Funny how some things can pass one by. Yesterday’s Today programme alerted me to something that it appears took place last July, which in turn took place in response to a well-honed question posed in November 2008. (It transpires that this made the news as the second chapter in the story has now been written – for which see later in this post). What it provides is a fine example of a leader – no less than the CEO of UK plc, HRH The Queen in this instance – recognising that there is a fine, and dangerous, difference between delegating and departmentalising. And that if the ‘walls’ of a portfolio are allowed to grow sufficiently high, it can become a silo. And there are some leadership lessons for a great many of us here too.
Proving similarly that even the comparatively comfortably well- (nee tastefully-) heeled could not but avoid noticing a major downturn, Her Majesty took the opportunity of a visit to the London School of Economics to indulge in a moment of Management By Walking About (MBWA). As the LSE reports:
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh visited LSE to officially open its New Academic Building on Wednesday 5 November 2008. It was during this visit that she asked: if these things were so large, how come everyone missed them?”
Given that we are led to understand that the Queen’s preferred conversation gambit is something closer to ‘And what do you do?’, we can’t help but conclude that she (quite rightly) felt that a straight-forward question deserved to be asked. In which case, the British Academy is to be applauded for having convened a forum to “provide the basis of an ‘unofficial command paper’ that attempted to answer The Queen’s question”.
As one of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects, it’s informative to read the resulting letter that was written and sent to her (the full text of which you can read online). But I couldn’t help but think how many rather more broadly applicable lessons the letter contained. Consider the following extracts:
People trusted the banks whose boards and senior executives were packed with globally recruited talent and their non-executive directors included those with proven track records in public life. Nobody wanted to believe that their judgement could be faulty or that they were unable competently to scrutinise the risks in the organisations that they managed.”
Among the authorities charged with managing these risks, there were difficulties too. Some say that their job should have been ‘to take away the punch bowl when the party was in full swing’. But that assumes that they had the instruments needed to do this.”
So where was the problem? Everyone seemed to be doing their own job properly on its own merit. And according to standard measures of success, they were often doing it well.”
Global talent in place, jobs being performed to high levels against performance indicators, risk assessments being made, a prevailing economic ‘feel-good’ factor: such a global diaspora of expertise (and breadth of operations) might have jeopardised Received Pronunciation, but Received Wisdom was – we can be relatively assured – being followed. One might so easily wonder what could possibly ever go wrong.
Although one might, with the benefit of hindsight (and it is not mere loyalty for us to applaud Her Majesty for applying it as promptly as November 2008 while some seem still to be waiting for their equerries to locate their pince-nez), ask some respectful but challenging questions that would be suitable for any situation where a narrowing of the performance gap would be appreciated. The following spring to mind:
- Can we be sure that role performance is being measured and managed against the most appropriate criteria?
- Are we rewarding sustainable and constructive activity or simply short-term profitability?
- Are we evaluating individual and organisational performance entirely in isolation, or is there any element of alignment with a broader perspective?
- What SWOT or PEST analysis is being undertaken, and what measure or plans do we have in place should events or circumstances change suddenly or dramatically? Are ‘What If?’ scenarios being constructed, evaluated and considered?
We feel that Her Majesty is to be applauded on other grounds too, and grounds that show the marks of outstanding leadership (to paraphrase some of The Work Foundation’s recent findings): accepting that mistakes will happen and focusing on moving to resolving an outcome and avoiding repetition; seeking opportunities for dialogue that create opportunities for greater dialogue, and finding opportunities to reach across artificial organisation or systemic boundaries where a solution requires a broader scope or reach.
Indeed, the first letter written to her (in July 2009) included other sections that identified ways in which things had gone awry:
What matters in such circumstances is not just to predict the nature of the problem but also its timing. And there is also finding the will to act and being sure that authorities have as part of their powers the right instruments to bring to bear on the problem.”
Risk calculations were most often confined to slices of financial activity, using some of the best mathematical minds in our country and abroad. But they frequently lost sight of the bigger picture.”
And it’s concluding paragraph, the British Academy spoke of a second forum so that it could continue to give “some thought to” how its recipients’ Crown Servants “might develop a new, shared horizon-scanning capability so that you never need to ask your question again.” (Personally speaking, we would humbly express the hope that Her Majesty might consider performance appraisal and risk management to be – like loyalty – enduring activities, but we are prepared to honour the goodness of the Academy’s intentions.) We further understand HRH’s Private Secretary wrote back to express her (Her?) continued interest. Hence, we must assume, a second letter, sent to the Palace on Monday 8 February 2010.
The letter identifies a range of activities that would be important in at least foreseeing – if not necessarily forestalling – future ‘crises’. A number of what might be classified as ‘the usual suspects’ were duly identified – scenario planning and ‘horizon-scanning’, cultural change, institutional reform, ‘a need to develop a culture of questioning’.
Some points might cause slightly more alarm; in Her Majesty’s heels, I might perhaps find myself warming under the tiara at some of these. Given the benefits of knowledge sharing in most situations if ways forward are to be identified, there is a hint of smokescreen about the sensitivity of financial information to which “The age of freedom of information adds still more peril.” – especially as the information would be shared only among those charged to varying degrees with managing the nation’s finances.
Nor would one have been (hypothetically) cheered by the news that “your Ministerial servants were seen by some as an extra cause of anxiety” or “The hierarchical structures and histories of our many organisations provide a major challenge”.
(As the recipient was a Head of State (amongst other things), one might also have expected the authority to think twice before penning the sentence “It was even suggested that there should be a rule that allows nobody to work in a particular position of responsibility for more than eight years”.)
The second letter’s concluding paragraphs, however, might potentially test the patience of the even the most saintly of sovereigns:There was a general reluctance at the forum to endorse a proposal to produce a regular horizon- scanning summary, drawing on all providers for the purpose of making maximum use of the information and the thought swirling around in the various parts of your Crown services. Nobody volunteered either individually or institutionally to lead this task and there was scepticism about the ability to institutionalise such activity within government within current structures.
In the end, the major challenge is to make institutions and organisational cultures work together. This means also getting the right people involved who see the task as a central part of their role in government. One can have as much scenario planning as one likes, but if there is no buy in from the people who will be taking the decisions in a crisis, then it is probably counterproductive. As you can see, there are no simple answers.
So, we end with a modest proposal. If you, Your Majesty, were to ask for a monthly economic and financial horizon-scanning summary from, say, the Cabinet Office, it could hardly be refused. It might take a form comparable to the Joint Intelligence Committee’s ‘Red Book’, which you received each week from 1952 until 2008 when it was abandoned. And, if this were to happen, the spirit of your LSE question would suffuse still more those of your Crown servants tasked to defend, preserve and enhance the economic well-being of your country.”
With all due respect, Ma’am, if one were to be in one’s shoes, one might take a few moments to reflect on – and possibly even respond regarding – a few aspects here:
Responsibility and expectations of office: one might expect those charged with – and rewarded handsomely for – managing one’s nation’s economy to see safeguarding it from risk as “a central part of their role”. One might perhaps point out that a willingness to be seen to be performing this task may be reflected also in future recognition (as provided by one’s loyal subjects in their capacity as the electorate, rather by one’s loyal entrepreneur’s in the form of directorships, after dinner speaking opportunities and memoir-publication arrangements)
Leadership styles and levels: when one has a hierarchy of individuals amongst one’s Crown Servants with clearly assigned individual responsibilities (both for tasks and outcomes, and for the organisational and cultural structures of their respective organisations), one might expect them not only to fulfil them but also to co-operate with each other where a clear symbiotic benefit can be seen. One might also expect them not to make independent strategic decisions with potential wide impact without consideration of their potential impact and ways in which any such impact might be managed where it to occur.
Delegation: while one is one of the most highly-experienced Heads of State in the world, and your conclusions are – in part –flattering in the respect they both offer and assume in others, one is slightly dismayed that not only has one been deprived of valuable information since 2008 (after which one notes things took what can be described only as a downward turn), but also that one is now expected to have to ask for information one might expect to be provided as a matter of course. Having a loyal and dedicated team in place, even if one cannot claim a global recruitment policy has produced it, one is also somewhat alarmed to find responsibility being ‘delegated’ back up to one.
Mediation: Similarly, while one appreciates the importance of mediation and consolidation in reconciling disparate information sources, one is faintly appalled that the task of briefing the CEO appears to have become the task of the CEO Herself.
There is also a strong point to be made about reward and recognition, although it has been made already by Professor Luis Garicano, to whom the Queen directed her question when she originally visited the LSE:
She seemed very interested, and she asked me: ‘How come nobody could foresee it?’ I think the main answer is that people were doing what they were paid to do, and behaved according to their incentives, but in many cases they were being paid to do the wrong things from society’s perspective.”
It seems unfortunate that the person to whom service is ultimately being paid (and it is, strictly speaking, “Her Majesty’s Government”, after all) doesn’t have greater influence over the incentives and rewards afforded to those who serve her. Or an opportunity to more loudly ask a question along the lines of “If one gets what one pays for, how does one go about modifying the specification?” It would entirely understandable if one were tempted to ‘put a little HR into being HRH’, so to speak.
The task of CEO, as we have been shown, is at least in part to ensure that paths are avoided that could lead to disillusion. Or perhaps even Dissolution, should one not necessarily feel as well served as one might.
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine
