Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "potential to set back race relations and black and ethnic minority communities by a generation." Specifically, she warned that a "last in, first out" approach to redundancies would hit black and female workers particularly hard, presumably given the nature of positive action in recent years. Aside from the "doom and gloom" feel to her statement, I broadly agree; accurate, objective and transparent assessment regardless of time in post is essential to ensuring fair and unbiased selection decisions.
The sad irony is that cutbacks are just as likely
to affect HR budgets as they will headcount and money available for objective assessment will be first to go.
So, where does this leave us?
Employee's perceptions of fairness at the current time will be particularly important. As companies look to reduce headcount, the process by which decisions are made over an individual's future with the organisation will have a significant impact on the subsequent performance of such individuals.
It is critical that organisations employ objective, valid, fair, inclusive and most importantly transparent selection procedures when looking at who is to stay and who, unfortunately, is to go.
Whether the approach is based on appraisal data, competency-based interviewing, assessment centres, or the like, organisations are morally obliged to ensure the process is objective, robust, based on justifiable criteria, inclusive of all groups, and above all cost effective.
Clearly, it is this last point that will resonate with most organisations feeling the pinch of recent governmental cuts. The knee-jerk reaction will be to cut all selection processes and go with a "last in, first out" approach. Unfortunately, by using such an approach, there is a significant risk of injecting bias associated with ill-defined criteria, inconsistent assessment processes and subjective interpretation of performance.
By extension, the apparent cost-saving of "streamlined" assessment is far outweighed by the longer term costs of unfair selection.
As my mum used to say, "do it right, or don't do it at all".
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.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has this week unveiled its new regime for governing what MPs can and cannot reasonably reclaim as expenses. Whilst in general the recommendations sound justified and sensible, it has left me a little confused over the decision to allow MPs to employ one family member as a way of achieving “value for money”.
This is not because I believe that there should be a blanket ban of employing spouses, more that the subject of the decision (and the subsequent debate) is irrelevant.
To ensure “value of money”, the onus is on the MP to recruit the right person for the job, regardless of who they are. Objective, fair and transparent selection has the greatest predictive validity and best return on investment. It is about ‘best fit’, not convenience or familial relationship.
Broadly, MPs should be considering the following:
Firstly, defining clear and justifiable criteria that have direct relevance to the requirements of the role.
Secondly, implementing an objective, transparent and robust assessment process to evaluate candidates’ skills and motivations against the criteria required.
In doing so, the chosen individual is far more likely to be committed and productive.
Whilst it is quite possible that the MP’s family member might very well be the best person for the job, stating that MPs can employ ‘Cousin Nick’ because he will deliver “value for money” is a fallacy. Personally, I’d rather they spend the money on duck-houses; it’s cheaper in the long run.
"In these tough times there is not much space for mister nice guy, mister cuddly cuddly kissy kissy..."
With his usual eloquence and poetic use of language, Sir Alan again revealed his contempt for the role of softer, people skills in the "cruel hard world of business" in last week's episode of The Apprentice. He went on to state that, especially during a recession, "being a nice fellow...may not be enough".
Granted, leaders during a time of recession do need a certain set of qualities that are perhaps less prevalent during more prosperous times. For example, the ability to envision a promising future and demonstrate the drive and resilience to forge a path through the crisis will be critical to survival. However, if that leader fails to inspire, motivate, empower and mobilise those around him/her then the whole exercise will prove fruitless.
Leaders must focus on more than just the task. Leaders have to focus on the people around them, on inclusivity and engagement, and on the vision of the future. Leaders have the opportunity to shape the activity of followers and, in essence, have a direct influence upon the quality of work life, the degree of well-being and the levels of engagement that their followers experience.
Organisational research going back over two decades makes it clear that the world of work, especially as it relates to leading and managing, clusters into three key areas of skill. Firstly, the task leader drives towards achievement of ambitious goals through a combination of determination, resilience and clarity of focus. They take ultimate responsibility for the quality and delivery of results. Secondly, the thought leader constantly looks to new opportunities and the future. They quickly evaluate complex and ambiguous situations and are ready to analyse and challenge tough decisions. The thought leader initiates changes and improvements, and is imaginative and open to taking entrepreneurial risk. Finally, the people leader inspires others towards achievement of ambitious goals through a combination of communication, influencing and engagement skills. They are openly passionate about what they aim to achieve, yet caring and considerate in the way that they approach others. They know that people are their most valuable resource and will do their utmost to secure and retain the commitment of their teams.
Sir Alan seems to have fallen into a common trap when selecting new leaders - he is recruiting others in his own image. It is clear that Sir Alan values and looks for high levels of entrepreneurial spirit, dogged levels of drive and determination and an almost pathological level of self confidence. All of which are traits common to the man himself. However, it is important not to underestimate the importance of people leadership, especially during a recession.
Without a healthy balance of all three types of leadership, then a leader, and by extension an organisation, is doomed to failure. In these current economic times, the ability to envision a new future and show the drive and persistence to get there is critical. However, it is also important to ensure you bring people along with you. During a recession, employees are far more likely to feel stressed, demotivated, directionless, fearful of the future and heavily focused on the woes of the present. Effective people leaders, or "mister cuddly cuddly kissy kissy" as Sir Alan might call him/her, are crucial for ensuring the business's most critical asset - its people - are inspired to succeed.
Given last week's comments about James said through gritted teeth ("nice guy"; "nice fellow"; "mister nice guy"), I suspect Sir Alan might again fall into the same trap and miss out on the truly inspiring and motivating leader. Time will tell.
My word, what a furore over John Sergeant resigning from Strictly. I couldn't believe how much press coverage that got, and how passionate people seemed to get about it. I think he was right to resign - he was an awful dancer!
Then I started to think about this from a psychology perspective and the parallels between what went on in a public TV programme and what occurs in organisations. As a psychologist I spend much of my time working with organisations to introduce accurate, fair and valid processes in terms of measuring people performance, so that personal preference, biases or likes and dislikes are removed. Here people are trained to provide accurate assessments of individual's performance. In Strictly, we have a group of expert judges who know and understand dancing. They consistently rated John as a poor dancer, and yet, the public voted for him to stay in. The public however exercised their personal preferences and biases because these were all they had to go by - the majority being incapable of assessing whether or not he was a good dancer. For John this probably created mixed feelings. He had repeatedly heard that he was no good, and yet the public voted to keep him in, until ultimately, he felt that he had to quit. Hopefully now the best person will win.
In business we can often observe similar situations. Individuals may progress in their career because they are popular and not because they are good. Some will eventually quit because they get the message, but many will not. If they are to remain successful, organisations need trained, expert assessors who can make a proper judgment of the people they are selecting or promoting and not gifted amateurs who provide a populist vote.
Feed
Earlier this week, Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott is quoted as saying public sector cuts have the "potential to set back race relations and black and ethnic minority communities by a generation." Specifically, she warned that a "last in, first out" approach to redundancies would hit black and female workers particularly hard, presumably given the nature of positive action in recent years. Aside from the "doom and gloom" feel to her statement, I broadly agree; accurate, objective and transparent assessment regardless of time in post is essential to ensuring fair and unbiased selection decisions.
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.