The Neuroscience Behind Leadership

In just a matter of weeks I’ll be taking to the sky, travelling from Cambridge UK to the other side of the world, visiting Australia for my first time. I’m incredibly excited about my trip hosted by the prestigious Institute of Managers and Leaders. I’ll be visiting the East Coast cities: Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, and Canberra. There I will be unlocking the mysteries of the mind to discuss how neuroscience findings can help better inform leaders and managers for business.

How do our minds operate? How does our unique perception of the world shape our decision-making? How do fear and stress affect our behaviour? How can neuroscience knowledge help promote creativity and problem solving? What can we do to refine our focus and attention? We’ll be answering these questions and more during the sessions.

Knowledge is power, I strongly believe! And so, as we understand more about the brain, how it shapes our behaviour, we can be empowered and flourish, as both individuals and as companies. During my visit I’m also hoping to literally dive into the minds of leadership professionals, reading their brainwaves live on stage using an EEG machine, to help unravel the thinking behind our decision-making.

So, why now? We currently live in the era of the brain: a recent revolution in technology allows us to peer into the mind as never before. We can visualise the architecture and operation of the brain, in fine detail, as the world is navigated and our sense of self formed. As a result, we are discovering that certain complex behaviours are ingrained, whilst others are skills that can be built on and improved. Neuroscience is also helping us to understand more precisely the nature of what it means to be conscious, and to live with the ability to form a subjective view. We’ll explore the ramifications of this, how it can sometimes lead to conflict, and how to help prevent it. We’ll also discuss the emerging fields studying the science of altruism and compassion and the relevance for business environments. Through neuroscience, we are learning how to open minds to more productive collaborations. These findings build on research from the disciplines of theology, psychology, sociology and philosophy and provide the lens through which we can have a mechanistic understanding of the very nuts and bolts that makes us, well, us! The results and have vast implications at the level of both the individual and society.

I’m really looking forward to my trip. I’m hoping to also discover new ways of thinking about the brain from you, the business leaders, learning from your perspective.

On that note I would love for you to take part in little experiment! Listen to the below audio track.

It’s tricky to understand, right? In fact, it’s complete gobbledegook! Now listen to this second track. Poor camel! Now play back the first track again. Suddenly it makes sense, right?

First Track:

Second Track: 

The cadence of both sentences is the same. This happens because our brains are both awe inspiringly sophisticated and mesmerising in their action, but also inherently lazy, always trying to take short cuts in their processing in order to make assumptions about the world. As a result the brain superimposes your previous experience of making sense from the sentence with the similar cadence onto the first gobbledegook track. This simple audio illusion helps us to understand how our perception of the world is built from a culmination of our highly individual life experiences. It also helps us to appreciate how we can each hold such wildly conflicting views of the world and why consensus building can be so tricky. Such consensus building, taking onboard other people’s perspectives, is vital for leadership and management and we’ll be exploring how neuroscience can also help us achieve that. I’m really looking forwards to discussing this and more, meeting you shortly in Australia!

Dr Hannah Critchlow is an internationally-acclaimed neuroscientist with a background in neuropsychiatry. She is best known as the presenter of BBC’s Tomorrow’s World Live as well as for her work demystifying the human brain on regular radio, TV and festival platforms. Hannah’s work in science communication saw her named as a Top 100 UK scientist by the Science Council and one of Cambridge University’s most ‘inspirational and successful women in science’. During her PhD she was awarded a Cambridge University Fellowship and as an undergraduate received three University Prizes as Best Biologist.

KNOWING WHAT WE DON’T KNOW – AT LEAST SOME OF IT

In my consulting work one of the areas that perplexed managers raise with me is a variation of the following: “I know there are parts of the business where we could equip everyone better but I’m not sure how to get a grip on these areas. Our management team has been tossing around little straws in the wind that are telling us that we should be doing better but we’re not getting much traction. The general mood across the business doesn’t seem to be as positive as it used to be.

“There’s really nothing we can measure that’s helping here, except our overall performance measures aren’t kicking along as well as I’d expect.”

This is a ‘soft’ management facet of the business. So I question along the following lines:

“What are you hearing from your people?” “Have you done staff satisfaction feedback work?” “Any 360° surveys at various responsibility levels?” “A customer health check?” “How much formal coaching and less formal mentoring are in place?” “In practice, do your people readily bring up new ideas – whether valuable or not?” “Do you and your team regularly review whether you demonstrate the values of the business?” “Do your staff adhere to these values?”

Often it seems that the areas with which managers are struggling to be better in touch are intangibles: facets of culture, processes (not technical processes) and structure.

“So what have you and your management team done in the last little while, to get in touch with these three important elements in the working of your business?”

Sometimes, I hear comments such as, “We did a staff satisfaction survey earlier this year but honestly, I don’t completely trust it. Every time we do this survey, the responses we get don’t line up with what we experience day-to-day with our staff. Survey results are bitterly disappointing, for instance only 23% are satisfied whereas day-to-day interactions in practice show the reverse; the great majority show as positive, enthusiastic, willing when we call on them.”

So at this point, frequently-asked question back to me is disarmingly simple, “How do I find out more about what’s really going on in these areas?”

A business can deploy tools to evaluate culture. Well-informed people can gain insights into structural effectiveness by reviewing and revising the org chart. Again, there are consultants with insights who can review and advise on management and relational processes. However, how often do we hear from the people working at all levels in the business, that the structural effectiveness or process remapping exercise seems to have been sold well to the CEO and board – after all, these advisers often have an international name and a substantial fee attached – but missed a lot of the point?

Untapped Sources of Insight

The people working in a business know a lot about how it is travelling and how the innards are functioning. If carefully and respectfully asked, they contribute a lot to understanding what can beneficially be done to get things working better. The staff collectively don’t know it all but they work in the business and are familiar with the innards.

There’s some interesting work being done to examine within which business model a business operates and to test correlation between the business model and its performance data. ¹

The advantage of a business model approach is that it enables clustering of intangibles and drawing valuable granulated guides to action from considering them together and in a business model context. Rather than numerous studies of culture, effectiveness, communication, and delegation; all of necessity performed in an uncoordinated manner, a well-structured business models approach examines such facets of the business in a coordinated manner which generates insights for improvement in specific elements of operation.

There are various categorizations of business models; here are overviews of three business models which I use.

Isolation Model

People work in silos, isolated from each other and customers. Hierarchical, authoritarian structure. Production orientation, rather than the customer’s requirements. Vendor outlook.

Cooperation Model

People consult each other and the customer but with lesser focus on customer requirements. A loosely-defined ‘family’ in a largely isolation-type structure. Service outlook.

High Engagement Model

The business functions as a whole, organically, energized; it embraces flexibility and complexity. Shared authority within a performance framework. Discovery and full engagement with (‘line of sight to’) the customer. Performance outlook.

There’s a set of characteristics associated with each of these Models.

Typically, most businesses operate differently between Models in most of these characteristics, for instance being stronger in client engagement (tending towards the High Engagement Model) and less strong in optimizing opportunity for talented staff (tending towards the Isolation Model). As well, typically most businesses also vary their application of any one characteristic depending on circumstances – for instance having a bigger appetite for business risk when competition is strong and the order book is short.

An Example of Insights Gained

Here is a summary of points revealed in a recent business models study, from the overview section of the report to the client.

We recommend attention to several facets of the business, designed to transition from a passive and reactive leadership and management style to an informed one. This will require leadership, effort and change on your part; your senior people tell me they are ready for such improvement. Here are some specific things to do.

  1. Examine your desires and options as owner/director, settle a strategy to optimise your exit from the firm, develop and implement a plan to better prepare the firm for transition. Expand this into a full strategic plan.
  2. Approach strategy as a dynamic. Engage your team in regular broad reviews, environmental scans and futures discussions; evolve strategies, goals and action plans as the environment and events change.
  3. Develop a pattern or performance reports to keep you and your senior people in touch with key operations and deliverables of the firm. Don’t report for reporting’s sake; identify those specific functions where value will be added in an active and positive management system, explore this with your senior team. There will be some trial and error in this; we have some information about performance reports and templates which we can discuss with you.
  4. Set up a framework of accountability, authority and responsibility; in a firm of your size, this doesn’t need to be heavily-structured or overly-formal. Your senior people recognize the need for this and are ready to take on more responsibility. This will be an important plank in your transition.
  5. Make a capability and capacity review of your senior team and use this to inform the framework of responsibility and authority. Engage with your senior staff on their personal growth and development, in the context of a new management model. Let them work with you to design delegation models and resource flexibility processes.
  6. Devolve client engagement; you can no longer be the anchor. Train your staff in the three levels model and active High Engagement Client Relationship Management.
  7. The firm as a whole isn’t risk-averse but its approach is based on informal and intuitive elements. Develop a risk model and engage your senior staff in this.
  8. Engage your seniors about their aspirations and intentions, develop a feeling for their interest in a potential buy-out. If this progresses, engage a third-party business adviser to develop the concept with the individuals and possibly collectively.

¹           Frederic Laloux. Reinventing Organizations: a Guide to Creating Organizations    Inspired by the Next Stage of Human Consciousness, apra, 2014.


About the Author

Ian Mathieson – Managing Director, MATHIESON MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

Drawing on his experience and learning as consultant, business owner and manager, Ian Mathieson has developed, helped by other experienced professionals, the Data+Scorecard® Instrument.

 

 

Data+Scorecard®: The complete package solution to create a highly engaged organisation

The Data+Scorecard® Instrument identifies areas in your business that you can focus on to effectively manage the shift towards the High Engagement Model, which supports longer-term performance and sustainability. This simple yet powerful three-step analysis and recommendation package gives you valuable insights to drive positive change in your business.

Find out more here.

4 reasons to trust (valid and reliable) psychometric assessments

It goes without saying that human behaviour is incredibly complicated. It’s determined by an intricate combination of factors, and – as you can imagine – trying to predict how a person is going to behave, or react, or perform is no easy task.

Enter psychometrics, whose goal is to get accurate and unbiased insight into people’s mental abilities, personality, and behaviour. But how on earth is this possible?

1. There’s a lot of evidence that they work

Organisational Psychologists have spent over five decades researching, creating and rigorously testing psychometric assessments that are robust enough to predict when and why a given person will be successful or not in a given job. And as someone who is working towards becoming an Organisational Psychologist, let me tell you that these folks are an extremely hard to impress, detail-focused and highly sceptical bunch.

There’s now a large body of highly credible scientific evidence that demonstrates that a person’s results on a (valid and reliable) psychometric assessment can strongly predict a number of different work-related factors, including:

  • Future job performance: how well they will learn new tasks, solve complex problems and perform on the job
  • Organisational fit: whether they’re likely to share the organisation’s values and feel more committed and engaged in their job
  • Safety behaviours: how likely they are to accept personal responsibility for safety at work and avoid risky behaviour
  • Behaviour and personality: how someone naturally prefers to behave at work, the kinds of behaviours they have adopted, and how difficult it is to sustain behavioural changes
  • Emotional intelligence: how well they can identify, understand, manage and use their own and other people’s emotions.

These kinds of assessments also give employers a standardised, fair and equitable way to compare candidates for a role, based on criteria that have been scientifically proven to predict success in a particular role.

2. They need to demonstrate reliability and validity

The next question has to be: how do we actually know that these assessments can really do what they say they will? It all comes down to two little words: reliability and validity.

These two properties are the foundation of psychometric assessments, and are the reason you can have confidence that psychometrics will help you identify and select the right people for a role.

So, what do we mean when we talk about reliability and validity? Let’s take a look at each concept on its own.

Reliability refers to the ability of an assessment tool to produce stable and consistent results. For example, a personality assessment should produce very similar results for the same candidate each time they complete it within a similar time period.

We can break reliability down a little further as well, into sub-categories that include test-retest reliability and internal consistency.

Test-retest reliability happens when we administer the same test to the same group of people several times, and achieve similar results each time. So, if someone is assessed as being a top performer in their first test sitting, a reliable test will give us a similar result the second time they complete the same test.

Internal consistency reliability examines the consistency between the different items within a test. This means that if there are two or more items in an assessment that measure the same construct – for example, in a safety assessment, there might be multiple items that assess a person’s locus of control – we would expect that the same person will answer all of the items in a similar way.

Validity refers to the extent to which an assessment measures what it is intended to measure. For example, a measure of intelligence should measure intelligence, and not something else, such as memory. Like reliability, validity has a number of sub-categories which all need to be met for a test to be considered a legitimate psychometric measuring tool.

A particularly important sub-category is predictive validity. This concept is all about how well a test score can predict performance on a set of future criteria.

A nice example of predictive validity is the incredibly strong and rigorous scientific evidence that a person’s score on a cognitive ability test predicts their future performance at work. In other words it is very likely that the higher a candidate’s score on a (valid and reliable) cognitive ability assessment, the better their job performance will be.

There are many other cases of strong and rigorous associations between people’s scores on a particular construct and their subsequent performance at work, including:

  • A robust association between a candidate’s score on a measure of work reliability or integrity and their rate of absenteeism from work
  • A clear association between candidate’s score on a measure of safety and their likelihood of suffering a workplace injury or accident.

3. They go through an extremely stringent development process

Developing a psychometric test is not the kind of endeavour that can happen overnight. While anyone can pull together a quiz or questionnaire and deliver some results to people (certain magazines do this very well – and they’re fun to complete), constructing a proper, valid and reliable psychometric assessment is a whole other world of complexity.

Because they do have such stringent criteria to meet and need to prove that they can provide genuine information about a candidate’s suitability or ‘fit’ for a particular role, psychometric tests can take up to 10 years to develop.

To be taken seriously, the test developers have numerous hoops to jump through. One of these is making sure that the items in the test are measuring the construct they’re supposed to measure – and just that particular construct – as precisely as possible.

This involves conducting an intricate statistical analysis to determine which items should be eliminated from or retained in the item pool, and whether additional items need to be developed.

Yet another challenge is ensuring that psychometric assessments remain up to date and relevant. This usually means that tests need to be continually updated over time, based on feedback and new research in the field.

4. They have safeguards to prevent faking or response distortion

‘But wait!’ you may say. ‘This is all very well and good, but what about candidates giving the answers they think you want in an assessment?’ And that’s a really good question.

Obviously, when candidates are applying for a job, they’re motivated to show you their very best side. This also means that they’re likely to be tempted to give fake or distorted responses on an assessment, such as telling you they’re more reliable than they really are.

This is a question that psychologists have pondered for many years, and there’s a whole body of psychological literature dedicated to it. From all of this research, there are a number of different – and effective – ways we can reduce the opportunity for candidates to fake their responses, including:

  • Verification testing: candidates complete the same assessment (with different questions) a second time under supervised conditions to verify their original results
  • Validity scales: checks are built into the assessments (by certain questions or algorithms) to detect whether candidates are trying to present an overly positive image of themselves or their behaviour

Making candidates aware of the consequences of faking: some psychometric assessment providers (Revelian included) also collect some fairly sophisticated forensic data behind the scenes, and are alerted when candidates exhibit suspicious behaviour. Alerting candidates of this before they begin the assessment and that their results may be deemed invalid if they do not respond honestly is a useful and effective method of reducing faking. So, as you can see, developing and delivering a valid, reliable and robust psychometric assessment is no mean feat and there are some extremely stringent guidelines attached.

And while this is a burden that we – as psychometric assessment developers – must bear, the great news for employers is that these same stringent guidelines mean you can be confident that tests meeting these requirements will give you accurate, fair and reliable predictions of how candidates will behave and perform at work.


About the author:

Jarrah Watkinson is a provisional psychologist undertaking a Masters of Organisational Psychology at Macquarie University. Jarrah is presently completing an internship at Revelian with the Sydney team, and during her time at Revelian Jarrah has been involved in a number of projects to deliver assessment and selection solutions across a range of industries. Jarrah is passionate about employee health and well-being, user-experience, and creating innovative ways to select and assess employees.


The Institute and Managers and Leaders have just partnered with Revelian, an Australian-owned company trusted by top employers around the world to provide psychometric assessments that reveal powerful insights about people, organisational culture and development. Revelian helps leaders to improve their HR metrics and find the best people for their organisation.

Find out more about how Revelian’s psychometric tools can help you recruit top talent here.

EUROPEAN SKILLS TO AUSTRALIAN SHORES

after Swiss IT expert Gunnar Habitz became a self-described “accidental manager” he chose to undertake professional development in management and leadership.  

story lachlan colquhoun // photograph Girish Verma

 

 the first time Gunnar Habitz CMgr FIML experienced Australia was a picture postcard arrival in Sydney’s Circular Quay on a cruise ship.

“It is one of the most amazing ways to arrive in any city, anywhere in the world,” says the Swiss IT Manager. “I fell in love with the city and from that moment I started to think that it might be somewhere I could consider as my new home. So I decided to give it a try at 40-odd years old, and start this adventure.”

 

That was two years ago, and since then Habitz has acquired permanent residency and a role as a Channel Sales Manager with the IT provider KeepItSafe, a cloud storage and disaster recovery solutions provider.

“I am passionate about the transformation of modern workplaces to embrace new ways of collaboration,” he says.

“I am convinced that cloud-based tools, mobility and artificial intelligence enable these trends, so I consult and guide my audience as a trusted advisor along the change journey, to prepare them for a connected tomorrow.”

 

He sees the Australian ICT industry as an ideal test market for innovative technologies and services.

“One of the reasons I moved to Sydney in 2016 was to apply my European experience in the cloud to sunny Australia,” he says.

The move came after two decades working in various roles in the IT industry, and more than a decade at Hewlett-Packard in Switzerland, from where he managed sales teams covering Central Eastern Europe.

 

“It was not my initial intention to become a leader, it happened after I became an IT expert, so I am what you would call an accidental manager,” says Habitz.

“I also led the team remotely. My team included 32 people but they were spread over 29 countries, and although I spent 90 days a year staying in hotels on the road, most of the communication happened using virtual communication.

“I found I needed a variable skill set to make that happen and use my visionary and participative leadership styles. I never said to people they had to do things the same way we do things in Switzerland, because I realised the market developments were quite different.”

 

One of Habitz’s goals on moving to Australia was to attend formal management and leadership training, especially as Australia has a reputation for outstanding education programs.

While he had acquired Advanced Business Studies in Zürich on top of his Master of Computer Science and had done in-house leadership trainings at Hewlett-Packard, he felt he lacked formal education in leadership.

Upon his arrival in Australia he finished an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management at the Australian Institute of Management and has become a Chartered Manager and Fellow via IML as a commitment to further develop and improve his skills.

 

In approaching his leadership journey, Habitz is guided by a belief that “the world needs more leaders who are not just managers.”

“At the moment I am in a small team and while I am not the manager from an official point of view, I do try to lead with experience and [by] example,” he says.

“This is something that we don’t see enough of in the world — but we need more of it.

“Companies are reducing management layers and smaller start-ups have very flat structures, so the individuals need leadership skills as well to develop towards sustainable success.”

 

Habitz is also driven by a personal credo of management which comprises a series of “i” words. They are inspiration, influence, impact, improve, interest … and imperfect.

Why imperfect? He believes leaders need to understand that no one is perfect. Habitz also draws a distinction between management and leadership: “Simply speaking, a manager is managing processes while a leader is leading people,” he says.

It is a view reflected in his approach to the IT industry where he uses a Sydney Harbour analogy, inspired by his arrival in Australia, to explain the difference:

“Like the Sydney Harbour Bridge covers two important parts of the city, I combine the technical with the business side,”
says Habitz.

 

“As International Sales Manager across European countries, I learnt to adopt quickly to different cultures.

“Now it is great for me to apply that learning on the diversity in the Australian marketplace. The people-to-people business culture helped me to further develop myself to become a strategic networker using modern skills like social selling and virtual leadership.”   

 

 

 

Curious about how IML Membership works, and what it costs? Visit managersandleaders.com.au/join-iml/ to find out more

 

3 PRINCIPLES TO ENSURE LEADERS DELIVER ON PROMISES

Without integrity, discipline and the ability to implement excellence, leaders will fail to  deliver on the promises they make.

by PROFESSOR DANNY SAMSON

 

Effective leaders lead by example and are true to their commitments. They deliver on their promises and, in doing so, set standards for others to follow. When leaders say one thing but do another, the organisation will suffer. On the flipside, when our staff see us as achieving and delivering on our agreed commitments, then they will follow suit.

I have been fortunate to study firsthand many of the world’s best companies, and observe what their leaders do to achieve their industry leadership. The common principles I’ve observed are integrity and discipline. They were strongly connected to a third key principle which was implementation excellence.

 

Principle 1: Integrity

Integrity boils down to openness, honesty and truth-telling. In great organisations, leaders deliver on their promises. They treat all stakeholders with respect and find ways to create mutual value for all parties. Organisations such as HP, Toyota, BHP and ABB are justifiably admired for always striving to take the high road on integrity. (Judging by what we have seen recently during the banking Royal Commission, the same cannot be said about many of our financial institutions in Australia.)

To test the comprehensiveness of your personal and organisational approach to “telling the whole truth”, consider the testing circumstance of how well you manage underperforming employees. Do the managers in your organisation fully manage poor performers and tell them the whole truth? Or do they take the easy route in the short term, and end up carrying passengers that weigh down the organisation and negatively impact on overall morale and engagement across teams and the wider business?

 

Principle 2: Discipline

The discipline principle involves establishing and living by a set of standards, in terms of operating procedures, and having stability in our processes. These help guide us in the delivery of our commitments. It is hard for anyone, even the most capable executive, to effectively deliver on commitments if the organisation is struggling in its day-to-day activities, lurching from one crisis to the next.

I haven’t seen a better company than Toyota when it comes to stability. Whenever the unexpected occurs, Toyota’s management focus as tremendous attention upon it, problem-solves it, and then returns to the steady state. With such a stable organisation in place, when executives commit to engaging in new or innovative initiatives, they usually have time to effectively deliver on them. That approach has become part of the Toyota culture, right from the top floor to the shop floor.

 

Principle 3: Implementation excellence

The implementation excellence principle is a high bar to achieve. Yet it is imperative if you want to consistently deliver on your promises. In fact, this is what separates high performers from the rest of the pack.

My research has found that when it comes to executing on major promises, there are two key requirements. First is the need to be well organised. This means planning and executing initiatives as formal projects, including a specific timeline, budget and outcome. (Executing that plan only works well when there is a solid plan in place of course!) Second comes the accountability for actually doing the work and reaping the benefits from the initiative. That means there are  consequences for poor performance, and recognition for high performance.

 

A remarkable combination

If you can combine these three principles in your organisation, the results can be remarkable. You will see leaders delivering on their promises and, in doing so, they will help to create a culture where others live up to these principles too.

But when leaders are not guided by these three principles, you can expect the organisation to be “soft” and slothful in its achievements. Ultimately the business will suffer after cutting corners and falling short on integrity (as demonstrated recently at various banks).

I encourage you to reflect upon this in two ways. First, by reading further about great leaders and their organisations where you can see these principles in action. Second, by questioning yourself and deciding what improvements you can make when it comes to integrity, discipline and implementing excellence.

Collectively, these three principles will enable you to deliver fully on your promises.

 

 

 

 

Professor Danny Samson, University of Melbourne Director, Master of enterprise & Master of Supply chain Management

 

 

 


MAKE YOUR MARK. GO CHARTERED 

Chartered Manager (CMgr) is the internationally-recognised professional designation accrediting management and leadership excellence.
The highest status that can be achieved as a manager and leader, it allows managers to professionalise their leadership skills and stand out in a competitive global market.
Focused on Continuing Professional Development (CPD), Chartered Manager is awarded on experience, expertise and a commitment to management and leadership.

For more details visit Chartered Manager

MENTAL HEALTH MEDIC

Dispelling stigma around mental health issues helps those suffering seek help, and Phillip Thompson AFIML, 2018 Queensland Young Australian of the Year, R U Ok? Ambassador and special projects manager for selectability, has dedicated himself to that cause.

  

Phillip Thompson has made it his personal mission to break the stigmas associated with mental illness. More than eight years ago, at the age of 20, the former serving soldier was wounded in Afghanistan, while serving with the First Battalion Royal Australian Regiment.

Thompson, of Townsville, suffered a traumatic brain injury, lost hearing in his right ear and was diagnosed with mental illness.

 

The experience and his road to “wellbeing” dramatically changed his life and outlook. Once Thompson started to work again, he threw himself into philanthropy, volunteering and advocacy work for people who have a mental illness, and those affected by suicide.

His dedication earnt him the accolade of 2018 Queensland Young Australian of the Year and led him to being chosen as an ambassador for well-being and suicide prevention organisation R U Ok? . He was also appointed as the organisation’s Special Projects Manager for Selectability.

 

“Friends of mine from the service have died by suicide and I think it’s important for me to advocate for them and for people who are still struggling,” he said.

He is honoured to be an R U Ok? ambassador and says the role is a perfect fit, as the organisation’s mission to reduce the stigma of mental illness and stop suicide aligns with his personal values.

“I am a hands-on ambassador,” he says. “I try to do all of it every day. I try and lead by example because in the veterans’ space, veterans under the age of 30 have a higher risk of dying by suicide than the general public.

“Townsville has the largest veteran arena in the southern hemisphere and the largest veteran cohort per capita in Australia. With R U OK?, what I do every single day is talk about suicide prevention, where to get help and how to break the stigma.”

 

Thompson’s role as Special Projects Manager for Selectability involves handling the organisation’s special projects. These can involve anything from organising government grants to project works; like a recent initiative that involved sourcing a building to create a purpose-built clubhouse to help teach workforce skills to people suffering from mental illness.

Thompson says it is important to him to lead a meaningful life. “Everyone asks, ‘How do we reduce stigma and how do we slow rates of suicide and combat mental illness?’ I think it’s about having purpose and meaningful engagement,” he said.

“Also, I think that’s what gets me out of bed. I get out of bed because if I don’t, I feel more friends of mine could succumb to their wars within.”   LM

 

THE BAD SMELL IN FINANCIAL SERVICES

MANAGERS AND LEADERS IN SOME OF AUSTRALIA’S MAJOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE LEARNING SOME PAINFUL (AND VERY PUBLIC) LESSONS

 by Sam Bell FIML

IML’s general manager – corporate services and research

  

They say a fish rots from the head. If that’s true, the stench coming from the top of some of Australia’s largest financial services companies is overwhelming. As with many pundits looking from afar, I’ve been appalled by the findings unearthed by the ongoing Hayne Royal Commission into the financial services sector. Not that it should come as a shock; over many years the industry has repeatedly broken laws and acted immorally, from the bank bill swap rate scandal to the anti-money laundering case, lax compliance breaches, poor financial advice and criminal cartel charges – these are systemic problems across an industry rather than one-off bad eggs acting in isolation.

Of course, the tax payers of Australia would be pleased to know they offer the worst offenders – the four major banks – an implicit government guarantee over their deposit base. A luxury afforded to no other non-government private or public company.

It’s an indictment on the leaders of these organisations that they accept, or willfully ignore inside their organisations, a culture that permeates “poor financial advice, dubious lending practices, mis-selling of financial products, ongoing compliance breaches and an undermining of community trust” (The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s words, not mine). How did it come to this?

 

leaders asleep at the wheel

The recent APRA report that examined the frameworks and practices in relation to governance, culture and accountability within CBA was a particular eye-opener – and a must-read for all directors and management executives. It was scathing of a board asleep at the wheel, with inadequate oversight and challenge by board members, unclear accountabilities on executive committees, overly bureaucratic decision-making that favoured collaboration rather than effective outcomes, a poorly practised risk management framework that was under resourced, and a remuneration structure that offered little punishment for senior managers when poor risk or customer outcomes materialised. 

Interestingly, the APRA report found an organisation where everyone said yes to each other. While a collegiate and trusting environment was established, it appears there was little enthusiasm to constructively challenge decisions or raise alarm at matters going on inside the bank. As a result, the report concluded, “the senior leadership was slow to recognise, and address, emerging threats to CBA’s reputation”.

 

we can’t trust the cosy club

No wonder community mistrust of large business is so widespread. They see enormous salaries being paid (the former AMP Chair was on $660,000 per year) to some individuals who are seemingly unaware of commonly accepted moral standards. All this at the same time as wage growth is barely outpacing the inflation rate for the majority of workers.

There is also a perception of a “directors club” operating in Australia and a raft of senior board appointments selected from a small gene pool. As Federal Treasurer Scott Morrison put it, “the public sees a club that comes with directorships in Australia that creates a coziness that’s not very helpful”. While there’s community outrage, the public are not demanding blood on the streets just yet.

It might all be too late for the younger generation. The latest Deloitte Millennial Survey identifies some worrying views on business motivations and ethics. This year’s results show that fewer than half of respondents (45%) believe business has a positive impact on society. In other words, 55% of millennials believe business has a net negative impact on society. I’m in no doubt the headlines, scandals and rotting fish that’ve been widely broadcast recently have contributed to these disturbing results.

The belief that businesses behave ethically suffered a 19% fall in the survey. Deloitte also uncovered a 30% decline in the belief that business leaders are committed to helping improve society. This all coming from our next generation of leaders.

The final outcome of the Hayne Royal Commission is anyone’s guess. There’s no doubt that as the Commission traverses its way through winter and spring there’s going to be a lot more pain inflicted on what were once some of Australia’s most trusted brands. The revelations of customer mistreatment and illegality will continue to dominate the 24-hour news cycle and further erode the community’s confidence in many of our business leaders.

 

RADICAL RESTRUCTURE REQUIRED

Further unpacking APRA’s report into the CBA, it made 35 recommendations (all have been accepted by the CBA’s leadership team) including a more rigorous board and executive committee level governance of non-financial risks, embedding accountability standards, raising the authority of the compliance functions, and making two key changes to culture: asking the question of “should we” in relation to all dealings with and decisions on customers, and a cultural change that “moves the dial from reactive and complacent to empowered, challenging and striving for best practice in risk identification and remediation”. Sound advice.

So where to from here? Malcolm Broomhead, Chair of Orica and a non-executive director of BHP summed it up well when speaking to the Australian Institute of Company Directors, noting: “We need to somehow rebuild that trust and significant radical restructuring of boards and companies – particularly in relation to remuneration structures – is central to that process”.   

 


MAKE YOUR MARK. GO CHARTERED 

Chartered Manager (CMgr) is the internationally-recognised professional designation accrediting management and leadership excellence.
The highest status that can be achieved as a manager and leader, it allows managers to professionalise their leadership skills and stand out in a competitive global market.
Focused on Continuing Professional Development (CPD), Chartered Manager is awarded on experience, expertise and a commitment to management and leadership.

For more details visit Chartered Manager

Everything you need to know about Member Exchange

The Institute of Managers and Leaders’ Member Exchange mentoring program.

  

The four-month program is a fantastic opportunity for IML members to share their knowledge and skills, while giving something back.

 

Since the complimentary program’s inception four years ago, some 2,000 mentees have benefited from being paired with a mentor – a role which about 1,500 members have taken up, many several times.

Margot Smith FIML, General Manager, Membership – Strategy and Engagement at IML, says Member Exchange pairs up professionals from a broad range of industries, which can range from the resources, education, finance and not-for-profit sectors to name a few, to help with a range of career aspects.

“It could be for coaching purposes. For one person new to the workforce, they might need help enhancing their LinkedIn profile. For others, they might need advice about talking to their manager about a change in role and responsibilities. It could be a raft of things, but it is usually about general management and leadership development,” she says.

 

Smith explains the key competencies of being a mentor are listening, developing a mentee’s confidence and providing a different perspective.

“You are not there to give answers, you are there to coach and lead mentees to solutions,” she said. “It could be providing clarity with goal-setting if they are having difficulties. Or helping them to see a pathway if they are currently feeling blocked.”

The program requires contact between the mentor and mentee once or twice a month.

A desire for career development and an eagerness to learn are Smith’s top tips for mentees wanting to get the most from their mentoring experience.

 

“Don’t be shy about what you would like to get out of the program,” she adds. “You need to be mindful that the mentors are volunteers and that they are giving back. But your career development is no one’s responsibility but your own — so be hungry for management and leadership development. Take the mentor’s advice and run with it. And importantly, do any ‘homework’ recommended – whether it’s reading an article, freshening up your LinkedIn profile or catching up with someone new to your network.

“Make sure you are honest with yourself, that you are setting goals and challenging yourself to learn.”

 

   

An opportunity to give back was what spurred Barry Gordon CMgr FIML to share his wisdom and knowledge as a mentor. Impressed by his experiences, he recently completed a stint as a mentee.

 

Humbling, positive and rewarding are the words Barry Gordon uses to describe his involvement with Member Exchange.

Gordon, a contracts and compliance director with Transport for NSW, said volunteering as a mentor felt like an obligation he should meet.

As he puts it, “If you have achieved some positive outcomes in your life, it is up to you to give back to others who may be struggling.”

 

His two mentoring experiences involved coaching and guiding a young woman in taking over a family business, while the other stint saw him assist an engineering project manager in ways to secure project director roles, via help with cover letters and networking.

He has remained in touch with both mentees, and says seeing the positive changes to their careers was rewarding.

“I have had nice thank you emails and we’ve caught up for a meal and coffee to see how things are settling in,” he says. “It’s rewarding seeing posts on LinkedIn of past mentees’ achievements.”

The positive mentoring experiences led Gordon to consider how he could personally benefit from Member Exchange.

“I started to think, ‘what else can I learn from this and what is in it for me on the other side?’” he says. “I probably looked at it like, I am in the same boat as my mentees. I am in position ‘x’ and looking at what is position ‘y’ for me.”

He said his journey as a mentee helped with gaining a different perspective, while also providing him with a sounding board from his mentor; a semi-retiree who worked in consultancy.

 

Gordon believes Member Exchange is successful because it bridges a gap. “I have found, and certainly with the mentees I have been linked to, that there is just a big gap. People want help but don’t know where to get it,” he says. “These networks don’t necessarily exist in their day-to-day roles.

“As a mentee — reach out, there’s a powerful network of people in IML that are willing and able to help where possible. So make use of it.”  

 

  

About the program:

 • All IML individual members are eligible (excluding IMLa members).

• Apply via the website: managersandleaders.com.au/mentoring-program/mentees

• Mentees must provide information about what their objectives are. E.g. Career development, returning to the workforce after having children, assistance in
career development.

• For more information please email mentoringmanagersandleaders.com.au or phone 1300 661 061.

SOLVING THE PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PUZZLE

WHEN YOU NEED TO PERFORMANCE MANAGE AN EMPLOYEE, PUT A CLEAR AND THOROUGH PROCESS IN PLACE. Photo by Sally Elford.

 

Performance management appears to be universally despised. From the employees who are subjected to it, to the managers who have to carry it out, it seems no-one enjoys the process of documenting an employee’s failings and trying to force an improvement. At best, it may be deemed a necessary evil that most managers will have to face, sooner or later in their careers.

The process of performance management is also a hotbed for all kinds of disputes, with bullying and harassment allegations and stress-related claims a not uncommon outcome. With this in mind, how can managers safely navigate the performance improvement process while protecting themselves and the company from liability? A key fact to keep in mind is that “reasonable management action, carried out a reasonable manner”, is expressly excluded from the definition of workplace bullying1. Similarly, a worker’s compensation claim for psychological injury can be defeated if the condition has resulted from “reasonable action” of the employer with respect to performance appraisal or discipline2.

The recent case of Miroslav Blagojevic v AGL Macquarie3 provides some useful examples of how to ensure that a performance management process is carried out in a reasonable manner. The complainant in this case was an engineer who was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) for three months. Over the course of the PIP, the manager realised that the engineer’s health was being adversely affected by the PIP process. The manager attempted to address this issue by:

  • Reiterating to the engineer that the PIP was not a formal warning, but a process to assist him in improving his performance and output;
  • Offering the engineer access to the employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
  • Offering the engineer the manager’s personal support and coaching
  • Referring the engineer to the employer’s return to work co-ordinator
  • Obtaining information from the engineer’s treating doctor about his mental health, and
  • Allowing the engineer to take an extended period of annual leave.

 

When the engineer’s performance did not improve to the required standard, the manager implemented a revised PIP, for another three month period. The revised PIP was ultimately never completed, as the engineer was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and became unfit for work.

The engineer then filed an application with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) for an order to stop bullying. He claimed, amongst other things, that:

  • His performance was not deficient in a way that justified being put on a PIP
  • The PIP was unreasonable because three of the five areas of underperformance identified by his manager were not within the scope of his role, and
  • Many of the actions contained in the revised PIP were impossible for him to execute.

 

The FWC denied the engineer’s application and found that although the engineer had a reasonable belief that he had been bullied, the employer had engaged in “reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner”.  Management action does not have to be perfect, or the most acceptable course of action, it need only be objectively reasonable in the circumstances. The steps that the manager took throughout the process to take into account the engineer’s health demonstrated that he had, in fact, implemented the process in a very reasonable manner.

It is worth noting that the manager in this case also took detailed notes of performance conversations that he had with the employee. These notes were submitted as evidence in the bullying case, and helped to prove that the steps he had taken were reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Lessons for the Performance Management Process

  • The PIP should be carefully drafted to specifically identify areas of underperformance and relate them to the job description for the relevant position
  • Notes should be taken of performance conversations with employees
  • Support should be offered to the employee in the form of an EAP or personal support and coaching
  • If the employee is affected by medical issues, seek further medical advice and modify the PIP if appropriate.

 

ELIZABETH TICEHURST IS SPECIAL COUNSEL

– EMPLOYMENT AT KPMG.

 

1 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s789FD(2)

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s 11A

3 [2018] FWC 2906

 

When fiction masquerades as fact

The Cambridge Analytica scandal left ethical questions for all marketers and business leaders to ponder.

By JANE CARO

When I first started out in advertising back in the Stone Age (the 1980s), I remember having to deal with clients who wanted me to guarantee that my little 30-second TVC, radio spot or print ad would infallibly convince anyone who watched it to buy their product. My stock answer was to say that I never gave guarantees. I couldn’t even guarantee that my kids would grow up to be worthwhile human beings, I’d tell them, but I was still in there pitching. I’d finish up by saying that there was no foolproof method of getting people to part with their money against their will and, if anyone ever came up with such a thing, it would soon be illegal to use it. My, how times have changed!

If the fuss about data crunching, opinion manipulating organisations like Cambridge Analytica is correct, it seems someone has come up with such a method and it is not – as yet – illegal. The company itself is now defunct but no doubt others will use their techniques to undermine political candidates or influence purchase decisions (a vote is a purchase decision) in ways we previously thought impossible. Given the grilling of Facebook supremo Mark Zuckerberg by the US Senate committee looking into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, such opportunists had better move fast. As lawmakers gather in the wake of the scandal it looks likely that my decades-old prediction that such sophisticated manipulation would get banned may be vindicated. However, wherever there is demand, there is supply, so illegal or not, I suspect such techniques – now tried and tested – may prove too tempting for some.

And you can understand that temptation. Along comes a whizz bang organisation incorporating the name of a world-famous university (no actual connection, of course, just the same name), offering you the opportunity to understand what motivates consumers in ways marketers have previously only dreamt about. And I have heard at least one well known Australian business leader admit they were approached by Cambridge Analytica about a project. Sensibly they declined the approach (anything associated with Breitbart founder and ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon smells pretty stinky). I’ll bet they are deeply relieved they did now.

And therein lies the trick. If something looks too good to be true, we used to say it probably was. Now, given the apparently limitless abilities of technology, it may be true but it is probably a very bad idea.

Anything that can manipulate people without their knowledge, anything that masquerades as editorial, or a comment with no hidden agenda but which is actually a commercial message that has been bought and paid for is unethical. Anything that presents lies as facts, that sets out to distort and undermine without clearly identifying its source and agenda, anything that calls itself news, but is, in fact, propaganda, is unethical. If you write an opinion piece (I write them all the time, see this column) that is fine, as long as it is presented as such.

There is nothing new about people flying very close to the wire pretending advertising is editorial. I once complained to the Press Council about a regular insert in a major newspaper that called itself “a special supplement”. It was clearly an advertising supplement and, I believe, should have been labelled that way. Advertising supplements are a revenue earner for media publications, and that’s fine, as long as they are clearly identified. The publication writes editorial about a particular sector or industry (travel, real estate, private schools) in return for members of that industry taking paid ads in the supplement. As you can imagine, the editorial is rarely critical and the more an advertiser pays, the more mentions they get. No problem, but a “special” supplement it wasn’t. Sadly, my complaint was not upheld.

I have always argued that advertising is the most honest of the dishonest professions because you all know we’re trying to sell you something. Or you used to know. I am not so sure now and I am glad that I am no longer in the industry because the lines have become so blurred. Indeed, I am so paranoid about this that I refuse to boost my posts on my public Facebook page (oh, OK, I am too stingy, as well), because I don’t think they are ads.

I have been asked to use my social media following to promote services occasionally (reminding older women to get a mammogram and younger women to look to their superannuation so far) and I’ve been paid to do so, but I have been punctilious about making that clear when I send a tweet or write a Facebook post about them.

For me, the line is clear. It’s fine to sell so long as you are upfront about it and – this is crucial – do not set out to gain an added advantage by deceiving. The minute you hide something – who is paying you, that anyone is paying you, or that what you are publishing is false – then you are being unethical.

It’s fine to research your audience. It is important to understand them and learn how they see the world. If your work, skill and insights help you to attract their attention to your message, I have no problem. But the minute you hide your commercial agenda or conceal your ulterior motive, not only is it wrong but one day – and this is the only guarantee I’ll give you – it’ll come back and bite you on the bum, hard.


Jane Caro runs her own communications consultancy.

She worked in the advertising industry for 30 years and is now an author, journalist, lecturer and media commentator.