David Allen OBE: Good Governance in Wales

lead-image

David Allen OBE, chair of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (Hefcw) discusses the importance of good governance for institutions to succeed in challenging political times.

Good governance is at the heart of institutional success. I am immensely grateful to members of governing bodies of universities and colleges who give so freely of their time, expertise and experience to support their senior teams and, through them, students and staff. The Leadership Foundation provides a development programme for governors which enables you to be supported, obtain information and to network.

Governors can only be as good as the information which they receive and seek out. You rely on authoritative, comparative data. You are also very busy and need information to be clearly signposted for you, by your institution, and sector and other bodies. Both Hefcw and the Leadership Foundation provide rich sources of material readily accessible via their websites.

Here in Wales we face a fascinating but challenging time following the Welsh government’s response to and approval of much of the recently published Diamond review of higher education. Diamond is in itself a rich source of information for governors. Commentators such as WonkHE and the HEPI have pointed out that, once (and if) implemented, Diamond provides a blueprint for the most sustainable and stable student support system in the UK for full-time and part-time undergraduates and postgraduates. The report envisages the current tuition fee regime (which benefits only Welsh domiciled full-time undergraduates) being withdrawn over time in favour of grant support for living costs and income contingent loans repayable after graduation to cover tuition for taught programmes at all levels and modes of study. The proposals are accompanied by recommendations, for example, to provide more support through Hefcw for expensive subjects and research. It is expected that the reforms, subject to treasury consent and revised Student Loan’s Company arrangements will be introduced gradually from Autumn 2018, since it will take several years for the existing system to unwind. Welsh domiciled students would receive support for living costs wherever they choose to study in the UK and possibly wider afield.

In the meantime Wales, along with the rest of the UK, needs to face and deal with the consequences and opportunities of Brexit. Research and student support in relation to the EU is currently protected but until we know the shape of the Brexit deal there will be considerable uncertainty for higher education providers. What is certain, however, is that well-led, governed and managed institutions, which are clear about their missions and know their place in the market will, as always, be better placed to succeed.

In the meantime, the Leadership Foundation will continue to convene meetings and seminars to support governors, including the ‘Shaping Governance in Wales’ event planned for Thursday 6 April 2017 and taking place in Aberystwyth, with a live stream to Cardiff. I look forward to seeing you there.

David Allen OBE has been Chair of Hefcw since 2014 and on the board since 2008, has a wealth of experience in higher education leadership, governance and management, having previously held the role of registrar (2003–2013) and deputy chief executive (2009-2013) at the University of Exeter.

For more information and to book a place on the ‘Shaping Governance in Wales’ event for Governors of Welsh Institutions, please click here.

 The Leadership Foundation has a wealth of information, tools and tips on its Governance website, tailored to the specific needs of Governors of Higher Education institutions and colleges. For more information visit: www.lfhe.ac.uk/governance

 To see the upcoming Governor Development Programmes please click here

Transition to Leadership: A chance encounter

ttl-banner-email

26049807413_fc2fb0f5de_o

Helen Horsman, Research and Business Marketing Manager, University of Bradford attended the second year of our blended learning programme for new leaders, Transition to Leadership. In this interview she talks about her experience on the programme for those looking to develop themselves as an authentic leader.

1. What attracted you to Transition to Leadership?

It was a chance opportunity really, my manager couldn’t attend and asked me to go instead. It was perfect timing as I was just finishing my professional qualification and looking forward to using it in a more responsible role.

2. What were the 3 most valuable lesson you’ve learnt from the programme?

  • Coaching Being able to coach others is a very helpful tool for empowering others
  • Self-reflection Learning about your own styles of leadership and how they can help or hinder you and how this works with others. We all need to flex a bit, but usually have a comfort zone which is easy to slip back into. Being aware of your need to flex makes you a better leader.
  • Managing change Understanding resistance to change and the change process can help you work out how to best assist others to get through it, including yourself!

3. One element of the Transition to Leadership programme is to explore what it means to be an authentic leader. Can you share with us who you admire as an authentic leader?

I’m a huge believer in this. Nelson Mandela has, through the most terrible times, always been true to what he believes in and never veered from that path. It is tempting when becoming a leader to change who you are because of what you think other people want from you. A good leader doesn’t have to actively recruit followers, they just need to be knowledgeable, positive and passionate about what they believe in, listen to others views and change their mind when they believe it’s right, and people will follow.

4. If you were recommending this programme to your colleagues what would you tell them?

That it’s definitely worth doing for new and aspiring leaders, or established leaders who feel like they need a refresh. It will change your perspective on yourself and your staff.

5. Looking ahead, can you tell us what your 3 key leadership challenges for
2016-17?

I have quite a few changes coming up in my role where I will need to write new strategies and get people on board to deliver them. So my 3 main challenges will be to get buy-in from others, create advocates who will support and talk positively about what I’m proposing, and empower the people I need support from to deliver it.


The next run of Transition to Leadership will be in Glasgow and will be taking place through Tuesday 6 December 2016 – Tuesday 14 March 2017 over 3 face-to-face days and 16 hours of facilitated online activities. If you are interested in finding out more about our Transition to Leadership programme, please click here: www.lfhe.ac.uk/ttl 

Watch our Programme Faciltators talk about the benefits of Transition to Leadership in this 3 minute film: www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD8FaFHLHp4

Professor Bob Cryan, University of Huddersfield explores authentic leadership in his Stimulating Talk; ‘The naked vice-chancellor’ at our 10 year anniversary event in 2014. Watch his talk here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdQzmo4ckgA

Leadership Foundation Research Impact – Working for Wales

science-banner-3

Professor Fiona Ross reflects on the impact that our stimulus paper on research funding in Wales has had on prompting the Welsh government to make positive steps towards supporting and encouraging research in the nation.

Last year Peter Halligan and Louise Bright (2015) published a paper on the Case for Growing STEMM Research Capacity in Wales. Theirs is a story of research funding for Science Technology Engineering Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) in Wales. It provides a powerful review and explanation for what appeared to be Wales’s poor comparative research performance and productivity compared to Scotland. We published it in our stimulus paper series and this blog reflects on its impact.

The Leadership Foundation’s stimulus paper series is designed to support thought leadership and to provide the sector with an opportunity to challenge established perceptions and discuss them from a new position. Independent from disciplinary lobbying, government policy making and mission group, over the years the Leadership Foundation has offered an alternative space for incubating ideas on leadership, challenging the status quo in leadership, publish and disseminate for greater impact through its network of member institutions. We thought this was the ideal vehicle for this research.

Halligan and Bright’s paper is a detailed and longitudinal policy analysis of comparative data on research funding in Wales. It is not for the faint hearted and does not leave a stone unturned! It lays out the drivers behind the Welsh Office, and subsequent Welsh Government’s focus on an input target of total research council income. It argues that policy reliance on securing Wales’s UK share of Research Council funding had contributed to a misleading and reputational damaging perception of the Welsh university research base. To derive a more complete picture of the STEMM shortfall in Wales, Halligan and Bright calculated the total number of STEMM academic researchers in the four UK nations. Using Wales’s population share of total UK academics engaged in research they found that the academic research workforce was some 0.5% below Wales’s population standard share. Despite this discrepancy, the evidence shows that relatively low levels of Research Council income have nevertheless been effectively translated into high impact research.

Halligan and Bright’s paper concludes that the critical problem lay not in the quality of the science being done in Wales, but rather with the inadequate size of the science base and the number of researchers in STEMM. So what has been the impact from the paper and what happened? The Welsh Government listened, the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) acted swiftly though her Ser Cymru programme to deliver an ambitious strategy to increase research capacity in science to enhance economic growth.  To achieve this, the CSA brought together a number of initiatives involving COFUND funding from the EU Horizon 2020 and the European Regional Development Fund in association with Welsh Universities. This amounted to over £50M to support a capacity building programme to fund over 100 new fellowships in science. This is providing support for large scale doctoral training schemes, postdoctoral rising stars and promising research leaders and support for scientists (particularly women) returning to their fields after a long absence.

I am often asked about Leadership Foundation research outputs and what difference they make? The honest answer is it varies. Sometimes we hit on a winner, like Halligan and Bright. But impact does not happen by accident. It is a complex process. Here it took compelling evidence supporting the case for change, authors who were both authoritative and influential, a receptive policy context and respectful and longstanding relationships between government and academic institutions. Our analysis of LF impact shows the secret is about the quality of commissioning, and being able to anticipate the “burning platform” issues, working hard with authors to ensure quality and using the LF network to provide a conduit for dissemination and exchange of ideas. It has worked for Wales.

Professor Fiona Ross is Director of Research at the Leadership Foundation. Fiona leads research and thought leadership with a particular focus on generating learning for organisations on ‘what works’. Fiona has a background in community health and social policy and has worked as practitioner, teacher, research leader and senior manager over a 35 year career in higher education. She has had academic leadership roles at King’s College London, Kingston University and St George’s, University of London where most recently she was an executive dean. She has published widely on policy and care of older people, public engagement, collaborative practice and leadership of change. In addition to her role with the Leadership Foundation she has a part time professorial appointment at Kingston University and St George’s and does research and writes on collaborative governance and evaluating system wide interventions including Kingston University’s approach to narrowing the attainment gap for students from BME backgrounds. Fiona has recently been appointed Chair of the Board of Trustees of Princess Alice Hospice, which delivers end of life care in Surrey and South West London. She was awarded a CBE in the 2015 New Year’s Honours list for services to health care and higher education.


References

Welsh Government Delivering Science for Wales 2014-15.  Annual Report on the Strategy for Science in Wales p.2, p.6, p.7, p.16

Welsh Government Delivering Science for Wales 2015-16.  Annual Report on the Strategy for Science in Wales p.3, p.12

About the research authors

Professor Peter Halligan is the Chief Executive of the Learned Society of Wales

Dr Louise Bright is Deputy Director of Research and Business Engagement at the University of South Wales and the former Leadership Foundation Associate Director for Wales.

About our research
Our goal is to commission, develop and disseminate path finding research and resources which have originality, utility and impact to the sector. To view our latest research, click here

About Leadership Foundation Membership
We are a membership organisation of and for a sector that has some of the brightest minds in the UK. Our members are key to our strategy and form a community of higher education institutions with a clear commitment to and experience of developing leadership, governance and management capabilities at all levels. Academic and professional services staff from member institutions contribute to our programmes, projects and research and advice on benefits and services. To find out more about membership with us, click here

Future Professional Directors: The Case Study

collaboration

Canterbury Christ Church University needed to change the way it interacted with its students – from first enquiry to graduation and beyond. Could discussing the issues in real time with our new Future Professional Directors group help the university lead the necessary cultural change and achieve its aims? Dr Keith McLay, lead for the project, reports back on a fruitful collaboration.

In March 2016 Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU) contributed a live case study to the Leadership Foundation’s new Future Professional Directors (FPD) programme. CCCU was 18 months into a project to re-engineer its business processes for the student journey from enquiry, application, arrival and delivery of the degree programmes to graduation and alumni relations; it was a timely moment to collaborate during the programme’s module focusing on leadership in a culture of change. We used the analogy of a GUM Department store in the former Soviet Union whereby customers joined a different queue for the three stages (selection, payment and collection) of buying something to explain CCCU’s current problem – that separate, multifarious and factional business processes support the students. Our ambition was a seamless student journey throughout, from first engagement to leaving the university.

The challenge

The Christ Church Process Improvement Programme (CC PIP) project had made significant progress and gained momentum in the 18 months since the first diagnostic review and scoping of business processes had been undertaken. However, as we settled upon four separate, but linked, project streams – data and administrative processes, enquiry and recruitment, attendance and participation tracking and access to student support – it became apparent to colleagues on the programme board that there were significant challenges ranging across the four streams. These challenges, which all coalesced under the banner of organisational culture and the need for cultural change, lay in the way of transferring the projects to “business as usual” for the university.

Rigid local work practices and processes had to be tackled and colleagues needed to be encouraged to appreciate and also embrace the new business processes and procedures. This was the task facing CC PIP. The key question was how to lead that necessary cultural change which underlay the transactional business processes.

The journey

Following a presentation to the FPD group, which set out the road we had travelled so far, we decided to orientate the three themes that would be subject to “live” discussion on this question of fostering and leading cultural change.

The first theme – Demonstrating Benefits and Settling Priorities – asked for assistance in maintaining the programme’s focus and momentum while also holding on to realistic expectations of what could be delivered in the given time scale.

The second theme – Building Capability and Capacity – sought from the participants a route to the future-proofing of the project in a higher education environment that has been subject to fundamental change in recent years.

The third theme – Challenging Established Behaviours and Ways of Working – focused on cultural practices. Here we were seeking from the FPD group insight into reversing decades-old cultural working practice of “doing the nice thing” rather than “doing the right thing”.

Preparing the presentation and working on these three themes, including the outcomes sought, proved in itself cathartic and informative for CC PIP.

It forced those involved to reflect on and analyse the principal obstacles now being faced after what had been a rapid 18 months filled with project industry, endeavour and a number of quick wins. The preparation had revealed a confidence and a positive narrative for the project, needed to avoid looming institutional and organisation stasis of the programme. The CC PIP team looked forward to the “live” partnership with the FPD group, tackling the organisational cultural inertia that was threatening the programme.

The outcomes

The collaboration with the FPD participants proved fruitful and, in essence, that was the key highlight for CCCU. The three themes were each accompanied by three learning outcomes, which were robustly discussed by the participant groups. The discussions resulted in suggestions, comments and specific actions for all of the learning outcomes. CCCU colleagues took these back to the CC PIP programme board for further consideration and, as appropriate, implementation.

On the broader and overarching question of successfully providing leadership of cultural change, the two key action points embraced effective communications and the normative embedding of the new business process in the work life of colleagues across the university. Reflecting on these two broader action points, the CC PIP programme board revised its communications strategy by increasing the frequency and form of communications across the university about the programme. The board also decided to identify a number of other “quick wins” across the project, which should help build colleagues’ confidence in the programme outcomes and increase the willingness to assume responsibility and provide capability for the revised business processes.

We’d be thrilled to contribute to, and share with, another Leadership Foundation programme. The experience was mutually beneficial, positively reinforcing and resonating with respect to our programme and the organisational cultural change it entails. We would highly recommend this collaboration to other organisations seeking innovative interventions in the higher education sector.

Dr Keith McLay is dean of the faculty of arts and humanities at Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU). Keith led the team from CCCU to work in collaboration with the Future Professional Directors group to help the university reinvigorate this cultural change project.


More information

  1. The next cohort of Future Professional Directors launches in March 2017. The application deadline is Friday 24 February 2017. To find out more and for details on the application process visit: lfhe.ac.uk/fpd
  2. If you would be interested in working with the next Future Professional Directors cohort as a live case study please contact Lucy Duggal E: lucy.duggal@lfhe.ac.uk
  3. Future Professional Directors has been created in collaboration with nine sector bodies. This collaboration represents its aim to bring together professional service colleagues from across organisations in higher education. Contributing sector bodies include: AUDE, AHUA, AMOSSHE, ARC, BUFDG, HESPA, SCONUL, UCISA and UHR.

Has the governing body given attention to the institution’s policies and actions in relation to students’ mental health?

the-invisible-problem_cover-graphic-002

David Williams the Leadership Foundation’s governance web editor, highlights one area where governing bodies may need to give increased attention following the recent report from HEPI, on the students’ mental health.

Governing bodies have overall responsibility for the strategic direction and sustainability of higher education institutions (HEIs). Governors are concerned about all matters fundamentally affecting the institution and its sustainability. Typically, amongst the many matters that a governing body will exercise oversight is student recruitment, retention and achievement. An emerging concern will the potential to impact significantly on student retention is mental health.

A new report by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), ‘The invisible problem? Improving student mental health’, suggests that increasing numbers of HE students are experiencing mental health problems. The report highlights that the matter has significant implications not just for the student, but also the institution. Students experiencing mental health issues are at greater risk of not completing their studies, and the institution facing a loss of tuition fee income. Given the rising incidence of mental health issues, the report suggests governing bodies could consider giving one governor a specific remit to track their institution’s progress in improving mental health support.

The majority of higher education students in the UK enter full-time undergraduate education aged 18 or 19. While these students are classed as adults and able to vote in public elections, less attention is paid to the major transitions they face when entering higher education for the first time.

The HEPI report points out that unlike many other countries the UK has a ‘boarding school model’ of higher education. This means students normally live away from home for the first time.

At precisely the point when they face significant academic and personal changes, including the need to come to terms with new forms of learning and build new friendships, students are separated from their support networks. The increasingly demanding nature of the graduate labour market and rising student debt levels add further pressure on students to do well at university.

Student distress is particularly centered on feelings of stress, anxiety and unhappiness. The report highlights the need for students to develop emotional resilience and learn how to become more compassionate to themselves and others. Cognitive ability on its own is insufficient to ensure student survival and achievement.

Although the data is incomplete and increased levels of disclosure and awareness may account in part for the rising demand falling on university counselling services, the HEPI report suggests there is clear evidence that mental health issues are becoming more common amongst higher education students. The assessment is supported by the responses from HEIs to recent freedom of information requests made by The Guardian newspaper.

The HEPI report questions the level of current support for mental health being provided by some HEIs. Expenditure to support students shows marked variation.

The report cites examples of institutional good practice, but equally suggests that governing bodies need to seek assurance that the institution has a formal mental health policy and associated action plan. A pre-condition for assessing such policies and plans is ensuring the scale of the problem at the institution is understood together with the current level of support offered. Data about the scale of students’ mental health problems tends to be patchy.

If they haven’t already addressed the issue, a governing body should examine the provision provided by their institution to support students with mental health difficulties. Above all, governing bodies need to ensure mental health issues affecting students are understood and appropriately addressed.

David Williams has been by the Leadership Foundation’s governance web editor since 2013. He has worked with the governing bodies and senior leadership teams of different higher education institutions for over 20 years.

Editor’s notes

  1. For a full set of briefing guides on governance edited by David, please go to www.lfhe.ac.uk/govbriefings
  2. Read the latest news on governance, including the latest newspiece by David on students’ mental health and the role of governing bodies, click here
  3. Other blogs on governance include:
    Book Review: What can governance in higher education learn from other sectors?Book review: Nonprofit Governance
    How can universities enhance the strategic development of the academic portfolio?Poland’s rapid response to change in higher education makes it a hidden gem

The Brexit Blogs: To see ourselves as others see us

LeadImageTW
The map/model is not the reality

Doug Parkin, programme director considers self-awareness as the foundation of leadership development.

Sometimes leadership and management development can feel like a checklist of overlapping skills. We look at things like communication skills, managing conflict, planning, negotiation, performance management, strategy development, political awareness, team dynamics, equality and diversity, change, and so on.  All useful headings, and under each there are valuable things to know, insights to gain and skills to acquire, practise and reflect upon.

But the simple truth is, in leadership who you are drives everything. Not in a confining way, a way that says, ‘you are this and this alone’, but actually a very sophisticated way that acknowledges firstly that to “Know thyself” (a variously attributed maxim from ancient Greece) is a life-long quest, and secondly that we are very adaptive creatures capable of re-inventing ourselves to varying degrees to meet the needs of different situations.

The real skill of leadership development is, therefore, to encourage, promote and support intense self-reflection. This applies particularly to what might be termed personal leadership development, which revolves around the critical question “what sort of leader do you want to be?” Self-knowledge and self-perception is, of course, a big part of self-awareness – nobody knows our personal history better than ourselves, for example – but without some external reference points the perspective this gives us can become quite narrow.  A mirror or two may be needed, in other words, to see sides of ourselves that are otherwise obscured or sometimes conveniently disregarded. And in one way or another those mirrors take the form of feedback.

 O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!

Never most noted for his contribution to management consultancy, Robert Burns (1786) nevertheless captured in this line of poetry the essence of 360-degree feedback. I can feel literary scholars wincing as I write, so let’s move on…

Daniel Goleman (1996), in his well-known model of emotional intelligence, defines self-awareness as “Knowing one’s emotions, strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and goals – and their impact on others”.  And emotionally intelligent leaders are people who seek feedback all the time – a variety of external checks and reference points – because they appreciate the mirror this holds up for them and the productive self-reflection that it triggers.

The challenge of effective leadership development is, in many ways, to telescope this process, and thereby create a rich variety of feedback perspectives in a relatively short time scale, and a safe, forgiving space in which to reflect upon them and consider what behaviours to adapt and personal leadership changes to commit to. More extended leadership programmes, incorporating interventions such as coaching and action learning, create review points for these commitments to be refreshed and reinforced. The following figure captures the opportunities for feedback and self-reflection that can occur on well-designed leadership development programmes:

Image one

In an illuminating chapter called ‘When do we get to do feedback?’ Professor Paul Gentle (2014) notes “How rare it is to give and receive extensive and specific feedback on our behaviours”.  Simulation activities and similar structured exercises on programmes create an opportunity for ‘feedback in the moment’. This is feedback that is immediate and which participants can respond to in real time, and it is also an opportunity for colleagues to consider and practise sharing feedback and the appreciative environment that invariably helps to make feedback land effectively. These are transferable leadership approaches that can be used for feedback in teams or projects.

360-degree feedback (or multi-source feedback) tools, particularly those premised on a model of transformational leadership such as the Real World HE TLQ used exclusively by the Leadership Foundation, are a powerful way of making feedback from a participant’s institutional work context part of their tailored development. This feedback is sensitive and confidential to the individual and so one-to-one support from an accredited coach is essential to integrate the learning and align it with other development themes within the programme overall.

Personality-based diagnostics or psychometrics of various kinds attempt to provide an objective view of personality type on an individual basis. This is an opportunity to consider what lies beneath our behaviours, choices, preferences and motivations on an individual level. It is an important part of self-awareness to consider the psychological drivers that reasonably consistently manifest themselves in who we are and how we prefer to live, work and operate in the world. Inevitably, though, the use of any such tool involves using categories and dimensions – spectrums on which we are more or less inclined to see ourselves. Whether it is four, sixteen, or a hundred-plus categories that the tool renders, it is still a simplification because every individual is gloriously unique, but there can nevertheless be great value in exploring the truth within such a diagnostic profile.  And ‘exploring the truth’ is an important mindset to have, because ultimately we are the best judges of our type, even though diagnostic tools can challenge us and help to provoke fresh self-insight (as well as providing us with a short-hand vocabulary for discussing and considering personality – our own and others’). So, whether one uses the four temperaments from ancient times (Hippocrates and Galen), or their more recent cousins found in the work of Carl Jung (Personality Types, 1921), Myers and Briggs (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator ([MBTI], 1943), Merrill and Reid (Personal Styles, 1981),  Costa and McCrae (The Big Five, 1985) Margerison and McCann (Team Management System, 1995), or Bolton and Bolton (People Styles at Work, 1996), a learning environment needs to be created that enables the participant to mediate the data from their profile with their own self-awareness and, critically, other forms of experience and feedback. No one mirror can show every view.

There can be concern with some of these diagnostic profiles, such as MBTI, that the dimensions that operate within them create something of an ‘either-or’ approach to classifying people: e.g. introvert or extravert (although ambiversion has been put forward more recently to suggest a balance of the two).  Jung himself said, however, that “There is no such thing as a pure introvert or extravert. Such a person would be in the lunatic asylum” (1957), and this is why the notion of ‘preference’ (or tendency) is so important to the understanding and use of type. Preferences can be weak or strong, they can be hidden or apparent, they can be more or less balanced, but very few of us are trapped or confined by our preferences. As mentioned before, we are sophisticated beings and can learn to operate or excel within, outside or across our type-preferences, but it is nevertheless powerful and useful, particularly for leaders, to have a strong self-awareness of what those underlying preferences are or may be and to calibrate this with feedback from others on how they see and experience us.

Used alone or in isolation personality-based diagnostics can sometimes be of more limited value, and can for some feel like either labelling or a simplistic categorisation.  For this reason, the quality of facilitation or coaching around their use is extremely important, and as regards leadership development it is important to use them in combination with other forms of feedback and self-appraisal (see figure above), as we do at the Leadership Foundation on programmes such as Preparing for Senior Strategic Leadership and Future Professional Directors. As illustrated in the lead image above, the map is not reality, it is to some degree a selective representation, and the nature of a management, communication or personality model is that it should create a tool for penetrating the complexity of the intrapersonal and the interpersonal in a useful way. The person who can most effectively ‘explore the truth’ around the model is the individual concerned – they determine ultimately their ‘best fit’ – and for this reason self-appraisal needs to be as strong, if not stronger than the evaluation by others, and this should be a balanced part of the process of developing and enhancing self-awareness for leaders. But the insights that flow from this can transform leadership like nothing else.  After all, you can’t be true to others until you are true to yourself.

Doug Parkin is a programme director for the Leadership Foundation and is responsible for a range of open programmes – including Future Professional Directors, Preparing for Senior Strategic Leadership and Leading Transformation in Learning and Teaching (in collaboration with the Higher Education Academy). He also undertakes bespoke consultancy assignments for universities and works on some of our main international projects. Key interests include educational and research leadership, the leadership of professional services, strategy development, organisational change and leadership for sustainability.

Picture credits
Photograph of Lego Big Ben courtesy of London Mums Magazine
Photograph of Big Ben courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Brexit blogs: what do followers need and expect?

In the latest in our Brexit blogs series, programme director Doug Parkin considers the ART of leadership – authenticity, responsibility and trust.

ART

Let’s turn the whole leadership thing on its head and ask, instead, the question “what do followers need and expect?”  What do they need to follow willingly and with energy and commitment, and what do they expect from leaders in terms of behaviour, communication and relationship?  And before we become too fixated on polarised notions of leaders and followers, it is important to acknowledge that great followers are as important as great leaders. Most of us occupy both roles in our lives at different moments and in different ways, and there is often a grey line between the two as leadership is shared and followers become empowered.

Starting from perhaps quite a low base, following the recent EU referendum and Brexit decision, trust in public/political leadership has taken quite a battering and a real appetite seems to be emerging for more authentic, genuine and sympathetically attuned or connected leaders.  These are themes consistently engaged with on Leadership Foundation programmes.

Authenticity – a little thing called integrity

There is a courage that sits at the heart of authentic leadership that is about showing who you really are through “being” who you really are: the big difference, for example, between saying you have integrity and showing you have integrity. Authentic leaders do not lead from behind a mask.  James Kouzes and Barry Posner had, at the core of their enquiry into leadership, the question “what do you most look for and admire in a leader, someone whose direction you would willingly follow?” The leadership quality that was ranked consistently top over more than 20 years by a very large set of contributors across six continents was “honest”.  Their work shows this to be “the single most important ingredient in the leader-constituent relationship” and that “regardless of what leaders say about their own integrity, people wait to be shown; they observe the behaviour”.  The top four personal traits and characteristics for willing and committed follower participation, identified with remarkable consistency, are:

  • Honest
  • Forward-looking
  • Competent
  • Inspiring

Responsibility – misleaders

Leaders also have a responsibility to be honest in their communications and engagement, particularly around change and when portraying a vision of the future.  Manipulating people either through the content and manner of communication, or through the style and timing of engagement, will cause the leader/follower relationship to crumble or, worse still, turn toxic.  There is certainly a sense-making role for leaders, particularly when operating in complex and uncertain environments, and that may involve putting across the truth of a situation “as I see it”.  But that is very different from misleading people, or preying on their fears and insecurities to sell a particular position or develop a sense of urgency.  Leaders should be “dealers in hope” (Napoleon Bonaparte), not peddlers in fear, and, whatever the situation, they need to live by the principle that “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32).

In their 2011 book of the same name, John Rayment and Jonathan Smith identify four main types of MisLeadership: missing, misguided, misinformed and Machiavellian. Alongside these, particularly the cunning and duplicity of the Machiavellian leader, we could perhaps add a fifth form of misleadership, the knowingly misleading leader.  To knowingly mislead in a trusted leadership role is quite simply a betrayal of responsibility – a betrayal of followers.

Trust – the glue that binds followers and leaders together

Integrity is fundamentally about the person of the leader and the degree to which they are able to inspire trust and carry respect.  The importance of trust for successful and engaging team/organisational leadership cannot be emphasised enough: “trust is the emotional glue that binds followers and leaders together.  A survey conducted by the Institute of Leadership and Management and the journal Management Today in 2009 used the following six dimensions to establish an index of leadership trust: ability, understanding, fairness, openness, integrity and consistency.  The findings of their survey of over 5,000 UK employees pointed to one clear conclusion, “integrity is the foundation of trust and it grows in importance with seniority”[1]Patrick Lencioni, author of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, takes this still further by making trust the core foundation of high functioning or high performing teams.  And linking back to authenticity, Lencioni teaches us again the importance of honesty and vulnerability in leadership:

“Teamwork begins by building trust. And the only way to do that is to overcome our need for invulnerability.”

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) Megatrends survey in 2013 revealed that just 37% of employees trusted their senior managers.  (One could speculate, perhaps, where this figure might be with regard to national political leadership at the current time…).  This built upon a series of case studies published the previous year calledwhere has all the trust gone?  Following this, in 2014 the CIPD produced a research report called Cultivating Trustworthy Leaders, which identified four pillars of trust:

  • Ability – demonstrable competence at doing their job or fulfilling their role.
  • Benevolence (genuine concern) – a concern for others beyond their own needs and showing levels of care and compassion.
  • Integrity – adherence to a set of principles acceptable to others encompassing fairness and honesty, while avoiding hypocrisy.
  • Predictability – a regularity of behaviour over time.

Column

Authenticity begins in the heart and works outward through the values we embody and the behaviours we display.  The integrity that flows from this creates a core responsibility for leaders not to mislead others for their own purposes.  And, to complete the ART of leadership, trust is the essential ingredient in the leader/follower relationship that enables teams and organisations to flourish.

Doug Parkin is a programme director for the Leadership Foundation and is responsible for a range of open programmes – including Future Professional Directors, Preparing for Senior Strategic Leadership and Leading Transformation in Learning and Teaching (in collaboration with the Higher Education Academy). He also undertakes bespoke consultancy assignments for universities and works on some of our main international projects. Key interests include educational and research leadership, the leadership of professional services, strategy development, organisational change and leadership for sustainability.

[1] Campbell, S. (2009). The Truth about Trust, Index of Leadership Trust Special Report. Edge Magazine, The Institute of Leadership & Management, UK, September 2009: 20-25