Lessons for Leaders from the election

The UK’s general election and its fallout were certainly interesting. The outcome means that certainly about funding and policymaking is likely to be harder to come by in the coming years (or months, maybe?). This will have impacts on many areas of professional life.

The fates of the leaders of the two main parties – Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn – are also instructive. I’m not seeking to make any political points, here, but it seems to me that leaders in any organisation can learn two important lessons from the campaign.

Firstly, let’s look at Theresa May.  Before calling the election her party had a commanding lead in the polls, and her standing as Prime Minister was high. She had attained her party leadership and the Prime-Ministership by acclaim, as all other candidates withdrew. Her confident messaging on Brexit, perhaps the defining issue for our political times, seemed to resonate with her party and with voters at large. And so she called an election, clearly believing that a larger majority was hers for the taking. And the campaign was for Theresa May’s Conservatives – the Prime Minister’s personal identify and appeal to the voters.

But as we all know, it was not to be. The campaign exposed the lack of depth in her manifesto - for instance, cabinet ministers not involved in drafting key policies, and only aware shortly before publication of key and controversial policy commitments. This led to the removal of a manifesto commitment about social care costs within a couple of days of its being announced. Another issue was the repetition of one key message – Strong and Stable Leadership – to levels approaching parody. When a question time audience openly laughs at the Prime Minister, it is clear that something isn’t right. And a theme emerged of a person who was unable to respond to real issues; who appeared to have taken the election for granted.

Even so, the election outcome was a shock for many. The opinion poll from the impressive Professor John Curtice – which turned out to be pretty damn accurate – was ignored and talked down by all pundits and all parties for the first two-to-three hours of results. But by the next morning it was clear that Theresa May had lost her overall majority, and had lost the ability to command without consensus in her party.

What had gone wrong? To my mind, she had committed the sin of believing her own propaganda. Her message of strength and stability had not been tested by an internal party challenge. She had had no feedback at that point. She ran a tight circle within Number 10: her policy staff were said to exclude many of her own MPs and minsters from effective discussion. And so no voice was there to say that that things may not have been as she saw them. Theresa May 0, Hubris 1.

And what of the other side? Jeremy Corbyn went into the election with many convinced that his party was going to be humiliated. His own allies were setting a low bar for success – anything above 200 seats, according to Len McCluskey of Unite, would be good. And note that this 200 seats mark would mean losing 30 current seats. His enemies within his own party had been seeking to have him removed as leader ever since his election. And opinion polls and spread betting companies were suggesting that the party might finish with as few as 130-150 seats, plumbing depths not seen since the 1930’s.

Although the Labour Party was uncharacteristically united during the election campaign, the mood amongst its candidates was not good. Few reportedly featured Jeremy Corbyn on their literature; the campaign was a defensive one, targeting marginal seats held by Labour. And the campaign had some poor performances, with a shadow cabinet member hidden from view to avoid media focus on her apparent inability to work with numbers; and Jeremy Corbyn himself in difficulty over the gap between his personal view of nuclear weapons and that of his party.

When the results were in, Labour had come a distant second; with fewer seats than Gordon Brown won in 2010. It was clear that there was no realistic prospect of a Labour Government: the parliamentary arithmetic just did not allow it. But the narrative was all about the fantastic performance of the Labour Party.

• 40% of the vote! (Never mind that the Conservatives had got 42.4%). 
• A +9.5% swing to the party. (Never mind that the Conservatives had a +5.5% swing). 
• Thirty extra seats! (Never mind that the party wasn’t in power.)

What had Jeremy done right? He clearly had authenticity and communicated better than his adversary. That got the election result. And he managed expectations very, very well. Everyone expected humiliation; he ended up only defeated. This becomes a triumph in itself – defying the odds, the underdog emerges unbowed. And we do all love an underdog, don’t we?

So, leaders, take note.

Firstly, you’re probably not as brilliant as you may think. You need to listen to others. Don’t be like Theresa.

Secondly, manage expectations. Under promise and over deliver. Everybody loves a positive surprise; nobody likes to be disappointed.

Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn live on to fight another day. Theresa is still PM, although clearly her tenure is time limited. And Jeremy will fight the next election as leader of the Labour Party, if that is what he chooses to do. But Theresa now needs to bring strength and stability where she cannot. And Jeremy can no longer be the underdog: his party expects him to deliver government. Tough times for them both.

Where you stand depends on where you sit

A former colleague was very fond quoting what I now know to be Miles’ Law: where you stand depends on where you sit. That is, what you think about something depends on your perspective. (A corollary of this is, of course, that we are less objective than we might think.)

Several problems on which I have recently advised bring this phrase to mind. The conundrums have been variations on a theme: how to help people who are not physically close together, work well together.

Rufus E Miles: Lawgiver

In a university context this most often doesn’t mean people who are in different continents. There are plenty of examples of research teams on different sides of the world who work effectively together: meeting every now and again to discuss results; corresponding by email; sharing findings by email or over the web; and talking by phone or Skype. Of course, in these situations there is likely to be an agreed goal and methodology, often tied to specific funding; and the success of the project will reflect on all participants (or at least on all of the Principal Investigators), so the incentives to collaborate are there.

More likely the problems arise when people are on the same campus, sometimes in the same building, but not so close together that they bump into each other habitually. For instance, maybe an academic department is spread across several different buildings; or maybe there’s a problem in getting administrative staff within a faculty office and those in a registry to work well together. And often the answer cannot be to simply move them closer together – the reality of the physical estate, or at the least the cost and relative priority of doing this, make such things impossible.

So what to do?

Firstly, help them to see why it matters. Think about how their working together contributes to a bigger goal. And then tell them the story of this – in newsletters, face to face in meetings, make a short film, however you need to bring it to life. But make the narrative real – not about corporate goals and abstractions, but about the difference that they can make to real people’s lives. Help them to see that they’re involved in a big and noble task. Now this is easy if your team is helping to bring peace to the world, harder if it’s about resolving timetabling squabbles. So sometimes you have to look to a bigger goal (for instance the benefits education bring to people’s lives, and the role of effective timetabling in making this happen in a cost-effective and sustainable manner) to make the story. But unless you’re working for an evil crime lord, there’s a positive narrative in there, waiting to be found.

Secondly, regular information flows about what’s going on help bring people together. You could initiate - or help to initiate, if you’re not the one in charge - a system of team briefing, so that everyone gets the same information, face to face, on a regular basis. Once people have a shared knowledge base its easier for them to make the connections between others they need to work with, and understand why someone else’s problem is their problem too.

Finally, there’s a need to help the people know each other as individuals. An email address is easier to ignore than a voice on a phone; a person who you recognise and meet with from time to time is harder to ignore than an extension number that sometimes you dial. Who’s who lists with photos can help – whether on the intranet, in a printed (or emailed) guide, or a noticeboard, they help to make staff members individuals rather than simply cogs in the machine. Or how about finding an excuse to bring them physically together from time to time - ideally a combination of work (makes the reason to be there compelling) and some social, get to know you, time.

These ideas tie in with John Adair’s thinking on good leadership: which means a necessary focus on task, team and individual. Get these things right, and your problems of disconnect amongst your team or your colleagues will begin to disappear.

Learning from the Bank

Two news stories (I use the word in its loosest sense) prompt thoughts about university governance. Don’t be surprised by the first one: as Perry Mason so often said, I’ll show relevance.

The first is the publication, by the Bank of England, of the minutes of its Court (governing body) from just before the financial crisis of 2007. The BBC runs this story today: the gist of it is that the reports to the governors seem to have flagged difficulties with liquidity in the financial sector, but no action was taken. The BBC report is worth reading in full, but here are some of the most relevant parts:

Firstly, quoting Andrew Tyrie MP, chair of the Treasury Select Committee:

"Even when questions were asked by individual non-executive directors, the executive usually presented a unified front to the Court, apparently rendering it of little or no use as a forum for creative discussion and constructive challenge," he said.

"The non-executive directors appear to have done little thinking of their own about financial stability and to have added little or no substantive value to the Bank's work on it," Mr Tyrie added.

Ouch.

And here’s Lord John McFall, the chair of the Treasury Select Committee at the time:

"They all missed wider picture. They missed the interconnectedness of the whole financial system...when Lehman went down it was a real catastrophe."

Double ouch. And it gets worse: here’s Andrew Tyrie again:

"The minutes show that during the crisis the Bank of England did not have a board worthy of the name. This mattered. And it still matters"

So what’s the second story? Well, it isn’t news today, but at the end of last year the Committee of University Chairs (CUC) published the long-awaited new version of its Higher Education Code of Governance. This has regulatory force for universities, via the funding councils (Scotland has a different document to the other home nations, but the principal is the same.) The Code of Governance sets out the expectations about what a university’s governing body must do, should do and could do:

“its purpose is to identify the key values and practices on which the effective governance of UK HEIs is based, in order to help deliver institutional mission and success.” (Page 4, Preface)

The Code then goes on to say:

“it sets out principles and practices which any organisation operating within the sector will need to apply in order to show that it conducts its business with due respect for the public interest.” (Page 5, Using the Code)

Which firmly places the delivery of a university’s mission, and its success, as matters of public interest.

This is more significant than it might seem. The code also identifies:

“Autonomy as the best guarantee of quality and international reputation.” (Page 8, Core Values)

And it is in the tension between these two values: public interest and institutional autonomy – that the challenge lies.

A papal bull - from Glasgow University

The public has always had an interest in universities: early universities received royal charters, or Papal Bulls, to enable them to operate within a system of law where power was very clearly in the hands of the monarch, or the church. The charters typically provided for the universities to be self-governing (that is, to have autonomy), but when push came to shove the charters and bulls made clear the source of the power.

A non-papal bull

Often – certainly in relation to UK chartered universities - the charters also established a court, comprising representatives of trades, professions, or areas, which (using a more modern vocabulary) had a scrutiny function. This is a good medieval approach to governance, conceptually based upon an ordered, hierarchical society.

The modern university governing body derives from this: lay members, without a vested interest in the university, comprise the majority. This gives a check on the actions of the university, in theory.

And now let’s revisit the BBC story that I started with: the criticism of the Bank of England’s governors. The criticism of the governors is that they did not challenge the executive sufficiently (especially when the executive presented a united front); that they did not understand the system in which the Bank of England played a part; and they did not demonstrate independent thinking.

The Higher Education Code of Governance seeks to help avoid this kind of problem, but there’s still important work to be done. The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education does important work in providing resources and training for governors; and the CUC itself provides a forum for chairs of governors to learn from one another. This should help to ensure that governors can be sufficiently knowledgeable (but note also that Roger Brown, writing in Perspectives, argued that all university governing bodies should include a former Vice-Chancellor.)

And challenge? In my experience a united front by a senior management team has a powerful effect on a governing body. This is to be expected: executive teams do have a lot of expertise, experience and competence. Challenge is therefore difficult. It may feel like the governors attempting to be executive (for example, replicating the discussions around a business case which have been gone through by the executive). It may involve the governors articulating more fundamental questions about strategy and vision which may be undermining, and certainly can be a distraction when a strategy has been set in place. Neither will feel comfortable for the executive, nor probably for the governors.

So universities are faced with a dilemma. The right degree of challenge requires a degree of distance between governors and executive, to help overcome normal inhibitions about undermining your own team; and yet closeness is needed to help understand the sector and the organisation.

There’s no simple answer to this, but there’s a simple question: Who’d be a governor?

Room at the top?

The BBC reports today on NUS Scotland's call for more women on University governing bodies.  That's an important component of decision-making, but another angle is the make up of the executive team in a university.  I've been looking at the gender make-up of university executive teams - a day going through institutional websites.  I'll post more in due course (there's lots of data to look at) but here's a first finding:

For each UK institution, I identified the top team - usually identified as the group which meets weekly/fortnightly and advises the VC; or as the team within the Vice-Chancellor's office - and counted the number of men and women, including the VC/Principal.  I didn't differentiate between academic and professional service (eg Finance Director, Registrar) roles.

I couldn't identify the team for every institution.  There's 131 institutions represented in the data above; for the remaining 30 institutions I couldn't identify the top team from the university website.  The mean proportion of women on executive teams is just short of 1/3; there's not much difference between this and the national averages for English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish universities.

The data doesn't show equality - if there was no gender bias there'd be a normal distribution curve.  But equally it doesn't say anything about any given university, or the intentions of Vice-Chancellors.

Eight things that a new line manager should know

A couple of interactions today – an email from a former colleague, and a conversation with a fellow consultant – got me thinking about line management, and what advice I’d give my younger self.

Line management can feel overwhelming, particularly if it’s the first time you’ve taken on that role. It’s also a very important job – we spend so much of our time at work, and often invest in our work so much of our persona and values, that the quality of our management can have a dramatic impact upon our well-being. So, no pressure then.

Here’s eight things I’ve learned which might help.

Be yourself. One of the hardest things to do when managing someone is to get really good and clear communication with the person you are managing. One important thing you can do is remove the layers of artifice that a stilted relationship can bring. You don’t have to be mates with the people you’re managing (and a bit of distance is not a bad idea) but equally you don’t have to be a robot. If you can be authentic in your relationship with your team, there’s a better chance that they’ll hear you, and trust you enough to tell you things. Authenticity doesn’t have to mean baring your soul to the world, but it does mean remembering that you’re a person as well as a role holder.

Set direction. If you don’t get the job done there’s no point in the whole thing. So be clear in your own mind what it is that you’re trying to do, and then make sure that your team know too. And use this as a fixed point to steer by: how are you doing, has the need changed; is there a better way you could do it. But always know what it is you need to achieve. Remember also, if someone hasn’t heard what you’re trying to say, the best thing is not to blame them for not listening, but see if you can explain it some other how.

Remove obstacles. Your team are doing the work, you’re managing them. That means delegate, let them do the work, and focus on removing the barriers that can get in the way. That might mean helping your team develop skills; that might mean holding a mirror up to your team (I probably mean that figuratively); that might mean making sure that they have the tools to do the job; that might mean a pep talk so that they don’t make an impassable mountain in their minds. But look at yourself as the coach, the sweeper, the resource finder and the problem solver, and they’ll be free to do a great job. Which people mostly do want to do.

Listen. Carefully. It’s easy to get wrapped up in your own view of the world and not see other ways of looking at things, and your team can be a great help to you. But you have to have ears to hear, and the listening skills to hear what isn’t being said, or is being said elliptically, as well as what is being said. My experience was that as I got more senior in my career, two things happened. Firstly, my jokes seemed to get funnier, and I’m pretty sure that wasn’t true. And secondly, very few people just chatted with me. And it’s in these conversations that you can find out a lot of useful things. I don’t mean that you should be an eavesdropper: no one will trust you then, which is pretty much fatal to a managerial relationship. But equally don’t think that your words are the only important ones to hear.

Good enough is good enough. This is a tough one. We all want to do things really well, and we all will have personal and professional standards about what we want our work to look like. But if you stop when something is good enough – when it meets the need, when it ticks the boxes – then you’ve got more time to do other things. The quest for perfection will bring you long hours in the office, and you’ll get less done than others. Is this what you set out to do?

Tell the truth. Always. If people know that you’ll be straightforward with them, they’ll by and large do the same for you. And that is a huge blessing. It doesn’t mean be cruel (you should never do this), or be too blunt, or lack tact, but it does mean make sure that what you mean is what you say, and that you say it clearly. It doesn’t always make for comfortable conversations, but it does build respect and trust.

Say 'thank you'. When someone has done a job for you, thank them. When you see something being done well, say so. When someone has gone the extra mile, tell them, thank them, and try and do so in front of their manager. People are predisposed to hear bad things and to be aware of problems - I suspect it's part of our basic survival instincts - which means that you have to say a lot of thank-yous for them to be noticed. But they are one of the most powerful tools that you have, and can help a team achieve the impossible. Don't save 'Thank you' for someone's retirement speech.

You will make mistakes. You will get things wrong. You will feel like you don’t know the first things about people or your job, and that there’s no hope for you as a manager. Don’t worry – everybody does this (and if they say otherwise they are lying, to you and possibly to themselves.) And when you make a mistake, fess up. Say sorry if you’ve wronged someone. Tell your manager, and say what you’re going to do to put it right (managers love it when their team do this bit). Ask for help. But stop beating yourself up about it. There’s plenty who’ll be happy to beat you up, and there’s no need to help them.

This isn’t all the things that you need to know and do – but when I reflect on my experiences, and when I’ve talked to others, these ideas always come up. And remember where we started: you’re doing an important job; it’s hard; but it’s definitely worth the effort.