All of the surveys were specific commissions from companies who wanted to gather information from their employees on significant aspects of the employer: employee relationship which would be useful in assessing employee engagement, the strength of the employer brand, and prioritising initiatives for organisational development purposes.

The period covered is 2001-2012, so we’ve come through a flat market, a period of relative boom, and of course the recent financial crisis. The surveys have covered literally thousands of employees in 36 countries and in sectors including: financial services; manufacturing; construction; professional services; life sciences; food and drink; property; engineering; oil and gas; education; and healthcare.

Over the next few days, I’ll share some of the overall results in terms of what attracts people to an organisation; what motivates them; and the factors that would cause them to consider leaving. You may get some surprises.

This style predicates itself on the knowledge, trust and ability of those assembled to operate as a high performance team. Drawing upon the inputs of everyone whilst recognising the consensus decision will be based on pragmatism.

When this style is used extensively in a business context it has, in our experience, often led to a perception of “weak leadership” on the part of the figurehead of the business. Their bravery in taking on board the views of others can often drift into periods of indecisiveness and some uncomfortable questions such as “who’s actually running this place”?

The notion of being consulted and part of the decision making process is a great motivator for many, but at some point a decision needs to be made and action taken. This would probably be a good time to give some clear direction!

Followers are a fickle bunch, just when you give them what they ask for, they want something else! Therein lays the art of leadership. To flow seamlessly between the different styles, reading the mood of the moment and inspiring people with you Purpose, Hope, Trust and Results.

If you would like to explore the most effective ways to Lead People and Manage Process, get in touch. You may be the source of the 4^th style!

Whilst clarity of desired outcome can be a fruitful benefit to this style for the leader (assuming effective communication) there is once again a danger in using this as the sole modus operandi. Like leadership by example the onus is on the leader to provide the answers, the solution, and the way forward. This for many will be seen as only fair and just as the leader is likely to be paid more than they are and that is the job of the leader!

However, taking leadership by direction as the default position can distance a leader from the team and once again stifle new ideas and alternative views. It can also educate the team that there is an air of un-approachability from the leader. This often manifests itself in the “no news is good news” culture that can pervade large organisations.

When no explicit direction is given to the team after a period of clear instruction, there is always room for the seed of doubt and speculation to germinate. So consistency is a key mechanism required by this style to keep people on track. Mindful of the fact that there is a continuum of behaviour associated with all of the 3 styles, the leader must guard against frustration building up and using language like “I’ve already told you this before”! Have you ever said that?

Next we will look at the 3^rd style of leadership, Leadership by Consultation.

But this can come with a significant downside for the leader. At The Ghost Partnership we are founded on a principle of surrounding yourself with those that are better than you. This principle draws upon the ability to recognise that, as an individual, you may have weaknesses and that you don’t always have the right answers at your personal disposal.

There is an enormous pressure generated by leading by example all of the time. What happens when you fall short of the desired outcome? Does this erode hope and trust in your ability to deliver results? There are numerous cases where leading by example has actually caused a near disastrous outcome. To lose and inspirational and brilliant Colonel whilst he chose to lead a charge on a machine gun post had a near devastating consequence for 2 Para in the Falklands.

In more general business terms, always leading by example can have a diluting effect on the team’s ability to problem solve, innovate and drive high performance as they are educated to look to the leader for the right solution and guidance. In a large organisation this can lead to ineffective process, bureaucracy and a lack of ownership of the task.

Whilst the short term benefits of leading by example are worthy, the challenge lies in sustainability. Are you really developing the capabilities and capacity of your team by leading from the front or are you quietly feeding your ego?

The next blog will look at leadership by Direction.

There may well be differing names and descriptions for these 3 styles, but in essence you will get the simplicity of explanation of a complex set of behaviours:

1-Leadership by example (do it yourself to show others what and how)

2-Leadership by direction (telling others what and how)

3-Leadership by consultation (asking, collaborating with others on what and how)

The above all have positive and negative aspects for both the leader and follower, which we will explore later. They all have a continuum of behaviour and impact, i.e. there is a gentle or polite way to tell people what to do and there is dictatorial aggression at the other end of the scale!

The art lies in seamlessly moving between the 3 styles to deliver the desired outcome. Have you moved towards the Purpose; have you inspired Hope and Trust in the way forward, have you demonstrated a tangible Result so far?

In the next blog we will look at the upsides and downsides of each style. Have you come up with a genuinely unique alternative style yet?

You have the opportunity to inspire and influence people at every stage of the dialogue by what and how you say and do things. You have the opportunity to use effective processes to channel individual, team and corporate inspiration into tangible outcomes.

In its simplest form, it comes down to Leading People and Managing Process. If you took a well known Leadership theory as an example the first step is to give direction, then as skills or performance gaps are identified the next step is to coach (process). After the coaching comes delegation (process) by which opportunities to demonstrate improvement are created. Once the required level of competence and confidence is achieved you move to the 4^th step in the process, you empower the individual to get on with it!

The concept of Leadership and Management is a double helix that provides the appropriate corporate code to deliver a desired outcome. Let’s not separate them by seeking further differences to define them, let’s seek the possibilities of integrating leadership styles and effective management processes to deliver continuous improvement and tangible business performance outcomes.

The next thing we’re going to look at is the “how” you do leadership.

You only needed to look around the room at the international representation on this Strathclyde University program to realise the near impossibility of finding a one fit glove solution from the text books.

Without even scratching the surface of cultural differences it became very clear that the notion of developing leaders in a global context could only be addressed with the caveat of ‘think global, act local’. This took me back to 15 years of blue chip retail experience and the challenges of think global, act local when the company culture of authority fluctuated between centralisation and regionalisation with alarming regularity.

So the conclusion reached, was to buy in to a core set of leadership principles that provide the global cornerstones for locally applied behaviours. Warren Bennis, spoke of 4 cornerstones of leadership being Purpose, Hope, Trust and Results. The reason for listening to Bennis for me, is that he has consistently adapted his outlook on Leadership over the years to reflect the ever changing economic, social, political, global landscape, but has stuck with the 4 cornerstones throughout.

As I reflected on the subject heading and our philosophy at The Ghost Partnership to lead people and manage process, it struck me how difficult it must be for the university students to wade through the plethora of Leadership theories and models and come to some clear definition of what the hell this is all about.

I then recalled the fact that there are over 2000 articles and books etc written on the subject of Leadership every year…I sighed deeply. It reminded me why I had not written about this subject, for to add to the clutter would seem hypocritical. Now I am in a dilemma! But in response to a number of client’s interest in our philosophy, here goes.

Over the next week or so The Ghost Partnership blog will seek to simplify the difference between Leadership and Management, to look at the ‘how’ not the ‘what’ in Leadership and to open up debate on how best to inspire people to deliver excellence.

Why is it that only 4% of those who diet manage to sustain long term weight loss?  Why is it that less than 35% of business transformations succeed?  The analogy of body Vs business might offer the key to unlocking the mystery of sustaining change and particularly those improvements made through implementing lean thinking.

Businesses too have a BMI – in this case a Business Mass Index – the proportion of waste:size ratio, rather than waist:size ratio!  Usually, the larger the business, the more waste it has.  Removing this waste must however be part of a long term business lifestyle change, rather than a crash diet.  Yoyo diets are symptomatic of failed previous attempts to make changes stick, as are the various different business improvement initiatives that companies turn to as each successive one fails to deliver.

Recent reports from the National Weight Control Registry unveiled the highly effective habits of those people in the few percent that sustain weight loss:

• Set a longer term goal of changing lifestyle – NOT losing weight
• Be consistent and resolute
• Focus your activities on maintaining the lifestyle

Comparing business to biology allows us to shine a spotlight on that successful 4% and learn the most important lessons for success.  Taking these criteria for success perhaps offers us a checklist that helps us to sustain change and avoid organisational homeostasis – that need or drive to slip back into the old ways of doing things.  The checklist?

1. Set your long term objectives for sustaining the change (24-36 months)
2. Ensure the whole organisation is aligned to the change
3. Ensure structures, systems, resources, skills and style encourage and support the change

The Human Capital, Lean and Organisational Development expertise of The Ghost Partnership combines to make business improvement manageable, controlled and sustainable.  Like dieting, the detail of the programme will depend on each specific need, but it follows a few simple principles. 

To-date, lean thinking has been arguably the most successful business process improvement methodology ever.  Like many of you, we have experienced the many forms of initiatives, including quality circles, TQM, activity based management, business process re-engineering and, most recently, six sigma. So why, given the transient nature of such initiatives, has Lean Thinking survived?

For us, there are 2 key differences:

1. Lean is built on a philosophy in which perfection is constantly sought.  The language might seem flowery for some, but this really means we must always be questioning our reasons, processes and practices and looking for better answers.  Lean – when implemented right – leaves an organisation capable, rather than just with a solution (the old adage of “give a man a fish….”).
2. Lean provides the opportunity to take a whole-system approach rather than the “push-down pop-up” approaches that many other focused initiatives lead to.  This means that changes are considered in terms of the impact on the whole value stream.

Having said this, there can be little doubt that Lean Thinking has capitalised on a number of other factors; our experience and maturity in understanding process improvement and its benefits, an increasing global market that brings with it greater and stronger competition; an economy that insists that we all “do more for less” and a desire to link people and process to achieve sustainable value.

Does all this mean that the business world will be divided into two groups – those who have been “leaned” and those who will be!  For us at The Ghost Partnership, there’s a simple first step and that is to ask 2 key questions:

Where is the value…?

…how do I get better at delivering it?