2.30pm – Spanish venison

3.00pm – Salmon mousse

3.30pm – Paua ravioli

4.00pm – Mini festive pies

4.30pm – Beef sliders and pulled lamb

5.00pm – Lemon cheesecakes

This was our family’s 2012 Christmas meal.  The 10 people at the table all stated it was the best Christmas meal they have ever had.  So what does this have to do with Leadership or even organisational performance?  Well, it turns out a lot.

 This meal wasn’t conceived, cooked and served in the traditional way.  There was no single ‘cook’ who ran the show, took all the risk and all the glory.  Rather it was a truly distributed team effort where everyone got to be a leader and control a small dish, or to be a hero – as it worked out!.  This is something I think we can learn from at work.

 The traditional method of one Christmas cook who runs the show creates a single point of success and failure.  Sure there is often delegation of tasks like ‘peeling the potatoes’ or making the gravy but the meal is all about one person.  Everyone benefits from eating a great meal but the risks are many.  One person is very stressed on Christmas day; the meal is ruined if the Turkey is overdone, and missing ingredients can make it all fall apart.  Worse, these risks often stop anything new and innovative (read ‘tasty’) getting tried.

 However distributing the job where everyone gets to prepare and serve an entree sized dish simultaneously decreases risk and increases innovation.  We had six different dishes – who cares if one was bad?  Everyone wanted to impress so brought their A game to the table.  The result was an amazing, innovative and very tasty feast.  Best of all, everyone got to be a hero and share in the glory of their dish in the process making the meal more memorable.

 Don’t think it was easy though.  The feast was my wife’s vision and she got serious resistance.  “But what about the meat?”,  “Errr will we have roasties?”, “OK but I’ll bring desert as well”…  What inspired me was how she overcame these issues.  It went along the lines of, “Everyone is doing a dish, one dish, if you want that then make it, we will have an amazing meal”.  She didn’t try to convince them of the merits of the idea or even defend it.  She was all about action and proving through doing.  The only management that was required was to make sure that two people didn’t cook the same thing!  This really struck home for me when I reflected on how many times I’ve tried to explain and sell new ideas at work rather than just show them.

 I believe this feast is directly comparable to how we should seek to lead and manage organisations today.  We have a large number of highly skilled and capable people but generally manage them like a traditional Christmas meal through single people and single points of failure.  The truth is that this approach is even more costly in our organisations than with Christmas meals.

• Researchers have shown that autonomy and recognition are some of the fundamental drivers of human motivation – why not tap into this more?
• Innovation and new ideas to build better organisations are held back by the risk created due to limited skill sets of centralised leadership cultures and practices.  This needs to change.
• Many of today’s organisational problems are too complex to solve with just one or two people.  However people working autonomously towards a shared end can.

 OK – so how do I put this idea in action?

Please contribute your own ideas in the comments below, but here are a few to get you started.

• Set a clear and vivid vision for your organisation/team/group but don’t plan in detail
• When leading and managing imagine yourself as an architect rather than a builder
• Facilitate rather than direct when you delegate – this means giving real autonomy over how people choose to do chunks of work
• Break and challenge convention – whenever you or someone else says “this is how it has always been done”, look for another way
• Focus on doing rather than explaining what you will do.  The best mandate comes from results
• Celebrate and recognise the results that emerge

 Have fun and enjoy your next family feast!

Well, that’s exactly what Shawn Achor suggests – that after a decade of research, “happiness raises nearly every business and educational outcome: raising sales by 37%, productivity by 31%, and accuracy on tasks by 19%, as well as a myriad of health and quality-of-life improvements.”

Righto. So now we just get happy, and then we’ll reap the rewards? How do we go about that then? In his book, The Happiness Advantage, Shawn Achor encourages his readers to practice happiness. Such as writing down things you’re grateful for, exercising 10 minutes a day, and thanking people within your social circle. But Achor found the single biggest predictor of happiness to be perceived social support. So people who feel they have lots of support around  them, were more likely to be happier.

But here’s the rub. People who gave out a lot of social support were also happier. And not just a little happier. They were 10 times more engaged at work and had a 90% higher likelihood of promotion over the following four years. So if you play a role in making other people happier then you’re also better off?

It seems so. In a project designed to find out what makes a good boss, Google found that having time for people – by making a connection and being accessible – was the key to being a good leader. Project Oxygen collected over 10,000 observations on Google managers, and found that managers who made time for other people had a greater impact on how employee’s felt about their job and their performance than any other factor. The best managers had teams that perform better, retained better and were happier.  This coming from even-keeled bosses who made time for one-on-one meetings asked questions and took an interest in people’s lives and careers.

So, instead of waiting for happiness to hit once x, y or z occurs, maybe we should try kick-starting our own happiness cycle? Using Shawn Achor’s tips to practice being happy, along with providing social support and connecting with others, let’s see what impact we can play not only on other’s happiness, but also our own. I’m certainly going to give it a try.

More on Shawn Achor in HBR here and here.

Perhaps the reason a lot of leadership training doesn’t create transformational changes in the people that go on the training, is because their development is seen as laying in someone else’s hands – an approach where the assumption is that all leaders are facing the same challenges, and they are ‘pushed’ information they ‘need to know’.

Nick speculates that the ‘pull’ approach, where participants pull information relevant to their needs (as in the JumpShift approach), is a better way to develop leaders.

See more of Nick’s blog here.

Gardner identified seven main types of intelligence, but emphasised that his list was by no means complete. The initial two are those most frequently recognised as academic intelligence, while the next three are generally seen as arts-related, and the remaining two Gardner saw as ‘personal intelligences’.

1. Linguistic intelligence: words and language – writers, poets, lawyers and speakers
2. Logical-Mathematical intelligences: logic and numbers – scientific and mathematical thinking
3. Musical intelligence: music, sound, rhythm – musicans and dancers
4. Bodily-Kinaesthetic intelligence: body movement and control – sportspeople
5. Spatial-Visual intelligence: images and space – potential to recognise and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas
6. Interpersonal intelligence: other people’s feelings – educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors
7. Intrapersonal intelligence: self-awareness – capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one’s feelings, fears and motivations

Gardner’s ‘multiple intelligences’ are another example of where we cannot assume that intelligence or ‘strengths’ all look the same. They come in many different forms, and can also change depending on the context you are working in.

The way we draw our own conclusions about something is often fairly quick and can seem obvious (to us, at least!) The Ladder of Inference outlines the process or shortcuts we use in coming to a conclusion.

Often we don’t go through all these steps in methodical detail ourselves. However, when you are trying to understand others’ conclusions and viewpoints, it is often very useful to go through what their steps may have been.

So the Ladder of Inference starts at the bottom with reality – that’s all our available data and experience. Then moving up the ladder, because we don’t necessarily have mental encyclopedias for brains, (and may have forgotten some things over the years), or some things just stand out more, we generally only consider the most salient stuff. Next, we take from all this data and experience (that we remember!) and interpret and make assumptions about the situation at hand. Finally we draw that ‘obvious’ conclusion!

The trouble is, you only make the final step public. Steps 1, 2 and 3 are not necessarily so clear to everyone else around you. This model therefore can give you a guideline if others don’t get behind your conclusion. Before you jump to the ‘Why can’t they see what is clearly obvious – are they stupid?’ conclusion - advocate for your viewpoint by going down the ladder and make your steps clearer to them.

The same goes for understanding others’, or jumping to the ‘What are they thinking?’ conclusion – enquire as to their thinking by moving up the ladder to try to understand how they got to their conclusion. For example, what is the reality we all agree on? Check assumptions – this is how I interpreted this – how about you?

Real problems can happen as these conclusions that we come to often inform our beliefs and then our actions. Thinking about the process and shortcuts you use can really help make things better understood all round. And remember – when you assume, you make an ‘ass’ of ‘u’ and ‘me’.

For a great three page article, read here or get a few examples that bring it to life, check here.

Speaking up is important because any information that is discussed by a group will have a key influence on any final decsion. Makes sense right? If, as a group, you talk about Nigel’s objections to a course of action, then you may decide to hold off a couple of months. You agree – Nigel made some good points.

However, the reverse is also true. Say Nigel doesn’t speak up about his concerns that the given course of action means his team will have to put on hold a much more important project. Information that is considered by an individual member, but not mentioned will have little impact on the eventual decision. The awareness of groups is bounded by information that becomes part of the discussion.

This is especially important as generally the reason groups are bought together is for the express purpose of pooling information! What generally what happens however, according to the research, is that groups focus on shared information, that is, information that is already shared by all the members, rather than on unique or unshared information.

How can you mitigate this and make sure people have the ability to speak up? We all know how frustrating it is when you feel like you haven’t had a chance to have your say, and the rest of the group doesn’t have the privledge of your genius! Make sure your team members don’t walk away feeling like that.

One idea is to identify team members’ expertise or unique knowledge before discussion. Ensure everyone gets a chance to say their piece in a group by directing questions to every individual team member. Even the process of acknowledging that you want to get the best thinking from all of the group will mean you don’t fall victim to a group’s bounded awareness (discussing what you already know) and you’ll no doubt perform better.

Forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning or transforming

Forming : The initial stage in development when individuals within a group come together, learn about the overall aim of the group, agree on objectives and get started with achieving them. As much of the focus is on getting organised and underway, generally conflict and tensions are avoided, making this a comfortable but unproductive stage in the group’s development.

Storming : This stage is necessary for the development of the group; it is the stage in which differing ideas contend for consideration. Issues surrounding the objectives to be achieved and the way in which they will be achieved come to the fore. This is a contentious and often unpleasant phase in which tolerance of individual members and their diversity needs to be highlighted, particularly as a lack of acceptance and patience can and most likely will impede the success of the group.

Norming : In this phase, group relations are more cohesive as members adjust their behaviour to one another, making teamwork seem natural and fluid. Often this is stage is brought on by agreeing key aspects of the group’s functions such as rules, values, and professional behaviour. While this phase generates trust between group members, and motivation as progress is made, it poses risks to creativity if the norming behaviour becomes too much of a focus and stifles healthy disagreement and debate.

Performing : By this stage, groups function at a high level as ways of getting the job done effectively evolve, and group members come to rely on one another. Individuals are now proficient, self-sufficient and able to make decisions without being supervised. Healthy dissent not only exists but is expected and legitimate as long as it is conveyed in an acceptable way.

Adjourning or transforming : This stage sees either the completing of the project and the breaking up of the team, or transcending into a changing phase of achievement

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forming,_storming,_norming_and_performing)

Many of you may have recognised this progression in groups you have been a part of in the past or even that you are currently involved in. You may well have realised that often a group will never develop past one specific phase. Being familiar with Tuckman’s model can enable you to ease the transitions between stages, and even help you recognise when a group’s development is stalled and its dynamics need re-evaluation.

Procrastination is something that affects us all at some time or another. Some of us may be occasional procrastinators; others may be chronic procrastinators. Whatever the frequency of your procrastination, it’s useful to know how to overcome it when you need to make the most out of the time you have available.

There is a plethora of procrastination-beating tips out there, but probably first and foremost, the key to beating your procrastination is the ability to recognise when you are procrastinating. Chances are you have a fair idea of when you are, but just to make sure, here’s Dictionary.com’s take on what it is, so you know exactly what you’re dealing with:

pro⋅cras⋅ti⋅nate

–verb (used without object)

1.         to defer action; delay: to procrastinate until an opportunity is lost.

–verb (used with object)

2.         to put off till another day or time; defer; delay.

So if you find yourself constantly putting something off, or doing other low priority tasks instead of doing the necessary, it’s pretty safe to say that you are procrastinating.

The next step is to figure out why you are procrastinating. Try to isolate the reasons behind your procrastination. Write them down if you need to. Analyse them to death if you have to (although, if you do, you’re probably just procrastinating from figuring out why you’re procrastinating, and it’s likely that you are a chronic procrastinator). Often the cause of procrastination can be boiled down to a feeling of being overwhelmed by a task, or perfectionism/a fear of failure, or very simply, the fact that you find the task unpleasant and would rather not do it.

Whatever the reason, once you’ve nailed it down, get over it.

Find a way to get past it by getting the help you need, or breaking the task down into smaller manageable tasks and rewarding yourself for reaching milestones.

Whatever you do, make some kind of start. Getting going is the hardest part, and once you’re over that hurdle the rest is easy.

Social psychologists French and Raven (1960) theorised that power is a relative concept that exists within relationships depending on the specific understandings between the people in a relationship. They argued that for power to be effectively wielded, one party in a relationship needs to recognise a quality in the other that motivates them to change in the way intended by the other party. As such, this other party, the leader as it were, must draw on a ‘base’ of power, or a combination of bases of power appropriate to the relationship, to effect the desired outcome. This all sounds very philosophical and theoretical, but bear with me…

French and Raven, in all their wisdom, identified five of these ‘bases’ of power:

Legitimate or positional power occurs in circumstances in which one party recognises that the other has the entitlement to make demands, and to require compliance and respect from them. Put more simply, legitimate power is recognised authority designated to the holder of the position. This is the most obvious and common source of power.

Reward power transpires where one party has the ability to recompense the other for obedience. Again, this is an obvious source of power; an employer pays his or her employee to expend time and effort on the aims of the employer.

Expert  power exists in situations where one party in the relationship possesses superior skill and knowledge, and the other recognises that these skills and knowledge surpasses their own. Examples here would be doctors, and lawyers; individuals seek out these professionals for instruction because they know they do not have the knowledge required to be able serve their purposes themselves.

Referent power comes from an individual’s ability to appeal to others and develop loyalty. One party recognises qualities in the other that he or she admires, and this veneration creates opportunity for that other party to exert influence. An example of referent power is political leaders and their followers.

Coercive power stems from the recognition by one party in the relationship that the other has the ability to apply negative consequences for noncompliance. Threats are a common manifestation of coercive power.