How to measure success

I was asked by a student who had the opportunity to work with a group of clients about how to measure the success of the programme. Ah: the thorny problem of measurement. Success is easier said than measured, because as the old adage goes, "What we measure is what we get". If we measure how many people attend each session, we may focus on 'presenteeism', not engagement. If we measure how many attendees recommend the programme, the recommendations might be because people enjoyed themselves, not necessarily because they learned what we set out to teach. If attendees all passed an independent licencing test, then that says they reached a standard, but that may not have been because of our programme. It is easy to see that using only one measure will only tell part of the story, where all three measures taken together builds a clearer picture. 

That means that we need to begin with our outcomes. What will our outcomes be? If we understand what success looks like for our participants, we can then work back from that to what we can measure to help us stay on target to achieve those outcomes. 

How do we do that? To begin with, we can seek papers on other successful rehabilitation or community development programmes and investigate how they measured 'success' in their projects. In searching for papers, while initially I would use keywords such as 'outcomes', 'measurement', 'effectiveness', I would be guided by the keywords from published papers I found as my reading progressed. As we find papers, we explore the researcher rationale for why they measured the things they measured, and the specifics of what they measured. We think about transferability.

As to 'what is measured, we do need to attempt to keep measurement as simple as we possibly can. This means that our scarce resources - our programme funding -  are not wasted through measurement (think Jarndyce vs Jarndyce in Dickens's Bleak House, 1852). The less time we spend on actually measuring, and the more automatic we can make our data collection, the more time and resources we have to use for implementing and undertaking the actual project (Graeber, 2018). 

Apps may also be our friend here for tracking engagement, for encouraging impromptu tests, and apps or swipe cards to track attendance. We need to use technology wherever we can, so all we have to do is analyse the data, not to collect it.

We also need to first be mindful that many of our participants may have a long way to travel to reach whatever 'success' looks like. We tend to under-estimate people's blocks and barriers, and just how much conditioning they may need to overcome before they get anything approaching what we determine as 'success'. What to us may seem like a small shift may seem monumental to our participants.

Because of this issue of scale, we might be best to begin at the outset, with a survey of each participant. This, if they cannot read well, or are not yet digitally competent, could be set up as a guided experience with someone who was well-briefed and trained to facilitate this initial data collection. The results of the initial survey could then be paired with a corresponding exit survey at the end of the programme. 

Further, undertaking some final interviews with a selected sample of participants to conclude the evaluation cycle could also be helpful. A purposive selection (Braun & Clarke, 2017) of those who showed in their surveys that they (a) did not fully engage, or (b) engaged a lot, could allow us to seek differences between the two groups. The results could allow us to refine the programme delivery for the next run through, to create or modify elements needed for better engagement. 

However, we need to remember that engagement, or the ability to engage, may have more to do with 'follower readiness', as per the Hersey Blanchard Life Cycle theory (here; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) than with the design of our programme. We need to be prepared to adapt our delivery to take best advantage of our followers' 'readiness' - by evaluating "performance gaps and [the] underlying causes" of blocks and barriers; taking into account each follower's "ability and willingness" to be able to do what they are being asked to do (Goldsmith & Lyons, 2011, p. 28). 

This is what being an educator is all about, too.

Sam

References:

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2017). Successful Qualitative Research: A practical guide for beginners. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Dickens, C. (1852). Bleak House. George Routledge and Sons.

Goldsmith, M., & Lyons, L. S. (Eds.). (2011). Coaching for leadership: The practice of leadership coaching from the world's greatest coaches (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit Jobs: A theory. Simon & Schuster.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34.

read more "How to measure success"

6 stages of role development

Last year I was reading an article by the CEO of Recruitment firm, KornFerry, showing six stages of career 'development' (Burnison, 2021). I was quite struck how this CEO had turned career development into a process that I have not seen in the career development field. I could not decide if I liked it or not.

The model seems to conflate leadership theory development with the career stages of Super (1980). This not a bad idea. But I am not sure that it is career 'development' though. Career development has been defined as “the total constellation of psychological, sociological, educational, physical, economic and chance factors that combine to shape the career of an individual over the life span” (Sears, 1982, p. 139; as cited by Patton & McMahon, 2006, p. 6). Career development includes our transitions into and out of work, so I am finding Burnison's model a little truncated. I would probably be more comfortable if Burnison had termed the flowchart "the 6 stages of work expertise", or "the 6 phases of role development" (2021). And yes, I think the name matters.

To detail my understanding of the 6 stage model (Burnison, 2021):

1. Follower. This might be our first role after qualifying, and - like the Hersey and Blanchard life cycle theory of leadership (1969) of telling - we are being instructed what to do - and have all our structure supplied in almost a parent-child relationship, and deliver quite technical work. We may have low follower readiness (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). This stage in the model doesn't appear to be like the followership style of Kelley (1988), but use of a followership model might help new hires to work on critical thinking and active participation skills. However, this stage is similar to the first theatre, the growth stage of Super (1980).
2. Collaborator. Again, this stage seems aligned to Hersey and Blanchard life cycle theory (1969), moving on two stages to participation. We are still delivering highly technical work, but we are working alongside others growing our interpersonal and team skills. We will have high follower readiness (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969), and similar to the exploration stage (Super, 1980).
3. Instructor. This is where we take on our first line leadership role, and this step appears similar to the delegating stage from Hersey and Blanchard (1969). We are a manager with training wheels, and need to be able to effectively delegate, while encouraging others to deliver to a set of requirements. This stage may be aligned to Super's establishment phase (1980): we may "have the responsibility, but not the authority" (Burnison, 2021).
4. Manager. We move onto managing larger projects, teams and goals. We build skills in motivation, vision, influence, strategy, long term-goal setting, and planning. This stage may also be aligned to Super's establishment phase (1980). We have worked our way up.
5. Influencer. This is transition phase where we move into a more mentorship role. We are less hands on but use our influence and expert power to get things done, similar to Henry & Lee's networked model (2004). This stage is - I think - aligned to both Super's maintenance and disengagement stages (1980). However, I am unsure this stage is a linear characteristic: I suspect this is a trait across all stages.
6. Leader. Here Burnison takes a servant leadership approach (Greenleaf, 1998), focusing on follower empowerment, inspiration, and values. This might possibly be aligned to Level 5 leadership of Collins (2001), or authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). However, I disagree that this is a different step to step 4. For good management, we must be able to both manage - get things done through others - and to lead - to encourage the heart. But perhaps this is step 5 where we hone our management skills into a more developmental, leader-oriented role.

This model is presented as a process, as a "pathway of possibilities, where the worker will, like Super's model, travel through stages of the process at different times, with different companies (Burnison, 2021). Interestingly, though, I don't think that the last two steps quite work that way. To me, step 5 is not a not linear. Step 6 might be, but I am also uncertain about that. I find steps 5 and 6 are more styles of working, rather than a role which we perform.

Sam

References:

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90035-7

Burnison, G. (21 September 2021). This chart shows the 6 stages of career growth. Where are you now?. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/09/21/the-6-stages-of-career-growth-and-how-to-tell-where-you-are.html

Collins, J. (2001). Good To Great. HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Greenleaf, R. (1998). The Power of Servant Leadership. Berrett-Koehler.

Henry, I., & Lee, P. C. (2004). Governance and ethics in sport. In J. Beech & S. Chadwick (Eds.), The business of sport management (pp. 25-41). Pearson Education.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34.

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.

Patton, W. & McMahon, M. (2006). Career Development and Systems Theory: Connecting Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Sense Publishers.

Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16(3), 282-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1

read more "6 stages of role development"

Desirable Follower and Leader Characteristics

As followers, we can give a lot of our power to leaders, expecting them to do the right thing, while forgetting that we too are a part of that relationship. We need to also take responsibility ourselves for creating and maintaining a partnership with our leader, based on what is good for us, as well as the team. We can remind our leaders that it is our collective job to build engagement, and to remind them that we are not passive sheep who simply do what we are told.

Followers have characteristics in common with leaders, so we need to work on some of the same skills.

There has been a lot of research which tells us what followers expect of leaders: "to be honest, forward-thinking, inspiring, and competent" (Daft, 2008, p. 209). Why? We want our leaders to be trustworthy, and they cannot be trustworthy unless they are honest with us and themselves. We want our leaders to be able to show us the way forward with a clear vision for our collective future: be our standard-bearer. We want our leaders to inspire us to reach for that future by helping us visualise that vibrant future. And we want our leaders to be competent in what they do: to be as expert as they can be at leading, and at the job they are tasked with.

However, we need to remember that leaders too have expectations of followers. We too need to be trustworthy, and that means we too need to be honest. We too need to be expert at the job we are tasked with, but we also need to become as as expert at following as we want our leaders to be at leading. The two areas where we followers differ are in being collaborative, and in getting the job done: and in being dependable and conscientious in delivering that work when and how we said we would.

These two follower factors are written up as being "co-operative" and "dependable" in the US. My students over the years have felt that both those terms are too cold for New Zealand, and don't emphasise the intertwined team nature of work. Successive cohorts have warmed those terms up to "collaborative" and "dependable/conscientious". I like that shift.

So while leaders need to create "a vision and inspiring others to achieve that vision", followers need to deliver on the vision, and work well together.

It sounds so easy, doesn't it!


Sam

References:

• Daft, Richard L. (2008). The Leadership Experience (4th Edition). USA: Thomson South-Western.
• Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It. USA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

read more "Desirable Follower and Leader Characteristics"

Arrogance: a Barrier to Leadership

Marshall Goldsmith, life-long leadership development coach and commentator, suggested in a LinkedIn post this year that the "number one sign that someone isn’t a great leader" is leader arrogance.

Whereas support from your boss will help your department build leaders (or CEO support will build organisational leadership), leader arrogance does the reverse. It undermines leadership: it shuts people down.

So when organisational leaders act as if they are "perfect and tells everyone else they need to improve[,] this is a sure sign that the leader isn’t great. Worse yet, this behavior can be copied at every level of management. Every level then points out how the level below it needs to change. The end result: No one gets much better" (Goldsmith, 2016). 

The reason this is so bad? 

Because it means the leader is the only one with 'the answers'. Probably with ALL 'the answers'. Arrogance consolidates power, critical thinking, solutions and expertise in one person: the boss.

In the boss's eyes, everyone other than themselves delivers shades of wrong.

That's how we build mediocre organisations which either fail, or which don't reach their potential. They are full of get group think and 'Yes men'. 

And that leads to shut down: passive followers (Daft, 2008).


Sam

References:

• Daft, Richard L (2008). The Leadership Experience (Fourth Edition). USA: Thomson South-Western.
• Marshall Goldsmith, Marshall (11 April 2016). #1 Sign Someone Isn’t a Great Leader. Retrieved 19 April 2016 from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/1-sign-someone-isnt-great-leader-marshall-goldsmith?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-recommended_articles-133-null&midToken=AQGAxGsctAQ4_g&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=0uPW2UFau3znc1

read more "Arrogance: a Barrier to Leadership"

Kelley's Five Followership Styles

It is interesting how much we focus on leadership, because in doing so, we forget about the other key players in the process: followers.

Like good leaders, good followers need to develop some sound characteristics. Consider a good sports team. We have those who lead and those who follow, at different times, and for different reasons, within a game. The team relies on the expertise and abilities of those with the required skill set, as the team needs the skills in question.

To be able to access those skills on the fly, the team has to be aware of the talents available and who possesses them. No one can be passive, and everyone has to be a good thinker.

In fact, there are two key parameters that we, as followers, need to display: critical thinking, and active behaviour.

The critical thinking is where we are mindful of what is going on around us, and of what the team needs for their outcome to be achieved. It is not about us: it is about the organisational goal.

Active behaviour is where we don't sit back and wait for others to put their hands up: we get on and do it, if we are the best qualified.

Based on these two ideas - critical thinking and active behaviour - Robert E. Kelley thought about two continua: the first being independent, critical thinking, versus dependent, uncritical thinking; the second being active versus passive behaviour.

Based on those two continua, came up with his Five Followership Styles model, which are:

1. Effective: a follower who is both a critical, independent thinker and active in behaviour. They exhibit consistent behaviour to all people, regardless of their power in the organisation, and deal well with conflict and risk. They cope with change, put forward their own views, and stay focused on what the organisation needs. They understand how others see them - so are mindful. They make acts of leadership often, and use their referent, expert, network and information power often in service of the organisation. Kelly called this group originally "The Stars".
2. Conformist: this follower type is very busy, but doesn't necessarily engage their brain to think through what it is they are doing. They participate very willingly but don't question orders. They will avoid conflict at all costs and take the quietest path, but will defend their boss to loyal extremes. Kelley originally named this follower type "The Yes-People".
3. Passive: think of a two year old who doesn't want to do something and just goes floppy. This is the passive follower. They don't engage their brain enough, nor do they take concrete action. Robert Kelley called this group "The Sheep". While not showing any initiative nor responsibility, this follower type can be the result of micro-managers or a negative, over-controlling and blame-oriented culture.
4. Alienated: this follower thinks extremely well, but for some reason often snipes from the sidelines. They have got stuck where they are, are very negative and feel they have lost their power. They have seen 'too much', have become bitter in their work from being passed over for promotion, or from having stayed too long in one position.
5. Pragmatic Survivor: this follower type I think of as the organisational 'canary in the mine-shaft'. They can flip between different followership styles, to suit each situation, and are our early warning system when the organisation's culture is starting to change for the worse. We all know that there are some people who can see the writing on the wall early: identify them and use them to ensure that your work culture remains healthy at all times.

We can't have only exemplary followers in an organisation. New people can be passive or conformist, as we all try to minimise risk until we are comfortable and more certain of our environment. We need some pragmatic survivors so when the culture starts to deteriorate, we see our canaries pulling away and can run repairs prior to a breakdown. The devil's advocates - the Alienated - amongst us can spark new ways of thinking, if we can direct their criticism wisely and help them move into new roles which avoid bitterness.

But most of our profit comes from exemplary followers, our stars. Something to remember.


Sam

References:

• Daft, Richard L. (2007). The Leadership Experience (4th Edition). USA: Thomson South-Western.
• Kelley, Robert E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, November 1988, Volume 66, issue 6 (pp. 142-148).
• Rohde, Susan, & Ford, Deb (2007). Determining Your Followership Style. USA: Roosevelt University. Retrieved on 6 January 2008 from http://www.roosevelt.edu/hr/td/documents/DeterminingYourFollowershipStyle.ppt

read more "Kelley's Five Followership Styles"

Authentic Leaders and Followers

There are many leadership styles, and, amongst modern leadership theory - or transformational leadership theory - in the relational leadership school of Level 5, shared, ethical and authentic leadership, authentic leadership is one of the most interesting.

Avolio, Luthans, and Walumbwa defined authentic leadership as “those who are deeply aware of how they think and behave and are perceived by others as being aware of their own and others’ values/moral perspectives, knowledge, and strengths; aware of the context in which they operate; and who are confident, hopeful, optimistic, resilient, and of high moral character” (2004, p. 4, as cited in Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 321).

Authentic leadership values create openness, transparency and allows for doubt, which in turn allows us to develop open and honest reflection. It allows for the empowerment of others, and the creation of value: of human capital, intellectual capital and of other resources. It allows us to build a positive workplaces through a shared vision, values and goals (Jackson & Parry, 2011).

Authentic leadership does not allow cultural gaps to occur; that is, where there is a difference between the organisational behaviours that the are spoken about and those that actually happen (Daft & Pirola-Merlo, 2009).

Due to their nature, authentic leaders build adaptive organisational culture, where they have high concern for people, and create processes which aid positive change. This is the type of environment where - calculated - risks can be taken, where pilot studies are the norm, and where corporate entrepreneurship can flourish.

Authentic leaders encourage us to challenge, inspire, motivate or ground ourselves, by supplying an external perspective and helping us to internally adapt within organisations.

Authentic leadership allows us to focus on the development of followers. Wren (1995, p. x) defines leadership as “an interactive process in which leaders and followers engage in mutual interaction in a complex environment to achieve mutual goals”. Daft and Pirola-Merlo (2009, p. 4, after Rost, 1991, p. 102) defines leadership as “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes”. Burns (1978, p. 18): “people with certain motives and purposes mobilize in competition or conflict with others, institutional, political, psychological, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of the followers”. Ivancevich and Matteson (2002, p. 425, as cited by Chelladurai, 2006, p. 192): "the process of influencing others to facilitate the attainment of organizationally relevant goals".

All those definitions mention followers (or 'others') as a key stakeholder in the process of leadership, and this is particularly true in authentic leadership. Shamir & Eilam (p. x, 2005, as cited in Avolio & Gardner, 2005, p. 322) define authentic followers as those “who follow leaders for authentic reasons and have an authentic relationship with the leader".This is one of the few leadership styles that details the characteristics of the follower.

It is egalitarian. Authentic leaders and followers are an inextricably linked pair.

And they support each other.


Sam

References:

• Avolio, Bruce J. & Gardner, William L. (June 2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 16, Issue 3, June 2005 (pp. 315-338)
• Burns, James MacGregor (1978). Leadership. USA: Harper & Row
• Chelladurai, Packianathan (2006). Human Resource Management in Sport and Recreation (2nd Edition). USA: Human Kinetics (pp. 189-210)
• Daft, Richard L., & Pirola-Merlo, Andrew (2009). The Leadership Experience (Asia-Pacific Edition 1). Australia: Cengage
• Jackson, B., & Parry K. (2011). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership (Second Edition). UK: Sage
• Wren, Thomas J. (1995). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership through the Ages. USA: The FreePress

read more "Authentic Leaders and Followers"