We keep hearing in the news that the recession is over and that things are getting better out there. I am not a conspiracy theorist but I am not sure how true that is. It's a bit like the weather forecast - I am always deeply suspicious as to whether good weather forecasts for bank holidays are more related to influencing spending and travel over the holiday period rather than the weather itself.
But one thing is for sure. Organisations will always need to look at how they spend their money and, from time to time this will mean looking at structures and whether they could be more effective. In some organisations this happens more often than can possibly be constructive, whilst in others the structure should have probably been changed before they got into their current set of difficulties! Change is here to stay, to use a very old cliche.
Now I've been around the block more than a few times and I have seen restructures done very well and others done appallingly badly. One of the common failures in making change in staffing levels and structures is poor communication with the staff team at the time of giving the 'bad news', so I thought it might be helpful if I highlighted what I think is best practice so that, if you need to deliver bad news, you have some helpful hints. The same tips apply whether you are dealing with one or 101 people.
- For me the key thing is preparation. You need to prepare what you are going to say, so that you are confident, credible, concise and congruent. If you fluff your lines and appear nervous and uneasy staff will pick up on this. They need to understand what you are saying rather than be distracted by your demeanour and behaviour. Digesting bad news is not easy when you are on the receiving end so you need to ensure you are as clear as possible. You also need to be prepared for anger and disbelief, and to have prepared for any question you are likely to be asked, including any curve balls.
- Choose the right setting. Ensure you choose the right place for the meeting, and that it is confidential and as comfortable as possible.
- You should try to assess the feelings of the group early on. Are they surprised by this news or do they seem as though they were expecting it?
- Don't delay giving bad news. In almost every situation, the longer you leave it, the worse it will get. Thou shalt not procrastinate!
- Don't hide the facts. Do not gloss over the reasons behind the bad news. This just causes suspicion and mistrust. If the bad news is as a result of poor organisational decisions, you need to acknowledge that if you want to maintain trust. At the same time don't bewilder people with too many facts and figures, as they will just be overwhelmed.
- Put it in writing. As we have already acknowledged, hearing bad news is tough and people can only take in small amounts of information. Putting the facts and the rationale behind the bad news is easier to digest after the meeting, and you can also provide helpful Q&As.
- Don't use manipulation. Be as straightforward as you can be. If you need to take personal responsibility for the bad news, do this. Don't blame it on a third party, or treat it as though you are delivering the bad news on behalf of someone else, unless of course you are. Whilst researching this blog I came across a piece of work by Michael Grinder called 'How Not To Get Shot'. I normally like Grinder's work; he has done some really good stuff on communication skills, but I think the approach he takes to delivering bad news is just a bit manipulative. The link I have provided is only two pages, so make up your own mind.
- Be congruent. You are delivering bad news - now is not the time to be bright and breezy and to be making pleasantries or joking. Make sure your voice tone is credible rather than conversational, don't smile or laugh nervously and be concise and direct. Treat your audience with the respect and dignity they deserve.
- Always justify the reasons behind the bad news. Give concrete reasons, not waffle.
- Look for the positives. Don't try to put a spin on it; you will not get a good response. But if there are any positives, make sure you include them.
- Similarly be solution focused. If it is likely, for example, that someone is going to lose their job, point out what support can be provided, talk about what other opportunities there might be in the organisation. Explore the alternatives at the appropriate time.
- Finally, follow up. If you promise to do something after the meeting, e.g. circulate a briefing, do it straight away. If you said you will be available to discuss things individually, make yourself available.
The above tips are all tried and tested by me. They work. Delivering bad news is never easy, but it it it can be far less stressful and deliver the desired results if you do it well. We all like to be liked, even though I have heard many a manager say 'I'm not here to make friends'. Delivering bad news effectively can also help you maintain good relationships at work.
Good luck and let me know how you get on.
Some useful links:
http://www.trailblazercoaching.com/downloads/articles/How-to-not-get-shot.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/05/30/10-commandments-for-delivering-bad-news/
http://www.ehow.com/how_2058322_deliver-bad-news.html
http://www.mba-online-program.com/10-tips-for-delivering-bad-news-in-the-work-place
The subject of my blog today was going to be on the crucial relationship between the CEO of a charity and the Chair of the Board of Trustees, but I will write this one next week. So watch this space!
However my attention has been distracted over the debate spurred by the Daily Telegraph's 'revelations' about the salaries of charity leaders, and the subsequent inappropriate (some might say inept) comments of the Chair of the Charity Commission, William Shawcross. He is reported to have said that large salaries paid to charity staff would "bring the sector into disrepute"and that organisations must ask if their pay levels are "really appropriate."
There have been a flurry of articles, comments, tweets and blogs on the subject from various sector figures and umbrella bodies, and not surprisingly the general feeling is the same. Firstly, it is up to the Board of Trustees of a particular charity to decide the salary levels in that organisation. Secondly, we are talking about highly skilled and experienced people here, running large and complex organisations with turnovers of hundreds of millions of pounds and thousands of staff; why should they not be paid a salary to reflect this responsibility, expertise and experience? Thirdly there is the social return on investment angle; after all these people are doing a job that actually makes the world a better place; they already work for considerably less than they would earn in the public and private sectors; why the hell should anyone be questioning that?
I am summarising here a number of points but generally there is broad agreement across the charity sector and the sector media that pay of senior charity staff should be proportionate to their experience and the size and complexity of their role. I could not agree more.
To say I feel sorry for those who are the subject of this non-scandal would be over-egging it. I think these individuals have broad enough shoulders! And I do sometimes wonder, if I were earning over £150k, what I would do with all that money! I would like to think that, after I had paid my bills, supported my family and secured a reasonable but not excessive lifestyle, I would try do social good with this money. I am sure that this is exactly what does happen, but it is certainly not up to me to make judgments.
What is most amazing to me, however, is that a non-executive bureaucrat being paid £50k for just two days work a week (yes, that is £125k pro rata!) feels either qualified or able to make judgments on the amount that charities pay their staff. Secondly and more importantly as a senior figure in the charity sector (albeit the regulator) why would he make the mistake of saying something that could potentially damage public confidence in the sector? I would like to hope that he has been misquoted or taken out of context, but I fear this is not the case. I think he is simply guilty of making an unwise comment to the media, and is now living to regret this. The worst case scenario is that he actually does believe that charity staff should be expected to subsidise their own lifestyle just because they want to change the world.
The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and many other popular papers love to uncover a scandal, and Shawcross has helped provide them the ammunition they need. If he had taken the line that Stephen Bubb, CEO of ACEVO and many others had taken, the story would have probably gone back into the gutter where it deserves to be. Instead of which there are probably a large number of people out there who may be considering their support for their favourite charities. Although donors are far more savvy than they ever have been, and let's not forget that, there will be those who believe that charity staff are doing it for the love of it, and that they should earn a mere pittance to do so. And this story simply fuels the fire that charities are profligate spenders that not only hassle them on the streets every time they try to go shopping, but now are paying their executives outrageous salaries!
Interestingly, and I accept that Telegraph readers are a special breed, (!) but in a poll on the paper's website 72% have voted to say that they do not believe that charity CEOs should be paid £100k. The choices given for the poll were 'No. Donors want their money to go to the poor, not executives. Comparisons with what people might earn in the sector are wholly false.' and 'Yes. These people manage huge budgets and make life-or-death decisions. You have to pay for talent.' The result of this poll worries me. I hope it is giving Mr Shawcross a few sleepless nights too.
Let's just hope this is silly season and the story goes away. Some of the charity leaders named in the Telegraph article are giants in the sector, none more so than Sir Nick Young, CEO at the British Red Cross. This is a man who has given his life to the charity sector and led huge organisations like the British Red Cross and Macmillan to greater and greater things, improving and saving thousands of peoples lives along the way. And that on a salary less than the average CEO of a local authority in the South East of England. I know who gets my vote for the highest salary!
You may be surprised (or not if you know me!) to hear that I find it hard to read text books. This is not because I am not interested in the content (I am, and I buy them all the time, in fact I have a stack on my dining room table right now!) but because I have a low attention span, and I get easily distracted. I can easily read an entire chapter without taking anything in. This is why I use mind maps to help me retain the information. (See my short video on this subject). I've always been the same, so I have always been a fan of the One Minute Manager series of books. In fact one of the reasons I invented the Five Minute Fundraiser series of videos for the Institute of Fundraising was because I think a lot of people learn in short simple bursts like me.
So I was pondering on a particular management situation the other day when I was inspired to re-visit my well-thumbed copy of Leadership and the One Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard, which really helped me. You can read the book n a couple of hours tops, and it is brilliant. What it reminded me was, not in these words, that 'one size fits all leadership, simply does not work, but that situational leadership does. Put very simply, as a manager and leader you need to be able to adapt your style to the situation, to the individual and the stage of development they are at.
Now this sounds very obvious, but I think a lot of leaders forget to do it, or maybe even don't know that they should. It is interesting that a frequently asked question at interview is 'How would you describe your leadership or management style'. So I thought it might be useful to summarise the concept of situational leadership, and if you are interested it is something that you could look into further.
So to start with there are four styles of leadership within situational leadership:
Style 1: Directing
The leader provides specific instructions and closely supervises task accomplishment
Style 2: Coaching
The leader continues to direct and closely supervise task accomplishment, but also explains decisions, solicits suggestions, and supports progress
Style 3: Supporting
The leader facilitates and supports employees' efforts towards task accomplishment and shares responsibility for decision making with them
Style 4: Delegating
The leader passes over responsibility for decision making and problem solving to employees
Now I have experienced all of these styles of leadership (often used inappropriately!) and it can be completely demoralising. I'll give you an example. I have managed close to a dozen Royal events of one sort or another in my career. A previous boss, who did not have this experience, tried to manage me down to the real minutiae on what I saw as quite a simple event at Clarence House hosted by HRH Prince of Wales. It was not well received! We have all heard of 'micro-managment' and probably have experienced it. But a directive style with a member of staff who has little experience in a particular task really is essential, and then as that staff member learns how to master that task the style can move through to coaching, supporting and onto delegating. The mistake that managers often make is to delegate before the staff member is ready.
So it is really important to not only consider and use the correct leadership style, but it is vital to consider the stage of development the staff member is at, not just overall, but for a particular task. For example if I was asked to prepare my organisation for its annual audit I would need a different style of leadership to if I was asked to introduce a new income generating activity. It's quite obvious when you think about it.
In situational leadership the four styles of leadership therefore need to be linked to the right level of development. It also needs to be acknowledged that people's level of motivation differs with the level of development. For example when you are learning something new you are fully motivated to learn, when you know partly how to do something but not fully your motivation level may drop or be variable, but when you achieve mastery you will be fully motivated again. See below:
Level 1: low competence, high motivation (Directing style required)
Level 2: some competence, lower motivation (Coaching style required)
Level 3: high competence, variable motivation (Supporting style required)
Level 4: high competence, high motivation (Delegating style required)
So hopefully you can see that when it comes to managing people, it should not be an automatic process. You need to seriously consider where that individual is at with their mastery of their role, and elements within their role before you choose the appropriate style of leadership. It is also helpful (if you are a leader being led) to look at why you are happy or unhappy with the way you are being managed.
Good luck with this and let me know how you get on.
