Catastrophic change and the safety of buying IBM.

For a while now I have been advocating that the business world I inhabit has undergone a paradigm shift or, in mathematical terms, a catastrophic change.  What I mean by that is there has been a fundamental change in many of the assumptions affecting business and as a result we need to think about and manage business and its resources very differently; a transformational change from one working framework to another.

As business has realised that it no longer knows what it thought it knew and has less idea about how to move foreward with confidence there has been a commensurate change in risk appetite and thus behaviours. Not surprisingly there has been move to risk aversion, not only on a corporate level, but also, more relevantly, on a personal scale. This is, in my opinion, driving some counter-productive behaviours.

When I started working some years ago, there was a management saying that no one got sacked for buying IBM. There may have been financially more advantageous deals around with other manufacturers, but IBM was the "safe" decision. Well in the current world it seems that the equivelant position is to be seen to be trying something new (with new people). It seems that to draw upon past experience and personnel involved in the "old" business is the risky option, even where they have shown an ability to adapt and create. Much safer to do "new things" with "new people", because even if the result is no better then at least you tried.

This is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water. The big unspoken risk is that one makes a poor trade, bringing in blatant and unfounded opportunism in place of good judgement, resilience, and other qualities that are still relevant and valuable. In contrast those that are already in the company have a bond and an understanding that helps them work together (the operative word being TOGETHER). Yes, they may need new skills, they may need a refocussing of mind and body, but at the core they already work together. They also probably know many of the issues that have been faced and the pitfalls to come. To discard this carelessly seems wasteful, yet it is the most common pattern I observe these days.

Part of this problem is changing the "contract" with existing staff, frequently undermining loyalty, trust, respect, etc. and thus engagement and commitment. It is not surprisng when this elicits what are seen as undesirable behaviours. I have spoken of reciprocity, of investing before one expects to accumulate. Of course it is much more comfortable to bring in people you know, but that just makes a bigger group who do not know the company. Usually it is more devisive than constructive, even if it does give an illusion of quicker progress. I can think of a number of examples, that I won't identify, where after an initial burst of progress, things slow right down as the newcomers (re-)discover all the previous staff already knew.

So you get my view? It is to build on the positives. By all means augment them and weed out the irrecoverables, but be very wary of wholesale turnover when you see it in teams that are meant to be delivering significant and startegic change to you.

Now I would like to explain Catastrophic change as I think the mental image will help you identify it when you encounter it in your world.

Catastrophic Change

Some years ago a college friend gave me a book that is now rather yellowed, called " Catastrophe Theory" by Denis Postle. It is by necessity a branch of complex mathematics with multiple "dimensions" and some wonderful names like parabolic umbilic. In it however is a simple diagram that I have held in my head and used a number of times to understand this type of change.

In essence the the concept is that there are behaviour surfaces that represent all the likely behaviour for a set of conditions. Let us take an example of trust and argue that it is a function of both credibility (ie can they do the job required) and confidence (will they do they job required). The red surface below represents all the levels of trust that could exist for the various levels of credibility and confidence.

Now if that surface was not smoothe like that but had a fold in it as illustrated below.

While much "normal" change can be pretty much undone by reversing the factor that created the change, a catastrophic change cannot. For example a 1/2 % change in interest rates will change business behaviours in some way or another. This could be modelled and factored into business plans etc. The reversal of that 1/2% change would reasonably be expected to largely reverse that position, bringing the world as a whole back to pretty much where it started.

The implications are twofold. Either you choose stay on a new "level" with new rules about action and reaction, change and resistance. Your new realities will be truly new and you will need to find new measures of progress and recalibrate success. One implication is that "IBM" may no longer be the safe option!

IF you really need to regain your original position it will be a much harder longer path through areas you are unlikley to have experienced before. This may be so different and so tortuous that it may be practically impossible to recovery to position A.

In this latter case there is a grieving/acceptance process to deal with the loss of the old reality.

I have found these diagrams and thinking useful on a number of occassions and think they are very relevant today. Do let me know what you think?

Can you be trusted? Is this limiting your effectiveness as a leader?

I feel today that a number of things I have discussed here and with others in the past are coming together. The latest trigger was two minute webcast from John Kotter, the well-known expert on change, entitled “Leveraging Trust to Achieve Buy-in”. There are some very strong messages in there and I commend the investment of two minutes.
 

For the record, the other threads were:-

• when something has come up three times it is something that warrants your attention and action,
• there is something really special about being in a high performing team and I have been lucky enough to be a member of more than one. The spirit of trust as opposed to distrust was one of the most obvious differences
• there is the trust formula that I have shared before
• some recent work I have been doing mentoring a developing executive.

In truth the significance and trail works backwards. It started with a discussion over lunch about why this executive was not getting the performance they expected from some key some key members of their team. We looked at whether they had a team or a group and what situational style might be required (as against the one they were employing). We also looked at the responsibility for performance, ie if the team member lacks either the aptitude or the training required for the required outcomes then responsibility rests with the manager to resolve. Included in this, is the question about whether they understand what “good” looks like and feels?

If, however, it is a question of attitude then it is the employee's issue and requires different behaviours from the management. This situational adjustment is not always easy for a manager, especially those who focus solely on their own framework of values and need or those see consistency as a virtue.  In truth these are not in conflict. One can be exceedingly consistent in the vision one sets for results and behaviours and the personal values one exhibits; this does not mean you cannot respond to different individuals in ways that are most appropriate and effective for the time and place.

We then moved onto the question of trust ie did the team members trust the manager? We used the trust formula that says that trust the result of

(credibility x reliability x intimacy) / (self interest)

The intimacy here talks about does the other person know you well enough – not that they know everything, but that they can connect and empathise with you. The powerful denominator of “self interest” relates to how they perceive your motivation ie in their  interest, yours or the more general good.

The Kotter webcast ties the question of trust into parallels with ones personal life. The comment that struck most was “if I trust you, when I listen to you, I am not looking for ulterior motives so I listen more carefully to what you say…….and if indeed you are saying something sensible I will buy it……if trust goes up, buy in goes up to.”

I have seen the positive impacts of this many times, but not as many as the times when a lack of trust impeded progress. After training and working with American Banks at the start of my career, I joined Flemings (since bought by Chase and then subsumed into JP Morgan). It struck me there that having grown from being a smaller family firm and still private heavily influenced by the family, the environment was one of trust. If you were hired and proved your ability in the first 12-24 months you entered into a “circle of trust” that opened opportunities and supported real progress. In terms of the formula one had proved credibility and reliability, achieved an appropriate intimacy and had aligned interests.

It would be wrong to suggest that the world has not changed, especially financial services. We now have a greater focus on risk management through checking and double checking; keeping evidence of anything and everything that might come under scrutiny. I would also suggest though I have no data to support it that an individual’s average time in post and time with employer has reduced. This makes the development of trust more difficult. By way of reference, at Flemings a high proportion of the company including the leadership teams had been with the company for at least 10 and often more than 20 years! This is not something that can be easily duplicated, but the key lessons can be taken and applied.

So put this all together, and top it with the positive feeling when someone has stated that they trust me with something they are developing( and have acted on that statement) and the pieces feel as if they are building.

This last item is my concluding thought/observation for this blog and it is the power of reciprocity. It is not rocket science to see that it is easier to be trusted when one trusts in return. Indeed initiating the spirit of trust will often elicit valuable responses and acceleratinge understanding, engagement and commitment.

To me trust is the key to delivering success in many aspects of life. In busines, the more common and mechanical leadership development tools can be viewed as mechanical first-aid to compensate for low levels of trust. I suggest that the nurturing of trust is where we, as leaders, should place our effort to improve.

Three closing questions to reflect upon:-

• Who should you trust more and what will you do to do that?
• How easy is it for others to trust you?
• When was the last time you demonstrably trusted a member of your team, as opposed to holding back or double checking?

Please share any thoughts or experiences.

Are we trying to bolt the financial stable after the money has gone?

This morning I joined a discussion about how to mitigate the risks of financial firms failing. This was prompted by the recent default of MF Global, but there is a growing list that will continue to extend. Other names include Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, etc.

In our increasingly complex and joined up world this is becoming more of an issue as the numbers and impact seems to grow day by day. Not long ago the failure of a company was largely a local or national issue, now it is rarely less than an international concern and many are truly global. While the complexity of modern derivatives definitely adds to the worries, the simpler, cash markets ( ie simple trading of straight forward assets such as stocks and bonds for cash settlement) are far from sorted.

The group was drawn from the "post trade" community ie those concerned with recording and settling (ie completing) the deals that have been done. As such it was not surprising that their focus was largely infrastructural ie rules, responsibilities, checks and balances.

I took two things away from this session. The first was the acknowledgement that the rules differ across the world. What may appear to an outsider to be two similar trades (or contracts) may well be governed by very different rules and require intervention by different people. Compounding this is the reality that not even the two parties to the trade may not see the situation in a similar way. These differences are often encased in local legislation and embedded regulation. Changing it is not easy and will take time.

Anecdotally, when the administrators stepped in to mop up at Lehman's, they were surprised(!) to find that their activities would be constrained by a myriad of local rules, regulations and contract law rather than a single over-arching framework.

The call from these post trade practitioners was for a unified set of rules and processes. While this may be the "pure" answer, it is not likely to happen quickly or in my lifetime. Undoubtedly better communication and co-ordination on the event of failure will improve matters and that may be the best interim objective.

The second point was that we are talking about a very smart business community where if a particular rule is seen to impede the realisation of profit, both corporate and personal, then it is likely some bright person will find a legitimate(?) way around that rule. Rules only wok if they are well understood and everyone follows both the intent and spirit of them. That is not the case in the more creative aspects of the financial world, rules can be considered a temporary impediment.

Not matter how good the intent and execution of the post trade practitioners, reliance on the rules seems to me to be an act of to bolting that proverbial stable after the horse has bolted.

Looking back on my career we had earlier "failures" such as BCCI, Robert Maxwell's midnight swim and Leeson's rape of Barings. While I recognise that the world was simpler then, it is true that many businesses, including ones I was involved with, made early judgement calls to either limit or avoid business with certain counterparties. We knew who the less "stable and reputable" brokers were, which banks fell short in terms of professionalism and management was ready and able to act upon market intelligence, most of which proved to be very accurate in hindsight. They did not rely on a computer or a crefit rating agency to say "No" or for the day after to act.

Somewhere we have lost these prudent and good practices, albeit in the name of making it fair for all. In practice we have once again come down to the lowest common denominator not the highest.

HSBC's threat to move its headquarters out of the UK because of what they consider to be unduly harsh capital requirements is interesting they cite the impact of the additional requirements on their already huge profits. As a modern investor do I really want a firm that is seeking to be less secure?

I applaud the attempts to improve matters, but wonder if we are aiming at the wrong target? If so how can we bring the contribution of good and sound judgement back to the fore of our increasingly troubled world?



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A Proud Man Steps Down

Yesterday Martin Johnson resigned as manager of the England rugby union team. There is some debate about whether he was pushed or jumped and that will probably become clearer over the next few days as the report on England's disappointing World Cup campaign is revealed and digested.

As reported in The Times today he left with some aplomb, refusing to allocated blame and instead and typically shouldering responsibility alone. It was reported as a sad day, and indeed the loss of contributor such as Martin is sad, but I think the sad days happened sometime ago and unless we and the RFU learn then we will see more.

Some things are irrefutable. As a leader on the field he was magnificent. His work ethic, the execution of his role as enforcer and the inspiration he gave to players around him, young and old, have long been clear and recognised.

He learnt a lot of his craft in his early days in New Zealand, his leadership skills were recognised by Ian McGeechan on the Lions tour of 1997 and he spearheaded a triumphant team of World Cup winners in 2003. This is all alongside an illustrious career with Leicester.

When he joined as England manager the RFU was already in some disarray. He went about his role quietly, but earnestly. He kept faith with some worthy stalwarts and has found some exciting talent eg Courtney Laws, Ben Foden, Chris Ashtonto name but a few. Some of his selections have seemed a little strange, but that is true of any manager.

Another irrefutable fact and one much covered in the papers is that his team let him down in New Zealand this year. During matches they were on the field, not him, and needed to step up - few did. Off the the field he should not have needed to micromanage them. They are professional players, some very experienced who were on their greatest playing field so to speak and their behaviours while under that spotlight was at best adolescent. I have blogged about this before under the heading "the clueless and the stupid" and they certainly were.

Reports from yesterday left me with the impression of a man cut adrift. He striggled with a dysfunctional Infrastructure that would have been in intensive care anywhere else. I do have a little insight into some of the recent machinations and i would challenge anyone above Martin to be proud of their contribution).

Yesterday Rob Andrew gave no support and Martin Johnson gallantly refused to criticise. Rob's view on personal responsibility obviously differs from that of many. That is a sad observation for someone I such a responsible role.

I have seen a quote attributed to John Kotter that effective leadership is about outcomes not behaviours. By this measure Martin Johnson has come up short on his own expectation and that of others. That said rugby like business is a team sport and that team is much wider that the 15 players on the field or the 22 in the match day squad. It includes the support staff and surrounding structures.

Martin deserved more support than he has received from a dysfunctional union. He rightly expected more from his players. A team has to be prepared to be led. And management team have to support each other, through the good and the bad.

I sincerely hope that a good many others are reflecting on their lack of (or destructive) contribution to events and that they sleep a lot less comfortably than Martin Johnson does now.

I am sure he has been and will continue to ask himself what he could or should have done better, but I hope that self flagellation does not last long. Sometimes circumstances to not favour even the best. I sincerely hope he finds a happier place personally and professionally.

In the same vein I hope the RFU can be man enough to learn from this and that in the four years before we are World Cup hosts the whole demeanour improves and we do not disgrace ourselves again (and I am not talking about Martin!)

We can, but hope. Maybe England should change their permanent playing strip to grey or even black. Not as homage to New Zealand but to signify the fall from grace. Let's see the white return when they deserve it.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Power of Absence

Some years ago I was working with the designer or research publications. I was still relatively green in business and coming from physics background I found that the written word was not my best friend.

It was an interesting time and one thing I do remember learning was the power of white space ie the absence of text. This was used to add structure to a written page, helping the reader's eye scan for context and importance. In this instance white space was important and valuable in creating engaging publications.

A related white space called rivers was not good. A river is when a whole series of breaks between words on adjacent lines join up to create what looks like a vertical meandering river or stream in a block of text. These can be distracting for the reader and old school print skills such as changing the kerning (spacing between letters) came into play. Of course in the modern Internet world an author has little or no control over this a much software renders to its own rules and capacity. That is unless the rendering Is in the form of a picture or a PDF file.

Now to the relevance of the photograph. This is a view I came across in London today and is only there during redevelopment of the site. For the thirty years I have been in London there has been a huge blue monstrosity there preventing a view such as this. For now it is gone, but a new building will rise and create a new block. I used to work on the pink building but have never seen it from this angle before.

I have seen tens of buildings go up and down and again in my working career, but sometimes, if one uses one's eyes, the temporary absence of a building gives the opportunity to see that piece of the world in a different way. While this may not be the greatest illustration of the point it is effective.

The parallel in life is to consider the opportunity created when one spots the absence of something that has always been there. Is there a chance for a new perspective?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Way to go!

Without wanting to appear morbid this week gave a couple of twists on what could happen when you die.

The first is the burial of Jimmy Saville, a rather eccentric (or should we say unique?) British pop personality that my generation grew up with. He died two days short of his 85th birthday and was buried in a gold coloured coffin; gold being one of his trademark elements. More interesting was his decision to be buried on the coast as Scarborough lying at an angle of 45 degrees. Apparently this was to allow him to see out to sea! My personal image is that gravity will eventually lead to him lying crumpled at the bottom of the coffin - hardly a  dignified end in my eyes.

NOTE: I considered erasing references to Jimmy Saville in this post, but on reading it I think the image of him left as a pile of crumpled bones in the bottom of an inclined coffin does seem to be appropriate and one I will leave here.

For me the  more interesting twist was on a programme called James May's Man Lab, a programme that sets out to help modern man relearn some of the vital skills that are now in danger of being lost forever.
This week in episode 3 of series 2 they entered the space race. Well, more accurately they demonstrated how could we cheaply venture into space? With the impracticalities of lifting a person into space and tight and proper rules about what can be done to/with animals, the team decided to take the ashes of a cat and a budgie as high as they could and scatter them.

The mechanism was to use weather balloons, one filled with helium and the other with hydrogen, deposit the ashes into each ballon so that when the loss of pressure at altitude burst the ballons their payloads would be deployed, and with camera-bearing gondolas hanging beneath that could both record the journey and transmit telemetry to monitors on the ground in order that they could track and recover the equipment. Recovery of the expensive camera equipment is the key to keeping it cheap, costing just a balloon and some lighter than air gas.

Of course they made this into a bit of a race between two teams and decorated the gondolas in the style of their passengers, but it worked remarkably well. After all this is a TV programme needing an element of entertainment, but in this case it seemed not to be out of place.

Both ballons reached an altitude of around 30km, the edge of space, before bursting and the cameras provided a great record of the flight and sights as they soared and, with an upward facing camera too, the moment of rupture and the scaterring of the ashes.

You can view a clip here. 

On reflection I think that when I go, and I hope it will be a long time yet, this last journey into space and the scattering of my ashes in whatever-sphere that is, is the way I would prefer. Of course a payload of human ash will be a little heavier so I might need a bigger balloon, but still...............

Make it good, make it last.

Having recently blogged about epitaphs, I heard Jimmy Saville's today, the one that will adorn his gravestone - "It was good while it lasted." He penned it himself.

I think one can take inspiration from this, but maybe rephrase it along these lines, "Make it good, make it last."

Postscript: With the revelations about the true Jimmy Saville I have considered erasing this blog entry, as others are erasing his memory by removing plaques, honours, etc., but have decided not to. While one could look for a different, less attractive, interpretation to his epitaph I think the sentiment is not bad and there is nothing I have said that endorses or condones any of the horrific this he appears to have done.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

NLP - a missing recording track and links with emotional intelligence

The other day I was playing golf with a friend. I am not very good, being very inconsistent, but I had just watch the majestic flight of my golf ball soaring from the face of my driver, straight, true and long. This is a rare occurrence for me. I rarely use my driver as my strength and erratic direction means I usually send it a long way into trouble and I find myself playing recovery shots from the start.

I usually use a driving iron. It is shorter, but for me more consistent ie less trouble. The difference this time was I had been watching Sergio Garcia, line up in a particular way and I wanted to try it. In truth I think the results were better, though it old just have been that was just concentrating more.

Anyway, I thought back to a round of golf earlier in the year when I played with a young prospective pro-golfer and his coach. It was interesting to watch the coach using NLP techniques to anchor good "results" and reference bad ones.

So I thought back to what the coach had been doing and tried to anchor my good drive. I replayed it in my mind and I could find the mechanical, preparatory elements along with the high of watching my ball fly and land in position "A+" (and yes I went on to par the hole in regulation), but my body has no record of the biological elements. No feel about the takeaway, the tensioning, the downswing or the release. I did it. I know I did, but it left no imprint, no feelings, no record. There was nothing to anchor to in the biomechanics of that beautiful shot.

This is not the first time I had been aware of this, but maybe the first time I realise it's significance. In golf lessons I have had professionals tell me to feel the club face open on the back swing (nothing!), to feel the tension as my body coils (nothing!), to feel the club head release at impact (nothing!), and so it goes on.

If I was recording my golf experience as a music track, it is as if the track recording the biomechanics, ie how my body does what it does, is left blank. Now I don't know if it the recording head (yes, pun intended) that is wrong or the medium I am recording too, but something is missing and probably goes a long way to explain why I am still a high handicapper who can hit some wonderful strikes, but not consistently or frequently enough to worry any competitions, other than last place.

The other resonance is some reading I have been doing around emotional intelligence and the importance of self awareness. One needs this in order to understand what to do different, when and how. I don't think I am too bad there, though I know I can and want to improve.

I want to improve my golf, but I need to work out why I a missing important information and what if anything I can do about it?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Is this Twitter's secret?

Earlier this evening I watched a programme featuring Sir Terry Wogan, a well known and much loved UK radio broadcaster and TV presenter. In the programme he was being shown the history of radio and particularly Marconi's early equipment. He was asked which he thought was best,TV or radio.

His unwavering answer was, radio.he explained that in radio it was like you were broadcasting and building a link with one or two people, and often as if it was one to one. In contrast the mass audience of TV was drawn from theatre and he thought it less powerful.

So wind the cook forward a couple of hours and my daughter comes in to tell us that Michael Jackson's doctor had been our guilty. She knew this because Piers Morgan had just tweeted it. It was as if he had tweeted it directly to her specifically.

Now Piers Morgan has thousands of followers on Twitter and wouldn't know my daughter if stood right in front of him, yet she feels a personal connection via his tweets.

Is this the secret attraction of tweeting?

If I recall properly tweeting was originally thought to be useful for family members to send quick, short messages to let each other know where they were, going or doing? Tweeting has come a long way from its origins, in a similar way to mobile phone texting (which was originally designed for telecoms engineers to send each other technical messages).

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Gravitas and First Impressions

I have posted before on the subject of gravitas and am still amazed at the number of hits my blog gets from gravitas related searches. It shows it is a topic that interests many, yet seems to lack helpful resources.

The reason for this post is a trigger from an item on Linkedin. I only made the connection as I was rakeing half a ton of leaves from my garden. I have observed before that it is often during these periods of manual exertion that my mind starts making interesting connections, and this was no different.

In this instance the trigger was a webpage ( that I broadcast via Twitter the other day ) and concerned 5 ways to make a good first impression. The connection in my head was that the factors that help make a good first impression are also those that help sustain a good impression and thereby there is a link with previous posts about developing gravitas. The key point being that building gravitas is far harder if your teh first impression to make is not a good one.

The five ways to make that killer first impression were reported as:

1. Set an intention. The most important thing to do for giving a good impression is to set your intention. This is especially important before any kind of big event where you would be meeting a lot of people — i.e. conferences, networking events or friend’s parties. As you get ready or when you are driving over think about what kind of people you want to meet and what kind of interactions you want to have. This can be an incredibly grounding experience and works very well to focus on what kind of energy you want to have for your event.
   
2. Think about your ornaments. Clothes, make-up, jewelry, watches and shoes are all types of ornamentation and people definitely take these into account when making initial judgments. I highly recommend getting some of your favorite outfits or ornaments together and asking friends you trust what they think of when they see them. For many men, they do not realize that their watch can say a lot about them. For women, purses and large earrings or jewelry can also indicate a lot to a new person they are meeting. Make sure that what you are wearing and how you do your hair or make-up says what you want it to say to the people you are meeting for the first time.
3. Be Conscious of Your Body Language. Body language is a crucial part of first impressions. Everything from your posture to how you carry yourself to the way you’re angling your body. Often, simply being aware of your body language can result in immediate improvements. Another way to examine your body language is to look at yourself on a video walking around a room. Subconscious cues to keep in mind include noticing where you point your feet, the position of your shoulders, and the way you shake hands.
4. Avoid bad days. People who go to cocktail events or mixers after having had a bad day typically continue to have a bad day. If you are in a depressed or anxious mood, others will pick up on this from your facial expressions, comments and body language. If you’re having a bad day, stay home! Otherwise, find a way to snap yourself out of your bad mood. I find working out or watching funny YouTube videos before events often gets me in a more social, feel good mood.
5. Be interested and interesting. If you are truly interested in meeting people and are open to learning about who they are, they will get this in a first impression. We have all had the experience of meeting someone and knowing instantly that they were dragged here by a friend and are just waiting to get out the door and head home. When you are meeting people for the first time approach others with a genuine interest in who they are. This is often contagious and you will have better conversations and lasting connections when you are interested because they become interested.

I have lifted these literally as I think they are well written and convey the intended message well. I think they are all relevant to someone who wants to develop gravitas. Certainly #2 and #3 are things I have written about before. #5 with #1 relate to being prepared for and then delivering in a way that engages and impresses.

#4 is also very relevant and is about self awareness and emotional intelligence. It is far harder to recover from a bad encounter than it is to put one off until a better time. If there is someone you need to impress, be honest with yoruself about whether this is the time and place that is most advantageous. If not look for ways to improve the situation, even if it is only allowing you ten minutes to talk a walk and refocus. Be positive and active and most people will respond well.

Remember your value and keep focused on #1 ie what outcome you seek from the encounter, what your intention is?

Do you have a group or a team? It does make a difference!

In mentoring a young friend I was taken back to what I think of as basics....the stages of team formation (forming, storming, norming, performing, and dorming?) and the various team roles a la Belbin and into issues around leadership.

These were things that I was lucky to exposed to while training as a manager/leader with some great financial institutions, but it seems that in the interest of expense management (or should I say avoidance) it seems the younger generations have been short changed. Now I can go a long way to address that gap and am happy to do so. Alternatively there are shelves and shelves of books in WH Smiths or Waterstones or on Amazon that can be purchased and read if one is motivated to do so.

The interesting thing and the reason for this post, is that I was reminded about a missing question that really precedes and of the other stuff I have mentioned. This question was posed to me a few years ago on a half day seminar on managing international groups of individuals involved in projects. It is.......

Are you trying to manage a team or a group? 

The importance of the question is that each is rather different and requires different engagement from you as the leader.This tends to be amplified by distance where communication is poorer ie less face to face and more text or voice only, where it is more difficult to convene groups if only in terms of times in the day, and cultures may be different. I have seen and been involved in a number of instances where a manager tried to manage a team as a group, or a group as a team. The results were not pretty for anyone and tended not to deliver or survive long.

So what is the difference between a team and a group for this discussion? I am sure there are many erudite studies that could be quoted but these two illustrations.

A Group

A Team

In essence a Group of people who, in order to perform their role do NOT need to interact a lot with each other. Yes, the need direction and co-ordination, but will often have little interest in their peers activities and problems and will consider "team" events a wasteful investment of their time. Broadly speaking the best a group can be is the sum of its parts.

A Team in contrast can only perform their individual and collective role by interacting a lot between each other. In fact the leader (in red) is often part of that team. An example is a football team where the players need to understand their roles, communicate and adapt dynamically to circumstances and cover and support each other in ways that may not be entirely predictable at the start. While the manager is not on the pitch during the match his decisions and instructions contribute to the on field play. If the right bonds and behaviours are not engendered then the team will never be greater than the sum of the parts.

If one has a group then the leader needs to be more directive, providing co-ordination (personally or ensuring it happens) and acting as an information hub, receiving and broadcasting. It is likely that the primary interaction will be one-to-one rather than group meetings. When group meetings occur their are likely to be motivational rather than problem solving.

Teams in contrast need the leader to adapt behaviours to their maturity, While at the start they need directional leadership, as they mature they take collective charge. Interaction is largely group oriented and often focussed on problem solving. One-to-ones will occur, but will focus more on coaching and personal development.

I may well return to this later, but I thought it worth capturing and sharing.