Following the conference I was able to visit Auschwitz with a small party from the internal team – and I was to experience ‘emotionally connected leadership’ – much to my surprise!

Our guide, Marcin, engaged with us from the outset. He checked our needs, checked that we could understand his use of English (no need it was absolutely first class) and provided us with some context before we began. He creates a lovely story, as you would expect of a guide, creating for some of us a vivid picture and understanding and from the outset his knowledge and the way he conveyed this were outstanding. His expertise was obvious – however his capabilities went well beyond expertise.

One of our small party has an almost unregulated extraverted sensing preference. If she has a question in her head, she verbalises it – and her questions are all concrete, practical data driven – “Is this the surface that was here at the time?”, “What is that building there?” “What is that made from?” etc. As those familiar with this preference may know the end result is that it breaks the speaker’s ability to tell their story as it constantly changes the point of reference and takes over the agenda. Marcin’s job just got appreciably harder.

Showing no frustration (at least for the first couple of hours) Marcin would calmly answer the tangential questions and try to resume with his story for the rest of us. As the volume of questions increased he cleverly stopped at various points and told us “This building will be self explanatory – and will require no questions” allowing everybody some quiet and contemplation.

Auschwitz does of course provoke strong emotions and a couple of times these became very powerful for people in our group. Marcin was clearly demonstrating a contact with each person, monitoring their reaction, yet not attempting to either draw attention to anybody, nor to manage their feelings for them. At one point one of our group stepped out when a particular room became too much and somebody else started to worry about where she was and wanted to go off and find her. Calmly Marcin said that she had just stepped out and he was sure she would join us at a moment which was appropriate for her. There was no need for drama or drawing attention to people’s feelings, merely an acknowledgement of them and leaving people free to experience whatever was occurring for them. No condescending ‘are you alright’ or words of consolation from Marcin. Just deep respect for people and their feelings – empathy not sympathy.

Whilst my colleagues took a photo opportunity I had a moment to ask Marcin “How can you do this everyday?” His reply superbly summed him up. “You must have empathy for what you are doing and who you are with, however you still need to remain a bit detached so as to function well yourself.” He not only spoke about it – it was evidenced in abundance by his behaviour. Marcin next time I’m at a conference in Krakow I need to take you along as living proof of ‘Emotionally connected leadership’ – I thank him for his time and demonstration.

When the researchers asked 600 managers from dozens of companies what they thought would be the most important factor that would motivate others they rated ‘recognition for good work (either public or private)’ as the highest element. What actually made a difference to these knowledge workers was ’support for making progress’ - the factor the managers rated lowest! The biggest demotivators were their managers impending progress by changing goals autocratically, being indecisive or holding up resources - these all created negative emotions - which have a longer lasting effect than positive ones.

Of course we are not advocating that you withhold recognition! What the research seems to suggest is that recognition is an important factor, however when dealing with knowledge workers asking yourself the question “What can I do to help him or her keep making progress - or at the very least what do I need to stop getting in their way?”, is likely to be a motivating factor - without the need for big financial bonuses. And do remember a pat on the back from you will be completely worthless to me if I feel you are holding up my projects and stopping my progress!

Employees’ attitudes to senior managers should ring the most alarm bells for employers. Only about a third of employees say they trust or have confidence in their senior managers and just a quarter agree their organisation’s directors consult them about important decisions. Employees’ negative perceptions of consultation is an issue that has got worse over the four quarterly surveys and is likely to be one of the reasons for the lack of trust and confidence among staff in their leaders. This begs the question - Why should I follow you? Sure I may need to do what you say due to your position but as far as committing myself fully and putting my heart and soul into it - why should I - and what would make me more likely to follow you? 

The US Professional Service Firms guru David Maister cites a series of unspoken tests people subject you to before deciding whether to follow you or not. Whilst he describes a specific type of culture, the fee generating partnership, I’ve found that leaders in many industries can relate to these tests and there relevance more generally. The tests are about your motives, your values, your competence and your behaviours. Click on the picture to listen to David - and consider what this means for you - right now, and as you build your reputation in the future.

For the link to this TED talk film  roll over image and click

If it poses questions that you want to explore, please either post a reply or send me an e-mail and we can have some dialogue about it.

I often use a Muhammed Ali quote on our leadership programmes

            “The fight is won far away from witnesses - behind the lines, in the gym and out on the road, long before I dance under the lights”

His thought was that your performance directly reflected the preparation you have put in - obvious no? Not for many managers - at work or indeed in sport. Englands U21 football (or soccer to all my colleagues I’ve been working with in the US) team reached the European final after a penalty shoot out with Sweden - having lost to Holland at the same stage 2 years ago - on a penalty shoot out.

The England manager, Stuart Pearce, spoke of practising penalties at training at most sessions for the last two years to make sure the same didn’t happen again. When the shoot out began the England players looked uncharacteristically confident as they stepped up to take their shots. In a radical departure to normal practices Joe Hart,  the goalkeeper, took England’s second penalty and scored easily. Goalkeepers are rarely asked to take penalties - yet they kick a still football more than any other player on the pitch. It was no surprise that a well prepared England went through - or was it?

What made the difference ?    The TV studio analyst was Alan Curbishley, former manager of the wonderful West Ham in the English premiership.  Alan’s response staggered me - ” Luck - perhaps it was the law of averages - you must win won sooner or later”. Now despite the fact that you have a 50/50 chance of winning each time on a shoot out - the odds don’t improve the more times you take it (a classic thinking flaw), surely this esteemed manager didn’t think that the preparation was pointless? Well what did the Sweden coach think - who didn’t spend much time with his team preparing for penalties. 

 “We practised yesterday, but I don’t believe in practising them because it is 90 per cent mental and 10 per cent technical,” Jörgen Lennartsson, the Sweden co-coach, said. “If Marcus Berg had practised 2,000 kicks, I don’t think that would have made any difference to whether he scored today.”

Golfing great Gary Player famously remarked “The more I practise the luckier I get”.  Lennartsson and Curbishley both miss the fact that mental preparation is not time wasted and superflous - it is a key ingredient in being successful. How many times do you see people only brushing up on their technical skills - and not getting the overall result they need? Mental preparation, as Lennartsson labelled it, involves working out how you will channel your energies, keep your focus and use your skills to the full under pressure - surely a crucial element in taking pressure kicks? Getting the appropriate attitude to allow you to exhibit your technical skills.

Along with my colleagues I see many managers who honestly believe they are so gifted that practising and adapting are things they can always do in the spotlight and be successful. They hold difficult performance conversations without thinking through what they want to say, how they will create the right environment etc.  They rely on one off influence attempts and charm or aggression to get them what they want - there are a plethora of scenarios where a considered and thought through approach, and managing their own attitudes, may well get them a different result. We see some achieve to a degree -then when they fail or bump against bigger obstacles they blame their luck - or politics or something else, not their own intransigence.

Be lucky - put the time in ‘at the gym and on the roads’. That is why leadership development programmes and coaching are valuable time - they allow you to reconsider your approach, develop options and consider alternatives. Peer coaching and time jointly considering issues with colleagues also provides this. Alternatively concentrate purely on your technical skills - and the law of averages!

Recent research by The Centre for Creative Leadership, exploring the leadership skills most needed looking ahead suggests that the top leadership skills needed are collaboration, leading change, building effective teams and influence without authority. Brown also talks about his need to learn and keep learning to make the most of the strengths he already has - as most of us do. Contrast this with the positive headline in the Times for President Obama

President Obama’s speech in Cairo set a welcome tone of respect and empathy

During tough times people need competent leaders who can focus on the bottom line and results, however they also need leaders who can connect, have empathy and give hope to others - all competencies from the emotional intelligence domain and where Obama seems to posses natural strengths. Organisations (and individual managers) who ignore these things during hard times have a danger of creating problems for the future. I remember you when the chips were down and when a connection with you was needed, not when times were smooth and unflustered.

Connecting with people is an absolute key facet of leadership - and one that many managers and leaders need to focus more on as their impact seldom matches their intention - and people judge us on our impact on them - not what we may have intended. I’ve just had the pleasure of working with some gifted high potential directors in increasing their capacity to increase their connection with others.  Mr Brown may well have left his learning far too late…will you do the same?

Being aware of our impact on others and how that effects the way they treat you, is seen by some of our clients as merely being political and inauthentic. Our stance would be that this is far from the case. If we don’t monitor the impact we make on others and make modifications, how can we expect to be consistently successful? As with Susan Boyle, we may one day be seen for what we can really offer - if we are fortunate. If this doesn’t happen we can spend all our time blaming others for not recognising our gifts. If we only have one style it will provide success in some scenarios (usually where others are similar to us), but deprive us of broader influence and impact on others. Avoid being like Nooral, Susan and many managers - fully use your capabilities by monitoring the footprint you leave in your dealings with others, and notice where you consciously need to project something different to enable others to take you seriously - then do so in a way that still feels authentic for you.

Enjoy Susan’s moment of triumph and be inspired - and think about who you may have written off!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY

James made the common error of mistaking enthusiasm and energy for the task with capability -  which nearly led him to be fired.  James left Ben with his sub-team to create the prototype with the designers, with no rigourous challenge of his ideas and without checking the finalproduct. The groups enthusiasm led them to move away from the instruction they had received of ‘keep it simple’ to add pieces of extra equipment to the initial idea - which led to the product resembling a poor quality electric chair rather than a ‘must buy’ item. 

When the prototype was produced the next day the design group were ecstatic, and Ben had somehow surpassed his own expectations! James looked crestfallen and his face was a complete contrast as he saw the consequences of not being more involved. If James had just considered a simple, basic leadership model such as the skill/will matrix, or any situational leadership model, he would have realised that delegating is not a style to use when the person concerned does not have the capability required. Doing so only sets them up to fail - and the leader is responsible for that. Ben’s energy and ideas needed challenged, given boundaries and blending with other points of view and input. He needed a much closer monitoring and check on what he was doing - as will be the case when somebody is enthused but new to a task - especially if they believe they have more expertise than they actually possess.

We all have a natural preference towards some styles and find others less confortable - witness Debra’s leadership of the competing team in the same episode where her only current options seem to be directive and confrontational. Her team member leading the pitch clearly required some coaching, a style which seemed removed from Debra’s radar.

Effective managers have to be able to mould their style and need some initial self awareness of their own style preferences, and an awareness of what others options exist - and under which circumstances to use these styles. My colleague Paul Taylor, a situational leadership advocate who with me has worked with hundreds of managers on adapting their styles, talks about the styles being ‘easy to understand, much harder to operate in practice’. If managers do not spend time on learning these thoroughly enough and trying them out, when the pressure is on - as it was for James  - the default style will take over, and you take the consequences. Enjoy this displayed most weeks on the Apprentice - but take some lessons yourself - we can all be lured into using the same syles time and again without noticing when we need to operate differently.

Those colleagues of mine who are familiar with the Shackleton story of Antarctic exploration will know the importance he placed on fun and enjoyment as an antidote to their stressful and potentially fatal situation. Should play be part of what we bring to work? Are there times when indulging in a playful attitude and bringing that sense of fun and exploration to your work is essential? We believe bringing a playful spirit to our leadership development is an essential part of the development process (which does not mean forcing people to play!) and energises people – a key element of leadership.

See what Dr Stuart Brown has found about play  - and consider would it assist you to bring more playfulness to your day, for your own benefit and for those around you.
http://snipurl.com/playbrain

I’d be keen on your thoughts.