What do leaders need to make a bigger difference in the civil service?Click here to join our online discussion in the Make a bigger difference group.
Leadership Crisis in Belfast
November 16, 2010 by Richard Crawford
Comments (2)
I've just returned from NICS live in Belfast, having endured the Leadership panel discussion, and I'm almost weeping in my soup. To say I'm underwhelmed would be like saying Titanic had a bit of an accident.
Here's the thing. I like leadership. Leadership is important. And it's actually not rocket science. A lecture on leadership could be ennervating and exciting and should send people away buzzing with energy. Not in Belfast. Not in 2010. Our leaders are so competent that they didn't time their presentations to fit the allocated five minutes, so that all the presentations over-ran, so that in the end, there was no time for questions. Sorry guys, you want to ask the great leaders about leadership? Some other time.
Look, I know it's difficult. I know standing in front of 500 people can be nerve-wracking, but come on! You're getting the big bucks! If you've a limited time slot, cut your presentation to suit!
And here's the thing, the big thing that everyone is missing. Leadership is about getting people to do what you want them to do. There is nothing more to it than that. The trick is in how you get them to do what you want. And anyone who'd attended that session this morning hoping to find some experiential nuggets would have been sorely disappointed.
The most disappointing aspect of this is that none of the speakers had a clear idea of what it actually means to lead. For instance, in order to lead people, you have to motivate them. In order to motivate them, you have to show them some respect. I know a lot of people had questions they hoped to put to the panel but because the panel didn't bother timing their delivery properly, those people went away disappointed. Where's the respect in that?
As long as the civil service pays lip service to the concept of leadership, nothing is going to change and we're still going to go around in the same circles of despond. Remember that the only possible thing that can be influenced in the world of the civil service is people. An engineer can exert his will upon steel. A farmer can exert his will upon nature. A civil servant has nothing upon which to exert their will except the people around him or her. Getting people to do what you want. That's the key. The question is, how? A few suggestions would have been nice.
Actually, here's an example. I worked for an organisation once where the CE had a habit of turning up at any location, unannounced, without an entourage, to sit with people, watch what they were going, ask questions and get a feel of what was happening. He was polite, self-effacing, always interested, and listened to people, no matter what their grade or rank. In fact he made a point of listening to the lowest paid workers. He gave the appearance of doing this constantly, but in fact he dedicated one half day every week to this practice. That left him plenty of time for normal work. But that man had a complete understanding of what was happening in his organisation, where the problems were, where the solutions might be found. And more than that, everyone in the organisation felt that nothing would be too much for that man. That's leadership.
Why not post your own top experiences?
Just spent a day tussling with two absolutely diametrically opposed leadership styles, both exercised at the same grade, neither being seen pejoratively by the system as either good or bad, but by external and practical standards, one is ennervating and stimulating, while the other is effectively non-existent.
Consider two senior responsible owners. One insists on regular team briefings, during which information is disseminated downwards, and passed upwards. And these briefings are not the normal, lip-service team briefings we're all used to (I know, I can almost hear the creak of senior civil service foreheads rolling to a frown - but lets be honest for a while, just to see what happens) but actual vigourous discussions where ideas are proposed, shot down, supported, hacked about etc etc. Anyone in team feels entitled to put forward ideas - so long as they can support the idea with evidence andlogic. Put it this way, you need to be awake, and have your wits about you.
The second SRO. Well, this is a sort of absentee landlordship. I mean, the team get occasional emails, and as for forwarding, well, there's some real skill being shown there. In fact, were “forwarding” to be included in the 2012 Olympics, this character would lead the UK team. On the 800m forward, there’d be no competition. Wipe the board. The email is barely in before, zap, it’s out again. I'm being a little facetious, but this is the style of leadership which relies on the system, and doesn't involve any use of personality or character to INFLUENCE DIRECTION or SPEED OF PROGRESS.
Sitting a little to one side of both of these characters, I have the dubious pleasure of observing the effect on the two different teams. And it's huge. One is alive, fast, vital, respond to emails within minutes, understand your questions almost as fast as they're asked. The other, well, let me get back to you, I'll need to check and look that up, who are you again?
People are pretty much similar when it comes to what they want from work. We're all basically the same machine, with minor detail differences. And we're here at our workstations to make a living. But what else would light us up? A sense of belonging to a really good, competent team, where things go well, where projects work, where results matter? Would that light you up?
Serious question: is there any way or method of establishing the leadership qualities required of the truly successful civil service leader? Could we come up with list? And then maybe provide some cogent and relevant examples? And then disseminate that? Would that be a beginning?
Richard Crawford 551 days ago
Richard Crawford
Profile
Colleagues
Colleague of
Files
Pages
Blog
Photo Albums
Poll
Okay, so I'm getting that this isn't the fastest growing blog in the universe. let me add a little more to my above rant, now that the passage of a couple of days has let me mellow and reflect. In fact, let me pose a little question: is leadership ability really an essential or even desirable skill in a senior civil servant? After all, we live in an age of systems and processes. We're all little synapses in the greater brain, firing off at predetermined moments in order to keep the body functioning. Who of us can't lay our hands on a bundle of process documents, setting out the detail of our job to the last degree, telling us exactly what we should do, how we should do it, and when we should do it? So where's the gap in the system into which the born (or made) leader should fit? Or are we becoming TOO dependant on systems and processes? After all, the only operating part in the entire Civil Service system is the human being...
Here's another question: which part of the public sector insists that all of their executive managers are highly trained and effective leaders, and goes to great lengths to ensure that only people with the necessary abilities are promoted to such roles?
Of course, it's the army. But we're not the army. True. But if we want to learn about something, why not go to the experts? Officer selection into the armed forces depends on a basic and simple tenet that not everyone has the necessary personality traits or qualities to become a good leader, but that everyone who has those traits or qualities CAN BECOME A GOOD LEADER.
Last question: name those elements in the civil service selection process that focus on leadership qualities? Answers on a very small postcard, please...
Richard Crawford 552 days ago