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.

I'm sure we have all been in this position - you are in a meeting where ideas are being shared. Someone puts forward an idea and someone raises an objection. The raiser of the idea reacts as if they have just been punched in the face - angry, defensive, aggressive. Or sullen, withdrawn, silent. Fight or flight. And all because someone raised an objection to their idea. People tend to hold their ideas very tightly. They identify with them. They are their idea. So an attack on their idea is very literally an attack on them.

Or what about this one - you were just in a meeting and someone says to you "that was a pretty bad idea they raised.. what a fool they must be". In this case we are associating the idea with the character of the person who raised it. The idea was bad so therefore, by extension, they must be bad. We see both of these situations all the time. Both associating strongly with your own ideas, and conflating the quality of an idea with the attributes or character of the person who raised it, are things most of us do all the time, and they are both extremely unhelpful.

Last time we asked the question - "What makes a great leader?" and in order to answer that, we had to look at what it is that a leader actually does. What really is leadership? It turns out that the function of a leader is to allow large groups to work in a coordinated and purposeful way. Then we started to look at what sort of skills leaders are encouraged to develop and which of those skills really make the difference between a leader and a great leader.

The skills that really make a difference are not the ones that many people assume are the important ones. Technical skill in whatever it is you are doing is fairly unimportant. How driven you are personally is not that important. The reason for this is that those skills are ones that don't scale. Being technically good as the leader doesn't make the group any better once you hit the capacity of that one leader to dispense technical advice. Being driven to succeed as a leader doesn't make the group driven to succeed. Those things are individual things. They have a scale of one. What matters when leading groups are skills that scale across the whole group - things that lift the whole group up, not just the leader.

What is leadership and why do we need it? If you do a search for leadership books on Amazon you get back thousands of titles, all with a different take on what makes a great leader. Some emphasise technical skills. Some emphasise people skills, others emphasise whatever magic formula the author believes holds the secret. You could read leadership books for the rest of your life and and up more confused than you were when you started.

So what is the secret? What does make a great leader. Why do we need leaders anyway? The only way we will answer the question of what makes a great leader is to work out what leaders really do.

As a brewer, when you hook up a keg of beer to the gas and hook up the tap, one of the things you learn quite quickly (unless you really like drinking nothing but foam) is that the pressure of the gas pushing the liquid through the tube creates a resistance in that tube that poses the flow. The more pressure, the more resistance. Eventually the resistance becomes too much, creates turbulence and the tap will pour gas and foam rather than lovely beer. Electrical engineers recognise this phenomenon as well - the more current you push through a wire (the pressure of the electrons), the more the wire will resist their flow and cause energy to be lost as heat. Eventually the wire will get so hot that it will melt.

This is a well known phenomenon of many of the physical sciences. Whenever you push one thing into or through another thing, there is resistance and that resistance is proportional to the pressure doing the pushing - small pressure, small resistance. Large pressure, large resistance. Importantly, that resistance can build to a point where it will cause damage to the materials involved. Push too hard and the wire will melt or the pipe will burst. Pushing harder may actually get you less flow because the resistance is greater. So why am I telling you this? Because it applies to coaching as well, but unlike the physical sciences we often don't recognise it.

A long time ago (although not in a galaxy far, far away), a rather clever fellow by the name of Buddha pre-empted the discovery of neuroplasticity by a thousand or so years when he said something along the lines of

"We are what we have practised. What we practice today is what we will become".

I say along the lines of because there are dozens of different translations but the message is basically the same. That the things we practice become stronger.

If I were a neuroscientist I could say it like this -

"If it fires together, it wires together".

Neurons that fire together build stronger connections so that sequence of firing becomes easier in future. As we practice something, the neurons fire together, wire together, build strong connections and whatever it is we are practising becomes easier and easier. We are used to this when learning skills - as we practice we get better. At first we have to think about what we are doing and it is slow and clumsy but eventually our bodies take over and things become smoother and more skilful. The sport you are practising becomes easier. The language you are learning becomes easier.

What is the purpose of a company? Any company? Why do they exist? Why do they do the things they do, employ the people they employ, produce the products and services that they produce? Ask that question and most of the time you will get one answer - to make money. While that answer isn't wrong, it's also incomplete.

Legally, the directors of a company are required to maximise returns to shareholders. There are other legal requirements to make sure that a company is solvent, able to pays its bills and so on. So yes, making money is a important part of what a company does. But that's not its purpose - its reason for existing. Nothing exists just to produce money (except maybe for a mint but that's different). To be truly successful a company must fulfil some sort of other purpose - it must produce goods and services that people want to buy, and it must produce them in a way that is acceptable to the society in which they sell them. So really, an organisation's purpose is "Do XYZ, in order to be profitable". Not just "Be profitable".