www.ashteadgroup.org
Forward this to a friend
This month's theme:
Hire experts and focus on their strengths
Welcome to the March edition of Sharpening the Axe.
You’d think that taking over a FTSE 100 business as one of the youngest ever CEOs was challenging enough wouldn’t you?
However, according to the Financial Times, Richard Baker, my interviewee this month, was also heir to the worst retail job in Britain when he took over at Boots in 2003.
As you might expect from the man who turned around the ailing 154 year old business, Richard has plenty of insights and advice.
I‘ve pulled out two aspects I found particularly interesting: the need to hire experts and the importance of focusing on their strengths.
|
Hire experts – beware the Russian doll syndrome. During our interview, Richard was very clear about the need to surround yourself with experts that give you confidence. He explained, “It’s very important that a leader knows what they are good and bad at. Then you hire people who are brilliant at what you are not.” This advice appears obvious but I wonder how often it is actually carried out. We all know the old adage ‘Jack of all trades, master of none’ but the temptation to know best, to believe you must always know the answer, often gets in the way. Richard puts it succinctly when he says, “If you don’t know, then admit it.” While this seems incredibly simple to do, in reality for a boss to admit that they don’t know takes guts. You have to be incredibly sure of yourself to be able to say you don’t know; to admit you need help. Whether it’s ego speaking, or a fear of being usurped, too often leaders choose not to listen, seeing challenge or advice as a criticism of their abilities. Paradoxically, people who have self-belief, who listen and take on board criticism, have far less anxiety than those who ignore the opinions and suggestions of those around them. As Richard says, “If you have a steely inner belief, you are much more likely to hire great people but not be threatened yourself.” Richard’s tip is to adopt the attitude that you are better with the help of everybody else. Research among behavioural scientists backs up this argument. Studies have shown the approaches and outcomes of groups that cooperate in working towards a solution are better than those of the group’s best problem solver working alone. You may be wondering about the reference to Russian dolls in the headline. It refers to the wisdom of advertising guru David Ogilvy – someone who really appreciated the value of top talent. Ogilvy was renowned for his memos to staff across the world and one such memo was sent inside a set of Russian dolls. Recipients received a large doll. On opening it they found a smaller doll inside. Having opened six dolls they finally got to a tiny doll which contained this note from David:“If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs. But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants.” |
Focus on people’s strengths
Here’s a question for you. Your boss calls you into their office. Would you rather they discuss what you are good at and how to exploit this talent, or would you prefer them to identify your faults and discuss how to go about overcoming these weaknesses? Honest answers please.
Now unless you have a well developed masochistic side, I wager you would rather have a strengths based chat. This is not to say there is no place for identifying people’s faults and supporting them to improve. However, I am a believer in the saying ‘go where the energy is’. It’s the ‘half-full glass’ approach.
Richard hits on this aspect of leadership in the interview when he says, “put your best people in the best jobs. Put people where they are likely to win. Don’t spend your whole time trying to develop their faults.”
This is sound logic. We are likely to apply ourselves to the maximum if we like what we do. And chances are that what we like doing corresponds to what we are good at. The more of it we do, the better we become. So we get a virtuous cycle of performance improvement and personal development.
Simple this management lark isn’t it!
Richard goes on to point out that he likes to play people in position because, in his belief, people cannot massively improve on their weaknesses. You may wish to challenge this point but Richard is quite clear in his view that “you can’t rewire people.”
Whether you agree or not, the truth is that time is short in business and you have to rigorously prioritise your in-tray. In my experience of working with leaders and teams, I have to say I see great sense in Richard’s view. The time spent putting people where they are likely to win will give you far greater returns than focusing on remedial work or putting people in positions that are not conducive to their strengths.
A recent, somewhat painful example of getting this wrong came a few weeks ago in the rugby Six Nations tournament. Someone in the Italian team thought it would be a good idea to play Mauro Bergamasco, a fine open side with 69 caps, at scrum half for the first time. Having gifted England three tries, the poor guy was ignominiously substituted at half-time for a real scrum half, Giulio Toniolatti, who came on for only his second cap.
I am never against experimentation where possible. However, when it comes to talent, a good leader should focus on what people are good at and give them more and more to do. This approach builds competence and commitment at the same time; not a bad approach during these tough times.
|
Do you agree with Richard that people can never massively improve on their weaknesses? Or do you think that, with support and development, people can dramatically improve? I’d love to hear what you think. Please add your voice to the Comments linked to this interview |
