Sylvania No Comments

June 2020

Featured

Question of the Month
What is the logic behind the various steps of a Legitimate Leadership intervention – the introductory workshop, the application modules, etc?
Pinewood Technologies Shows The Value Of The Grow To Care Programme
The Grow to Care process facilitates a change from going to work to earn a living to going to work to going above and beyond in service to the customer…
Leadership Antidotes To Uncertainty
While it is tempting for leaders to give their people assurances – that the war will be won, the business will survive, a cure will be found – that is the last thing that leaders should do…
Adrian Gore Writes About Simon Sinek’s Webinar On Leadership – Translating Purpose Into Impact
The following words of wisdom from Simon Sinek accord absolutely with the Legitimate Leadership principles and practices: be open to counsel and have a vision of the future; change the “what”…

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 

By  Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What is the logic behind the various steps of a Legitimate Leadership intervention – the introductory workshop, the application modules, etc?
Answer: The typical implementation process for a Legitimate Leadership intervention is underpinned by the following four steps.
First, we establish the two criteria of care and growth. We also introduce the insight that INTENT, not knowledge or skill alone, legitimises leadership. Skill helps, but without the right intent the will simply doesn’t engage.
Second, we diagnose against these two criteria. Are your leaders caring for and growing your people at every level? If yes, fantastic. If not, what are they doing wrong?
Third, we work to support our clients in remediating behaviour. Once we understand the core issues, we get to work supporting our clients in dealing with them. We provide leaders with the knowledge, tools, techniques and skills required to shift behaviour and make care and growth real day-to-day.
Lastly, we develop enabling structures. We work closely with our clients to address structure and process. We look at areas such as role descriptions, reporting lines, performance management systems and disciplinary processes.
To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

CASE STUDY: PINEWOOD TECHNOLOGIES SHOWS THE VALUE OF THE GROW TO CARE PROGRAMME
By Stefaan van den Heever, consultant, Legitimate Leadership.
Pinewood Technologies, a South African company which implements and supports car dealership management IT systems, was operating very well to start with. It did not have serious problems. Its people were motivated and engaged, and results were good. The Grow to Care intervention which is the subject of this case study was never intended as a “fix”. It was simply the next step in Pinewood’s relentless pursuit of improvement – to be even better than before.
Legitimate Leadership enables a shift in intent from “taking” to “giving” in both those in leadership roles and non-managers. The Care and Growth process enables a shift from getting results out of people to caring for and enabling ordinary people. The Grow to Care process facilitates a change from going to work to earn a living to going to work to going above and beyond in service to the customer.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: LEADERSHIP ANTIDOTES TO UNCERTAINTY
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership
People like certainty. In uncertain times that need becomes a craving which people look to their leadership to satisfy.
While it is tempting for leaders to give their people assurances – that the war will be won, the business will survive, a cure will be found – that is the last thing that leaders should do.
Firstly, by setting themselves up as seers, they put themselves at risk of being blamed when their predictions do not come to pass.
More importantly, guarantees of positive outcomes by leaders breed dependency on them by their people. They take away from their people what makes them strong – a sense of ownership and responsibility for the situation they are in.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: ADRIAN GORE WRITES ABOUT SIMON SINEK’S WEBINAR ON LEADERSHIP – TRANSLATING PURPOSE INTO IMPACT
Adrian Gore is the founder and chief executive of South African healthcare and financial services group, Discovery Limited. Simon Sinek is an acclaimed American speaker, author and leadership expert.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP ON THIS ARTICLE: The following words of wisdom from Simon Sinek accord absolutely with the Legitimate Leadership principles and practices: be open to counsel and have a vision of the future; change the “what” and “how” but not the “why”; the results matter, but leadership more so; focus on process not outcome and don’t miss the mountain due to a fixation on the summit.
ADRIAN GORE’S ARTICLE: In early June 2020 an excellent public dialogue webinar was hosted with Simon Sinek. All proceeds from the webinar went to South African community service organisation Afrika Tikkun (a client of Legitimate Leadership – editor) which works in underprivileged communities.
Simon reflected on a range of issues. I wanted to share a few of the main themes. Many of you will be familiar with Simon’s own journey of becoming a successful entrepreneur, and the challenges that came with it, until he came to understand the three levels of what, how and why – the so-called “Golden Circle” – that it is purpose that drives successful individuals and businesses.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

May 2020

Featured

Question of the Month
We have set the rules for social distancing, communicated them and the Why behind them. People have been given the means to comply but some still don’t do so …
The Role Of HR In Assisting Line Managers To Demonstrate Care In A Crisis
Legitimate Leadership says that only if you are seen to care will you be trusted by those who report to you. People will only consent to being led …
Nothing Like A Crisis To Bring The Chickens Home To Roost
A crisis confronts leaders with their past deeds. How their people respond is determined by whether, as leaders, they are seen to have previously been in the relationship to “give” or to “take” …
These Are Not Unprecedented Times – The Importance Of Infinite Mindset During The Covid-19 Crisis
I have recently been pushed to explain how the infinite mindset helps in times like these. A finite game has known players, fixed rules …

For more information regarding the above, please
E-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

Question of the Month 

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question:We have set the rules for social distancing, communicated them and the Why behind them. People have been given the means to comply but some still don’t do so. We have been “nice” about it, reminding people over and over, but in some instances, to no avail. Should we now sanction the transgressors – maybe even fire those who won’t adhere to the social distancing protocols?
Answer: Social distancing is no different from any other behavioural standard and will not be adhered to unless all seven requirements below are met:
1. Role model – everyone in a leadership role needs to provide the example for others to follow.
2. Define – the standard needs to be simple, clear and exact … Read the full answer by clicking here 
To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

EVENT: THE ROLE OF HR IN ASSISTING LINE MANAGERS TO DEMONSTRATE CARE IN A CRISIS
Below is a report on the Legitimate Leadership webinar held on this subject on 7 May 2020 (with some questions and answers at the end). The Legitimate Leadership presenters were Wendy Lambourne and Leanne Maree. 
Legitimate Leadership says that only if you are seen to care will you be trusted by those who report to you. People will only consent to being led if their leader cares for them (primarily) and grows them.
So how does human resources (HR) help leaders in their organisations to care for their people?
The conventional view is that care is about looking after people’s physical and material needs. This is true. Particularly in the Covid-19 crisis, line managers need ensure people’s safety and health – for instance PPE (personal protective equipment), screening and social distancing.
They also need to do the best they can, within their means, to ensure that people’s pay needs are catered for. The capacity of companies to do this differs. For instance in the first world, government support is generally much greater than in the developing world.
Some companies can pay 100%; some companies can pay nothing. But trust in leadership will not necessarily differ between those extremes! Appropriate care does not mean paying 100% if that means the business will be out of business.
Legitimate Leadership has identified six key roles that HR can play, to enable line managers to care.
But care is not just about physical matters and pay. The giving should be not just of things but of self.
The How of care is also important. In other words, the care must make employees stronger in the crisis and not do the opposite.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: NOTHING LIKE A CRISIS TO BRING THE CHICKENS HOME TO ROOST
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership
In the midst of a strike, a shop steward told me, “Now the chickens will come home to roost!” He was saying the current fraught relationship had been made in the past and management’s poor historical relationship was about to come back and bite them.
WHAT IS NOW WAS MADE IN THE PAST
A crisis confronts leaders with their past deeds. How their people respond is determined by whether, as leaders, they are seen to have previously been in the relationship to “give” or to “take”. Leaders who have put their people first will have people who will respond tenfold and give whatever it takes to weather the storm. Conversely, leaders who have put the results first, should not be surprised if their people don’t come to the fore, give little if at all, and may even rebel or jump ship during the crisis.
In short, leaders determine whether their people will rally or scatter in a crisis by the way they have led them in the past.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: THESE ARE NOT UNPRECEDENTED TIMES –THE IMPORTANCE OF INFINITE MINDSET DURING THE COVID-19 CRISIS
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker, speaking during a recent “company huddle” of his staff. 
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: A crisis confronts leaders with their past deeds. Those who have put money aside, rather than taking it out in short-term incentives, will obviously be in a stronger position. Leaders who have been here to “give” to the people in the past are more likely to have employees who pick up the oars and help to row the boat through choppy waters. Those who have historically been “takers” should not be surprised if their people give little, if at all, and may even rebel or jump ship. A crisis as an opportunity to reset the relationship with employees – to take the relationship to new heights. It is also an opportunity to reinvent the business – not the Why of the business but the What and the How. This will be easier in some industries than others. But the losers, irrespective of their industries, will be those who don’t at least try to adapt to the change, who lack the will to seek and find another way.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: I have recently been pushed to explain how the infinite mindset helps in times like these. A finite game has known players, fixed rules and agreed-upon objectives. By contrast, rules are changeable in the infinite game, with unknown players who are in it to keep playing. Problems arise when finite players are up against infinite players. Often the former end up mired in lost trust and declining innovation.
These are not unprecedented times. There are many famous cases where change or unexpected events has put companies out of business – and made other companies come out stronger and reinvent themselves.
The invention of the internet put many companies out of business – the ones who could not reinvent their companies for the internet age but rather doubled down on the old way they did business. Every video store is out of business because of streaming; they couldn’t reinvent themselves. When Starbucks moved into neighborhoods many coffee shops went out of business because they refused to change the way they did business. Uber is putting taxi companies out of business because the taxis refused to change.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

April 2020

Featured

Question of the Month
Leading people is not the same as writing code, operating a machine or compiling a document. Writing code is a skill. It can be taught …
There Are Only Two Must-Haves For Leading In A Crisis
There will always be a debate about which traits are most important for leading in a crisis – but two absolute essentials are compassion and courage, in that order …
Caring For Your People In A Crisis – What It Means
Leaders who make people not things paramount during a crisis will be seen to care. Those who do the opposite will rightfully be perceived as uncaring if not heartless …
Have The Courage To Lead (The Fifth Of Simon Sinek’s 5 Practices Of Leadership)
It is extremely hard to make decisions with a Just Cause (Sinek’s first of 5 practices of leadership) in mind when so many of the pressures …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 

By Ian Munro, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Many young leaders are struggling to find their compass – can structured mentoring programmes help?
Answer: Leading people is not the same as writing code, operating a machine or compiling a document. Writing code is a skill. It can be taught and learned in a classroom or on the job. The issue is ability. The same could be said for operating a machine or compiling a document.
Leadership is different. The primary issue for excellence in leadership is intent, not ability. Is the leader willing to suspend his or her agenda in the interests of others? Today’s most enabling leaders have earned legitimacy not because they are good at any particular leadership skills, but because they have repeatedly passed the “intent test”. Of course, they may possess well-developed leadership skills as well, but it is their maturity, their capacity to act above self-interest, their willingness to align to a deliberately-chosen set of fundamental values, that people find compelling.
Unfortunately, values cannot be taught. Teaching applies to skills and abilities. Values are not skills or abilities. Values talk to judgement, to integrity, to intent, to maturity. The person who helps you to develop these, as an adult, we refer to as a mentor.
In South Africa in particular, but also more generally in countries where we operate, people entering the workplace have very different starting points when it comes to values …Read the full answer by clicking here 
 
To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

ARTICLE: THERE ARE ONLY TWO MUST-HAVES FOR LEADING IN A CRISIS
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
There will always be a debate about which traits are most important for leading in a crisis – but two absolute essentials are compassion and courage, in that order.
For some leaders either or both of these qualities are fundamental aspects of their nature; they are part of their DNA. But ultimately, both compassion and courage are not a matter of genetics so much as they are a choice or a matter of the will. They can therefore be fostered or cultivated in leaders who do not naturally have these qualities.
Leaders in a crisis who lack compassion and courage can blame nobody but themselves. Both of these qualities are within their reach; they sit in their hearts. In a crisis, leaders choose to bring these qualities to the fore or lack the will to do so.
With every compassionate or courageous act, leaders develop their capacity to be more compassionate and courageous. They increasingly become the leaders their people need to be led by in a crisis.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: CARING FOR YOUR PEOPLE IN A CRISIS – WHAT IT MEANS
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership
Leaders who make people not things paramount during a crisis will be seen to care. Those who do the opposite will rightfully be perceived as uncaring if not heartless.
Of course caring for one’s people means doing the best you can, within available resources, to look after their physical and material needs. Leaders who truly care also give their people time and attention, honesty and “tough love” during adverse times.
Their intention in all instances is to nurture or build strong people because strong people not only withstand, but may even overcome, their circumstances. Weak people, conversely, can wane even in the most benign set of conditions.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: HAVE THE COURAGE TO LEAD (THE FIFTH OF SIMON SINEK’S 5 PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP)
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO:  Legitimate Leadership is, first and foremost, an ethical leadership framework. It requires leaders to not only stay legal but to live up to the highest moral code. That means to consistently choose to do the right rather than the expedient thing; to be values- rather than needs-driven. Which takes courage. As Simon Sinek says, this needs to hold true not only in the relationship between leaders and their people, but also in dealings between leaders and their customers, suppliers, shareholders and the community. At the end of the day this is a choice on how to live one’s life.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: It is extremely hard to make decisions with a Just Cause (Sinek’s first of 5 practices of leadership) in mind when so many of the pressures on us are pushing us to make finite short-term decisions (if you work for a public company).
The pressure is overwhelming from the outside to focus on the finite at the expense of the infinite (see note at end of this summary for definitions of finite and infinite). Sometimes we put pressure on ourselves to focus on the finite. We become so obsessed with the arbitrary goals we set for the end of the year that sometimes we abandon our own values in order to make the sale, gain the client, move the numbers. If we do that too many times over the years, it’s to the detriment of our own organisations and our own people.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

March 2020

Featured

Question of the Month
Getting started with a transformation toward legitimate leadership is a protracted process which includes the introductory workshop, application modules, etc … correct?
What Legitimate Leaders Do In Times Of Crisis
Any group, any collective, is simply a reflection of those who lead it. Who you are as a leader, in other words, is reflected in those around you. This is true at any time but particularly in difficult times …
Legitimate Leadership UK Launched
Legitimate Leadership was formally launched in the United Kingdom on 6 March 2020 – a big milestone for the organisation …
Missed Opportunities In A Good Business Which Could Have A Better Bottom Line
This scenario is common: you have a good business, good employees and good processes, but you have strong sense that you could have a better bottom line. What to do? …
Have A Capacity For Existential Flexibility (The Fourth Of Simon Sinek’s 5 Practices Of Leadership)
Chasing the latest fad not only causes confusion but actually demoralises people. What Simon Sinek is proposing though is that leaders should be willing to radically change their strategy or technology …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 

By Ian Munro, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Getting started with a transformation toward legitimate leadership is a protracted process which includes the introductory workshop, application modules, etc … correct?
Answer: In reality, relatively few people immediately and enthusiastically translate the theory into action. But this does not have to be the case. “Application” is not just for the most forward-thinking and courageous leaders. It simply requires commitment, perseverance, and the acceptance that trial-and-error is a legitimate (and often necessary) part of our growth.
A Legitimate Leadership intervention typically starts with a 2-day introductory programme and follows with a series of Application Modules aimed at particular problems. But leaders don’t have to wait for an Application Module before they start to change their own intent and behaviour. It all starts with intent – a change in heart … Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

ARTICLE: WHAT LEGITIMATE LEADERS DO IN TIMES OF CRISIS
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Any group, any collective, is simply a reflection of those who lead it. Who you are as a leader, in other words, is reflected in those around you. This is true at any time but particularly in difficult times.
A crisis may or may not build character, but it definitely reveals character.
What legitimate leaders do in adverse conditions therefore, first and foremost, is look at themselves. They make themselves the project, knowing that the best they can do in tough times is set the example for others to follow. More specifically, they rise to the occasion by doing four things.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

EVENT: LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP UK LAUNCHED
Legitimate Leadership was formally launched in the United Kingdom on 6 March 2020 – a big milestone for the organisation.
The launch took the form of a half-day intro event in London hosted by the company’s directors, Wendy Lambourne and Ian Munro. Representatives of every one of Legitimate Leadership’s current UK-based clients responded positively to the invitation to attend, and actually attended the launch. They were generous in sharing their experience of implementing the framework in their organizations, said Lambourne.
The event also drew people who wanted to learn more about this unique approach to leadership and organizational excellence and how implementation of the principles and practices impacts positively on Legitimacy, Trust, Contribution and Accountability.
Given the level of interest shown at the Legitimate Leadership UK launch, a one day executive overview will be held in London on 11 June 2020.
VIEW WENDY LAMBOURNE’S OPENING ADDRESS AT THE LAUNCH BY  CLICKING HERE

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: A MISSED OPPORTUNITY IN A GOOD BUSINESS WHICH COULD HAVE A BETTER BOTTOM LINE
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
This scenario is common: you have a good business, good employees and good processes, but you have strong sense that you could have a better bottom line. What to do?
There are, of course, various possibilities – from commissioning an internal deep-dive, to getting advice from external consultants, to doing nothing and hoping the problem goes away.
In this case study the organisation chose the first option: an executive and senior management task team was assembled with the express purpose of better understanding the business and improving profitability.
On the surface Legitimate Leadership wholeheartedly supports, even recommends, this option. And for many inside this organisation the task team exercise is still considered a resounding success. The team got together, profitability improved, everybody was happy.
We don’t disagree with any of that, but we believe that it was also a missed opportunity. Why?
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: HAVE A CAPACITY FOR EXISTENTIAL FLEXIBILITY (THE FOURTH OF SIMON SINEK’S 5 PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP)
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO:  Chasing the latest fad not only causes confusion but actually demoralises people. What Simon Sinek is proposing though is that leaders should be willing to radically change their strategy or technology if in so doing they will better advanc their Just Cause. Existential flexibility calls on two human qualities without which Simon Sinek’s fourth leadership practice is not possible. The first is humility – a preparedness to admit that you don’t have all the answers and are not always right, a capacity to rise above your arrogance to consider another way. The second is courage – to fundamentally change not knowing whether it is in fact the right thing to do but absolutely knowing that to do so will not only be disruptive in the short term but may even result in failure. Once again Simon Sinek is calling on leaders to evidence the best in themselves as human beings. I agree that to play the infinite game (defined at the end of our summary below) requires a noble purpose, trust of others, giving up the need to win at all costs, humility and courage. All of these are in short supply in modern organisations, but are infinitely worth pursuing.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: In Apple’s history, Steve Jobs and some of his senior executives visited Xerox in Palo Alto – as executives do, they visit each other’s companies.
Apple was already a big company and Steve Jobs was already a famous CEO.
On this visit, Xerox showed them something they had invented called the graphic user interface. This interface allowed computer users to move a mouse so that you could move a cursor over the desktop and click on icons and folders in order to work the computer. In other words, you didn’t have to learn a computer language anymore.
As the Apple people were leaving Xerox, Steve Jobs said to his executives, “We have to invest in this graphic user interface thing.”
Remember, if Apple’s Just Cause is to empower individuals to stand up to Big Brother, “this graphic user interface thing” empowers way more people to use the technology.
The Voice of Reason spoke up and said, “Steve we can’t do that – we’ve already invested millions of dollars and countless manhours in a different strategic direction. If we change and invest in graphic user interface we will blow up our own company. We can’t just abandon our investment.”
To which Jobs said, “If we don’t blow up our company, somebody else will.”
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

February 2020

Featured

Question of the Month: I want to demonstrate that I can suspend my interest in favour of my team’s, but our interests are not in conflict! So what have I missed?
Don’t feel alone! As leaders embark on their legitimate leadership journey, many initially wrestle with this apparent quandary. But it’s not truly a quandary. The answer goes straight to your INTENT.
Want More Authority? Go And Ask For It!
The simplest way to obtain the authority you feel you need to devolve decision-making downwards through the line, is to go and ask for it. Even if you believe the environment won’t support your …
Managers Do Things, Leaders Do People
Let us be clear: both good management and good leadership are required for sustainable organisational performance. Management, however, is a process and set of practices which are best …
Have Worthy Rivals (The 3rd Of Simon Sinek’s 5 Practices Of Leadership)
Legitimate Leadership argues that a goal which is about competing to win is not helpful – in the first instance, because victory or defeat are largely outside of our control …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 

By Stuart Foulds, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: As a leader, I want to demonstrate that I can suspend my interests in favour of my team’s. But everything I can think of helping them with is clearly in my interests as well as theirs. Our interests do not appear ever to be in conflict. To suspend my agenda for theirs requires somewhat separate agendas … right? I feel like we’re working towards common goals and our agendas are aligned, so what have I missed? Their growth opportunities, for example, might not directly help me but they benefit me in the long run as they grow in competence. My time spent with them never feels wasted.
Answer: Don’t feel alone! As leaders embark on their legitimate leadership journey, many initially wrestle with this apparent quandary. But it’s not truly a quandary. The answer goes straight to your INTENT.
Firstly, we have to acknowledge that in the real world we all generally act to some extent with mixed motives Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: WANT MORE AUTHORITY? GO AND ASK FOR IT!
By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
The simplest way to obtain the authority you feel you need to devolve decision-making downwards through the line, is to go and ask for it. Even if you believe the environment won’t support your efforts, you don’t know until you ask. As one manager asking for this kind of authority in this case study said, “Every door I kicked swung open.”
Also, managers are likely to find that their people are generally more capable and more trustworthy than they are given credit for – and more willing to take on responsibility.
In this case study, one of our clients operating in an industry with high technical complexity found itself in the position of applying very high levels of control in the workplace. This over time led to a high price being paid in terms of workforce engagement, ownership and accountability.
A prevailing view developed over time that turning this around would be a slow and arduous process.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: MANAGERS DO THINGS, LEADERS DO PEOPLE
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Let us be clear: both good management and good leadership are required for sustainable organisational performance. Management, however, is a process and set of practices which are best applied to things (like money, facilities, systems, inventory, etc). Leadership on the other hand is a process and set of practices pertinent to people.
The problem arises when management is applied to people. It literally reduces people to the status of things.
More specifically, this problem presents itself in organisations in situations in which those who have people reporting to them, for whom they are responsible, are managers and not leaders.
Managers are different from leaders in five vital respects.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: HAVE WORTHY RIVALS (THE 3RD OF SIMON SINEK’S 5 PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP)
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO: Legitimate Leadership argues that a goal which is about competing to win is not helpful – in the first instance, because victory or defeat are largely outside of our control. A focus on winning is moreover potentially debilitating. This is because a focus on beating the competition leads to a fear of failure which often actually reduces rather than enhances performance. We believe that the goal should not to be better than the rest. Rather the goal should be to continually strive to be better than before. And this can only be achieved through a relentless, albeit incremental, lifting of behavioral and performance standards. In that sense a “worthy rival” who highlights areas of improvement in ourselves can be extremely helpful. Making the shift from “arch competitor to be beaten at all costs” to “worthy rival who we can learn from and possibly even collaborate with” is however no easy task. It requires a level of personal maturity which is not easy to achieve. It requires a capacity to contradict a strong drive that most of us have (to win) in order to do what is right. It necessitates a preparedness to suspend our need for immediate gratification and the adrenaline kick which comes from winning to do the hard and difficult work of improving ourselves. But isn’t that what maturity is actually all about? It is about developing an increasing capacity to let go of the “get”, and to “give” unconditionally.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: A worthy rival is another player in the game that is worthy of comparison – that in some way reveals to your weaknesses that are opportunities for you to work to improve yourself.
There’s another guy who does what I do. He gives talks, he writes books, he’s extremely well respected and he does very good work.
I like and respect his work. I just happened to hate him.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

January 2020

Featured

Question of the Month: To grow someone at work, does a leader need to promote her, move her to another job or give her new responsibilities?
Clearly there are opportunities for a person to grow from all three of these. But there is no need to either move a person or reconfigure her role in order for her to grow …
Township Youth Learn ‘Give To Grow’
Basic Legitimate Leadership principles were encapsulated for general life application in a three-afternoon programme for high school learners …
The Appropriate Response To Exceptions In A Business
An exception is anything outside the norm – something which is unusual, untypical, not what we expect or have become used to …
Just Cause (The Second Of Simon Sinek’s 5 Practices Of Leadership)
 Simon Sinek makes a valid point that there is an absolute connection between trust and feeling “safe”. There is an erosion of trust …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: To grow someone at work, does a leader need to promote her, move her to another job or give her new responsibilities?
Answer: Clearly there are opportunities for a person to grow from all three of these. But there is no need to either move a person or reconfigure her role in order for her to grow. Leaders enable their people to grow on a continuous basis in their current jobs through helping them when they get stuck; helping them to view their jobs differently (the means and ends switch); helping them to focus on and build their abilities (by the leader watching the game and giving feedback); and by setting them tasks which keep them in their learning zone … Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

CASE STUDY: TOWNSHIP YOUTH LEARN ‘GIVE TO GROW’
Basic Legitimate Leadership principles were encapsulated for general life application in a three-afternoon programme for high school learners – and the principles were surprisingly easily understood by them, according to the facilitators. The programme, called Give to Grow, is applied in South African townships by one of South Africa’s largest non-governmental welfare organisations, Afrika Tikkun.
Afrika Tikkun, founded in 1994 by the late Chief Rabbi of South Africa, Cyril Harris, and businessman/philanthropist the late Dr Bertie Lubner, provides, education, health and social services to young people and their families through five centres of excellence in South African townships.
The Legitimate Leadership Model has been applied in Afrika Tikkun’s operations for the past five years. Its application there has been championed by Leonie van Tonder, its former general manager; she had also previously applied the model in a number of situations in the South African commercial banking industry.
Legitimate Leadership has thus gained considerable currency among Afrika Tikkun’s employees (see Afrika Tikkun – An Astounding Culture Shift in One Year). But because Legitimate Leadership principles are also applicable to many areas of general life, ways were sought to also impart them to township children – see Give to Grow Leadership Workbook.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO EXCEPTIONS IN A BUSINESS
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
An exception is anything outside the norm – something which is unusual, untypical, not what we expect or have become used to.
We should learn from both positive and negative exceptions and apply the learnings to ensure a more positive future result. More specifically, we should unpack the command or leadership actions which sit behind all exceptions. In doing so we enable those in leadership roles to gain clarity regarding what they should be doing to better enable each of their direct reports.
Exceptions, in other words, should be seen as golden opportunities to learn about and enhance the quality of leadership in an enterprise. They should be used to raise the calibre of leadership at every level in the line of command.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: HAVE A JUST CAUSE (THE SECOND OF SIMON SINEK’S  5 PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP)
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO: Simon Sinek makes a valid point that there is an absolute connection between trust and feeling “safe”. There is an erosion of trust in an environment where people do not feel “safe”; this in turn leads to decreased commitment, decreased discretionary effort, decreased openness, and decreased initiative. What makes people “safe” is a conviction that those in charge of the enterprise are acting in the best interests of their people – as opposed to in pursuit of their own interests. Trust is built over time, in increments, and into perpetuity. When managers compromise on what is the right thing to do, in order to further their own interests, this is immediately apparent to their people. Their people instantly conclude that management is self-serving and cannot be trusted. Conversely, when management contradicts their interests in order to do the right thing, their people experience them as sincere. They see management as values-driven rather than needs-driven, and therefore trust them.
 OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: Does your organization offer your people a cause so just that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves and their interests in order to advance that cause?
An example of a Just Cause was the United States’ Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers wrote down reasons why they wanted to go to war and create their own country. All men are created equal, they said – endowed with unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words they presented an ideal vision of a future state that did not yet exist – an ideal so inspiring that they were willing to commit their honor, their fortunes and their lives in order to advance it.
They will never actually achieve that ideal but they will die trying – and that is the point.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

December 2019

Featured

Question of the Month: What is the appropriate action for a leader to take when an employee underperforms, or performs according to expectation, or performs well above expectation?
A hallmark of a leader is that he takes appropriate rather than expedient action. He sets the example for his people by doing the right thing and motivating them to behave appropriately …
Singular Systems Reinvents Its Performance Management System
Singular Systems, which was founded in 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa, is a bespoke software provider with a total staff today across its three sites of about 200 …
Video: Just Cause (One Of Simon Sinek’s 5 Practices Of Leadership)
 Legitimate Leadership believes that organizations succeed to the degree to which its members are prepared to go above and beyond in pursuit of its objectives …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What is the appropriate action for a leader to take when an employee underperforms, or performs according to expectation, or performs well above expectation?
Answer: A hallmark of a leader is that he takes appropriate rather than expedient action. He sets the example for his people by doing the right thing and motivating them to behave appropriately.
When an employee has been a ‘Superstar’ and made an exceptional contribution, the “appropriate” leader responds by finding a way to reward the employee for this – because it is only just that such a person should receive demonstrably more than those who have not gone the extra mile.
When an employee has been a “Solid Citizen”, the appropriate leader acknowledges the contribution made and thanks the person for doing a good job.
When an employee has performed below standard, the appropriate leader investigates why this is the case and takes the appropriate action. If the employee lacks the means to do the job, the means is provided; if the employee lacks knowledge or ability, training is provided or the person is removed from the role or the work is redesigned. But if the underperformance is due to carelessness, the employee is censured and careful work is insisted upon; and if the underperformance has been due to deliberate malevolence, the employee is disciplined and sanctioned.
In all three cases (Superstar, Solid Citizen and Underperformer), the appropriate leader ensures that the means and ability are available for the employee to maintain and raise the bar on her performance.
By contrast, the inappropriate leader’s response … Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

CASE STUDY: SINGULAR SYSTEMS REINVENTS ITS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Singular Systems, which was founded in 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa, is a bespoke software provider with a total staff today across its three sites of about 200. The company was started by Anthony Wilmot and the current CEO, Nicholas Kruiskamp, and has a family-business ethos.
Luckily, when the company embarked on reinventing its pre-existing performance management system in 2017, there was a fair degree of trust already within its culture. “Any process you could think of would have zero impact if it didn’t have trust,” says Dave Elliott, an executive of Singular Systems.
Another essential was that care and growth of employees as a value had to be accepted by the top leadership.
The performance management project was embarked upon simultaneously with a Legitimate Leadership transformation project, led by Ian Munro (see Reinventing Performance Management Workshop). Following the reinvention, Singular Systems Cape Town achieved increased revenue growth year-on-year due, among other things, to focus on growing staff and driving individual contribution.
Singular Systems applied principles from Legitimate Leadership in designing its new system. Thereafter Singular Systems evolved its own system in its three separate offices (in Cape Town, Johannesburg and London).
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: HAVE A JUST CAUSE (THE FIRST OF SIMON SINEK’S  5 PRACTICES OF LEADERSHIP)
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO: Legitimate Leadership believes that organizations succeed to the degree to which its members are prepared to go above and beyond in pursuit of its objectives. The leadership challenge therefore is to solicit peoples’ willingness to give unconditionally to the goals and objectives of the organization. What solicits peoples’ willingness, we believe, is three things: PURPOSE, PERSON, PASSION. Of the three, Purpose relates to what Simon Sinek calls Just Cause. Simon Sinek, and Legitimate Leadership. believe that people will only go the extra mile for something worth suspending their self-interest for. Simon Sinek calls this a Just Cause; Legitimate Leadership calls it the Benevolent Intent of the enterprise, or its Noble Purpose. Giving people a ‘why’ which is about increasing the ROI for shareholders is not only not motivating, it tends to engender hostility. This is because this ‘why‘ turns employees into people who are being ‘taken from’ to enrich the owners of the business. What solicits in people a willingness to go above and beyond, to sacrifice their own interests, is a ‘why ‘which is bigger than themselves and is about making a contribution to others and making the world a better place. It is a ‘why‘ which is about adding value to a customer. This ‘why‘ has nothing to do with the company’s products and services – it is all about what the company makes or does FOR its customers. Articulating and communicating the organization’s Benevolent Intent is the job of the leaders of the company. Ensuring that everyone in the company then lives up to its Noble Purpose is also a leadership issue. Leaders need to believe in the Just Cause and dedicate themselves to it. They need to make sacrifices in the interests of furthering that cause. Then, and only then, will their people do likewise.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: Does your organization offer your people a cause so just that they would be willing to sacrifice themselves and their interests in order to advance that cause?
An example of a Just Cause was the United States’ Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers wrote down a reason why they wanted to go to war and create their own country. All men are created equal, they said – endowed with unalienable rights amongst which include life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words they presented an ideal vision of a future state that did not yet exist – an ideal so inspiring that they were willing to commit their honor, their fortunes and their lives in order to advance it.
They will never actually achieve that ideal but they will die trying – and that is the point.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

November 2019

Featured

Question of the Month:  What is the difference between management and leadership?
Legitimate Leadership has a very clear view of the distinction between management and leadership: management is what you apply to things …
Event: Reinventing Performance Management Workshop
Conventional performance management systems received negative reviews at a recent Legitimate Leadership client-consultant workshop in Johannesburg entitled Reinventing Performance Management …
Legitimate Leadership Should Be Nurtured, Not Managed Or Controlled
Organisations do not transform overnight. This is because people are still people irrespective of technology. Humans, because they are human, require time to adapt and respond to change …
Instead Of Doing Admin, Frontline Managers Should Coach Their Employees And Constantly Improve Quality
For frontline managers to perform their care and growth role requires in the first instance a mindshift from seeing their jobs as getting results out of people to enabling excellence in them …
E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership
Question: What is the difference between management and leadership?
Answer: Legitimate Leadership has a very clear view of the distinction between management and leadership: management is what you apply to things; leadership pertains to people.
For organisational success and sustained results – organisational excellence – both management and leadership are required. So the distinction, for us, would be distilled by asking people, “what sounds right to you of the following two statements: you manage the inventory in the warehouse, or, you lead the inventory in the warehouse?” Obviously, you manage the inventory in the warehouse.
We are total advocates of the view that you should manage things like finances, systems, structures, facilities, etc. And we know that organisations which don’t manage tend not to succeed.
But our plea is: please don’t manage people, lead them. Because when you manage people, you reduced them to the status of things.
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

EVENT: REINVENTING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP
By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership
Conventional performance management systems received negative reviews at a recent Legitimate Leadership client-consultant workshop in Johannesburg entitled Reinventing Performance Management.
Comment on traditional systems was that they were often seen as a form of control and punishment – and occasionally reward.
One delegate described them as “the single most disengaging factor that employers use”.
Also, often conventional systems were “played” to get the required good scores.
Yet in the choice between software systems and more labour-intensive performance management approaches, software systems are generally preferred. This is probably because of two factors. Firstly, software is frequently sold as a silver bullet (but experience shows that this is unrealistic – that any success can only come from putting new behaviours in place). Secondly, legitimate leadership of any kind generally involves hard work and the courage to hold people accountable – and the turkey seldom votes for Christmas.
To remedy the negatives of conventional performance management systems, there was agreement among many delegates that the focus needed to shift to “forward-looking contribution”. Most of all, any system which would result in all employees trusting and contributing to it, should be sought.
The Legitimate Leadership Model is not about systems, said Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership. It is rather about cultivating relationships of trust. So no particular system should stop the application of the Legitimate Leadership Model in an organisation. Nonetheless, a performance management system which is aligned to Legitimate Leadership principles obviously is likely to work better.
A case study of one company, Singular Systems, which used the Legitimate Leadership Model in reinventing its performance management system, was described at the workshop – see Singular Systems: Reinventing Its Performance Management System.   Following the reinvention, Singular Systems Cape Town achieved increased revenue growth year-on-year due, among other things, to focus on growing staff and driving individual contribution, said Dave Elliott, and executive of Singular Systems.
READ THE FULL REPORT BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE NURTURED, NOT MANAGED OR CONTROLLED
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Organisations do not transform overnight. This is because people are still people irrespective of technology. Humans, because they are human, require time to adapt and respond to change.
Legitimate Leadership, or being here to care for and grow others, actually begins in an organisation when one or more individuals who have been exposed to the Legitimate Leadership Model go away and do something with it. The positive results they accrue from doing so not only personally encourage them to continue, but provide an example(s) for others to follow.
The germination of the 16 Legitimate Leadership or care and growth practices, in other words, happen slowly and often takes time to be noticed. At some point however the principles and practices take root and gather momentum. Eventually a point is reached when some sort of critical mass has been achieved. “Care and growth” is then no longer the exception but the norm.
Cultivating an organisation which embodies the principles and spirit of Legitimate Leadership therefore requires patience and perseverance by all involved.
It is in recognition of this that the Legitimate Leadership process for a group of 15-20 leaders is typically 12-18 months in duration.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: INSTEAD OF DOING ADMIN, FRONTLINE MANAGERS SHOULD COACH THEIR EMPLOYEES AND CONSTANTLY IMPROVE QUALITY
By Aaron De Smet, Monica McGurk, and Marc Vinson, principals of consulting company McKinsey in the USA, writing in McKinsey Quarterly.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS ARTICLE: For frontline managers to perform their care and growth role requires in the first instance a mindshift from seeing their jobs as getting results out of people to enabling excellence in them. This will only happen however if those people are given the means and ability to perform the role and then held accountable for doing so. The Legitimate Leadership process, run over 12-18 months, has consistently delivered the kind of frontline managers described in this article – in branch banking, in motor retail, in manufacturing, in call centres, and in fashion retail.  For these Legitimate Leadership case studies, see (Fuelling Peformance in Fashion RetailOpening A New Store A New WayCare & Growth Impacts Motor Retail ResultsReflections On Implementing Care & Growth).
OUR EXCERPTS FROM THIS ARTICLE: A retail manager responsible for more than $80 million in annual revenue, an airline manager who oversees a yearly passenger volume worth more than $160 million, a banking manager who deals with upward of seven million questions from customers a year. These aren’t executives at a corporate headquarters; they are the hidden—yet crucial— managers of frontline employees.
Found in almost any company, such managers are particularly important in industries with distributed networks of sites and employees. These industries—for instance, infrastructure, travel and logistics, manufacturing, health care, and retailing (including food service and retail banking)—make up more than half of the global economy. Their district or area managers, store managers, site or plant managers, and line supervisors direct as much as two-thirds of the workforce and are responsible for the part of the company that typically defines the customer experience. Yet most of the time, these managers operate as cogs in a system, with limited flexibility in decision making and little room for creativity. In a majority of the companies we’ve encountered, the frontline managers’ role is merely to oversee a limited number of direct reports, often in a “span breaking” capacity, relaying information from executives to workers.
Such managers keep an eye on things, enforce plans and policies, report operational results, and quickly escalate issues or problems. In other words, a frontline manager is meant to communicate decisions, not to make them; to ensure compliance with policies, not to use judgment or discretion (and certainly not to develop policies); and to oversee the implementation of improvements, not to contribute ideas or even implement improvements (workers do that). This system makes companies less productive, less agile, and less profitable, our experience shows.
Change is possible, however. At companies that have successfully empowered their frontline managers, the resulting flexibility and productivity generate strong financial returns. 
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

October 2019

Featured

Question of the Month: What are factors to bear in mind with a new-technology transformation in an industrial, unionised worksite?
From Legitimate Leadership’s experience in industrial transformation projects, the following are indicators…
Vignette Case Study: Getting Employees To Understand Your Values And Standards
Ince, a South African company in the information and investment sectors, has been engaged in applying Legitimate Leadership’s module, Enabling Human Excellence by Raising the Bar…
Article: Watching The Game To Enable Employee Contribution And Growth
There are different ways of “watching the game” or determining the means, ability and accountability issues, which if addressed, would enhance employee contribution and growth…
Video: Combating Fear In Management And Learning From Sports Teams
At Legitimate Leadership we frequently use sports metaphors to highlight good (or bad) leadership practices. While leading in a business is obviously not exactly the same as leading a football team…

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership
Question: What are factors to bear in mind with a new-technology transformation in an industrial, unionised worksite?
Answer: From Legitimate Leadership’s experience in industrial transformation projects, the following are indicators:
  • Good leadership is at least as important, and often more important, than good technology.
  • If you empower the people who actually run the plant rather than throwing technologists (engineering and R&D specialists) and extra people at the problem, you do much better.
  • When outsiders treat those who operate the plant as fools, they become fools.
  • In any transformation, you need to talk to employees at the start and throughout the process. You need to engage with organised labour through labour (union) structures, no matter how hard this is; and with the people directly (by means of mass meetings, shift meetings and one-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports).
  • You can’t plan a transformation in detail up front. Nevertheless no transformation is successful without a clear vision, an overall strategy and a roadmap … read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: GETTING EMPLOYEES TO UNDERSTAND YOUR VALUES AND STANDARDS
By Stuart Foulds,  associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Ince, a South African company in the information and investment sectors, has been engaged in applying Legitimate Leadership’s module, Enabling Human Excellence by Raising the Bar. This module particularly addresses standards.
The company has been re-evaluating three sets of standards: relating to leadership, behaviour and performance.
Behavioural standards are based on values, and one of the company’s values is “collaboration”. Linked to this value is a behavioural standard paraphrased as, “We say never say ‘no’ to a customer; we say ‘yes’ and try to meet their needs”.
During the application module workshop, the executive team noted that the “say yes” behavioural standard was well established in relation to external customers, but much less so for internal customers. Internally, often the response to a request for assistance was, for instance, “that’s not my portfolio”, or “that’s not my business”.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: COACHING AND THE LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
There are different ways of “watching the game” or determining the means, ability and accountability issues, which if addressed, would enhance employee contribution and growth. Below are examples of how the concept of “watching the game” has been applied in various contexts, to realise significant improvements in individual and organisational performance.
Regional sales managers accompanied their sales executives in the field not to assist them to increase sales (although sales increased dramatically), but to determine what they needed in order to achieve excellence in the sales process.
One of the key scores on a warehouse scoreboard was picking error rate per picker. The warehouse manager shadowed both the best and the worst pickers in the warehouse. In a few days he was able to find out what, in terms of means, ability and motivation accounted for the difference in performance.
In an explosives factory, 80% of misfires in the field were due to powder gaps in the fuse, which produced by the operator during the process of spinning the fuse.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: COMBATING FEAR IN MANAGEMENT AND LEARNING FROM SPORTS TEAMS
By Dr Axel Zein, CEO of WSCAD, which delivers CAD software for electrical engineering. In three years he turned the company around, grew revenues 57% and achieved number two status in Central Europe. He had previously achieved similar growth in another German CAD software company.
COMMENT BY IAN MUNRO, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO EXCERPT: COMMENT BY IAN MUNRO, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO EXCERPT: At Legitimate Leadership we frequently use sports metaphors to highlight good (or bad) leadership practices. While leading in a business is obviously not exactly the same as leading a football team, the comparisons are often close enough to be really valuable – as is the case with Dr Zein’s insights.
While we agree with all five of his recommendations, I focus here on “obsession with training”. When we work with leaders one of the most important messages we at Legitimate Leadership try to convey is: “Go and do something. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Without practice, nothing will change.” Competitive sports people understand this implicitly. The difference? Because performance on a sports field is usually so transparent and measurable, ‘return on investment’ (feedback) on training success is real-time and easy to see. The more I train myself to kick the ball straight, the more accurate I get.
Leadership is different. It takes time and belief and consistency to build trust – especially if there was little there before. People on the team may be sceptical at first when they see you shifting your focus to helping them. Feedback will likely be tentative while your people try to figure out whether the change is real and lasting or something that will disappear at the first sign of crisis. Keep at it. It might take 6 weeks, 6 months, a year. But when they do finally trust and support you, it will undoubtedly be worth it.
OUR EXCERPT FROM THIS VIDEO: What happens when you start a job and you’re not really prepared for it? There are two possible human reactions: One, “Wow, what a cool thing!” Another, fear.
Fear in a manager is a recipe for disaster. Because instead of seeing opportunities, you see threats. And you want to protect all that you have achieved.
So you start kissing up and kicking down, you don’t encourage others to grow, you remove every person from your way that could be a potential threat. It’s a nightmare for your business, because in the long term you’ll ruin it. And it’s an emotional nightmare for the people involved.
But fear in a manager comes mostly from the fact that that person is not prepared for the job.
So I advise you to look at sports, look at a soccer team.
READ THE FULL EXCERPT OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

September 2019

Featured

Question of the Month: Do subcontractors or temporary employees give or take more than permanent employees?
There is a view that temporary employment arrangements are a wholesale “take” by employers because they allow employers to get the job done on the cheap …
Vignette Case Study: Addressing An Underground Failure To Communicate
In an underground mining operation, a section engineering manager with underground managers reporting to him, made a few Legitimate Leadership changes which resulted in machine availability rates rising by 9% in a few months …
Coaching And The Legitimate Leadership Framework
I have been an executive coach since 2007. I have loved working with people in this way – it is a privilege to hold up a clear, mostly-untainted mirror …
Video: Bad Bosses Are Inevitable … Right?
Dr Zein shares a number of insights which are supported by our experience at Legitimate Leadership. When we work with leaders from varied industries …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne 
Question: Do subcontractors or temporary employees give or take more than permanent employees?
Answer: There is a view that temporary employment arrangements are a wholesale “take” by employers because they allow employers to get the job done on the cheap. They also allow them to dispense with excess or troublesome people at will, because the labour broker does the “dirty work”.
Such behaviour, it is said, is the antipathy of caring for people at work. Temporary employment arrangements allow those in authority to exercise power over people without paying the price of power – which is to care for and grow people.
Clearly, keeping people on temporary contracts without the benefits which full time employees enjoy when they are actually doing the job for a considerable period of time is not right. But to ban flexible work arrangements is not appropriate. Firstly, such a move flies in the face of reality. There are industries, like Legitimate Leadership’s (the consulting industry), where the work is seasonal or unpredictable. Secondly not everyone wants a full-time job – many people like the autonomy, the flexibility, the option to work less than X days a month.
But more importantly, I think that the antagonism over other-than-full-time employment arrangements is a red herring Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: ADDRESSING AN UNDERGROUND FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE
By Stefaan van den Heever,  associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In an underground mining operation, a section engineering manager with underground managers reporting to him, made a few Legitimate Leadership changes which resulted in machine availability rates rising by 9% in a few months.
The problem was that there was no communication at shift hand-over between underground managers about machine breakages, problems, etc. Managers would routinely go home from their shifts without having communicated at all to the next shift. Because they were underground where there was no signal, they could not even communicate by radio.
In other words, there were silos between different shifts.
This resulted in shift information being lost and, more importantly, in machine breakages being carried over from one shift to the next. It often took a long time for an engineer to diagnose the reason for a machine fault, but then this information was not handed over at the end of the shift. This often resulted in machines standing unrepaired for days.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: COACHING AND THE LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK
By Stefaan van den Heever, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
I have been an executive coach since 2007. I have loved working with people in this way – it is a privilege to hold up a clear, mostly-untainted mirror for someone to come to terms with places/areas where there are gaps or incoherence in authenticity.
However, in the past few years I have realised that coaching can have only a limited impact if the system and culture of an organization, for instance, is not conducive to a coaching or learning way of leading.
During coaching, the client can gain great insights and can then go and implement new behaviours based on those insights. But then something can happen – almost as if the new frame of reference “collides” with what is going on within the organization (and often an organization has an inspirational mission statement and values but they are only words).
An example: I was part of an intervention at a manufacturing plant. We were there to teach people to lead in a coaching way – to get people to engage with each other in a “learning” way where listening and asking questions were key competencies. The training was successful and most people connected to this new way of engaging.
Unfortunately, when the pressure was on, most people also reverted back to their old style of “control and command”.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: BAD BOSSES ARE INEVITABLE … RIGHT?
By Dr Axel Zein, CEO of WSCAD, which delivers CAD software for electrical engineering. In three years he turned the company around, grew revenues 57% and achieved number two status in Central Europe. He had previously achieved similar growth in another German CAD software company.
COMMENT BY IAN MUNRO, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, ON THIS VIDEO EXCERPT: Dr Zein shares a number of insights which are supported by our experience at Legitimate Leadership. When we work with leaders from varied industries and organisations around the world we frequently hear stories from people who have had the most horrendous ‘bad boss’ experiences. Many of these individuals cite their ‘bad boss’ as the reason for finding a new job. But, as Dr Zein points out, it doesn’t need to be that way.
No one is born a ‘bad boss’. Bad bosses are created when organisations simultaneously neglect to prepare new managers adequately for their leadership roles, and reward success and punish failure in ways that encourage control rather than empowerment. As long as we see our leadership roles as being here to deliver predictable results, the risk-taking and innovation referred to in Dr Zein’s excerpt will continue to elude us.
Fortunately, as much as people leave bad bosses, they also stay for good ones. As often as we hear horrendous ‘bad boss’ stories, we also hear amazing ‘great boss’ ones. The difference: understanding that true leaders are here for their teams, and that making sure that leaders have the education and training they need to succeed is just as important as making sure that engineers are fully qualified in their engineering fields.
OUR EDITED EXCERPT FROM THIS VIDEO: Three things in life are certain: death, taxes and a bad boss. As human beings we spend 40-50 years of our lives at work. It’s almost certain that during this time we’ll encounter a bad boss.
An American study found that 60% of American workers were not engaged in their jobs. Why? The main reason was not low pay, insufficient vacations, or a poor work place. The main reason was because of a bad boss.
So why do we have so many employees unsatisfied with their bosses?
Two reasons: firstly, the day you become a manager your job changes totally; secondly, we are simply not educated to become managers.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

August 2019

Featured

Question of the Month:  In a growing and living organisation, how do you ensure that Legitimate Leadership is maintained?
Rolling out Legitimate Leadership in an organisation usually begins with a two-day introduction followed by a set of application modules, to the leadership …
Vignette Case Study: It Is Not About Behaviour, It Is About Intent
Whether trust is granted to a manager, or withheld, by employees is not a function of behaviour but of the manager’s intent …
Article: What Managers Who Care Actually Do
Care is what one person does for another. In the context of legitimate relationships of power at work, it is what managers do for those …
Video: Most Leaders Don’t Even Know The Game They Are In
Leaders are so often so concerned about their status or their position in the organization that they actually forget their real job …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Leonie van Tonder 
Question: In a growing and living organisation, how do you ensure that Legitimate Leadership is maintained?
Answer: Rolling out Legitimate Leadership in an organisation usually begins with a two-day introduction followed by a set of application modules, to the leadership group. In bigger organisations roll-out is normally done in layers of reporting structures, going downwards. This may take 18 months to two years.
In a growing and living organisation, a number of resignations and appointments will happen during this time. To create a positive continuation of roll-out and application of the Legitimate Leadership Model, you need all on board.
The challenge is to keep new staff in the loop of the Legitimate Leadership Model and to replace the people lost and roles they played Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: IT IS NOT ABOUT BEHAVIOUR, IT IS ABOUT INTENT
By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Whether trust is granted to a manager, or withheld, by employees is not a function of behaviour but of the manager’s intent. In other words, “what” managers do to their people in terms of behaviour is not nearly as important as “why” they do it.
The above is central to the Legitimate Leadership Model.
Conceptually, it sounds sensible. Practically, there is a counter argument to this: surely there is a level of “hard behaviour” (think disrespectful language / shouting / verbally abusive behaviour) that would never be tolerated regardless of the intent behind it?
Intent is all well and good, but if you don’t talk to people respectfully, intent doesn’t matter … right? In my early consulting work, I subscribed to this argument.
But in 2013 I learned the truth of the Legitimate Leadership proposition in the tough environs of the South African platinum mining industry.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: WHAT MANAGERS WHO CARE ACTUALLY DO
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Care is what one person does for another. In the context of legitimate relationships of power at work, it is what managers do for those in their charge. To Care for someone essentially means to have their best interests at heart. It is about serving the needs of the other person before one’s own.
Good parents instinctively put the child’s interests first because they care unconditionally. Good managers similarly put their employees’ interests first.
For most managers, unlike parents however, this is not an instinctive choice. Rather, it is a deliberate choice that they make repeatedly over time. Care is something, in other words, which managers foster over the course of the reporting relationship they have with those in their charge.
Care moreover is definitely not a “soft and fluffy thing”. Care in the heart is evidenced in both “soft” and “hard” behaviours.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: MOST LEADERS DON’T EVEN KNOW THE GAME THEY ARE IN
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Leaders should be judged on the calibre of their people, not business results, because their job is not to produce results but to cultivate people. As Simon Sinek says, the real job of a leader is to take care of (and grow, according to Legitimate Leadership) those in his/her charge. Not all people want to lead but those who do can absolutely learn the behaviours and leadership practices which are aligned to the care and the growth role. From our experience it typically takes 12-18 months for leaders to develop competence and confidence in leading others. This investment in time and money is well worth it. Companies do not put people in charge of expensive technology without training them. So why put people in charge of other people’s lives without preparing them to succeed at doing so?
OUR EXCERPT FROM THIS VIDEO: There are two things that great leaders need to have: empathy and perspective. These things are very often forgotten.
Leaders are so often so concerned about their status or their position in the organization that they actually forget their real job.
The real job of a leader is not about being in charge, it’s about taking care of those in our charge.
I don’t think people realize this and I don’t think people train for this.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

July 2019

Featured

Question of the Month: How much time will caring for and growing my people demand of me?
Caring for and growing people does not cost money, but it does require a considerable amount of time. Caring and growing people cannot be …
Vignette Case Study: Three Things I Learned When I Agreed Mid-Year Deliverables With My Team
In the Legitimate Leadership business, every 120 days we go through a process designed to generate clarity, focus, alignment, and growth …
Article: The Role Of The Leader When It Comes To Pay
As a generalisation, people in the corporate world seem to find it difficult to admit to being “happy” with their pay. A classic comment …
Video: Why Employees Are Disengaged – And Learning By Talking About How To Do Things Wrong
Polls consistently show that about two-thirds of us are disengaged at work. But about 20% of us are actively disengaged which means we hate what we do …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How much time will caring for and growing my people demand of me?
Answer:  Caring for and growing people does not cost money, but it does require a considerable amount of time. Caring and growing people cannot be done by email because it is, by definition, a face-to-face activity.
Care and growth gets done, as opposed to talked about, in three contexts: one-on-one discussions, team meetings, and in the ‘field’ where direct reports are getting the work done.
The starting point therefore is for leaders to spend sufficient time with their people. This often requires leaders to radically change how they are spending their time and what they are giving their attention to.
Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: THREE THINGS I LEARNED WHEN I AGREED MID-YEAR DELIVERABLES WITH MY TEAM
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
In the Legitimate Leadership business, every 120 days we go through a process designed to generate clarity, focus, alignment, and growth for our people. We call this process clarifying contribution and we believe it has clear benefits for our team members (specifically, the aforementioned clarity, focus, alignment and growth).
It has obvious benefits for our organisation as well, especially as each step in the process must be aligned with the organisation’s goals and strategy. What is perhaps less obvious is how valuable this process has been for me. Every 120 days I learn something.
In the most recent cycle – mid-year 2019 – I learned three things.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE ROLE OF THE LEADER WHEN IT COMES TO PAY
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
As a generalisation, people in the corporate world seem to find it difficult to admit to being “happy” with their pay. A classic comment which illustrates this point came from an individual who said “I am not unhappy with my pay, at the moment”. The implication being that at any moment now he would regress from “not unhappy” to “unhappy” almost as a default position.
Given the above, we at Legitimate Leadership have struggled with the wording in our Leadership Profiles pertaining to satisfaction with pay. We have settled with the proposition “My current level of remuneration positively acknowledges my contribution”, to which there are the following responses: Strongly Agree/Agree/Don’t Know/Disagree/Strongly Disagree.
The combined responses are reflected on a 21 point scale from +10 (everyone strongly agrees with the statement) to -10 (everyone strongly disagrees that their current level of remuneration positively acknowledges their contribution).
What we have found is that in any group of leaders the scores on this item very considerably. Why, one wonders, would this be the case if all respondents are subject to the same reward system?
One possible explanation is that in some areas in the company people are being paid fairly and in others they are not. If this is the case, leadership legitimacy requires that the inequities are addressed. It is only right that this is so.
My belief, however, is that in most instances, the variation in score reflects not so much the actual situation with respect to pay, but the individual leader.
Weak leaders are themselves unhappy with their pay and see themselves as fellow victims of the system. Their discontent is picked up and then shared by their people. The dissatisfaction at the top is then amplified down the hierarchy such that the negative score at the top becomes a negative score to the power of 10 lower down in the organisation.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: WHY EMPLOYEES ARE DISENGAGED – AND LEARNING BY TALKING ABOUT HOW TO DO THINGS WRONG
By Jeff Havens, an American keynote speaker and corporate trainer.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: We believe that people only go above and beyond and are truly engaged when: they are given a meaningful purpose or reason for going the extra mile; they report to a person who cares and grows them; and they are passionate about the work that they do. All three are leadership issues and need to be addressed. Successful leadership is about widening the leadership practices aligned to the care and growth criteria (a relationship issue) and leading change (realising a vision).
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: This is about employee engagement or the relative lack of it.
Polls consistently show that about two-thirds of us are disengaged at work. But about 20% of us are actively disengaged which means we hate what we do and that 20% costs (the US) over half a trillion dollars a year in lost productivity.
Now interestingly polls also show that most of us are satisfied with our jobs.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

June 2019

Featured

Question of the Month: What are the main determinants for a successful Legitimate Leadership implementation?
A Legitimate Leadership intervention is applicable in any organisation (no matter what its business or where it is located) …
Legitimate Leadership Europe Launched
Legitimate Leadership has grown exponentially internationally in the past five years, particularly in Britain and Europe …
Case Study: Fuelling Performance In Fashion Retail Through Legitimate Leadership
Fashion retail is a notoriously demanding industry as more and more brands compete for an ever-shrinking consumer purse …
Video: The Anti-Ceo Playbook
Hamdi Ulukaya has understood and implemented both care and growth at Chobani. CARE is clearly evidenced by his appreciation …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What are the main determinants for a successful Legitimate Leadership implementation?
Answer:  A Legitimate Leadership intervention is applicable in any organisation (no matter what its business or where it is located) where employee contribution makes a difference to the excellence in the organisation. Experience over the past two decades indicates that factors determine its success are: ownership by line management; positioning as an integral part of an organisation’s transformation agenda; initial and ongoing assessment; integration with organisational priorities; and accountability or consequence … Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

EVENT: LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP EUROPE LAUNCHED
By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.
Legitimate Leadership has grown exponentially internationally in the past five years, particularly in Britain and Europe.
On Friday 21 June, Legitimate Leadership Europe was launched at a half-day event in Belgium. 35 senior executives in a diversity of companies, both European and global, were introduced to the principles and practices of Legitimate Leadership in a highly interactive session.
The event was hosted by Legitimate Leadership colleagues Hilde Lemmens and Carina Vignigni who have an impressive track record in enabling organisational transformation in their clients across a diverse range of companies and industries.
Wendy Lambourne, founder and director of Legitimate Leadership, provided insights into this unique leadership perspective and its application over 25 years in diverse contexts in 27 countries and five continents.
Jean–Pierre Filippini, managing director of Carglass Germany, shared his company’s experiences with implementing the Legitimate Leadership model over the past three years – and what Carglass Germany has achieved as a result, both in leadership and organisational performance. He said (our translation from Flemish): “It is the first sustainable leadership training that I have come across. It provides a simple and clear framework and results – not only for better leadership but also for heightened accountability in the organisation. Our results have also been positively influenced by it.”
Feedback from attendees was that this was truly inspiring. Most expressed interest in learning more, and many have signed up to attend a 2-Day Introductory Workshop near Genk, Belgium, in September.

CASE STUDY: FUELLING PERFORMANCE IN FASHION RETAIL THROUGH LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Fashion retail is a notoriously demanding industry as more and more brands compete for an ever-shrinking consumer purse. Converting ‘window shoppers’ into customers who fill their baskets rather than buy a single item, and come back again and again, is what it is all about.
Two well-known South African fashion brands embraced the Legitimate Leadership principles and practices to effect a step-change in the calibre of their leaders at three levels in their operations. Their focus on enabling those in the front line in their stores countrywide has impacted positively, not only on turnover but on all of their performance indicators. The intervention showed conclusively that you don’t have to trade off between people and results. You can have both.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: THE ANTI-CEO PLAYBOOK
By Hamdi Ulukaya, a Turkish-Kurdish businessman, entrepreneur, investor, and philanthropist, based in the United States. Ulukaya is the owner, founder, chairman, and CEO of Chobani, the top-selling strained yogurt brand in the US.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY IAN MUNRO OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Legitimacy in leadership is enabled by two simple criteria: CARE (a genuine concern for the human being behind the human resource) and GROWTH (enabling the very best in people).
Hamdi Ulukaya has understood and implemented both care and growth at Chobani. CARE is clearly evidenced by his appreciation of the 55 employees who were going to lose their livelihoods, and how he felt for them – complete strangers at the time. For evidence of his belief in “the very best in people”, consider his complete confidence that the same people who saw the factory fail around them, given the opportunity to give their best, could make it not only succeed, but thrive.
Hamdi Ulukaya also shares Legitimate Leadership’s belief that companies do not exist to serve shareholders, but rather have a primary duty to serve their customers. Customers may not always be right, but they do come first. Without them, there is no business.
Which leaves us with a question: how can one person, even one as capable and visionary as Hamdi Ulukaya, personally serve enough customers for his business to become the top-selling strained yoghurt brand in the US?
The answer: one person can’t. But a great team can. And great leaders understand that the greatest service they can do for customers is to build a great team. One where every member is held in the highest regard by both the leader and other team members, one where only the best is imagined and expected, and one where anything less isn’t an option.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: The new anti-CEO playbook is about gratitude. Today’s business book says: business exists to maximize profit for the shareholders. I think that’s the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard in my life. In reality, business should take care of their employees first.
The new way of business is communities. Go search for communities that you can be part of. Ask for permission and be with them, open the walls and succeed together.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

May 2019

Featured

Question of the Month: Does Legitimate Leadership say we need to move from being a results-driven business to being a people-driven business?”
Many people think that Legitimate Leadership says that in order to succeed a business needs to move from being results-driven to being people-driven …
Your Diary Never Lies
More than perhaps at any other time, a leader’s sincerity is put to the test …
The Hard Data On Being On Being A Nice Boss
A leading business expert is warning that male narcissists perform well in job interviews but make disastrous leaders …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Does Legitimate Leadership say we need to move from being a results-driven business to being a people-driven business?”
Answer:  Many people think that Legitimate Leadership says that in order to succeed a business needs to move from being results-driven to being people-driven.
But we do not say this. Sustained success isn’t about committing to results or to people; it’s about committing to excellence.
The standard defence of a single-minded focus on results is, “We aren’t here to make friends. This is business. We’re here to deliver. And delivering means getting results.”
All of this seems true, but it doesn’t work because it doesn’t deliver excellence and value-add to the customer, and therefore is not sustainable … Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

ARTICLE: YOUR DIARY NEVER LIES
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Caring for and growing people does not cost money, but it does require time – in fact, a considerable amount of time. Further to this, caring and growing people cannot meaningfully be done by email because it is, by definition, a face to face activity.
More specifically care and growth gets done, as opposed to talked about, in three contexts: one-on-one discussions, team meetings, and out in the ‘field’ where direct reports are ‘playing the game’ or getting the work done.
The starting point for leaders to translate the Legitimate Leadership principles into practice, therefore, is for them to spend sufficient time with their people. Typically, this requires leaders to change, sometimes radically change, how they are spending their time and what they are giving their attention to.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: DON’T HIRE THE CONFIDENT ONE – HE’LL BECOME A BULLYING MANAGER
By Emma Seppälä, author of The Happiness Track; also co-director of the Yale College Emotional Intelligence Project and Faculty Director of the Women’s Leadership Program at the Yale School of Management; and Science Director of Stanford University’s Center for Compassion and Altruism Research and Education.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: We agree with Emma Seppälä that more than anything else, what determines employee engagement is the nature of the relationship between each employee and his/her immediate manager. However we do not agree that leaders should be “nice” or “tough”; we say they should be both. The universal answer to the question “who would you work for willingly/be your ideal boss?” is “a person who has a sincere and genuine interest in me as an individual and enables me to realise the best in myself”. A person, in other words who cares for AND grows me. Leaders need to evidence “tough love” for those in their charge. Of the two criteria, however, care is primary. This is because care is what gives leaders the licence to grow their people. Leaders can be anything other than “nice” just as long as they are acting with their people’s highest self interest in mind. The core criterion for success as a leader is not behaviour but intent.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE, WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW: An age-old question is: Is it better to be a “nice” leader to get your staff to like you, or to be tough as nails to inspire respect and hard work?
Most people still assume the latter is best. The traditional paradigm seems safer: be firm and a little distant from your employees. They should respect you, but not feel so familiar with you that they might forget who’s in charge. A little dog-eat-dog, tough-it-out, sink-or-swim culture seems to yield time-tested results … right?
New developments in organizational research are providing some surprising answers to these questions.
What putting pressure on employees to increase performance does is increase stress—and research has shown that high levels of stress carry a number of costs to employers and employees alike.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

April 2019

Featured

Clarifying Expectations and Watching The Game – The Antidote For Dangerous Assumptions 
“When a manager engages a new-start he or she will inevitably have expectations. Many of these are likely to be legitimate …
What ‘Care’ Requires Of Leaders When Their People Have Personal Problems
More than perhaps at any other time, a leader’s sincerity is put to the test …
Don’t Hire The Confident One – He’ll Become a Bullying Manager
A leading business expert is warning that male narcissists perform well in job interviews but make disastrous leaders …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: How do you implement care and growth if the company’s existing reward system is tightly coupled to results?
Answer: The Legitimate Leadership Model says people should be held accountable for their contribution. Not how hard they tried or how much effort they put in, and not whether the result was achieved or not, but their actual contribution against an agreed standard.
The leader then needs to determine whether the contribution made was on, above, or below the standard; understand why this was the case; and then reward, recognize, censure or discipline appropriately …Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: CLARIFYING EXPECTATIONS AND WATCHING THE GAME – THE ANTIDOTE FOR DANGEROUS ASSUMPTIONS 
By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
When a manager engages a new-start he or she will inevitably have expectations. Many of these are likely to be legitimate, based on the new recruit’s prior experience, qualifications and other aspects, as explored in the recruitment process.
No recruitment process is however a substitute for a systematic and thorough “watching of the game” during the probation period. This diagnostic will bring to the fore any gaps in ability which may have been undetected during the recruitment process. Perhaps of greater importance, watching the new start’s game will reveal levels of energy and engagement (summarised as “willingness issues”) which are much more difficult to assess via recruitment instruments.
Similarly, the new employee will also have expectations related to his or her new position. The sooner these are made explicit via one-on-one meetings the better.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: WHAT ‘CARE’ REQUIRES OF LEADERS WHEN THEIR PEOPLE HAVE PERSONAL PROBLEMS
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
More than perhaps at any other time, a leader’s sincerity is put to the test when her people have problems of a personal nature. When a genuine personal problem arises – the death of a loved one, a divorce, a serious illness – do leaders notice and do they care?
What a leader should and should not do in these situations is a matter of debate. Should she approach an employee who has a personal problem but doesn’t want to talk about it? When is the best time to broach an issue? How should a sensitive issue be tackled? Is it ever appropriate to speak to someone else about the employee’s problem, especially if he has asked the leader not to?
To none of these questions is there a clear answer. The really critical question in fact relates not so much to the “when”, “where” and “how” of the problem but to the “why”.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: DON’T HIRE THE CONFIDENT ONE – HE’LL BECOME A BULLYING MANAGER
By Rosamund Urwin, British journalist.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Rosamund Urwin’s article is deliberately provocative and stimulates some useful reflection on leadership.
Legitimate Leadership does not agree with everything that is stated as ‘fact’ in the article. The view that 60–70% of bosses are ‘bad’ is too pessimistic. Our experience suggests a less bleak outlook and that most people in authority can learn, with concerted practice, to lead effectively.
We also do not agree with the cut-and-dried gender bias. Our experience is that there are both men and woman who are good ‘care and growth’ leaders – and the converse.
But we absolutely agree that ‘leadership should be about managing down: turning a bunch of people into a high-performing team’. We also concur that not only appointment but also promotion decisions should be made with consideration of the individual’s leadership behaviour and practice as experienced by those who are on the receiving end of those behaviours and practices – namely, direct reports.
We also agree that ego–driven people in leadership roles are a problem. This is because the job of the leader is too make others, not themselves, big.
There are however other personal attributes which, if they are features of the leader, can undermine their capacity to lead. These are outlined in the article ‘Can anyone Lead?’ by Wendy Lambourne. In addition to being ego–driven those in authority will also not be effective leaders if they are virtuosos or cannot let go of their preference for the technical stuff; are overly-affiliative; can’t let go and trust others or are micro managers; are trapped in victim mode; and lack compassion/empathy.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE: A leading business expert is warning that male narcissists perform well in job interviews but make disastrous leaders.
Job interviews should be scraped to prevent narcissists — who will go on to mistreat their staff — from being hired as managers, according to the author of a new book by Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic.
Chamorro-Premuzic a professor of business psychology, believes that interviews encourage bosses to hire in their own image, rather than on merit.
“They invite us to perpetuate our biases,” he said. “What you need is data-driven assessment: CVs, psychological tests and analysis of past performance.”
He believes that the most self-aggrandising applicants perform better in interviews than their more humble and more understated peers.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

March 2019

Featured

Trust, Loyalty And Willingness When Overtime Without Pay Is Needed
“I am going to be asking you all to work really hard over the next few weeks. This is going to involve long hours, late nights, as well as weekend time – and I cannot pay you …
What ‘Care’ Requires Of Leaders When Their People Have Personal Problems 
More than perhaps at any other time, a leader’s sincerity is put to the test when her people have problems of a personal nature …
What Makes Great Teams 
One of the most attractive qualities in a leader is humility. By that is meant ‘not that they think less of themselves but that they think of themselves less often’ …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What is Legitimate Leadership’s view of the value of detailed planning? 
Answer: Having studied information technology (IT), and been an IT consultant, I was previously a firm believer in the power of detailed planning. I believed that the better you can predict the future, the better would be your end result.
However, as I came to learn repeatedly, predicting the future has its challenges! In fact I learned that a single-minded focus on achieving the predefined end result by following the predefined detailed plan often created more problems than it solved. And the more the detail, the more plentiful the assumptions. And the more plentiful the assumptions, the greater the chance of the future not turning out as it was supposed to!
Today I believe that one should keep the result in mind, but understand that it is actually just the outcome reached because of the incremental contributions made …  Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: TRUST, LOYALTY AND WILLINGNESS WHEN OVERTIME WITHOUT PAY IS NEEDED
By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
“I am going to be asking you all to work really hard over the next few weeks. This is going to involve long hours, late nights, as well as weekend time – and I cannot pay you for any of the extra time you are going to spend at work. Furthermore, not many people will notice how hard we have worked.”
The view of the average manager is that employees are seldom happy to be told the above, and so the only way to get them to comply is to incentivise them, costing money, or compel them with threats of discipline if they don’t turn up for work.
The above comments were part of a briefing that an IT manager for one of our clients gave his staff as the organisation prepared for a large office move. His team was to be responsible for the IT infrastructure-related work that was to make the move successful.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: LEADERSHIP PRACTICES WHICH GAIN LEGITIMACY
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
It has been shown beyond doubt that only when managers, individually and collectively, have a genuine concern for their people as human beings and enable them to realise the best in themselves will their people be willing. It is two drops of essence, care and growth, which gives those in authority legitimacy – not money.
More specifically legitimacy as a leader is earned only through the provision of:
CARE – people feel valued, trusted and listened to.
MEANS – people are provided with an enabling environment in which to contribute.
ABILITY – people are continually increasing their know-how and know why.
ACCOUNTABILITY – people are being held appropriately accountable.
The leadership outputs of Care, Means, Ability and Accountability in turn accrue or result from 16 leadership practices.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: MAKES GREAT TEAMS
By Bill McDermott, CEO of business software company SAP.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: One of the most attractive qualities in a leader is humility. By that is meant ‘not that they think less of themselves but that they think of themselves less often’ – that they accord significance to those who report to them rather than themselves. This is equally true of all members of a team. Teams succeed to the degree to which individuals in the team concern themselves with helping others to shine rather than being the ones to shine.
OUR TRANSCRIPT OF THIS VIDEO: I get reminded of the power of the group every day. And every day there’s some type a knock-back where you learn something new and you’re humbled by all the things that you don’t know.
My secret on this is I do the things I do well often and I don’t do the things I don’t do so well at all.
I hire the best people I can find. If they’re not better than me at every job type then I have not served myself well as a leader of consequence and if I’m not slightly embarrassed by all the things they know that I don’t know, I’m not the right leader for that group.
So I think that’s the key to this humility: to have the self-confidence and the appreciation for human capital and celebrate talent, love talent. And let that talent be free.
And every day I learn something new from somebody that knows so much more than me. And that’s what makes great teams.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

February 2019

Featured

Can Anyone Lead, Or Is Leadership Just For Charismatic People?
The original research shows that trust in a leader is granted or withheld only on the basis of the employee’s perceptions of leadership’s genuine concern for their … 
A Precondition for Care Is That You Not Only Know, But Like, Your People
There are two opposing points of view in this matter. The first is that leaders can still care for their people even if they don’t like them …
The Currency Of The New Economy Is Trust
We believe that the first form of trust identified by Rachel Botsman – that is, trust built face-to-face …  

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Can anyone lead, or is leadership just for charismatic people?
Answer:  The original research shows that trust in a leader is granted or withheld only on the basis of the employee’s perceptions of leadership’s genuine concern for their welfare. Extrapolating from this, leaders stand or fall on the basis of a single criterion: their INTENT or motive. Those in positions of authority, in essence, succeed to the degree to which they are there to “give” to their people (as opposed to “get” something out of them). Their intent bears no relationship to intellect, qualifications, interpersonal skill, managerial style or even personality. Each individual – no one else – determines the motive(s) behind their actions. Intent, and by extension leadership, is therefore a matter of the will. From experience, most managers who are taken through the above logic feel liberated because they are released from the notion that only those blessed with a charismatic personality, superior intellect, oratory skill and an inclusive management style can lead.
Yet there are still people in positions of authority who absolutely understand intent but still don’t succeed in leadership roles. They fall short against the care and growth criteria because of personal attributes which constitute fatal flaws in leading others … Read the full answer by  clicking here 
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

ARTICLE:  A PRECONDITION FOR CARE IS THAT YOU NOT ONLY KNOW, BUT LIKE, YOUR PEOPLE
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
There are two opposing points of view in this matter. The first is that leaders can still care for their people even if they don’t like them. The counter-argument is that it is not possible as a leader to care for people if you don’t like them.
Legitimate Leadership’s standpoint is that leaders can’t actively dislike their people and care for them. If the person is not likeable to the leader, the leader needs to learn to like him/her/them – or, if that is impossible, they need to move away from each other.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: THE CURRENCY OF THE NEW ECONOMY IS TRUST
By Rachel Botsman, a British author and lecturer at Oxford University’s Saïd Business School specialising in trust in the digital age. She previously designed and taught the first-ever Oxford MBA course on the ‘Collaborative Economy’.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: We believe that the first form of trust identified by Rachel Botsman – that is, trust built face-to-face – is still the way that managers build trust best. So we advocate that managers find a way to increase face time – one-on-one, or with their teams, or by watching the game. Trust in institutions, and particularly corporates, is breaking down because people do not trust those in charge to look after their best interests. Only when/if leaders deliver on the care and growth needs of the people will trust in companies be restored. Institutions are breaking down because, for instance, people do not trust companies, they trust people in companies. Yes, people are putting their faith in technological platforms, but again it is not in the system but in other users’ ratings of the service which engenders trust. Trust is in other people at the end of the day, not in things. But ultimately you will trust a service if it directly delivers to you – so you will, for instance, trust Uber if it has delivered to you.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: We all know trust is fundamental, but when it comes to trusting people, something profound is happening, as reflected in systems like Airbnb, Bitcoin, Tinder, BlaBlaCar, Uber, etc.
These are all examples of how technology is creating new mechanisms that are enabling us to trust unknown people, companies and ideas. And yet at the same time, trust in institutions – banks, governments and even churches – is collapsing. So what’s happening here, and who do you trust?
There many definitions of trust, but most can be reduced to some kind of risk assessment of how likely it is that things will go right. Trust has only evolved in three significant chapters throughout the course of human history: local, institutional and what we’re now entering, distributed.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THE VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

January 2019

Featured 

Achieving Targets Through Enabling An Adherence To Standard
In an autoglass repair and replacement business, in December 2017, a target was set for the sale of value-added products (wipers and windscreen protection) …
What Care Does Not Mean 
There are a number of myths about Care which still have credence in organisations today …
 People Want To Make Money. They Also Want To Make A Difference
This article aligns closely with Legitimate Leadership’s view that people will give unconditionally to three things: 1) a purpose worth giving to …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: What are the main reasons why supervisors don’t lead?
Answer: There is undoubtedly both a Means and Ability issue when it comes to leadership. But mainly there is an intent issue.
Regarding the Means to lead, some supervisors are literally disallowed from performing their role when they are given impossible numbers of direct reports, have no authority to make decisions, are not backed up when they take disciplinary action, and rotated so that they have a different group of people reporting to them on every shift  …  Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

ARTICLE:  WHAT CARE DOES NOT MEAN
There are a number of myths about Care which still have credence in organisations today.
 MYTH ONE: COMPANIES CARE.  A common refrain in organisations is that the company does not care for its employees the way used to in the past. The “past” maybe two, 10 or even 25 years ago. Legitimate Leadership’s typical, and not very popular, response to this complaint is that of course it doesn’t. It never cared, and it never will do. Companies don’t care, people do.
To attribute a uniquely human quality to a non-human being or to an inanimate object, like an organisation, is clearly absurd.
MYTH TWO: TO CARE IS TO LOOK AFTER EMPLOYEES’ PHYSICAL AND MATERIAL NEEDS. 
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

CASE STUDY: ACHIEVING TARGETS THROUGH ENABLING AN ADHERENCE TO STANDARD
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
In an autoglass repair and replacement business, in December 2017, a target was set for the sale of value-added products (wipers and windscreen protection). The actual target, communicated to all service center managers (brand managers) across the particular country in January 2018, was a margin per prime job of X euros. In February 2018 all branches were given stock and trained on the products.
Although performance was good in the peak season it dropped significantly thereafter.
The initial response by the two district managers (North West and South East) was to reemphasize the importance of the target to their regional managers who then passed the message down the line. In some regions the margin per prime job improved – but not across the board. In fact, some branches achieved margins which were not only below target but were unacceptably low.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE MONEY. THEY ALSO WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
By Americans Elizabeth McLeod and Lisa Earle McLeod (creator of the business concept Noble Purpose and author of the bestseller Selling with Noble Purpose: How to Drive Revenue and Do work That Makes You Proud).
COMMENT BY IAN MUNRO, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: This article aligns closely with Legitimate Leadership’s view that people will give unconditionally to three things: 1) a purpose worth giving to, 2) a passion worth giving to, 3) and a person worth giving to. In this respect, millennials are no different from everyone else. Great workplaces invariably have great purpose, great passion and great people.
McLeod’s first and last points talk directly to the Legitimate Leadership criteria of Care and Growth. Care is about getting personal and figuring out what makes people “tick”. Growth happens when we tolerate only the best from our people and our teams. Only when leaders give us these two things do they elevate themselves to the descriptor “people worth giving to”.
McLeod is also accurate in saying that purpose is about more than ROI. It is about asking what our organisation is here to give. What contribution do we collectively aspire to making? Answer that question and you may have a purpose that people are willing to give to.
Lastly, on passion: if you want your team to be “on fire for what we’re doing”, then you really need to be on fire too!
OUR SLIGHTLY EDITED VERSION OF THIS ARTICLE: Attracting and keeping top millennial talent is a burning issue for leaders. Millennials are 35% of the workforce; by 2020 they’ll be 46%.
Some of our most successful clients, like Google, are filled with millennials who are on fire for their jobs. Yet many organizations struggle to attract and retain top millennial talent.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

December 2018

Featured 

Personal Significance And Where It Fits Into The Workplace 
Some people understand personal significance; many do not. As part of our work, Legitimate Leadership consultants ask people to identify and reflect  … 
Question Of The Month: “What Is The Difference Between A “Carrot” And A “Reward”?
Answer: The difference is not the money. In both instances, there is a handover of money. The difference lies in the reason WHY the money is handed over …
Which Is Better, Rewards Or Punishments 
What is referred to in this article as Rewards and Punishment are what Legitimate Leadership would see as “Sticks” and “Carrots”. Both Sticks and Carrots are conditional … 

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question:   What is the difference between a “carrot” and a “reward”?
Answer:  The difference is not the money. In both instances, there is a handover of money. The difference lies in the reason WHY the money is handed over.   In the case of the “carrot”, the reason is to stimulate an improvement in performance. The motive is therefore a “getting” one. It is essentially “giving to get” – if you give me (more output/better quality/faster), I will give you X units of currency. It is a “giving to get” more in the future, which incites a haggle in which both parties seek to maximise their own interests in the exchange … Read the full answer by clicking here 
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

ARTICLE: PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND WHERE IT FITS INTO THE WORKPLACE
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Some people understand personal significance; many do not. As part of our work, Legitimate Leadership consultants ask people to identify and reflect on the person they most admire. Let me ask you to do the same.
From the answer to this question, two observations emerge.
First, even in South Africa, Nelson Mandela does not emerge as the most often-cited hero. The person identified most often, our personal “Person Of My Lifetime”, is “My Mum” (sorry dads, collectively we’re just too frequently absent).
Second, and perhaps more interestingly, are the reasons we find these exceptional individuals – whether My Mum, My First Boss or Nelson Mandela – so admirable, compelling and significant.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: WHICH IS BETTER, REWARDS OR PUNISHMENTS?
By Heather Turgeon, New York Times. Heather Turgeon is a psychotherapist and co-author, with Julie Wright, of the new book “Now Say This: The Right Words to Solve Every Parenting Dilemma”.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: What is referred to in this article as Rewards and Punishment are what Legitimate Leadership would see as “Sticks” and “Carrots”. Both Sticks and Carrots are conditional – they are a give-to-get and have inevitable consequences at work and at home. Sticks induce resistance while Carrots lead to counter-manipulation or retaliation. They get movement but not willingness. We totally agree with the author’s comments on this. However, at Legitimate Leadership we see Reward/Punishment/Discipline as different to Sticks and Carrots. They are unconditional and are about unconditional giving. Punishment is about unconditional justice while Reward is about unconditional generosity. Carrots and Sticks bring out the worst in human beings while appropriate Punishment and Reward enable people to be the best that they can be.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE: Rewards and Punishments are conditional, but our love and positive regard for our kids should be unconditional. Here’s how to change the conversation and the behavior.
“I feel a sense of dread as bedtime rolls around. Here we go again.” A parent often says this, feeling frustrated and stumped at the anticipated ignoring of parents’ directions and melt-down at the mention of pajamas.
Should they sternly send him to time out and take away his screen time (Punishments)? Or set up a system to entice him with stickers and prizes for good behavior (Rewards)?
READ OUR FULL SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE 
Sylvania No Comments

November 2018

Featured 

Raising Standards In Practice 
During a workshop around values and behaviour standards a Legitimate Leadership client company’s management team …
How Do Managers Know That Their Authority Is Accepted By Those They Exercise Authority Over?  
The key issue for those in authority is to first gain, and then retain, acceptance of their authority by those they exercise authority over …
How Do We Get Continuously Better, How Do We Prevent Level-Out? 
One of the differentiators between leaders and managers is that managers don’t care how good or bad people are as long as they produce the results …

 

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Stuart Foulds, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question:   I have a staff member who struggles to adapt to change. I ask her to do a process, but 3 weeks later the process is not complete and she is still working on it. Her inflexibility means tasks take a long time to finalise. Also, there are often errors that require re-work. Sometimes I sit with her and work through the requirements – but this means that my own big workload comes to a standstill. What should I do?
Answer:  A leader’s role has two parts. You should be empathetic in caring for your people and helping them navigate change. But you also need to hold your people accountable for performance. This person is clearly not delivering work that is up to standard.
Your job as the leader is to determine WHY that is the case … Read the full answer by clicking here 

 

 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: RAISING STANDARDS IN PRACTICE
By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership
During a workshop around values and behaviour standards a Legitimate Leadership client company’s management team reached the conclusion that, despite the business having a very clear benevolent ethos – for instance, the company strives to provide free medical services to the needy as a byproduct of their paid-for medical services – they had until this point not had an explicit discussion about what their values actually were.
This was making it difficult to consistently encourage supportive behaviours – and to confront behaviours in the business that were not supportive of the work they were trying to do.
The workshop was part of Legitimate Leadership’s application module, Enabling Human Excellence by Raising the Bar, which helps managers to understand the role of standards in a business, and why it is so important to continue to strive for ever-increasing levels of excellence in standards.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: HOW DO MANAGERS KNOW THAT THEIR AUTHORITY IS ACCEPTED BY THOSE THEY EXERCISE AUTHORITY OVER?
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
The key issue for those in authority is to first gain, and then retain, acceptance of their authority by those they exercise authority over.
It is clearly naïve, however, for those in authority to believe that they will ever have total authority or power. Politicians know that their party may get the majority, but never 100%, of the votes. Managers know that in any organisation there will always be people who are anti-authority, who are disaffected and distrust those in charge.
What is of utmost importance to those in authority in organisations, however, is to know the size of the pro- and the anti-establishment groups – to gain insight into what proportion of their employees are for and against them and the makeup of those two fundamental populations.
Even more useful is to establish the degree to which, and the reasons why, employees trust different levels of leadership. Finally, to understand the patterns of allegiance in the organisation or with whom employees loyalty is vested.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: HOW DO WE GET CONTINUOUSLY BETTER, HOW DO WE PREVENT LEVEL-OUT?
By Atul Gawande, an American surgeon and public health researcher. He has written extensively on medicine and public health for The New Yorker.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: One of the differentiators between leaders and managers is that managers don’t care how good or bad people are as long as they produce the results. Leaders, on the other hand, are relentless in their pursuit of excellence in their people as an end in itself. One of the ways of enabling human excellence is through coaching. By that is meant “watching the game” and giving the person whose game is being watched specific and detailed feedback which enables her to improve her game. Legitimate Leadership sees the leader as a coach and has witnessed significant improvements in performance when leaders suspend their own agenda to go out to “watch the game” of their direct reports and give them developmental feedback. Atul Gawande shows how coaching in birth centres in India literally saved lives. His experience irrevocably demonstrates the power of those in leadership positions in organisations coaching their people to realise the best in themselves from an ability point of view.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: How do professionals get better at what they do? How do they get great?
I think it’s not just how good you are now, I think it’s how good you’re going to be that really matters.
I was visiting a birth center in the north of India. I watched the birth attendants and realized I was witnessing in them an extreme form of this very struggle – namely, how people improve in the face of complexity, or don’t. In this region  the typical birth center has a 1-in-20 death rate for babies, and moms die at a rate 10 times higher than elsewhere.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

October 2018

Featured 

New Store Opening – Small Changes Produce Dramatic Results
Some seemingly small changes made in the way a top-performing regional manager in a South African apparel retail group works …
Five Determinants Of A Successful Legitimate Leadership Implementation 
In the book Legitimate Leadership (2012) I argued that there are three critical characteristics necessary for a Legitimate Leadership implementation to succeed. They are INSIGHT, COURAGE and PERSEVERANCE …
That’s How It Turned Out To Be, But I Had To Make It Work 
Oppressor-victim narratives are prevalent currently. Victimhood is particularly seductive (and worth clinging to) because it calls for the morally-turpid oppressor to change …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Can a Legitimate Leadership intervention succeed in an organisation without the full commitment of its executive?
Answer:  To cascade Legitimate Leadership principles and practices rigorously down an organisation is the optimal situation. However, an intervention can succeed when this is not the case. Experience has shown that in a large organisation the commitment of senior management outweighs the importance of the commitment of the executive. Because legitimate leadership is a choice, the catalyst for change can be at any level …  Read the full answer by clicking here
To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

 VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: NEW STORE OPENING – SMALL CHANGES PRODUCE DRAMATIC RESULTS
Some seemingly small changes made in the way a top-performing regional manager in a South African apparel retail group works with and communicates to her store managers have produced some dramatic results. The regional manager says she has been in retail for 20 years and seen a number of store turnarounds – but nothing as dramatic as this.
The changes she made followed Legitimate Leadership training in the group in 2018.
In mid-2017, a new store was opened in her area. The store proved problematic because it was only managing to open about six new customer accounts every month.
The regional manager appointed a new store manager in 2018, but in the first month of her service, the new manager struggled in the same way that the previous manager had.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: FIVE DETERMINANTS OF A SUCCESSFUL LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP IMPLEMENTATION
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
In the book Legitimate Leadership (2012) I argued that there are three critical characteristics necessary for a Legitimate Leadership implementation to succeed. They are INSIGHT, COURAGE and PERSEVERANCE.
More specifically, my experience in organisations over the last two decades suggests that to realise the full impact that a Legitimate Leadership intervention can make on an individual, team and organisational excellence necessitates five factors.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

PODCAST: ‘THAT’S HOW IT TURNED OUT TO BE, BUT I HAD TO MAKE IT WORK’
About Kgothatso Montjane, South African wheelchair tennis player. 
COMMENT ON THIS PODCAST BY  TEIGUE PAYNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Oppressor-victim narratives are prevalent currently. Victimhood is particularly seductive (and worth clinging to) because it calls for the morally-turpid oppressor to change, but calls for no change from the innocent victim. Examples of victim narratives are: the wealthy oppress the workers; men oppress woman; colonisers oppress the colonised; white people oppressed people of colour; straight people oppress gay people; beneficiaries of affirmative action oppress non-beneficiaries; etc, etc. There is of course much overarching truth in these narratives. Kgothatso Montjane is aware of overarching narratives, but she chooses to focus on more positive matters. In the modern Western world, where slavery and the gulag do not exist, most people can make some of the kind of choices that Kgothatso Montjane has made.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS PODCAST: Kgothatso Montjane competed at this year’s Women’s Wheelchair Tennis Championships at Wimbledon. She was the first African to compete in this event. Although she did not qualify for normal entry (having gained entry on a wildcard), and although she had not played on grass before and she did not have a coach, she reached the semi-finals.
Shortly before the Wimbledon event, the normal sponsor of South African wheelchair tennis withdrew. Montjane herself had insufficient financial resources but a late contribution allowed her to travel to Wimbledon. However, the funds were insufficient for her coach to go with her.
She says that because of financial problems she thought that this Wimbledon would be her last tournament. “So I wanted to go and make the best of it and enjoy the experience … It was a dream come true and at that moment I felt like even if I quit, I would be happy because I completed the four slams.”
READ OUR FULL SUMMARY OF THIS PODCAST BY CLICKING HERE
TO LISTEN TO THE FULL PODCAST CLICK HERE 
 
Sylvania No Comments

September 2018

Featured 

Opening A New Store In A New Way 
A long-serving senior area manager of a large consumer retail group in South Africa was given the exciting task of opening the biggest store …
What Does Watching The Game Look Like? 
In the critical leadership activity of “watching the game”, the following standards (discussed below) apply: Do It With The Right Intent  …
Why Empathy Is So Important 
Simon Sinek puts it beautifully, as always – in this instance that ”empathy is about being concerned with the human being,  not just their output” …

 

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question:  If I have very limited time available for leadership activities, what should I spend the time on?
Answer: You should focus on providing each of your direct reports with what will most enable him/her to contribute and grow. Consider each direct report in turn. Ask yourself what he/she NEEDS from you right now in terms of seven possibilities: care, means, ability, censure, discipline, praise and reward …  Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: OPENING A NEW STORE A NEW WAY
A long-serving senior area manager of a large consumer retail group in South Africa was given the exciting task of opening the biggest store so far within her brand/division. She says this was a great opportunity particularly because at the same time the group was going through a Legitimate Leadership application exercise and “care and growth” training.
She had done many store openings before but, particularly because of applying the insights she was gaining from the training, this opening was the most successful ever.
She ascribes the success particularly to changes she made in recruiting as well as in being “useful by being useless” – by watching the game more than previously, rather than doing it herself.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: WHAT DOES WATCHING THE GAME LOOK LIKE?
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
In the critical leadership activity of “watching the game”, the following standards (discussed below) apply: Do It With The Right Intent; Listen, Observe And Ask Questions; Watch The Game, Don’t Play It; Give Attention To The Person Playing The Game, Not The Outcome; Inform The Person That His/Her Game Is Being Watched; Spend Sufficient Time To Reach Some Conclusions About What Is Being Watched; and Give Feedback As Soon As Possible After Observation.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO:  WHY EMPATHY IS IMPORTANT
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:  Simon Sinek puts it beautifully, as always – in this instance that ”empathy is about being concerned with the human being not just their output”. This is synonymous with the Legitimate Leadership argument that what people at work want, more than anything else, is to be convinced that the person they report to directly has a genuine and sincere interest in their wellbeing as a human being, not a human resource. Sinek also makes the point that the need to be cared for is true of everyone at work irrespective of their age. Legitimate Leadership goes further: we say that the need to be cared for is truly universal. An illiterate miner working 3.8km underground and the CEO of a global business are of like mind on this. Irrespective of nationality, industry, gender, background and age we all have the same expectations of those in authority – namely, that they care for us and enable us to grow.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: We do not practice empathy.
What doesn’t empathy look like?
You walk into somebody’s office and say, “Your numbers have been down for the third quarter in a row. You have to pick them up otherwise I cannot guarantee what the future will look like.”
How inspired you think that person is to come to work the next day?
Here’s what empathy looks like: You walk into somebody’s office and say, “Your numbers have been down for the third quarter in a row. Are you okay? I’m worried about you. What’s going on?”
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

August 2018

Featured 

What To Focus On For Organisational Excellence 
Sustainable organisational excellence is not about a focus on results OR a focus on people. It is about a focus on results AND a focus on people. Put another way, it is about a focus on people …
The World Belongs To The Happily Discontented
Good leaders make it their business to continually raise the bar or reset and implement standards of excellence. In doing so, they are practising  “tough love” …
What Makes Us Feel Good About Work 
At Legitimate Leadership we have come to believe that there are really only three reasons why employees will go the extra mile at work  …

 

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question:  Do Legitimate Leadership consultants find managers in client organisations who are simply not prepared to hold their people accountable. If so, what can be done about this?
Answer: Unfortunately yes, we often find managers who lack the will or testicular fortitude to ultimately hold people accountable for deliberate malevolence. When we have come across this reticence we have tried to coach the manager and persuade him or her to do this …  Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

ARTICLE: WHAT TO FOCUS ON FOR ORGANISATIONAL EXCELLENCE
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership. 
Sustainable organisational excellence is not about a focus on results OR a focus on people. It is about a focus on results AND a focus on people. Put another way, it is about a focus on people excellence.
Why the focus on people excellence? Simply because excellent results can only be achieved by excellent people.
Managers in most organisations today focus largely on the results; and setting goals and targets, and measuring progress against these. A limited amount of that effort goes into determining who needs to do what to achieve the desired results. Even less time is given to determining and then delivering the leadership actions which enable people to do what needs to be done to achieve the results.
When the results are not forthcoming, the typical managerial response is to increase the pressure on the result. Allied to this, management alters its reporting requirements – they require more reports on the results achieved, more often and in more detail.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE WORLD BELONGS TO THE HAPPILY DISCONTENTED
Co-written by Wendy Lambourne and Ian Munro, directors of Legitimate Leadership.
Good leaders make it their business to continually raise the bar or reset and implement standards of excellence. In doing so, they are practising “tough love”. They are challenging their people not to remain in their comfort zone, not to let standards deteriorate or slip over time, nor to accept that the current is “good enough”.
As soon as they have achieved a certain standard they replace that standard with a higher standard which they then relentlessly seek to achieve. Their goal is not to be better than the rest, or to be able to say that “OUR standard is THE standard in the country and throughout the WORLD”. Their goal is simply to continuously strive to be better than they were before.
This is because they know that the world belongs to the “happily discontented” – to those who focus on perfecting process over outcome. They know that a relentless lifting of standards is the bedrock of both individual and organisational excellence.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: WHAT MAKES US FEEL GOOD ABOUT WORK
By Dan Ariely, professor of psychology and behavioural economics at Duke University, USA.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: At Legitimate Leadership we have come to believe that there are really only three reasons why employees will go the extra mile at work.
They believe the goals and objectives of the organisation they work for are worth going the extra mile for (Ariely’s ‘importance of meaning and purpose’).
They report to the kind of manager who kindles in them a preparedness to do, not just what is asked, but much, much more than that. Among other things this kind of manager acknowledges and demonstrates appreciation for what his people have contributed (Ariely’s gratitude).
They have such a passion for the work that they do that they want to apply all their skills and energy to doing it superbly well.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: Think about Adam Smith versus Karl Marx. Adam Smith had an important notion of efficiency. He gave an example of a pin factory. He said the making of pins have 12 different steps, and if one person does all 12 steps, production is very low. But if you get one person to do step 1, and one person to do step 2 and step 3 and so on, production can increase tremendously. And indeed, this is the reason for the Industrial Revolution and efficiency.
Karl Marx, on the other hand, said that the alienation of labor is incredibly important in how people think about the connection to what they are doing. And if you do all 12 steps, you care about the pin. But if you do one step every time, maybe you don’t care as much.
In the Industrial Revolution, Adam Smith was more correct than Karl Marx. But now we’re in the knowledge economy.  Is efficiency still more important than meaning? I think not. I think that as we move to situations in which people have to decide on their own about how much effort, attention, caring they are going to put in, how connected they feel to their work … all of a sudden Marx is more applicable.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

July 2018

Featured 

Failing The Intent Test Doesn’t Just Erode Trust, It Contributes To Employee Mediocrity 
In a previous newsletter I wrote about how “passing the intent test” is an everyday opportunity. We often find ourselves in conversations with clients around this issue …
Effective leadership is easier said than done at the best of times. Leading with legitimacy is not necessarily difficult (it’s a simple matter of choosing giving over taking really), but it is certainly hard …
Leaders, If You Were A Radio Station, Are People Tuning Into Or Out Of Your Frequency? 
What do you think? Are you aware of the impact and influence you are having on the people around you?
Four Steps In Handling Mediocrity On Your Team 
Legitimate Leadership’s antidote to mediocrity is to cultivate an environment where people are happily discontented or where standards are continually enforced and raised …

 

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question:  When is a Legitimate Leadership intervention not appropriate?
Answer:  I used to believe that there were four situations in which a Legitimate Leadership intervention was not appropriate. All four situations (see Legitimate Leadership (the book) pg 281-283) remain valid, but there is a fifth – namely, when the leadership of the enterprise is relentless in their avoidance of holding people accountable …  Read the full answer by clicking here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: FAILING THE INTENT TEST DOESN’T JUST ERODE TRUST, IT CONTRIBUTES TO EMPLOYEE MEDIOCRITY
 By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In a previous newsletter I wrote about how “passing the intent test” is an everyday opportunity. We often find ourselves in conversations with clients around this issue – in particular when discussing the very difficult question of continually trying to balance care and accountability. Managers often see this balance as something that cannot be sustained – either the manager displays care, or the manager gives accountability, and that these two acts are at opposite ends of a spectrum. When our need to “care” about our people becomes an excuse to expect less than the best from them, we run the risk of tolerating, or even encouraging, employee mediocrity.
To enable excellence in people, Care and Accountability are two complimentary ideas that must be held in the hand simultaneously, and it is precisely because we care that we give appropriate accountability.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE:LEADERS; IF YOU WERE A RADIO STATION, ARE PEOPLE TUNING INTO OR OUT OF YOUR FREQUENCY?
 By Wendy Nagel, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
What do you think? Are you aware of the impact and influence you are having on the people around you?
Are you occupying a leadership position OR demonstrating leadership? Depending on where you are, there will either be a high demand for your radio frequency or people will be turning you off.
The fact is, we don’t only lead at work … we lead in all aspects of our lives. I know for some this might pose a challenge, but here’s the thing: work is only one aspect of life. And yes, for some, work is everything (which may explain why you’re so frazzled and close to burnout – but that’s another issue for another time).
I am observing the energy of INTENTION more and more in my life, which notably includes work. Our intention is what is assessed in every single engagement with another human being. We are wired to determine the reason for somebody making the request/s or demand/s they make. As a result, we very quickly make a decision around the intent and whether or not it is in our best interests and so we either move towards it or away from it.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: FOUR STEPS IN HANDLING MEDIOCRITY ON YOUR TEAM
By Joseph Grenny, writing in Harvard Business Review. Joseph Grenny is a four-time New York Times bestselling author, keynote speaker, and leading American social scientist for business performance. He is the co-founder of VitalSmarts, an innovator in corporate training and leadership development.
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Legitimate Leadership’s antidote to mediocrity is to cultivate an environment where people are happily discontented or where standards are continually enforced and raised. Ultimately, there is only one performance standard: the best that you can be. When leaders insist on this, mediocrity is not possible. Indeed, “chronic mediocrity is a symptom of ineffective leadership, not anaemic personnel”. That mediocrity is a leadership failure is unequivocally true. Grenny’s four leadership practices are excellent as a means to eradicate mediocrity. They can be summarised as: (1) engineer a situation where people experience being the recipient of mediocre work, (2) provide a few key measures for the results of excellence, (3) encourage peer accountability – call colleagues out on mediocre performance, and (4) demonstrate, through example, an intolerance of mediocrity.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS ARTICLE: The toughest test of managers is not how they deal with poor performance — it’s how they address mediocrity. There is no silver bullet to address lackluster performance but there are four leadership practices that can help.
I’ve been struck over the years watching executives opine in public about the need for “accountability” and “high performance,” then complaining helplessly in private about one or two middling members of their own team.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

Sylvania No Comments

June 2018

Featured 

If You Want To Make Dotted Line Reporting Work, You Need To DO 3 Things 
Effective leadership is easier said than done at the best of times. Leading with legitimacy is not necessarily difficult (it’s a simple matter of choosing giving over taking really), but it is certainly hard …
The Anatomy Of Trust 
According to Legitimate Leadership, commitment of employees to the leader is solely based on trust 
First The Why, And Then Trust 
Excellence in an organisation can only be achieved on the basis of the overall willingness of its members to contribute significantly more than what they take out …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Stefaan van den Heever, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
Question:  What does the Legitimate Leadership Model say about dealing with “victims” in organisations?  
ANSWER: The Legitimate Leadership Model makes a few distinctions when it comes to victims:
  • Being a victim bears no relationship to age, gender, nationality, culture or life circumstances. Any person can be a victim …  Read the full answer by clicking here
  To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

 ARTICLE: IF YOU WANT TO MAKE DOTTED LINE REPORTING WORK, YOU NEED TO DO 3 THINGS
By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Effective leadership is easier said than done at the best of times. Leading with legitimacy is not necessarily difficult (it’s a simple matter of choosing giving over taking really), but it is certainly hard. When it comes to leading, knowing and doing are not the same thing.
However, when you introduce dotted lines, what started out as simple to understand but hard to do, becomes complicated to understand, and therefore even harder to do. It’s why matrix structures and project environments are so often fraught with leadership challenges. And it’s why, if you have dotted reporting lines in your business, it’s so important that you do the following three things …
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE ANATOMY OF TRUST
By Nothemba Mxenge, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
According to Legitimate Leadership, commitment of employees to the leader is solely based on trust. Dr Brené Brown (author of the bestseller Daring Greatly and Rising Strong) speaks powerfully on the topic of trust in “The Anatomy of Trust” (http://www.oprah.com/own-supersoulsessions/brene-brown-the-anatomy-of-trust-video).
Brown defines trust as “what I have shared with you that is important to me”. Building trust relationships therefore requires some “face time” for personal matters and concerns to be shared with another. She breaks down what it means to trust someone, what it means to trust yourself, and reveals the anatomy of trust through the acronym B.R.A.V.I.N.G.
This article unpacks this acronym while integrating it with the Legitimate Leadership framework.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 VIDEO: FIRST THE WHY, AND THEN TRUST
By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:  Simon Sinek is, as always, thought-provoking. My takeaways from this video were, firstly, that when you recruit and select, look for people who believe what you believe (shared values and beliefs). This is far more important than that they have the right skill-set and experience. From 25 years of experience of endeavouring to build a team of care and growth consultants, the number one criteria has been that they are totally convinced and prepared to take a bullet for the basic tenets and principles which underpin this unique framework for cultivating trust in the leadership of an enterprise. And secondly, the only way to build trust is through face-to-face contact. This is why email will never substitute for quality time with one’s manager where the manager’s intent is to care for and enable his people to realise their full potential. People in organisations trust managers who care about them. That care is evidenced in the quality time that managers give to their people. This is simply because, as human beings, we give time to, and pay attention to, that which we care about.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: We all came here for the same reason – we have similar values and similar beliefs. That’s the reason we showed up. We don’t know each other and yet we know something about each other. This is important because the survival of the human race depends on our ability to surround ourselves with people who believe what we believe. When we’re surrounded by people who believe what we believe, something remarkable happens: trust emerges.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

May 2018

Featured 

An Organisation In A Disempowered, ‘Family Business’ Mode 
A “family atmosphere” in an organisation is generally regarded as being good for success. But it can also be somewhat disempowering. Legitimate Leadership had to show flexibility in assisting an organisation of this type …
Why Legitimate Leadership Comes From South Africa  
The Legitimate Leadership Model, in essence, strives to increase trust between management and non-management in all kinds of organisations …
The Importance Of Having A Vision Or Objective Which Solicits The Intention To Contribute 
Excellence in an organisation can only be achieved on the basis of the overall willingness of its members to contribute significantly more than what they take out …
Amazon Spent Years Learning What It Takes To Do Great Work.  These 4 Steps Contributed Most To Its Success
Amazon’s experience totally aligns with the Legitimate Leadership view on raising the bar or enforcing and raising standards …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
I understand that to gain and retain legitimacy as a leader I need be values-driven, but I also need my job to support my family. What if retaining my job and acting in accordance with values are in conflict?
ANSWER: A leader who is seen to be driven by needs rather than by values will lose the trust of reports and hence her legitimacy as a leader. Therefore ultimately there can be no compromise.
However, before recklessly resorting to resignation, the following should be carefully considered … Read the full answer by clicking here

 

  To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com 

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: ASSISTING AN ORGANISATION IN A DISEMPOWERED, ’FAMILY BUSINESS’ MODELEADING WITH THE AIM OF EMPLOYEES EXCELLING
By Nothemba Mxenge, associate, Legitimate Leadership  
A “family atmosphere” in an organisation is generally regarded as being good for success. But it can also be somewhat disempowering. Legitimate Leadership had to show flexibility in assisting an organisation of this type.
The organisation had a total staff of about 120 people with three management levels. Legitimate Leadership was requested by a new senior manager to assist in transforming the organisational culture. This manager had prior exposure to the Legitimate Leadership Model and perceived that the organisation was stuck in victim mode, which resulted in a disempowering culture.
The disempowerment, it later transpired, was largely due to employees knowing each other so well. They had generally worked there for many years and there was a family atmosphere. Members of staff looked upon their managers as their fathers and mothers – and even often addressed them as such.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 ARTICLE: WHY LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP COMES FROM SOUTH AFRICA
By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.
WITH COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP, AT THE END. 
The Legitimate Leadership Model, in essence, strives to increase trust between management and non-management in all kinds of organisations; it strives to decrease the fraction of the workforce which is disaffected and disengaged, and increase the fraction which is pro-establishment.
It is no coincidence that South Africa has been, and still is, a country where there is considerable research on disaffection and disengagement in the workforce. The latest World Economic Forum report on country competitiveness for 2016-2017, for instance, ranks South Africa as having the worst labour-employee relations in the world (137 out of 137 countries surveyed).
Arising from its long history of conquest, colonialism, industrialisation and apartheid, it is probably not surprising that South Africa is a leader in labour disaffection and disengagement.
The Legitimate Leadership Model originated from seminal research into trust in management in the South African gold mines in the late 1980s, during the apartheid era. However, contrary to expectation then, trust in management was not consistently low, but varied immensely, both across mines and even in different shafts on the same mine. .
READ THE FULL ARTICLE (INCLUDING COMMENT AT THE END) BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A VISION OR OBJECTIVE WHICH SOLICITS THE INTENTION TO CONTRIBUTE
By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership. 
Excellence in an organisation can only be achieved on the basis of the overall willingness of its members to contribute significantly more than what they take out. In other words, they need to suspend their self-interest in the interests of others.
As the above has become more widely appreciated, companies have put in place various programmes to boost the contributions of their employees. Many of these programmes are of a financial nature such as incentive bonuses.
The payment of bonuses is consistent with the Legitimate Leadership principle of rewarding exceptional contribution. If applied as such, it is done in appreciation of past contribution and not as an incentive towards future contribution.
The risk of paying a bonus to secure future contribution is that it is likely to solicit greed from the recipients. In order to secure the same commitment, it becomes necessary to constantly repeat the payment as if it were an energy drug. And, as tolerance to the drug develops, more of it may need to be applied to achieve the same outcomes.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 ARTICLE: AMAZON SPENT YEARS LEARNING WHAT IT TAKES TO DO GREAT WORK. THESE 4 STEPS CONTRIBUTED MOST TO ITS SUCCESS
By Justin Bariso, a US author and consultant. 
COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Amazon’s experience totally aligns with the Legitimate Leadership view on raising the bar or enforcing and raising standards.
Amazon’s 4 Steps and how they equate to Legitimate Leadership’s Raising the Bar are as follows:
Step 1: High standards are teachable = the standard you expect is the standard you get.
Step 2: High standards are domain specific = you can have high standards in one area (like safety) and not in another area (like quality or leadership). There is no such thing as blanket high standards. The 7 requirements for implementing a standard need to be met with each and every standard. Only then will the desired standard become reality.
Step 3: High standards must be recognised = if you want excellence you need to describe excellence. Often simply clarifying what excellence looks like is sufficient to get excellence.
Step 4: High standards require realistic expectations = raise the bar in increments.
THE ARTICLE: Yesterday, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos published his annual letter to shareholders, and it’s got some great advice for anyone who is striving to do great work.
After commending Amazon employees for their commitment to excellence, and Amazon customers for pushing Bezos and his team to continue raising the bar, Bezos delivered a lesson in how to stay ahead of customer expectations.
It all comes down to maintaining high standards, he writes.
And how do you do that?
Bezos continues:
“The four elements of high standards as we see it: they are teachable, they are domain specific, you must recognize them, and you must explicitly coach realistic scope.”
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

April 2018

Featured 

Leading With The Aim of Employees Excelling
LegitimateLeadership suggests that leaders should focus on the employee as the result – rather than the employee simply being the means …
What is Wrong With Sticks And Carrots – They Work, Don’t They ?
Conventional managers the world over view their jobs as achieving a result(s) through others …
Why Incentives Don’t Work 
There are two problems with incentives … …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
Do we need to totally change our performance management and rewards systems to successfully implement the Legitimate Leadership Model in our organisation?
There is an overall response as well as both a short-term and a longer-term answer to the question.
OVERALL RESPONSE:   Legitimate Leadership is about people and relationships – it is NOT about systems, processes and structures. It is patently incorrect to say, for example, “I can’t empower my staff to make their own leave decisions because ‘the leave system’ requires me to authorise their leave.” Or to say, “We can’t enable employees’ above-and-beyond contribution until we only reward people for their contribution (what they give), not the results (what they get).”
Caring for and growing one’s people is a choice. The behaviours and practices which emanate from the Legitimate Leadership Model are therefore absolutely possible within any performance management and reward system … Read the full answer by clicking here .
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

ARTICLE: LEADING WITH THE AIM OF EMPLOYEES EXCELLING
By Lulu de Beer, associate, Legitimate Leadership
Legitimate Leadership suggests that leaders should focus on the employee as the result – rather than the employee simply being the means toward achieving a business results. Business leaders tend to focus on the result because that is what they are measured on and shareholders generally care mostly about the returns on their investment.
In this way shareholders may be causing leaders to spend their time in the wrong way, ultimately undermining the very goal they aim to achieve. When leaders are solely focused on the outcome, without considering the people that need to deliver that outcome, the chance of success diminishes. 
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 ARTICLE: WHAT IS WRONG WITH STICKS AND CARROTS – THEY WORK, DON’T THEY?
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
Conventional managers the world over view their jobs as achieving a result(s) through others. There are of course many ways of getting people to do what needs to be done. Generally speaking though there are really only two options: ways which are hard (the “stick”), and ways which are soft (the “carrot”).
Traditional managers will argue that “sticks” and “carrots” work. They will say that they have been successfully used to achieve the desired organisational outcomes over the last hundred years and will continue to be so.
They are absolutely right that both coercion and persuasion do work in the short term.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 


 VIDEO: WHY INCENTIVES DON’T WORK 
By Steve Levitt, a renowned American economist who co-authored the best-selling book Freakonomics and is currently the William B Ogden Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and director of the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP ON THIS VIDEO: We totally agree with Steve Levitt’s view about incentives. There are two problems with incentives. First, they get movement but not willingness. Second, because the intent behind incentives is to “give to get”, they incite a haggle. In 35 years I have never come across an incentive scheme that does not lead to conflict.
Rather than incentivising employees, leaders should focus on three things:
  1. Provide their people with a purpose worth committing to; help employees to feel that they have been given an opportunity to be part of something eminently worthwhile.
  2. Enable their people to make a contribution and realise the best in themselves by caring for and growing them.
  3. Inspire a love in their people for the work that they do – just as master craftsmen not only teach their apprentices a trade but imbue in them a love of it.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:
Levitt was asked at an event: “Most organizations have incentive schemes which are a mixture of carrot and stick and then spend lots of time trying to make the rules of the game and then watching people trying to find the loophole and break the rules. What’s your work done on that and how would you shape incentive schemes to be productive?”
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

March 2018

Featured 

Legitimate Leadership In A Medical Practice – The Value Of Diagnosis 
The Eye Centre is an ophthalmology practice and hospital in East London, South Africa. It is a current client of Legitimate Leadership, having started working with the Legitimate Leadership Model in August 2017 …
Makes Employees Willingly Go Above And Beyond In Pursuit Of The Organisation’s Objectives
To understand what makes an employee go above and beyond in pursuit of an organisation’s objectives, we need to first figure out what accounts for people’s motivation or willingness at work …
What To Do About Leaders Driven By Self-Interest 
In the world generally, it seems, the cycle of greed and fear is well entrenched – and so the level of discontent is at an all-time high …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
How Do Legitimate Leadership Principles Help To Drive Initiative and Innovation ?
Answer:   The most direct link between Legitimate Leadership and innovation is through the core principles of empowerment. Empowerment is about incrementally handing over control, in the form of decision-making authority, to the next level in the organisation. What is required over time is a shift from directive to inclusive leadership – being clear on the expected contribution (including expectations of an innovative mindset) without telling people how to do their jobs. This takes courage on the part of the leader. It means expecting people to take initiative and experiment, and then living with and holding people to account for the outcome (reward, recognition, censure, discipline). Nothing kills initiative like a negative response to a good idea. Also, leaders frequently have to use all the courage at their disposal to resist the temptation to be drawn into deciding for people.
The end point is that employees take initiative and make their own choices in the best interests of the collective, quite literally free from all but a few legislated controls. In this world free from controls, people are not only able to, but also choose to, innovate responsibly in the interests of the short and long term success of the organisation. They do this because they are personally mature (so they choose to give rather than take), they believe that the organisation’s “cause” is worth giving to, and that the organisation’s stakeholders are deserving of their contribution and loyalty.
Of course, real organisations never quite get there, but some certainly get closer than others. A world where people contribute innovatively, with benevolent intent and free from burdensome controls, is the world that the Legitimate Leadership Model is trying to cultivate (by incrementally suspending controls). Even with something as important as safety, it is better to cultivate ownership of safe practices through deliberate empowerment than to put in place disempowering controls.
– Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

CASE STUDY:  LEADERSHIP IN A MEDICAL PRACTICE – THE VALUE OF DIAGNOSIS
By Josh Hayman, Legitimate Leadership associate; Jenni Trow, The Eye Centre hospital manager; and Joanne Hulley, The Eye Centre operations manager.
The Eye Centre is an ophthalmology practice and hospital in East London, South Africa. It is a current client of Legitimate Leadership, having started working with the Legitimate Leadership Model in August 2017. In January 2018, two of its operations managers presented a paper (summarised below) at the Annual Congress of the Ophthalmological Society of South Africa (OSSA), in which they shared the history of the practice, their reasons for embarking on a Legitimate Leadership intervention, and their experiences so far in applying the model.
Legitimate Leadership interventions always start with a diagnostic, in which participating leaders are given feedback on their leadership gathered from direct reports through confidential surveys. When leaders accept this feedback openly, and act to address the key issues, significant positive gains, or “quick wins”, in employee willingness are very often made.
The Eye Centre has been in operating as an ophthalmology practice for more than 50 years, and until five years ago was a specialist consultancy service. In 2012 the owners of the practice embarked on an ambitious project – to establish a small eye hospital to enable access for all people to a world-class eye facility.
The addition of the hospital resulted in an increase in the staff complement from 13 to 38, including the addition of a general practitioner and two optometrists.
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 ARTICLE: WHAT MAKES EMPLOYEES WILLINGLY GO ABOVE AND BEYOND IN PURSUIT OF THE ORGANISATION’S OBJECTIVES
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
To understand what makes an employee go above and beyond in pursuit of an organisation’s objectives, we need to first figure out what accounts for people’s motivation or willingness at work.
At Legitimate Leadership we have come to believe that there are really only three reasons why employees will go the extra mile at work.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: WHAT TO DO ABOUT LEADERS DRIVEN BY SELF-INTEREST
By Wendy Nagel, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In the world generally, it seems, the cycle of greed and fear is well entrenched – and so the level of discontent is at an all-time high. This calls leadership – or the lack thereof – under the spotlight. It would seem that leaders running countries and corporations are actually ruining them, with their singular focus on the “I”.
Of course, the opposite is also true: there are always examples of great leaders. But they seem to be the odd ones out in systems that remain focused on using people as resources to achieve results.
Here’s the real challenge to leadership though, and cause for serious reflection: if leaders do not genuinely care for and grow their people, they should not be in leadership. Leadership is about people, not things – human beings, not machines designed for pre-determined outcomes.
I have been vexed by the issue of organisations rolling out training, coaching and leadership interventions with limited systemic stickiness or tangible culture transformation. How can it be that so much amazing work happens in the development arena, with so little impact on a systemic level?
How is it that there are so few organisations for which people willingly show up to make a contribution?
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 VIDEO: THE FAIRNESS INGREDIENT IN EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
By Marco Alvera, an American-born businessman and CEO of Snam, an Italian natural gas infrastructure company. 
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:  In organisations where people are held accountable, there is discipline and reward. Holding people appropriately accountable is not about being nice, it is about being fair. Being fair when rewarding people is about rewarding people for what they have control over (their contribution), not the results. Fair reward moreover is not about paying everyone the same because it is only fair that people’s reward should be commensurate with contribution made. Exceptional contributors, in other words, should be rewarded noticeably more than those who have made an acceptable contribution. It is only fair. At a deeper level, reward is about gratitude. It is about genuine appreciation for contribution made.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:
The latest thing that upset you probably had to do with unfairness. That’s because unfairness triggers us so strongly that we can’t think straight – we become afraid and suspicious. Our unfairness antennae stick up, we feel pain, and we walk away.
Unfairness is one of the defining issues of our society, it’s one of the root causes of polarization, and it’s bad news for business. At work, unfairness makes people defensive and disengaged.
READ THE FULL SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE
Sylvania No Comments

February 2018

 

Featured 

Giving Meaning to a Campaign for Higher Production 
The plant manager deliberately left the plant early, on the afternoon of 30 November 2017. His staff phoned him at 8 PM and at 9 PM with status updates, but at the 12 PM deadline he heard nothing …
The Issue of Legitimacy
With the change of presidency in South Africa, I have been fascinated with the number of people calling into radio stations about the question of “legitimacy” of leadership …
Power by Permission 
For command to happen, there has to be an acceptance of command. For authority to be exercised by those in authority, there has to be willing submission by those over whom the authorities is being exercised …

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
When should the ultimate sanction in employment, namely dismissal, be imposed?
ANSWER:   Dismissal is the organisational equivalent of the death sentence because once you’ve been dismissed you cannot be rehabilitated … to read the full answer click here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

CASE STUDY:  GIVING MEANING TO A CAMPAIGN FOR HIGHER PRODUCTION 
The plant manager deliberately left the plant early, on the afternoon of 30 November 2017. His staff phoned him at 8 PM and at 9 PM with status updates, but at the 12 PM deadline he heard nothing. However, at 2:30 AM, they phoned to tell him that they had achieved the target production.
This marked the successful achievement of a campaign to lift production from 10.5 million units a month to what had always been seen to be the plant’s optimal and planned output at the time of commissioning in 2006, of 12 million units.
The result, on the last day of the month, marked the successful completion of the month-long “12 million units” campaign.
The plant manager had previously, in 2014-15, achieved a significant turnaround in employee attitude and plant performance – for details on this, click here.
Since then the plant had run at around the 10.5 million unit level with acceptable levels of quality.
But in fact the plant did not need to produce 12 million units because market demand in late 2017 was around 10.5 million unit. And in fact extra production would result in extra, unnecessary stocks which would entail negative consequences for working capital and risk, and possible shelf life problems.
The ‘Why’ of the Vision
So why did the plant manager embark on the seemingly-pointless exercise of raising production on the plant to its nameplate capacity when the extra production actually wasn’t needed?
READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE ISSUE OF LEGITIMACY
By Stefaan van den Heever, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
With the change of presidency in South Africa, I have been fascinated with the number of people calling into radio stations about the question of “legitimacy” of leadership. This has generally been in the context of politics – but there have also been examples where this question of legitimacy was raised in relation to organisations.
The Legitimate Leadership framework can offer a perspective on what constitutes legitimacy when it comes to leadership. When leaders are seen to have a sincere and genuine concern for the people they lead, and when they enable their people to realise the very best in themselves, then people willingly follow leaders. Another way to say this is that people willingly follow leaders who are there to care for them and who are there to grow them.
When Legitimate Leadership does work across the world, we always get these same answers to the question, “Who would you willingly work for?” People from China to Canada, from miners to executives, all say they will willingly work for someone who cares for them and who grows them. This is, then, a universal expectation we have of people in authority
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: POWER OF PERMISSION 
By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.
 For command to happen, there has to be an acceptance of command. For authority to be exercised by those in authority, there has to be willing submission by those over whom the authorities is being exercised.
This is true of those who govern, at least in a mature democracy. As the saying goes “the queen rules by the grace of God but the president only leads by the grace of the people”.
It is equally true of other authority figures, be they religious leaders, police and army officers, doctors, parents, teachers, managers and even sports coaches. For anyone of them to perform their role, to actually do their job, requires in the first instance the consent of those in their charge for them doing so.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO:  100% ACCOUNTABILITY, 0 EXCUSES
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: The essence of Legitimate Leadership is “benevolence in the heart but steel in the hand”. We call this care and growth. Of the two, care is primary. It is what gives leaders a licence to grow. Because true leaders genuinely care about their people, they want them to realise the best in themselves. Making people the very best that they can be is not possible by always being nice to them. Growth is not easy and it is typically not pleasant. Legitimate leaders evidence care AND growth, or put another way, tough love.
OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:
In 1998 Fortune Magazine named a relatively unknown bank in Columbus, Georgia – Synovus Bank – the best company to work for in the United States.
It had achieved 57 consecutive quarters of double-digit profit growth, 15,000% growth in employees in the 10 years from 1988 to 1998, and a personnel turnover rate one-fifth of their industry average. They beat the pants off all their major competitors in every market they were in.
READ OUR TRANSCRIPTION OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
VIEW THE FULL VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

January 2018

 

Featured 

Unleashing Employee Engagement in the Organisation 
In 2015 Legitimate Leadership introduced the first Grow to Care workshops. These are intended for employees who do not have others reporting to them…
The Benevolent Entrepreneur’s Motivating Why
On the 10 January 2018 I facilitated a full-day workshop for the ABSA Enterprise Development (ED) Programme …
The X Model of Employee Engagement – Maximum Satisfaction Meets Maximum Contribution
So what exactly is employee engagement? Why should you as a business leader or manager care about it?

E-mail events@legitimateleadership.com for more information

Question of the Month 
Why does Legitimate Leadership return to our company periodically (at approximately 7-year intervals)?
ANSWER:  It depends on the reasons for Legitimate Leadership returning. If it is to bring newly-appointed employees on board regarding the leadership ethos, this is perfectly… to read the full answer click here
 To submit your question, e-mail info@legitimateleadership.com

ARTICLE :  UNLEASHING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE ORGANISATION
By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
In 2015 Legitimate Leadership introduced the first Grow to Care workshops. These are intended for employees who do not have others reporting to them. Although the fundamental precepts of leadership are covered, the focus is not on leadership as such but rather on establishing the criteria for excellence in individual contribution and on gaining commitment to making a personal contribution in the workplace and beyond.
Furthermore, the workshop has the objective of taking the ethos of legitimate leadership down to the lowest levels and establishes a common vocabulary throughout an organisation.
If successfully implemented beyond the workshop, the Grow to Care intervention thus has the profoundly benevolent outcome of unleashing willingness to contribute at the level where the customer interface is the most immediate..
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: THE BENEVOLENT ENTREPRENEUR’S MOTIVATING WHY 
By Nothemba Mxenge, associate, Legitimate Leadership.
On the 10 January 2018 I facilitated a full-day workshop for the ABSA Enterprise Development (ED) Programme (ABSA is a South African bank) with the aim of aligning more than 60 entrepreneurs’ personal purpose to their business objectives, thus cultivating a deeper commitment to delivering on their 2018 goals.
The day allowed for introspection on their way of being – who am I? who am I becoming? and who do I want to be? Participants spent time considering their reasons for starting their businesses (their motivating whys), and how those translated into their business value proposition.
The ED programme assists emerging black small and medium enterprises in South Africa to grow and prosper through various initiatives, including access to development finance, to markets, and to business development support. Entrepreneurial skills development is a key focus, and this workshop paid attention to the Why rather than the How or What of the business service/product offering.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO:  THE X MODEL OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT – MAXIMUM SATISFACTION MEETS MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION 
By BlessingWhite, a US-based global leadership development and employee engagement consulting firm.
COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP  
READ OUR TRANSCRIPTION OF THIS VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE
Sylvania No Comments

December 2017

 
LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP’S NEWSLETTER
December 2017 

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com 

ARTICLE:  THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEGITIMATE LEADERS TO ESTABLISH TRUST 

By Lulu de Beer, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

By Lulu de Beer, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

Employees look to their leaders to be trustworthy and trusting. The employee’s perception of the leader’s intention towards them is influenced by whether the leader is perceived to be approachable, empathetic and trustworthy. The employee will trust his leader if the leader displays trust of the employee and a firm commitment to care for and grow the employee.

The leader builds trust through making an effort to connect with every employee in her team. This requires that the leader shows up as human, not perfect. The leader shows an interest in employees beyond their presence at work and their ability to produce work output.

Tshepo took over a team that had been through various management changes and was no longer delivering to the needs of the business. Within two weeks of arriving he presented his extensive criticism of the team and announced a restructure. Despite its dysfunction up to this point, the team resisted and within days he was removed.

What had been required was a leader who would first establish connections with the team members, get to know them and understand how they had been impacted by previous leaders. While the team results may not have been satisfactory, the employees were individually competent and willing. Asking for their views and ideas would have led to them self-correcting and living up to their potential.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


ARTICLE:  WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU ARE DOING AS A LEADER? JUST ASK YOUR PEOPLE! 

By Joshua Hayman, associate, Leadership.

Legitimate Leadership believes that if one truly wants to know how a leader is doing, the best judges are the very people who depend on that person for leadership.  We incorporate this principle into our approach to transforming leaders by conducting Leadership Surveys for each participant. These surveys diagnose how the leader is perceived to be aligned to the four key criteria of giving Care, providing Means, cultivating Ability, and holding people Accountable.

The process is of course confidential. It provides leaders with immensely useful feedback – and gives them clarity and focus on where their development opportunities lie.

When discussing this feedback with leaders on our programmes, one of the questions I often ask is how often they themselves ask their people directly for feedback on how they are doing.  The response is not about how often it happens, but more about whether it happens at all.

It always strikes me as such a missed opportunity for leaders to build trust with their people. I insist that they start doing it, and doing it regularly.

Why?  The crux of the Legitimate Leadership framework is whether subordinates perceive their manager to be genuinely concerned about their wellbeing.  It is my view that there are few things that demonstrate this more practically on a day-to-day basis than a leader being genuinely interested in the impact that her words and deeds have on her people.

When I first suggest to leaders that they start doing this, the number one concern is that the leader will not get the truth.  That the answer will be that “everything is fine”.  There is therefore no point in asking unless one uses a confidential process.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


 

VIDEO:  FIVE WAYS TO LEAD IN AN ERA OF CONSTANT CHANGE 

By Jim Hemerling, an American transformation consultant. 

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:

In Legitimate Leadership workshops we pose the question to leaders “why change?” The answer simply is that as leaders that is what we are paid to do. And leading change is 90% about people and only 10% about systems and structural change. Jim Hemerling offers five “strategic imperatives” for leading change which are wholly consistent with the Legitimate Leadership principles and practices.

SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:

Have you ever noticed when you ask someone to talk about a change they’re making for the better in their personal lives, they’re often really energetic? For most people, self-transformation projects occupy a very positive emotional space. They are empowering, energizing, even exhilarating. For instance, look at some of the titles of self-help books: “Awaken the Giant Within”, “Practicing the Power of Now”,” or “You are a Badass: How to Stop Doubting Your Greatness and Start Living an Awesome Life.”

But the transformation of organizations occupies a very different emotional space.  If you’re like most people, when you hear the words “Our organization is going to start a transformation”, you think, “Uh-oh … layoffs.” The blood drains from your face, your mind goes into overdrive, frantically searching for some place to run and hide.

Well, you can run, but not hide. Most of us spend the majority of our waking hours involved in organizations. And due to changes in globalization,  advances in technology and other factors, the reality is our organizations are constantly having to adapt. In fact, I call this the era of “always-on” transformation.

When I shared this idea with my wife Nicola, she said, “Always-on transformation? That sounds exhausting.” And that may be exactly what you’re thinking – and you would be right. Particularly if we continue to approach the transformation of organizations the way we always have.

But because we can’t hide, we need to sort out two things.

First, why is transformation so exhausting? Second, how do we fix it?

First of all, let’s acknowledge that change is hard. People naturally resist change, especially when it’s imposed on them. But there are things that organizations do that make change even harder and more exhausting for people than needed. First of all, leaders often wait too long to act. As a result,everything is happening in crisis mode. Which, of course, tends to be exhausting. Or, given the urgency, they just focus on the short-term results, but that doesn’t give any hope for the future. Or they just take a superficial, one-off approach, hoping that they can return to business as usual as soon as the crisis is over.

This kind of approach is the way some approach preparing for standardized tests. In order to get test scores to go up, teachers will end up teaching to the test. That approach can work; test results often do go up. But it fails the fundamental goal of education: to prepare students to succeed over the long term.

So given these obstacles, what can we do to transform the way we transform organizations so rather than being exhausting, it’s empowering and energizing? To do that, we need to focus on five strategic imperatives, all of which have one thing in common: putting people first.

The FIRST imperative for putting people first is to inspire through purpose. Most transformations have financial and operational goals. These are important and they can be energizing to leaders, but they tend not to be very motivating to most people in the organization. To motivate

first.

I live in the San Francisco Bay area. And right now, our basketball team is the best in the league. We won the 2015 championship, and we’re favored to win again this year. There are many explanations for this. They have some fabulous players, but one of the key reasons is their head coach, Steve Kerr, is an inclusive leader. When Kerr came to the Warriors in 2014, the Warriors were looking for a major transformation. They hadn’t won a national championship since 1975.

Kerr had a clear vision, and he immediately got to work. From the outset, he reached out and engaged the players and the staff. He created an environment of open debate and solicited suggestions. During games he would often ask, “What are you seeing that I’m missing?” more broadly, the transformation needs to connect with a deeper sense of purpose.

The Lego Group has become an extraordinary global company. Under its very capable leadership, it has undergone a series of transformations. While each of these has had a very specific focus, the North Star, linking and guiding all of them, has been Lego’s powerful purpose: inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow. Expanding globally? It’s not about increasing sales, but about giving millions of additional children access to Lego building bricks. Investment and innovation? It’s not about developing new products, but about enabling more children to experience the joy of learning through play. Not surprisingly, that deep sense of purpose tends to be highly motivating to Lego’s people.

The SECOND imperative for putting people first is to go all in. Too many transformations are nothing more than head-count cutting exercises; layoffs under the guise of transformation. In the face of relentless competition, you may well have to take the painful decision to downsize the organization, just as you may have to lose some weight in order to run a marathon. But losing weight alone will not get you across the finish line with a winning time. To win you need to go all in. Rather than just cutting costs, you need to think about initiatives that will enable you to win in the medium term, initiatives to drive growth, actions that will fundamentally change the way the company operates, and very importantly, investments to develop the leadership and the talent.

The THIRD imperative for putting people first is to enable people with the capabilities that they need to succeed during the transformation and beyond.

Over the years I’ve competed in a number of triathlons. Frankly, I’m not that good, but I do have one distinct capability – I am remarkably fast at finding my bike. By the time I finish the swim, almost all the bikes are already gone.

Real triathletes know that each leg – the swim, the bike, the run – really requires different capabilities, different tools, different skills, different techniques. Likewise when we transform organizations, we need to be sure that we’re giving our people the skills and the tools they need along the way.

Chronos, a global software company, recognized the need to transfer from building software products to building software as a service. To enable its people to make that transformation, first they invested in new tools that would enable their employees to monitor the usage of the features as well as customer satisfaction with the new service. They also invested in skills development, so that their employees would be able to resolve customer service problems on the spot. And very importantly, they also reinforced the collaborative behaviors that would be required to deliver an end-to-end seamless customer experience. Because of these investments, rather than feeling overwhelmed by the transformation, Chronos employees actually felt energized and empowered in their new roles.

In the era of “always-on” transformation, change is a constant. My FOURTH imperative therefore is to instil a culture of continuous learning. When Satya Nadella became the CEO of Microsoft in February 2014, he embarked on an ambitious transformation journey to prepare the company to compete in a mobile-first, cloud-first world. This included changes to strategy, the organization and very importantly, the culture. Microsoft’s culture at the time was one of silos and internal competition – not exactly conducive to learning. Nadella took this head-on. He rallied his leadership around his vision for a living, learning culture, shifting from a fixed mindset where your role was to show up as the smartest person in the room, to a growth mindset, where your role was to listen, to learn and to bring out the best in people. Well, early days, but Microsoft employees have already noticed this shift in the culture – clear evidence of Microsoft putting people first.

My FIFTH and final imperative is specifically for leaders. In a transformation, a leader needs to have a vision, a clear road map with milestones, and then you need to hold people accountable for results. In other words, you need to be directive. But in order to capture the hearts and minds of people, you also need to be inclusive. Inclusive leadership is critical to putting people

One of the best examples of this came in game four of the 2015 finals. The Warriors were down two games to one when Kerr made the decision to change the starting lineup – a bold move by any measure. The Warriors won the game and went on to win the championship. And it is widely viewed that that move was pivotal in their victory.

Interestingly, it wasn’t actually Kerr’s idea. It was the idea of his 28-year-old assistant, Nick U’Ren. Because of Kerr’s leadership style, U’Ren felt comfortable bringing the idea forward. And Kerr not only listened, but he implemented the idea and then afterwards, gave U’Ren all the credit – actions all consistent with Kerr’s highly inclusive approach to leadership.

In the era of “always-on” transformation, organizations are always going to be transforming. But doing so does not have to be exhausting. We owe it to ourselves, to our organizations and to society more broadly to boldly transform our approach to transformation. To do that, we need to start putting people first.

TO VIEW THE VIDEO CLICK HERE


 

 

Sylvania No Comments

November 2017

 
LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP’S NEWSLETTER
November 2017 

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com 

ARTICLE: EFFECTING A TRANSFORMATION FROM BEING HERE TO TAKE TO BEING HERE TO GIVE AT WORK

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

The Legitimate Leadership intervention impacts on employee contribution in an organisation. It does not lay claim to improved business performance, since business results can improve for all sorts of reasons extraneous to a transformation of the human side of an enterprise. At the same time there is obviously a connection between people and results. More than that, our experience is that organisations only change when the people within them change. Changes in systems and structures do not produce sustainable organisational change – only people change can do that.

What enables sustainable organisational change is the cultivation of the intent to serve at the level of the individual, the team and the organisation.

At the individual level, the change from TAKING to GIVING is reflected in what people at work focus on, what concerns them and what drives their behaviour. A Legitimate Leadership intervention fosters people at work whose focus is on what they can GIVE or contribute to the organisation – people who are concerned with what they owe others, rather than what they are entitled to get. It cultivates people whose behaviour is primarily values-driven rather than needs-driven, who do what is right rather than what is expedient.

We effect this shift from taking to giving by those in the front line of the business by enabling them to shift their attention from what they want to “get” (the result) to what they should “give” to effect excellence in the task in front of them and, in so doing, to realise the best in themselves.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


ARTICLE:  THE REAL VALUE OF CELL PHONES, iPADS AND OTHER MOBILE DEVICES 

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

Let’s face it, we are not only VERY connected, we are also very hooked.  Like teenagers, we compare devices.  “Have you got Version 2 yet or are you still using Version 1?”  Or, “What apps have you got on yours?”

If we leave the devices at home for 24 hours, we feel that we have been excommunicated from society.  When we are unable to check messages for three hours, in some cases 30 minutes, we feel desperate.

Our addiction to these devices makes any other attachment that we may have – for sugar, caffeine or nicotine – pale into significance.

The REAL VALUE of our mobile devices, has not yet been recognised.  This is because we are currently still bedazzled by the technology itself and impressed by the obvious utilitarianism of these devices.  We are so fixated on what these wonderful contraptions can do to help us to manage and run our lives that we remain ignorant of their much more significant purpose.

The REAL VALUE of mobile devices actually lies in their potential to provide us with key insights into what is happening, not in our busy world, but in the world which sits behind our eyeballs – in our inner, not outer, realm.  They are in truth excellent barometers, in real time, of how our intent is functioning.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


 

VIDEO:  INCENTIVES DON’T WORK IN MOTIVATING COGNITIVE WORK

By Dan Pink, US author of books about work, management, and behavioral science.

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:

Dan Pink provides irrefutable evidence in support of the fact that incentives (what we at Legitimate Leadership call “carrots”) are not successful motivators – they not only don’t produce better results, they  often have negative consequences. We concur with his research findings. Where tasks are non-cognitive and repetitive, incentives can raise output but even then they effect movement not willingness. Moreover the persistent use of “carrots” makes people feel manipulated. Their natural response is retaliation – they manipulate back! Dan Pink argues for replacing incentives with the intrinsic rewards of autonomy (what we call decision making authority), mastery (coaching for excellence) and purpose (know “why”). Again, we support Dan Pink’s argument, and we expand on it. Legitimate Leadership is convinced that what truly motivates people is to work for a boss who is in the relationship to “give” not to “get” from his/her people. The “give” is seven things: care, means, ability, censure, discipline, praise and reward.

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:

The “candle problem”, which is used in many experiments in behavioral science, was created in 1945 by a psychologist, Karl Duncker.

Here’s how it works: I’m the experimenter. I bring you into a room. I give you a candle, some thumbtacks and some matches and I say to you, “Your job is to attach the candle to the wall so the wax doesn’t drip onto the table.”

Many people begin trying to thumbtack the candle to the wall. Doesn’t work. Some people have a great idea where they light the match, melt the side of the candle, try to adhere it to the wall. Doesn’t work.

Eventually, after five or ten minutes, most people figure out the solution. The key is to overcome what’s called functional fixedness. You look at that box and you see it only as a receptacle for the tacks. But it can also have this other function, as a platform for the candle.

I want to tell you about an experiment using the candle problem, done by a scientist named Sam Glucksberg, who is now at Princeton University. This shows the power of incentives.

He gathered his participants and said, “I’m going to time how quickly you can solve this problem.”

To one group he said, “I’m going to time you to establish norms, averages for how long it typically takes someone to solve this sort of problem.”

To the second group he offered rewards, and said, “If you’re in the top 25% of the fastest times, you get 5 dollars. If you’re the fastest of everyone we’re testing here today, you get 20 dollars.” Several years ago, that was a decent sum of money for a few minutes of work – a nice motivator.

So, how much faster did the second group solve the problem?

Answer: It took them, on average, three and a half minutes longer.

This makes no sense, right? I mean, I’m an American. I believe in free markets. That’s not how it’s supposed to work, right?

If you want people to perform better, you reward them. Right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. That’s how business works. But that’s not happening here. You’ve got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.

What’s interesting about this experiment is that it’s not an aberration. This has been replicated over and over again for nearly 40 years.

These contingent motivators — if you do this, then you get that — work in some circumstances. But for a lot of tasks, they actually either don’t work or, often, they do harm.

This is one of the most robust findings in social science, and also one of the most ignored.

I spent the last couple of years looking at the science of human motivation, particularly the dynamics of extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivators. And I’m telling you, it’s not even close. If you look at the science, there is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does.

What’s alarming here is that our business operating system –  the set of assumptions and protocols beneath our businesses, how we motivate people, how we apply our human resources – is built entirely around these extrinsic motivators, around carrots and sticks.

That’s actually fine for many kinds of 20th century tasks. But for 21st century tasks, that mechanistic, reward-and-punishment approach often doesn’t work, and often does harm.

If-then rewards work really well for those sorts of tasks, where there is a simple set of rules and a clear destination to go to. Rewards, by their very nature, narrow our focus, concentrate the mind; that’s why they work in so many cases. So, for tasks where you just see the goal right there, zoom straight ahead to it, they work really well.

But for the real candle problem, you don’t want to be looking narrowly. The solution is on the periphery. You want to be looking around. That reward actually narrows our focus and restricts our possibility.

Let me tell you why this is so important. White-collar workers are doing less of this kind of routine work, and more cognitive work. That routine, rule-based, left-brain work – certain kinds of accounting, financial analysis, computer programming – has become fairly easy to outsource, fairly easy to automate. Software can do it faster. Low-cost providers can do it cheaper. So what really matters are the more right-brained creative, conceptual kinds of abilities.

Think about your own work. Do the problems that you face, or even the problems we’ve been talking about here, have a clear set of rules, and a single solution? No. The rules are mystifying. The solution, if it exists at all, is surprising and not obvious. Everybody in this room is dealing with their own version of the candle problem. And for candle problems of any kind, in any field, those if-then rewards, the things around which we’ve built so many of our businesses, don’t work!

It makes me crazy. And here’s the thing. This is not a feeling. I’m a lawyer; I don’t believe in feelings. This is not a philosophy. I’m an American; I don’t believe in philosophy.

This is a fact.

More evidence: Dan Ariely, one of the great economists of our time, with three colleagues, did a study of some MIT students. They gave these MIT students a bunch of games, games that involved creativity, and motor skills, and concentration. And they offered them, for performance, three levels of rewards: small, medium and large. If you do really well you get the large reward, on down.

What happened? As long as the task involved only mechanical skill, bonuses worked as they would be expected: the higher the pay, the better the performance. But once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skill, a larger reward led to poorer performance.

Then they said, “Let’s see if there’s any cultural bias here. Let’s go to Madurai, India, and test it. There, the standard of living is lower and a reward that is modest in North American standards is more meaningful there. Same deal. A bunch of games, three levels of rewards.

What happens? People offered the medium level of rewards did no better than people offered the small rewards. But this time, people offered the highest rewards did the worst of all. In eight of the nine tasks we examined across three experiments, higher incentives led to worse performance.

Is this some kind of touchy-feely socialist conspiracy? No, these are economists from MIT, from Carnegie Mellon, from the University of Chicago. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States sponsored this research.

The London School of Economics, looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here’s what they said: “We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.”

There is a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. And what worries me is that too many organizations are making their decisions, their policies about talent and people, based on assumptions that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science. And if we really want to get out of this economic mess, if we really want high performance on those definitional tasks of the 21st century, the solution is not to do more of the wrong things, to entice people with a sweeter carrot, or threaten them with a sharper stick. We need a whole new approach.

The good news is that the scientists who’ve been studying motivation have given us this new approach. It’s built much more around intrinsic motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like them, they’re interesting, or part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose.

Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.

VIEW THE FULL VIDEO BY CLICKING HERE


 

 

Sylvania No Comments

October 2017

 

LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP’S NEWSLETTER

OCTOBER 2017 

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

 


Ronnie Huggins, Plant Manager at African Explosives Limited at the September Breakfast.

 

CASE STUDY (BREAKFAST PRESENTATION): BASIC CHANGES FOR HUMANS IN AN ALMOST-AUTOMATED PLANT

A summary of the presentation by Ronnie Huggins, Plant Manager at African Explosives Limited’s Initiating Systems Automated Assembly Plant, at Legitimate Leadership’s recent breakfast event on the subject Cultivating Accountability and Ownership. Comment by three attendees at the presentation is given at the end of this summary.

Background

Ronnie Huggins, who has been Plant Manager at African Explosives Limited’s futuristic new (explosives) Initiating Systems Automated Plant (ISAP) for the past five years, presented on how, primarily through working with his staff, a huge increase in productivity was achieved in less than a year.

Huggins said he believes the dramatic improvement in plant performance could be attributed to a change in the people on his plant to the point where they took accountability and ownership.

The plant is a 24-7 operation employing 129 people, mainly woman, many of whom are single mothers – in other words, they have a lot of priorities outside of work.

According to his presentation, greater ownership and accountability were achieved through four basic changes: he listened to his people; he valued their input; he came to understand them as human beings; and (perhaps most importantly) he made the transition from being an engineer to a plant manager who encourages his people’s willingness.

Said Huggins: “Being in explosives, there are many safety concerns. And the question is asked whether ownership and accountability can be created in such a stringent environment.

“The assembly process that I manage comprises five high-speed machines. There are over a thousand moving parts in each machine, so they are highly complex and technical. I am also responsible for the shock tube extrusion plant and its high-speed extrusion lines.

“ISAP is a project which started in 2006 and came into operation in 2009. Because it was largely automated, it was supposed to become the ‘factory of the future’ – the leader internationally of automated production of initiating systems for explosives used in mining and elsewhere.

READ THE CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE


 

ARTICLE: PASSING THE INTENT TEST IS AN EVERYDAY OPPORTUNITY

By Joshua Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

In our introductory programmes one of the issues we work through is the idea of the Intent test.  Legitimate Leadership argues that the only real measure we have of whether we can trust someone is whether they are able to suspend their agenda for ours; whether they are able to set aside their self-interest, and act instead in ours.  It is on this basis alone that trust is granted or withheld and, in the leadership relationship, the manager is seen to be worthy of support, or not.

So what does it mean to pass the intent test?  Consider the following situations:

  • A lead has arisen that could lead to an important sale for your business.  You have two sales people you can assign the work to.  Jill is your top sales performer and realistically has the best chance of securing the deal.  Andrew is a good sales performer, and giving this deal to him will stretch his ability and he will have gained some much needed experience in pursuing the opportunity.  His prospects of success are not as good as Jill’s.  Who do you give the opportunity to?
  • You are in your office, and Lindiwe comes in to ask for help on an important piece of work.  You are listening to her problem when your phone, which is lying on the desk, beeps.  It is a WhatsApp from your boss. You are waiting on a reply to a request you’d sent him earlier in the day.  Do you read the message or carry on the conversation with Lindiwe?
  • Your boss calls you in a rage.  She has just seen one of your subordinates arriving at work an hour late, and demands that you discipline her for late coming. Poor punctuality is a pet hate of your boss, and something she is very intolerant of.  Further, your boss as a reputation for being inflexible once she has made a decision – she does not change her mind easily.  You don’t yet know why the subordinate was late.  How do you respond?
  • It is 8:30 in the morning, and you have a critical meeting starting in 30 minutes, at which you have to give a presentation on the quarterly results.  You spent many hours on the presentation, and somehow lost the work.  You’ve been at the office since 6am reconstructing what you lost, and are almost done, save for some of the finishing touches.  You have completely forgotten that you agreed to a brief discussion regarding some personal difficulty your staff member has been having, and he wants to give you an update. He has arrived at your office on time. What do you say to him?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


 ARTICLE:  ABILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE HARD AND SOFT MISTAKES

By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

A central precept of legitimate leadership is that a leader gains the trust of his subordinates by the provision of care and growth. Care and growth is actualised by the leader giving people the means and ability to do the job and then holding them appropriately accountable for performance. Once this is consistently demonstrated over a period of time, the leadership of the manager becomes legitimate.

Ability is provided by structured feedback, coaching and training, both on and off the job. Accountability happens when managers provide consequence for performance: reward for exceptional performance, recognition of consistent performance on or above standard; censure for performance which is below standard and discipline for misconduct and repeated carelessness. Reward and recognition constitute positive accountability whereas censure and discipline constitute negative accountability. The above is always applied relative to a clear standard.

The hard and soft mistakes typically occur in the application of negative accountability.

The hard mistake occurs when the manager applies negative accountability under circumstances where adequate means and ability have not been put in place. The soft mistake is committed where means and ability are in fact in place but the manager fails to hold the subordinate accountable for under performance, carelessness or misconduct.

The soft mistake may take the form of taking no action or in mistakenly attributing the negative exception to means or ability (most often the latter).

In the context of two clients in South Africa with which we have engaged over the last year both the hard and soft mistakes were widely prevalent, at least at the start of the interventions.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


VIDEO: SIMON SINEK ON THE NATURE AND EFFECTS OF REAL LEADERSHIP

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:

Simon Sinek has made a number of points which are totally aligned to the Legitimate Leadership framework:

  1. Leadership is absolute love for the people who have committed their lives to this enterprise.
  2. Leadership is hard to measure in the short term but easy to measure in the long term.
  3. Leaders care for those who report to them directly with one purpose only: that they will take care of the people in their charge.
  4. The best leaders have the courage to do the right thing in the face of overwhelming pressure.
  5. Only when we foster relationships with people around us who care about and love us do we find the courage to do the right thing.

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO: When did your love for your wife happen? It’s not easy to prove when it started. Like leadership, it’s easier to prove that it exists over a period of time.

Likewise with going to gym – you come back after the first session and see no change in your body. But if you believe there’s something there and you commit to going on with the action, to the regime, you will get into shape.

If you go to the dentist twice a year, your teeth will fall out because you haven’t brushed them every day. Brushing your teeth does nothing unless you do it every day. Going to gym for eight hours doesn’t produce a result; going to gym consistently over time does.

These things are not about an event, but about consistency.

Likewise for leadership. We go to leadership events, which are comparable to going to the dentist because they are important for reminding us and getting us on track. But it is the daily practice that matters the most.

Leadership is an accumulation of many, many little things and events that, by themselves, are innocuous and useless. It’s those things, done over and over and over and in combination with other things, which will prompt people to say “I love my job”. Not “I like my job” (which means they are well paid and it’s challenging and they like the people).

“I love my job” means you don’t want to work anywhere else – it doesn’t matter how much somebody else is willing to pay.

In business we have colleagues and co-workers. In the military, by contrast, they think of each other as brothers and sisters, as family. If you really have a strong corporate culture, the people will think of each other as brothers and sisters. They may fight and bicker, but the love doesn’t go away and they will be united against any outside challenge or threat.

How do you create brothers and sisters out of strangers? Common beliefs and values; executives (parents) who care about the children’s success, who care to raise their skills and discipline them when necessary, so that they can raise their confidence to the level where they will achieve things that the parents could never have dreamt of achieving. Leadership is absolute love for the people who committed their lives to this enterprise.

It’s a simple concept but it’s incredibly hard work. It’s hard to measure in the short term but easy to measure in the long term. Over the long term the traditional metrics will all go up – profits market share etc. More importantly, they will go up more stably. Your organisation will be able to weather the hard times better because people will come together; they won’t abandon ship.

Also over the long term, your staff churn will go down. Loyalty will be better, people will turn down better-paying jobs.

But it is true that scale breaks things. As an organisation grows, spending time with any single individual becomes more difficult to do. According to Dunbar’s number we are not made for populations bigger than about 150 – that is, we cannot maintain more than about 150 close relationships (a close relationship being defined as “if you were at a bar with a group of friends and someone came in, you would ask that person to join you”). The reason is that there are two limiting factors: time (you don’t have enough of it to pay a lot of attention to everyone); and memory (you just can’t remember everyone).

So leadership becomes interesting in a company with many employees. The CEO can’t know all of them. In this situation a CEO’s statement like “I care about every one of my people” is a nonsense. But she could credibly say “I desperately care about the people whose names I know and whose faces I recognise”; and “I desperately care about my leaders and I instil in them every day that I will give them the tools and I will take care of them with one purpose only: that they will take care of the people in their charge … and I want those people in turn to take care of the people in their charge, and so on.”

So by the time you get down to the masses, where the thousands of employees exist (because the seniors are few in number), about 100 or 150 of them can look to their direct leader and say “that person cares about me. That person is my leader – not the CEO, but my leader.”

But sometimes you get fired or you get in trouble and the next guy gets all the credit for what you did. Only the best leaders have the courage to do the right thing in the face of overwhelming pressure. And here’s the folly: courage is not some deep internal fortitude. You don’t dig down deep and find it. No, courage is external – it comes from the support you feel when someone has your back; it comes from the relationships that we foster with the people around us who care about us and love us. When we have those relationships, we find the courage to do the right thing. And when we act with courage, that in turn will inspire those in our organisation to also act with courage. In other words, it’s still an external thing. That is what inspiration is – “I’m inspired to follow your example”.

And those relationships that we foster over the course of a lifetime will not only make us into the leaders that we need to be and hope we can be, but they will often save our life, save us from depression, from giving up, from all manner of negative feelings about our capabilities and our future – when someone just says “I love you and I will follow you no matter what”.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

September 2017

 
LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP’S NEWSLETTER  SEPTEMBER 2017 

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

 


REPORT-BACK ON LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP’S ‘CULTIVATING ACCOUNTABILITY AND OWNERSHIP’ BREAKFAST

Wendy Lambourne’s opening address at the September Breakfast

Nothemba Mxenge, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

 

Participants at the breakfast.

 

Ian Munro during the Q & A session

 

Legitimate Leadership’s second breakfast event of 2017, on the subject “Cultivating Accountability and Ownership”, took place in Johannesburg on 7 September 2017. Speakers were Ronnie Huggins, Plant Manager at African Explosives Limited’s futuristic Initiating Systems Automated Assembly Plant (on how his plant’s productivity was more than doubled in less than a year, particularly through staff taking ownership); Nothemba Mxenge of Legitimate Leadership (on the Grow to Care programme for non-managers); and Ian Munro (on cultivating accountability and ownership in millennials).

Below, we summarise the presentations of Mxenge and Munro. Huggins’ presentation will be summarised in a future newsletter, subject to approval.

BREAKFAST PRESENTATION: THE GROW TO CARE PROGRAMME – FOR NON-MANAGERS

By Nothemba Mxenge, associate, Legitimate Leadership

Over the last five years I have had the great pleasure to conduct about 70 Grow to Care workshops, in four organisations (African Explosives Limited, Afrika Tikkun, Hyundai South Africa and Lightstone Group South Africa), interacting with more than 1,100 delegates.

The Grow to Care workshop is primarily aimed at non-managers, particularly in the front line at different levels of the organisation – including specialists (accountants, engineers, analysts), technicians, artisans, operators, office administrators, cleaners, cooks, gardeners, secretaries, security people, etc.

The workshop aims to establish a set of criteria for excellence in individual contribution. It allows participants to make different choices regarding their contribution at work, thus engaging their willingness.

Underpinning this choice is the key question posed on the day: “What does it take to GIVE of your best at work?”

I start off the day by asking the question “When coming to work, what do you consistently think about and feel?”. I also ask participants to reflect on the reasons why they come to work.

I have marvelled at the delegates, as they grapple with these two questions. In essence the two questions ask them to reflect on not only HOW they show up at work but WHY they are there.

Throughout the day we challenge their way of being, their motives, their levels of commitment – fundamentally, their willingness to meaningfully contribute their best.

By the end of the day, they have generally sufficiently interrogated their significance at work – that is, the value of what they PUT IN at work versus what they GET OUT from work. And, most significantly, they have asked themselves the question, “Am I here to GIVE or here to GET?”

The shift that is effected with this one-day workshop is primarily about making a choice to give. For most participants this is deeply insightful – a dislodgement, an eye opener, a rude awakening and a reality check.

BREAKFAST PRESENTATION: WHAT A TRIP TO LONDON TAUGHT ME ABOUT OWNERSHIP (AND OTHER SHORT STORIES)

By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.

In the short stories below, I hope to show that millennials, like anyone else, can be cultivated to take accountability and ownership in an organisation.

The stories derive from my previous career as a regional manager, and ultimately head of professional services at a business consulting and software development organisation. The team comprised around 150 consultants, developers, change managers and trainers, mostly aged between 23 and 35, and almost all with postgraduate degrees in related fields. They were quintessential millennials – in other words, highly ambitious with expectations of rapid advancement.

The themes of the four stories below are:

  1. Life is not always surprising; also, don’t expect people to grow up in five minutes.
  2. Show them rather than just tell them.
  3. Confront people bluntly with reality to prompt them to take direction and accountability.
  4. Teach them by giving them discretion, not a budget.

 

STORY 1: Life is not always surprising; also, don’t expect people to grow up in five minutes.

In the mid-2000s, business was booming. There were lots of clients and projects. As an organisation we were growing. So we went on a university roadshow to hire bright young students who would be graduating soon.

We put together a presentation which we thought would be attractive to them. The first picture in the presentation was the Friday afternoon team meeting – a social affair which often turned into a fun evening partying with colleagues. It showed potential recruits just how much fun working in our business would be.

The second thing we emphasised in the presentation was, “If you join our business, there is potential for travel – we have clients in places like Sweden and the Middle East”.

Thirdly, we emphasised that unlike many consulting businesses, we would give successful applicants work-life balance.

What happened? Applications flooded in, and we hired the top students.

The following year, about 10 graduates arrived. And perhaps not surprisingly, they all wanted to party. Also, within two weeks they were asking me where the trip to New York was. And, for some, their idea of work-life balance erred significantly on the side of life.

We had got what we asked for. If you sell an image, that’s what comes through the door.

The next year, we went back to the drawing board and redid our presentation. We took out the pictures of people having parties and we put in pictures about what we did for our clients and what value we added; we also emphasised what the successful applicant would experience, what she could contribute, who she would work with, and what code of excellence there would be.

Once again, applications flooded in. But this time there was more focus on making a contribution. That is, we started to get real with people.

Another thing we did when they arrived was that we made sure we really valued contribution – that the message was clear that “If you make a contribution, that’s how you get promoted, that’s how you grow”. This confronted the fact that among graduates, there are many people who are looking for instant gratification, instant promotion.

But we realised that we couldn’t expect people to grow up in five minutes and we started promoting only as people matured and grew up. That meant that they started to be able to delay their need for instant gratification. If you value their contribution, they will value their contribution.

In summary, if you want people to take ownership, find people who value your purpose, not your perks. That is not to say that you should stop giving the perks – our consultants still had good parties – but that should not be people’s “why”.

STORY 2: Show them rather than just tell them. 

Later, I moved to the UK, to open our new office there. Shortly after arriving, and because of significant sales work done before I arrived, we landed a client in the financial services industry with a big project. The project was in the UK but we were building the software offshore.

From the outset there were challenges. I would sit in meeting after meeting with the client who would point out the problems. I would relay these, and listen to reasons and excuses from our software team.

This lasted for about three months. One day, on a Friday, I had an epiphany. I said to our project manager, “Come to London this weekend for a meeting with the client on Monday”.

He arrived and the meeting on Monday was difficult – just as the other meetings had been. At the end of the meeting, the project manager pulled me aside and said, “Wow, if we don’t start finding solutions, we might get fired!”

The money for the flight had been well spent! The project manager turned the project around in record time. The excuses stopped, the solutions started, and the whole team suddenly took ownership.

To me, the lesson was: if you want people to take ownership, show them!

Another example: if you are in manufacturing and you want people to take ownership of the condition of your plant, take them to the Mercedes-Benz plant in East London (in South Africa) – or any exemplary plant in your region. It will give them a new reference point. You may say the flight is too expensive – but it will be not nearly as expensive as your productivity deficit.

In summary, stop telling, and start showing people; we do far too much telling.

STORY 3: Confront people bluntly with reality to prompt them to take direction and accountability.

We were working with a major bank in South Africa and with the National Credit Act. The latter was fundamentally changing the credit landscape by helping people who otherwise didn’t have the ability to calculate compound interest etc.

I got our team together and asked them how the project was going, and how we could help them.

Their response was that they weren’t getting parking places at the client and they were getting inferior, chicory-blended coffee, etc.

I lost my cool. I confronted these people with the reality that they were being small-minded; that they were there to make a major contribution and yet they were worried about coffee. I told them to go back and think harder about how we could help them make a contribution. I set down another meeting for two weeks’ later.

The easy thing would have been to pander to them – to give them better coffee and arrange parking spaces at the client. But that would have been incorrect. Sometimes confronting people with the reality of how they are not seeing the bigger picture is important. People often take ownership if you speak straight to them, and prompt them to make a different choice.

Help people to see the bigger picture and don’t be afraid to confront their maturity. Their maturity is your job – that’s what leadership is all about.

STORY 4: Teach them by giving them discretion, not a budget.

Quite often, at the end of a successful project, the consultants would invite the client out to dinner. They would tell me about this and say “We just have one question – what is our budget for the dinner?” My reply was “be reasonable”. “No, no, what we need is a budget! Because how do we know how much we are allowed to spend?” I repeated, “be reasonable”. They repeated, “No, no!”

This was fascinating to me because when you give someone a budget you are determining whether this masters graduate can do maths – apart from the practical difficulties in dealing with a budget when you take people out for dinner (do you say, “You can have anything, but not the steak because too many people have opted for that already”?).

Firstly it’s impractical; secondly the person learns nothing! So I refuse to give a budget. Because that will make him be reasonable; or he will live with the consequences of what he does; or he will phone the client and say that the dinner is no longer on (which is also alright). All of these might bring him closer to what he wants to be, which is a senior consultant.

People say to me, “But what happens if he spends outrageously?” My reply is that if he does that, it will be a cheap price to pay to find out what he is actually about.

But also, in my experience, nobody ever overspent. If they erred at all, it was in the opposite direction.

In summary, again, it would be so easy to take the expedient option and give them a budget.

 


 

 ARTICLE: CULTIVATING ACCOUNTABILITY AND OWNERSHIP IN 2017

By Wendy Lambourne and Ian Munro, directors of Legitimate Leadership

As managers, it is tempting to divide our employees into two groups: “givers” and “takers”, those who take accountability and ownership and those who do not. We thank our lucky stars for the “givers” while we tear our hair out and feel despair for the “takers”.

We wonder whether the ratio of givers:takers in our business is a matter of providence and therefore something beyond our power or agency…? Or whether it is possible to determine, or at least influence, the relative size of the two groups.

As Legitimate Leadership, our response to these questions is the following:

  • There are “givers” in any organisation – wonderful human beings who are just this way, always have been and always will be, irrespective or even despite those who lead them.
  • Equally, every organisation has its share of “takers” – unattractive specimens of humanity who are similarly just this way, always have been and always will be, even under exceptional leadership.
  • But undoubtedly the mix of “givers” and “takers” is not a matter of chance. “Givers” and “takers” are largely manufactured by those in charge of them. What people are is on the whole a reflection on those who exercise authority over them. Beyond a shadow of a doubt “givers” beget “givers” and “takers” beget “takers”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

Sylvania No Comments

August 2017

 
LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP’S NEWSLETTER AUGUST 2017 

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

CASE STUDY: BEATING A DOWNWARD TREND BY SHIFTING INTENT

By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.

To beat an extended downturn in the economy, and to go against the downward trend in its most significant market – that was what biotechnology company Deltamune had to do in order to stay operating. It knew it had to do something different in order to survive and thrive.

The company had numerous new business and project opportunities, but it was unable to bring them to fruition. With the help of the Legitimate Leadership framework, the “people” reasons “why” the goals were not being achieved, and what needed to change in order to achieve them were clarified. What was asked of leaders in Deltamune was not only a change in behaviour, but more importantly a change in intent. Diagnostic data collected for all senior leaders showed that while there was impressive respect for management, employees didn’t feel that management was really committed to their personal wellbeing – the latter being the single strongest determinant of support for management by employees.

There were also problems with the amount of time and support employees were receiving, as well as significant challenges with information sharing. Employees felt they were “out of the loop” and leaders had not engaged, or fully understood, their collective contribution. There was limited true accountability for what people were putting in, and arguably too much accountability for things outside of people’s direct control.

These were the challenges above which the Deltamune senior leadership team had to rise. And in partnership with Legitimate Leadership they did so. After the 18-month intervention, the improvement was confirmed by a repeat survey of leaders which reflected higher scores individually and on average. Deltamune is once again on a strong footing with significant growth aspirations over the next five years.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE


 ARTICLE:  ENABLING HUMAN EXCELLENCE BY RAISING THE BAR

By Wendy Lambourne and Ian Munro, directors of Legitimate Leadership.

Leaders, unlike managers, focus not on the achievement of results but on enabling excellence in their people.  They do so because they know that sustainable organisational excellence is not possible with mediocre people.

One way to enable excellence in people is to deliberately and consistently raise the bar.  No one ever made it to the Olympics by jumping repeatedly, no matter how often, over a height of 1.50m or even 1.80m.  Olympic high jumpers need a coach who continually raises the bar; in the case of the high jump, literally.

Similarly, leaders enable their people to be the best that they can be by continually reimagining and then implementing higher standards of behaviour and performance.  An Operations Director for example, achieved significant improvements in Total Reportable Injury Rate (from 1.9 down to 0.35), a 40% productivity increase and an 80% decrease in customer complaints over a three-year period through the imposition of increasingly exacting safety, quality and efficiency standards.

When it comes to standards there is no truer adage than “the standard you expect, you demonstrate and the standard you walk past is the standard you get.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


ARTICLE:  ORGANIZATIONAL DECLINE THROUGH OVER-CONTROL

By Lulu de Beer, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

Organizations continue to experience excessive red tape despite business thought leaders suggesting that bureaucracy damages business growth and profits. The symptoms of bureaucracy include too many management layers, greater growth in head office employees than frontline employees, more and more processes removing the autonomy of employees, increasing reporting demands and excessive time spent in meetings. When speaking to business leaders the issue of too much red tape is a regular refrain, and yet little has changed for most large organizations.

Legitimate Leadership works with leaders to develop a working environment where leaders implement the behaviors that would allow their employees to contribute willingly. Rather than employees reluctantly accepting the instructions and commands of managers, employees will want to work for a leader that acts in their best interest, offers them opportunities to grow and enables them to deliver their best performances.

What does this mean practically? How can business leaders reduce red tape and allow their employees to contribute fully?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE


ARTICLE: WHAT WE LEARNED ABOUT BUREAUCRACY FROM 7,000 HBR READERS

By Gary Hamel,visiting professor at London Business School and cofounder of The Management Innovation Exchange, and Michele Zanini, MD of the Management Lab and co-founder of the Management Innovation Exchange , which seeks to reinvent management by harnessing the power of open innovation.

COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:

Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini have provided a wonderful synopsis of the core problem facing big organisations today, namely “A management model that perpetuates a caste system of thinkers (managers ) and doers (everyone else ) , that regards human beings as mere ‘resources’, that values conformance above all else, that squeezes people into slot–shaped roles irrespective of their innate capabilities, that swallows up human initiative in the quicksand of bureaucratic busy–work, and that regards freedom as a dangerous threat to alignment and discipline.”

We at Legitimate Leadership fully endorse the authors’ takeaway is outlined in their article. The summation of which is that “bureaucracy is a tax on human accomplishment”. We also support them in believing that the first step is to establish an empowerment (the opposite to bureaucracy) scoreboard and to hold managers (especially senior managers) accountable against it. This was advocated in the book Legitimate Leadership (2012), page 145. We support the final statement in their article – namely, “If, as they claim, leaders are willing to share power, and if, as our respondents believe, employees are capable of exercising it wisely, then there’s no excuse for not getting on with the hard but eminently worthwhile work of dismantling bureaucracy.”

BELOW IS OUR SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE BY HAMEL AND ZANINI WHICH APPEARED IN THE HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW

The authors recently asked members of the HBR community to gauge the extent of “bureaucratic sclerosis” within their organizations using their Bureaucracy Mass Index(BMI) tool.  They received over 7,000 responses from diverse participants.

Here are their initial takeaways:

The blight of bureaucracy seems inescapable. For each completed survey, they calculated an overall BMI score by aggregating responses across seven categories of bureaucratic drag: bloat, friction, insularity, disempowerment, risk aversion, inertia, and politicking. On their BMI scale, a score of 60 represents a moderate degree of bureaucratic drag, while anything less than 40 indicates a relative absence of bureaucracy.  64% reported a BMI of more than 70; less than 1% had a BMI of under 40. Not surprisingly, BMI scores were correlated with organizational size.  The average BMI for companies with more than 5,000 employees was 75.  Of the respondents who reported a BMI of less than 40, three-quarters worked in organizations with fewer than 100 employees. This confirms that large companies suffer from managerial diseconomies of scale.

Bureaucracy is growing, not shrinking. Nearly two-thirds of respondents felt their organization had become more bureaucratic—more centralized, more rule-bound and more conservative—over the past few years.  Only 13% of respondents said their organizations had become less bureaucratic. Individuals working in customer service, sales, production, logistics and R&D were more likely to feel that bureaucracy was growing than those working in functions like HR, finance, planning, purchasing, and administration. In other words, the individuals who felt most hamstrung by bureaucracy were the ones most directly involved in creating customer value.

Organizations aren’t becoming flatter. The average respondent works in an organization that has more than 6 management layers. In large organizations (more than 5,000 employees) front line employees are buried under 8 or more layers of management.

Bureaucracy is a time trap. BMI survey-takers reported spending an average of 28% of their time—more than one day a week—on bureaucratic chores such as preparing reports, attending meetings, complying with internal requests, securing sign-offs and interacting with staff functions. A significant portion of that work seems to be creating little or no value. Less than 40% of respondents found typical bureaucratic processes (eg budgeting, goal-setting, performance reviews) to be “very helpful.” Another indicator of bureaucratic waste: nearly 40% of respondents said their ability to deliver value would be either unaffected or enhanced by a 30% reduction in the number of head office staffers.

Bureaucracy is the enemy of speed. Two-thirds of respondents believe that bureaucracy is a significant drag on the pace of decision-making in their organization—a number that rises to nearly 80% in large companies. Negotiating budget exceptions—often necessary when a company has to move quickly—was also impeded by bureaucracy. The average time for getting approval for an unbudgeted expenditure was 20 days or more in large organizations, versus 13 days in companies with fewer than 100 employees.

Bureaucracy produces parochialism. Survey respondents spend 42% of their time on internal issues — resolving disputes, wrangling resources, sorting out personnel issues, negotiating targets, and other tedious domestic tasks. Most swamped are executives in large companies who devote nearly half of their time to in-house matters. So senior leaders, who are typically charged with creating strategy, are significantly less externally focused than their subordinates. Little wonder then that they are often slow to respond to emerging threats and opportunities.

Bureaucracy undermines empowerment. When asked whether they had “substantial” or “complete” autonomy to (a) set priorities, (b) decide on work methods, and (c) choose their own boss, only 11% answered in the affirmative. In a similar vein, respondents estimated that fewer than 10% of the employees in their organizations could spend $1,000 without getting a sign-off from their boss. A further sign of disempowerment was that over three quarters of respondents indicated that front-line employees were either “never” or only “occasionally” involved in the design and development of major change initiatives. Since change that is imposed is often resisted, this is undoubtedly a contributor to the high failure rates of major change programs.

Bureaucracy frustrates innovation. Only 20% of respondents said that unconventional ideas were greeted with interest or enthusiasm in their organization. Eighty percent said new ideas were likely to encounter indifference, skepticism, or outright resistance. There was also a lack of support for bottom-up experimentation and innovation. Ninety-six percent of respondents working in companies with more than 1,000 employees said it was “not easy” or “very difficult” for a front-line employee to launch a new initiative.

Bureaucracy breeds inertia. In a bureaucracy, change programs are implemented top-down. The problem is, by the time an issue is big or urgent enough to capture top management’s scarce attention, the organization is already behind.  Not surprisingly, nearly 60% of those surveyed said that change programs in their organization were “mostly,” or “almost always” focused on catching up. Fewer than 10% of the respondents from large companies said change programs were “mostly” or “almost always” focused on breaking new ground.

Bureaucracies are petty and political. In a formal hierarchy, competition for influence and advancement is a zero-sum game—hence the prevalence of backbiting and politicking revealed in the survey. Nearly 70% of big-company respondents indicate that political behaviors (like blame-shifting, resource hoarding, and turf battles) are “often” observed in their organizations. Overall, 64% of respondents claimed that political skills “often” or “almost always” influence who gets ahead; in large organizations, it was 76%. In a bureaucracy, power often goes to the most politically astute rather than the most competent. While we may live in the era of big data and information transparency, it seems that office politics hasn’t advanced much.

Taken as a whole, the BMI survey provides yet more evidence of the toll bureaucracy takes on productivity and resilience. It is a tax on human accomplishment.

However, bureaucracy won’t easily be beaten. We don’t lack role models – companies like Nucor, Morning Star, Spotify, Haier, and others. The real impediments are deeper and more personal.

Survey participants identified  the most significant barriers to down-sizing bureaucracy was the reluctance of senior executives to share power (57% of them), and the widely-held belief that bureaucracy is essential for control (50%). However, while nearly two-thirds of front-line people viewed power lust as a barrier to cutting bureaucracy, only a third of CEOs shared that view. There was a similar split around the belief that bureaucracy is critical to achieving control. While 57% of first-level employees cited this as an impediment, only 27% of CEOs expressed a similar belief.

Another gap emerged when the authors asked respondents to reflect on the fact that bureaucracy is both familiar and entrenched. Fifty-four percent of lower-level employees saw this as a barrier, compared to only 23% of CEOs. So who’s right here?  Frontline employees who believe that bureaucracy is vigorously defended and deeply embedded, or senior executives who see bureaucracy as a less fearsome foe?

However, there was one area of consensus: senior leaders and lower-level employees agreed that a lack of information and competence on the front lines is not a barrier to the devolution of authority and responsibility. Only 26% of CEOs and 36% of front-line employees mentioned this as an impediment. This leads to an intriguing question: if there’s a broad consensus that employees are, in fact, capable of self-management, why do they remain mired in a bureaucratic morass?

Either senior leaders are more reluctant to share power and more skeptical about their employees’ capabilities than they’re willing to admit, or there are other, deeper, barriers to banishing bureaucracy.

One of these barriers may be the lack of a step-by-step guide for disassembling bureaucracy. Few know how to make it happen. Where do you start? How do you overcome pockets of resistance? How do you build the right sort of culture and values? How do you prepare individuals to take on more responsibility? What supporting changes in information systems, incentives and organizational structure are necessary? There’s no uninstall button.

Still, humans have often ventured forth without a map – for instance, those who dreamed of landing human beings on the moon, or today those who are working to build machines that can think and emote.

What propelled the pioneers forward wasn’t certainty of success but the opportunity to expand the boundaries of human capability and further the cause of human dignity.  These are the motivations that must be harnessed if we are to rid our organizations of the stultifying effects of bureaucracy.

In most organizations the costs of bureaucracy are largely hidden.  Our accounting systems don’t measure the costs of inertia, insularity, disempowerment, and all the other forms of bureaucratic drag.  Nowhere do we capture the costs of a management model that perpetuates a caste system of thinkers (managers) and doers (everyone else), that regards human beings as mere “resources,” that values conformance above all else, that squeezes people into slot-shaped roles irrespective of their innate capabilities, that swallows up human initiative in the quicksand of bureaucratic busy-work, and that regards freedom as a dangerous threat to alignment and discipline.

Measuring bureaucratic drag is a first step towards changing all this. As the size of the bureaucratic tax on human accomplishment becomes more visible, inaction will become more difficult to defend. If, as they claim, leaders are willing to share power, and if, as our respondents believe, employees are capable of exercising it wisely, then there’s no excuse for not getting on with the hard but eminently worthwhile work of dismantling bureaucracy.

Complete the BMI assessment on HBR.org

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE 

Sylvania No Comments

July 2017

 
A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

July 2017

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

ARTICLE:  RESULTS OR PEOPLE? WHERE TO FOCUS IF YOU’RE AIMING FOR EXCELLENCE

By Ian Munro, director, Legitimate Leadership.

“So, are you saying that in order to succeed we need to move from being results-driven to being people-driven?”

This was the question posed to me by a senior leader in a large multinational organisation. I wondered how long it had been since I had lost him. That wasn’t what I had been saying. It was, however, the inspiration for a talk I recently gave at a gala dinner event. And this article – in which we will discover sustained success isn’t about committing to results or to people; it’s about committing to excellence.

Imagine a continuum. On the one side, you have a single-minded focus on results. On the other side, a single-minded focus on people. In the middle; a balance between the two. If you were running a business, where should you aim to be?

Three people in the dinner audience I was addressing cast their vote on the side of results. Many more shouted “people”. An even larger group weren’t willing to commit to a side. It’s a balance they said.

Ok then, let’s start with “results”.

What happens when organisations focus single-mindedly on results?

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

ARTICLE:  COURAGE 101 FOR LEADERS 

By Lulu de Beer, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

The work of leading is not for the faint-hearted. To build an exceptional leadership team and lead that team in achieving the objectives of the organisation requires hard work, dedication and courage.

Courage is defined by Legitimate Leadership as the giving of self, requiring the leader to suspend his self-interest in favour of the interests of the employee.

What does this look like? Here are three scenarios for you to solve …

READ THE ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

ARTICLE:  SHOULD A CEO’S BONUS BE BASED ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE ALONE? 

By Graham Kenny managing director of Strategic Factors, a Sydney, Australia, consultancy that specializes in strategic planning and performance measurement, and the author of Crack Strategy’s Code and Strategic Performance Measurement.

 

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:

Legitimate Leadership has long argued that organisations will only deliver on a stated intent to “serve” all their stakeholders if what they are measured and rewarded for is consistent with that intent. What this article outlines are some small but not insignificant shift in that direction.

 

BELOW IS OUR SUMMARY OF AN ARTICLE BY KENNY WHICH APPEARED IN THE HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW.

On November 9, 2016, the shareholders of Australia’s largest company, and the world’s tenth largest bank, revolted. The Commonwealth Bank’s shareholders were reacting to the board’s annual Remuneration Report, which contained a recommendation that the CEO be granted a bonus based on what critics saw as “soft” measures – that is, non-financial measures and subjective measures.

Commonwealth Bank is among an increasing number of corporates internationally which are moving away from using only “hard” (financial) measures to decide on executive remuneration.

In the past 20 years most corporates went down the “hard” path forged largely by US corporations and global remuneration consultants. But they often now find themselves dissatisfied with the result.

For instance, the world’s largest mining company, BHP Billiton, now uses several key performance indicators (KPIs) to guide its executive compensation. These include financial metrics (such as attributable profit; underlying earnings before interest and taxation; and total shareholder return (share price and dividends which are assumed to be reinvested)), but also non-financial (but still objective) KPIs (namely total recorded injury frequency and greenhouse gas emissions).

But corporations are now taking a further step beyond objective metrics, which can be financial and non-financial, to include subjective measures — tagged as “soft.” For instance, the Commonwealth Bank restructured its evaluation system so that 75% of CEO incentives came from the bank’s total shareholder return (TSR) relative to a set peer group, and 25% from customer-satisfaction results, benchmarked against another peer group. Then, following an ethics scandal within its life insurance arm, the bank’s board took yet another step to include even more subjective measures. To help modify the bank’s culture to match its stated values, the bank’s remuneration committee and board recommended a change to the reward split to TSR 50%, customer satisfaction 25%, and people and community 25%. The latter was concerned with “measuring long-term progress in the areas of diversity and inclusion, sustainability, and culture”.

This proved to be a step too far for some shareholders, precipitating their revolt in November 2016.

One Australian analyst described the Commonwealth Bank’s move as “well-intentioned but not well designed”.

But the board of the bank has not backed away from the issue since the revolt. Indications are that it will rather provide shareholders with additional context and logic on the thorny issue of soft measures.

Boards around the world find themselves in a bind. But they don’t really know what to do instead. As a consequence, companies are firing off ad hoc responses rather than approaching performance measurement in a comprehensive way.

The author recommends a framework to boards and CEOs to develop a corporate performance scorecard. This produces both objective and subjective measures. It recognises, as company law dictates, that a board’s primary responsibility is to look after the best interests of the company — not only those of shareholders. It develops a corporate scorecard focused on the relationships that the company has with its stakeholders – including customers, employees, shareholders, and suppliers. It acknowledges that the relationship between the company and stakeholders is a two-way street and develops measures for these on both sides. It appreciates that the much-sought-after leading indicators are often soft, subjective measures. It implements a short list of KPIs recognising the cause-and-effect relationship between soft and hard measures.

A recent study by AMP Capital, a leading Australian investment company, observed that “incentives linked solely to financial metrics risk fuelling negative culture and conduct”. As a result, it noted, “companies are increasingly focusing on setting non-financial targets alongside financial targets”.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

Sylvania No Comments

June 2017

 
A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

June 2017

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: LEADERSHIP TRAINING ALLOWS MANAGERS TO FOCUS ON THEIR REAL PURPOSES

Within a few months of a Legitimate Leadership Introduction course, DNI Retail, a subsidiary company of the DNI Group, which is a medium-sized South African company, has experienced “an enormous outburst of excellence” in its various departments. And generally, its employees are happier, more committed and less likely to refer to their managers when taking decisions. This in turn means that managers can focus on the real purposes of their jobs and not be involved in decisions which their subordinates should take.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY HERE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE DONE, NOT JUST TALKED ABOUT

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

Most managers who are introduced to the Legitimate Leadership Framework gain the following insights:

  • Only when managers are in the relationship to “give” to their people rather than “get” results out of them will their people willingly go above and beyond in pursuit of the company’s objectives.
  • This “giving” is not a giving of money. It is a giving of genuine concern for the individuals (care) and enablement of them to realise the best in themselves (growth).
  • It is two drops of essence, care and growth, which gives those in authority legitimacy, not money.

At the same time, leaders are not necessarily clear as to what caring for and growing their people means practically. They want to know what they can DO to enhance their legitimacy as leaders.

To this end, we have found the following 20 ideas on getting started on the road to legitimacy to be useful for those in authority who would like to work at becoming people that others “want to” rather than “have to” work for.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: TRUST AND COMMUNICATION

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

At Legitimate Leadership we believe that the critical factor accounting for successful management-employee communication is the degree to which employees trust the source of the communication. Neither the content of the message (WHAT management says) nor the choice of medium (HOW they say it) is anywhere near as important as whether it is trusted in the first place.

When managers are trusted, individually and collectively, then what they say is generally believed and accepted. When trust in management is low, employees are suspicious of everything that management says, even if it is the truth.

Trust in management is granted or withheld on the basis of a single criterion: the degree to which employees perceive management to be in the relationship to “give” or to “take”. When managers are perceived to be pursuing their own interests, to only be in the relationship to get something out of their people, trust in them will be low. When managers are experienced as there to give or serve their people, only then will their staff be willing to give to them – because they trust that their manager has their best interests at heart.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: F1 PIT STOPS – 1950 VERSUS 2013

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:   Leaders, unlike managers, are relentless in defining, reimagining and realising human excellence

One of the ways they do this is by continuously raising the bar in terms of both behavioural and performance standards. They make a core part of their job the setting of high standards, demonstrating these standards themselves, enabling their people to aspire and achieve the current standard, and then raising the standard yet again.

How else did the those leading the pitstop changeover teams in Formula 1 reduce changeover time from 67 seconds in 1950 to under 3 seconds in 2013?

View this video to see how the bar has been raised since 1950 for Formula 1 pitstops by CLICKING HERE

Sylvania No Comments

May 2017

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

May 2017

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

 

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: NO BURNING PLATFORM IS NEEDED, ONLY THE WILL TO CHANGE

By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

 

We at Legitimate Leadership recently conducted a 15-month leadership transformation project in a major automotive brand’s retail operation. Over 100 of the business’s leaders, from the CEO down to frontline dealership managers, participated in the project, which was designed to help them understand and apply the Legitimate Leadership Model.

The project gave us the opportunity to witness many successes in shifting leaders’ intent from taking to giving, but one particular instance has stood out for me.

It is about a dealership sales manager in Pretoria –  Francois Fourie. When I met him at the start of the project he was a successful sales manager. He had a team of seven salespeople, most of whom had worked for him for several years. He regularly made his monthly sales target, and his people gave him consistent results – he would often find that 2-3 of his sales people would be in the Top 10 performing salespeople in the region every month.

At the start of the project Francois was assessed against the Legitimate Leadership criteria through confidential surveys with each of his subordinates (it is Legitimate Leadership’s view that the best judge of an individual’s leadership is his/her people).

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY HERE BY CLICKING HERE

 

ARTICLE: COACHING AND THE LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP FRAMEWORK

By Stefaan van den Heever, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

 

I have been an executive coach since 2007 and I have loved working with people in this way. I believe it is a real gift when a person can hold up a clear, mostly-untainted mirror for someone so that she can come to terms with those places or areas where there are gaps or incoherence with authenticity. It has been a privilege to create this mirror and challenging space for others – and hugely meaningful to go through this journey myself.

However, in the past few years it has become clear that coaching can have only a limited impact if the system and culture of an organization, for instance, is not conducive to a coaching or learning way of leading really being “lived” by the individual in it.

During coaching, the client can gain great insights about how he shows up and can go out and implement new behaviour based on those insights. But then something can happen: it’s almost as if the new frame of reference “collides” or is in contradiction with what is going on within the organization. It happens quite often that an organization has an inspirational mission statement and values but they are only words …

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE BY CLICKING HERE

 

ARTICLE: WHAT PROJECTS REALLY NEED ARE BETTER PROJECT LEADERS, NOT BETTER PROJECT MANAGERS

By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

When you ask the average Project Manager what he or she is accountable for, the answer is usually: successful project results! In project-speak this means managing and controlling the constraints of time, cost and quality in delivering the scope of the project required by the customer.
The problem is that in any standard list of what a project manager should do well, all of the items on the list are about “management” – none of them are about “leadership”.

 

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 INTERVIEW WITH DANIELE BOLELLI: PHILOSOPHY, FIGHTING, AND MARTIAL ARTS MYTHOLOGY

 

A Daily Stoic interview with Daniele Bolelli, Italian-born American author, professor, professional, martial artist and podcast host.

OUR SELECTED EXERPTS FROM THE INTERVIEW:

Q: You have written, “Victory or defeat are largely out of my control, but putting up a good fight … putting up the kind of fight that makes the earth shake and the gods blush … this I can do.” Was this always a deep rooted belief – focusing uniquely on your actions and not the outcome – that you had? Or was this a lesson that you had to relearn over and over?

I don’t think too many human beings are naturally above caring about victory and defeat. It’s imprinted in us to care about the outcome of our actions. While this may be natural and normal, the problem is that we can never fully control the outcome. Usually in life there are too many variables at play. So, no matter how mightily we strive or how intense our effort, odds are that at least some of the time we will come up short of our goals. And what makes things even more complicated is that the more attached you are to the outcome, the more tension and fear you will experience at the thought of possibly facing a crushing defeat – which reduces our effectiveness, since part of our energy is trapped in the jaws of fear. Paradoxically enough, the more you focus on giving your all rather than outcome, the less fear will hold you prisoner. And the less fear holds you prisoner, the higher the odds that you will perform at your peak potential and actually get the outcome you desire. I am fascinated with this idea because it offers a concrete tool to better ourselves. I struggle with this all the time because – like most people – I care deeply about outcomes. So, for me this is an ongoing practice.

A theme that comes up throughout is that, at the core of it, martial arts training provides us with tools to forge our character. I think people often forget that character-building aspect – whether it is in martial arts or any other type of training. Can you elaborate on that idea for our readers?

Character-building is the most important task any of us can tackle. People often get overly enamored with the specific detail of their field rather than remembering that ultimately any field is only as good as it helps us become more effective and better as human beings. If martial arts are just about martial arts, then screw them – they are not that important. But if martial arts (or any other field for that matter) offer us the instruments to reforge our character, then it would be foolish to miss this chance. Zen warns us not to get lost looking at the finger pointing at the moon, and focus on the moon itself. The way I see it, the details of any field are the finger, while character-building is the moon.

In Ego is the Enemy, I used an analogy you gave me – sweeping the floor. I think philosophy is a lot like that. You don’t learn it once, or think about it once. You have to do it every day. Is there one exercise or one thought you return to most? Anything specifically from the Stoics?

Marcus Aurelius wrote his Meditations in order to remind himself of how he wanted to behave in everyday life. I think this is key – to find some type of daily ritual that puts us in contact with our highest ideals, with what Nietzsche calls ‘the hero hidden in your soul’. Visualizing the person you want to be, focusing on specific characteristics, and imagining how this person would react in particular circumstances is a useful way to try to embody these ideals into reality. Regardless of what the fans of ‘positive thinking’ say, no amount of visualizing a positive outcome ensures it will happen. But visualizing how we want to face what life dishes our way is a much more realistic, and useful approach.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

Sylvania No Comments

April 2017

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

April 2017

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

 

CASE STUDY: LEADERSHIP IN TIMES OF ADVERSITY – JURGENS CI FACES THE MUSIC

In tough times, it’s much easier to cope when you have a workforce which is engaged and on your side. And, to get where you’re going, you have to help others get where they are going.

These were two lessons drawn by Bradley Salters, former managing director of Jurgens Ci, a South African manufacturer of caravans, from his two and half years of running the company (until it was recently sold). During that time, Salters jokes, “we probably had the monopoly on adversity”.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY HERE BY CLICKING HERE

 

Grow to Care Facilitation at the Airplane Company

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: THE AIRPLANE COMPANY, TAKING OFF – BUT NOT FROM A BURNING PLATFORM

By Leanne Maree, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

If a company has a burning platform, Legitimate Leadership’s Grow to Care programme will focus it on what needs to be done immediately.

If a company does not have a burning platform, the Grow to Care programme can still be useful to assist to bring the company out of complacency, to improve performance and productivity, to enhance positive behaviour, and to help it reach a new level.

And interventions like those done by Legitimate Leadership are best done at both the top and the bottom levels of the organisation’s people simultaneously.

These are among the insights that Leanne Maree, a Legitimate Leadership associate who is also an independent human resources consultant, has about a recent Grow to Care programme she did with a medium-sized South African developer and manufacturer of small aeroplanes.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY HERE BY CLICKING HERE

 

PEOPLE WALK THROUGH FIRE ONLY FOR PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY HAVE A PERSONAL, NOT PROFESSIONAL, CONNECTION

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

One of the key differentiators between managers and leaders is the nature of the relationship that they have with their people. Good managers have “professional” relationships with their people such that there are reasonable levels of respect and trust between the parties. Leaders have something more. They have “personal” relationships with their people. They bond with their people at a deeper level and, as a result of this, their people are prepared to walk through fire for them.

The strength of the personal connections has nothing to do with whether the leader socialises with his people or not, nor whether he knows the names of their partner, offspring or pets. It goes beyond giving them due time and attention, liking them and holding them in high regard. All of these are preconditions for forging personal ties with one’s employees but they are not what causes the personal connection per se.

What generates the personal bond between manager and subordinate is the fact that the manager sincerely cares about her people, as human beings not only as human resources. It is at the end of the day an issue of the heart, not the head.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

LEADING EMPLOYEES FROM TAKING TO GIVING IN A CALL CENTRE

By Lulu de Beer a Legitimate Leadership associate and a former call centre company executive, writing for the call centre industry.

Every employer struggles with the issue of how to get employees to come to work every day and put in their best effort.

Imagine how much more time the leaders in the call centre would have if they didn’t have to monitor every employee every minute of the day and every step of the call centre process. And what time you would save if employees stayed in your organisation and you weren’t recruiting and training new employees repeatedly.

Think of how your productivity and results would improve if employees remained in the business for longer to fully use their experience and learning in the interests of the business results.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

VIDEO: THE PYGMALION EFFECT – LEADERS WHO BELIEVE ALL TEAM MEMBERS WILL SUCCEED WILL OUTPERFORM THOSE THAT DON’T

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: As a leader, where you pitch the standard is all-important.

I was once informed by a South African insurance company that “the national standard (and it always has been) is an average of seven policies sold per week”.

I was then told by a salesperson in Durban that she delivered an average of 11 policies per week. She would work over the weekend if necessary to make the target.

I asked her boss if she was the exception. “Everyone in my team delivers an average of 11 policies per week,” said the boss. “I know it is possible because I did it when I was a salesperson. I expect nothing less.”

I asked myself whether I had perchance come across an exceptional group of salespeople. Not at all, I concluded … I had come across an exceptional sales team leader!

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO (WITH HIGHLIGHTING BY US):

The fascinating leadership phenomenon called the Pygmalion or Rosenthal effect was first discovered in a classroom, but you’ll find its effects everywhere.

In a famous army experiment, in a 15-week army training course, 105 soldiers were assigned to instructors.

Before the course started each instructor was given the following message: “We have collected a lot of data regarding the trainees you will receive in the coming days. It considers psychological tests, grades from previous courses, and ratings by previous commanders. Based on this information we have predicted the command potential of the soldiers you are going to receive as High ones, Average ones, and unfortunately there are a few soldiers where we don’t have any data. Please learn their names and their scores by heart before they arrive.”

It’s important to know that at the time these instructors didn’t know that the classifications that had been given to the soldiers are in fact completely random – in other words, a soldier listed as High Command Potential could very well have been the worst soldier in the group or vice versa.

After the 16-week course each soldier was tested. The soldiers that were labelled High Command Potential significantly outperformed their classmates; those with an Average Command Potential scored the lowest; and the third group (those with an unknown performance potential) ended up in the middle.

The difference was quite big – 15% between the first group and the last group.

Isn’t that amazing?

So when we believe a team member has the ability to be a great performer, our belief becomes reality; the performance expectations we have for our team members are self-fulfilling prophecies.

That’s the Pygmalion effect.

But how does it work?

As soon as the instructors believed that some soldiers had better abilities than others, they started managing those individuals differently. Raising expectations triggers a leadership process that results in superior performers, so better leadership in turn has a direct positive effect on the superb subordinates’ performances; it kick-starts positive effects. Just imagine the extra boost you get when somebody is giving you positive attention.

Leaders get the performance they expect.

When they believe and expect low performance their expectations kick-start a negative spiral that leads to low performance.

But if we can imagine everybody to be a great performer, if we apply a can-do management style to everyone in the team – when we believe our team members have what it takes to succeed like those instructors believed the soldiers with High Command Potential did, the chance that they will actually succeed will be much higher.

So the Pygmalion effect teaches us that we have to be careful in what we believe. Most of us have the habit of labelling team member A as a high performer, B as average and as having reached her ceiling, and C as a low performer. But our labels are self-fulfilling prophecies.

For those that end up in the high performance category, that’s great – they’ll get the leader they deserve. But for those that we categorize as average or low performers, that is not the case because when we don’t expect greatness our leadership style won’t be great either. And thus we contribute to their failure.

So if we want to increase our team’s success rate we have to reconsider the relationship we have with all our team members, not only the ones with High Command Potential. We need to create a can-do environment, a place where we expect success from every team member, not only a few high performers.

Leaders who believe all team members will succeed will outperform those that don’t.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

March 2017

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

March 2017

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

REPORT-BACK ON LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP’S ‘LEADING IN TIMES OF ADVERSITY’ BREAKFAST

Legitimate Leadership’s first breakfast event of 2017, on the subject ‘Leading in Times of Adversity’, took place in Johannesburg on 15 March. Executives from two organisations, Hyundai Automotive South Africa (Hyundai SA) and Jurgens Ci, shared their experiences of how they responded to the difficult circumstances they faced.

The types of adversity that the two companies faced were different. Jurgens Ci was confronted with significant conflict in management-employee relationships, a factory which burnt down, and a decline in sales which necessitated a 10% reduction in employee numbers.

In Hyundai SA’s case, the company was faced with the year-on-year decline in new car sales, an exchange rate not in its favour, fierce competition in an industry where all vehicles are of high quality, and a negative organisational culture.

There is a natural tendency in difficult conditions to cut spending and batten down the hatches, but both Hyundai SA and Jurgens Ci elected to do the opposite.

They chose to rather invest in their people and to use the Legitimate Leadership framework as an enabler to change management-employee relationships, build trust in the leadership of the enterprise, develop leaders’ ability to lead, and engage employees’ willingness to go above-and-beyond in the pursuit of the organisations’ objectives.

As a result, Jurgens Ci was able to get back the trust relationship with its staff and engender a “how do we fix this?” mindset rather than an attitude of “what’s in this for me?” The conclusion of Bradley Salters, Jurgens Ci’s managing director, was twofold: firstly, that it is much easier to cope with difficult times when you have a workforce which is engaged and on your side; secondly, to get where you want to go, you have to help others to get where they are going.

In the words of Masenyane Molefi, human resources director of Hyundai SA, “culture beats strategy for breakfast but real culture change takes 3-5 years”.

After 18 months of a project with Legitimate Leadership, Hyundai SA has some pockets of excellence but has still to achieve a critical mass of leaders who can solicit the willingness of their people to truly go the extra mile. Hyundai SA is currently measuring the impact to date of the care and growth intervention on shifting the culture from “taking to giving” and determining how best to sustain the momentum it has gained.

In a Legitimate Leadership project for a retail group, a local dealership was headed by a man who was always people-inclined, according to his subordinates. From the start of the Legitimate Leadership intervention, he found himself able to easily accept what it was advocating.

However, no-one is perfect, and this man had the fault that he was somewhat of “a control freak”. Over the years he had implemented a lot of rules, controls and paperwork in the dealership.

From left to right: Masenyane Molefe (Hyundai SA), Wendy Lambourne (Legitimate Leadership) and Bradley Salters (Imperial Group).

CASE STUDY: REFLECTIONS ON IMPLEMENTING CARE AND GROWTH IN A MANUFACTURING CONTEXT IN THE USA

As told by a senior operations manager.

We started using “Care and Growth” in the USA about 5 years ago. “Care and Growth” is really about changing yourself and changing your team, and to achieve this it is important to have a clear sense of purpose.

CLEAR SENSE OF PURPOSE

If you decide to embark on care and growth with your team, make sure you have a clear “why” behind what you are doing.

The main reason we were successful in introducing “Care and Growth”, and getting individuals to change their behavior, was because we had a sense of purpose.

As a management team, we had many discussions about the kind of site and culture we wanted. We decided to ask what could be done to create a culture which would encourage the behaviours we were looking for.

We spoke to someone who had experience in the implementation of “Care and Growth,” we had some initial training, and then we went back to our site to decide how to implement it locally.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY HERE BY CLICKING HERE

SETTING OBJECTIVES – THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTRIBUTION AND RESULT

By Tony Flannigan, Organizational Development and Talent Management Director, Process Technologies Division, Johnson Matthey.

It’s that time of year again when we have to set people’s objectives! What is a good objective based on? Results? Goals? Inputs?

The answer is: a good performance objective should be about the contribution a person makes to a result.

Just to clarify language terms. What is the difference between Responsibilities and Accountabilities? Responsibilities tend to be set top down and are the shared goals or targets of the organisation. Accountabilities are unique to each person and are about the person’s contribution to the result.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

HOW DO YOU MEASURE AND SET CONTRIBUTION AND RESULT?

By Tony Flannigan, Organizational Development and Talent Management Director, Process Technologies Division, Johnson Matthey.

Contribution is assessed against a standard by watching the game and can therefore be above, on or below standard. The standard is therefore critical in defining a good contribution and can only be set by the leader. The standard should be the highest possible that the individual is capable of at their stage of maturity and experience. Nothing less than excellence at their level should be set by a leader who wants their team to be the best they can possibly be because not only are they likely to achieve the result, but they will often exceed it.

Results or outcomes are measured against a desired target and can therefore be above, on, or below, target.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND PEOPLE, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND BUSINESS

By Simon Sinek, American author on leadership and motivational speaker, addressing a designers’ conference in the USA 

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:

Humans are social animals and our very survival depends on our ability to form communities to form cultures.

What is a community, a culture? It’s a group of people with a common set of values and beliefs; so is a country – it should be a group of people with a common set of values and beliefs. Likewise a company should be a group of people with a common set of values and beliefs.

When we are surrounded by people who believe what we believe something remarkable happens: trust emerges.

Trust is a distinctly human feeling. We all have friends who are total screw-ups and we still trust them.

Trust is not a checklist. Simply doing everything you say you’re going to do does not mean people inherently trust you; it just means you’re reliable.

We need trust. When we’re surrounded by people who believe what we believe and trust starts to emerge – we trust them and they trust us – we’re more willing to take risks, we’re more willing to experiment (which requires failure). We’re more willing to explore and go somewhere that no one has ever gone before with the confidence that if we fail those within our community, those who we trust and who trust us, they will look after us while we’re gone, will pick us up when we fall over, help us when we’re hurt. Our very survival depends on it.

We’re not good at everything; we’re not good by ourselves. If you have to go and fight a sabre-toothed tiger by yourself, odds are it’s not going to go well. But if we go out as a group, we’re pretty amazing because we all have our strengths.

We also all have our weaknesses but the goal is not to fix our weaknesses, it is to amplify our strengths and surround ourselves with people who can do what we can’t do.

But it’s not just based on skills and experience; it’s based on what you believe it’s based on.

Simply being good at something and having somebody else who is good at what you’re not good at does not mean you will trust each other. The sense of trust comes from the sense of common values and common beliefs

Say you come from New York. When you go to Los Angeles and you meet someone from New York, you greet them and you are best friends. Likewise when you go to France, if you hear someone with an accent from your country.

This is because when you’re surrounded by people who don’t believe what you believe, when you’re in a strange environment where you don’t feel comfortable, you look for anyone who may share some of the same values and beliefs that you have, and you start to form a bond with them simply because you know that they have a basic understanding of how you grew up, of the things that you care about.

The same is true when we go to work. We want to go to work with people who understand us and believe what we believe – have a similar view of the world.

This has nothing to do with their opinions and the differences that we share – that’s good, that’s called diversity and it is an advantage in problem-solving because with it we can all look at the same thing from different angles and come up with solutions.

What I’m talking about is why we should help each other in the first place in what are we are in pursuit of.

Now the question is: what creates that sense of values and beliefs, what creates that sense of trust? We know how to find people who believe what we believe because our survival depends on it. If I ask you to go out in the street and find people who believe what you believe you know exactly what to do. You’re going to strike up conversations, you’re going to start talking to people and realise you have a good feeling about them. Sometimes it’s quick, sometimes it’s slow but we know how to do it – it’s called making friends, dating, networking – and we have the innate ability to do it.

The problem is it’s not scalable – you’re the only one who has that gut feeling. But if you know the signs to look for, it’s easy to spot simply because those people have sign or a symbol, they have something they’re giving off that says something about who they are and what they believe when you are standing on that Paris metro. The accent you heard is a symbol, a sign.

Though you don’t know these people, you trust they will save you – or give you a good reference to a restaurant.

It’s also why you will believe a credible friend’s recommendation when you buy a TV.

We don’t trust everyone, we trust people from within our community.

But we have to know what to look for. Every single piece of communication we make, every decision we make in our lives as individuals or as organizations is a piece of communication – it is our way of saying something about who we are and what we believe.

This is why authenticity matters; this is why you have to say and do the things you actually believe because the things you say and do are symbols of who you are – and we look for those symbols, because our very survival depends on it.

If you say what you believe and you do what you believe you attract people who believe what you believe.

If you had to go to your friends and say ‘how would you like me to dress so that you liked me better, how do you want me to address you, how do you want me to speak so that you like me more?’ Your friends would look at you funny and tell you to just be yourself, because that’s why they like you.

Now think about what we do in industry and in market research. We go and ask the customers what style we should speak to them in; how should we decorate ourselves; what kind of things they are drawn to – so if we can do those things they will like us more. It’s ridiculous!

Organizations should say and do the things they actually believe and they will attract people who believe what they believe.

If they choose to lie, at the slightest hint that they might be lying, cynicism sets in and people start saying ‘I’m not sure I can trust these guys because there’s not a lot of consistency in what they say and do which means they can’t have a very strong belief’. That is, they are not authentic.

The entire process of asking other people who we should be – positioning studies – is inauthentic.

People put Harley-Davidson logos on their bodies to say something about who they are. Did you ever see anybody with a with a Mac laptop who had a sticker over that shining Apple?

But there is no Procter & Gamble logo tattooed on anybody’s body.

Regarding the spirit of generosity, if we’re willing to give to the person next to us it’s amazing but they will be willing to give to us. Again, our very survival depends on this. I hate the whole self-help industry because how can you be happy with the five steps to follow to be a millionaire or the seven steps that you need to get the career that – with me, me, me.

What about helping the guy next to you with the five steps, or to lose some weight?

At work, you can be happy because you did things you can be proud of and fulfilled by –when you do something for someone else. It’s the only way we get that feeling.

Statistics say that over ninety percent of people don’t feel fulfilled by the work they do – it’s not because of the job or the benefits; it is because we don’t help each other anymore. We sit in our cubes and we work and we don’t put ourselves out there to help somebody else. Generosity is doing something for someone else expecting nothing in return.

Mother nature has given us this feeling that when we do something for someone else to encourage us to do it.

Sex feels good so that we can procreate more; the same applies here for that sense of fulfilment.

I don’t care how good your design is, if you don’t understand people you don’t understand business. We are social animals we are human beings and our survival depends on our ability to form trusting relationships.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

February 2017

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

February 2017

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY:  SNAKEKILLING AND REMOVING ACCUMULATED LAYERS OF CONTROL 

By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership

In a Legitimate Leadership project for a retail group, a local dealership was headed by a man who was always people-inclined, according to his subordinates. From the start of the Legitimate Leadership intervention, he found himself able to easily accept what it was advocating.

However, no-one is perfect, and this man had the fault that he was somewhat of “a control freak”. Over the years he had implemented a lot of rules, controls and paperwork in the dealership.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT – LEADERS NEED TO STEP UP

By Lulu de Beer, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

Businesses are fixated on the issue of Employee Engagement these days. They conduct multiple surveys and employ employee engagement managers. Research indicates that employees who are not sufficiently engaged damage the business.

Statistics indicate that only around 20-25% of employees are fully engaged. Approximately 60% show up, but are merely there for a paycheque. The remaining employees are actively disengaged, and might even be taking actions that damage the business.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP IN CHINA – THE PROJECT IS YOU

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

Legitimate Leadership was honoured to be invited to address the MBA alumni of the University of Manchester (China) and Shanghai on the evening of 15 February 2017.

The speech, given by Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership, is inserted below. There were 30 MBA alumni present at the event. In addition, 1,200 people listened to the talk which was broadcast live from the University of Manchester China Centre.

TRADITIONAL VERSUS LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

All organisations succeed sustainably to the degree to which their people are committed unconditionally to the objectives of the organisation. This capacity to give is only partly a function of what people HAVE or KNOW. More than anything else, it is a function of the degree to which their WILL is engaged.

That being the case, the primary task of the leadership of any enterprise is to solicit their employees’ WILLINGNESS to contribute, or go above and beyond in pursuit of the company’s objectives.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: CAMPBELL SOUP CO – GETTING TO 17 PEOPLE ENGAGED TO 1 PERSON WHO IS NOT

Doug Conant, former president and CEO of Campbell Soup Co, told Harvard Business Review about that company’s turnaround in employee engagement.

In 2001 the company had a toxic culture, according to Conant, with many people having been “let go”. It had a very low trust environment.

“When I first started for every two people we had employed in the company, one person was looking for a job. So in effect there were 14,000 people working and 6,000 people looking for jobs.

“Since I’ve been there, we now have 17 people engaged for every one person who is not. That is that world-class levels …

“I think it’s foundational for a high performing company. You cannot expect to perform at a high level unless people are personally engaged. And they are not going to be personally engaged unless they genuinely believe that you are personally engaged in trying to make their lives better.

“People are not mind-readers. They don’t know exactly what you are thinking. I think you have to tell them. And sometimes we take that for granted because we know so clearly what we are doing and why we are doing it … by declaring yourself and saying you are going to emphasise employee engagement and be committed to making this a place where you are personally attracted to working; by declaring that you also hold yourself accountable to that, you raise the accountability and you raise the expectations.

“That’s half of it. The other half is that you have to deliver. So you have to be very careful – once you declare yourself you have to deliver against that agenda …

“I have a practice of writing 10 to 20 (handwritten) notes a day to employees in our company, celebrating their successes. You see in my line of work I’m trying to find the busted number in a spreadsheet and find all the things that are going wrong. Our entire culture is to find things that are going wrong and fix them.

“Most cultures don’t celebrate contributions of real significance … so I developed this practice of writing to our employees all around the world. And over the course of the 10 years, it was over 30,000 notes. And we only have 20,000 employees …

“Wherever you went in the world, you would find my handwritten notes posted on their bulletin boards celebrating their contribution.

“There are a couple of things that are important to know. One is that they were not gratuitous notes; they were related to something specifically these people had done which had enhanced our company. Two is they were handwritten because I believe it is important that you make it personal. To me, an email is okay but it’s insufficient. If I make the time to write the note, it’s something that people will treasure.

“Unfortunately in the first 25 years of my career I got two notes, and I’ve saved both of them. But I saw the power in it as I got started at Campbell and it was a way for me to emphasise the strategies that we were on and how important engagement was, to let people know I was paying attention. It sent a lot of positive signals to the organisation. I’m glad I did it.”

On another subject, a lot of managers talk about managing by walking around. But at Campbell, Conant used a pedometer. “We were emphasising years ago this notion of people getting 10,000 steps a day, encouraging people to get exercise and be healthy. My schedule is just insane but the one thing I could do … inevitably in the middle of a day a half hour would free up so I would put a pedometer and walking shoes on so that people would know I was doing my walk and I would just start walking all over the building. Every day would be a different half hour, or an hour maybe at the end of the day. I was getting my 10,000 steps in but I also had a chance to connect with people, celebrate some of their contributions – and once again let them know that I was paying attention … I believe it sent a lot of positive signals and I loved it and I was fitter for it. It was a win-win all round.”

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

January 2017

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

January 2017

calendar

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: ENABLING EXCELLENCE IN EMPLOYEES – ARE YOUR PEOPLE IN THE PICTURE?

By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership

Some time ago I was facilitating a workshop for middle managers on the topic of enabling employee contribution. As part of the session I posed the question: “What would your employees be doing if they were exhibiting excellence in the role?” The group had no difficulty in putting together a comprehensive list of behaviours and qualities that, for them, would indicate a person achieving excellence in a role.

They had, without any difficulty, given me their role-based criteria for excellence. In doing this exercise it was clear that the group, individually and collectively, had a very clear picture in their heads of what this thing called excellence looks like.

I then posed the question: “How many of you have had a conversation with your staff in which you have set these expectations out?” From a group of 20, only five participants put up their hands. I followed this up with a final question: “How many of you have a staff member who is currently fulfilling these expectations?” Only two people put up their hands.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP AND ETHICAL LEADERSHIP

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

Legitimate Leadership is, first and foremost, an ethical framework which argues for values- rather than needs-driven behaviour by all those at work, but particularly by those in leadership roles.

Every time a leader acts appropriately, arising out of being values-driven, trust in the individual leader and the leadership collectively increases an increment. Every time the opposite happens, trust decreases commensurately.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

VIDEO: A BEHAVIOUR WHICH IS NOT ‘CONSEQUATED’ WILL CONTINUE

By Dr Paul Marciano, a leading US authority on employee engagement and retention

When most supervisors see a problematic behaviour, they close their eyes and click their heels three times and hope that it will go away. But it doesn’t go away! Because a behaviour which is not “consequated” is by default going to continue and actually get worse.

So you have someone who comes in a minute late to a meeting, or five minutes late to a meeting, and it’s going to continue. By the time it gets to HR, it’s too late!

So obviously you have to set really clear expectations and goals. All of that is really important. By the way your goal should really be continuous improvement. Then, most importantly, you hold people accountable to those really clear expectations.

If you have someone who is deadweight in your organisation and you let them go, it’s like cutting ballast off a balloon – it really rises. So, we know when we set clear expectations, we are setting people up for success.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – December 2016

growtolead-new

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

December 2016

calendar

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website www.legitimateleadership.com

afrika-tikkunCASE STUDY: IN AN IMPLEMENTATION, IF NECESSARY USE WORDS

By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.

Go forth and preach the gospel; if necessary use words.

These words, from St Francis of Assisi, were a theme in the “graduation” ceremony in Legitimate Leadership’s Advanced Leadership Module for nine general managers of Africa Tikkun, one of South Africa’s largest NGOs (non-governmental organisations).

The graduation ceremony (pictured) was held on 24 November in Johannesburg. The group had completed a total of 22 days of training and development in the Legitimate Leadership Model over three years (since 2013), culminating in a series of Advanced Leadership Modules.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: INTERNS WILL TEACH COMPANIES ABOUT GIVING AND TAKING

By Ian Munro, director of Legitimate Leadership.

So you have decided to participate in one of the growing number of internship programmes. Whether your particular internship project is a success or a failure, you can be sure of one thing: it will clarify whether your organisation (or your part of it) is a “giving” or a “taking” one.

This is because in almost all internship projects, there will be more “give” by the employer than “take”. And that is essentially because the company is able to give a lot more – it has all the experience and knowledge. Conversely, the intern is not easily able to give because she does not have that experience and knowledge yet.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

ARTICLE: AS A BUSINESS LEADER WE DON’T HAVE TO CLIMB EVEREST

Michael Useem, director, Center for Leadership and Change Management, The Wharton School, USA.

I’ve been to Mount Everest. I’m privileged to have stood in the Himalayas and viewed the spectacular highest mountain in the world. To see the sight of the jet stream wafting off the top. A truly grand experience in a country with beautiful culture and beautiful people.

So, what question am I asked the most about my trip to Nepal and Mount Everest?

“Did you make it to the top of Everest?”

No. No I did not. Here’s another confession. I didn’t even try. I made no attempt. I didn’t set one cold toe on any route up the mountain. I didn’t teeter on ladders, crawling across a gaping crevasse. I didn’t hang from fixed ropes off the side of a mountain. I didn’t push myself every tiny step with laboured breathing, wearing an oxygen mask to get me through the Death Zone. None of it.

Climbing Everest was never part of the plan. Not a goal. Not an objective.

What was part of the plan was an adventure discovering an interesting and awe-inspiring country. Getting to know people, their culture and their spirituality. Seeing vistas that relatively few people outside the region get to see in their lives. The plan was to have an incredible experience. Check that one off the list of to-dos – achieved!

As business leaders, we don’t have to climb Everest. More importantly, we don’t need to direct our teams to do it.

Climbing Everest would have been an impossible goal for me. Not enough skills or fitness to get there even if I spent the rest of my life preparing. The idea of it is ridiculous when you think of the goal relative to reality.

In business, it should be the same reality check. We certainly don’t have to build the impossible or near impossible into goals. Despite how performance evaluations may be graded on a curve in our companies, it should be possible to exceed expectations. We cannot make success something so far out of reach, we’ll likely never get there.

Don’t make your team’s daily experience the same as teetering on the ragged edge of a bottomless crevasse. It’s demoralizing.

Competitive edge is important. Drive and ambition toward excellence are very important. Goals and objectives need to make sense for the business while still being reasonable and achievable. This should be the first priority of great leaders. I’m a fan of big, hairy, audacious goals, but audacious does not equal impossible.

You can achieve excellent business results without setting superhuman goals that are out of reach for most mere mortals.

Push your teams. That’s what you’re there to do. But always keep in mind that people want to achieve. They want to exceed expectations. They want to be extraordinary. The outcome has to be something that can be envisioned – they have to be able to see themselves being successful and know the path to get there.

So if you go big on goals, if you decide to push teams to climb the mountain, then you have to know their capabilities and how you’ll get them where they are going.

You have to be the Sherpa helping them make it through the challenge. When the goal is reasonable given the skills, support and resources, then your teams will achieve business results. They will make incredible things happen. Most important, they’ll do it while feeling exhilarated and fulfilled in their work.

VIDEO: CONAN HANGS OUT WITH HIS INTERNS

By Conan O’Brien, an American comedian.

In case you need help in ending the year with a smile, view this video and learn how NOT to handle interns.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – November 2016

growtolead-new

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

November 2016

calendar

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website www.legitimateleadership.com

controlsARTICLE: WHAT LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP BELIEVES ABOUT CONTROLS IN AN ORGANISATION

By Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership.

In times of adversity, typically the number of rules and controls, particularly surrounding spending, increases in an attempt to meet tighter budgets – rather than setting cost reduction targets and giving local management the freedom to determine how to achieve them.

There is a misconception that Legitimate Leadership’s position is that all controls are bad and should be done away with. This is simply not true. Legitimate Leadership in fact believes the following:

• Freedom without rules and constraints is anarchy

• Rules and constraints without freedom is totalitarianism

• Empowerment is freedom within constraints

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

authoirity

ARTICLE: IS IT EVER APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OR TO TAKE BACK CONTROL?

By Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership.

In the Legitimate Leadership framework, empowerment requires a leader to go beyond asking people for their opinions, listening to them, and only then deciding. Empowerment means letting people decide and living with their decision even if it is contrary to the decision that the leader would have made.

The degree to which a person is empowered therefore simply equates to the number and types of decisions that the person is now making, independently of their boss, which they weren’t making previously. Conversely, the degree to which a person is being disempowered can be gauged from the number and type of decisions that the person was taking but which have subsequently been taken away from them.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

parliament

ARTICLE: LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP GETS HONORABLE MENTION IN BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY PUBLICATION

By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership

In a recent edition of Britain’s The Parliamentary Review, an annual publication released to coincide with the beginning of the British parliamentary year, Legitimate Leadership’s model was mentioned with approval.

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE 

patrick-bet-david

EFFECTIVE WAYS OF HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE

By Patrick Bet-David, an Iran-born American entrepreneur and financial advisor who particularly focuses on encouraging people to be successful entrepreneurs. WITH COMMENT AT THE END FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP.

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:

What are the things I have to do to give me a chance to get my business to a higher level? Accountability is one of those things and Bet-David lists nine factors to be effective in holding people accountable.

  1. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE. We hate it when someone holds us accountable! We don’t like it when our boss holds us accountable, our wife, our siblings, our coach. Because there is the possibility of a let-down because we didn’t do something we were supposed to. Even more, most people hate holding other people accountable. Most people are afraid of doing it because they don’t like to show other people that they are not efficient etc. This is mostly because they want people to like them, and they don’t want friction with them. It’s not that you are not good at holding other people accountable, it is that you don’t like to do it. But you need to grow up if you are going to run a business. In fact your subordinates will be depending on you to do this if you are truly going to build them into leaders. So very simply: do not be afraid to hold people accountable! Make it very clear that this is not personal. Sometimes, the energy involved needs to be reduced so that it does not become personal and emotional. You may even need to say that “as a person I have no problem with you, but I do have a problem with your performance”.
  2. QUESTION THEIR ANSWERS. You may for instance ask a salesman how many phone calls he made and he may reply “around 200”. You could reply “there is no such thing as around, how many did you make?” You need specifics! Go deep into finding the reason why sales are not as good as expected because if you don’t, there will be no effect to the meeting. If the meeting is just about motivation, but without numbers, then nothing will happen. Go deeper and deeper until you can give advice – one, two, three things that are required to be done for improvement.
  3. MAKE SPECIFIC, NOT GENERAL, STATEMENTS. About, for instance, sales, and about buy-in. “What’s going to change? One, two, three.” Also, what moves people within statements? Deadlines, for instance. “We don’t have unlimited time, so when are you going to get this done by?” Make specific statements; minimise general statements.
  4. GIVE CLEAR EXPECTATIONS. The clearer you are, the more they know how to rise up to it. Again, be specific!
  5. USE MEASURABLE FIGURES. The benefit of using figures is that it avoids conflict. Because numbers cannot deceive and no one can get upset at their numbers. Many people brag about how hard they work. As long as you are working hard and with concerted practice, it is virtually impossible that your numbers will not improve.
  6. CONSEQUENCES IF THE JOB DOESN’T GET DONE. You may ask them “do you think that as the CEO, if I don’t reach my targets, I can get fired?” They may say you cannot. You can reply that of course you can be fired – by customers, sales reps, employees, boards, vendors etc. CEOs get fired every single day. If I as a CEO am not at the top of my game I get fired. So what makes you think that you can’t get fired? For instance if you are in sales and you don’t call your clients, your clients are going to fire you. Or your people are going to fire you. If you don’t take care of your people, they will fire you because they will find someone else to care for them.
  7. COACH THEM THROUGH THEIR CHALLENGES. It is not just saying to them “you are not doing this, this and this”. No, a good leader is going to say, “let me give you some coaching … here is what I suggest in this area … here is what I suggest in that area.”
  8. SHOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN THE TEAM. Show them that their position in the company is important. “If you don’t take it seriously, the company is affected. We need you to rise up and perform at the best possible level.”
  9. FINISH WITH LOVE. You are dealing with human beings who have emotions, pride and bragging rights. They want to know that they make a difference. It’s important for you to know what role they are playing in the company, what their long-term visions and goals are. It’s important for them to know what the company wants to achieve. Then they will not have a problem with you holding them accountable. They will know that you are trying to help them, but that they also have to step up.

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP:  The Legitimate Leadership Model identifies three critical variables in the empowerment of people and the impact this has on results. These three variables are Means, Ability and Accountability. Of the three, Accountability is the most critical when it comes to people making a contribution, realising the best in themselves, and delivering organisational performance. Bet-David’s nine factors for holding people accountable are totally aligned with the Legitimate Leadership Model and understanding of what holding people appropriately accountable means. They are practical “to do” tips for cultivating accountability in an organisation.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – October 2016

 

Grow-to-Lead-Logo-news1 (1)
A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

October 2016

final-events-calendar

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

 

 

content-thought-leadership

CASE STUDY: USING SUCCESSIVE LEADERSHIP PROFILES TO GAUGE SHIFTS IN LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOUR

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

The individual leadership profile, used by Legitimate Leadership, is a compilation of feedback provided by direct reports (subordinates) about a leader/manager. A group profile is the aggregation of a number of individual leadership profiles for a particular entity.

With both individual and group profiles, the first profile done forms a useful baseline measure to compare with any subsequent profiles done.

This case study examines the shift in behaviours between a baseline group profile (done in April 2014) and a follow-up group profile done two years later (in April 2016). With the exception of one individual, the compositions of the two groups were identical.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

communicating

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: JUST SIT DOWN AND SPEAK TO THEM

By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.

The following is the description of the experience of a sales director in a successful motor dealership.

I had a very good sales lady – in fact, the top in the country for our brand. About eight months ago, she won a prize to go abroad because of her sales performance.

When she returned, her attitude had changed and she was very opinionated. She was still a good salesperson but now she had the attitude, “I’m untouchable, no one can tell me anything, and I’m going to have it my way”.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

Conceptual image - success of teamwork. Objects isolated over white

ARTICLE: TRUST, THE WORKPLACE CURRENCY

By Wendy Lambourne, director of Legitimate Leadership

During the turbulent late 1980s in South Africa, research into trust in management in South Africa’s gold mines produced unexpected results. Contrary to expectations, trust in management was not consistently low – despite job segregation, apartheid, rising union and political militancy, and increasing violence generally.

Rather, the degree to which managers were seen to be trustworthy or not varied immensely – not only from mine to mine, but even from one shaft to another on the same mine.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

 

dr-kotter

VIDEO: THE KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LEADING AND MANAGING

By Dr John Kotter, professor of Leadership Emeritus at the Harvard Business School, and a New York Times best-selling author.

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Legitimate Leadership has a very clear view of the distinction between management and leadership: management is what you apply to things; leadership pertains to people.

For organisational success and sustained results – organisational excellence, in other words – both management and leadership are required. Things like finances, systems, structures, facilities etc all need to be managed well. But our plea is: please don’t manage people, lead them. Because when you manage people you reduce them to the status of things.

As the Kotter says, in most companies today there is far more of an emphasis on management than leadership. As a result organisations are over-managed and under-led.

So our second plea is: lead more and manage less.

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:

Be absolutely crystal clear in your own mind about the difference between leadership and management, and make sure that the people around you are also crystal clear about the difference.

Management is fundamentally a set of processes the most core of which are planning and budgeting, organising staffing, controlling and problem-solving. Management takes a system, an organisation, and makes it function the way it was designed to function – producing a good or service on time, on budget, the way it was designed to work.

Leadership by contrast is a set of processes for creating a vision of the future, for communicating that vision to people in a way that they will buy into it, and for creating an environment that motivates people to make that vision a reality. Leadership creates a system that managers manage, or takes staff and changes them in some fundamental ways to adapt to changes outside of the organisation, to grab opportunities, to duck hazards, to raise standards.

Both management and leadership are obviously very important, but if you don’t get it clear what you want, you run into big problems.

Most commonly, the speed of change external to the company goes up. Someone notices this and it starts affecting, for instance, the company’s financials. Management comes back and says “we need to do something about this, and we clearly need more better leadership at the top and just below that”.

And people really try hard to implement that. But they think that management is leadership. So what they work at improving is planning, budgeting and organising. And at a certain point you can become over-managed and under-led.

And it’s almost impossible (unless you have a monopoly) to be over-managed and under-led and be successful in the kind of world we live in today.

I see it in performance appraisals for instance. Improved leadership is being talked about more and more in business. But in the typical performance appraisal, most of the items required are management items.

What they are in effect doing is promoting more people who are good at management and reinforcing management, but not solving the real leadership problem which can help them deal with the increasingly turbulent and changing environment.

You have to understand the difference and the people around you need to understand the difference.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – September 2016

 

Grow-to-Lead-Logo-news1 (1)
A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

September 2016

final-events-calendar

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

 

 

(Ivelin Radkov/Shutterstock.com) 10SECRET-022616-shutterstock Acountability

CASE STUDY: CREATING A PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE CULTURE THROUGH MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

By Nadine Jackson, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

When I started working with a group of 25 dealer principals (DPs) in a motor car retail organisation, I was immediately struck by the contrast of leadership styles among them. This was confirmed in the extensive leadership surveys carried out with their people, which indicated that some were experienced as very approachable and good-hearted, though this was often mistaken for weakness. Others however, ruled with an iron fist, requiring absolute control when managing their people.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

auditors

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: THE AUDITOR WHO WOULD NOT LISTEN BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HEAR

By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.

This is a simple story of an auditor in a motor parts distribution centre, employee X, who would not listen because he could not hear.

Employee X had a reputation for hard work and devotion to the company and its brand. But he also had a reputation for being terrible at admin – and particularly at completing any tasks which arose from meetings which he had attended.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

Opportunity Missed and Taken Green Road Sign and Clouds

ARTICLE: ACCOUNTABILITY IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY WHICH MANY BUSINESSES ARE MISSING

By Ian Munro, Director, Legitimate Leadership

When was the last time somebody said they would do something … and didn’t? When was the last time a service provider failed to meet a basic commitment? Perhaps it was a small thing. But perhaps also, it set off a bigger chain of events.

And although it might have been “inconsequential”, it probably means you won’t trust that person or organisation again – certainly not with something important.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

process-vs-results

ARTICLE: OF COURSE THE RESULT MATTERS BUT THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT IS NOT TO FOCUS ON IT

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

In my experience of corporations, middle and senior managers spend well over 50% of their time in setting, measuring and mincing about whether they and their subordinates are achieving the targeted results. In contrast, they spend far less of their time ensuring that their subordinates have the means, ability and accountability to achieve those results.

If the ratio was the other way round, better results would be achieved with much greater job satisfaction for all concerned.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

download

VIDEO: WHY PEOPLE SUCK AT KEEPING PROMISES

By Alex Sheen, founder of Because I Said I Would, an organisation which (according to Sheen) has supporters in over 150 countries.

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:

People are generally very, very bad at keeping promises.

Three examples illustrate this:

  • New Year’s resolutions: 40% of Americans make a New Year’s resolution but only 8% of those fulfil it.
  • Marriage: a huge commitment, for life! But 40-50% of marriages in the US end in divorce.
  • Politics: politicians are constantly making promises! But studies show that the majority of political promises are not kept.

All this is very well known. But what’s interesting is to ask why people are so bad at keeping promises.

15,942 is the average number of words a person speaks in a given day (according to a University of Arizona study on students).

It’s a lot of words, and many of those words are forward-looking. And the large number of those words which are forward-looking can be a problem.

But the number is not the only problem. It’s also a fact that our memories are terrible. We build memories which aren’t always factually true.

Flashbulb memories are made in emotional moments (for instance, what you were doing when 9/11 happened?). You would think they would be accurate – in fact, studies show that even flashbulb memories are unreliable.

But generally, our memories are terrible. For instance, can you say what is on a common coin? What’s on the front or the back and which way does it face?

But memory is not the only problem either.

Our choice of words is also a problem – sometimes the promise is already broken as the words come out of our mouths. Sometimes our promises are so big they are too epic.

Perhaps this comes from movies and books – often, at the core of these is a commitment which is epic. So we think that that is what promises have to be.

But life is not a movie. We need to be more particular about our word choices.

Often “promises” should be goals, not promises – especially when there are many external factors at play which could influence the result.

So let’s say you are a computer which has perfect memory and thinks about word choice deeply. But then there still a problem: motivation loss.

The Sheen two-people theory is that we look like two different people about a promise.

In the beginning, we are passionate about the promise. Then the emotion fades so that we are like two different people. One person wants to make the promise; the other person doesn’t want to show.

If you were told you would become a murderous zombie for 12 hours and thereafter revert to normal, you would probably chain yourself up and warn other people about your forthcoming weakness.

Why don’t we take that kind of action in real life when we know that we will weaken in regard to our promises (because if we break a promise, that inevitably hurts other people)?

One thing we could do is write down the promise and share it – for instance on social media, with 500 people. That might boost motivation because we are egotistical.

We have to think about forecasting our weakness and making changes (as you would chain yourself up if you were about to become a zombie). In other words we need a plan to protect people from our broken commitments.

But normally it just comes out of our mouth (“yes, yes I will do that …”). We don’t think about the time involved.

We also have very poor conception of time! It is said “you need to make time for…”, but in fact time cannot be made; it can only be reserved or marked. But not many people take their schedule/diary and mark it to ensure that a sequence of actions results in fulfilling a promise.

So, if you want to be good with your promises:

  • Be careful with your word choices.
  • Write important promises down so you don’t forget them.
  • Create motivators that chain you to your promises. Put steps into place and put them in your calendar.

We often think that what we need to solve X big problem is $1billion of funding. But sometimes in fact we just need people to do what they said they would do in the first place. The promises that we make, make the world.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – September 2016

 

Grow-to-Lead-Logo-news1 (1)
A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

September 2016

final-events-calendar

For more information on any of these events, please email events@legitimateleadership.com or visit our website by clicking here

 

 

(Ivelin Radkov/Shutterstock.com) 10SECRET-022616-shutterstock Acountability

CASE STUDY: CREATING A PERFORMANCE EXCELLENCE CULTURE THROUGH MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

By Nadine Jackson, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

When I started working with a group of 25 dealer principals (DPs) in a motor car retail organisation, I was immediately struck by the contrast of leadership styles among them. This was confirmed in the extensive leadership surveys carried out with their people, which indicated that some were experienced as very approachable and good-hearted, though this was often mistaken for weakness. Others however, ruled with an iron fist, requiring absolute control when managing their people.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

auditors

VIGNETTE CASE STUDY: THE AUDITOR WHO WOULD NOT LISTEN BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HEAR

By Teigue Payne, Legitimate Leadership.

This is a simple story of an auditor in a motor parts distribution centre, employee X, who would not listen because he could not hear.

Employee X had a reputation for hard work and devotion to the company and its brand. But he also had a reputation for being terrible at admin – and particularly at completing any tasks which arose from meetings which he had attended.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

Opportunity Missed and Taken Green Road Sign and Clouds

ARTICLE: ACCOUNTABILITY IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY WHICH MANY BUSINESSES ARE MISSING

By Ian Munro, Director, Legitimate Leadership

When was the last time somebody said they would do something … and didn’t? When was the last time a service provider failed to meet a basic commitment? Perhaps it was a small thing. But perhaps also, it set off a bigger chain of events.

And although it might have been “inconsequential”, it probably means you won’t trust that person or organisation again – certainly not with something important.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

process-vs-results

ARTICLE: OF COURSE THE RESULT MATTERS BUT THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THE RESULT IS NOT TO FOCUS ON IT

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

In my experience of corporations, middle and senior managers spend well over 50% of their time in setting, measuring and mincing about whether they and their subordinates are achieving the targeted results. In contrast, they spend far less of their time ensuring that their subordinates have the means, ability and accountability to achieve those results.

If the ratio was the other way round, better results would be achieved with much greater job satisfaction for all concerned.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

 

 

download

VIDEO: WHY PEOPLE SUCK AT KEEPING PROMISES

By Alex Sheen, founder of Because I Said I Would, an organisation which (according to Sheen) has supporters in over 150 countries.

OUR SUMMARY OF THIS VIDEO:

People are generally very, very bad at keeping promises.

Three examples illustrate this:

  • New Year’s resolutions: 40% of Americans make a New Year’s resolution but only 8% of those fulfil it.
  • Marriage: a huge commitment, for life! But 40-50% of marriages in the US end in divorce.
  • Politics: politicians are constantly making promises! But studies show that the majority of political promises are not kept.

All this is very well known. But what’s interesting is to ask why people are so bad at keeping promises.

15,942 is the average number of words a person speaks in a given day (according to a University of Arizona study on students).

It’s a lot of words, and many of those words are forward-looking. And the large number of those words which are forward-looking can be a problem.

But the number is not the only problem. It’s also a fact that our memories are terrible. We build memories which aren’t always factually true.

Flashbulb memories are made in emotional moments (for instance, what you were doing when 9/11 happened?). You would think they would be accurate – in fact, studies show that even flashbulb memories are unreliable.

But generally, our memories are terrible. For instance, can you say what is on a common coin? What’s on the front or the back and which way does it face?

But memory is not the only problem either.

Our choice of words is also a problem – sometimes the promise is already broken as the words come out of our mouths. Sometimes our promises are so big they are too epic.

Perhaps this comes from movies and books – often, at the core of these is a commitment which is epic. So we think that that is what promises have to be.

But life is not a movie. We need to be more particular about our word choices.

Often “promises” should be goals, not promises – especially when there are many external factors at play which could influence the result.

So let’s say you are a computer which has perfect memory and thinks about word choice deeply. But then there still a problem: motivation loss.

The Sheen two-people theory is that we look like two different people about a promise.

In the beginning, we are passionate about the promise. Then the emotion fades so that we are like two different people. One person wants to make the promise; the other person doesn’t want to show.

If you were told you would become a murderous zombie for 12 hours and thereafter revert to normal, you would probably chain yourself up and warn other people about your forthcoming weakness.

Why don’t we take that kind of action in real life when we know that we will weaken in regard to our promises (because if we break a promise, that inevitably hurts other people)?

One thing we could do is write down the promise and share it – for instance on social media, with 500 people. That might boost motivation because we are egotistical.

We have to think about forecasting our weakness and making changes (as you would chain yourself up if you were about to become a zombie). In other words we need a plan to protect people from our broken commitments.

But normally it just comes out of our mouth (“yes, yes I will do that …”). We don’t think about the time involved.

We also have very poor conception of time! It is said “you need to make time for…”, but in fact time cannot be made; it can only be reserved or marked. But not many people take their schedule/diary and mark it to ensure that a sequence of actions results in fulfilling a promise.

So, if you want to be good with your promises:

  • Be careful with your word choices.
  • Write important promises down so you don’t forget them.
  • Create motivators that chain you to your promises. Put steps into place and put them in your calendar.

We often think that what we need to solve X big problem is $1billion of funding. But sometimes in fact we just need people to do what they said they would do in the first place. The promises that we make, make the world.

TO VIEW THE FULL VIDEO CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – August 2016

Grow-to-Lead-Logo-news1

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

August 2016

LEAD0007_NewsletterCalendar4June

THE ESSENCE FROM THE SELECTING GIVERS OVER TAKERS BREAKFAST (JUNE 2016)

Pic.GiveTake

By Wendy Lambourne, director, Legitimate Leadership.

What were the essential messages which emerged from the recent Legitimate Leadership theme breakfast entitled Selecting Givers Over Takers?

Firstly, if you want an organisation where you have more givers than takers, then you need to have givers in charge. This is simply because givers beget givers. Whenever you appoint someone to a leadership role, therefore, it makes simple sense to appoint givers rather than takers.

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE

 

CASE STUDY: CHANGING A DISTRIBUTION CENTRE FROM “I” TO “WE” – AND REAPING THE RESULTS

Distribution

By Teigue Payne of Legitimate Leadership, with comment by Wendy Lambourne and Nothemba Mxenge, of Legitimate Leadership.

Action taken over the last three years fundamentally changed a PDC (parts distribution centre) of a South African company from an “I” to “we” facility.

It is generally thought that a typical unionised South African workforce won’t accept flexible work arrangements and achieves relatively poor productivity. But these notions are being decisively disproved at the PDC, partly because of the implementation of the Legitimate Leadership Model in the form of the Care and Growth Leadership programme and the Grow to Care programme.

TO READ THE FULL CASE STUDY CLICK HERE

 

ARTICLE: TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE – CORRECT LEADERSHIP ACTION WHEN IT’S NOT A MEANS, ABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY OR EVEN A CAPABILITY ISSUE

By an experienced line manager and practitioner of the Legitimate Leadership principles; with comment by Wendy Lambourne of Legitimate Leadership.

corrective

How do you handle a situation where an employee can technically do a job but simply does not “fit” with the rest of the team and the relationships are broken?

Almost any aspect of poor performance and dysfunction in people or teams can be diagnosed using the Legitimate Leadership Model.

The easy cases are where there are Means, Ability or Accountability issues.

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE

 

ARTICLE: THE FIVE DYSFUNCTIONS OF A TEAM

dysfunctional 

By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership, with comment by Wendy Lambourne of Legitimate Leadership.

Background

Since 2012 Legitimate Leadership has been engaged with a client in South Africa to improve its leadership capability at all levels within its manufacturing function.

One of the client’s shift managers is enrolled with South Africa’s Gordon Institute of Business Science (University of Pretoria) on a Foundation Management Development Programme. As part of a section of the course entitled Creating High Performance Teams, the shift manager recently submitted an assignment entitled “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”.

A core conclusion of his assignment is that avoidance of accountability and inappropriate intent are the greatest downfalls of leadership.

COMMENTARY ON THE SUBMITTED ASSIGNMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: What this shift manager has understood and articulated so well is that the core criterion for success as a leader, at any level in the hierarchy, is intent. At the root of all the five team dysfunctions is the intent of the leader to get rather than to give.

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE

 

lobster-1-195x300

PODCAST: DEBBIE MILLMAN READS THE LATE DAVID FOSTER WALLACE’S COMMENTS ON LEADERSHIP

With comment by Wendy Lambourne of Legitimate Leadership.

It is just about impossible to talk about the really important stuff in politics without using terms that have become such awful clichés they make your eyes glaze over and are hard to even hear. One such term is “leader,” which all the big candidates use all the time — as in, for instance, “providing leadership,” “a proven leader,” “a new leader for a new century,” etc — and have reduced to such a platitude that it’s hard to try to think about what “leader” really means and whether indeed what today’s Young Voters want is a leader. The weird thing is that the word “leader” itself is cliché and boring, but when you come across somebody who actually is a real leader, that person isn’t cliché or boring at all; in fact he’s sort of the opposite of cliché and boring.

Obviously, a real leader isn’t just somebody who has ideas you agree with, nor is it just somebody you happen to believe is a good guy. Think about it. A real leader is somebody who, because of his own particular power and charisma and example, is able to inspire people, with “inspire” being used here in a serious and non-cliché way. A real leader can somehow get us to do certain things that deep down we think are good and want to be able to do but usually can’t get ourselves to do on our own. It’s a mysterious quality, hard to define, but we always know it when we see it, even as kids. You can probably remember seeing it in certain really great coaches, or teachers, or some extremely cool older kid you “looked up to” (interesting phrase) and wanted to be just like. Some of us remember seeing the quality as kids in a minister or rabbi, or a scoutmaster, or a parent, or a friend’s parent, or a supervisor in a summer job. And yes, all these are “authority figures,” but it’s a special kind of authority.

If you’ve ever spent time in the military, you know how incredibly easy it is to tell which of your superiors are real leaders and which aren’t, and how little rank has to do with it. A leader’s real “authority” is a power you voluntarily give him, and you grant him this authority not with resentment or resignation but happily; it feels right. Deep down, you almost always like how a real leader makes you feel, the way you find yourself working harder and pushing yourself and thinking in ways you couldn’t ever get to on your own.

In other words, a real leader is somebody who can help us overcome the limitations of our own individual laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better things than we can get ourselves to do on our own.

COMMENT BY WENDY LAMBOURNE OF LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Legitimate leaders, individuals in positions of authority in organisations that people willingly follow, evince only two drops of essence: they have a sincere and genuine interest in those in their charge, and they are relentless in the pursuit of helping them realise the best in themselves. Legitimate power is not vague or arbitrary; it is very concrete and specific. Legitimate leaders care for and grow their people. What makes them leaders is their character, not their charisma.

TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – August 2015

Grow-to-Lead-Logo-news1

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

August 2015

caregrowthpeople

ARTICLE: YOU CAN GROW PEOPLE WITHOUT THEM GOING ANYWHERE
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership

There is a notion prevalent in organisations today that in order to grow someone at work you need to promote her, move her to another job or give her new responsibilities. Clearly there are opportunities for a person to grow from all three of these. Yet there is no need to either move a person or reconfigure her role in order for her to grow. Leaders who are aligned to the Care and Growth criteria enable their people to grow on an ongoing and continuous basis in the jobs that they are currently in.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

---

ARTICLE: MATCHING LEADERSHIP ACTION TO EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership

Implementing the Care and Growth model requires nothing less than an inversion of the line of service from “up” to “down” the line. It necessitates cultivating relationships which are subordinate centred, where the primary concern for those in authority is what they can “give” to their people, rather than what they can “get” out of them.

Practically speaking, there are seven “gives” that can be made by a leader at any point in time. What Legitimate Leadership calls the 7 Possibilities are shown below.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE BY CLICKING HERE

---
marg

VIDEO:  REPLACING SUPER CHICKENS WITH CONNECTED TEAMS
By Margaret Heffernan, businesswoman and author of A Bigger Prize: How We Can Do Better Than The Competition, and other books.

Organisations are often run according to “the superchicken model”, where most value is placed on star employees who outperform others. This nomenclature derives from a study which examined groups of chickens for productivity and siphoned off super performers to see whether they performed better as a group, says Heffernan.

It is easy to measure productivity in chickens because you just count the eggs.

In the event, the group of super performing chickens didn’t do well because they severely pecked each and most died – in other words, individually productive chickens had only achieved their success by suppressing the productivity of the rest.

Likewise having managers who strive to be supermen/woman is not what drives the most high-achieving teams.

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study found that high performing groups had three characteristics: they showed a high degree of social sensitivity to others; they gave equal time regularly to each team member; and they had more women in them (the exact reason why this had a positive effect is not yet determined).

So, says Heffernan, what is key is social connectedness or social capital – it could be called “helpfulness” – within companies. Simply put, when the going gets tough – as it always will – people need to ask others for support and ideas. And what motivates people is the bonds between them. What matters is the mortar, not just the bricks.

Social connectedness — built every coffee break, every time one team member asks another for help — leads over time to great results. Companies don’t have ideas; only people do.

In practice, this means that the team is vital. And it means that a lot of change has to occur, for instance:

• Management has routinely pitted employees in competition against each other; now
the emphasis should be on collaboration.

• Money has traditionally been the leading motivating tool; now we need to let people
motivate each other.

• Managers have been expected to be heroic soloists who solved complex problems
by themselves; now, we need to redefine leadership as an activity from which
conditions are created in which everyone can do their most courageous thinking
together.

This has nothing to do with chumminess or accommodating slackers. Conflict within the teams is frequent because candour is safe. This is how good ideas become great ideas.

TO VIEW THE COMPLETE VIDEO CLICK HERE

---

WANT TO GET THE JOB DONE? GET A GOOD MANAGER
By Stephen Asbury, writing in South Africa’s daily business newspaper, Business Day. Asbury is founder of Frontera Strategic Performance Consulting, a firm specialising in implementing initiatives to lift capability and measurable performance.

Want to get the job done? Get a good manager

Leaders are wonderful. Everyone seems to think so. Leaders do the vision thing. They head the organisation. They are admired, rewarded and feted. Leaders lead. Others follow. Managers only manage.

For years, the distinction between leaders and managers has been stacked in favour of leaders; managers have become the poor relations.

Leaders inspire. Managers perspire. It’s as simple as that. Think of Apple pioneer Steve Jobs, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, FedEx founder Fred Smith, Alibaba boss Jack Ma, et cetera.

And great managers? Maybe Sir Alex Ferguson, former manager of Manchester United (pictured), would spring to mind.

But great managers are indispensable to improved performance.

• Leaders set direction; managers plan and budget.
• Leaders align people; managers organise and staff.
• Leaders motivate people; managers control and solve problems.

It’s clear that the vision-thing is totally dependent on management capacity if anything is to be achieved.

We have to celebrate the role and what it means to be a great manager. This shouldn’t be difficult. There’s a lot to admire:

• Great managers care; about the task, the results and the people who do the job.
• Great managers commit to the success of their subordinates because success from
the bottom up ensures results are achieved.
• Great managers help their workers grow.

They are also are unafraid. They don’t duck accountability. They know they will be measured and they set up simple, practical yardsticks for every member of their team.

Great managers are disciplined. They show up every day and get the job done.

They know when subordinates are doing a good job and when they’re not. They discriminate on performance, reward and take remedial action.

Great managers are not afraid of hard work. They thrive on it.

TO VIEW THE FULL ARTICLE CLICK HERE

COMMENT ON THIS BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Legitimate Leadership has a very clear view of the distinction between management and leadership: management is what you apply to things; leadership pertains to people.

For organisational success and sustained results – organisational excellence, in other words – both management and leadership are required. So the distinction, for us, would be distilled by asking people, “what sounds right to you of the following two statements: you manage the inventory in the warehouse, or, you lead the inventory in the warehouse?”

Obviously, you manage the inventory in the warehouse.

We are total advocates of the view that you should manage things like finances, systems, structures, facilities, et cetera. And we know that organisations which don’t manage tend not to succeed.

But our plea is: please don’t manage people, lead them. Because when you manage people, you reduce them to the status of things.

BOOK REVIEW: RETURN ON CHARACTER – THE REAL REASONS LEADERS AND THEIR COMPANIES WIN, by Fred Kiel
Reviewed by Ian Mann of Gateways Consulting, writing for fin24 publication. Gateways consults internationally on leadership and strategy. Mann is the author of Strategy that Works

Fred Kiel has produced a report of a superbly crafted piece of research conducted between 2006 and 2013 on 121 CEOs from Fortune 500 and 100 companies, private companies and non-profit organisations.

The bottom line? Companies led by CEOs of good character make more money. The most highly principled CEOs are called “Virtuoso CEOs” by Kiel, and the least principled are called “Self-Focused CEOs”. The Virtuosos achieved nearly five times the return on assets when compared to the Self-Focused, a 9.35% return as against 1.93%.

By character, Kiel is referring to a set of habitually manifest ways of behaving. Anthropologist Donald Brown has drawn a set of four “universal moral principles” from a list of nearly 500 internationally observed behaviours. These are integrity, responsibility, forgiveness, and compassion.

Kiel calls these the “Keystone Character Habits” of leadership. The studies of the Virtuoso versus the Self-Focused CEOs revealed the former were habitually high on these Keystones with the latter habitually lower.

Integrity and responsibility are “head” characteristics. Integrity involves telling the truth, walking the talk, standing up for what is right and keeping promises. Responsibility involves owning one’s personal choices, admitting mistakes and failures, and expressing a concern for the common good.

Forgiveness and compassion are “heart” characteristics. Forgiveness involves letting go of one’s mistakes, letting go of others’ mistakes, and focusing on what is right rather than what is wrong. Compassion involves empathising with others, empowering others, actively caring for others, and committing to others’ development.

Not only would a Virtuoso CEO have to display these characteristics, but his top team would have to do the same. A CEO could not be considered a Virtuoso leader if he is incapable of getting his own team to behave well.

The Self-Focused CEOs, by contrast, were rated by their staff as not trusted to keep their promises (lacking integrity), and often passing blame off on others to protect themselves (failing to take responsibility). They were seen as frequently punishing well-intentioned people for making mistakes (not forgiving), and being especially poor at caring for people (lacking compassion).

TO READ THE FULL BOOK REVIEW CLICK HERE

Sylvania No Comments

Grow to Lead – July 2015

Grow-to-Lead-Logo-news1

 

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

SPECIAL EDITION: THE AEL PROJECT

July 2015

AEL’s new plant achieves its promise through transformed leadership

When groundbreaking, world-first technology was applied in the first automated explosives detonator manufacturing plant in the South African mining industry, management learnt a trenchant lesson: that good leadership of the people who operated the new plant was as important or more important than the new technology.

The application of the Care and Growth framework helped to set the plant on the road to achieving its full potential through significantly improving the leadership of the people who worked in it.

In the early 2000s, South Africa’s largest manufacturer of explosives, African Explosives Limited (AEL), embarked on a project to replace its plus-100-year-old, labour-intensive detonator manufacturing plant with a completely new, automated plant, called ISAP (Initiating Systems Automated Plant), pictured below.

The new plant held the promise of large cost, productivity and quality gains. But for over five successive years after its commissioning, the gains had proved impossible to reach. Then, new senior leadership, with the help of consultants who could provide support in improving the leadership on the plant, became involved.

The project began in 2012 and Legitimate Leadership continues to work at the manufacturing facility. The project has been a foremost success for Legitimate Leadership, and a testimony to the value of the Care and Growth framework.

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE