In Bitesize 20 we looked briefly at the subject of leadership and how to make sense of it by putting it into a practical context. I would like to take this idea to another level by asking whether the people who lead organisations have any great understanding about some of the major issues they face?
Do they really understand what effective leadership means? Do they really understand the thinking behind some of the latest management ideas such as balanced scorecards, human capital management or organisational learning?
For example, if you asked your chief executive whether he or she subscribed to a philosophy of continuous improvement I wonder what the answer would be?
Would they be prepared to admit their ignorance or, worse still, suggest that they were quite happy with things as they are? Maybe they would answer glibly and suggest that of course they are always looking for improvement. But that is not the same as having a complete management philosophy based on the concept of continuous improvement.
For those of you who now regard yourselves as business partners try out this exercise.
Choose any management subject that is particularly relevant to your organisation such as customer relationship management, lean manufacturing, joined up thinking, or whatever. Then ask half a dozen senior managers for their views on the subject. Gauge their answers against the criteria shown below as the Seven Levels of Understanding.
For example, continuous improvement:
Level 1 - Intuitive Do they intuitively feel that continuous improvement is important even if they do not know much about the subject?
Level 2 - Knowledge What knowledge do they have? Have they ever heard the Japanese word kaizen and do they know what it means?
Level 3 - Principles - basic Do they understand that there are some fundamental principles involved, such as the need for an iterative cycle? For example The PCDA (Plan, Do. Check, Act) cycle.
Level 4 - Application (simple) Would they know how to apply PDCA at its simplest level?
Level 5 - Principles (advanced) What about their understanding of some of the more advanced principles, such as the need for cross functional cooperation and systems thinking?
Level 6 - Adaptive Would they be able to apply these more advanced principles by inviting members of other teams to join them to improve performance across the organisation?
Level 7 - Innovative If they understand the subject in this much depth do they have any new ways of looking at the subject or bringing innovations to the organisation? How about resurrecting a new and fresh ideas scheme that is an improvement on old-fashioned suggestion schemes?
Business partners who can work at the highest level really open management eyes and distinguish between commitment and lip service.
Alan Mitchell , 19 October 2004 @ 12:02 PM Fragmentation of learning
Paul As with so much in the world of training I am concerned that the debate is directed to adding to the trainees' existing skills and knowledge. I fear that the seven levels of understanding start at a level well beyond the real understanding of the students. Where would all of these students learn the fundamentals on which to profitably add to their abilities? In my experience with beginners to the CEOs the biggest weakness in training lies in its fragmentation and multitude of sources access to whom varies dramatically from one person experience to another. The effect of this is that people have developed the ability to see individual bricks rather than the Wall which is the business as a whole. General Management most definitely is about Walls. I have spent all of my business life looking at this problem and have developed a library of descriptions, explanations and advice on which I would be happy to pull back the curtain for a short time to simply make my point. Sorry if this may appear to advertising as it is not meant to be. Alan Alan Mitchell
Steve Ripley , 19 October 2004 @ 10:37 AM Important message for consultants
Paul's '7 Levels of Understanding' not only helps to identify senior managers' understanding of leadership issues but it also poses some serious questions for consultants. In my 25 years of leadership training experience I have witnessed an alarming number of consultants who haven't always been as thorough in taking leaders through this sort of checklist as they could have been. And I include myself in this! It is easy to focus on particular elements (e.g. Balanced Scorecard) without developing the wider understanding of the context which the rest of Paul's 7 Levels provides. Perhaps our own 'joined-up thinking' isn't as joined-up as we like to imagine! Steve Ripley
