Leading Through Crisis
Something I’ve discovered through experience is that most of the time, we’re not judged by how we handle “business as usual” but rather by how we respond in a crisis.
My first ever experience as a newly qualified manager in one of the world's global banks was when our bank was asked to absorb the business of another which was being closed for a number of reasons into which I won’t go into here. Our business literally doubled overnight and we had neither the systems, manpower nor infrastructure to cope. We did it because Senior management showed the qualities outlined below.
A “crisis” could be anything:
- A competitor suddenly launching a new product.
- An unfavourable change in legislation.
- War breaking out.
- A customer complaining.
- A pandemic (most of us will remember this!)
“Crisis management” is very different from “business as usual management”. Most of us can probably remember a time when a “crisis” erupted and someone let us through it calmly and successfully.
Harry Karydes identifies seven key qualities of a good “crisis leader”:
They stay calm. Fear is contagious, so is calmness. Some people just seem to remain calm, whatever's happening around them. They're the ones around whom people gather when things get tough. Rudyard Kipling in his poem If sums it up well: “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you… you’ll be a man, my son!“
They acknowledge that there’s a problem. If you’re the only one pretending everything‘s okay when others can see it isn’t, who do you think they’ll trust? Be honest: point out the challenge but give hope.
They give direction: people are looking for what to do. We need to remind them of what we’re really looking to “get to”, not just what we’re looking to “get through”.
They communicate: if they know something, they share it and also they share what they don’t know! Assumptions fill the place of the confusion caused by silence.
When they make decisions, they do it based on principles rather than because “they must do something”. They base their decisions on values.
When people make an effort or achieve something (however small) they recognise that effort and praise even small wins. They also offer support.
They act as the “thermostat” rather than the “thermometer”. This means they set the tone in the crisis, remaining steady, strong and “human”.
The loudest person in a crisis isn’t a leader - they’re more likely to be a liability. They don’t panic instead, what they do is provide clarity, direction, support and praise.
My own experience has shown me that it’s all too easy to get caught up in “crisis mode”. The pressure to do something can be enormous and everyone is looking at the leader to do that thing. Panic simply breeds more panic, fear and confusion.
Equally, we’re all taught to have “crisis plans” to cater for various contingencies and events. Whilst these are a great framework, as one person so rightly pointed out, “crises don’t come with instructions. Nor do they give any warning.”
What gets us through crisis is “resilience” - that indefinable ability to stay calm, analyse the situation, understand the underlying issue/cause and then be clear about how to go about it.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Strategy, Teamwork
The “3 CS” of Career Development
The “3 CS” are a concept developed by consultant Gorick Ng to describe three key areas to the land jobs and further one’s professional career.
To summarise, they stand for:
- Competence
- Commitment
- Compatibility
“Competence” is best described as “can you do the job?” Any lob requires a certain amount of experience and skill (even if it’s very little, such as we might find in a fresh graduate).
More important, it requires that hard to define quality: “attitude”. This means a person’s general predisposition towards doing something (or avoiding it). There’s a famous saying, “hire for attitude, train for skills”, meaning that some people are naturally predisposed to certain jobs. Examples may be “customer service” people. They naturally “get” and can empathise with customers and are therefore ideally suited to this role. Others may not have this predisposition; that doesn’t make them “bad people”, it’s simply means they may be better suited to, say, back office operations where they will shine in managing processes and systems. We all have different “attitudes” but it’s important to ensure we have the right “attitude” for the right job as well.
“Commitment” is that blend of energy and enthusiasm for a particular job. How “hungry” are you for it? Will you quote go the extra mile” to make sure something is done and done well (this may also come under “attitude” above)? One of the more interesting ways an employer might test a job applicants’ “commitment” is to ask, “what do you know about our organisation?” If the applicant knows nothing, they clearly weren’t committed enough to do even basic research.
“Compatibility” means “are you someone we can work with?” I’ve seen complaints in our local paper where the writer commented that they couldn’t get a job despite being the “best qualified” candidate out there. Here, the problem may have been that whilst they were indeed the “best qualified”, they weren’t a nice person!
When someone encounters a hold in their career, it may be due to one or more of the Cs above. Experience and anecdotes from others suggest address that it’s mainly around the “commitment” and compatibility” areas. I’ve certainly experienced a case where, once a boss had cause not to believe in somebody’s commitment, that person became incompatible with them.
My view? It ends up being a “two-way street”. Employees and employers use the “3 Cs” as a framework for development of careers and teams.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Strategy
Can "Feedback" be "Bullying"?
I was talking with a diplomat who told me a story about a colleague who had been accused of “bullying” when they provided performance feedback to a junior member of staff.
It made me think: where does the line between constructive feedback and “bullying” actually lie? One of our roles (if not duties) as leaders is to get people to be the best they can to further their careers. If we spot something that may hold them back, we have not only a professional but (some would say) a moral obligation to inform them.
The problem, as I see it, is that certain people don’t like anything that could be construed as “negative” or “hurtful”. Yes, some feedback will, inevitably, fall into one or both categories (the truth sometimes hurts).
The distinction I draw is that bullying can be defined as “offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour involving the misuse of power that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated, undermined or threatened" (ACAS).
The Australian Human Rights Commission defines bullying as “… when people repeatedly and intentionally use words or actions against someone or a group of people to cause distress and risk to their wellbeing. These actions are usually done by people who have more influence or power over someone else, or who want to make someone else feel less powerful or helpless. They cite the following examples:
- Keeping someone out of a group (online or offline)
- Acting in an unpleasant way near or towards someone
- Giving nasty looks, making rude gestures, calling names, being rude and impolite, and constantly negative teasing.
- Spreading rumours or lies, or misrepresenting someone (i.e. using their Facebook account to post messages as if it were them)
- “Mucking about” that goes too far
- Harassing someone based on their race, sex, religion, gender or a disability
- Intentionally and repeatedly hurting someone physically
- Intentionally stalking someone
- Taking advantage of any power over someone else like a Prefect or a Student Representative.
In general, bullying must contain three elements. It must be:
- Repeated
- Intentional
- Involve a power imbalance
An even simpler definition might be behaviour with “intent to cause harm”, a “single egregious act” or repeated “hostile” behaviour.
We must balance two risks: the risk that a person may get away with “real” bullying of another against the risk that, to avoid an unpleasant conversation, someone may claim they’re being bullied rather than look to improve their performance.
This is likely to mean that businesses and organisations will need to develop internal definitions of “bullying” (and have them reviewed by a legal expert) to ensure that, whilst staff are protected as much as possible, they can be given valid, constructive feedback to improve their performance.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Social, Teamwork
"Funnel" vs "Umbrella" Management
Justin Wright in an article on LinkedIn distinguishes between two very different sets of behaviour that result in either a distracted team or a productive team.
What matters? Whether their manager is a “funnel manager” or an “umbrella manager”.
Let’s start with the distracted team: these are the ones with the “funnel manager”. Imagine being part of a team and overhead of you all is a giant funnel on top of which sits the team manager. Into this funnel, the manager just puts everything:
- Office politics
- (Too many!) meetings
- End of day fire drills
- Unrealistic deadlines
- Changes in project scope (scope creep)
- Refusing to deal with toxic coworkers
- Rumours and gossip
- Office politics.
Small wonder that, bombarded by all this information and activity, a team doesn’t know where to focus its energy.
The “umbrella manager” does the exact opposite instead of placing their funnel above the team and then sitting on top of that, they sit with their team and hold an umbrella over them. This umbrella deflects all the “toxic distractions” that rain down on the team. In other words, the “umbrella manager” shields the team from distractions to allow them to deal with their work.
The results? For the “funnel manager” a distracted, demoralised and frustrated team with no direction or priorities who often failed to deliver results.
Contrast this with the umbrella manager’s team who know that they are shielded as much as possible. The differences in behaviour are easy to understand, but perhaps less easy to put into practice with all the pressures on modern day leaders.
I previously wrote about an example of a “funnel effect” on our business. I’m still waiting for a response and doubt I’ll ever get one.
How many of our team may need help on this, or how many more businesses like that are out there? How can we as leaders, help them?
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Leadership, Productivity, Teamwork
How Robust is Your Recovery Plan?
Some may be aware of the fire that closed Heathrow Airport in March 2025.
The result: thousands of stranded passengers and questions about how resilient Britain’s infrastructure was.
The problem that caused the fire was in a transformer to the North of the airport. What happened was that moisture entered the “high voltage bushings” in a transformer, sparking an electrical fault and causing it to catch fire.
The potential problem was reported in 2018 but nothing was done about it by the National Grid, who owned the transformer.
So, the problem arose because of a third party’s failure to maintain its equipment. The question for all of us as business leaders is: “How reliant are we on third parties to ensure that our contingency and recovery plans work as they should?”
The problem with an event such as the fire in question is that some might consider it a “Black Swan Event” - an event considered “highly unlikely” to occur (as is the incidence of black swans). What made this event less of a black swan however was that, although the reporting process for the problem worked, the process for addressing it broke down. The event wouldn’t have occurred if the National Grid had addressed the problem when it was reported.
Think back to the COVID pandemic – countries had plans, bit they relied on other countries being able to produce the PPE, etc needed. Problem: everyone closed down because of “social distancing” requirements preventing workers going to work.
This could happen to anyone at any time. If our recovery plans rely on another party to provide a vital service and that organisation finds itself unable to, then we’re back to square one.
We can plan, make contingency plans, and contingency plans for contingency plans. There comes a point, however, when it’s no longer realistic to have plans covering plans covering plans covering plans.
In many cases our only solutions are:
- Run regular tests with the third parties concerned OR…
- Have a contract with a service provider that stipulates that penalties and litigation will follow should that provider fail to maintain their goods and services in a state fit to perform as intended OR...
- Hope that things will work out...
I know which one I’d rather adopt.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Crisis Management, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
Are We Forgetting How to Plan?
Modern communications and business practices mean that, generally, we can communicate faster than we did before and respond likewise.
Pressure of competition has led more and more businesses to respond at ever increasing speed to client needs. After all, if you don’t reply in what your client considers a “timely manner”, they can go somewhere else. The only exception to this are government services and monopolies who don’t have to worry about competition.
When I first started studying the art of time management, one of the first lessons was that we have no control over other people or external events (although we may be able to influence them). This meant we had to allow for delays, being on leave, and all other factors. Nowadays it seems that no one understands this concept and expects an answer almost as soon as they’ve sent their text or email message.
An added challenge is that things can change so fast these days, that plans made last month may be rendered irrelevant this month (remember COVID?). How do we plan for an increasingly uncertain world?
It does suggest that the art of planning is disappearing. Our counter parties have other things on their minds apart from us and we need to take that into account and, indeed, respect it. The exception is when we hold the “upper hand” over the other and can demand action. However, demanding turnaround of one’s request within 24 hours is just as likely to result in a botch job due to lack of time to give it full consideration.
Time management is a skill that every individual needs. The ability to plan comes not only with understanding time management but also as one gains in experience.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email
Labels: Career, Crisis Management, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
Mastery: The Ultimate Status?
I recently came across a quote ascribed to Derek Sivers: “Mastery is the best goal because rich can’t buy it, the impatient can’t rush it, the privileged can’t inherit it, and nobody can steal it. You can only earn it through hard work. Mastery is the ultimate status.”
In our modern world of instant gratification through the internet, how true is this? In the past, young people used to study as “apprentices” of plumbers, electricians, carpenters, stonemasons and other trades people. After a number of years and showing that they had truly learnt their skill, they in turn became “masters”.
Many now complain that it’s very difficult to find a “good” electrician or plumber. The concept of apprenticeships is disappearing, although in some professions one can still see this process. I’m thinking of engineering, medicine, accountancy, law where aspiring practitioners still need to gain hands on experience. These professions, usually, are well-remunerated.
Is there a “social” problem as well in that “tradespeople” are somehow seen as “lower” in the pecking order? No one thinks that when they need a new gas boiler installed urgently! The plumber then assumes the status of a saviour in the middle of winter.
What you realise is that (certainly in Europe), masters, artisans and similar can be equally well remunerated. I remember the story of a university professor who retrained as a plumber (and presumably underwent some kind of apprenticeship) to find he was not only earning more than he used to as a professor but also could set his own work hours and was not beholden to the arcane rules and regulations that govern many large institutions (although he probably swapped university rules and regulations for government ones).
Back to the point: do apprenticeships still have a place in modern society? Answer is an unqualified yes. Despite the advances of technology, artificial intelligence and other tools of instant gratification, you can’t replace a plumber with a smart phone when a pipe bursts in the middle of winter and needs to be fixed.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
