was recently asked which practice in the methodology and framework had made the biggest impact on my client groups. This is a tough question to answer since every aspect of the approach fundamentally shifts the way leaders see their role.
A people transformation takes time. It starts with listening to and trusting people. It is enabled by valuing and demonstrating gratitude for people’s contributions. It is a journey of incremental steps forward. In any transformation there are defining moments.
For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com
Question of the Month
By Tony Flannigan, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Why, in the Legitimate Leadership Model, is clarification of expectations so important for enabling contribution?
Answer: Legitimate Leadership says that people are far more likely to give when they have clarity regarding what they should be giving – as Marcus Buckingham said, “There is no such thing as a confused, productive employee.” Also, an employee cannot be held accountable if what s/he is accountable for has not been clarified and agreed in the first place.
More insight into this was recently offered by a young female manager participant in India. She said a two-way conversation allows people to talk about the Means and Ability they need for success – but also allows the leader to explain what growth s/he wants for the person by completing what may be a routine task.
This links into the fundamental Legitimate Leadership concept of using the job to grow the person. For instance, you are going to install a new kiln next month – but your growth would be to control your short temper with your colleagues (a behavioural improvement). Or, you are going to do a life cycle costing of the economics of operating that kiln over a five-year period – which would result in a performance/skill improvement.
Another young leader in India used the analogy of a guided missile: your people could be highly motivated, full of potential and eager to show what they can do – but if you point them at the wrong contribution, or worse still don’t point them at anything, then this could result in chaos and devastation.
Case Study: The Legitimate Leadership Approach Replaces The Fist
By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.
In a gap in his career, a manager, Lee Thomas, who had gone through the full process of a Legitimate Leadership intervention at his former company years before, applied what he knew to turn around a business which was in a steep down-spiral. He did not remember all the Legitimate Leadership terminology, but the approach was “hard to forget” he says – and it had dramatic results for the business and its employees.
It was an owner-run engineering and manufacturing business. It had been going for 49 years when Lee became involved, and by then the owner was in his late 70s. The owner had a tough background and ran the business in a tough way. He and three men he had appointed to run it with him controlled it with tight fists – often actually. Most of the approximately 55 employees were minimum-wage and were working there because they could not find other jobs. Management’s approach was, “Use the stick, and if that doesn’t work use it harder.” The owner spoke of it as a family business, but it was anything other than that.
The results were not good – reflected in high staff turnover (about five people every month left and had to be replaced) as well as an extremely high 85% rate of returns of products sold due to quality problems.
High street banks had stopped lending to the business, and in order to keep it afloat, the owner had been forced to go to private banks which charged higher interest rates. But the banks had insisted that he restructure and revamp the business. Which was where Lee came in.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE
Article: Watching The Game With The Right Intent Makes The Most Impact
By Joolz Lewis, Associate, Legitimate Leadership.
After close to a year as a Legitimate Leadership consultant I was recently asked which practice in the methodology and framework had made the biggest impact on my client groups. This is a tough question to answer since every aspect of the approach fundamentally shifts the way leaders see their role.
But if I had to choose, it would be what we call ‘Watching the Game’. Here’s why.
Clearly, the scoreboard is important. You know what the business needs to achieve, how to measure it and what KPIs or lag/lead indicators you need to track.
It’s also true that your people need to know what goals and results they are working towards. How else do they know what difference their contribution is making, or how they can add value?
But once the results and targets have been clarified and communicated, you need to quickly shift your attention to what your people can individually contribute towards achieving those results. This is about actively growing them, ensuring they have everything they need to give of their best.
There’s only one true way you can determine whether your people have what they need to make real contributions – whether that’s the means (tools, time, authority etc.), the ability or the will. That’s by watching the game.
Video: People Versus The Drive For Success … Which Wins?
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: It is care and growth, not care or growth. And of the two, care is primary. It is what gives leaders the license to grow. If leaders are setting the bar high and insisting on excellence, but with the intent to enable people to be the best that they can be, this is fundamentally different from driving people in the relentless pursuit of the results. The former brings out the best in people; the latter not only exhausts people but leads them to leave, either literally or through a withdrawal of their willingness.
OUR RENDITION OF THIS VIDEO: Sinek talks a lot about having empathy and that leaders should look at people as human beings. But surely there is a tension between that and the will to succeed? How is that best balanced? Surely you can have a wonderful organizational culture that isn’t actually advancing the ball?
Sinek’s reply is that the tension is healthy. “If all you have is empathy then you have a hippie commune and you’re not actually going to cure anything. But if all you’re doing is driving the numbers, you are going to have a short life span and break the machine. Also, you might have a spike and then you’ll disappear. All your best people will say, ‘I hate it here’ and go and work somewhere else and take all their brilliance somewhere else. So there is a balance.
READ THE FULL RENDITION OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
