Negotiation; establishing trust; getting off to a good start - three crucial skills for any leader.
Click here to read the original blog in full on the Management Today website - Psychology at Work Blog, a blog page about the psychology of business, management and leadership written by Pearn Kandola.
The candidates themselves referred to the leadership debate as like going for an interview so it seems appropriate to see how Brown, Cameron and Clegg would have done had this been a real selection process for Britain's next boss.
To evaluate the candidates I used our (Pearn Kandola's) Leadership Radar process which breaks leadership down into three broad areas: Thought Leadership (e.g. ideas, vision), Task Leadership (e.g. setting objectives, delivery) and People Leadership (e.g. motivating others, empathy).
The clear winner overall and in all three categories was the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. He scored highest in the People category. He connected with the people at many different levels: to the individual questioners, to the studio audience, to his fellow debaters and to the nation watching on TV. He clearly enjoys being in the spotlight and at the centre of attention but there are downsides to this which we need to keep an eye on over the next few weeks. Thought leadership was strong too: on virtually all of the questions he came at the issue from a different angle, displaying originality, freshness and openness to new ideas. His ideas were presented strongly and clearly. His weakest area was Task leadership which was to be expected I suppose given his lack of leadership experience but by focusing on his achievements as a constituency MP in Sheffield he was able to give examples of things that he had seen working and would like to see applied elsewhere.
Brown and Cameron were left in Clegg's wake by this analysis. Brown's vision of Britain was clear but ultimately was one based on negatives: we should fear anyone who suggests cutting public finances; under-performing schools and police forces will be taken over. You don't inspire by generating negative emotions in your followers. Cameron's vision on the other hand was very narrow and vague which he emphasised further by frequently repeating his concerns over the increase in National Insurance.
On the Task front the Prime Minister naturally has the advantage in that he has achievements he can refer to. For Cameron this was his weakest area: he listed few achievements and was not even clear about the specifics of what he would do if he were our next leader. Whilst it wasn't his poorest area, People leadership would have to be Cameron's most disappointing one. He is, by my analysis, someone who is good with other people: empowering, engaging and empathetic. These qualities came through too rarely in the debate. He appeared to be too scripted and too disengaged from the dynamics of the debate itself. His unwillingness to look at the other contestants directly made him appear arrogant if not a little shifty. His refusal to answer the questions about cuts which Brown posed to him on several occasions is the one guaranteed way of appearing untrustworthy- an issue ironically which he chose for his opening address.
Brown on the other hand came across reasonably well even if it did seem at times as if was working a process (Step 1.Look at the questioner; Step 2. Remember their name; Step 3. Smile).
Leaders have to display many qualities, but the great ones are able to combine all three of Thought, Task and People leadership. On this basis therefore you'd have to say that in the first part of this selection process it has been a great start for Clegg, an OK one for Brown and a poor one for Cameron.
Click here to read the original blog in full on the Management Today website - Psychology at Work Blog, a blog page about the psychology of business, management and leadership written by Pearn Kandola.
The most remarkable lines in Barak Obama's inauguration speech were those addressed to Islamic nations: 'We seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect' and, he went on, 'we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.'
The words were conciliatory, the imagery powerful and the approach a complete contrast to his predecessor.
Last year during the election campaign my colleague Polly Howard De La Mare and I carried out a psychological analysis of the then presidential candidate and those few lines demonstrated many of his strengths: clear vision, the ability to see the others' perspective and values driven. These are qualities that he shares with his role model, Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest American president. Some may think that by asking us to compare him with the Civil War leader is hugely arrogant. However it also shows a real sense of how he wants his presidency to be conducted and possibly how he wants to be remembered. It gives him a standard to measure himself against and, being self critical, clarity about where he needs to improve.
Our analysis also showed that under pressure he can be judgmental, slow to make decisions and has a tendency to withdraw. There have been times, particularly in the first few months, where these traits have been revealed and he could learn much from Lincoln in this regard who showed a remarkably openness of sprit when confronted with criticism.
Lincoln famously worked to create a cabinet which contained many principle rivals. An analysis we carried out of Obama's Cabinet and his closest advisors shows that whilst they may differ in their political views, their personality profiles are very similar. They appear to be calm, rational, even tempered. The most notable exceptions to this are Rahm Emmuanuel, the White House Chief of Staff and Joe Biden, the Vice President. Both men operate at a more emotional level than the others and as a result could provide the degree of tension and constructive conflict that is necessary, although at the time it may appear extremely unhelpful, for any time to become truly high performing. The big question remains over this team and consequently for the President himself, can they deliver what they have promised?
Sir Thomas Legge's decision to apply new rules about politicians’ expenses retrospectively has achieved something that I didn't believe possible: it’s made me feel sorry for MP's.
Justice is something we seek, strive for and want to see applied. Organisational justice has a number of dimensions which include the fairness of procedures, the distribution of rewards and the extent to which people are valued and respected.
The consequences of not applying any or all of these types of justice includes: increased absence; dissatisfaction; reduced co-operation, all of which reduce peoples’ engagement. Our MPs, feeling beleaguered in any case, have now been treated with a lack of all of the types of justice listed above and they will understandably be feeling frustrated and angry.
They have also been let down by their leaders who are more concerned about appeasing a hostile public than in ensuring fairness for their members, all of which smacks of expedient and poor leadership.
The politicians’ sensitivity will be exacerbated when they look at the huge bonuses being paid to staff in what are effectively state owned banks and the powerlessness of the government to prevent this happening.
We can all learn valuable lessons from this sorry episode. It may be rarely discussed in business but make no mistake, the negative reactions that occur when justice is not delivered are all very real.
Feed
The candidates themselves referred to the leadership debate as like going for an interview so it seems appropriate to see how Brown, Cameron and Clegg would have done had this been a real selection process for Britain's next boss.