August 23, 2010 at 11:50 am · Filed under Public Musings
Recent research has suggested that poor management skills in local government is resulting in more than two thirds of the average working day being wasted by junior staff, with another survey revealing that trust in managers across business in general is falling. Yet another survey indicates that just 14% of people interviewed felt their managers excelled at people management skills, whereas 44% of the managers involved in the research believed they had excellent management capability.
At the core of a good people manager is emotional intelligence; good managers understand themselves and their own strengths and weaknesses. It would appear in the third survey that the managers interviewed do not have a realistic understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. Successful managers have the ability to understand others and to interpret the emotional and non verbal behaviour correctly which then provides them with the platform to communicate well with their people. It is interesting that in the research carried out that managers were observed either avoiding discussions about poor performance or were extremely uncomfortable dealing with it.
Effective leadership has many facets but at the centre of it all is communication. Leaders need to be able to share a vision and show how the efforts of others can help achieve that shared vision. They need to listen and they have to be willing to have “tough conversations”.
People enjoy receiving praise and recognition for a job well done, but first of all they need to know what a good job looks like. If poor perfornance is not being discussed with them, how will they know if they are doing something well? The role of a manger should include spelling out what is expected of people, what the standards of acceptable performance are and the consequences of both meeting and failing to meet those standards. People like to know where they stand, they want to know whether they are doing a good job or not. A manager is failing in their duty if they don’t give appropriate feedback at regular intervals.
Why do managers fail to lead as well as they might? The Chartered Management Institute suggests this might be due to years of inadequate training and development and the number of people who “reluctantly fall into management positions”. One telling statistic is that 63% had no management training before taking up a managerial post.
Ruth Spellman, chief executive of CMI, said: “We’re desperately short of good leaders in this country – just look at how many FTSE 100 companies have sourced CEOs from abroad and how many Premier League clubs have foreign managers. We’re crying out for much-needed home-grown leadership talent and it’s frustrating that employers are failing to capitalise on the dormant leadership skills that their employees don’t yet realise they have.”
A recent survey by CIPD has asked, amongst other things, what the declared purpose of coaching is within their organisation. Approximately 40% of them identified performance management as the key reason with a third citing leadership and change management.
When it comes to managing performance it is surprising how many managers fail to clearly identify what “a good job” actually looks like for their team members. If the team do not know what success looks like how are they going to achieve it?
Paul McCarthy is sports editor at the News of the World and last night he tweeted:
“Chris Bascombe has yet another #lfc exclusive that will devastate Liverpool fans and further exposes the unedifying situation at Anfield ”
Shortly after Chris Bascombe tweeted:
“If anyone thinks Hicks and Gillett have spent last 4 months trying to sell LFC, think again. They plotted to refinance 290m worth of debt”
and then:
“Americans blocked from trying to refinance debts by the rest of their own board as recently as July. Fight for future of LFC gets messier”
As a Liverpool fan my eye was obviously caught by these tweets, but I was also interested by the pessimistic view taken by Chris over this news. I don’t believe there are many Liverpool fans out there, if any, that trust Messrs Hicks and Gillett, the American owners of LFC, in anything they do. Their actions since taking over the club have long since lost them the goodwill and trust they had when they first took over from David Moores.
It therefore comes as no surprise to hear that Hicks and Gillett have been trying to retain control by renegotiating the loans on the club. Far from being devastating the news that the board has blocked them from doing this is actually good news as it demonstrates who actually has control at Liverpool. To successfully sell the club it needs the Board of Directors to be in charge and able to over rule owners whose interests do not appear to match those of Liverpool and the fans.
When this view was pointed out to Chris on twitter he replied:
“The blocking of Americans’ refinance plans is actually reassuring. Suggests balance of power has shifted. Future still uncertain, though.”
From this reply it would appear that Chris initially took a pessimistic view of the information he had discovered, only able to see the dark side of owners still trying, and failing, to retain control of the club. If he had taken a more optimistic view of the situation he could have seen this as great news for Liverpool fans as it suggests that Hiccks and Gillett are edging closer to the exit door, as they no longer have control of the decision making process with other members of the board now voting against them.
The tone of his article would therefore have been vastly different, but then there is also the adage that bad news sells more newspapers…….
Here is the article, so you can judge how different it could have been:
Interesting article in the saturday review section of The Times today. American writer, Nicholas Carr, is suggesting that use of the internet is changing the way we think and absorb information. Apparently we are no longer able to/interested in reading books or long articles as the internet is wiring our brains differently, making it difficult for us to concentrate or think deeply about single issues.
I tend to agree with the main thrust of his argument, but what I found a little puzzling was that he has chosen to write a book about it. If we now think differently because of the internet who’s going to buy it?
Just in case it’s:
The Shallows: How the internet is changing the way we think, read and remember
Nicholas Carr: Atlantic Books.
With the news that the nation’s favourite sweetheart is looking for a life coach is life coaching is about to become all the rage in the UK?
Cheryl is said to have sought help from a life coach following her illness with maleria and is reported to have turned to Tony Robbins for guidance. Simon Cowell is apparently in favour as he asserts that everyone in the States has a lifestyle guru to help guide them.
A personal coach can be a great help as coaching can bring about rapid, effective and lasting change to your confidence, motivation, work/life balance and success. I think the interesting aspect of this story is the person who is looking for a coach. The perception you have of Cheryl is that she is a strong, independent and confident individual, but even someone who has enjoyed her level of success still needs someone to bounce off and to give her the space to reflect.
On a related note Tiger Woods has just produced his worst display in a tournament since he turned professional. It’s interesting to note that he doesn’t currently have a coach…….
Reading the Chris Woodhead “Answer the question” section in the Sunday Times today and a parent had sent in a letter complaining about the use of The Simpson TV show being used in English lessons at their daughter’s school. The purpose of using the show was to help children learn “critical thinking skills”
Chris Woodhead is the former chief Inspector for schools and his reply included the following:
” In English lessons they (the children) should be studying the classics of literature they may otherwise never encounter. The aim should not be to develop “critical thinking skills” and they should not be encouraged to express their opinions on the texts. Who cares what they think or feel?”
When I first read his reply, I honestly thought he was being sarcastic and expected him to go on and make a valid point about the importance and value of teaching children to think for themselves. Not so, apparently children shouldn’t be taught to have an opinion!
I can understand the debate about using the Simpsons, but not caring about what they think or feel? What nonsense! If teachers can use the Simpsons to engage children perhaps they can then use the heightened level of interest to study the classics.
Children should be empowered to think for themselves and develop opinions and learn how to express them. Perhaps it’s just as well Chris Woodhead is no longer Chief Inspector for Schools….
Adam Boulton on Sky TV and Nick Robinson on the BBC have come in for some criticism in the last week from a variety of sources with the claim that their election coverage has been far from impartial.
A Facebook group has been set up to try and pressure the BBC into removing Nick Robinson from his role as Political Editor on the grounds of his perceived bias in favour of the Conservatives. Prior to the election I have often thought I detected elements of bias in his reporting, but tended to dismiss it on the basis that I was probably magnifying the elements that I perceived to demonstrate this. It was only when friends pointed out that back in 1986 Nick was President of the Young Conservatives and while at university he was President of the Oxford University Conservative’s Association that I began to think that perhaps I wasn’t imaging things.
Adam Boulton has been on the receiving end of simliar claims of bias towards the Tories, with Alastair Campbell taunting him with the accusation during a live interview. “Unfortunaterly” Boulton reacted much to Campbell’s (and our) amusement , and we were treated to the sight of Boulton going ballistic.
During his rant Boulton claims he is just a commentator and his personal views don’t come into it, but can this really be the case? Is it possible to remain completely impartial and not bring your own personal thoughts and views into a situation?
When training to be a coach one phrase which kept on being thrown into the ring was the need to “stay with the not knowing”. The underlying principle with coaching is to not pre-judge a situation and to allow the person being coached the room to develop their own thoughts and potential solutions to a given situation. I think it’s perfectly possible for a coach to be objective and to allow the individual to come up with their own solutions, but I also think that the personal experience of the coach will dictate the framing of certain questions and approaches that they use. Likewise the individual being coached will often prefer to be coached by someone who has a similar field of experience to themselves, as they feel they will be able to relate better.
Nick Robinson in an interview has stated that his involvement with the Conservatives ceased many years ago. This may well be the case but I don’t believe that he is able to remain completely objective because of his beliefs. We know we have a largely right wing press in this country and we should therefore take this into account when reading and listening to various points of view. However there is the danger of the insidious nature of constantly repeating mantras.
The gentlemen in the sports media are a great example of bias in their reporting. Two seasons ago Rafa Benitez was changing his line up every game. The press and Sky Sports were keeping a count and he became Rafa the Rotator. As he neared 100 games without fielding the same team twice, the howls of indignation became greater and greater. Andy Gray became the leader of the tirade, you can’t expect a team to win anything when he rotates as much as he does, I’d be a very wealthy man if I was able to predict Raf’s next team blah blah blah. Rafa stopped at 99 and fielded the same team twice on the 100th game.
This season another manager actually reached 100 games with a different line up in every game. Not a murmur from the great British Press, a few chuckles from Andy Gray. The difference? It was the master tactician, the man who knows how to keep a squad of players on their toes and fresh for a full campaign, Mr Alex Ferguson.
Evidence of bias in the wonderful world of English journalism? Of course not.
“We all know what it takes to get on in life and work and our own attitude and commonsense determines how we succeed. Workplace coaches and mentors are not needed.”
so said Anne Widdecombe at a conference in 2008. Wise words………
Steve Davis is 52 years old and is taking part in the Snooker World Championshipsat this week. He started the competition as a 500-1 outsider and in the second round he faced John Higgins the defending World Champion and hot favourite to take the crown again this year. Davis is a previous 6 times winner of the chamionship but his last win was in 1989 so he wasn’t expected to go further than his meeting with Higgins.
However, Steve pulled off a huge shock by beating Higgins and in an interview following the match he credited his victory to a technical change in his game. This wasn’t noticed by himself or a fellow pro but a visitor to his website, who pointed out that he was moving his head before completing his shot.
”My first reaction was: what does he know? But he was right.”
On receiving the e-mail, Steve had a look at a few videos of himself and saw that the visitor to his website was indeed correct. As a result his game has improved immeasurably culminating in his victory over World Champion Higgins.
I think this is the whole point of coaching. Steve Davis has been playing snooker for over 30 years and has many many trophies to demonstrate his skill and expertise in his field. If he can miss something as simple as lifting his head when playing a shot what can we pick up from a coach who can help us take a fresh look at our work and life issues?
Coaching can help us gain a different perspective on the issues we are focussed on, by a coach encouraging us to take an objective view of situations and look at the scene from a variety of views. The answers, as Anne Widdecombe believes, may well be within us but as Steve Davis has found out it often needs someone on the outside to help us find the answers.
Our local weekly paper has been running a Q&A session with the main candidates up for election. This week one of the questions was “why should young people vote for you?”.
The Tory candidates answer was interesting, with the first part of their answer explaining that when someone votes for you they are placing trust in you and your abilities to represent them. They then went on to explain that they wanted voters to know that the candidate was approachable, would make time to meet people and that they were discreet.
It threw up two questions for me:
Is the ability to be discreet really an over riding reason to vote somebody into power?
Did they answer the queston with specific reasons as to why young people should vote for them?
The word discreet tends to conjure up images of personal ads rather than political candidates…..
