http://www.apterinternational.com All the latest from Apter International en-us Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:53:41 -0700 Leadership is often thought of in terms of the leader themselves; are they charismatic, are they decisive, how intelligent are they etc. But is that the right starting point for understanding leadership and how we develop it?


How about we turn it all on it’s head. If leadership is about generating high performance in others, shouldn’t we look at leaders in terms of the impact they have those they lead?


There is lots of evidence now that the biggest lever on performance in an organisation is the climate – and that leaders have the biggest impact on this. So, within a leader’s sphere of influence, the sort of ‘micro-climate’ they create is perhaps a key issue to understand. How does their behaviour reward and encourage the behaviour in others, and are they getting the behaviours they want from their followers?


To really harness the ‘micro-climate’ a leader first needs to understand the motivational realities of what make each of us tick. And it’s not easy. People are human after all and they are changeable and inconsistent – a moving target really.


The most successful leaders vary their focus, behaviour and style to meet the demands of the organisation alongside the motivational demands of their followers. They are able to give people the opportunities to meet their motivational needs in a positive way that benefits both themselves and the organisation. That is what creating a successful performance climate is all about. Leaders need to ensure that opportunities exist for their followers to:


Know the longer term direction and have clear goals
Be enthusiastic about the job and be interested in it
Know the rules and what is expected of them
Question the status quo, be critical, make suggestions
Take responsibly and be accountable for what they do
Co-operate and help others
Feel safe and values as an individual
Enjoy a ‘team spirit’


It’s a tall order, but one worth striving for.


The Apter Leadership Profiling System measures the micro climate that leaders create by asking the leader about the climate they are trying to create and by asking their followers about the climate they experience. Only once you have measured these eight ‘climate conditions’ can you start to prioritise what is most important given the particular challenge the leader faces. Then you can work with the leader to help them ease off on some ‘conditions’ they may be over playing (eg, over focus on goals whilst trying to enhance the creativity in the team) and start to develop the leader towards filling the gaps where they are underplaying a condition.


Visit our leadership and management development pages.


 

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/72 Marie Shelton Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:07:12 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/72  


Employee Engagement is widely acknowledge as being more than a passing fad, and something that has real impact on the performance of your organisation.


But what is it? There is no definitive definition, but according to the CIPD engagement “involves feeling positive about your job, as well as being prepared to go the extra mile to make sure you do your job to the best of your ability.”


The Institute of Employment Studies, meanwhile, describes it as “a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organisation and its values. An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organisation.”


So there is an emotional or motivational element to it, which goes beyond feeling good about work, but is aligned to the goals of the organisation. It also suggests that there is a related, behavioural component, but I would suggest that these are a product of engagement rather than a component of it.


Whether you agree with this or not, engagement is clearly a multidimensional experience. The problem is engagement surveys tend to be pretty one-dimensional. They are all about the employee and their opinion. These surveys ask things like “does your organisation make you feel…..?” or “Do you intend to be here in x years time”.


The issue that we have with these surveys isn’t a technical one, however: They just don’t tell you that much, and they certainly don’t give you a lot to work with (and not doing anything with your data can be a source of disengagement in itself). We know that because we’ve been asked to come in and dig deeper to make sense of engagement scores.


Let’s see if we can be a bit more precise about engagement.


Feeling good about work is important, but in itself not that useful without knowing what an employee really cares about. They could be satisfied because they have very low expectations! That’s why we ask employees what they feel is important and whether they get enough of these things at work.


But that’s not enough either. We need to know if employees care about the same things as their employer (and vice versa).


What if you and the organisation believe in the same things, but these are some how not being put into practice. Does your employer deliver on its values? Surely that will affect ‘engagement’?


While we are at it, what if employees and management agree have totally different ideas on what the employees actually experience? For example, in one businesses, the most important thing to employees was that they worked with their friends. Managers didn’t see it, and were about to embark on change that would split social groups and take away just about the only source of employee satisfaction!


Does your employee engagement survey tell you these things?


Many survey providers claim to have figure out the smallest number of questions that best predict business performance, but they kind of assume that all businesses are alike and engagement can be reduced to a “best” set of questions.


Others simply have no guiding framework. This means that most employee engagement surveys fail to measure a number of potentially important motivators that can have real impact on your business and provide satisfaction to employees. For example:


Fun and enjoyment is important to creativity and productivity.
Consideration for others is the bedrock of customer service.
The freedom to challenge and suggest new ideas is the source of innovation.


We can be confident that our employee survey, the Apter Work Impact System (AWIS) is motivationally comprehensive, because it is based on a theory of motivation that has been developed over 30 years of research and application across many domains of life including business, sport, education, clinical psychology and counselling, and health.


By measuring how employees feel, in relation to what they care about, in the context of the organisation’s goals, across the eight values of Reversal Theory, the AWIS provides a powerful insight into the motivational landscape of your organisation.


That inevitably creates a great deal of output, but the AWIS does not simply spit out a report for you to make sense of. At Apter International we have many years of Organisational Development experience and we use that to highlight what’s really important for your business and, importantly, what you can do about it.


 View our Employee Research pages.


 

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/74 Rob Robson Sat, 04 Aug 2007 08:54:35 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/74 I am fascinated with what I have called “The Audacity Gap’ – the space that lies between what an organisation wants to do and what it feels able to do. (See “The Road to Audacity”). This gap is often unexplored and little discussed. But it’s there! The gap often exists because of things such as a lack of confidence, self-belief, faith in others, and unreasonable need for predictability or certainty. An important leadership task is to acknowledge this gap, surface it and begin to explore the most effective way of establishing a strong response. I saw this poem by David Whyte – I think it nails the idea perfectly.


Start close in,
don’t take the second step
or the third,
start with the first thing
close in
the step you don’t want to take.

David Whyte

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/177 Marie Shelton Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:26:51 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/177 Undoubtedly the focus on individual excellence is an important lever of organisational performance yet is the current obsession with the attraction and retention of key staff just a remnant of the great leader warrior obsession that has dominated the corporate culture and business bookshelves of the last decade or more? In contrast to the mythological status of extraordinary individual heroes and their transformational powers, many great organisations that have grown rapidly over the last twenty years can attribute their success as much to the close and effective relationships between a group managers and the good sense of the CEO to recognise and nurture this. This is surely a form of social capital - what could be termed ‘leadership capital.’ Social Capital is increasingly recognised, including by the World Bank, as an important asset. Social Capital sees economic performance and value creation as the function of quality of a set of relationships rather than the attributes of particular individual.


It’s like Greece winning the European football cup- many nations had on paper players with greater individual talent yet they failed and some failed spectacularly. Or alternatively the continuing failure of the Washington Redskins!


What’s this to do with talent management? There are several issues here not the least of which is how you define ‘talent’ in times of high volatility. But perhaps the core problem is the impact defining and rewarding people on the basis of individual achievement. So much work in the global market place depends upon responding to emerging opportunities and threats in ways that have little regard for formal roles and performance targets. Instead what is required is: trust, mutual understanding and a willingness on occasion to put others before yourself. Could formal talent processes and frameworks actually undermine this making an organisation increasingly rigid and unable to respond?


I am at present writing a series of articles on this subject and would be very interested in hearing your comments and views.

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/81 Steve Carter Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:31:41 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/81 If you are considering
implementing any large-scale programme of investment – for example major
business change – ask yourself the following:


Would you build a house
without surveying the land?

Would you drill for oil
without knowing what lies below the ground?

 


Why, then, do people embark on massive programmes of investment and
change without knowing what impact it is likely to have on its people, and what
motivational and emotional drivers or barriers are likely to affect it?


That’s what happens, though. The vision is developed, the business
agreed, so on goes planning and implementation. Sometimes “readiness for change
is assessed”, but that tends to be based not on the reality of today – but the
experiences of the past. That’s better than nothing, but can lead to some
pretty inaccurate assumptions being made.


If you built your house without surveying the land, you couldn’t really
complain if your house started to collapse due to subsidence. If you started
drilling without a geological survey, you couldn’t complain if you didn’t
strike oil.


Why not survey the
motivational landscape of your organisation before you embark on a major
programme? You’ll reduce the risk of waste and failure, by identifying
potential sources of conflict and barriers to change, and weaknesses in your
capability to deliver; as well as strengths and potential drivers of success
that you can build your communication and engagement strategies around.


 

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/84 Rob Robson Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:58:19 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/84  

Change is now pretty much inevitable in work, whether that means responding to market volatility or implementing major change programmes.But businesses still struggle to manage change, and despite the all of the 'knowledge' that we not have about it - the methodologies, the models, the experiences - it still usually boils down to people.

But! Have you ever stopped to think that the same people that seem to resist (let's call it the "R" word) change at work might outside it be going through some incredible transformations of their own? People are incredibly adaptable and will even seek out change because they enjoy it - just try and get a picture of how many 'personal projects' your employees have on the go at any point in time.

So why does business change so often fail to deliver its intended benefits?

Many businesses start badly by trying to implement change in a culture that has been built around meeting objectives, following processes and generally trying to make life more predictable and less risky.

You can create conditions in which people are more likely to be open to change. It's just that most businesses choose not to, or don't realise.

Then, those senior managers that actually use some kind of methodology will probably create a "vision" but it will probably just talk their own language, about creating shareholder value and other meaninglessly rational business benefits. Meanwhile, employees are probably asking themselves, "will I still be able to work with my friends?", "will I lose that tiny bit of control that I currently have over my work?", or "just tell me what you expect from me".

Do you really understand your employees? Do you know what will turn them on or off? Do you try to communicate with them or just talk at them?

They may then pluck some unwitting "volunteers" from the business to be "change agents". These change agents are told that they should "champion" the change and tell everyone how great it is. Not that they really understand it, nor realise why they were nominated by their bosses.

Anyone and everyone can be a change agent. It is better to empower people to "champion" the change through their own volition than it is to have ineffective change agents that have been "selected" by the business.

Then comes the training. Many thousands of pounds are spent giving people the skills they need for their new role/to use the new system/to operate in the new organisation and no-one can figure why the learning is not applied.

Training an engaged workforce that is hungry to learn the skills they need is easy. Training a workforce that doesn't really get why they are there, or doesn't want to be there, is likely to be a massive waste of money.

Don't waste time pushing change from the top, using rational, process-driven methodologies and talking in rational 'business speak' at employees that you simply haven't taken the time to understand.

Understand your employees and what they really care about, and you'll find it all an awful lot easier. In fact, you might even stop using the "R" word....


Find out how by visiting our Employee Research pages, viewing our Case Studies or by calling +44 (0)1509 228896 for a no-strings conversation. 


 

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/100 Rob Robson Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:42:16 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/100 We are delighted to announce that, based upon qualitative research by Apter Development, The Orders of St John Care Trust has WON 1st Prize in the Personnel Today 'Hornet's Nest' competition, recognising their innovation and progressive thinking in HR.

The OSJCT developed a revolutionary recruitment process using insights gained by Apter Development's work. They produced a Realistic Job Preview (RJP), which they further developed into a DVD starring some of their team. This DVD is distributed to potential employees prior to interview so that they have a clear understanding of the role and expectations. Already OSJCT is seeing improvements within recruitment this year, which they predict will continue to rise.

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/107 Claire Winstanley Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:31:30 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/107 As you might remember last year we split Apter International into three separate legal entities; Apter International Ltd, Apter Development LLP and Apter Research Inc.

This was to enable us to bring greater focus and value to the growing worldwide community of Qualified Practitioners.  Claire Winstanley is now the Global QP Network Co-ordinator.


We see this as an exciting new phase in the development of the business and you will see lots of new things over the coming weeks and months.

Rest assured, the familiar faces of Steve Carter, Marie Shelton, Gareth Lewis, Mitzi Desselles and Mike Apter remain very much involved and keen to stay so.


Do keep in touch and let any of the team know how we can help you
in developing others.

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/108 Claire Winstanley Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:48:28 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/108
Mike Apter proposed a variant of this which he calls ‘Chronotyping’ – making a judgement about an individual based upon one instance or one particular circumstance and therefore not recognising that in different circumstances the evidence for the existence or particular strength or quality might be very different.

The problem for leaders who think like this is that these decisions trust / don’t trust; rate / don’t rate; become self-fulfilling in the sense that we become biased to see people in particular ways, like poor scientists seeking evidence that confirms rather disconfirms our theory.

Perhaps as New Years resolution it might be useful to introduce some ‘benefit of the doubt’ for those we count on but don’t trust, and look for evidence that qualifies our judgement?




]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/173 Marie Shelton Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:17:31 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/173 Apter Development launch thier new unique blend of in-depth personal transition coaching and participation in an expedition.


To find out more click here. 


 

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/143 Claire Winstanley Thu, 08 Jan 2009 08:05:33 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/143 Steve Carter has just completed his new Article: Maintaining Performance in Tough Times which has been a huge success, being passed around the internet!

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/131 Suzanne Yeomans Thu, 18 Dec 2008 07:25:00 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/131 With job cuts and redundancies a major consequence of the global recession, many professionals are at a crossroads in their lives.
But a trip to the desert could be the answer, according to a team of adventurers, psychologists and development specialists, who are on hand to help.

A new project – the Beyond Boundaries Expedition – aims to provide the stimulus and support to help people reinvigorate, rediscover and ‘recalibrate’ themselves, in the vastness of the Sahara.

The project is aimed at senior organisational leaders needing to prepare for a significant new role, re-invigorate themselves within a tough and demanding assignment, or develop plans for a new life phase perhaps post-corporate.


“Places like the Sahara, or the mountains of North Africa are natural sources of inspiration – you can’t help but look at things afresh,” according to project leader Steve Carter.

The ideas were first developed by two leadership consultants, Steve Carter and Marie Shelton, and award winning writer and adventurer Robert Twigger, while sat around a campfire in the Sahara desert.


They had been working with senior managers of a large global organisation on personal and leadership development. They discovered that the experience of being in the desert brought a new quality and edge to the thinking and resolve of those on the trip. Individuals grew more aware of who they were and what they wanted, and were able to make quite radical decisions about how they would approach work and life in the future.


The Beyond Boundaries Expedition is an intensive coaching/transition experience where professionals can experience this exploration adventure. Participants are assigned a personal coach who will work with them before, during and after the expedition which would normally last about one week.


According to Steve Carter, Beyond Boundaries is aimed not at the super fit outdoor extremist, but for the individual who might not quite believe they are capable of doing something like this.


“It’s mental toughness you need for this and a spirit of discovery including self-discovery.”  He added.


“It actually works really well, people will get the highest quality executive / personal coaching, probably more attention than they would with a typical coaching contract, and the most fantastic opportunity to explore what they want and who they might become.”


Participants will benefit from the ability to engage in intensive dialogue, on demand, with a personal coach whilst getting the opportunity and time for reflection and help improve decision making.


At least three expeditions are planned this year, the first departing at the end of February.

For more information:
The Beyond Boundaries Expedition

E mail: scarter@apterinternational.com
            acarr@apterinternational.com
+44 (0)1509 228896 
Release 12 January 2008

Apter Development LLP is an international performance development and consultancy based in Loughborough, England. The insights and discoveries that underpin much of their work have been used with leaders in global organisations as well as in sports, exploration and personal change.

CVs

Robert Twigger   


 


 





Robert
Twigger is a writer and explorer who has caught the world's longest
snake (which was filmed for Channel 4 and National Geographic),
searched for Lost Oases in the Sahara desert, tracked ancient menhirs
in Borneo and was the leader of the first team to cross Canada in a
traditional birch canoe since 1793.  Robert has been described as the
‘last of the great Victorian adventurers’ by the writer and critic Tony
Parsons.  He is a firm believer that the days of expeditions are far
from over.   




 


Steve Carter


 





Writer,
Entrepreneur and Psychologist Steve Carter is consultant to the senior
leaders of several global organisations.  With his book, The Road to
Audacity, he began a ‘search for adventure’ in the board room and
beyond. He passionately believes that life can be and should be about
excitement, possibility and change.     



]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/146 Suzanne Yeomans Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:43:19 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/146 Steve Carter and Marie Shelton's new article "Be Inconsistent - it is what makes us happy and successful!"outlines Reversal Theories "Eight Motivational States" and how, if you harness these, you can become a "wonderfully flexible, adaptable and capable of personal change".

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/159 Claire Winstanley Thu, 18 Jun 2009 06:37:59 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/159 The Performance Equation - What makes truly great, sustainable performance? This new article written by Steve Carter and Marie Shelton, looks at how the considerations that lie behind building great sporting performance contain lessons often overlooked in organisational and business life. All performance depends upon more than talent or capability

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/160 Claire Winstanley Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:48:29 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/160 As we emerge from the rubble of the credit crunch tsunami and look around in a bit of a daze wondering what to do next there is  an important question we leaders needs to consider: How do we  re-establish that key ingredient of performance: confidence?

Arising from some recent work I have started to notice two distinct sources of confidence. Confidence can be drawn from an appraisal or reappraisal of the environment or established in an individual, team or organisation through a sense of control /power or influence. And within both these sources there can be important differences.


With appraisal-based confidence people are trying to understand better the current situation. Or perhaps not! One version I have come across is undoubtedly ‘Ostrich’ confidence – people or organisations in a collective act of denial and showing an unwillingness to explore what is going on! A much more useful activity is to pursue a confidence based on insight - a deliberate positive search for the emergence of specific and perhaps novel sources of value in the future to which an organisation can tie future success. The world has undoubtedly changed and the fact of this will create new opportunities for the confident operator.


Leaders can also work to enhance confidence based upon factors they can more directly control. Firstly individuals and organisations can develop ‘dominance’. This is by building the leverage by which they can shape the future through greater levels of ‘owned’ capability, competence, influence, differentiation etc. Secondly, often associated with this, is the collaboration confidence that comes from feeling supported by others whether that be through strategic partnerships or personal relationships.


My thinking is that, putting ‘Ostrich’ confidence to one side, now is the time that leaders should be rigorously looking at these other sources of confidence and looking to build and enhance them all. Through this, as we emerge from the rubble, we can pursuit a better future with vigour and momentum.

A thought piece by Steve Carter September 2009

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/163 Claire Winstanley Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:33:05 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/163 Are senior managers still failing to really get close to their customers after at least two decades of being begged to do so?


I popped into one of those convenience stores operated by a major realer yesterday evening for a bottle of wine and a few groceries. As I approached the tills to pay my heart sank. ‘For my convenience’, they had installed self service tills in which you scan in your own goods and manage your own payment. Putting aside my prejudice that this can only be ‘for my convenience’, if there is a long queue at the tills managed by smiling and very efficient shop assistants and no queue at the self service option, I accepted the invitation from one of the staff to ‘do it myself’.


Scanning in the bottle of wine, the screen flashed ‘seek assistance” I waited with growing impatience for a member of staff to finish serving another customer. She walked over to help. Now unlike a large supermarket, staff in this store are positioned behind a counter access to the back of which is through two security doors. The only way the sales assistant, a person of some girth, could see the screen, which faced outwards, was to climb onto the counter and peer over the top.


“It’s asking me to check your ID to see if you are old enough”, she said, adding unflatteringly, “But I can see I don’t need to”.


She wiped a card over the scanner, the payment was accepted and she went back to serve another customer. I produced another bottle of wine from my basket, in the sure and certain knowledge of what would happen next.


“Seek assistance!”


Another shop assistant climbed on the counter, swaying dangerously back forward to repeat the operation.


“You’d better stay there”, I said, “I’ve got another bottle”


Same customer, same purchase occasion? I was glad I hadn’t been buying for a party.


I gathered up my purchases and fled, wondering how many times this story would repeat itself in the course of a single evening?


A trivial case but there are some leadership issues here, and the biggest one is “how?”. How did a mighty retailer end up with such a naff arrangement? What is the leadership story behind this? Who failed to understand the customer experience? I can’t believe that someone in the front line didn’t see immediately the problem. Who didn’t listen?


A thought piece by Stephen Carter September 2009

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/164 Claire Winstanley Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:58:12 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/164

Are you wasting time trying to resolve the irresolvable? One of the toughest things a leader has to develop is an awareness that he or she faces two general types of challenges. Firstly there are those that require taking tough timely decisions between a number of different alternatives, often when there is never enough information. But secondly, leaders need ALSO to recognise when the situation is not about choosing between this or that alternative but managing this and that. This is the challenge that can occur in which both sides of an argument can be right.


This second category of challenges is sometimes called managing polarities. Polarity Management was first defined nearly 20 years ago by Barry Johnson as the art of managing ‘mutually interdependent opposites’. Examples of this would include cost vs. quality, individual performance vs. team working; centralisation vs. localisation; even inhaling and exhaling! In each case, overall sustainable performance depends upon achieving success in conflicting activities. They are a critical feature of organisational and business life.


The first trick for leaders is to identify when they are dealing with a polarity. Indicators can include recognising that this particular situation is one in which a focus on one extreme will undermine the ‘greater good’ over time. It can also be spotted when different alternatives offer different sorts of benefit rather than different amounts of the same benefits. Finally a good indicator is that there is a natural oscillation between two positions over time and what seems to be required is a natural management of alternatives. The ebb and flow between stability and change would be a typical example of this.


The next step is to get all constituent parties within a particular challenge to recognise they are involved in polarity management and see the upsides and downsides of both alternatives – quite often one constituency will focus on the upsides of one polarity and only the downside of the other. Or to put it another way; all those involved need to recognise that their understanding of the challenge may be ‘right but not complete’.


With this common understanding, stakeholders will be much more able to develop the metrics and approaches that ensure that both sides of the polarity are managed effectively. Maybe it is a sign of the times; but in my recent work with senior teams, recognising and responding to polarities seems to be becoming more and more urgent.


This is a post by Steve Carter



]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/165 Claire Winstanley Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:48:14 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/165 I think an increasing art of leadership is defining the most effective sort of performance expectations in others. Probably the most empowering approach is when you can mutually agree some defined outcome and possibly some very broad parameters around how this should be achieved. This enables people to decide the best and most effective way of achieving this outcome based upon their more complete understanding of the situation and their capabilities.

The problem is the amount of influence an individual has over a particular outcome means what is planned and what is achieved can not be the same thing.  In fast moving times, ‘goal posts’ keep getting moved, teams keep changing and it is only reasonable to expect the unexpected.

In sport coaches have been dealing with this challenge for some time. Train as hard as you might, plan as much as you will, you can’t guarantee a gold medal or the championship. What you can more definitely control is your own level of performance. Thus it makes more sense to be able to aim for say up sub 9.9 100m rather than winning the gold – particularly if Bolt is running! The organisational equivalent might be to distinguish between a ‘result’ and a ‘standard’ of performance. E.g. delivering a project to time and specification is a standard, what the project delivers is the outcome.  

Sport also talks about process goals –focusing on particular abilities – e.g. a particular stroke in tennis, or a better golf swing. These are factors that contribute to performance e.g aces served, birdies achieved, and thereby competitions won. (outcomes).  In our work at Apter Development, we define these ‘process’ areas as including abilities, mindset and opportunities.

What I believe leaders need to do is see performance as defined across all these factors. Although they should focus as much as possible on the outcome, they should also remain very aware of the level of reasonable control that exists over that outcome and redirect attention to performance or even process goals as required.

This point is further developed in my article ‘The Performance Equation - what makes truly great, sustainable performance’ .


A post by Steve Carter October 2009

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/166 Claire Winstanley Mon, 05 Oct 2009 06:32:08 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/166 Can you have positive impact as a leader without being yourself? I
think not. The essence of leadership is to operate from a position of
strength – strength not expressed through authority and formal power
but through what used to be known as character and is sometimes
expressed these days as authenticity.


Personal strength always depends upon you standing on the firm
ground of who you want to be. Effective leaders are those who both
understand and meet the expectations of the organisation they lead AND
operate from this position. To operate purely on the basis of
fulfilling expectations is merely to be dutiful and compliant whilst to
lead as yourself but with no regard for the needs or expectations of
your organisation is to be dangerously disengaged.


The challenge is to find a way that lets you become the person you
want to be - and the may be about rediscovering the impulse that makes
you, YOU.


This is a post by Steve Carter October 2009

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/167 Claire Winstanley Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:50:03 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/167 As member of the Apter Development Leadership Club we thought you may be interested in hearing about next years ABP Conference.

Anyone with an interest in getting the best performance from people in their business should keep an eye open for the ABP Conference in May 2010. The conference title is “Business Psychology: Endless Possibilities”.


It’s easy to assume that it’s an exclusive conference for psychologists. But it isn’t! Business leaders, HR professionals, learning leaders will all find valuable and stimulating ideas here. In fact, it’s a conference for anyone with an interest in people, and in the key business questions:
• How do we know who to hire?
• How can we motivate and inspire their best performance?
• How do we know who to promote, and who to move on?
• How can we identify people with outstanding potential, and make sure that we keep them and give them the chance to grow?


You’ll find a range of high quality, grounded, thought-provoking inputs and discussions led by leading academics and business professionals from private, public and voluntary sectors. Plus the convivial and challenging company of a network of professionals just like you. Plus one of the best late-night parties of the year!


If your business world is frantic, and you need a couple of days when you can just listen and engage and discuss and think and build some great new ideas... this could be the perfect conference for you!
Details about ABP 2010 Conference on the ABP website

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/171 Claire Winstanley Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:42:17 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/171 More musings on change. Further to my last blog, what is becoming more and more clear to me is that 'change' is the eye of the beholder.  Almost any change, particularly any significant change is automatically imbued with meaning and different meaning to different individuals. Change has impact, obviously in terms of structure of someone's working day - what he or she is being asked to pay attention to, how they should focus effort but also on that individuals feelings of status, worth and emotional well-being. Change is always an interpretation in both its rational and emotional aspects. 


The blindingly obvious but little regarded, is that this response is a construction made by an individual or groups of individuals not by the initiator of the change. It is something over which the initiator has little influence. The nature of change is not communicated in the briefing documents, corporate communications, road shows full of ringing Churchillan phrases and power point presentations - it is constructed in the conversations that occur amongst peers and in informal groups afterwards.
They will decide what is important, whether it is viewed positively or negatively, implicitly they will create a hidden 'rate of change' and effectiveness capability for what others desire. 


The challenge then is to find ways in which the 'owners' of the change can actively engage in these conversations.


This is a post by Steve Carter, December 2009

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/170 Claire Winstanley Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:55:49 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/170
Change in organisations is often characterised as a series of rational and logical steps; as ‘first this then that’, in an ordered sequence. Even the way we experience change at a psychological level, can be understood as a number of stages. I have sat through several change presentations in which the work of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross on bereavement has been applied to the experience of organisational change. In this account Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance are a sequence that describes how people respond to any challenge. Implicit in this is the idea that change is something that people don’t want – indeed I have heard several trainers and consultants confidently assert “of course, no one actually likes change”.

Well I do – and quite often actually. And, though I may be a little strange, I suspect this is true for many people. Our views about change can be positive or negative and can themselves by dynamic, but not in a nice sequential way. In managing the impact of change, we need to take into account that peoples views will continually shift. Successfully managing change must place, at its core, the impact that it will have on people.

‘Impact’, is one of four strands of change management that Mike Apter and I proposed a number of years ago. (You can download a whole article on this: "Change is not what it used to be" ). The idea of strands is offered as an antidote to the idea of change management proceeding through a number of stages. The importance of each strand ebbs and flows during the course of a change programme but NEVER disappears. For example, another of the strands is ‘Initiation' - understanding and communicating the absolute necessity for the change. I have worked on many projects when - partly as a result of an evolving understanding of the change requirement – the need to communicate and re-communicate the need for change remains a constant well into the project. Similarly, the remaining strands; 'Organisation' – planning, establishing milestones etc and 'Implementation' - taking control of what happens through resourcing, decision making and feedback, are constant factors requiring vigilance and attention. The strands are interdependent; for instance failure to manage implementation successfully may require more attention to ‘Organisation’, along with focus on how one might  manage ‘Initiation’ and ‘Impact’.

Struggling with change? It’s not a bad idea to consider which of these strands are being under managed!
]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/169 Claire Winstanley Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:12:08 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/169 I offer the following as really useful models, that we probably all got taught sometime in our development as leaders and managers. They are still incredibly useful but probably underused.

My List would include: Lewin’s Force Field Analysis, the Ishakawa ‘Fishbone’ diagram, Stephen Covey’s Circles of Concern and Circles of Influence, and Buzan’s Mindmappng.

Of course there are some other great hairy models like the 7 S framework and Porter’s 5 Forces but these tend to be frameworks for strategic analysis not the sort of thing you might quickly draw on a flip chart or a note pad to help a discussion move forward or a problem be better understood.

I would be interested to hear any other suggestions for forgotten gems.


This is a post by Steve Carter November 2009

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/168 Claire Winstanley Tue, 03 Nov 2009 04:39:06 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/168 I recently referred in a conversation with the CEO of a large, global enterprise, to his team as “Dad’s Army”. He looked at me rather strangely, no doubt remembering the ragbag platoons of misfits, reckless youth and old soldiers, who made up the characters in one of British televisions best-loved television series.


But my point was not about the quality of his team, but that the reality of most senior teams is that the leader can rarely determine the players he or she leads. The platoon was made up of who was available in the little seaside town of Warmington on Sea, the talent that existed at that time and in that place. This is not so untypical of the situation leaders often face.


No doubt in the long run, a leader could and should endeavor as Jim Collins would say “to get the right people on the bus”. But this takes time and assumes that the right people are readily available. And it is the fate of many leaders I know, to regularly lose people they would regard as key to their performance to other parts of their organisation. Meantime, business plans need to be met, milestones achieved, change implemented.” The unavoidable question is therefore how should leaders get performance from the team/platoon they’ve got?


First of all, perhaps he or she should consider their own perspective on how performance should be achieved! Do they regard the challenges they face from the perspective of deficit or abundance?


A deficit approach sees challenges as a set of problems to be overcome characterized by:-


Identifying critical problems and root causes
Generating options and alternatives
Selecting and implementing a best fit solution


There is nothing incorrect about this and indeed it is the dominant paradigm of leadership and business.


But there is another perspective, an abundance approach.


This can be characterised as:


Identifying the strengths of individuals and organisations at “their best”
Identifying what enables that performance
Replicating and ensuring those enablers can function
Focusing on what can really be achieved (which is often extraordinary)


We should not regard an abundance approach as a kind of unrealistic wishful thinking. There are many examples from sport and business, wherein teams devoid of superstars and prima-donnas achieve great success.


Consistently the coach/leader had taken an abundance approach and built extraordinary performance from people’s strength’s and the things that enable the deployment of these strengths. There is increasing evidence that indicates that this shift in mindset and the tools and techniques that accompany it, can be a liberating force on organisational and individual performance. The evidence covers a range of broad factors including: higher stakeholder confidence, productivity gains, customer impact and greater levels of commitment and engagement.


 


 

]]> http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/175 Claire Winstanley Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:19:13 -0700 http://www.apterinternational.com/newsandviews/175