Building the intelligent organisation |
I believe we possess all the resources and talent necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to ensure their fulfillment.
President John F Kennedy
Special message to Congress on Urgent National Needs
May 25, 1961
Between 1957 and 1961, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union leaped ahead of the United States in the space race by putting up the Sputnik satellite and launching its first cosmonaut. The twin shocks (shock and awe if you will) jolted the country into mobilizing the collective will and resources of the country to a national commitment - a “firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs….” was how Kennedy described it. In the same speech, he made an executive decision that could well apply to us today: “I am therefore transmitting to the Congress a new Manpower and Training program, to train or retrain several hundred thousand workers,…..in new occupational skills over a four-year period – in order to replace those skills made obsolete by automation and industrial change with the new skills which the new processes demand”. It was a bold decision for it demanded major national commitment; called for diversion of national resources, energy, intellect; and depended (heavily) on the success of galvanizing a national discipline perhaps never done before. Above all, it gambled on the ability of the society to get itself up to speed, to change, to re-learn and to challenge itself.
Today, in the new order of competition, it is neither the missile threat coming from Moscow nor the Chinese Government’s Mars exploration programme or deep space ambition that scares us. Nothing so glaring and threatening that would serve to jar our senses awake or heightened our urgency to act. The rules of competition are so subtle, so acceptable, so part of the norm that organisations are numbed to the motion of fast sliding to the cliff’s edge. And they can’t react, or at least they are incapable of reacting. Perhaps it’s inertia. Perhaps it’s something more inherent and damaging.
Sitting across a CFO of a large public listed company over lunch, the situation couldn’t be more idyllic, calm even. But the conversation that lunchtime was far from such. His frustration that afternoon stemmed from the seeming inability or disinterest of the organisation to do what is the obvious. “Isn’t it obvious we need such information to steer the ship?” “Isn’t it clear we need such investments to secure our future?” “Isn’t it well understood we need to capitalise on such opportunities?” And from that conversation the subject of The Intelligent Organisation was born.
The Intelligent Organisation speaks of the character of an organisation having the capacity to reason, plan, to comprehend ideas and create, to overcome challenges and improve, to learn and to manage the many linked network of parts such as human capital, processes and policies, technology, alliances and strategy. Kennedy understood this. He understood that while the US had tremendous capacity in terms of human, institutional, infrastructure and capital assets, they were not being fully utilised. And he chose the vision of putting a man on the moon to excite the nation, to harness the will and energy of the people, to put hand to task and begin the work, and not least to inspire their hearts to believe. He had a tough job. And as a leader – let’s not sugarcoat it – so do you.
Leadership
Leading organizations today require more than good ideas and charisma. Ideas disconnected with a will and discipline to execute serve no purpose and yield no results; and charisma devoid of stewardship leave no permanent value. The qualities of an individual that enable him or her to lead can include experience, integrity and sound judgment. Notable leaders such as the Welches, the Iacoccas and the Jobs of this world have in their own distinctive ways paved the path of leadership with stones that mark discipline, foresight, creativity and many other traits that have formed the subject of countless management books. I have read many of them, understood a number of the traits, attempted to practice some of them, and successful on even fewer of them. I say this mindful of the fact that I’ve made mistakes in a leadership position – wishing that I’ve not made that call or regretting I did not anticipate that opportunity. I say this knowing that even as lessons in leadership can never be fully perfected in practice, there are those we want to pass on to those we groom.
Common business purpose
The first is rallying the team to a common purpose. I use “purpose” as opposed to “vision” because a purpose denotes cause. People get excited over a cause, they get fired up over a crusade – not over a high level, set of words. Not over a set of dry, worn, tired financial objectives. Purpose captures our imagination and instills self-belief. Purpose points us in a common direction. United by common challenges and common hopes we collaborate and help each other – not engage in scoring cheap political points. United, it drives the belief in the power we have if we choose to work together – not pursue a self-serving agenda that prospers oneself. The primary role of leadership is to establish a common purpose. A common purpose built upon key elements such as mutual success, inter-dependency, service and stewardship. Leadership necessitates a firm grip to steer the organisation towards a working consensus. I reject as false the thinking that growth comes at the price of division – not unlike cellular growth.
Intelligent leadership focuses on addition, never division.
Steady nerves
The truth is a working consensus can be rocked from time to time. Its fragility stems from the fact that it is a loose coalition of like-minded people seeking to work towards a common purpose. Too often - when circumstances are difficult, when challenges mount, and when results are absent - nay-sayers surface. They will say “We are not prepared. It is inevitable. We need to look elsewhere or rethink.” At this time, the challenge to leaders is not their ability to read tea leaves to search for the answer, or look to the stars for true north. The challenge – and the second lesson - to leaders is whether we have the self-belief to execute, to do the right thing, to stay the course. Taking the path of least resistance is the easiest thing, and it doesn’t take a leader to do that. Facing a failing economy, a widening budget deficit, questions surrounding his policies and divided opinions over the effectiveness of his administration, President Barack Obama in his 2010 State of the Union Address acknowledged the anxieties and the fears, but firmly renewed his commitment to move ahead, reached across party lines and reminded those in positions of responsibilities that in the face of adversity “…people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.”
Intelligent leaders have the capacity to tackle tough problems, not become victims of circumstances.
Stewardship
Peter Drucker once remarked that one of the great strengths of Winston Churchill was that, to the very end, Churchill pushed and furthered young politicians. In other words, one of the most valuable legacies a leader can leave behind is the people he or she has nurtured. Leaders who left behind imprints and influence that have shaped our lives - our values, character and capacity to face crisis - and made us who we are today. These leaders who have come into our lives are remembered today as mentors, role models, coaches, teachers and institution builders. We recognize them as those who were the foundations of our institutions, and our foundations are stronger because of them. They understood that the mission matters, and they are servants. Drucker noted that when leaders have the capacity to maintain their personality and individuality, even though they are totally dedicated to the mission, the mission will go on after them. They have a human existence outside of the mission. Otherwise they do things for personal gain. They become self-centred and vain. And above all, they become jealous.
Intelligent leadership leaves lasting legacies through the people it furthers, not temporary highs.
The fact of the matter is teams look to leaders to lead, to step up, take charge, influence and direct, and here is the reality - leaders don’t lose their leadership, they voluntarily surrender it. As challenges mount they are paralysed into inaction. As difficult circumstances, people and questions emerge, they lose their nerves. Instead of focusing on re-building consensus, raising ambition and self belief they become victims of circumstances themselves.
Intelligent leadership focuses on the tangible realisation of the common purpose. In so doing, it seeks to leave the organisation in a better state than when it first found it by building on commitment and understanding; responsibility and empathy; courage and common sense.
Andrew Lee is an executive director and head of Strategy & Operations and Human Capital of Deloitte Malaysia’s consulting practice. He can be contacted at myinsight@deloitte.com