The Apprentice: UK (Sugar) v US (Trump)

I watch the Apprentice - the UK version with Lord Sugar and when I notice it's on in the TV listings, I also watch the US version with Donald Trump. Three(?) programmes into the new series in the UK and I have to say I'm watching for negative rather than positive reasons.

None of the candidates are covering themselves in glory. Each episode seems to be full of poor judgements, bad mistakes and dubious behaviours. Having said it's increasingly clear that the way the programme is set up is intentionally designed to encourage the candidates to be very competitive and perhaps in those circumstances it's understandable their behaviours become a bit questionnable.

But the focus of my frustration with the programme is not so much with the candidates - it's more with Lord Sugar. He interrupts the candidates, he talks over them, he belittles them and insults them. He gives them little credit for things they do well, and there's little explanation about the things they don't. His leadership style seems to be based exclusively on positional power. It's all about his position on the show and implicitly about his success in business and huge wealth. And he regularly reminds the candidates of all this. Last night his lines included: "This is my boardroom, this is my process, this is my money!" Clearly he's earned the right to use this style. But it's all too one-dimensional.

"Love and respect do not automatically accompany a position of leadership. They must be earned."

On the other hand, in the US version of the programme it seems to me that whilst Donald Trump sometimes uses positional power he much more often uses personal power. Whilst positional power comes from external factors, personal power comes from within, it's the ability a leader has to influence others through their confidence, assurance and charisma. In my opinion it's more constructive - and a style I'd rather use and follow. And it's also why I make the US Apprentice more watchable than the UK version.......

Which do you prefer?

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Trust and Mistrust

The bloodshed and killing in Syria goes on unabated. Yesterday the news was full of stories casting doubt on whether the peace plan will be respected and hostilities suspended. And as the deadline for the withdrawal of government troops and weaponry from population centres approaches, the government and the opposition forces continue to trade demands with neither side apparently able or willing to take a committed step towards peace. I'm not making a politicial statement here and I'm not apportioning blame - that just appears to be the reality.

Later in the day yesterday I was reading a book entitled 'One Foot Out The Door' by Dr. Judith Bardwick. In it she writes about trust and I came across the following statement:

"Trust may be the single most important condition underlying every kind of relationship and behind every achievement."


My initial thoughts when I read it were about Syria - about the complete absence of trust between the opposing political forces. I then began to think about trust in business and in people's personal lives. Trust is surely the key ingredient of positive relationships. With trust boundaries can be bridged, relationships can be built, issues can be resolved. If there's no trust there's mistrust - there's no neutral, it's one or the other. Trust is constructive, mistrust is destructive. Where there is mistrust, disagreements are magnified, relationships destroyed and viewpoints polarised. Without trust there's no effectiveness in relationships. With trust comes cooperation, without it just conflict, and suspicion of others' actions and motives.

If organisations don't trust their people the focus is on controlling them, on checking what they're doing, on monitoring their output. Rules and regulations are tools to ensure adherence. Disagreement is seen as insurrection. But in environments like this whilst employees might obey the rules, they don't innovate, create and cooperate. They comply, doing just enough to get by. And the power of collective effort to deliver objectives, to achieve success, to accomplish the vision is subdued.

So how is trust created? Trust is a feeling that develops as a result of experience. It's a feeling that develops from experiencing TRUTH. That's it. Truth is people always, always saying what they mean and behaving in a way that's consistent with their words. In business it's about the way leaders behave. And without it leaders have no followers. Leaders earn trust through their actions and as the saying goes "it's hard won and easily lost".

It seems inevitable that it will be a long and hard road back to trust in Syria.....

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Ruthlessness

I heard the word 'ruthless' in two situations yesterday. And whilst sitting in a guge traffic jam driving home last night - it was one of the ones where people switch off their engines, get out of the car and walk around waiting for it to clear - I was thinking about it.

The first time it came up was yesterday morning when I was involved in one of those "did you watch that programme on TV last night" conversations. The programme in question was 'The Apprentice' with Lord Sugar. I can't remember exactly how we got on to the subject but I think one of the candidates may have described themselves as being ruthless and also my colleague described Lord Sugar as ruthless in the way in which he managed the relationships with the candidates, particularly in the boardroom.

Then it came up again during the evening when I was listening to the Radio 4 programme 'The Bottom Line'. The topic being discussed was being ruthless and the panel expressed some interesting views. Broadly, they agreed that whilst leaders are paid to make tough decisions it's really important to understand the human implications of them and to do so in a compassionate way. That definitely doesn't mean not taking difficult decisions but it does mean making the experience as good as it possibly can be for those people impacted by it. One of the contributors shared that the meaning of the word 'Ruth' is compassion, mercy or pity and therefore by implication being ruthless means behaving in a way that there is an absence of those things. She also expressed the view that no-one would be proud to descrive themselves as a ruthless mother (or father) so why would they be proud to describe themselves in that way at work? And yet, there are hundreds of books extolling the virtues of being ruthless in business. Strange....

I remember in the early part of my career that if a leader was described as being ruthless it was generally used in a positive context, as a character trait that was admirable. It seemed to be an accepted truth that in order to progress up the corporate ladder (and definitely to reach the top of it) leaders had to be ruthless.

I don't believe that's true any longer. I believe there's no place for ruthlessness in modern day organisations. In a world where it's accepted that the route to long term and sustainable business success is by engaging employees and creating a high performance organisational culture, I can't see how being ruthless can contribute. Maybe it's confused with being decisive and prepared to take difficult decisions? Whilst in the past not being ruthless was sometimes seen as a sign of weakness, should being ruth now be seen as a sign of strength?

By the way, if you'd like to listen to the Radio 4 Programme I refer to
above, it's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b01dvwcz

LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/timhadfield
Twitter: @accordengage
Telephone: 0044 07906650019

Intuition

Not a word I use often, but it's one that has come into my mind twice in recent days.

I was reading a book* yesterday that was published back in 1994. In it the author, Dr Peter Scott-Morgan suggests that the days when managers could take decisions based on intuition have gone. He suggests that being able to do so requires a certain amount of experience, or put another way, knowledge of what the best decision is likely to be based on previous experiences. If that was the case back in 1994, how much more true is it today!

The current economic environment is like nothing we’ve seen before. OK, some commentators make comparisons with the 1930's but one thing is absolutely certain - business leaders of today haven’t led through times like these and neither have people managers managed in times like these. Clearly no-one has direct and comparable experience on which they can draw. Is relying on intuition therefore outdated, unhelpful and perhaps dangerous?

The second occassion when the word intuition came into my mind was actually last week as I stood in a queue in my bank. I observed a customer walking away from the counter having obviously completed a transaction. It was a relatively small branch and as such didn't have the automated message directing the customer to a specific till position and perhaps because of this the customer stepped forward and walked towards the till, only to suddenly stop and then slowly walk backwards to the front of the queue again. The problem was that the cashier was still completing paperwork following the previous transaction. I'm sure that they were aware the customer had approached and consciously chose to avoid eye contact and not look up to signal to the customer that they weren't yet ready. That's not unreasonable I guess but I believe the impact on the customer wasn't what the bank would have wanted, she was clearly a little embarrassed about having to retrace her steps to the front of the busy queue. It's probably counter-intuitive, but it would have been a far better experience for the customer if the cashier had immediately made eye contact and let them know they'd be ready in a few moments. Or perhaps better still, if the procedures werre more efficient and meant that the cashier could move on to the next customer as soon as the previous one walked away.

There was a huge contrast the following day with what I experienced at Pret a Manger. The queue here was longer, and yet the assistant made eye contact with me within seconds of my joining the queue, in fifth position. I felt as a result that he was aware I was there and was doing what he could do get to me as quickly as possible. I mentioned this story to someone else who made a comparison with standing at the bar in busy pub. It can be a real struggle to catch the barpersons eye and get served but if they just make eye contact with you it somehow communicates that you can relax, safe in the knowledge that they're coming to you.

* The Unwritten Rules of the Game by Dr Peter Scott-Morgan