Leader's Digest #25 (March 2019) by Leadership Institute

LEADERS ISSUE 25

MARCH 2019

DIGEST

The Ropes of Leadership:

HOLDING TIGHT OR LETTING GO?

Photo by Tina Hartung on Unsplash

LEADERS

DIGEST

PUBLICATION TEAM Read this issue and past issues online at bit.ly/LEADSCS Scan the QR code below for quicker access:

EDITORIAL

Editor-in-Chief Segaren Assistant Editor Yvonne Lee Graphic Designer Awang Ismail bin Awang Hambali Abdul Rani Haji Adenan

* Read our online version to access the hyperlinks to other reference articles made by the author. Content Partners:

CONTENTS

ISSUE 25 | MARCH 2019

How Minimising Management Supervision Can Maximise Employee Performance?

Give Your Employees Freedom Within a Framework

13|

17|

Want More Innovation? Give More Freedom!

24|

Leadership and Transformation

27|

The Fine Line Between Leadership And Power

Power Earned Or Power Given?

15|

Are You In Charge Of Your Employees’ Time?

19|

Why Power Corrupts – And What To Do About It

22|

Learning About What Truly DRIVEs People

26|

9 Mental Blocks in Developing KPIs

27|

4 Barriers to Strategic Implementation

Success In Leadership: Are You Gripping The Handlebars Too Tight?

The Person Who Suggests Always Seems to Get The Job

LEADER'S DIGEST IS A MONTHLY PUBLICATION BY THE LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE OF SARAWAK CIVIL SERVICE, DEDICATED TO ADVANCING CIVIL SERVICE LEADERSHIP AND TO INSPIRE OUR SARAWAK CIVIL SERVICE (SCS) LEADERS WITH CONTEMPORARY LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES. IT FEATURES A RANGE OF CONTENT CONTRIBUTED BY OUR STRATEGIC PARTNERS AND PANEL OF ADVISORS FROM RENOWNED GLOBAL INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS ESTABLISHED CORPORATIONS THAT WE ARE AFFILIATED WITH. OCCASIONALLY, WE HAVE GUEST CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OUR POOL OF SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AS WELL AS FROM OUR OWN EMPLOYEES. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE ARTICLES PUBLISHED ARE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE OF SARAWAK CIVIL SERVICE SDN. BHD. (292980-T). NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT THE PUBLISHER'S PERMISSION IN WRITING 2

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

How Minimising Management Supervision Can Maximise Employee Performance? BY RAJEEV PESHAWARIA

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, thinking and tools for managing employees towards high performance have remained the same. General practice about managing individual performance says all employees must be given stretch goals at the beginning of each year; managers must closely monitor performance and give regular feedback to ensure employees put their best foot forward every day; and performance must be measured and rewarded based on the pre-set stretch goals. There are several problems with this approach. Firstly, this system places the onus of enabling performance mostly on the shoulders of managers rather than employees themselves. Essentially, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve been treating people like machines that must be constantly programmed, monitored and controlled for optimal performance. Secondly, even while the existence of the performance bell curve is well acknowledged, we conveniently forget all about it in the beginning of the year and expect all employees to uniformly write stretch goals and perform at the highest level. According to the bell curve (which is derived from the 80:20 rule) theory, in any group of people, performance distributes itself along a bell shaped curve in which 20% are top performers delivering 80% of the results, 60% are average performers, and 20% are poor (bottom) performers. However, when everyone is asked to perform at the â&#x20AC;&#x153;stretchâ&#x20AC;? level but stacked along the bell curve at the end of the year, it leaves both managers and employees feeling cheated. Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 3

In today’s reality where the very nature of work has been democratised, it is time to turn this logic upside down. What if, instead of stretch goals, employees were given goals that only specify the minimum level of performance outcomes required, and leave everything else loose or undefined? Sounds impractical, even crazy? Not really if you consider what’s changing in today’s workforce. To understand the tectonic shift taking place in the nature of work, consider Uber. Uber neither employs any taxi drivers nor owns any cars, yet it is one of the largest taxi companies in the world today. An Uber driver: • Decides when he wants to work and when not. If it is his partner’s birthday in the middle of the week, he has the option of not taking a customer and taking his partner out to lunch instead. He blends work-life boundaries rather than “managing” them. • Realises that her income depends directly on how much she drives. • Realises that the continuation of her contract with Uber depends largely on the customer ratings she gets after each ride. In other words, she must self-manage performance on the job. • Has the flexibility of switching to another mobile app-based taxi company if offered a better deal. • Knows that with technologyenabled infrastructure (internet enabled home office, Wi-Fi enabled coffee shops, 24-hour print and copy shops, reasonably rentable executive suites and overnight delivery services), he has the perfect self-employment ecosystem at his disposal allowing him to offer his services to businesses other than taxi operations. It is now possible to be an Uber driver, an Instacart shopper, a paid blogger and an Airbnb host at the same time. In other words, he has discovered the joys of being a “free-agent”. 4

Issue 25 | March 2019

One can safely argue that all Uber drivers’ earnings also follow the bell curve distribution i.e. 20% of them earn the most; the next 60% earn average revenue, and finally the bottom 20% earn the least. But we cannot determine just by looking at the numbers that the bottom 20% are poor performers. Perhaps some of the bottom 20% are not bad drivers or shirkers, maybe they just want to drive enough to balance their budgets and pursue other interests for the rest of the time. Maybe they are students who want to drive only on weekends, or perhaps they are young mothers who only want to drive while their kids are at school. If free agents can have so much flexibility, why can’t full-time employees? More importantly, can companies even afford to treat full time employees in the same manner as before in this brave new free world? Is it (or was it ever in the past) possible to expect all employees to work at the highest level? This brings me back to the question: What if, instead of setting SMART and stretch goals for all employees, we set minimum goals to keep the job, and leave the rest to employees. Those who want to do more in order to earn more and get promoted, let them decide and show their commitment and leadership energy. And those that don’t want to go the extra mile, allow them to do the minimum (or at least less than the maximum) so that they can blend their work-life the way they see fit. In this case, the consequences should be very clear – you reap what you sow, just as entrepreneurs do! In any case, by their own admission, companies agree with the 80:20 rule and admit that performance falls along the 20:60:20 curve. Why not accept this fact and allow employees to self-manage where they want to be at any point in time? It would eliminate much of the subjectivity inherent in performance ratings, and free managers from the burden

of driving performance. Of course, a major pre-requisite for using this idea successfully is that there should be clear communication between managers and employees throughout the year so each knows exactly what to expect. If communication is regular, honest and effective, there will be a lesser chance of mismatched expectations at year-end, and consequently everyone (managers and employees) should be happier. Such a performance management system would particularly benefit women. If a high performing woman wants to take her foot off the pedal for a few years because she wants to take care of a young baby, she wouldn’t be frowned upon under such a system. Once her baby is old enough and she feels it is time to step on the gas again, she may. She decides! “But if you allow employees to get away with just the minimum, the organisation will suffer. Who will do all the work that needs to get done?” This is the counter argument against creating an open source performance management system described above. The truth is that with or without such a system, performance will distribute itself along the 20:60:20 curve anyway. By acknowledging it, you set the right expectations and let people contribute as much as they want without stress or stigma. As the knowledge-is-free-andabundant digital economy matures further, companies will have no choice but to give more freedom. The good news is that a free mind works and produces more than a forced mind, so no, work will not suffer.

Rajeev is the CEO of the Iclif Leadership and Governance Centre, author of the Wall Street Journal and Amazon best seller Open Source Leadership (McGraw Hill 2017), Too Many Bosses, Too Few Leaders (Simon & Schuster 2011), co-author of Be the Change (McGraw Hill 2014) and a regular writer for Forbes, Rajeev is an out-of-the-box thought leader on leadership, management and corporate governance. He has extensive global experience in leadership and organisational consulting, with a particular focus on uncovering personal and organisational “leadership energy.”

LEADERS

DIGEST

Success In Leadership: Are You Gripping The Handlebars Too Tight? BY ROSHAN THIRAN

Photo by Andhika Soreng on Unsplash

In the classic book Zen in the Art of Archery, the Master advises, “What stands in your way is that you have a much too wilful will. You think that what you do not do yourself does not happen.” Written by the German philosopher Eugen Herrigel, the book explores how motor learning is done, which is to say that much of our learning is acquired unconsciously. This idea ran contrary to the Western ideal that everything we do comes from control and intentional direction. But anyone who learned to ride a bike will know that gripping the handlebars

too tightly and making rash turns is a sure recipe for disaster. Becoming an expert cyclist starts to unfold only when we learn to ‘let go’ of trying to control so much. Rather than making the bicycle move, we move with it, almost as though we become part of the bicycle. Mastering this stage, we usually find we fall off a lot less than before. Whenever we want to succeed at something, there’s a good chance that we will try to control as much as we can in order to minimise the risk of failure.

"But just as gripping too tightly on the handlebars is likely to lead to bashed knees and bruised egos, trying to control too much in positions of leadership is also bound to lead to problems." Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 5

These days, we can all look to one or two examples of leaders who try to control everything and react rashly whenever things don’t pan out quite as well as they planned.

Having said that, even the best advice received isn’t always the advice that’s taken, and it’s often the case that leaders with rigid styles only receive the message through unwelcome results. Here, I’d love to share three insights from my own leadership journey on how to get the best out of yourself and others (keep in mind it’s an ongoing learning process):

1. Seek input from others

An old mentor of mine once said: “I know more about what I do than you do – but there’s an awful lot more you know that I don’t.” While leaders often have more knowledge about a particular subject than their followers, there’s a lot of knowledge they’ve still to acquire – the kind of knowledge that others around them hold. For example, a leader might be an expert in finance but has little idea about digital marketing or how to reach an audience through video content. Great leaders seek input from those around them. Not only do they get to build on their own knowledge, but they gain insights from different perspectives and cultivate a culture of knowledge sharing throughout their organisation.

2. Humility is key

Photo by Miguel A. Amutio on Unsplash

At best, bullish leaders can inflict unnecessary inconveniences on those around them; in the worst-case scenarios, attempts to control things too tightly can result in major problems that affect many people. Like everything else, leadership evolves with time and we’re constantly discovering new insights into how leaders can be more effective, efficient, engaging and empowering. 6

Issue 25 | March 2019

Being a leader can be quite seductive, particularly when you get the first few success stories under your belt. It can lead us to believe that we “made it on our own” and “achieved success single-handedly”.

3. Read – a lot

It’s no surprise that many of the world’s most successful leaders are avid readers. In books, we have portable masterclasses from the greatest thinkers both past and present that show us how to achieve, succeed as well as overcome challenges and avoid pitfalls. Research has shown that reading books geared towards self-improvement are what separates the top one per cent of earners from the rest – a love of lifelong learning is what fuels the fire of creativity and innovation. Personally, I recommend reading a biography (or autobiography) of a particular leader you admire alongside self-improvement books that explore a related skill. So, for example, you might want to read about Abraham Lincoln in Doris Kearns Goodwin’s excellent Team of Rivals in conjunction with Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People. The first book provides insights into one of the greatest negotiators and communicators in American history, and the other serves as a manual on how we can emulate Lincoln as a leader we admire by developing the same qualities he espoused. So there you have it: be proactive in seeking advice; stay humble; and learn from the greatest thinkers. Whether you’re in leadership, thinking of a change, or just starting out in your career, I hope these three pieces of advice will serve to guide you well whatever path you’re on.

From Moses to Mark Zuckerberg, not a single leader has ever achieved anything without the help of others. In all leadership journeys, there will be successes and failures and we’d do well to keep the poet Rudyard Kipling’s advice in mind and treat Triumph and Disaster as the same. When we fall down, we need help to get back up, and help from others is most readily available when we remain humble in times of success.

Roshan is the founder and CEO of the Leaderonomics Group. He believes that everyone can be a leader and make a dent in the universe, in their own special ways.

LEADERS

DIGEST

The Fine Line Between Leadership And Power BY DR KAREN MORLEY

Powerful people aren’t the best leaders, yet often, they end up in leadership roles.

The cost of mistaking power for leadership

In a study by Hildreth and Anderson reported in Harvard Business Review, groups comprising the four most powerful executives in a company could only reach agreement on a task 46% of the time compared with groups comprising the least powerful executives, who reached agreement 86% of the time.

If organisations mistake power for leadership, and attribute too much value to individual effort, they will end up over-run by power-focused individuals in top roles.

That’s because status concerns and high dominance behaviours distracted them from what needed to get done. Less time was devoted to decision making than to powerplays.

Shared work tasks then take longer and are harder than they need to be, because petty powerplays rule. This harms the ability of leaders to work together, interferes with productivity and innovation, and is poor rolemodelling for everyone else. High power leaders adopt a commandand-control style of leadership. Their displays of dominance include talking more often and at a higher volume.

These include using more expansive gestures, such as chin thrusting, and using sharper, explosive hand gestures. These gestures all take up more space. When leaders take up space, they crowd out others. High power leaders don’t delegate enough, they become overworked themselves and their teams disengage. Rather than increasing performance, work output falls. Efforts to drive performance through power and control are counterproductive. Instead, high power leaders and their teams produce less, and increase the risk of burn-out. With so much work now interdependent, mistaking power for leadership is a significant risk.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 7

The power of collective intelligence Work tasks and organisations are more dispersed than ever before, across functions, departments, and geographies. To work effectively, people automatically interact more broadly, and more often, across and between organisations.

Collective intelligence is a combination of average social sensitivity of group members, equality of conversational turn taking in group discussion, and the number of women in the group. Women demonstrate greater social sensitivity and this is why genderbalanced teams often perform better.

In another 2016 Harvard Business Review article, Cross, Rebele and Grant estimated that the amount of time spent in collective activities has increased by 50% over the past 20 years and that in some organisations, people spend as much as 80% of their time interacting with others.

Disentangling power from leadership

When groups work well together, and harness their collective intelligence, there is a 40% performance premium, according to Woolley and colleagues in their 2010 Science article.

Good leaders are concerned with social good and put that ahead of personal gain. They are humble, ask questions, listen with intent, and are curious about others.

They acknowledge and praise the work of others, and express gratitude. Senior leaders are open to the perspectives of their peers and able to rein in their competitiveness. They are good at building emotional connection and explicitly valuing the work of their peers. Despite the opportunity that strengthening relationships amongst leaders presents, organisations continue to reward displays of power. They reinforce power differentials by rewarding command and control styles which reinforce silos. They tend to over-recognise individual achievement and under-recognise collective effort. Thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s little systematic opportunity for high quality peer interaction; thereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s too much focus on low value meetings and decision-making processes that require multiple interactions for questionable gain. Disentangling power from leadership would help organisations to increase engagement and innovation, and to foster cultures that are encouraging and enjoyable. Rather than perpetuate a model that prioritises status and demonstrations of power, they should focus on a model that develops and extends capability and empowers others. Cultures that are caring and supportive are best placed for innovation, adaptability, and to develop talented next generation leaders.

Dr Karen Morley is an executive leadership coach and the author of Lead like a Coach.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

Give Your Employees Freedom Within a Framework

DIGEST

BY MICHAEL E. KOSSLER

Imagine starting your first day of work at a new company. During your onboarding, someone called the Chief Culture Officer (CCO), tells you the usual things such as: employees live our company values and purpose; the company wants people to take risks and be responsible for the outcomes; it’s okay to fail, just learn from the mistake; blah, blah, blah. At the end of thirty minutes, with semi-glazed over eyes, you stand up to leave the meeting room. Just as you are about to go out the door, the CCO stops you and says, “Oh, I also forgot to mention that we have no dress code or vacation policy. Just wear clothes and take the time you need to re-energize.” Until the CCO’s last comments you were probably thinking, “Yeah, I’ve heard all that before. That’s code language for ‘keep your head down low and don’t take any chances.” But the CCO’s comments about no dress code or vacation policy got your attention. You begin to wonder...

1) Is this company real or have you stepped into the Twilight Zone? 2) Why would any company want to give this type of latitude to its employees?

The answer to the first question is “No”, you’ve not stepped into the Twilight Zone … you’ve stepped into an organisation that believes in giving its employees what is referred to as Freedom Within a Framework (more about this in a moment).

As for why any organisation would want to give their employees freedom within a framework, the answers include: customer satisfaction, employee engagement, employee productivity, increased innovation, profitability, and responsiveness in a constantly changing business environment. Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 9

Freedom within a framework means providing employees with a context for behaviour and performance. It establishes adaptable parameters that give employees a sense of control and ownership because they know they are not locked into fixed rules. To better understand conceptually what freedom within a framework means, let me break it down into its two defining parameters: freedom and framework. In this case, freedom, first and foremost, means trusting employees. Freedom is about believing that if you give employees the latitude to think, make decisions, and act on behalf of the (business, company, organisation), they will do the right things. Framework means providing employees with a set of guidelines within which to work. Traditionally, these guidelines have taken the form of rigid, unyielding rules, policies, and procedures; all the things that stifle innovation in the Open Source Era (defined as an era where information is ubiquitous, ideas represent currency and entrepreneurship is the dominant platform for business success). In the Open Source Era, it is better to build the guidelines around the organisation’s values (what’s important to us) and purpose (what are we trying to accomplish). When values and purpose become a living set of guidelines, they provide employees with a clear and positive sense of what they can and cannot do, to support the better future the organisation wishes to create. Values and purpose, when clearly understood and embraced, provide the tools needed to set priorities, make decisions, and take risks. Clarity of organisational values and purpose encourages and nourishes freedom when intentionally designed, communicated, and executed well.

Issue 25 | March 2019

High

Amount of Freedom

What Exactly is Freedom Within a Framework?

Low

• Freedom is high because level of trust is high • Due to high trust, leader emphasis value and purpose • Commitment to company values and purpose is high • Employee engagement and innovation is high • Risk taking is embraced • Decisions are made with the organisation's best interest in mind • Freedom is low because level of trust is low • Due to lack of trust, leader emphasis rules • Understanding and support for the organisation's values and purpose is low • Employee engagement and innovation is low • Risk taking is avoided

Low

Clarity of Company Values and Purpose

High

Figure 1 As depicted in Figure 1, when the framework is based upon two dimensions: freedom and values and purpose, its boundaries can be expanded as circumstance and the environment change, allowing the organisation and its employees to live, grow and thrive within it. Examples of this would be organisations in either Start-Up or Transformation mode. The challenge is for leadership to build the framework. Note the emphasis on building the framework – it must be intentional, not haphazard. This takes leadership commitment, resources, and time to ensure that all employees understand, embrace, and work effectively within the framework. In other words, the context for freedom must be clearly established. Here’s the paradox for leaders and employees. Freedom must be given and earned. To get employee trust, the leader must give trust. For employees to get trust, they must give trust. The framework is mutually reinforcing.

How Do You Establish Freedom Within A Framework in Your Company? In practice, Figure 2 depicts what Freedom Within A Framework looks like. As noted earlier, freedom within a framework is based upon two important and interdependent dimensions, freedom (trust) and values and purpose. The framework begins and ends with your organisation’s values and purpose which set the context for priorities, actions, and decisions employees make. When your organisation’s values and purpose, are clear, understood and embraced, employees tend to be more engaged and willing to take responsibility because they feel committed to the results the company is trying to achieve. They experience a sense of ownership for results. But this only occurs if you give your employees the freedom to act. This means as a leader, you must “trust” your employees to do the right thing

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 10

Figure 3 depicts how varying levels of leadership trust and clarity of values and purpose impacts an organisation’s performance, especially in the areas of engagement and innovation. It is important to call out that there is a clear path of progression for introducing freedom within a framework within your organisation. It starts with Freedom Level 1 and ranges to Freedom Level 3, with variations in between. Giving lots of freedom without clarity of values and purpose can result in actions being taken that are not consistent with what is important to your organisation. Conversely, having clear values and purpose but no freedom generally results in employees waiting to be told what to do. The key to successful implementation of a freedom within a framework in your organisation is to Recognise that all leaders must model the freedom behaviours, carefully monitor progress, continuously refine it, and be patient. It takes time.

Too Much Freedom

Freedom Level 3

Amount of Freedom

Conversely, as you increase the level of trust in your employees, commensurate with clarity of values and purpose, engagement, innovation, and performance also increase. Employees experience greater freedom to act not just because they understand what is important to the organisation but because they have “bought in” to what the organisation is trying to accomplish and want to contribute to its success. This outcome positively impacts your company’s bottom-line.

Freedom Within a Framework

High

Freedom Level 2

Freedom Level 1

Low

Not Enough Freedom

Low

Clarity of Company Values, Purpose, Priorities

High

Figure 2

High

Freedom Within a Framework

Too Much Freedom • • • •

High Trust / Low Clarity Lots of Freedom to Act No Context for Behaviour Decision Made by Individual Preference Not Necessary Organisation Need • Risk Taking Exaggerated

Amount of Freedom

on behalf of the company. When leadership trust is low, and clarity of values and purpose is equally low, the result is no freedom and employee engagement and innovation suffers, which negatively impacts your company’s bottom-line.

Freedom Level 2

• Medium Trust / Medium Clarity • Commitment to Values Purpose Developing • More Latitude to Make Decisions • Risk Taking Encouraged

Freedom Level 1

Low

• Low Trust / Low Clarity • Values / Purpose Still Being Defined • Setting Context for Behaviour • Duel Trust Developing • Guided Risk Taking

Low

Freedom Level 3

• High Trust / High Clarity • Living Values and Purpose • Decisions Made Based Upon What is in the Best Interest of Company • Risk Taking Expected, Failure Viewed as Learning Opportunity • High Employee Initiative and Accountability

Not Enough Freedom • Low Trust / High Clarity • Values and Purpose Become RULES • No Freedom to Act • Risk Taking Avoided • Fear of Failure

Clarity of Company Values, Purpose, Priorities

High

Figure 3

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 11

Are Companies Really Using Freedom Within A Framework? The idea of freedom within a framework is not new. Neville Isdell, former CEO of Coca-Cola introduced it to Coke around 2004. In an interview with Gregory Kelser for HR People + Strategy’s newsletter, Isdell indicated that he implemented the idea of freedom within a framework because he wanted leaders to make decisions and that those decisions should fit within Coke’s plans for growth. Richard Branson, CEO of the Virgin Group, posted an article in Entrepreneur in 2013 titled, “Giving Your Employees Freedom” (Entrepreneur, 2 January 2013) in which he states, “Today the Virgin Group is made up of dozens of companies headed by CEOs and managers who have the freedom to run their businesses as they see fit. This philosophy goes against the usual rules of business and may seem unmanageable, but it has turned out to be one of the keys to our success.” In his recent book, Open Source Leadership, (2017) my colleague, Rajeev Peshawaria describes why leaders in the Open Source Era should build their organisations around freedom within a framework

when he highlights the fact that in today’s business environment, speed is everything and the ability to remain agile and nimble in an ever-changing landscape is critical. Unfortunately, many of today’s organisations still operate as if it were 1990 by not trusting their employees and imposing strict internal rules, policies, processes, and procedures. The result is a bureaucracy which is anything but agile and nimble. Finally, Reed Hastings, CEO, and co-founder of Netflix, is living proof of the benefits of giving employees freedom within a framework. During an April 2018 interview with TAD curator, Chris Anderson, he described his leadership philosophy as follows, “I pride myself on making as few decisions as possible in a quarter. Sometimes I can go a whole quarter without making any decisions.” According to Hastings, the key to this lies in giving each employee freedom to make their own wise decisions on behalf of the Organisation. Hastings refers to this as freedom and responsibility. The list of Organisations building their cultures based upon freedom within a framework is growing and includes a diverse and venerable group, ranging from start-ups to

established organisations including Alaska Airlines, The British Council, Campbell Soup, Coca-Cola, Google, Gucci Group, McDonald’s, Proctor & Gamble, SoulCycle, The Virgin Group, and Warby Parker. Despite the previous list of companies using some of Freedom Within a Framework, it is fair to point out that this approach may not be for every organisation and every employee. Even Netflix acknowledges that it is “Mostly for our salaried employees; there are many limitations on this for our hourly employees due to legal requirements.” You have to decide if it is right for your organisation and if you are willing to take the time required to implement it. I’m not suggesting that leaders immediately do away with all rules and turn employees loose. Those conditions are called anarchy. What I am suggesting is that instead of ridged rules, in the Open Source Era, it is more effective to lead within the context of values and purpose, balanced with the trust that employees will perform with the company’s best interest in mind. Given these conditions, most employees will rise to the occasion.

For over 30 years, Michael has worked in the field of leadership and organisational development. He leverages his advanced degrees in communications and organisation development to design and deliver results producing development experiences. Michael is also a certified gestalt therapist (Indianapolis and Cleveland Gestalt Institute) as well as a certified coach (Center for Creative Leadership) and member of the International Coach Federation and European Coaching and Mentoring Council.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

Power Earned Or Power Given? BY ROB WYSE

I knew a former chief executive officer (CEO) of a multi-million-dollar company in the United States. This was a family business, so, he became CEO. Fast version of the story: he alienated all the employees and suppliers. The company was sold in a fire sale. So, what happened? He was given authority, and once given authority, he never earned power or influence. Similarly, I have worked for a CEO of a publicly traded company in human resources. This CEO is consumed with himself. The company’s top sales people ignore him. He alienates suppliers who eventually quit. His only saving grace is a buoyant stock price. If it falls, the thin ice that supports him will collapse. His power is based on position, not on earned trust.

Power earned or power given? These stories lead one to a simple question: If your CEO (or boss) did not have their granted position of authority, would you still admire, follow, and listen to him or her? To understand the dynamics of leadership, I interviewed Dr. Ken Siegel, president of The Impact Group, Inc., a Los Angeles-based group of psychologists who consult to management. Siegel has coached executives across the globe on becoming better leaders. He explains that there is a true difference between power and authority: “Authority is something bequeathed to someone, or comes with a position such as the CEO or vice president. Power is something that is much

more self-originated and comes from within the person.” Many of us reject authoritarian people. Siegel says that the more a person relies on authority given to them, the less effective, admired, and influential they ultimately are. “They may be able to get by for a period of time using the power of their position or the trappings of their job – but that often times breeds resentment and resistance,” he noted. People who abuse authority to gain power, abuse it in one of two ways: It is either oppressive, abusive, or some combination of the two. Conversely, Siegel says that true power emanates from within. It is earned power. Great leaders are credible, knowledgeable, and/or display appropriate demeanour.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 13

Through their actions, they earn trust and the credibility needed to influence others.

Cause trumps people “Those with true power have, as their goal building, mutual outcomes that have meaning. These are benevolent leaders who view their role above and beyond themselves to create commitment for a cause. “And typically, the leader is not the target of what is going to get better – rather, they share in the goodness of achieving a common goal,” Siegel adds. In a corporation, the more you are able to use influence as a source of power (how you interact with other people, building mutual outcomes that have meaning) the more sustainable your power is (the more powerful you will be) and the less likely anyone can actually take it away from you, he explains. The great iconic leaders create goals that followers believe in and commit to. In simple terms, a cause, or a system of ideals and beliefs is more powerful than a person. 14

Issue 25 | March 2019

In 2018, the number one leader according to Fortune Magazine was not a person, it was the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas and other schools in their fight against gun violence.

Merkel, Pope Francis, Barack Obama, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Justin Trudeau, Benjamin Netanyahu? Who do you consider abusive? Who do you consider inspiring?

In second and third place were Bill and Melinda Gates Cofounders, Gates Foundation, and The #MeToo Movement — cause trumps people.

Now, thinking about your daily life, if your CEO (or boss) did not have their granted title of authority, would you still admire, follow, and listen to him or her?

Fight, flight, or freeze? But few of us get to work with great leaders. We tend to work with leaders who need some improvement. With that in mind, if you are subjected to abusive power, Siegel says there are three things you can do: 1) commit ‒ you can join in; 2) comply – go along with it; or 3) fight it. Siegel notes that it is human nature to have a fight, flight, or freeze response to danger. And, an abusive boss is danger. When we think about today’s leaders and contrasting styles, who would you likely follow: Donald Trump, Angela

If you would not follow your boss, then he or she has authority, but no influence/power over you. My recommendation is that you take flight.

Rob Wyse is a leading publicist in the United States as well as a prolific writer. He is a top commentator on workplace issues and dysfunctional CEOs. Rob is also the managing director of Capital Content, a PR and marketing firm that develops issues-driven thought leadership and strategic communications campaigns.

LEADERS

DIGEST

Are You In Charge Of Your Employees’ Time? BY DR TOMMY WEIR

Are you wasting your teams’ time? Without realising it, you probably are. One of my first bosses used to say, “If you get your work done by Wednesday, you can go to Tahiti for all I care.” He wasn’t concerned with how I spent my time, as long as I delivered. It might seem like a fair way of working, but in truth, he should have been more concerned about how his employees spent their time. On the surface, his approach seemed rational and noble, but it was based upon a flawed understanding of time.

Time is a resource As a leader, when you employ a worker you are actually buying time. Of course, there’s a premium for employee knowledge, experience and ability, but in the end, it all boils down to time. That means you should concentrate on how every hour is spent and think of time like you do a financial budget. I’m sure you don’t spend your company’s money imprudently, yet when it comes to time, many of us treat it like an infinite resource. It’s not! Time is finite, just like a fiscal resource. My former boss should have never said, “You can go to Tahiti for all I care,”

nor should he have left his employees to manage their own schedules. That’s because employees are poor stewards of time. What I’ve shared before still holds true: out of the twenty-four strengths measured by the Character Strengths Survey, more than two million people confess that they are weakest at self-control. We think we use time wisely, when in reality, we unconsciously waste precious minutes, which accumulate into hours, days and even weeks every year. The other reason my then-employer should have chosen his words more carefully is this: If I could have completed my work by Wednesday, then that means I had the capacity to accomplish at least 20% more every week.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 15

Worker autonomy The notion of allowing your employees to work when, where and how they want is a reversal of the principles of scientific management and is rooted in the worker autonomy movement that began in the 1970s. While designed to give employees greater independence, the worker autonomy movement also ushered in a decline in labour productivity. Proponents of the movement believed that greater freedom would boost productivity, but in fact the opposite occurred.

Given the freedom to manage their time, employees produced less goods or services per hour, not more. 16

Issue 25 | March 2019

No multiple ‘best ways’

My question to you is: “Do you manage time? Or, do you operate with the same sentiment as my former boss?”

It seemed both logical and correct that removing the heavy hand of management and giving employees more freedom to perform in line with key performance indicators (KPIs) would lead to better results.

His approach sounds right and feels right to many people, but it’s wrong. Most leaders think in terms of employee numbers, when they should be focusing on the hours they’re responsible for.

In reality, however, focusing solely on KPI-based performance does not reflect what companies really need from their employees and, with workers left to their own devices, productivity slides.

A single employee works almost 2,000 hours per year – a figure that too many leaders appear unaware of. Yet, one that no organisation can afford to ignore.

In fact, worker autonomy has in many ways landed us right back where we started out more than a century ago. That is, grappling with the question of how to get the most of out a workforce comprised of individuals doing what they want, when they want and how they want.

You are the steward of time As both history and logic have taught us, it simply isn’t possible to have multiple ‘best ways’ of getting a job done.

You’re a steward of time and are responsible for not wasting it, both at the employee and company levels. Unintentionally, you’ve probably become complicit in time-wasting, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. Take control of the hours you’re responsible for. If you do, your employees will thank you for it and you’ll find yourself on the path to productivity growth.

A thinker, speaker, and writer to the core, Dr. Tommy holds a doctorate in strategic leadership from Regent University and is the founder of EMLC where he is the region’s leading CEO Coach.

LEADERS

DIGEST

Want More Innovation? Give More Freedom! BY MICHAEL E. KOSSLER

Grant Gatsby III stood looking out the window of his sprawling, highrise office. From the 52nd floor he could see the beauty of the city spread out before him. But today, Grant was in no mood to take-in the vista. He had just reviewed several company reports including sales and marketing. They all contained the same bad news … competition was killing his company. Compounding the problem was the fact that the new products the company had in the pipeline were a couple of years away from being launched. How was the company going to compete? How was it going to survive? How should Grant lead it?

Grant is not alone in facing the scenario described above. Many of the world’s storied companies, like GE, are stumbling today and only 54 of the original 1955 Fortune 500 companies are still in business(1). Welcome to the Open Source Era, where information is ubiquitous, ideas represent currency and entrepreneurship is the dominant platform for business success. Competition is fierce, technology advances at breakneck speed, and, thanks to social media, people are more empowered to make employment choices than ever before.

these organisations built bureaucratic hierarchies which stifled, and in many cases, killed their ability to innovate. They fell victim to what I call the Three Dysfunctions of Bureaucracy:

One of the biggest problems facing companies like Grant’s is that they continue to operate like it is still 1955, when predictability and stability drove the need to maintain control in order to maximum efficiency. Over time

Can Grant’s company survive? Possibly, but not without a lot of hard work, which starts with shifting his corporate culture from one of command and control to one based upon Freedom Within a Framework.

1. Arrogance: no one knows as much as we do about … (that’s right, Kodak). 2. Ignorance: we know what our customers want … (you betcha, Sony Walkman). 3. Complacency: we’ll be okay … (sure you will, Blackberry).

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 17

What is Freedom Within a Framework? It’s an approach to creating a corporate culture that overcomes the Three Dysfunctions of Bureaucracy. As the title suggests, Freedom Within a Framework is based upon two essential elements, freedom, and an operating framework. Freedom, first and foremost, means trusting employees. It is about believing that if you treat your employees like fully formed adults and give them the latitude to think, make decisions, and act on behalf of the (business, company, organisation), they will do the right things. Framework means providing employees with a set of guidelines within which to work. Traditionally, these guidelines have taken the form of rigid, unyielding rules, policies, and procedures; all the bureaucratic trappings that stifle innovation. In the Open Source Era, it is more effective to build the guidelines around your organisation’s values (what’s important to us) and purpose (what are we trying to accomplish). When values and purpose become a living set of guidelines, they provide employees with a clear and positive sense of what

they can and cannot do, to support the better future the organisation wishes to create. Values and purpose, when clearly understood and embraced, provide employees with the tools they need to set priorities, make decisions, and take risks. Clarity of organisational values and purpose encourages and nourishes freedom when intentionally designed, communicated, and executed well. Developing a corporate culture based upon Freedom Within a Framework has several positive implications that can lead to greater innovation. It: •

Shifts the corporate mindset from policies and procedures to people, resulting in greater organisation agility and speed.

•

Reduces fear of failure and as a result, people are more willing to experiment and take risks on new ideas.

•

Builds greater levels of collaboration and teamwork. Employees are more willing to speak-up express their opinions, and share ideas.

Issue 25 | March 2019

1. Does my company’s culture support innovation? 2. Is my company’s culture based upon clear values and sense of purpose? 3. Do I hire people that fit the type of culture the company needs? 4. Do my employees make decisions based upon the company’s values and purpose? 5. Do my employees take responsibility for their actions? 6. Do I trust my employees? 7. Do I encourage employees to think independently? 8. Does my company minimize its policies and procedures? 9. Am I willing to let me employees take risks on behalf of the company? 10. Do I forgive employees who makes an honest mistake? The more Grant can answer “yes” to the above questions, the closer he is to building a company culture based upon freedom within a framework.

If Grant really wants his company

Photo by Clever Visuals on Unsplash

to survive, be more innovative, and successful, here are 10 questions he should ask himself:

LEADERS

DIGEST

Why Power Corrupts – And What To Do About It BY MARK LOVATT

Leaders are in terrible danger of depleting their moral reserves. Here’s why… BRITISH historian, Sir John Dalberg Acton, in his letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887 reads: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” History certainly bears this out. When people get into positions of power, they change—for the worse. We saw this with Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, the post-Mahatma Gandhi era in India, and a host of others.

Amongst our own friends and family, you may have witnessed this firsthand: people change from normal individuals to arrogant, self-centred and greedy little Napoleons when they are given power. It can be something as minor as becoming head of the residents’ committee or parent-teacher association, or as important as being appointed to a senior government position or head of a company. Why does this happen so consistently to us?

Power has an identity of its own

Power of position and status

As human beings, power has a strange effect on us. It is intoxicating, an addictive force which is both lifeenhancing and soul-destroying. Why is this? The answer is simple: we need power to live. And the more we have of it, the better life feels.

The power of money, fame, good looks, position or status, even where we live, they all add to our sense of security and well-being, convincing us that we can withstand the effects of the hostile forces of the environment in which we live and look forward to the future with confidence. That’s perfectly natural. However, power has an identity of its own. When we encounter it, it impacts and changes us. Think about how you feel when you encounter someone famous: overawed, a little nervous perhaps, or excited, or perhaps determined to play it cool, which is a reaction in itself. We get the same feeling when stepping into a Ferrari for the first time, or attending a gala event, or if we get to handle RM1mil in cash. Whatever happens, you can’t ignore it. It’s not always positive though. We soon turn nasty when someone Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 19

entrusted to them for the well-being of those around them and by whose faith they have been appointed. This may be a president, a chief executive officer (CEO), government minister or even military commander. Where such people are in charge, there is potential for good as the power they hold is put to use to bring positive changes to our world through the entities over which they have control.

Power of good looks

threatens the source of our well-being, and that grasping and holding on to what we want is a defining element of human behaviour, starting when we are small children and going on from there.

Strength of character

The ring is an allegory for power: corrupting those like Gollum who find it but are not prepared for its effects. Fortunately, Gandalf has the wisdom to know how to handle it and sees in Frodo the humility and strength of his character to carry the ring to its ultimate destruction.

In fact, we know that power has its own characteristics: anybody who works in power generation or electrical engineering will know that it has very specific qualities which must be managed and controlled for it to become a useful product rather than a destructive force.

Frodo becomes corrupt towards the end, but fate intervenes and Gollum takes it from him and in doing so falls to his death, carrying the ring with him to be destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom.

When excessive power flows through the cable that is not strong enough to handle it, the power destroys its own conduit, producing a meltdown. The same thing happens to human beings who are exposed to power without the necessary training and strength of character: it destroys their moral structure and it becomes a destructive force in its own right.

What is the best response to this?

This is what we call corruption. One of my favourite films is The Lord of the Rings (LOTR). The whole story is built around the ring that Bilbo Baggins holds in his possession, which he passes to his adopted nephew, Frodo.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LOTR tells us exactly what power can do to people. Witness the response of Boromir at the end of the first film when he sees the ring and tries to take it himself, with catastrophic results.

However, the opposite can also happen. When people, who lack the moral strength, needed to put power to work for the general good are placed in key positions, the results can be hugely destructive. In the corporate world, the collapse of Enron Corp serves as a salutary lesson as to what would happen when the dark side of human nature is freed, the controls are whittled down to nothing, and pride and greed have free rein. Friedrich Nietzsche called this element of human nature the “will to power”— something dangerous in human nature that shapes our identity and history. The reality is that when this “will to power” is left unchecked, corruption is the inevitable result. We have seen this across the developing world, for example in the Philippines in the 1970s under Ferdinand Marcos, Zimbabwe in the 2000s under Robert Mugabe, and Russia pretty much throughout its history.

Strength of character clearly has a role to play: humility, honesty and determination to act with justice form effective safeguards in an individual against the corrosive effects of unbridled power.

Powers to create & powers to destroy

When people of strong integrity take a position of high office, they understand that their role is to put to work the power that has been

Power of money

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 20

No nation is free of corruption. Witness the ugliness of the presidential race this year in the United States when great power is at stake. However, some countries have more advanced and effective systems for dealing with it than others. The impact can be severe. When people dominated by hunger for power take key positions in government and business, we see the tendering and procurement systems distorted to favour cronies and family members, dismantling of financial controls resulting in embezzlement and fraud, unqualified people appointed to key positions on the basis of relationship rather than competency, and all the other problems we are so familiar with.

Power of fame

This is often done by people who might well have led honest and honourable lives if they were kept out of positions of influence, but the effects of power were too much for them. Like an electrical system after a power surge, they are left with their moral character burnt away and their own souls blackened by the injustices they have perpetrated.

How can organisations protect themselves?

For any company to operate, power must be placed in the hands of decision makers for them to do their job and grow the business. The greater the level of governance, the more restrictions the executive has to work with, inhibiting their creativity and productivity and tying them up in bureaucratic red tape.

On the other hand, working without rules inevitably results in the ascendancy of the “will to power,” with fraud, embezzlement, exploitation and all the other evils that come with corruption taking over the company. So how do we deal with this? Two factors make the difference: 1.

We need to recruit, empower and promote people on the basis of their character as well as their competence.

Warren Buffett is famous for saying, “Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without (integrity), you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” Integrity is clearly critical for people in positions of power. So, developing the right assessment techniques to identify people with a strong commitment to moral principles such as honesty, truth and justice is a key step for organisations to take in ensuring they are promoting the right people. Interestingly, studies have shown that a person’s character and values are pretty much set by the age of seven. This means that people of working age who already have a tendency to lie, cheat and steal are unlikely to change, so ensuring that these people are identified and screened out of the promotional system helps keep the company in good shape. 2.

Ensure we have the right systems of guidance and accountability in our organisations.

Left to their own devices, even those with strong values can be corrupted if

the company’s stance is not clear and the temptation is big enough. Hence, having the mechanisms to ensure that wrong behaviour can be prevented, identified and dealt with at any level are crucial to ensure that even when temptation comes along, the right decisions are made. Here are a few measures that can build strength into the organisation and ensure its well-being is properly safeguarded: • Have clear rules, especially on risk areas such as gifts and hospitality • Set up internal reporting systems (including whistleblowing) so the people who are breaking the rules can be identified and dealt with quickly robust disciplinary • Adopt procedures so that wrongdoers can be ejected from the organisation • Have a watertight (and interferenceproof) tendering and procurement system • Make sure both your own people and the external parties they deal with know the rules

Parting thoughts

The fact is that leaders throughout history have been prone to corruption. There is no reason to think it will change much in our lifetime, so the best approach is to ensure that our institutions, governance structures, policies and procedures, and enforcement are strong enough to deal with the perpetual challenge. When this is done well, all that energy, creativity—and yes, power— are put to work for the benefit of our organisations, our families and our societies, then we’ll all be better for it.

Mark Lovatt is a thought leader and internationally recognised expert in the area of corruption and business integrity systems. He is a faculty member of Leaderonomics and CEO of Trident Integrity Solutions Sdn Bhd, working in Malaysia for a better corporate environment and an improved world for us all.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

Learning About What Truly DRIVEs People From Motivation 2.0 to Motivation 3.0

According to Pink, research in current times show that the change from “algorithmic” (a set of established rules used to get towards a fixed, predictable goal) to “heuristic” (creative problemsolving that has no set algorithm) approach means that Motivation 2.0 does not work anymore except in a small subset of situations. He lists seven reasons why this model of motivation no longer works: • Loss of intrinsic motivation when presented with rewards to make one work harder. • Loss of high performance because rewards diminish motivation. • Kills creativity by turning people’s viewpoints into myopic ones. • Ups unethical behaviour. • Crowds out good, intrinsic behaviour. • Increases addiction towards rewards. • Encourages short-term thinking.

Motivation upgrade BY SARA YEE

I have always been interested in the workings of the mind and the interesting changes that can be applied from research into the working world. When I came across Daniel H. Pink’s Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, I was intrigued by the concept that motivation is not what we perceive it to be. The “carrot and stick” method (i.e. the best way to motivate ourselves and others is with external rewards like money) does not work anymore (albeit it does in a specific set of situations) and motivation of your workforce are just different from what one thinks they should be. Motivation, to me, was something that I needed greatly in my life, because I jumped from project to project after losing interest in the previous ones. The reason, I soon figured out, was what the book’s main point was all about and of which I’ll discuss shortly. 22

Issue 25 | March 2019

Where the old software does work (somewhat) All is not lost for Motivation 2.0 though, as Pink touches on circumstances where it does work. When a particular task is routine and involves a more algorithmic approach, giving rewards can actually help boost productivity because routine tasks often do not have factors that are motivating. Thus, dangling a carrot in such instances work wonders. As always, this comes with conditions for them to achieve a higher rate of success: • Let your workers know why this is necessary.

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 22

• Acknowledge that the task is inherently boring. • Allow them to do the task however they want, as long as they get to the goal.

If that does not ring a bell, it’s the company responsible for the ubiquitous Post-it note, which, unsurprisingly, came into fruition through autonomous freedom.

In regards to this, Pink also acknowledges the “now that” rewards, given to intrinsically motivated goals, can be good.

Autonomy, at the heart of it, believes that people doing things in their own time means that they want to be accountable for it because of the freedom that they possess.

However, if you do it too often, people may begin to expect them and feel a sense of entitlement as well.

Type I vs Type X Type I (intrinsically motivated) and Type X (extrinsically motivated) are a rough breakdown of people; those who, once the baseline pay has been achieved, works solely on a higher purpose and the other, whom, as Pink puts it, “money is the table.” In the long run, those who lean towards Type I are the ones that would get ahead further in life. Type I’s are generally seen to be healthier, more motivated and are a renewable resource because selfmotivation towards a higher purpose does not require an extrinsic motivator.

The three elements of a type I person 1. Autonomy

2. Mastery Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, founder and co-director of the Quality of Life Research Centre, discovered the meaning of “flow.” It is a state in which people are completely lost in an activity, when they are in a pure state of concentration and passion.

Not only that, Pink suggests that companies should allocate some budget towards causes pertinent to their employees to improve their wellbeing. Think of it this way, it is not how much they spend but rather how they spend. My father came up with this wonderful example: If you were to lose RM50 versus giving away RM50 to a charity— essentially they have the same outcome—you are RM50 poorer, but which situation will you feel better about?

Concluding thoughts

Mastery, in a sense, is attained when one reaches the state of flow. One is completely absorbed into work so much so that one heads forth towards mastery because of it.

Motivation is not all it seems, and the old way of motivation has mainly slid into ineffectiveness because the current workforce is motivated by higher factors.

In the working environment, flow is, as Pink says, can be brought about by “Goldilocks tasks” i.e. tasks that are neither too hard nor too easy.

Despite this, there are still people who are more Type X driven, the ones who are driven by extrinsic motivators. According to a peer-reviewed article by Christopher Niemiec, Richard Ryan and Edward Deci, studies have shown higher rates of health issues with people who practise these.

The other one is applying the Sawyer Effect, something that turns work into play, by allowing even those stuck in the most mundane of tasks to find mastery by going beyond their job scope in their own time.

Autonomy is something that offers the exact opposite of what micromanagement does—employees are free to do what they want, when they want, as long as they get things done.

Pink notes the three laws of mastery as: • Mastery is a mindset. • Mastery is a pain. • Mastery is an asymptote.

That is extremely important in ensuring productivity yet still giving employees the freedom to work on their own terms.

Purpose is the final of the triumvirate and having that higher purpose can help to spur autonomous and masteryseeking people to greater heights. By seeking a higher sense of purpose, one would be more inclined towards going forward in an environment that is conducive for work. Motivation 3.0

Pink talks about the ever-famous “20% time” made popular by Google but pioneered by 3M’s William L. McKnight (he called it “experimental doodling”).

people say, “we,” and 2.0s say “they.” See the difference?

Even if you cannot change right away, taking small steps will help you go towards your purpose and into better mastery and autonomy of the art of motivation. The final section of the book includes a Type I toolkit for self-practise.

3. Purpose

Sara firmly believes that learning is a two-way process between a student and a teacher, and that everyday heroes are just as important as superheroes.

Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

Key Aspects of Sustainable Leadership Development and Succession in Organisations BY YBHG TAN SRI ABDUL WAHID OMAR

On 18 February 2019, the Leadership Institute of Sarawak Civil Service organised an Executive Talk where YBhg Tan Sri Abdul Wahid Omar shared on Sustainable Leadership Development and Succession. Here is an excerpt of his sharing:

Select the right leaders for our respective organisations

Many people have been asking, what does it take to be a good and sustainable leader? To my mind, beyond working hard and working smart, there are three prerequisites to becoming a good and sustainable leader; Unquestionable Integrity; Competency; and Humility. Integrity is about “doing the right thing even when no one is watching”. A competent leader with unquestionable integrity and who works very hard will enjoy a reputation that will precede him. Competency is about having the necessary knowledge and skills to do the job well. Humility is about treating people with mutual respect, about staying grounded to our roots and about being cognisant that we all serve a greater purpose in life 24

Issue 25 | March 2019

rather than our self-interest. Humility is also about knowing that you don’t know everything and that you need teamwork to succeed.

Establish a proper succession planning and talent review process to cover key positions

For large organisations, it is not enough to plan for the CEO and CEO1 positions; even CEO-2 and CEO-3 positions should also be considered. For each position, identify 3 potential candidates, their state of readiness (whether Ready Now, within 2 years or 3 years or 5 years) and what is the intervention required to prepare them to succeed the incumbent. For such succession planning efforts to be successful, it has to be driven from the top i.e. by the Board and Management

alike. Best practice is for Management to conduct a talent review session twice a year.

Strike a right balance between internal talent and external hires

I personally believe in nurturing our internal talent or to 'grow your own timber'. This is important to provide employees with good career progression opportunities. However, it is also important to bring in external talent from time to time to refresh the organisation and bring in external perspectives. My hypothesis is that all things being equal, one in every four or five senior positions should be filled externally. That means 75%-80% of positions to be filled by internal promotions.

LEADERS

DIGEST

...from Page 24

The need for rejuvenation

While long serving CEOs provide stability to the organisation, there is also the risk of the leader and his organisation slipping into complacency. I believe there is enough empirical evidence to suggest the performance of many companies whose CEOs have been at the helm for more than 10 years would not be as good as the CEO's performance in the first 10 years. Therefore, I subscribe to the belief that as a rule of thumb, no one should be in the same position for more than ten years, whether as a head of department or a CEO. If he or she is good, then give him or her a bigger role or give him or her the opportunity to lead a bigger organisation. I am therefore in favour of imposing time limits on the tenure of CEOs and Board members. This will instil greater discipline on the CEOs to identify and prepare his successor. Of course, there are exceptions to the rule but they need to be appropriately justified.

The need for Diversity

I always believe in diversity as a source of strength for any organisation. Diversity in terms of skills, gender, ethnicity, age and even nationality for multinational organisations. Organisations that embrace diversity tend to perform better and more sustainably. I am encouraged that most public listed companies have heeded the call for greater gender diversity at the Board level. We now have women as the Chairperson of important institutions such as BNM, PNB, Bursa Malaysia and MARA. This shows that there is no glass ceiling for women in Malaysia. For public listed companies, the time has come for such diversity to be broadened further to cover ethnic and age diversity not just at the Board level but also at Management level too.

Be conscious of the "AffinityFavouritism-Cronyism-Prejudice Continuum"

Speaking of diversity, some organisations get very defensive when we highlight on the lack of diversity in their organisations. They would immediately claim that everything is based on merit. Well, we are all human beings and it is only natural for us to have affinity towards people from the same school, university, profession, State, clan, ethnicity, religion, and nationality. For example, I studied at MRSM Seremban and I have great affinity towards former MRSM students. But if we do not contain our affinity, it can easily become favouritism. And if you don't control it further, it will become cronyism. Eventually, it may even result in being prejudice. I have worked in an organisation where a large number of the CEOs in the Group were from the same school. I have also come across a Kuala Lumpur-based company where a significantly large proportion of the senior management members were from the same state. In such a situation, you may be depriving your organisation of quality talent to propel your organisation forward. At the same time, you may be depriving deserving candidates the opportunity to excel in their career. So, it is useful for us to be conscious of the diversity in our organisation (or department) and ensure we do not practice favouritism nor cronyism.

Giving the young people the opportunity to lead

I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to be the CEO of UEMRenong Group when I was 37 years old. Dato' Abdul Rahman Ahmad was 32 when he was appointed as CEO of MRCB. Likewise Tan Sri Mohd Bakke Mohd Salleh (35), Dato' Seri Che Khalib Mohamad Noh (33), Dato' Shahril Ridza Ridzuan (32), Tan Sri Azman Yahya (30), Datoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Mohammed Azlan Hashim (32) and many others were given the opportunity to be CEOs in their 30s and

early 40s. Yet many of us now regard executives in their 30s and 40s as being too young to be CEOs. I have even come across some Board members opposing the appointment of someone as CEO for being too young. That CEO was 50 years old! The time has come for us to renew our commitment to nurture future leaders and have the courage to give some talented young managers, with the prerequisites of being a good leader of course, the opportunity to lead an organisation as CEO.

The need to develop quality leaders in sufficient quantity

Many organisations complain about how their managers and executives are being poached by competitors and other organisations. I tend to take a more liberal view on this. Surely it is quite flattering when other organisations regard the people you have trained as being good and talented. So, instead of complaining, what if you were to hire and train more people so that you will still have enough people even after half of the people you have trained left you after say ten years? These people whom you have trained will be your ambassadors and reference points in the future.

About the speaker: YBhg. Tan Sri Abdul Wahid Omar was appointed as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the National University of Malaysia on 1 November 2018. He is regarded as one of the most versatile corporate leaders in Malaysia having successfully led four major organisations in infrastructure development, telecommunications, financial services and investment management. He served as Group Chairman of Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), Malaysia's largest fund management company, from August 2016 to June 2018 following completion of his term as a Senator and Minister in the Prime Ministerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Department in charge of Economic Planning from June 2013 to June 2016. Issue 25 | March 2019

LEADERS

DIGEST

Mental Blocks in Developing KPIs BY SEGAREN

MENTAL BLOCK 1:

Brainstorming to come up with KPIs When you brainstorm KPIs, you end up with too many, not enough, things that aren’t really KPIs and a very shallow understanding of exactly how you will measure them. Instead, you need to design KPIs deliberately so that they are convincing evidence of the goal or result you want to measure.

MENTAL BLOCK 2:

Measuring because you can, or already are The reason to measure something isn’t because you have existing data and can measure it easily. The reason to measure is that you need to know something very specific about how well, or to what degree, you are achieving a particular goal or performance result. Only measure what you should, can and will do something about.

MENTAL BLOCK3:

Trying to measure effectiveness, efficiency, productivity, sustainability Embarking on the task of finding the right KPI to measure effectiveness will be a frustrating journey into Weasel World, that place where words lack meaning, or mean 17 different things to five different people. Don’t try measuring any goal or performance result that is written with weasel words until you talk about what those words specifically mean in the Real World.

MENTAL BLOCK 4:

Saying “that’s not measurable!” If you think a goal or performance result isn’t measurable, then there’s a good chance it also isn’t observable. If 26

Issue 25 | March 2019

you can’t observe in some manner or form whether or not a goal has been reached, then you don’t have a goal. Goals are about changing the world in some way, and if you can’t define that change in observable and measurable ways, your goals need more work before you should bother about measures.

MENTAL BLOCK 5:

Not measuring something because you don’t have the data How will you ever get the data you really need, the data about the goals and performance results that matter most, if you keep refusing to measure something because that data doesn’t already exist? When you separate the act of designing the right measures from the act of deciding how feasible those measures are to implement, you give yourself the chance to see that often the data is easier to get than you first thought, or at least worth the effort.

MENTAL BLOCK 6:

Setting milestones as KPIs Milestones are statements about having completed something by a particular time. They’re very appropriate in project management, but next to useless in performance management. Just getting something done isn’t evidence that is produce the desired result or that performance is improving. Just because you implemented a new inventory management system doesn’t guarantee that inventory management costs have reduced.

improve performance without blame – and using measures to improve process improvement is a great way to establish this culture – measuring people will always cause more problems than it solves.

MENTAL BLOCK 8:

Measuring too many things If you have too much of anything, it overwhelms you. Too many things to do and you’re exhausted and don’t do any of them particularly well. Too much to think or worry about you’re stressed and emotionally burned out. Too many KPIs or performance measures, and your attention is fractured and no area of performance will improve significantly, if at all. Once more, only measure what you should, can and will do something about.

MENTAL BLOCK 9:

Ignoring measures that aren’t perfect While it is important that your KPIs don’t mislead you, most people still tend to err on the side of caution and not use any measures that are based on the data that isn’t perfect, or measures that don’t tell the full story. As long as the measures aren’t severely biased, their reliability can be far less than perfect and still provide you with actionable information, particularly information about trends or shifted in performance.

TAKE ACTION

MENTAL BLOCK 7:

Do you know how to change a bad habit?

More people complain about being measured than rejoice. And it’s either because the measurement is being done poorly or the real purpose of measurement is poorly understand. Until you have a culture where performance measures are used to

You find a habit to replace it with, and you practice that new habit everyday for at least 30 days. By then, the new habit will replace the old one. You might like to choose one of your bad KPI habits and decide on something simple & practical you can do everyday to break it & establish a far better one.

Measuring to monitor people’s performance rather than process performance

LEADERS

DIGEST

4 BARRIERS TO STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION VISION

PEOPLE

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

In most organisations, only 5% of the workforce understand their organisations’ strategy.

Occurs when majority of personnel do not have their personal objectives linked to the organisation’s objectives.

Occurs when an organisation does not allocate time, energy, and money to the process that they have identified as crucial to achieving their strategy.

One of the most basic reasons why organisations fail to execute their strategy is the lack of management focus.

Most have no idea how they personally affect this vision. Balanced Scorecard (BSC) allows all members of the organisation to know what they can do to achieve the strategy.

In most organisations, only 25% of managers have incentives linked to strategy. This silo mentality allows individuals to focus solely the performance of their small group rather than on the success of the entire organisation.

Most organisations do not link their budgets to their strategy, hence the energy of the organisation goes to solving short term problems rather than achieving strategic objectives.

85% of executive teams spend less than one hour/month discussing strategy. Strategy is the framework around which all other activity should take place. BY SEGAREN

The Person Who Suggests Always Seems to Get The Job BY SEGAREN

You’re in a management meeting. The main items of the agenda have been discussed and they are on to the ‘other matters’ part of the meeting. Xavier, the IT manager puts up his hand and makes the following statement, “Mr. Chairman (the MD), I wish to bring to your attention to the appalling state of the parking system in the company. Presently, there are not enough parking spaces for cars let alone motorbikes especially in our branch. The sign posting is also bad such that I have received many complaints from the vendors and visitors. I think something should be done about this.” The chairman nod and replies, “I agree with you on this Xavier, the present system is bad. Since you’ve brought this matter up, I am now appointing you to do a comprehensive study of the parking system and to come up with some effective solutions. I would appreciate it if the task can be completed in two weeks time to be tabled at our next manager’s meeting.” Xavier then sits down perplexed and unhappy, amid the laughter of the others in the meeting room. The above scenario sound familiar doesn’t it? In this article, we would like to discuss about a very common

management phenomenon; the person who suggests always seems to get the job.

SOME POSSIBLE WAYS OUT OF THIS DILEMMA:

3. REWARD Organise and manage a suggestion scheme in the organisation properly. A little reward will usually assist greatly, encouraging people to give innovative ideas.

1. APPOINT THE RIGHT PERSON

4. PRAISE INSTEAD OF

Always appoint the right person to be responsible rather than the person who suggested. For example, if it is a car park problem, then it should be the facilities manager rather than the IT guy who has to tackle the problem.

Finally, praise those who make good suggestions or bring up good issues rather than ‘punishing’ them with the burden to always do the job just because he suggested those ideas.

2. ANALYSE THE ISSUE FURTHER BEFORE TAKING ACTIONS When good suggestions are made, sometimes it will be good for the superior to not take immediate action, but to look into the matter first. After few days, he could bring up the matter again, but this time appoint the right person to tackle the problem. In this way, there will be no conflict between the person who suggested and the one who has to do it.

PUNISH

“An idea that is developed and put into action is more important than an idea that exists only as an idea” ~Ashleigh Brilliant

Segaren is the Chief Operating Officer at Leadership Institute of Sarawak Civil Service. Issue 25 | March 2019

Building Leaders of Excellence

LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE OF SARAWAK CIVIL SERVICE KM20, JALAN KUCHING SERIAN,SEMENGGOK, 93250 KUCHING, SARAWAK. 082-625166 Photo by Megan Menegay on Unsplash

082-625766

info@leadinstitute.com.my www.leadinstitute.com.my