The Thinking Partnership contributes a monthly column to trainingzone.co.uk's subscriber publication, the Leadership Bulletin. To subscribe to the monthly Bulletin click here.

 

Mark Loftus considers the tale of two similar CEOs and looks at how their style of leadership takes them on two differing paths.

Colin and Peter are both CEOs of large organisations, one public sector and one private sector. For each it is their first CEO role and both have been brought in to turnaround organisations that were failing. For both, their first year as CEO has been seen as a success, with them galvanising people to action, taking tough decisions, pushing through significant cost reductions, re-structuring their organisation and their executive team.

Beyond their first year their paths diverge. Colin, the public sector CEO, sees his organisation atrophying, stealthily rebuilding itself as a bureaucracy, until in his third year a significant operational failure sees him being asked to leave. Peter, despite his organisation living on a debt-induced knife-edge and the economy going sour, sees his organisation begin to fly, reflected in a share price that has more than tripled over the three years of him being CEO.

Why did Peter and Colin's tales take such different paths?

Is it all about the CEO?
There are differences between Peter and Colin, but are they significant enough to account for the differing fates of their organisations?

In fact, it is easier to count off the similarities between them than spot the differences: polished social skills masking a desire for privacy and emotional reserve, a fierce determination that their organisation will succeed, deep self-belief, and sceptical, analytical minds - which for one of them was described as being 'like a steel trap'. They are both in their late 40s, have strong operational and general management experience, and both are leading organisations that are in unfamiliar sectors. They also share some less common traits: neither is strongly controlling and they each have a reputation for giving their people lots of headroom in which to operate.

The differences? The most significant one is that, hidden behind his tough and decisive demeanour, Peter has a hunger to know what it takes to be a great leader. Colin lacks this curiosity - about himself, about his colleagues and about what it takes to lead. He mistrusts reflection, fearing it leads to an introspective self-absorption, a distraction from what he feels he is paid to do. For Peter, his appetite brings an inquisitiveness and a willingness to experiment that over time has led to chains of events, each amplifying the previous, shifting the adaptive capacity of his organisation.

Or the executive?
In a similar way, the 'bench-strength' of the two executive groups showed more similarities than differences: strong drive, strong analytical intelligence and strong practical capabilities. These are people who like being in charge, who like having clear accountabilities and they certainly don't like their peers interfering on their piece of turf.

Under Colin's leadership the executive functioned as a group, with clear targets and sharply-defined accountabilities, and the drive and intelligence of a set of highly capable people determined to achieve their goals. But the complex adaptive challenges that were everyone and no-one's responsibility, were not picked up - the executive group failed to 'own the whole', instead each executive member focused on delivering their own set of accountabilities. Ultimately, it was a failure to anticipate and deal with one of these adaptive challenges that led to Colin being asked to step down. (For more on 'adaptive challenges' see Heifetz and Linsky's Leadership on the Line.)

For Peter, he saw that the process of developing the dynamics of the executive team would in itself present adaptive challenges that would help develop not just himself as a leader, but also his executive team colleagues. Given his increasing belief in the strategic significance of leadership within his business, he was prepared to put himself on the line, to demand that his team members be prepared to follow each other, not passively, but in a way that stimulated leadership across the whole of the senior management group.

Or the HR director?
Finally, to the HR director. Both organisations have highly competent and experienced HR directors: Peter has his on his executive committee, Colin did not. Their reasoning was telling. For Peter, his expectation has been that, in addition to being technically strong, he wants the HR director to be an 'agitator', someone who will provide a lead around change, someone who has the courage of their convictions. And in truth, without his HR director, Peter is unlikely to have had his curiosity about being a great leader sparked, and without this spark the chain of development that has led to a strategic business advantage.

The moral of the tale?
If you are involved in or care about developing leaders, whether as a consultant, L&D professional, HR director or leader: be brave, agitate, be prepared to put yourself on the line. Ultimately, you need your leaders to be prepared to follow your lead about the strategic significance of leaders and leadership.

Mark Loftus is chairman of The Thinking Partnership. He has 20 years' experience as an organisational consultant and is a recognised authority on emotional intelligence and the art of assessing senior leaders. He is a chartered clinical psychologist with an MPhil from London's Institute of Psychiatry, and has a degree in philosophy and psychology from Oxford University.