|
|
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,
26 July 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
2017 Clore Social Fellows Stuart Dexter and Joanna McCreadie share their reflections about the commonalities and differences between their organisations, and their plans to collaborate.
Stuart Dexter, Chief Executive of Daisy Chain
And so it came to pass, four intrepid explorers finished their board meeting and set off to cross the border in search of a half decent curry and some ideas of how to integrate animals into their work. The coalescing of like-minds felt like the start of something bigger, inspiring all involved to dare to aim high. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, let’s go back to the beginning…
Stuart was telling Joanna about his new role at an autism charity, Daisy Chain. Joanna said that she’d be interested in learning more about Daisy Chain’s use of animals. Joanna is CEO of , a residential school in Scotland for children with multiple and complex needs. They have just started to keep some animals at the school, and thus plans were made for a team from Seamab to visit the Daisy Chain farm.
We got to know each other over a fiery jalfrezi and bountiful thalis and began to realise how well aligned our approach to working with children and young people who have faced significant challenges were. What become apparent was that a youth and community work approach was beneficial in engaging with children and young people for whom mainstream schooling just didn’t work. We learnt of a shared appetite to take risks but, most of all, we learnt of a shared value of being ‘human’ when working with people. We learned that we were not afraid to show that we care.
An early start followed and we talked in more detail about the two organisations and realised further the significant commonalities. Fortified, we had a look around the Daisy Chain centre and toured the grounds, ending at the Daisy Chain farm.
All was going well until our Scottish friends were introduced to Daisy Chain’s skinny pigs. For those of you unaware, skinny pigs are a mutant, hairless guinea pig. Usually, once the initial revulsion has passed people find them cute. Alas, for one of the Seamab team the revulsion intensified, eliciting a surprisingly strong reaction.
We split into two teams; Jody and Alistair stayed on the farm with Michelle, Daisy Chain’s Farm Manager and Stuart, Gary and Joanna retired once more to Stuart’s office to talk future plans and building developments.
So what did we learn and does this partnership have a future? To the latter question the answer is almost certainly yes. Daisy Chain has been invited to Seamab for a return visit, an invitation we intend to accept. We’re also considering opportunities for a formal partnership project.
And the learning? That there is an approach to the work, a set of values and a value in people that we have in common. That a desire to aim high and innovate, to have aspirations and not accept the orthodoxy as the only way things can be done goes a long way when working with some of the most vulnerable members of society.
And we had a nice curry.
Joanna McCreadie, Chief Executive of Seamab
It’s not that often that the Seamab team has had the chance to visit other charities, or have open and in depth discussions about the joy and challenges of working with children. Our focus is usually on what is happening now, and what we are planning to do next in Seamab.
One of the unanticipated strengths of the Clore Social Fellowship is the opportunity for teams from separate charities to engage with each other, learn from each other and potentially work together. Talking with Stuart after an action learning set, it became clear that while our two charities deliver different services, we share a commitment to finding, and implementing interesting ways of working, always with the aim of making a positive difference. As well, having recently rescued some chickens, at Seamab we were beginning to think that we were on to a new idea of having more animals around to support the children. Of course, Daisy Chain have already had this idea, and added pretty impressive bells and whistles, so we thought we could borrow some of their thinking and expertise….
Our first impressions on arrival at Daisy Chain were of an open, welcoming space and buildings. There was a mixture of new development and old farm buildings. We were all really impressed by the services Daisy Chain offers, and their approach to how they support children, young people, and families. It was obvious this is an organisation interested in how they can make a practical difference. There was an acceptance of the challenges of this and an interest in continuing to develop and improve.
While the farm is wonderful – it’s not an end in itself. Rather, caring for the animals and spending time with them, supported by skilled adults, is a positive experience that has multiple benefits for children and young people across all aspects of their lives.
And the skinny pigs…well, it’s the first time any of us has seen our colleague move that fast (away from the skinny pig) and maintain that kind of distance (clearly he thought it would be able to leap out the farm manager's arms) or deny so vociferously any fear. As supportive colleagues we respected his feelings and haven’t mentioned it since – those skinny pig photos that found their way into his office were, honestly, a surprise to all of us.
What next? Stuart and I think we (and our teams) share values and a philosophy about practice. We can feel that there will be opportunities to learn from each other, and potentially, work together. We’re already planning to purchase some pigs for the children at Seamab, and have the offer of expert advice from Daisy Chain’s farm manager. Our next step is a visit to Seamab by the Daisy Chain team. We think we can see that curry and raise it brilliant fish and chips in our local hostelry!
Please share your views and comments below, or join the conversation on Twitter.
Tags:
casestudy
change
collaboration
culture
future
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,
18 July 2017
Updated: 07 December 2020
|
This blog was written jointly by Claire Haigh and Julia Wolfendale from Collaborate Out Loud. Together they create social spaces for public service innovation.
We live in a social world, a world where we are surrounded by technology that allows us to communicate and connect like never before. Successful social leaders are able to authentically and skilfully use not just the digital tools at their fingertips, but to also bring people together to form communities that can make a difference in the places we live.
Making connections across boundaries is key for social leadership. Some of the formal constraints of traditional working literally get in the way. As we move towards widening our social connections across social media platforms, we are seeing the opportunity to include our ‘work allies and work friends’ into our real lives. What would happen if we truly brought our whole selves to work? Perhaps this could help us to transcend the boundaries of hierarchy and formal structures, sidestep silos and really connect around shared interests - inside and outside of work - through shared personal values and interest in mutual outcomes.
Is this a modern workplace dilemma? Have we been busy crafting a work persona that is so different to our real selves that we struggle to let people in and see who we really are, what we care about, and what we have to offer? Do we hold back our potential to connect fully with each other at work because of this? If we are working in public service, is it not important to show we have real lives too? Would this help build our affinity with the people we serve? Would this help develop the authenticity and credibility that is needed in leaders today?
We think so. We have been developing ways to help social leaders connect with who they really are as people first, and then around what skills, knowledge, connections, abilities and interests that they have to offer beyond the role and job description.
People naturally seek connections. We are hardwired to connect, although we might fight it at work and hide behind the work role, finding ourselves segregated in isolation, distanced by a fear of difference. With more transparency and authenticity in public service, we could develop greater empathy and rapport, and connect more wholly with others. We could unlock the potential of people in public services by connecting as people who live in a community who have chosen to serve a community.
Embracing difference, connecting across boundaries, seeking out the unusual suspects and having surprising conversations help us to innovate and collaborate better. If we want to truly innovate we need to collaborate not only with those around us who are our trusted friends, but with those who we don’t know, who are different and are removed from our inner circle. Why not just have a coffee with someone you don’t really know, or follow some new people on Twitter?
Please share your comments below, or join the conversation on Twitter.
Tags:
change
communication
community
connection
culture
future
socialsector
value
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)
|
|
Blog Home
All Blogs
RSS