Traditionally, leadership in an organisation has followed the industrial model of the machine with the operator in charge up on the control platform. It is concerned with control, decision making and delegation.

In our industrial view of an organisation as a mechanical thing, control is required to ensure that the machine operates as expected. Inputs are within the allowed range and all the parts of the machine are operating at the correct speed to ensure that the whole thing functions correctly. If a part is out of sync, an adjustment can be made to speed up or slow down that part to bring it back within operating parameters. This is traditional management - managing a system or process to ensure that it operates effectively. The systems no longer involve gears or clockwork but the job is the same - adjusting the machine to extract maximum performance while ensuring smooth running.

What holds organisations back from embracing their Evolutionary nature are the constraints we impose on them - constraints of process and culture that tell us we aren’t allowed to do that because either the process or the culture says that we can’t, or that others should be the ones to do it.

These constraints are imposed by us. We build the systems of hierarchy, governance, approvals and the like that prevent organisations from evolving. They do not emerge spontaneously from the organisation. We impose them on the organisation. In our quest to make the organisation behave like the perfect clockwork machine, we impose these constraints on it. In order to force it into the clockwork model, we prevent it from doing what it wants to do naturally - to change and evolve.

Last time we looked at the way we see organisations as mechanical, clockwork structures. The reality is that organisations have never been static, clockwork structures. They have always been dynamic systems, constantly changing and evolving to better meet market needs. What allowed a clockwork model to make sense for so long was that the pace of change was slow enough to keep the cost of change relatively low. Today, as we have seen, the pace of change is increasing. This is making the cost of change more and more significant. No organisation can afford to throw away millions or tens of millions of dollars in lost productivity every year or two in a major re-organisation.

If you ask someone to draw their concept of an organisation, they will often draw some kind of machine, with each team and individual playing the role of a tiny cog in a giant clockwork edifice. Each doing their allotted task to keep the whole machine running smoothly. This mechanical view of the organisation came to us from the factory owners who began the industrial revolution. As we mechanised our work, we also mechanised our view of the way work was done. Those early factory owners looked at the machines that were revolutionising work - the water and wind powered mills, and later the steam engines that powered their factories. They looked at their gears, belts, and pulleys, and saw in them a model for how the work itself could be structured. With themselves as the operator on the platform, working their various levers and valves to send signals to speed up or slow down this or that part of the great machine to keep things running smoothly. The workers - the many cogs and gears of the machine - meshing smoothly together to produce the end products.

Define the right combination of gears and the right systems and processes to manage them and the machine can run smoothly, ticking on forever, efficiently producing whatever it was designed to produce.

The Execution Trap is fairly easy to escape from, but it does require some intentional effort.

The key to escaping from the trap is to deliberately shift conversations or meetings about the detail of work towards a focus on improving the system the work takes place within, or a focus on whether the work is aligned to the organisation’s goals and strategies. We do this by asking the right questions. 

All leaders have three main areas of focus. Setting strategy and direction, leading efforts to improve the way the organisation operates, and dealing with the day to day operations in their area. Whether you are the CEO dealing with organisational strategy, transformation programs and strategic initiatives, or a team lead looking at your strategy for implementing the next project, improved processes and managing a backlog of user stories, all leaders have these three areas of concern.  

One of the most common problems I see facing leaders today is what I call the Execution Trap - leaders who are trapped in a system that diverts all their attention towards operational matters and leaves them no time or mental capacity to deal with their other areas of responsibility.

We all have a collection of things in our lives that we would like to change. When it comes to change, we often find that it's a lot harder than we expect it to be. Even small things turn out to be much more difficult that we think they should be. The problem comes down to control.

In order to change something to be exactly the way you want it, you need to control it. If you try to change something you have no control over, you will fail. A lot of coaches and consultants will get you to draw diagrams showing the things you control vs the things you don't. The message is that you can change the things you control and can only influence the things you don’t. If you want to change something the way to do that is to expand your sphere of control - try to gain control of the thing you want to change. Unfortunately, 99% of those diagrams are completely wrong. We generally have control over far less than we think we do.

Last time I talked about the 3 C's required for people to feel empowered - Clarity, Competence and Care. We need all 3 for people to feel empowered. They need the skills to do the job right (competence), they need the information to make the right decision (clarity) and they need to feel that the organisation and its leadership are asking them to step up and take responsibility because it's the right thing for them, not the thing that will make the most profit or allow more downsizing (care). It should make their jobs better and more fulfilling, it should help them grow and advance their careers. If all 3 C's are present, people will feel empowered.

So care is essential for empowerment, but that's not all. My view is that care is the single most important quality that sets great leaders apart from everyone else. These days, care is not something we talk about a lot in a business context. There might be an "Employee care" section of the HR website which lists the services you can call when the stress of your job gets too much, but there is very little actual care involved in modern business. You are more likely to hear words like "data driven" than "care driven". I mean, most organisations call people "resources" without even cringing a little (and treat them like resources as well). Actual, real care and compassion for people is missing in modern organisations and I strongly feel that it needs to be brought back. Not just because it's good for people, but because it's good for business as well.

Hi folks, first post back after the break. I hope you all had a great holiday season and that the new year is treating you kindly (at least kinder than last year). I thought today that I would go back to a topic that I have covered before, because I think I left something important out when I covered it the first time. I have written before about empowerment and what conditions need to exist before people will accept that empowerment (here) . Empowerment isn't something you can just give to someone and expect it to work, they need to accept the responsibility and authority that they are given. If they don't accept it, they will be empowered on paper but will still turn to the hierarchy to make decisions for them.

I said before that there are two key things that need to exist in order for people to accept empowerment - clarity and competence. Clarity is the organisational clarity around why the decision needs to be made and what the operational constraints and limits are on the options that can be considered. Competence is the skills and other knowledge that someone needs in order to operate in that space. Without those two, no matter how much you tell people they are empowered to act, they will not do it. Unless they feel competent and have the right clarity, empowerment will not happen. All that still holds from when I originally wrote it, but I left something out. There is a third C - Care.