Do you have to have done something first to train others?

Ok, let's get a controversial one out there and please feel free to shoot me down! I'm prepared to be challenged on this one as I am on all my blogs. And remember, this is my personal opinion rather than that of my employer!

There are lots and lots of consultants and trainers out there in our sector who have set themselves up as experts. My question is, have they ever achieved personal mastery in the subject in which they claim expertise, or have they simply learnt it through researching the subject? Or maybe a bit of both? And does this matter?

Some will argue that if they are a great presenter, an inspirational speaker, an effective facilitator, have plenty of case studies and anecdotes, bring out the best in their students, does it really matter if they have never done it or been very good at it?  I think there are some real exceptions to the rule, and it is certainly possible to study mastery and describe that to others, and perhaps that is what some do.

There's an old saying along the lines of 'those who can't do it teach it.' Well I have always thought that this was a load of rubbish, and I would like to think that in the majority of cases, in a sector full of highly intelligent people, you would get found out very quickly. In my opinion the best trainers and consultants are the ones who are 'doing the do' as well as 'talking the talk'!

For me it's a bit like asking people for money. How can you authentically do this if you are not already giving to the cause yourself? Yet lots of people do, especially professional fundraisers but also trustees. I always make sure I give to a cause before I ask for money on their behalf.

Similarly I can't see how you can train someone on something you have never done your self, or have not got a great deal of experience in. For me it's all about credibility. What happens if one of your students asks 'Can you tell me how you have personally ....' What do you do if you don't have that experience? Lie? Therefore I personally would not be happy to teach something I have never done.

So what would I do if I wanted to hire a trainer or consultant for my organisation? I would want to see their CV to ensure that they had the experience they claim to have had. If they say they are an expert in major donor fundraising, how much have they personally raised? If they say they are an expert in direct marketing, what type of campaigns have they managed and delivered and what size. If they say they are an expert in leadership, what leadership roles have they held? In addition I would ask for a free demonstration session to make sure I was happy with the standard of their training. Any trainer worth their salt would do this as it would pretty much guarantee new business if they are as good as they say they are. It's also good to see them in action first; just because someone is a subject matter expert, that does not make them a great trainer! This is certainly how we hire our trainers at the Institute of Fundraising.

I think there are some exceptions to the rule. These are the teaching of qualifications, where I think the most important thing is knowledge of the subject. Of courses it helps if this knowledge is combined with practical experience and skills. The other area is coaching, where it is the skills of the coach rather than their subject matter expertise that counts.

So what do you think? Let me know!

'One size fits all' management does not work

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.