0
0
REFLECTIONS ON AN OPINION PIECE
Susana Rowles’ insightful article, “Just Because Someone is Good at Speaking and Can Hold a Room Doesn’t Mean They Can Manage or Strategize,”
My observations and reflections by Tim Rogers….
People or system
In Susana Rowles’ insightful article, “Just Because Someone is Good at Speaking and Can Hold a Room Doesn’t Mean They Can Manage or Strategize,” she argues that organizations might hire poorly performing individuals due to lowered standards. This raises the question of whether capable individuals are simply placed in ineffective systems, leading to poor performance despite their potential.
Rowles emphasizes that poor leadership and management, which were notably evident in the UK Post Office scandal, contribute significantly to such outcomes. The scandal itself highlighted deep-rooted issues of unethical behaviour and flawed management practices. It seems unlikely that organizations would intentionally recruit inadequate individuals. Instead, these issues might stem from systemic problems, where culture, process, and misplaced loyalty to the brand take precedence over ethics and proper management. This scenario underscores the complexity of organizational dynamics and the critical importance of nurturing the right environment for talent to thrive.
Challenge or Consensus
It appears that we celebrate outliers and mavericks because we all strive to be seen as unique, exceptional, and important. However, the reality is that we are often uncomfortable with dissent, rarely embrace challenges, and treat whistleblowers poorly.
We tend to reward conformity, compliance, and loyalty above all else, leading to real issues when we label challengers as outsiders. For example, Susana Rowles’ notes people who challenge on technology are quickly labeled as Luddites.
I would venture that increasingly anyone questioning a new idea is seen as uncooperative or even toxic. The word “toxic” itself has been used for centuries to describe poisons and harmful substances, but its application to describe certain types of damaging human behaviours or traits in interpersonal relationships became popular from the 1990s onward.
Strategy or Implementation
The article also notes that many people claim success for themselves yet shy away from acknowledging their part in failures or complex situations. There’s a notable passion for theoretical strategy over practical implementation.
Jersey’s Chief Minister has recently said “We tend to have created a culture of strategy after strategy after strategy. We have so many strategies we don’t really know where to begin.”
It seems we tend to value advice more than action, strategy more than implementation, and visionary leadership more than the essential, often unnoticed work of management.
Policy Paralysis
Susana Rowles’ article seems more focused on the civil service than on businesses. Some observations might seem unfair, particularly regarding how frequently ministers change, affecting civil servants who often have to adapt to shifting policies. This exemplifies a systemic issue where regular political pivots lead to little forward movement, as civil servants wait for clear directions. This isn’t necessarily a reflection of their capabilities but rather of the system’s instability.
The article also discusses the necessity for KPIs, clear metrics, and accountability structures, which I fully support. However, achieving consensus on what the Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) should be is notably challenging in a political context, with diverse stakeholders often pulling in different directions. Trying to avoid favouring one group over another often leads to compromises that dilute the clarity of KPIs, turning them ineffective when everything is deemed a priority.
Is Strong Leadership a shift to the right?
Strong leadership is not inherently a shift to the right, though it can sometimes appear that way when decisive action contrasts sharply with more consensus-driven approaches typical of many democratic systems. Strong leadership involves making clear and firm decisions, which can sometimes lead to polarization if these decisions favor specific groups over others. This style of leadership is often viewed through a political lens, where decisiveness is sometimes associated with right-wing politics because it might disregard broader consensus in favor of direct action or the interests of a particular group.
However, strong leadership can also exist within any political ideology and doesn’t necessarily align with right-wing politics. Effective leadership can be about setting clear goals and making decisions that are necessary for progress, which can be done while still considering the needs and views of a diverse population.
In places like Jersey, as mentioned, the real challenges are in achieving collaboration and consensus politically, often hindered by personal and petty politics focusing on personalities rather than policies. The Jersey Policy Centre aims to shift the focus back to substantive issues affecting the community by fostering environments where these issues can be discussed logically, passionately, and impersonally. This approach seeks to strengthen leadership through informed and inclusive debate rather than pushing it toward any particular political stance.
Actions speak louder than words.
The true challenge in leadership is not merely to occupy a position of authority but to actively implement and demonstrate tangible achievements. Ambition alone is insufficient; it must be translated into concrete results. Unrealized ambitions, undelivered plans, and unmet goals ultimately render any visionary mission hollow. There is a concern that we often reward people more for their visionary aspirations than for their actual execution.
Effective leadership should focus on turning vision into reality, ensuring that plans are followed through and goals are achieved. This approach emphasizes the importance of practical outcomes over mere intentions, highlighting the need for leaders who do more than just articulate a compelling vision—they must also be able to execute it effectively.
After making several observations, it’s important for me to offer suggestions and recommendations. Otherwise, I risk falling into the same trap of merely critiquing without being constructive. So, what would I do?
Focus and choose wisely.
Drawing from my experience as a high-performance rowing coach, I believe it’s crucial to concentrate on what truly matters and set aside the rest. This is particularly challenging in the public sector. Unlike the private sector, where you can select which products to offer and which customers to serve, in public service it’s difficult and potentially unethical to tell someone that you cannot or will not serve their needs.
Collaborative and consensus-driven planning is key.
In my role as a performance rowing coach, I prioritize understanding the team’s goals and the challenges we face. Each plan is tailored to the team’s specific circumstances and needs. While I provide guidance, it’s the team that does the work—I’m there to support them, not to dictate actions. My role is to act as a catalyst and a facilitator, stimulating discussions that help improve our performance. This approach emphasizes the need for more collaboration, cooperation, discussion, and especially listening, to achieve our objectives effectively.
Shifting from a heroic leader to a curious coach is crucial.
We need to trust the team to carry out their tasks. As a coach and coxswain, I would never physically take the oars to demonstrate; such actions might have been feasible in my younger days but would now only serve to undermine the team’s confidence. More importantly, the team is likely more skilled at their roles than I am. Therefore, the real challenge is to transition from being a “heroic” leader—who claims to have all the answers—to adopting a more curious, open, and inquisitive approach. By asking questions rather than dictating solutions, I aim to foster an environment conducive to success.
It’s crucial to focus only on the KPIs that are relevant at the time.
Having KPIs is essential for measuring performance and progress. They provide a feedback mechanism that helps determine whether changes are moving us in the right direction, and if those changes are beneficial. However, it’s important to maintain a manageable number of KPIs. Ideally, focus should be on a few key indicators until they are thoroughly achieved. Only then should new ones be introduced. Having too many KPIs, or none at all, can be counterproductive.
Data and Transparency
Publishing results is essential for accountability and improvement. In my experience managing rowing teams, I’ve always made it a point to share all the data among the teams. This openness not only fosters competition but also stimulates debate, enhances transparency, and facilitates learning. When results are public, it prompts us to reflect on the outcomes—whether good or bad—and analyze the factors involved. Was the goal appropriate? Was the outcome simply due to luck, or were there identifiable patterns that need adjusting? I believe we need to publish more objective data to allow everyone involved to understand, contribute, and help improve both the environment and overall performance.
I think Susana Rowles’ insightful article is thought-provoking and hope that it causes people to pause and reflect as I have. I know that I am not “right” but I feel confident that I am somewhere on the right path, but welcome feedback.
By Tim Rogers
