Today’s rapid changes call for “field-independent” leaders
We pointed this out as far back as 1989, when we ran a comprehensive leadership development programme. It was for the state-owned company Vin & Sprit AB in Sweden. They lost their wholesale monopoly. The world became a much more turbulent place for their leaders…
I was recently reminded of that assignment when I saw, amongst other things, the text above from the Swedish consultancy firm Cordial. They emphasise that one must be able to cope with the significantly increased pace of change. Moreover, it can be drastic.
To think it would take so long before many became aware of the new business environment.
Back in 1988, we wondered how the new, challenging business environment should be addressed in the development programme?
According to the client, the development programme was to consist of three stages. These were as follows:
1. Development reviews and other leadership fundamentals
2. Team building and team leadership
3. Individual assignments
Speaking of the rapid pace of change, we focused on this during stage 2, partly because the client had decided that this stage should take place at their vineyard in the south of France. This provided excellent opportunities to practise dealing with unexpected situations.
The conditions were that the stage would be based on a week at their vineyard, with the participants divided into two teams of six. Each team had a minibus at their disposal. The participants were to come each time from various levels within the company, with at least one from senior management. We also secured a condition that the participants would only be provided with lunch and dinner on two days during the week. On the other days, they would receive a daily allowance. In addition, we were to provide the teams with ‘real’ money to use when carrying out a mission during the week.
The week began with, amongst other things, the session ‘Survival Course in France’, i.e. they were briefed on the conditions – such as the week’s programme – as they had not received any detailed information about the programme in advance. This was found frustrating at times, but the aim was, after all, to practise acting in situations of uncertainty…
The survival course also included some basic French, such as asking for the bill, etc. The session concluded with everyone receiving their daily allowance in Francs.
This was followed by two and a half days of theory, focusing on teamwork. That part concluded with each team being given a mission. The missions always involved them conducting research on a particular topic, so they also learnt a little about how to carry out research. The assignment also involved producing a report in 25 copies. The copying could not be done at the vineyard, so this became another task to manage.
We put the teams together and then came up with suitable tasks for each team. All participants had taken our personality test – the HumanGuide test – so we had a good basis for team selection.
Examples of tasks included
- how do people in France react to positive feedback?
- what is lifelike in bars and cafés in France? (team comprising managers from all the canteens at the factories and head office)
- how do phrasebooks function as a support tool in France? (team comprising the quality manager and five supervisors)
- what is the general perception of our vineyard?
- to what extent are people in France ‘field-independent’ (that was the term we used to describe dealing with uncertainty)
The teams first had to design a framework for their research project. Then draw up a budget. After that, they would come to me and my colleague to have the plan and budget approved and, of course, to receive funding in line with the budget. Here, we could sometimes be a bit demanding – for example, if a team was taking the easy way out. Take the team with the canteen managers, for instance. We felt there weren’t enough observations because the team stayed together the whole time during the observations. This meant that more people had to get involved rather than just passively taking part.
The teams would then present their results for an hour, during which it was important that everyone was engaged – in other words, that everyone had the opportunity to practise presenting in front of others. It was the ‘final exam’… followed by feedback, including feedback from us as training leaders.
The format led to many interesting experiences for the participants. It was also appreciated that the team task and the conditions for it were closer to real life than what they were used to from previous development sessions. It was both rewarding and fun, which generated a high level of engagement.
Many interesting experiences. A few examples…
The team tasked with investigating reactions to positive feedback. They decided to buy roses, which they handed out. Many people were, of course, surprised, which led to rewarding conversations.
When the team tasked with investigating the usefulness of phrasebooks was on their way to a nearby town, someone needed to use the toilet. They saw a man by the side of the road, so they stopped and two team leaders got out to find out where there was a toilet. They checked their phrasebook and tried pronouncing the word in several different ways. Almost immediately, the man asked to have a look at the phrasebook. Then he exclaimed: ‘Qui, qui, toilette.’ Ooops – as in Sweden…
When they were then due to carry out their task, they stood in a spot in the town and asked passers-by: ‘Where is the post office?’ The best response came from a refuse collector. He first asked: ‘Voiture?’ Then he mimicked a car engine and a steering wheel. They replied: ‘No.’ He then gave a very simple instruction, which was extremely clear. It was a powerful lesson for the quality manager – simplicity is to be sought after.
To gauge perceptions of the vineyard, they made a simple placard with their questions. This proved to be a powerful experience for several people: ‘No ecole,’ several replied. They couldn’t read…
Perhaps the most difficult task was to investigate how field-independent people were in France. How should the survey be organised?
After much deliberation and discussion, they came to a conclusion – we’ll do the “wallet trick”. This involves attaching a wallet to a nylon thread, then standing hidden. When someone bends down to pick up the wallet, you snatch it away.
How would people react, they wondered. Would anyone get angry? Etc.
They started, but everyone walked straight past the wallet. Several people were surprised that I wasn’t looking down at the ground. Hmmm. What to do?
The solution was to place the wallet on a slope. The idea was that those walking up the slope would see the wallet. Sure enough, it worked.
So how did people react? No one got angry… People generally found it interesting and wondered: How did I react?
If you’ve read this far, you might ask yourself: How do I deal with uncertainty? Can I help ensure that people at work have the opportunity to practise dealing with uncertainty?
**********************************************
Why not subscribe for my newsletter HumanGuide News? Then click here... It is on Linkedin (every second week).
- Created on .
