What are the challenges of Organization

behavior?
Improving quality and productivity through the use of quality management, reengineering
and other techniques; improving people skills; managing workforce diversity-a key
challenge since organizations are becoming more heterogeneous in terms of gender, race,
and ethnicity; responding to globalisation; empowering people by the reshaping of the
relationship between managers and those they are supposedly responsible for managing;
stimulating innovation and change; coping with temporaries as the workforce becomes
more part time and contingency based; dealing with declining employee loyalty; and
improving ethical behaviour.

Managers and employees must become capable of working with people from different
cultures-

~Multinational corporations are developing operations worldwide.

~Companies are developing joint ventures with foreign partners.

~Workers are pursuing job opportunities across national borders.

Organisational Challenges

Home : Organisational Challenges

Especially in today's environment, employees are the single most
valuable asset within an organisation. KBC understands that our
clients are facing Organisational Challenges such as shifting
demographics, knowledge retention, aligning the organisation for
success, and employee development.

We are committed to helping clients leverage the full value of their

people to achieve NextGen Performance through Organisational
Services such as:

Leadership and Management Consulting

• Strategic Vision and Operating Philosophy Development

• Cultural and Behavioural Assessments
• Organisational Design/Redesign
• Workforce Optimisation
• Development of Local Workforce
 • Organisational Alignment and Culture Change

• Work Process Optimisation

• Abnormal Situation Management

Human Capital Consulting

• Job Profile Development/Job Alignment

• Effective Training Organisation Establishment/Improvement
• Training System, Programme, and Material Development and Delivery
• Performance Management System Development and Implementation
• Health and Safety Programme Establishment/Improvement

Employee Support Systems

• Procedure/Manual Development
• KPI Tree Specification and Implementation
• Focused Job Aid Development

New challenges to leadership

New challenges to leadership

This brief text offers some thoughts on what is involved in leading

complicated organisations. There are three sections. The first of these
considers the changing nature of the leader's task. We suggest that in
the knowledge economy, this applies hard criteria to defined things,
and enables emergent direction-setting in those critical areas where
renewal and the less-than-clear task are dominant. We suggest that
what is needed is less personal 'leadership' than the creation of what
has been called the 'leaderful' organisation: a structure which has
learned to talk about the key issues.

We have discussed the two 'arms' of management: the specified and

the less-than-clear. We have shown that whilst the specified
component is heavily, roundly managed, the 'unspecified' component
is not. The knowledge economy flows from handling the unspecified.
The specified will be increasingly commoditised. How is one to manage
for issues which have yet to be' defined? Essentially, through a process
of recursion. Senior staff have to set a general area - "over there, not
over here", "we shall be a lead innovator; or we shall be a fast
follower" - and the rest of the organisation have to fill in the blanks.
This suggests two tasks. One of these consists of knowledge
managing, of idea-crystalising dialog, which is needed for blanks to be
filled and general directions to become increasingly strong. The other
is a toolkit of measures which predispose the organisation to self-
assemble in one way, rather than in the very many others that are
open to it.

Complex structures operate less through formal direction than from

bottom up examples and exploration that adds up to a recognised
trend. "You can tell where the supertanker has been by looking at the
wake." Personal advantage through apposite criteria, reward to risk
taking of the right kind, the need to justify project plans in terms of
the 'big picture', personnel selection, corporate heroes are all
examples of such a tool kit. Where the overall use of these is coherent,
then the organisation will be predisposed to move in the direction
which this coherence suggests. This does not just happen, however,
but has to be organised. What will work depends on the details of the
structure in question: on what kinds of people work within it, on the
state of maturity, of the 'specified' or less than clear sources of added
value within it.

The second section notes how plural organisations are and will remain.
No one style or process is enough. The third reviews a major survey of
how both leaders and the led perceive leadership, and the various
categories of leader which appear to exist.

The new tasks of leadership

The new tasks of leadership

Most forms of governance place senior managers in a position in which

they are responsible for carrying out several parallel, quite distinct and
often superficially contradictory roles. They are tasked with keeping
the show on the road, reconciling shareholder, state, customer,
employee, supplier and partner interests, creating future potential and
selecting and overseeing people and the human fabric that they
weave. The paper on strategy suggests the complexities which are
innate to organisations of any scale and reach.

Few of these roles are new. Some of these are chiefly concerned with
the intensification of traditional pressures. Others, such as the
professionalisation of the workforce, are new to many industries. The
de-integration of commerce, the inter-linking of what it does with far
more stakeholders and the frequent lack of clarity as to the boundaries
of the firm all challenge some industrial sectors in novel ways. What is
clearly new to all forms of leadership - in politics as much as in
commerce - is the shift away from performance as the sole guarantor
of success to the need to "get it right".
Chapter One discussed the distinction between 'specified' - clear,
defined - activities, and those critical areas of renewal where the key
consists of finding options and clarifying a way of thinking about the
issues. "Specified" tasks can be run on traditional grounds, perhaps
with more complex criteria. The role of outsourcing, virtual teams,
partnership and geographical diffusion is relatively easy to manage
where th eissue under development is clear.

What can be achieved is striking. Boeing designed their new 777

aircraft with 230 teams of around 40 people in each of them. They
worked with three major customers, 500 suppliers and a network that
deployed 1,700 workstations in 12 countries. According to the
management consultants McKinsey, Boeing was able to manage the
entire process from concept to metal bending in around two-thirds of
the time that previous experience with linear management systems
had led them to expect.

This said, it is the less specified, socially-intensive steps that realise

complex options on which the knowledge economy is increasingly
founded. Less specified tasks require completely different forms of
motivation, time scales, criteria and managerial approach.

Managers of the 'unspecified' need to unify the thoughts of people with

a wide range of skills and outlooks. Senior staff (or their delegates)
create a way of thinking that challenges the organisation to achieve
more or less loosely-defined conceptual tasks. Research signposts, for
example, can be used to assert that 'by 2005, our industry will have
had to overcome the following hurdles'. These provide a powerful focus
for debate, however valid the statements themselves may or may not
be. Scenario and strategic planning play similar roles, as do
aspirational or horizon-scanning statements and speeches.

These general statements need to state what they exclude: is the firm
is to be an innovator, then it is not to be a follower or an integrator.
Often, it is important to indicate what kind of innovation or other issue
is at stake. It may mean that the firm is a research-focused
organisation, or a fisher for ideas in the commercial milieu. Second,
such statements must have a recognisable business model in them.
Worthiness is all very well, but - as with the dot.com failed revolution -
the economics must be there. Third, the statements must lead to
action: to better sceening critieria, to the winnowing of responses from
the organisation, to better future statements. The aim should be to
refine a shared model of how things work, what the firm will exclude
and what it will address; and why it will do this.
This said, assessments suggest that only around five percent of teams
are currently capable of outperforming individuals who are managed
from above. So-called 'silo management', in which people are
maintained in relative ignorance of the reason why they perform a
task, but are given highly specified work to do, performs at least as
well as creative teams which are assembled for specific projects. It
does not innovate or correct its tendencies to make mistakes,
however, and it is limited in what it can do by what a single individual
can know, particularly when embedded in the demands of line
management. It is, perhaps, a style for an established activity within a
stable industry or within labour-intensive industries, and may be
particularly suited for the industrialising nations. It cannot deliver the
goods where huge amounts of knowledge must be marshalled, or
complex structures mastered as they change and mutate.

As indicated in the introduction, two leadership information loops are

at play. One, assisted by analysis, lays out general, sensible directions.
Opinion is taken and the view of how the operating environment works
gradually shifts and adapts to changing awareness and knowledge.
Second, a host of tools are used to predispose the organisation to
behave in appropriate ways. Where it is not possible to give orders
(even given that the subject of those orders is clear to senior staff) the
organisation has to be equipped with criteria, culture, people and
processes such thatthe right 'kinds of thing' go forward and th
einnapropriate is blocked. Such criteria will vary between business
divisions and activities with the same leadership envelope. How one is
to treat a group of self-motivated innovators is quite different from
appropriate inducements and checks elsewhere.

Setting direction in a multi-cultural environment.

Setting direction in a multi-cultural environment.

The many forces which we have described suggest that firms needs to
spend more time defining how the operating environment operates,
what options this and prospective change may offer, and what can be
done about this. They need to do this internally, and often with
partners, regulators and others. Achieving this is an iterative process
that demands time, skills, resource and high quality attention. It
diverts attention away from maintaining the status quo.

Small companies and large ones have different and sometimes

complementary skills. Figure 1 suggests, however, that small
companies and large both feel themselves weak in respect of
oversight, human skill development and innovation. Further, small
firms believe themselves to be worse at almost all activities except
order servicing, which is known objectively to be one of the easiest
activities for large firms to automate and outsource. The knowledge
economy is most certainly not going to consist of a web of small,
entrepreneurial companies, but of agile, oversight-deploying firms that
have generated a sufficient surplus (and level of experience) to allow
them time to steer the engines of change.

Figure 1: Self-assessment by small and large European

companies

The last decade have focused firms upon 'getting themselves right'.
They have stripped themselves down for a highly specific set of tasks,
and usually applied a common style to all that they do. More recently,
the idea of the 'balanced scorecard' has suggested that whilst a
homogenous approach is sensible, a uni-dimensional focus is not.
Firms need to take account of regulators and customers, shareholders
and interest groups, partners and employees. This said, a common
standard tends to be imposed.

Projects need different styles at different stages in their life cycle. The
initial stage, of thinking through an idea and finding ways to express it
to decision taking structures and potential partners, regulators and
others, tends to be long on creative analysis, synthesis and
experiment and short on both hard data and defined goals. Indeed, it
is inventing the goals and finding the data. There follows a second
stage, in which the vague ideas that emerge from the first are
transformed into an implementation plan and into contractual
relationships, and in which significant amounts of money start to be
spent. This stage, in its turn, becomes an implementation project,
overseen against a project plan by hard-eyed scrutineers. Finally, the
completed project passes into routine, where further refinement is
applied and productivity is pursued.

Each of these require a different 'culture': differing ways of interacting

and different criteria. The people who thrive in these situations may be
innately different, and certainly need quite different forms of direction.
The knowledge economy is, therefore, concerned with a number of
different things:

• Developing an oversight of the

pertinent operating environment, such
that a framework exists in which to
validate potential forms of renewal. In
particular, noting technological and
market-based 'systems busters' which
may change the nature of the industry.
The US giant company GE have
instituted the 'DYB' program: that is, in
a creative way, to Destroy Your
Business (because if you do not,
someone else, somewhere in the global
economy will certainly be planning to
do so.)
• Developing machinery to reach
out to sources of knowledge and
capability so as to put flesh on the
bones of this potential. This might be
as much working with an industry
regulator so as to define paths forward
as with internal or external interests.
• Developing systems of
management which license but rein in
the styles of operation that are
distinctive to the various stages of
implementation of new projects.
• Developing systems that allow a
balanced approach to be taken to the
shifting ground in each part of the
portfolio of activities: allowing gradual
innovation in established parts of the
 business as well as driving them for
best practice, taking into account
stakeholder concerns and the like.
• Developing the habit of working
in networks and partnerships, taking a
realistic view of what can (and cannot)
be achieved in frameworks in which
motives are usually spectacularly
mixed.

These skills are plainly necessary in order to cope with a fast-

changing, low barrier world. The capacity to deploy them already
proves a major source of competitive advantage in many fields: in
entertainment, in science, in venture capital. Membership of a
knowledge network is earned, for others will work with a firm when it
has proved the equivalent of good citizenship and has engendered
trust. Members of a network have to contribute to well as extract value
from the network. The skills that are involved are often human-
focused, requiring protracted and personal contact. These are not
easily created across impersonal IT systems alone, and knowledge
networks have tended to remain rooted within a context or even
around a physical location, such as Hollywood or the City of London.
Indeed, it may be a major source of strength for the industrial world
that this is so, in the face of billions of educated people with
considerable access to technology.

Steering what might be called 'multi-cultural' companies can be very

difficult. Reward structures need to differ, people need to be given
distinct and often incompatible tasks. A more fundamental problem
can be illustrated by the following consideration.

Most companies have a set of innate tensions, as between imposing

common disciplines from central control or allowing diversity. Equally,
the firm can respond to external imperatives (often to the
disadvantage of the internal socio-technical balances that have served
in the past) or can focus upon these, sometimes at the expense of
agility, regulatory compliance or customer satisfaction. Figure 2
expresses these dilemmas, and identifies both four healthy outcomes
that arises from accepting any one of these. Inset, however, are the
symptoms of uncritical acceptance of any one of these as the sole
guiding principle.
 Figure 2: Four cultures that arise from solutions to two
key dilemmas, and four set of symptoms of pathologies
that may arise.

This said, it is far easier to manage for one thing than for many. A
simple imperative - to cut costs and never mind any other
considerations - is easy to propagate and clear for individuals to
interpret. Mixed messages are far harder to handle. The figure shows
some gradients in which managerial signals of increasing intensity are
fed to the organisation, seeking faster reaction from it. The gradients
express the equal ease with which single or mixed messages can be
expected to have their affect.
 Figure 3: Mixed imperatives creates contours of equally
easy organisational response

A firms that finds itself at location A may wish to move to location B. A

light push 'up' and a strong push to the 'left' would appear appropriate
to a perceptive management. Unfortunately, due to the tendency of
the corporate social system to simplify issues and to take them out of
context, the locus will tend to follow the contour gradient, ending at,
perhaps, C. Change (often on many more than two dimensions)
therefore requires active steering, not a single push.

Worse, an activity in the upper right (an advertising project team,

perhaps) would have a quite different innate 'culture' from any of the
other quadrants. The measures that steered from A to B would have a
pathological affect upon it, taking it into the unfortunate areas on
Figure 2!

Management is, therefore, a matter of deploying experience in

diversity, and recipes which have this or that style (enthusiasm, the
hard line, coaching.) is bound to be inadequate in some area or other.
The next section shows how idiosyncratic such issues of local 'fit' can
be.
Styles of leadership: a UK survey

Styles of leadership: a UK survey

McKinsey have, for many years, worked with chief executive officers. A
survey of American CEOs gave their prescriptions for success. These
were remarkably uniform: to set clear domains of activity, to create
personal accountability for equally clear targets within these, to
minimise central interference and to drive the firm for low cost and
high share of the market. CEOs seemed to feel that change was best
created bottom-up, that they would know a good thing when they saw
it and that if they gave conceptual direction, everyone else would stop
thinking. Many readers will recognise the style. It appears to suit the
'silo management' style, described above, but does not seem likely to
create overall managed migration.

CEOs are, like the rest of humanity, susceptible to fashion. McKinsey's

report documented the fashion of the 1985-95 period. Many business
leaders are wondering what to do now for an encore and how to cope
in a world of knowledge-intensive activity, having already pared costs,
often jettisoned the company's higher brain functions and focused
upon doing one thing very well. As a whole, the US appears to be
solving the problem, but often by large companies drawing upon small
start-ups for their ideas. This may well be a satisfactory solution: only
time will tell.

There are, of course, other styles of leadership, many of them

currently out of fashion, although widely practised. The Industrial
Society is Europe's largest training group. It has completed a study on
the concomitants of leadership, drawing on a sample of around a
thousand UK managers and those managed. Such studies may be
criticised in two ways: they measure what people believe is effective,
not what yields whatever results one deems to measure efficacy; and
they tend to notice whatever the experimenters set them up to note.
The book has another weakness, which is that it discounts 'implicit'
leadership, in which the goals of the organisation are embedded in
criteria, targets and procedures. The focus is placed firmly upon
personal, rather than impersonal, interaction.

The Industrial Society's study does, however, contain an illuminating

review of the literature on leaders and followers, who are not always
the same thing as junior and senior staff. Indeed, around four-fifths of
the examples of leadership that were cited involved people who were
not in positions of authority. A large portion of those who were in
positions of formal authority indicated that their chief frustration was
their inability to induce people to do what they wanted, leading to
friction and HR problems. The literature review points up a significant
disparity between the emotional drivers which take many people to
power and the human skills required of the job, notably in today's
environment. Previous samples of managers - both from the US and
the UK - have been assessed in ways which isolate the chief emotional
components that drive their career goals. An overwhelming element
within an equally large fraction of these shows a strong desire for
personal dominance. Unless skilfully masked, however, this desire is
the exact antithesis of what is needed for efficacy.

We have already noted that management may be thought to exist

along an axis which has two extremes, neither of which is incorrect but
both of which are fitted to circumstance. At one end of this axis,
managers encourage people to pool what they know in order to clarify
issues and create as yet unknown possibilities. At the other end,
managers define the problem and the tasks needed to solve it, and
allocate these tasks as they see fit. The first style is suited to those
tasks in which virtually everything is unclear: the terrain of knowledge
management. Its products require analysis and clarity. It requires
team play, spontaneity, recursive clarification; it places great stress
upon an overarching sense of direction, of process, of passing the
baton. The second style is best suited to line management or project
management, in which virtually everything is clear and where the
problems are essentially operations. This requires compliance,
oversight, accountability, formal targets, formal criteria, formal
assessment; it needs diligence and application from a compliant
workforce who are prepared to take orders and to operate in 'silos'.

The 'liberating leader' is, perhaps, a title for the style which is
appropriate to the synthesising, knowledge-managing end of the
managerial axis. Analysis of the elements of this showed up nine
contributory sub-styles.

• Protector: promotes individual self-

esteem, stands up for others' interests,
minimises friction.
• Tutor: encourages forward-looking
human development, treats mistakes as
opportunities to learn.
• Mentor: defines a role for the
individual, but shows consistency and
integrity in a personal role.
 • Teamplayer: makes explicit
statements about targets, progress,
performance.
• Director: decision-taking order-giver,
who inspires fear but who enforces
performance.
• Listener: notes, works around
individual capacities and weaknesses.
• Innovator: encourages new
approaches, communicates oversight and
general purpose.
• Delegator: creates an environment in
which sensible, local risk-taking appears
possible.
• Networker: keeps in touch with the
wider world, maintains the context of a
team.

Of these, the "Protector" was by far the most powerful explanatory

variable characteristic of leadership. The others are organised in
descending order. "Director" and those below it explained only around
3% of the variance in the sample: they were essentially - perhaps
worryingly - trivial components.

The upper part of this continuum is chiefly focused upon sorting out
people, while the lower part is, perhaps, more concerned with sorting
ideas. The explanations that accompanied this investigation are, for
the most part, highly people-oriented: no interviewee seems to have
set much store by management as the custodians of financial probity
or safety. External influences - customers, the environment, regulators
- are allocated to the least powerful component, that of the
"Networker". Readers can make up their own minds as to whether this
reflects perceived sources of weakness in management rather than an
analysis of the overall sources of excellent management.

An attempt to carry out such an analysis produced the following as the

key concomitants of leadership:

• Communicating an inspirational
view of the future.
• Supporting other people.
• Promoting understanding.
• Understanding before making
judgments.
 • Valuing individual differences.
• Promoting a sense of direction.
• Promoting the self-esteem of
others.

The views of the sample were assessed by age, gender, industry and
job level. There was no obvious age-related trend, except that the
young valued "Director" and "Tutor" while older people tended to
prefer the styles concerned with networks, knowledge and inclusivity.
Gender differences were stark: 93% of the variance was explained by
women preferring a participative style (Protector, Innovator,
Networker, Listener) while men rejected this approach.

Industrial differences were revealing. Manufacturing and utilities

sectors preferred the order-giving "Director" style, although utilities
supplemented this with affection for "Teamplayer". Technologists, by
contrast, disliked "Director", but liked "Mentor": evidence of preference
for a closed little world, set apart from the rest? Public-sector and
government sources focused on "Delegator", which retailing, by
contrast, found unacceptable, but without having much of an
alternative to offer. Professionals hated both "Director" and
"Teamplayer", but vaguely enjoyed "Delegator". Those in training and
education, surprisingly, were negative about "Listener" but the most
positive of all about "Director" and "Mentor". The finance industry did
not like any managerial style at all.

Job roles showed similar differences. Nobody admitted to liking the

"Director" style. Senior managers disliked "Mentor", but saw
"Innovator" and "Networker" as their preferred style. Lesser managers
showed the same, but less pronounced, pattern. Project managers
were also unhappy with "Mentor", but team leaders, by contrast, were
highly positive about it, as were administrators. These last also
advocated "Innovator" and "Delegator". Technical staff hated all styles,
but hated "Mentor" the most (which fits unhappily with this as the
preferred style of the technology-based industries!) Sales people very
much approved of "Innovator" and very much disliked "Delegator", the
strongest measures in the survey. Personnel were equivocal about all
styles, and professionals, as indicated earlier, chiefly negative.

Conclusions

What does this tell us? Chiefly, that if human society is the most
complex grouping in the known universe, then the management of
parts of this must be about many solutions and many syndromes, not
one. We have tended to bend people to fit the limits of our own
capacities, as re-engineering tended to bend companies to fit into the
limitations of information technology. Knowledge-managing companies
will, however, need to find their innate skills and capabilities,
deploying these in ways which cannot be predicted and which cannot
be constrained by belt-and-braces limits. The military, confronted with
the need to liberate local choice while avoiding rogue operators, have
tended to adopt a series of concentric domains. In the subsidiary
centre, the infantryman can make his own choices. He knows exactly
when to delegate upwards, however, and has been trained to do so.
New command structures drop into place as new conditions are
detected and new issues raised. We suspect that this 'fractal'
management may be the style of the future. It is very far from the 'set
the criteria and push for the results' model of the past decade.

The figure states the obvious. The two most important axes that define
demands on leadership are, first, the scale of the activity and second,
the degree to which the work undertaken is safely specified or
worryingly unspecified. Small businesses addressing an unchanging
world have a very different set of needs from large activities for which
the world is constantly changing, and within which success stems from
the implementation adaptive responses the the knowledge economy.
Grand prescriptions (Excellence! Seven Great Secrets!) from the
Airport Bookshelf School of Management miss this essential point.
New challenges to leadership

New challenges to leadership

This brief text offers some thoughts on what is involved in leading

complicated organisations. There are three sections. The first of these
considers the changing nature of the leader's task. We suggest that in
the knowledge economy, this applies hard criteria to defined things,
and enables emergent direction-setting in those critical areas where
renewal and the less-than-clear task are dominant. We suggest that
what is needed is less personal 'leadership' than the creation of what
has been called the 'leaderful' organisation: a structure which has
learned to talk about the key issues.

We have discussed the two 'arms' of management: the specified and

the less-than-clear. We have shown that whilst the specified
component is heavily, roundly managed, the 'unspecified' component
is not. The knowledge economy flows from handling the unspecified.
The specified will be increasingly commoditised. How is one to manage
for issues which have yet to be' defined? Essentially, through a process
of recursion. Senior staff have to set a general area - "over there, not
over here", "we shall be a lead innovator; or we shall be a fast
follower" - and the rest of the organisation have to fill in the blanks.
This suggests two tasks. One of these consists of knowledge
managing, of idea-crystalising dialog, which is needed for blanks to be
filled and general directions to become increasingly strong. The other
is a toolkit of measures which predispose the organisation to self-
assemble in one way, rather than in the very many others that are
open to it.

Complex structures operate less through formal direction than from

bottom up examples and exploration that adds up to a recognised
trend. "You can tell where the supertanker has been by looking at the
wake." Personal advantage through apposite criteria, reward to risk
taking of the right kind, the need to justify project plans in terms of
the 'big picture', personnel selection, corporate heroes are all
examples of such a tool kit. Where the overall use of these is coherent,
then the organisation will be predisposed to move in the direction
which this coherence suggests. This does not just happen, however,
but has to be organised. What will work depends on the details of the
structure in question: on what kinds of people work within it, on the
state of maturity, of the 'specified' or less than clear sources of added
value within it.
The second section notes how plural organisations are and will remain.
No one style or process is enough. The third reviews a major survey of
how both leaders and the led perceive leadership, and the various
categories of leader which appear to exist.

The new tasks of leadership

The new tasks of leadership

Most forms of governance place senior managers in a position in which

they are responsible for carrying out several parallel, quite distinct and
often superficially contradictory roles. They are tasked with keeping
the show on the road, reconciling shareholder, state, customer,
employee, supplier and partner interests, creating future potential and
selecting and overseeing people and the human fabric that they
weave. The paper on strategy suggests the complexities which are
innate to organisations of any scale and reach.

Few of these roles are new. Some of these are chiefly concerned with
the intensification of traditional pressures. Others, such as the
professionalisation of the workforce, are new to many industries. The
de-integration of commerce, the inter-linking of what it does with far
more stakeholders and the frequent lack of clarity as to the boundaries
of the firm all challenge some industrial sectors in novel ways. What is
clearly new to all forms of leadership - in politics as much as in
commerce - is the shift away from performance as the sole guarantor
of success to the need to "get it right".

Chapter One discussed the distinction between 'specified' - clear,

defined - activities, and those critical areas of renewal where the key
consists of finding options and clarifying a way of thinking about the
issues. "Specified" tasks can be run on traditional grounds, perhaps
with more complex criteria. The role of outsourcing, virtual teams,
partnership and geographical diffusion is relatively easy to manage
where th eissue under development is clear.

What can be achieved is striking. Boeing designed their new 777

aircraft with 230 teams of around 40 people in each of them. They
worked with three major customers, 500 suppliers and a network that
deployed 1,700 workstations in 12 countries. According to the
management consultants McKinsey, Boeing was able to manage the
entire process from concept to metal bending in around two-thirds of
the time that previous experience with linear management systems
had led them to expect.
This said, it is the less specified, socially-intensive steps that realise
complex options on which the knowledge economy is increasingly
founded. Less specified tasks require completely different forms of
motivation, time scales, criteria and managerial approach.

Managers of the 'unspecified' need to unify the thoughts of people with

a wide range of skills and outlooks. Senior staff (or their delegates)
create a way of thinking that challenges the organisation to achieve
more or less loosely-defined conceptual tasks. Research signposts, for
example, can be used to assert that 'by 2005, our industry will have
had to overcome the following hurdles'. These provide a powerful focus
for debate, however valid the statements themselves may or may not
be. Scenario and strategic planning play similar roles, as do
aspirational or horizon-scanning statements and speeches.

These general statements need to state what they exclude: is the firm
is to be an innovator, then it is not to be a follower or an integrator.
Often, it is important to indicate what kind of innovation or other issue
is at stake. It may mean that the firm is a research-focused
organisation, or a fisher for ideas in the commercial milieu. Second,
such statements must have a recognisable business model in them.
Worthiness is all very well, but - as with the dot.com failed revolution -
the economics must be there. Third, the statements must lead to
action: to better sceening critieria, to the winnowing of responses from
the organisation, to better future statements. The aim should be to
refine a shared model of how things work, what the firm will exclude
and what it will address; and why it will do this.

This said, assessments suggest that only around five percent of teams
are currently capable of outperforming individuals who are managed
from above. So-called 'silo management', in which people are
maintained in relative ignorance of the reason why they perform a
task, but are given highly specified work to do, performs at least as
well as creative teams which are assembled for specific projects. It
does not innovate or correct its tendencies to make mistakes,
however, and it is limited in what it can do by what a single individual
can know, particularly when embedded in the demands of line
management. It is, perhaps, a style for an established activity within a
stable industry or within labour-intensive industries, and may be
particularly suited for the industrialising nations. It cannot deliver the
goods where huge amounts of knowledge must be marshalled, or
complex structures mastered as they change and mutate.
As indicated in the introduction, two leadership information loops are
at play. One, assisted by analysis, lays out general, sensible directions.
Opinion is taken and the view of how the operating environment works
gradually shifts and adapts to changing awareness and knowledge.
Second, a host of tools are used to predispose the organisation to
behave in appropriate ways. Where it is not possible to give orders
(even given that the subject of those orders is clear to senior staff) the
organisation has to be equipped with criteria, culture, people and
processes such thatthe right 'kinds of thing' go forward and th
einnapropriate is blocked. Such criteria will vary between business
divisions and activities with the same leadership envelope. How one is
to treat a group of self-motivated innovators is quite different from
appropriate inducements and checks elsewhere.

Setting direction in a multi-cultural environment.

Setting direction in a multi-cultural environment.

The many forces which we have described suggest that firms needs to
spend more time defining how the operating environment operates,
what options this and prospective change may offer, and what can be
done about this. They need to do this internally, and often with
partners, regulators and others. Achieving this is an iterative process
that demands time, skills, resource and high quality attention. It
diverts attention away from maintaining the status quo.

Small companies and large ones have different and sometimes

complementary skills. Figure 1 suggests, however, that small
companies and large both feel themselves weak in respect of
oversight, human skill development and innovation. Further, small
firms believe themselves to be worse at almost all activities except
order servicing, which is known objectively to be one of the easiest
activities for large firms to automate and outsource. The knowledge
economy is most certainly not going to consist of a web of small,
entrepreneurial companies, but of agile, oversight-deploying firms that
have generated a sufficient surplus (and level of experience) to allow
them time to steer the engines of change.
 Figure 1: Self-assessment by small and large European
companies

The last decade have focused firms upon 'getting themselves right'.
They have stripped themselves down for a highly specific set of tasks,
and usually applied a common style to all that they do. More recently,
the idea of the 'balanced scorecard' has suggested that whilst a
homogenous approach is sensible, a uni-dimensional focus is not.
Firms need to take account of regulators and customers, shareholders
and interest groups, partners and employees. This said, a common
standard tends to be imposed.

Projects need different styles at different stages in their life cycle. The
initial stage, of thinking through an idea and finding ways to express it
to decision taking structures and potential partners, regulators and
others, tends to be long on creative analysis, synthesis and
experiment and short on both hard data and defined goals. Indeed, it
is inventing the goals and finding the data. There follows a second
stage, in which the vague ideas that emerge from the first are
transformed into an implementation plan and into contractual
relationships, and in which significant amounts of money start to be
spent. This stage, in its turn, becomes an implementation project,
overseen against a project plan by hard-eyed scrutineers. Finally, the
completed project passes into routine, where further refinement is
applied and productivity is pursued.

Each of these require a different 'culture': differing ways of interacting

and different criteria. The people who thrive in these situations may be
innately different, and certainly need quite different forms of direction.
The knowledge economy is, therefore, concerned with a number of
different things:

• Developing an oversight of the

pertinent operating environment, such
that a framework exists in which to
validate potential forms of renewal. In
particular, noting technological and
market-based 'systems busters' which
may change the nature of the industry.
The US giant company GE have
instituted the 'DYB' program: that is, in
a creative way, to Destroy Your
Business (because if you do not,
someone else, somewhere in the global
economy will certainly be planning to
do so.)
• Developing machinery to reach
out to sources of knowledge and
capability so as to put flesh on the
bones of this potential. This might be
as much working with an industry
regulator so as to define paths forward
as with internal or external interests.
• Developing systems of
management which license but rein in
the styles of operation that are
distinctive to the various stages of
implementation of new projects.
• Developing systems that allow a
balanced approach to be taken to the
shifting ground in each part of the
portfolio of activities: allowing gradual
innovation in established parts of the
business as well as driving them for
best practice, taking into account
stakeholder concerns and the like.
• Developing the habit of working
in networks and partnerships, taking a
realistic view of what can (and cannot)
be achieved in frameworks in which
motives are usually spectacularly
mixed.
These skills are plainly necessary in order to cope with a fast-
changing, low barrier world. The capacity to deploy them already
proves a major source of competitive advantage in many fields: in
entertainment, in science, in venture capital. Membership of a
knowledge network is earned, for others will work with a firm when it
has proved the equivalent of good citizenship and has engendered
trust. Members of a network have to contribute to well as extract value
from the network. The skills that are involved are often human-
focused, requiring protracted and personal contact. These are not
easily created across impersonal IT systems alone, and knowledge
networks have tended to remain rooted within a context or even
around a physical location, such as Hollywood or the City of London.
Indeed, it may be a major source of strength for the industrial world
that this is so, in the face of billions of educated people with
considerable access to technology.

Steering what might be called 'multi-cultural' companies can be very

difficult. Reward structures need to differ, people need to be given
distinct and often incompatible tasks. A more fundamental problem
can be illustrated by the following consideration.

Most companies have a set of innate tensions, as between imposing

common disciplines from central control or allowing diversity. Equally,
the firm can respond to external imperatives (often to the
disadvantage of the internal socio-technical balances that have served
in the past) or can focus upon these, sometimes at the expense of
agility, regulatory compliance or customer satisfaction. Figure 2
expresses these dilemmas, and identifies both four healthy outcomes
that arises from accepting any one of these. Inset, however, are the
symptoms of uncritical acceptance of any one of these as the sole
guiding principle.
 Figure 2: Four cultures that arise from solutions to two
key dilemmas, and four set of symptoms of pathologies
that may arise.

This said, it is far easier to manage for one thing than for many. A
simple imperative - to cut costs and never mind any other
considerations - is easy to propagate and clear for individuals to
interpret. Mixed messages are far harder to handle. The figure shows
some gradients in which managerial signals of increasing intensity are
fed to the organisation, seeking faster reaction from it. The gradients
express the equal ease with which single or mixed messages can be
expected to have their affect.
 Figure 3: Mixed imperatives creates contours of equally
easy organisational response

A firms that finds itself at location A may wish to move to location B. A

light push 'up' and a strong push to the 'left' would appear appropriate
to a perceptive management. Unfortunately, due to the tendency of
the corporate social system to simplify issues and to take them out of
context, the locus will tend to follow the contour gradient, ending at,
perhaps, C. Change (often on many more than two dimensions)
therefore requires active steering, not a single push.

Worse, an activity in the upper right (an advertising project team,

perhaps) would have a quite different innate 'culture' from any of the
other quadrants. The measures that steered from A to B would have a
pathological affect upon it, taking it into the unfortunate areas on
Figure 2!

Management is, therefore, a matter of deploying experience in

diversity, and recipes which have this or that style (enthusiasm, the
hard line, coaching.) is bound to be inadequate in some area or other.
The next section shows how idiosyncratic such issues of local 'fit' can
be.
Styles of leadership: a UK survey

Styles of leadership: a UK survey

McKinsey have, for many years, worked with chief executive officers. A
survey of American CEOs gave their prescriptions for success. These
were remarkably uniform: to set clear domains of activity, to create
personal accountability for equally clear targets within these, to
minimise central interference and to drive the firm for low cost and
high share of the market. CEOs seemed to feel that change was best
created bottom-up, that they would know a good thing when they saw
it and that if they gave conceptual direction, everyone else would stop
thinking. Many readers will recognise the style. It appears to suit the
'silo management' style, described above, but does not seem likely to
create overall managed migration.

CEOs are, like the rest of humanity, susceptible to fashion. McKinsey's

report documented the fashion of the 1985-95 period. Many business
leaders are wondering what to do now for an encore and how to cope
in a world of knowledge-intensive activity, having already pared costs,
often jettisoned the company's higher brain functions and focused
upon doing one thing very well. As a whole, the US appears to be
solving the problem, but often by large companies drawing upon small
start-ups for their ideas. This may well be a satisfactory solution: only
time will tell.

There are, of course, other styles of leadership, many of them

currently out of fashion, although widely practised. The Industrial
Society is Europe's largest training group. It has completed a study on
the concomitants of leadership, drawing on a sample of around a
thousand UK managers and those managed. Such studies may be
criticised in two ways: they measure what people believe is effective,
not what yields whatever results one deems to measure efficacy; and
they tend to notice whatever the experimenters set them up to note.
The book has another weakness, which is that it discounts 'implicit'
leadership, in which the goals of the organisation are embedded in
criteria, targets and procedures. The focus is placed firmly upon
personal, rather than impersonal, interaction.

The Industrial Society's study does, however, contain an illuminating

review of the literature on leaders and followers, who are not always
the same thing as junior and senior staff. Indeed, around four-fifths of
the examples of leadership that were cited involved people who were
not in positions of authority. A large portion of those who were in
positions of formal authority indicated that their chief frustration was
their inability to induce people to do what they wanted, leading to
friction and HR problems. The literature review points up a significant
disparity between the emotional drivers which take many people to
power and the human skills required of the job, notably in today's
environment. Previous samples of managers - both from the US and
the UK - have been assessed in ways which isolate the chief emotional
components that drive their career goals. An overwhelming element
within an equally large fraction of these shows a strong desire for
personal dominance. Unless skilfully masked, however, this desire is
the exact antithesis of what is needed for efficacy.

We have already noted that management may be thought to exist

along an axis which has two extremes, neither of which is incorrect but
both of which are fitted to circumstance. At one end of this axis,
managers encourage people to pool what they know in order to clarify
issues and create as yet unknown possibilities. At the other end,
managers define the problem and the tasks needed to solve it, and
allocate these tasks as they see fit. The first style is suited to those
tasks in which virtually everything is unclear: the terrain of knowledge
management. Its products require analysis and clarity. It requires
team play, spontaneity, recursive clarification; it places great stress
upon an overarching sense of direction, of process, of passing the
baton. The second style is best suited to line management or project
management, in which virtually everything is clear and where the
problems are essentially operations. This requires compliance,
oversight, accountability, formal targets, formal criteria, formal
assessment; it needs diligence and application from a compliant
workforce who are prepared to take orders and to operate in 'silos'.

The 'liberating leader' is, perhaps, a title for the style which is
appropriate to the synthesising, knowledge-managing end of the
managerial axis. Analysis of the elements of this showed up nine
contributory sub-styles.

• Protector: promotes individual self-

esteem, stands up for others' interests,
minimises friction.
• Tutor: encourages forward-looking
human development, treats mistakes as
opportunities to learn.
• Mentor: defines a role for the
individual, but shows consistency and
integrity in a personal role.
 • Teamplayer: makes explicit
statements about targets, progress,
performance.
• Director: decision-taking order-giver,
who inspires fear but who enforces
performance.
• Listener: notes, works around
individual capacities and weaknesses.
• Innovator: encourages new
approaches, communicates oversight and
general purpose.
• Delegator: creates an environment in
which sensible, local risk-taking appears
possible.
• Networker: keeps in touch with the
wider world, maintains the context of a
team.

Of these, the "Protector" was by far the most powerful explanatory

variable characteristic of leadership. The others are organised in
descending order. "Director" and those below it explained only around
3% of the variance in the sample: they were essentially - perhaps
worryingly - trivial components.

The upper part of this continuum is chiefly focused upon sorting out
people, while the lower part is, perhaps, more concerned with sorting
ideas. The explanations that accompanied this investigation are, for
the most part, highly people-oriented: no interviewee seems to have
set much store by management as the custodians of financial probity
or safety. External influences - customers, the environment, regulators
- are allocated to the least powerful component, that of the
"Networker". Readers can make up their own minds as to whether this
reflects perceived sources of weakness in management rather than an
analysis of the overall sources of excellent management.

An attempt to carry out such an analysis produced the following as the

key concomitants of leadership:

• Communicating an inspirational
view of the future.
• Supporting other people.
• Promoting understanding.
• Understanding before making
judgments.
 • Valuing individual differences.
• Promoting a sense of direction.
• Promoting the self-esteem of
others.

The views of the sample were assessed by age, gender, industry and
job level. There was no obvious age-related trend, except that the
young valued "Director" and "Tutor" while older people tended to
prefer the styles concerned with networks, knowledge and inclusivity.
Gender differences were stark: 93% of the variance was explained by
women preferring a participative style (Protector, Innovator,
Networker, Listener) while men rejected this approach.

Industrial differences were revealing. Manufacturing and utilities

sectors preferred the order-giving "Director" style, although utilities
supplemented this with affection for "Teamplayer". Technologists, by
contrast, disliked "Director", but liked "Mentor": evidence of preference
for a closed little world, set apart from the rest? Public-sector and
government sources focused on "Delegator", which retailing, by
contrast, found unacceptable, but without having much of an
alternative to offer. Professionals hated both "Director" and
"Teamplayer", but vaguely enjoyed "Delegator". Those in training and
education, surprisingly, were negative about "Listener" but the most
positive of all about "Director" and "Mentor". The finance industry did
not like any managerial style at all.

Job roles showed similar differences. Nobody admitted to liking the

"Director" style. Senior managers disliked "Mentor", but saw
"Innovator" and "Networker" as their preferred style. Lesser managers
showed the same, but less pronounced, pattern. Project managers
were also unhappy with "Mentor", but team leaders, by contrast, were
highly positive about it, as were administrators. These last also
advocated "Innovator" and "Delegator". Technical staff hated all styles,
but hated "Mentor" the most (which fits unhappily with this as the
preferred style of the technology-based industries!) Sales people very
much approved of "Innovator" and very much disliked "Delegator", the
strongest measures in the survey. Personnel were equivocal about all
styles, and professionals, as indicated earlier, chiefly negative.

Conclusions

What does this tell us? Chiefly, that if human society is the most
complex grouping in the known universe, then the management of
parts of this must be about many solutions and many syndromes, not
one. We have tended to bend people to fit the limits of our own
capacities, as re-engineering tended to bend companies to fit into the
limitations of information technology. Knowledge-managing companies
will, however, need to find their innate skills and capabilities,
deploying these in ways which cannot be predicted and which cannot
be constrained by belt-and-braces limits. The military, confronted with
the need to liberate local choice while avoiding rogue operators, have
tended to adopt a series of concentric domains. In the subsidiary
centre, the infantryman can make his own choices. He knows exactly
when to delegate upwards, however, and has been trained to do so.
New command structures drop into place as new conditions are
detected and new issues raised. We suspect that this 'fractal'
management may be the style of the future. It is very far from the 'set
the criteria and push for the results' model of the past decade.

The figure states the obvious. The two most important axes that define
demands on leadership are, first, the scale of the activity and second,
the degree to which the work undertaken is safely specified or
worryingly unspecified. Small businesses addressing an unchanging
world have a very different set of needs from large activities for which
the world is constantly changing, and within which success stems from
the implementation adaptive responses the the knowledge economy.
Grand prescriptions (Excellence! Seven Great Secrets!) from the
Airport Bookshelf School of Management miss this essential point.

New challenges to leadership

This brief text offers some thoughts on what is involved in leading

complicated organisations. There are three sections. The first of these
considers the changing nature of the leader's task. We suggest that in
the knowledge economy, this applies hard criteria to defined things,
and enables emergent direction-setting in those critical areas where
renewal and the less-than-clear task are dominant. We suggest that
what is needed is less personal 'leadership' than the creation of what
has been called the 'leaderful' organisation: a structure which has
learned to talk about the key issues.

We have discussed the two 'arms' of management: the specified and

the less-than-clear. We have shown that whilst the specified
component is heavily, roundly managed, the 'unspecified' component
is not. The knowledge economy flows from handling the unspecified.
The specified will be increasingly commoditised. How is one to manage
for issues which have yet to be' defined? Essentially, through a process
of recursion. Senior staff have to set a general area - "over there, not
over here", "we shall be a lead innovator; or we shall be a fast
follower" - and the rest of the organisation have to fill in the blanks.
This suggests two tasks. One of these consists of knowledge
managing, of idea-crystalising dialog, which is needed for blanks to be
filled and general directions to become increasingly strong. The other
is a toolkit of measures which predispose the organisation to self-
assemble in one way, rather than in the very many others that are
open to it.

Complex structures operate less through formal direction than from

bottom up examples and exploration that adds up to a recognised
trend. "You can tell where the supertanker has been by looking at the
wake." Personal advantage through apposite criteria, reward to risk
taking of the right kind, the need to justify project plans in terms of
the 'big picture', personnel selection, corporate heroes are all
examples of such a tool kit. Where the overall use of these is coherent,
then the organisation will be predisposed to move in the direction
which this coherence suggests. This does not just happen, however,
but has to be organised. What will work depends on the details of the
structure in question: on what kinds of people work within it, on the
state of maturity, of the 'specified' or less than clear sources of added
value within it.

The second section notes how plural organisations are and will remain.
No one style or process is enough. The third reviews a major survey of
how both leaders and the led perceive leadership, and the various
categories of leader which appear to exist.
The new tasks of leadership

Most forms of governance place senior managers in a position in which

they are responsible for carrying out several parallel, quite distinct and
often superficially contradictory roles. They are tasked with keeping
the show on the road, reconciling shareholder, state, customer,
employee, supplier and partner interests, creating future potential and
selecting and overseeing people and the human fabric that they
weave. The paper on strategy suggests the complexities which are
innate to organisations of any scale and reach.

Few of these roles are new. Some of these are chiefly concerned with
the intensification of traditional pressures. Others, such as the
professionalisation of the workforce, are new to many industries. The
de-integration of commerce, the inter-linking of what it does with far
more stakeholders and the frequent lack of clarity as to the boundaries
of the firm all challenge some industrial sectors in novel ways. What is
clearly new to all forms of leadership - in politics as much as in
commerce - is the shift away from performance as the sole guarantor
of success to the need to "get it right".

Chapter One discussed the distinction between 'specified' - clear,

defined - activities, and those critical areas of renewal where the key
consists of finding options and clarifying a way of thinking about the
issues. "Specified" tasks can be run on traditional grounds, perhaps
with more complex criteria. The role of outsourcing, virtual teams,
partnership and geographical diffusion is relatively easy to manage
where th eissue under development is clear.

What can be achieved is striking. Boeing designed their new 777

aircraft with 230 teams of around 40 people in each of them. They
worked with three major customers, 500 suppliers and a network that
deployed 1,700 workstations in 12 countries. According to the
management consultants McKinsey, Boeing was able to manage the
entire process from concept to metal bending in around two-thirds of
the time that previous experience with linear management systems
had led them to expect.

This said, it is the less specified, socially-intensive steps that realise

complex options on which the knowledge economy is increasingly
founded. Less specified tasks require completely different forms of
motivation, time scales, criteria and managerial approach.
Managers of the 'unspecified' need to unify the thoughts of people with
a wide range of skills and outlooks. Senior staff (or their delegates)
create a way of thinking that challenges the organisation to achieve
more or less loosely-defined conceptual tasks. Research signposts, for
example, can be used to assert that 'by 2005, our industry will have
had to overcome the following hurdles'. These provide a powerful focus
for debate, however valid the statements themselves may or may not
be. Scenario and strategic planning play similar roles, as do
aspirational or horizon-scanning statements and speeches.

These general statements need to state what they exclude: is the firm
is to be an innovator, then it is not to be a follower or an integrator.
Often, it is important to indicate what kind of innovation or other issue
is at stake. It may mean that the firm is a research-focused
organisation, or a fisher for ideas in the commercial milieu. Second,
such statements must have a recognisable business model in them.
Worthiness is all very well, but - as with the dot.com failed revolution -
the economics must be there. Third, the statements must lead to
action: to better sceening critieria, to the winnowing of responses from
the organisation, to better future statements. The aim should be to
refine a shared model of how things work, what the firm will exclude
and what it will address; and why it will do this.

This said, assessments suggest that only around five percent of teams
are currently capable of outperforming individuals who are managed
from above. So-called 'silo management', in which people are
maintained in relative ignorance of the reason why they perform a
task, but are given highly specified work to do, performs at least as
well as creative teams which are assembled for specific projects. It
does not innovate or correct its tendencies to make mistakes,
however, and it is limited in what it can do by what a single individual
can know, particularly when embedded in the demands of line
management. It is, perhaps, a style for an established activity within a
stable industry or within labour-intensive industries, and may be
particularly suited for the industrialising nations. It cannot deliver the
goods where huge amounts of knowledge must be marshalled, or
complex structures mastered as they change and mutate.

As indicated in the introduction, two leadership information loops are

at play. One, assisted by analysis, lays out general, sensible directions.
Opinion is taken and the view of how the operating environment works
gradually shifts and adapts to changing awareness and knowledge.
Second, a host of tools are used to predispose the organisation to
behave in appropriate ways. Where it is not possible to give orders
(even given that the subject of those orders is clear to senior staff) the
organisation has to be equipped with criteria, culture, people and
processes such thatthe right 'kinds of thing' go forward and th
einnapropriate is blocked. Such criteria will vary between business
divisions and activities with the same leadership envelope. How one is
to treat a group of self-motivated innovators is quite different from
appropriate inducements and checks elsewhere.

Setting direction in a multi-cultural environment.

The many forces which we have described suggest that firms needs to
spend more time defining how the operating environment operates,
what options this and prospective change may offer, and what can be
done about this. They need to do this internally, and often with
partners, regulators and others. Achieving this is an iterative process
that demands time, skills, resource and high quality attention. It
diverts attention away from maintaining the status quo.

Small companies and large ones have different and sometimes

complementary skills. Figure 1 suggests, however, that small
companies and large both feel themselves weak in respect of
oversight, human skill development and innovation. Further, small
firms believe themselves to be worse at almost all activities except
order servicing, which is known objectively to be one of the easiest
activities for large firms to automate and outsource. The knowledge
economy is most certainly not going to consist of a web of small,
entrepreneurial companies, but of agile, oversight-deploying firms that
have generated a sufficient surplus (and level of experience) to allow
them time to steer the engines of change.
 Figure 1: Self-assessment by small and large European
companies

The last decade have focused firms upon 'getting themselves right'.
They have stripped themselves down for a highly specific set of tasks,
and usually applied a common style to all that they do. More recently,
the idea of the 'balanced scorecard' has suggested that whilst a
homogenous approach is sensible, a uni-dimensional focus is not.
Firms need to take account of regulators and customers, shareholders
and interest groups, partners and employees. This said, a common
standard tends to be imposed.

Projects need different styles at different stages in their life cycle. The
initial stage, of thinking through an idea and finding ways to express it
to decision taking structures and potential partners, regulators and
others, tends to be long on creative analysis, synthesis and
experiment and short on both hard data and defined goals. Indeed, it
is inventing the goals and finding the data. There follows a second
stage, in which the vague ideas that emerge from the first are
transformed into an implementation plan and into contractual
relationships, and in which significant amounts of money start to be
spent. This stage, in its turn, becomes an implementation project,
overseen against a project plan by hard-eyed scrutineers. Finally, the
completed project passes into routine, where further refinement is
applied and productivity is pursued.

Each of these require a different 'culture': differing ways of interacting

and different criteria. The people who thrive in these situations may be
innately different, and certainly need quite different forms of direction.
The knowledge economy is, therefore, concerned with a number of
different things:

• Developing an oversight of the

pertinent operating environment, such
that a framework exists in which to
validate potential forms of renewal. In
particular, noting technological and
market-based 'systems busters' which
may change the nature of the industry.
The US giant company GE have
instituted the 'DYB' program: that is, in
a creative way, to Destroy Your
Business (because if you do not,
someone else, somewhere in the global
economy will certainly be planning to
do so.)
• Developing machinery to reach
out to sources of knowledge and
capability so as to put flesh on the
bones of this potential. This might be
as much working with an industry
regulator so as to define paths forward
as with internal or external interests.
• Developing systems of
management which license but rein in
the styles of operation that are
distinctive to the various stages of
implementation of new projects.
• Developing systems that allow a
balanced approach to be taken to the
shifting ground in each part of the
portfolio of activities: allowing gradual
innovation in established parts of the
business as well as driving them for
best practice, taking into account
stakeholder concerns and the like.
• Developing the habit of working
in networks and partnerships, taking a
realistic view of what can (and cannot)
be achieved in frameworks in which
motives are usually spectacularly
mixed.
These skills are plainly necessary in order to cope with a fast-
changing, low barrier world. The capacity to deploy them already
proves a major source of competitive advantage in many fields: in
entertainment, in science, in venture capital. Membership of a
knowledge network is earned, for others will work with a firm when it
has proved the equivalent of good citizenship and has engendered
trust. Members of a network have to contribute to well as extract value
from the network. The skills that are involved are often human-
focused, requiring protracted and personal contact. These are not
easily created across impersonal IT systems alone, and knowledge
networks have tended to remain rooted within a context or even
around a physical location, such as Hollywood or the City of London.
Indeed, it may be a major source of strength for the industrial world
that this is so, in the face of billions of educated people with
considerable access to technology.

Steering what might be called 'multi-cultural' companies can be very

difficult. Reward structures need to differ, people need to be given
distinct and often incompatible tasks. A more fundamental problem
can be illustrated by the following consideration.

Most companies have a set of innate tensions, as between imposing

common disciplines from central control or allowing diversity. Equally,
the firm can respond to external imperatives (often to the
disadvantage of the internal socio-technical balances that have served
in the past) or can focus upon these, sometimes at the expense of
agility, regulatory compliance or customer satisfaction. Figure 2
expresses these dilemmas, and identifies both four healthy outcomes
that arises from accepting any one of these. Inset, however, are the
symptoms of uncritical acceptance of any one of these as the sole
guiding principle.
 Figure 2: Four cultures that arise from solutions to two
key dilemmas, and four set of symptoms of pathologies
that may arise.

This said, it is far easier to manage for one thing than for many. A
simple imperative - to cut costs and never mind any other
considerations - is easy to propagate and clear for individuals to
interpret. Mixed messages are far harder to handle. The figure shows
some gradients in which managerial signals of increasing intensity are
fed to the organisation, seeking faster reaction from it. The gradients
express the equal ease with which single or mixed messages can be
expected to have their affect.
 Figure 3: Mixed imperatives creates contours of equally
easy organisational response

A firms that finds itself at location A may wish to move to location B. A

light push 'up' and a strong push to the 'left' would appear appropriate
to a perceptive management. Unfortunately, due to the tendency of
the corporate social system to simplify issues and to take them out of
context, the locus will tend to follow the contour gradient, ending at,
perhaps, C. Change (often on many more than two dimensions)
therefore requires active steering, not a single push.

Worse, an activity in the upper right (an advertising project team,

perhaps) would have a quite different innate 'culture' from any of the
other quadrants. The measures that steered from A to B would have a
pathological affect upon it, taking it into the unfortunate areas on
Figure 2!

Management is, therefore, a matter of deploying experience in

diversity, and recipes which have this or that style (enthusiasm, the
hard line, coaching.) is bound to be inadequate in some area or other.
The next section shows how idiosyncratic such issues of local 'fit' can
be.
Styles of leadership: a UK survey

McKinsey have, for many years, worked with chief executive officers. A
survey of American CEOs gave their prescriptions for success. These
were remarkably uniform: to set clear domains of activity, to create
personal accountability for equally clear targets within these, to
minimise central interference and to drive the firm for low cost and
high share of the market. CEOs seemed to feel that change was best
created bottom-up, that they would know a good thing when they saw
it and that if they gave conceptual direction, everyone else would stop
thinking. Many readers will recognise the style. It appears to suit the
'silo management' style, described above, but does not seem likely to
create overall managed migration.

CEOs are, like the rest of humanity, susceptible to fashion. McKinsey's

report documented the fashion of the 1985-95 period. Many business
leaders are wondering what to do now for an encore and how to cope
in a world of knowledge-intensive activity, having already pared costs,
often jettisoned the company's higher brain functions and focused
upon doing one thing very well. As a whole, the US appears to be
solving the problem, but often by large companies drawing upon small
start-ups for their ideas. This may well be a satisfactory solution: only
time will tell.

There are, of course, other styles of leadership, many of them

currently out of fashion, although widely practised. The Industrial
Society is Europe's largest training group. It has completed a study on
the concomitants of leadership, drawing on a sample of around a
thousand UK managers and those managed. Such studies may be
criticised in two ways: they measure what people believe is effective,
not what yields whatever results one deems to measure efficacy; and
they tend to notice whatever the experimenters set them up to note.
The book has another weakness, which is that it discounts 'implicit'
leadership, in which the goals of the organisation are embedded in
criteria, targets and procedures. The focus is placed firmly upon
personal, rather than impersonal, interaction.

The Industrial Society's study does, however, contain an illuminating

review of the literature on leaders and followers, who are not always
the same thing as junior and senior staff. Indeed, around four-fifths of
the examples of leadership that were cited involved people who were
not in positions of authority. A large portion of those who were in
positions of formal authority indicated that their chief frustration was
their inability to induce people to do what they wanted, leading to
friction and HR problems. The literature review points up a significant
disparity between the emotional drivers which take many people to
power and the human skills required of the job, notably in today's
environment. Previous samples of managers - both from the US and
the UK - have been assessed in ways which isolate the chief emotional
components that drive their career goals. An overwhelming element
within an equally large fraction of these shows a strong desire for
personal dominance. Unless skilfully masked, however, this desire is
the exact antithesis of what is needed for efficacy.

We have already noted that management may be thought to exist

along an axis which has two extremes, neither of which is incorrect but
both of which are fitted to circumstance. At one end of this axis,
managers encourage people to pool what they know in order to clarify
issues and create as yet unknown possibilities. At the other end,
managers define the problem and the tasks needed to solve it, and
allocate these tasks as they see fit. The first style is suited to those
tasks in which virtually everything is unclear: the terrain of knowledge
management. Its products require analysis and clarity. It requires
team play, spontaneity, recursive clarification; it places great stress
upon an overarching sense of direction, of process, of passing the
baton. The second style is best suited to line management or project
management, in which virtually everything is clear and where the
problems are essentially operations. This requires compliance,
oversight, accountability, formal targets, formal criteria, formal
assessment; it needs diligence and application from a compliant
workforce who are prepared to take orders and to operate in 'silos'.

The 'liberating leader' is, perhaps, a title for the style which is
appropriate to the synthesising, knowledge-managing end of the
managerial axis. Analysis of the elements of this showed up nine
contributory sub-styles.

• Protector: promotes individual self-

esteem, stands up for others' interests,
minimises friction.
• Tutor: encourages forward-looking
human development, treats mistakes as
opportunities to learn.
• Mentor: defines a role for the
individual, but shows consistency and
integrity in a personal role.
 • Teamplayer: makes explicit
statements about targets, progress,
performance.
• Director: decision-taking order-giver,
who inspires fear but who enforces
performance.
• Listener: notes, works around
individual capacities and weaknesses.
• Innovator: encourages new
approaches, communicates oversight and
general purpose.
• Delegator: creates an environment in
which sensible, local risk-taking appears
possible.
• Networker: keeps in touch with the
wider world, maintains the context of a
team.

Of these, the "Protector" was by far the most powerful explanatory

variable characteristic of leadership. The others are organised in
descending order. "Director" and those below it explained only around
3% of the variance in the sample: they were essentially - perhaps
worryingly - trivial components.

The upper part of this continuum is chiefly focused upon sorting out
people, while the lower part is, perhaps, more concerned with sorting
ideas. The explanations that accompanied this investigation are, for
the most part, highly people-oriented: no interviewee seems to have
set much store by management as the custodians of financial probity
or safety. External influences - customers, the environment, regulators
- are allocated to the least powerful component, that of the
"Networker". Readers can make up their own minds as to whether this
reflects perceived sources of weakness in management rather than an
analysis of the overall sources of excellent management.

An attempt to carry out such an analysis produced the following as the

key concomitants of leadership:

• Communicating an inspirational
view of the future.
• Supporting other people.
• Promoting understanding.
• Understanding before making
judgments.
 • Valuing individual differences.
• Promoting a sense of direction.
• Promoting the self-esteem of
others.

The views of the sample were assessed by age, gender, industry and
job level. There was no obvious age-related trend, except that the
young valued "Director" and "Tutor" while older people tended to
prefer the styles concerned with networks, knowledge and inclusivity.
Gender differences were stark: 93% of the variance was explained by
women preferring a participative style (Protector, Innovator,
Networker, Listener) while men rejected this approach.

Industrial differences were revealing. Manufacturing and utilities

sectors preferred the order-giving "Director" style, although utilities
supplemented this with affection for "Teamplayer". Technologists, by
contrast, disliked "Director", but liked "Mentor": evidence of preference
for a closed little world, set apart from the rest? Public-sector and
government sources focused on "Delegator", which retailing, by
contrast, found unacceptable, but without having much of an
alternative to offer. Professionals hated both "Director" and
"Teamplayer", but vaguely enjoyed "Delegator". Those in training and
education, surprisingly, were negative about "Listener" but the most
positive of all about "Director" and "Mentor". The finance industry did
not like any managerial style at all.

Job roles showed similar differences. Nobody admitted to liking the

"Director" style. Senior managers disliked "Mentor", but saw
"Innovator" and "Networker" as their preferred style. Lesser managers
showed the same, but less pronounced, pattern. Project managers
were also unhappy with "Mentor", but team leaders, by contrast, were
highly positive about it, as were administrators. These last also
advocated "Innovator" and "Delegator". Technical staff hated all styles,
but hated "Mentor" the most (which fits unhappily with this as the
preferred style of the technology-based industries!) Sales people very
much approved of "Innovator" and very much disliked "Delegator", the
strongest measures in the survey. Personnel were equivocal about all
styles, and professionals, as indicated earlier, chiefly negative.

Conclusions

What does this tell us? Chiefly, that if human society is the most
complex grouping in the known universe, then the management of
parts of this must be about many solutions and many syndromes, not
one. We have tended to bend people to fit the limits of our own
capacities, as re-engineering tended to bend companies to fit into the
limitations of information technology. Knowledge-managing companies
will, however, need to find their innate skills and capabilities,
deploying these in ways which cannot be predicted and which cannot
be constrained by belt-and-braces limits. The military, confronted with
the need to liberate local choice while avoiding rogue operators, have
tended to adopt a series of concentric domains. In the subsidiary
centre, the infantryman can make his own choices. He knows exactly
when to delegate upwards, however, and has been trained to do so.
New command structures drop into place as new conditions are
detected and new issues raised. We suspect that this 'fractal'
management may be the style of the future. It is very far from the 'set
the criteria and push for the results' model of the past decade.

The figure states the obvious. The two most important axes that define
demands on leadership are, first, the scale of the activity and second,
the degree to which the work undertaken is safely specified or
worryingly unspecified. Small businesses addressing an unchanging
world have a very different set of needs from large activities for which
the world is constantly changing, and within which success stems from
the implementation adaptive responses the the knowledge economy.
Grand prescriptions (Excellence! Seven Great Secrets!) from the
Airport Bookshelf School of Management miss this essential point.

Your Organization’s Biggest Challenges By Manoj Sharma - Presentation Transcript

 1. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES YOUR ORGANIZATION IS FACING AT
THE MOMENT? by MANOJ SHARMA
2.
o Increasing global and/or local competition?
o Boosting your profitability?
o Raising your performance levels?
o Enhancing your leadership?
o Retaining and growing your customer base?
o Succession planning?
o Allocating your resources optimally?
o Creating new value propositions?
o Delivering better internal and external service?
o Increasing your efficiency and effectiveness?
o Boosting your people’s fulfilment levels?
o Increasing your shareholder value?
o Reducing your cost structures?
o Nurturing your talent to survive and thrive in a fast changing world?
o What other challenges are you facing?

YOUR CHALLENGES

3. THE TRUTH
o The truth is organisational challenges / problems / difficulties do not come in nice, tight
and neat packages as stated above. Organisational challenges today come crashing collectively in
relentless waves and it is up to leadership at every level - from the Board, to the CXOs, to the
Directors, Mangers, Supervisors and Junior Executives to raise their capabilities to deal with these
challenges and deliver profitably in these increasingly demanding times.
4. LEADERSHIP IS THE KEY
o All intelligent human being know that leadership has always been and will always be
the key differentiator between successful and unsuccessful organisations. Therefore the organisations
that will thrive in the future will be those who successfully groom leaders at all levels independent of
position and title.
5. SUCCESS MAKER OR BREAKER
o We have moved into the era where personal, visionary and inspiring leadership is the
success-maker and the lack of it a certain success-breaker.
6. WE CAN ASSIST YOU
o We can assist you set up your organisation for the levels of success you desire through
our practical, cutting-edge, best-practices-factored, principled-based, immediately-actionable, core-
knowledge approach to delivered specific, measurable, tangible and intangible desired results.
7. LEADERS CREATE CULTURE
o You see leaders create culture and your organisation needs winning leaders to create
a winning culture - a winning culture in which every individual and every team is focused on boosting
profitability, performance and fulfilment levels while playing for all to win.
8. YOUR SOLUTION
o The solutions to your short-term, mid-term and long term challenges lie in
DifferWorld's array of Keynotes, Seminars, Workshops, Programs, Course and Professional
Coaching Initiatives based on DifferWorld’s Professional Coaching Technologies, Methodologies and
Techniques.
o These will give you and your organisation the competitive coachin, training and
development edge you have been searching for.
9. CHOOSE WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO START FIRST
o Below are links to some of the world's best initiatives through which we will
assist you to custom design workshops, seminars, courses, keynotes, etc... to meeting your career
training, leadership training, supervisor training, management training, sales training, corporate
training, customer service training, business training, competency training needs in line with your
organisation's training & development / education and training objectives.
 10. FULLY CUSTOM DESIGNED AND RISK FREE
o The following initiatives are just a sampling of initiatives that will assist you, your team
and your organisation take the professional coaching path to success and we are more than happy to
custom design them to suit your organisations unique needs. So explore them thoroughly, choose
where you’d like to start and get in touch with us immediately for a FREE Consultation at
[email_address] or (65) 6338 5669 on how best to enjoy high returns on your investment through
professional coaching, training and development initiatives.
11. FREE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATE COACHING SESSIONS
o WORTH $450/- FOR PEOPLE IN YOUR ORGANIZATION. We at DifferWorld define
Professional Corporate Coaching as the art and science of professionally coaching your individuals,
teams and/or organisations, through a start-to-end process towards achieving desired wins, in the
areas of their choice. At different times DifferWorld’s Professional Corporate Coaching can be
employed to with a different focus ranging from Executive Coaching, Career Coaching, Business
Coaching, Relationships Coaching, Personal Life Coaching, Image Coaching, Competency Coaching,
Personality Development Coaching, Performance Coaching, Results Coaching, Sales Coaching,
Leadership Coaching, Communications Coaching, Presentation Coaching, Team Coaching,
Intrapreneurship Coaching, NLP Coaching, Enneagram Coaching, MBTI Coaching, EFT Coaching,
Organization Coaching, Negotiations Coaching, Service Coaching, Financial Coaching and Golf
Coaching. For more please go to… http://www.differworld.com/professional-coaching-2.html
12. Human Resource, Capital and Investment Consultancy
o DifferWorld’s Human Resource, Human Capital and Human Investment Consultancy
will assist you to research, conceptualize and implement the best strategies for you to… Plan and
implement professional education, development, training and coaching roadmaps.
o Enhance individual, team and organisational profitability, performance and fulfilment.
Assess, educate, develop and coach talent while building a high performance culture.
o Design people and organisational potentialisation initiatives focusing on building the
unique mindsets, skillsets and business sets required for you to achieve measurable success.
o Create, communicate and action your values, vision, mission, strategies, targets and
key performance indexes.
o Develop a coaching organisation and high performance culture.
o Measure and enhancing human capital effectiveness through our expertly designed
tools.
o Enhance leadership development & accelerate effective succession planning.
o Create compelling targets, deliver extraordinary results while promoting personal
responsibility, ownership & accountability.
o Conduct in-depth research on your employees true mindsets.
o Discover what you as an organisation do and don’t do well from multiple points of view.
o Identify productivity, efficiency and effectiveness leakages and creative initiatives to
optimize your time, resources and energy.
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/human-resource-capital-and-investment-consultancy.html
13. 360 Degree Feedback Appraisal Assessment & Benchmarking Tools
o DifferWorld's 360 Degree Feedback Appraisal Assessment & Benchmarking
Tools are excellent resources that can be rolled out organisation wide to provide for your Senior,
Middle and Junior Executives with a series of multi-rated perspective tools for their personal and
professional advancement in mind.
o This multiple angled tool from the consolidated view points of...
o 1) Their Superiors,
o 2) Their Peers,
o 3) Their Subordinates,
o 4) Their External Customers,
o 5) Their Internal Customers,
o 6) Their Coaches / Mentors and
o 7) Their Self-Assessment...
o ...in tandem with the expertise of a DifferWorld Certified Professional Coach can be
used both as a powerful and accurate feedback and feedforward mechanism.
o For more please got to…
o http://www.differworld.com/360-degrees-feedback-appraisal-assessment-
tools/index.php
14. Keynote Addresses & Conference Speakers
o DifferWorld can assist you deliver the impactful keynotes listed below, custom design
keynotes to meet your existing needs and make recommendations to meet your future needs as well
as. For more please get in touch with us at [email_address] or (65) 6338 5669.
o BEING FIRST IN A 24/7/365 WORLD
o THE WINABILITY FACTOR
o ACHIEVING BREAKTHROUGH PERFORMANCE
o DEVELOPING COACHING LEADERS & CHAMPIONS
o INTRAPRENEURSHIP & THE VALUE CREATING ORGANISATION
o ACHIEVING WORK / LIFE BALANCE
o THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS
o PEOPLE LEADERSHIP - LEADING AT EVERY LEVEL
o EXCELLENCE - A MINDSET FOR PRODUCING EXTRAORDINARY RESULTS
o PROFESSIONAL MASTERY - YOUR GATEWAY TO INDIVIDUAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL SUCCESS
o For more please got to…
o http://www.differworld.com/keynotes/index.php
15. Creating Coaching Organisations
o DifferWorld is one of the first companies in the world (if not the first) to use professional
coaching technologies, methodologies and techniques to directly address an organisation's
desire to boost profitability and performance while at the same time meet the individual's desire
to boost fulfilment while doing the best job possible.
o This state-of-the-art breakthrough initiative, when implemented organisation wide, has
the potential to save your organisation millions of dollars in training and development expenses while
adding millions of dollars to your organisations top and bottom line while you also reap various other
tangible, intangible, direct and indirect benefits.
o Creating Coaching Organisations is a highly progressive initiative, expertly designed
and delivered to immediately boost profitability, performance and fulfilment levels for leading
individuals, teams and organisations.
o For more please got to…
o http://www.differworld.com/creating-coaching-organisations/index.php
16. HIGH VALUE EXECUTIVE COACHING
o DIFFERWORLD'S HIGH VALUE EXECUTIVE COACHING IS FOR CEOs,
PRESIDENTS, VICE PRESIDENTS, MANAGING DIRECTORS, DIRECTORS, GENERAL
MANAGERS AND THEIR LIKE.
o What is High Value Executive Coaching ?
o High Value Executive Coaching is an extraordinarily effective initiative created to assist
the world’s top organisations get the best out of their top people, so they can be even better.
o High Value Executive Coaching is designed to boost profitability, performance and
fulfilment for the individuals being coached so they can impact the teams they lead and through their
teams the organisation at large.
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/high-value-executive-coaching.html
17. HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAM COACHING
o Great that you've got a bunch of talented individuals together! It's time to
coach them into a high performance team that delivers extraordinary profitability for all!
o Yes, you need to compete in a rapidly evolving global landscape!
o Yes, you need to deliver great results with a variety of constraints!
o Yes, your people's ability to adapt and perform at high levels makes a huge
difference!
o Yes, you need to get the best out of your investment in your people right now!
o And yes, High Performance Team Coaching is the perfect solution for you.
o High Performance Team Coaching is about...
o Getting very clear about the targets you and your team need to achieve, by when and
in what manner
o Communicating the target in a way that compelling buy in from the stakeholders
involved
o Aligning all your available resources towards hitting the target
o Hitting the target within the stipulated parameters
o Celebrating your success and creating a new compelling target
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/high-performance-team-coaching.html
18. CULTURE OF SERVICE EXCELLENCE
o Service is not just for your customer service staff. Everyone from the top person down
needs to embody it wholeheartedly to create a Culture of Service Excellence .
o The heart of service practiced conscientiously can reinvigorate your entire organization,
while poor service will systematically and immediately destroy it. Since service excellence has the
potential to be your lowest cost - highest profit activity isn’t it time you brought it to everything you do?
o DifferWorld’s systematic approach to creating a culture of service excellence
encompasses a step-by-step process of working with our partner organisations over a pre-stipulated
period to…
o Enhance service mindsets from across the organisation
o Create clear workable strategies at every level
o Develop the necessary skillsets to support implementation of workable strategies
o Evolve business sets to create new service excellence standards
o Providing additional 360º support towards creating a culture of service excellence
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/culture-of-service-excellence/index.php
19. LEADERSHIP FOUNDATIONS – PRIMARY LEADERSHIP
o In a never-ending pursuit to produce better results in the face of myriad challenges, it is
easy for organizations to not pay enough attention to Primary Leadership - a critical component that
leads to top notch performance. Primary Leadership - the basic Leadership Foundation that needs to
be laid for organizations to experience long-term success, is all about leading oneself, beyond
positions, titles, roles and remunerations.
o Research has shown that in even the best organizations, there is a tremendous
amount of leadership potential that tends to be imprisoned within people at all levels. This is due to a
combination of it being masked over by positions, titles, roles and remunerations and even more so
due to societal conditioning. This non tapping into an already present resource, which lies within the
hearts and minds of every individual in your organization, is nothing short of a gargantuan waste of
resources. Primary Leadership in your organization needs to be catalyzed through proper education,
empowerment and engagement.
o This is what Leadership Foundations - Primary Leadership will do for your organization.
Leadership Foundations - Primary Leadership is designed to get every individual in your organization
to be proactive, take responsibility, innovate relentlessly , be committed and produce excellent results.
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/leadership-foundations-primary-leadership.html
20. LEADERSHIP ENHANCEMENT – SECONDARY LEADERSHIP
o As a leader by position, title, roles and remuneration it is not only imperative that you
demonstrate exemplary PRIMARY LEADERSHIP, but you also exemplify SECONDARY
LEADERSHIP – leadership with (not over) others.
o As a secondary leader it is expected of you to step up, take on responsibility, get the
best out of your people, build high performance teams, produce extraordinary results with limited
resources, expand your scope, develop sophistication and work harmoniously and synergistically with
other functions within and outside your organization. A challenge indeed!
o LEADERSHIP ENHANCEMENT is designed to give your middle and senior
management the ability to fully play out their roles and deliver on their responsibilities of being a
SECONDARY LEADER .
o LEADERSHIP ENHANCEMENT is a comprehensive, well thought out and practical
360 Degrees Approach towards enhancing the capacity and proficiency of your middle and senior
management. It will put your leaders in a rigorous, fully customized, down-to-earth environment where
ideas and ideals are brought to the fore and competencies are developed to catch up to them.
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/leadership-enhancement-secondary-leadership.html
21. LEADING LEADERS – TERTIARY LEADERSHIP
o At the highest levels of leadership the rules evolve and change. Sometimes they are
even turned on their head and seem to contradict themselves. This is scarcely appreciated at lower
levels of leadership.
o You the senior leader have a unique vantage point and a distinct set of challenges
when it comes to strategizing the growth, expansion, sustainability and succession planning of your
organization.
o You need to promote the consistent efficiency of your organization today, while
embracing the need for change to be effective tomorrow.
o You have a unique vantage point and are uniquely equipped to make a lasting
difference through your leaders.
o LEADING LEADERS - TERTIARY LEADERSHIP is designed to propel you, your key
leaders and entire organization forward towards meeting the challenges of the future in advance in
tandem with the challenges of today. The intention being to ensure the sustainability and scalability of
your value propositions and the continuous success of your organization.
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/leading-leaders-tertiary-leadership.html
22. TIME EXCELLENCE
o Do you realise…
o Over the last 10 years, you have experienced a 27% decrease in personal time and
more than 1 full day increase in work related time?
o That, over the next 10 years you can expect to spend more than 39% more time at
work if you do not improve your personal productivity?
o That with the right time excellence mindset and skillset you’ll save more than 10 hours
a week and 52 days a year ?
o So recognising you’d like to enjoy a greater quality of life now learn how to…
o Be more optimal, efficient and effective than you can imagine
o Prioritise your life, create dynamic targets and beat deadlines
o Eliminate your time leakages, wastage and delays
o Overcome your time, resources and energy shortages
o Not let emails, meetings, people and travel disrupt you
o Delegate effectively, eliminate pile ups, take responsibility
o Improve your performance, profitability and fulfilment, and more
o For more please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/the-monticles-coaching-initiatives/time-excellence.html
23. BUILDING A VALUES DRIVEN ORGANIZATION
o Every organisation that holds a long term view of its business desires the organisation
to develop and grow. Recent insights on how to achieve effective change, growth and increased
profitability, strongly suggest the need for an organisation to transform itself into a Values Driven
Organisation.
o Values Driven Organisations deliver strong profit growth, improve customer satisfaction
and employee fulfilment. This initiative will provide you with the necessary support and guidance in
analysing your current organisation and facilitate the shift towards a Values Driven Organisation to
keep your future compelling for your customers, shareholders and stakeholders too. The process of
catalysing major organisational transformation requires some substantial knowledge of the latest
developments in understanding individuals and their relationships to organisations. The tools used to
do this in Building a Values Driven Organisation are...
o For more, please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/the-monticles-coaching-initiatives/building-a-values-driven-
organis.html
24. MENTOR TRAINING PROGRAM
o Mentoring is commonly understood to be the process in which a more experienced
mentor and a less experienced mentee work together to assist the mentee to advance. Whether your
organization is looking to implement a formal or informal mentoring program for new-hires or high
potential and value individuals , the fundamentals remain the same.
o Essentially mentors are people you go to who have been where you haven’t and have
done what you like to do. Mentors have a wealth of experience and are an invaluable "go
to" resource and often the best source of advice and suggestions on what course of action you
should take and how you should go about taking it. To get to the top you need the assistance of others
and often successful mentors with their macro perspective and micro appreciation are your best
available resources.
o For your organization to benefit from continuity and progress, your organization needs
to identify and train a group of mentors and high potential individuals, bring them together towards
getting the best out of both, while meeting organizational, team and individual needs too. To do this
you need a fabulously clear and well thought through program to be efficiently implemented across
your organization successfully. This is what the Mentor Training Program is all about, to ensure you
have the best and most effective mentor training program anywhere in the world.
o For more, please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/mentor-training-program.html
25. OTHER BUSINESS SERVICES
o Outside of your people and organisational potentialisation needs towards boosting
profitability, performance and fulfilment through professional education, development and coaching,
DifferWorld can also supports your efficiency and effectiveness needs through Other Business
Services. The following are an extract of some of the other professional business services we provide
globally.
o Web & Online Strategy
o Printing, Publishing & Distribution Solutions
o Corporate & Personal Concierge Services
o For more, please go to…
o http://www.differworld.com/other-business-services/index.php
26. Some of the countries in which DifferWorld can presently support your, your team's and your
organisation's training and development needs are…
o Australia
o Bahrain
o Brunei
o China
o Egypt
o Germany
o Hong Kong
o India
o Indonesia
o Japan
o Korea
o Kuwait
o Macau
o Malaysia
o Mauritius
o New Zealand
o Pakistan
o Philippines
o Qatar
o Saudi Arabia
o Singapore
o South Africa
o Sri Lanka
o Taiwan
o Thailand
 o Turkey
o United Arab Emirates
o United Kingdom
o United States
o Vietnam
27.
o For further global assistance for you, your teams and your organization please contact
us at…
o Website: http://www.DifferWorld.com
o Blog: http:// DifferWorld.BlogSpot.com
o Email: [email_address]
o SKYPE: DIFFERWORLD
o Tel: +65 6338 5669
28. You are welcome to share this PowerPoint with your family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances
and also post it on your website and blog!

ManojSharma + Follow
7534 views, 3 favs, 1 embed more

Related

• People Leadership Keynote 4240 views

• Unleashing The Spirit Of Intrapreneurship 2648 views

• 10 Great Reasons For Professional Executive Coaching By Ma… 4139 views

• Stop Struggling Get Rich Now by Manoj Sharma 1585 views

• How To Get Wealthy By Manoj Sharma 1318 views

• PRO Duplicate Checker 519 views

• What is True Wealth? By Manoj Sharma 2199 views

• Critical Wealth Creation Questions By Manoj Sharma 1063 views

• Wealth Secrets By Manoj Sharma 1431 views

• What are The 10 Principles of Money? By Manoj Sharma 3183 views

• Coaching 957 views

• Coachsuperv 184 views

• Diplomas in Executive Coaching 617 views

• 21 Laws of Abundance By Manoj Sharma 2562 views

• Globalcoachingsurvey09 Report 344 views

 • Exploring Coaching V.4 (2) 856 views

• Act.3 Corporate Brochure 39 views

Recommended

More by user

• Pointers From The Samurai Code Of Conduct 2365 views

• How To Get Wealthy By Manoj Sharma 1318 views

• Wealth Secrets By Manoj Sharma 1431 views

• Unleashing The Spirit Of Intrapreneurship 2648 views

• Stop Struggling Get Rich Now by Manoj Sharma 1585 views

• What are The 10 Principles of Money? By Manoj Sharma 3183 views

View all presentations from this user

About this presentation

USAGE RIGHTS

© All Rights Reserved

STATS

• 3 Favorites
 • 0 Comments
• 4 Downloads
• 7,496 Views on
SlideShare
• 38 Views on
Embeds
• 7,534 Total Views

EMBED VIEWS

• 38 views on http://www.slideshare.net

ACCESSIBILITY

View text version

ADDITIONAL DETAILS

• Uploaded via SlideShare

• Uploaded as Microsoft PowerPoint

Flag as inappropriate
presentation
Cancel
File a copyright complaint

Categories

• Finance

Tags

• sharma
• organization
• development
• keynotes
• resource
• mentoring
• manoj
• leadership
• training
• coaching
• human
• executive
• challenges

Follow SlideShare

• Twitter
• Facebook
• SlideShare Blog
 0 tweets
1 share
0 shares
WordPress
Blogger
More
options