|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
17 August 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Lisa Sofianos is an international leadership consultant and business author, she is the founder and Director of .
Measuring the value or impact of leadership development is a tricky, and not altogether satisfactory, pursuit. The more you dig into the subject the more slippery the idea becomes. When looking at the impact of leadership development on the behaviour of individual participants, perhaps as they return to the workplace, we may be able to identify important observable changes; returning participants may ask more questions instead of providing answers, they may work more collaboratively, engage more with their colleagues, that kind of thing. While these changes may be good and desirable, they are inevitably only part of the story. Firstly, to get a fuller picture of the impact of development we would have to be around to see all the changes taking place - requiring a level of omnipresence beyond the reach of most evaluators. Secondly, the story is partial because the new thinking that underpins observable changes in behaviour can run much deeper. The metaphor of an iceberg hiding so much more below the surface can hold true in this situation. In terms of this thinking finding its way to the surface and manifesting in behaviour or decision-making, the right conditions may need to be in place - a crisis, a big change programme or perhaps even a vacancy at the top – all triggers for the application of learning. And without some of these circumstances being in place, some of the most profound impacts of leadership development can remain invisible and dormant, and thought therefore not to exist, while they may in fact lie in waiting to pounce when the time is right.
Another spanner in the works of quantifying impact is the gap that exists between the theoretical models and concepts taught through leadership development, and the real and lived experience of leaders. By this I mean that the cutting-edge ideas and frameworks that may be passed on in teaching, should not be understood as representing a guaranteed formula for success. Nor would it be reasonable to expect them to be carried out to the letter. What the keen-eyed evaluator may look for in the application of models and methods in the workplace just may not be there. And this is not because the leadership development investment hasn’t been useful, rather it may be because the participant absorbs them into their own knowledge and experience, and applies them in very different and sometimes unexpected ways. The line of sight between input and output, for some of the best reasons, may not be very clear; the ‘audit trail’ a little muddy.
So, it is perhaps worth acknowledging that the business of evaluation is complex and for this reason it may be more useful, if not less painful, when examining the value of leadership development, to imagine instead a world without it. To paint the picture of how organisations might operate if it weren’t there.
At first I suspect that this world might look very similar to ours. It would still be filled with a huge variety of enterprises busily engaged in their chosen activity. Organisations would still operate through hierarchies of one sort or another, and ‘leadership’ would still get done. From a distance it may be indiscernible from the current situation. But closer up, we may see some meaningful differences.
Let us start with one possible consequence, that without leadership development, organisations run the risk of becoming cul-de-sacs of knowledge. Importantly, all enterprises are engaged in competition; for resources, clients, expertise, assets, know-how and so on. And this is not an activity that is the preserve of the private sector. Competition may be less acute according to the sector to which we belong, but you can be sure that it is alive, well and driving a lot of behaviour in organisations. And whereas competition has the effect of keeping expertise and strategies under wraps, in order to protect a competitive edge, leadership development, in contrast, has a commitment to the exact opposite; to exposing new ideas, sharing wisdom, making sense of what works, and learning from experience. If it were not for the work of leadership developers and strategy analysts, who would we look to in order to make sense of and learn the lessons from the collapse of Borders, the bankruptcy of high street giant Woolworths, the rise of corporate universities, the leadership challenges of massive open online courses (MOOCS), the sharing economy models of working (Uber, airbnb), the new tech companies and so on? And if you think the answer lies in leaders doing research for themselves or reading business books, how many books a year do you think your senior leaders could get through alongside the day job?
Without leadership development we may see organisations becoming idiosyncratic, having been built upon foundations of commonsense thinking where faults and weaknesses become compounded and areas of unawareness and neglect left to fester. Folklore, rather than evidenced-based lessons drawn from a number of close and far away sources, might create an unbalanced and uninformed view about what good leadership constitutes. A not invented here approach to management might cause multiple re-inventions of the wheel, rather than taking a more efficient route of borrowing ideas from those have done this before.
In the absence of a common language of leadership and a shared set of organisational principles, collaboration could be severely hampered. Time and effort would need to be diverted to mapping and understanding unfamiliar systems and processes, and in our fast changing environment this could lead to missed opportunities.
For me one of the most important roles that leadership development can play for leaders is to provide ventilation to their thinking through sharing experiences, inputting new ideas from the cutting edge and holding a space for them to experiment and learn from experience in safety. The risk of creating an organisational cul-de-sac, or even a gated-community, without leadership development, is transformed into a thriving modern city with multiple crossroads, roundabouts and intersections that allow for ideas, experiences and learning to circulate.
Another consequence of the removal of leadership development relates to the pace of change in the operating environment and the risk that without assistance and rapid learning, organisations will struggle to stay relevant. Our paradigms of leadership, rooted in the past as they are, are no longer adequate for dealing with the “new normal” and leadership pioneers like Prof. Ronald Heifetz, with his Adaptive Leadership model, have made huge strides in constructing a leadership response that is more fit for purpose. That Command and Control leadership is now largely consigned to times of acute crisis isn’t new news to anyone, but would this ever be the case without leadership development? Where else would such concerted thought be devoted to the business of how we lead and then shared in service of helping leaders succeed? In a world without leadership development, ideas and traditions may long outstay their usefulness without the challenge presented by thought leaders.
Notwithstanding the changes swirling around externally in the operating environment, organisations are facing major change from within. The challenges of reconciling an aging population with rapid technological advancements are already being felt by workforces that span Baby Boomers and Digital Natives. It’s tempting to wonder if the fate of HMV would have been different if the senior team could have had a useful conversation with their younger store employees about how their generation consumes music. How much more seriously might they have taken the phenomenon of downloadable music if they had done so?
Rapid technological advancement is here to stay, and Gordon Moore’s assertion that processing speed doubles every two years has held true for decades. In fact the timescale is now closer to 18 months. Leaders on the brink of paradigm-shifting innovations such as the application of Artificial Intelligence will need to look far beyond themselves in order to make sense of the implications and impacts.
New technology conditions the behavior of workforces in other ways too. People have grown used to accessing a seemingly unlimited store of knowledge and information through the internet and are exercising a greater level of engagement and autonomy in their lives. They question experts; shop around; bypass intermediaries; and they are beginning to expect similar levels of involvement in their workplace. This may demand from leaders a new approach to the distribution of executive power and accountability and directly challenge the hierarchical structures that they have grown up with. Pioneers such as Timpsons, with their “Upside Down Leadership” approach, are already working to find ways of unlocking the benefits of this cultural shift, although this would be outside of the awareness of most leaders without the shared learning commitment of leadership developers.
Leaders are faced with steep learning curves on all sides as they grapple with a complex and volatile world. Often they are breaking new ground as the emerging effects of technology, climate change and shifting demographics present novel challenges. In this context it is seldom enough to rely on the relatively small store of experience and expertise that can be accrued by a senior team in order to meet these challenges and thrive. Leaders need shortcuts to best practice; new frames of reference and provocations to generate new thinking; and a reflective space to meet with peers to make sense of it all. In this way I believe that leadership development is one of our best tools to engage with the “new normal”. To return to the beginning of this piece, and the thorny subject of measuring impact, perhaps we should concede the point that leadership development has a profound and meaningful contribution to make to the business of leading. With this framing principle we should be directing much more of our effort away from proving that value and much more of it towards creating the conditions for success.
Tags:
challenges
change
communication
connection
culture
future
socialsector
wellbeing
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
25 July 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Colin Falconer is Director of an innovation consultancy.
Asset-based philosophy has an Aristotle-like emphasis on the ‘what’ we should develop in order to build a ‘good life’. I believe doing more than react to or prevent disadvantage is something that can help invigorate our social leadership.
‘Asset-based’ means embracing capability and shifting the focus from what is lacking to what is working – from Strengths-based Practice and Asset-Based Community Development, to Appreciative Inquiry, the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework and Advantaged Thinking. These approaches range from working with an individual’s strengths, to mobilising resources within a community, to maximising opportunities for systemic change. What unites them as ‘asset-based’ is a belief in relational solutions and a passion for looking beyond meeting problems towards nurturing possibilities.
I help organisations apply asset-based innovations, including providing advice for ’s Youth Fund. Since asset-based theory is not about one-size-fits-all, I have worked with Paul Hamlyn Foundation to introduce a glossary of ‘where’ different asset-based approaches are likely to thrive. These translate into ‘assetspots’ that highlight the of what and how organisations deliver, alongside the influence organisations apply to wider policies and perceptions. Exploring them, four leadership challenges emerge.
The first challenge is in growing ‘identity-positive’ organisations. In particular, this refers to what and how vision and values that invest in enabling good, and how they are communicated. It means more, however, than articulating an inspirational vision for social transformation. Leadership must also define and share the ethos by which transformation actually happens. Who you are, and what you say, increasingly matters.
The second challenge is being open to work ‘with-people’. This means empathetic leadership, sensitive to how far the people an organisation supports are involved across governance, decision making and service design, as well as in delivery. People-powered organisations must have leaders who trust people as citizens of change – not just clients or customers. Openness requires an equalising relationship.
The third challenge is in the operational and strategic ‘know-how’ to optimise the various processes and programmes that nurture assets. In other words, leaders who understand the significance of building purposeful culture and technology, from staff performance systems to project logic models. Organisations that continue to ‘cope’ with management and delivery styles that do not flourish skills and resources will struggle to sustain asset-based endeavours longer term.
The fourth challenge is in determining what impact means. It can never be enough to capture outputs and outcomes required by contracts, if they do not match the mission we believe in or the complex narrative of people’s lived experience. Equally, we cannot be satisfied to evidence what we do just to attract more funding, if we do not also learn from what happens in order to evolve our offer. Treasuring thoughtful measurement and practical insight defines our capacity for progress.
Exploring these challenges through the Clore Social Leaders’ Capabilities Framework, the ‘generous collaborator’ stands out to me as an underrated capability to recognise assets in each other and to harness them collectively. When it comes to good social change, we best lead assets together.
Please share you comments below, or join the conversation on Twitter.
Tags:
casestudy
challenges
change
culture
future
skills
tips
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
07 July 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Increasing awareness of civic duty is a core aim of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation report, Rethinking Relationships: Phase One of the Inquiry into the Civic Role of Arts Organisations.
Society has become fragmented – a lot of the things that used to bring us together don’t exist anymore. We have reached a point in society where our relationship with our phones and technology often subsume our personal relationships, both with each other and within our communities.
But human beings are social creatures. We are hardwired to interact socially with one another, and looking at recent political and societal events, we can all see an upsurge of people coming together. This was clearly demonstrated by the outreach of community support following the London and Manchester terror attacks, and after the fire at Grenfell Tower where we bore witness to the touching efforts of people reaching out in solidarity. People are not waiting for those in positions of authority to take appropriate action, instead they are using their own initiative to carry out their personal civic role.
Gulbenkian is conducting an Inquiry into the civic role of arts organisations. Their new report was developed alongside a panel of leaders, mostly from arts organisations, who provided recommendations as to how social and arts organisations can work together to understand the civic role arts organisations play, and what more is possible.
I am a member of this panel - I joined to add a voice from the social sector, particularly given that the Inquiry is largely focused on arts organisations. There are clear synchronicities in the work of arts and social organisations, but I wanted to understand what more could be done to create a common voice and unify cross-purpose initiatives between and beyond our respective sectors.
I say this because I feel that arts organisations, particularly the publicly funded ones, can do more to support the people in society who need it most. Arts organisations have a vast foothold across the UK in the form of community centres, theatres, libraries, museums, galleries and more, and this gives us amazing opportunities to heal the broken parts of our social fabric. Clearly they can’t do it alone, and collaborations with social leaders are vital. Thank you Gulbenkian, for highlighting some great examples, but let's not believe that these partnerships are common.
The social sector exists to create a fairer society, promote equality and fight social injustice. Yet as evidenced by the aforementioned recent events which brought communities together, what we stand for is not the preserve of the social sector, or any other sector.
It is incumbent upon us all to create deeper connections with one another on personal, organisational, cross-sector and a community-wide level, and this includes debating the issues that really matter.
So today I am asking all Clore fellows and interested parties, from the arts and social sector, to join in the debate. Let us know what you think. How do we get more arts organisations to engage with local charities to maximise our reach, particularly within disadvantaged and poorly served communities? And how do we get more social leaders to offer support, and also challenge other sectors to work together?
Let’s find multiple ways to collaborate, harness solidarity and become more unified in our civic role.
Share you comments below or join the conversation on Twitter.
Tags:
challenges
change
collaboration
community
culture
future
value
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
28 June 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
Vyla L. Rollins is a member of our Board of Trustees and Executive Director at the London Business School's Leadership Institute.
Many individuals, myself included, are still processing the events emerging from Grenfell Tower on 14th June, which has been reported as the deadliest fire in Britain for more than a century. Given the uncertainty already created by other political and terrorist events in the past six months, the Grenfell Tower fire has added to the sorrow, loss and feeling of ambiguity already sinking into the heart and souls of many in the UK, and beyond.
I can remember waking up to Radio 4 at 6am on the morning of the 14th to early reports of a fire in a tower block in North Kensington. As I lay in bed for the next hour and a half, the rolling news reports were stark, fuelled by BBC eyewitness accounts of what was unfolding. Then, over the next 83 hours, stories of the aftermath of the blaze started to emerge. However, in the dark timbre of those reports (amongst which were many accusations and questioning of the paucity of government and local council response) there was one word that resounded for me like a drumbeat. This word, I sense, also helped comfort and give hope to those impacted by the fire at a time of deep despair and loss. The word was ‘volunteers’.
‘Volunteers from the local community.’
‘Volunteers from the Red Cross.’
‘Volunteers from Shelter.’
‘Volunteers from the music, entertainment and sport industries.’
‘Volunteers from the educational sector.’
‘Volunteers from the far reaches of Britain.’
And volunteers from other organisations that many had never heard of. They came forward. And they served. In any way that they could. Shifting. Sorting. Packing. Coordinating. Facilitating. Listening. Comforting. Embracing.
One of my mentors, Ron Heifetz, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School, describes leadership as, ‘taking responsibility for hard problems beyond having formal or informal authority.’ He goes on to state that leadership is a process of understanding, exchanging information, working together-and that learning is required as part of that process. He also states it is not an easy or glamorous process. It is adaptive; it requires listening, watching and sensing and using the information gained from those activities to inform action. I strongly agree with him and, with this belief, am charged to point out that if you think about it, we were all witnesses to what real leadership looks like on the 14th June, and in the days that followed.
Not necessarily in actions made by those in positions of formal authority (offers of cash into bank accounts, helping to facilitate re-housing, etc.) although I cannot discount these as being helpful. But by the responses of the many volunteers – helping those impacted by this tragedy to claim their cash because many don’t have bank accounts; calming others troubled by being offered housing 200 miles away when their livelihoods and educational institutions for their children are in London; soothing and supporting those still in shock when offered re-housing in another high rise tower too reminiscent of the one that came so close to claiming their lives on the morning of the 14th June.
A cacophony of news stories of grassroots leadership exhibited by volunteers continues to emerge and find their space in the 27/7 news cycle. Many stories linked to individuals who are not in positions of formal authority. Leaders like a woman named Mercy. Mercy, who lives near the Tower, learned that two of her friends died in the fire and yet she still came to help. She said: ‘This is what they would want me to do, be out in the community. I don't want to take the day off, this is where I belong.’ I ask, is that not a mark of true leadership?
It is individuals like Mercy, who possess the spirit and will to serve, that I feel deserves our support and attention. And if other individuals possessing a spirit and will to serve also have the aspiration to equip themselves more formally, to bolster the impact and effectiveness their efforts can have within the community and organisations, then we should be ready to help. Ready to help them become the most effective leaders they can be. I, like my colleagues at Clore Social Leadership, am passionate about supporting and investing in sourcing, creating and delivering leadership development interventions for people in the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors. And the events at Grenfell Tower are one reason why.
I believe social sector leaders are the ones we’ll more than likely need and will increasingly look to in the future, to lead us through some of the most difficult and unprecedented social, community and organisational challenges of the 21st Century. So why wouldn’t you support efforts to develop leaders in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector, in any way that you can?
Please share your views and comments below, or you can join the conversation with Vyla on Twitter.
Tags:
casestudy
challenges
change
community
culture
future
politics
socialsector
value
volunteering
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
|
Posted By Clore Social Leadership,
12 April 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
In the last blog, Born leaders – you need to regress to progress, I explored the quality of curiosity and how we could benefit from learning to value this quality as we face increased leadership challenges in our sector. Now, I'd like to think about another child-like quality: courage.
When I was nine years old, my brother and salvaged four large pram wheels from the local tip. I was so excited – after what felt like months of searching we had finally found the only missing elements to our home-made go kart.
We fixed the axles to the old wooden door, secured an old blue rope as a steering device to the front axle and headed for the hill. The hill was notorious, it’s where anybody who was anybody went when it snowed. They took it on with bin lids, dinner trays, rubber rings, and the occasional sledge. But this was the height of the summer holidays, so we were going to set a new standard of bravery by tackling the hill on a homemade go kart. When we got back at school, we'd be heroes! I sat at the top of the hill, gripping the steering rope so tight it was sore. Wearing nothing more than my shell suit to protect me, I gave the nod to my brother to push me over the precipice. My heart was racing so fast, like it knew something that I didn’t…
I’m told that I made it to the bottom; I don’t remember it as well my brother. The last I recall he was shouting at me to use the soles of my plimsolls as brakes. Ah yes, brakes! Perhaps the pram wheels weren’t the only thing missing…
This might not be the most inspiring story to demonstrate my point but thinking back, I can't help but be a bit envious of my own courage. Coming on for thirty years later I wouldn’t dream of returning to the hill with a homemade Go Kart. I have learned to be cautious, to assess risk and make informed decisions based on the information that’s available to me.
Have I become too cautious? Does this same risk assessment prevent me from being brave, from speaking my truth in situations where I may be a lone voice, and from making unpopular decisions even though I know with confidence that they’re the right decision for the organisation?
In trying to find an example of where I have demonstrated courage recently, I asked some of my colleagues for examples of where I have led with courage. This feedback revealed the big differences that I have effected as a result of being willing to take appropriate risks, to challenge the status quo, and to make tough decisions. The feedback also revealed that courage manifests in small moments, like in being more open and vulnerable with my colleagues.
As our sector faces increasing challenges, both in number and complexity, it’s vital that we lead with the courage of our childhood, and true to our authentic selves.
In the next blog I’ll explore the quality of authenticity and how being true to our real self can enable us to be more courageous.
This blog was developed as part of Mark's 2016 Clore Social Fellowship Programme and originally published on Third Force News as part of a blog series.
Mark Kelvin is programme director at the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland and a 2016 Clore Social Fellow.
Tags:
casestudy
challenges
change
courage
culture
future
skills
tips
Permalink
| Comments (0)
|
|
Blog Home
All Blogs
RSS