Blog...

The pressures of life at the top

December 14th, 2011

When Antonio Horta-Osorio went on sick leave in early November it was a stark reminder of the pressures that face new leaders of large businesses. The official diagnosis was extreme fatigue brought on by overwork.

He’d been in post since only March 2011, and had inherited the task of leading the troubled Lloyds bank Group in the ongoing tough economic conditions that have beset our financial systems and large banking organisations. What brought him to this state – that was obviously injurious to both to himself personally, and to the organisation’s health in the marketplace?

Some commentators at the time suggested that he should have sought medical help sooner. In fact, he needed to have sought out robust support from the beginning, when he first took up his new role.

The behaviours that brought him success in his old role would prove to be his Achilles’ heel in the new job. “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got” – or so the saying goes. However, if the game around you has changed and you use the same approaches around you that have stood you in good stead till now, you’re setting yourself up to fail.

Mr Horta-Osorio’s style had always been one of extreme hands-on involvement. That worked for him in Santander UK. But he had seriously underestimated the changed demands that he would find placed on him at the helm of the Lloyds Group – including the halving of the share price in the first few months, and the relentless external demands of the role, including endless meetings with high-profile ministers and regulators, televised questioning from parliamentary committees, and tough talks over the eurozone crisis.

As the Financial Times reported on 4th November:

“António has a powerful intellect and technical skills – but that is not what makes a CEO able to cope,” says a former colleague. “It is more the vision, drive and resilience.” Those are the qualities that people close to him suggest he may not have in the abundance they first thought.

Another critic is franker still. “He’s a complete control freak,” says one Lloyds employee, who fell out with him. “You can do that in a smaller bank. But you can’t do that in a company the size of Lloyds, which has a lumbering, traditional way of doing things. There was a big culture clash.”

Some analysts believe a fall from grace was almost inevitable, given the enormous weight of expectation that accompanied his arrival at Lloyds. “He descended in a gold-plated chariot,” says one banking analyst. “There was a lot resting on him.”

Having taken on a role that was too big for any one person – he needed to let go of his “macho-man” style of work hard, play hard, and do it all yourself. It can be hard to change and learn to trust other people, and to delegate. But that was what the new role demanded. He didn’t deliver the changes required in himself – and the consequences were potentially life-threatening to his health, as well as his personal and professional reputation.

It’s crunch time this week. While his medical team have declared him fit to return to work – only the board can make the decision. And if he does return, what will he do to put in place the support to look deeply at his ingrained behaviours and working style, and learn to adopt the new ways of leadership that the role demands?

Operating in the uncomfortable zone

October 6th, 2011

Below the line (ie below board level), the whole point is to take out ambiguity and uncertainty, and achieve required results. You have all your resources, and you have to help them perform to their best. You need to do things within a limited period of time, to a budget. There is little time to reflect – this is about execution.

However, when you go the other side of the line, as a plc boardroom director, you have to feel comfortable in the open space. There are all the thoughts buzzing around here. The trick is to avoid reaching a conclusion too quickly, because by the time you do the issue will have moved on, or uncovered interdependent issues. So boards have to live with a multitude of uncertainty and ambiguity, all the time nudging issues forward, with a little flick here and there, but not rushing to judgement too quickly.

You have to learn to feel more comfortable in that arena, in the uncomfortable zone.

Below the line is the comfort zone. Now you not only have to feel comfortable with the uncomfortable, you have to embrace it, and you have to create it around you.

Many senior executives struggle to move from below the line to above the line. In order to move from the below-the-line focus, you have to give up almost everything that was dear to you and wherein you achieved your success.

Of course, this is only your afternoon role. You have still got the day job. You still have to go back to achievement and controlling resources. This in itself can be confusing. A way to help you make the distinction can be to change your props as well as your behaviours. Sit in a different seat to your normal position when you’re in boardroom meetings. Wear a different jacket or tie. Use a different notebook. These will help remind you to adopt the different behaviours and mindset that you need to be an effective board member.

In the boardroom; what are the rules?

May 31st, 2011

While there isn’t a hierarchy of danger within the Five Fatal Flaws for boardroom performance, a good start point is Fatal Flaw One, where you think that you already “know the rules” (from your past experience in a senior position) when, in fact, you are now in a very different game.

Business and board priorities create the context for the director’s performance. History – expectations from past experience – will underpin the behaviours of the executive making the transition into the boardroom. It can also be responsible for the barriers that will need to be overcome to create changed performance in the new role.

Not only do you have to address your personal behaviours, your position on the board also means that you need to understand and comply with the regulatory frameworks that are in place within the legislative framework that your organisation comes under.

You can ‘know the rules’ from the technical viewpoint of compliance to regulatory frameworks – but what’s also going on that you have to pay attention? For success in the boardroom, it’s just as important – often more important – to recognise the behavioural rules that you have to adopt as a board member.

  • Do you know what you need to pay attention to, in terms of your relationship with key stakeholders inside and outside the boardroom?
  • Do you understand their needs, their requirements, their positions, their ‘history’?
  • Do they understand your needs, your requirements, and your understanding of the rules?

    • There isn’t a manual for this. To clarify your own rules of engagement as a board member, you have to work out the ‘rules’ of the Chairman, of your board of directors, your CEO, and your fellow stakeholders – whoever they might be.
    ,

    Brown at 10

    January 10th, 2011

    I’ve just finished reading ‘Brown at 10′ by Anthony Seldon and Guy Lodge. Blair appears to have demonstrated a singular lack of ability to deal with the behavioural characteristics of his Chancellor. Look at what then ensued. Chief Executives have to overcome any inherent fear they may have of dealing with hard issues such as this. It goes with the job.

    We are all prisoners of our past

    January 16th, 2010

    Are you a prisoner of your past? As I discussed in a previous blog, sometimes we might rely too much on the experience of a previous role when we are executing a new role. There is an equally important aspect where our unconscious memories of the past can affect our current performance. Sometimes we perform in the present based on our ‘memories of the past’. Our childhood experiences can have a marked impact on our current behaviour.

    Take Fred, a senior executive. He was finding it difficult to face up to powerful male authority figures. Coaching conversations revealed that Fred had unresolved issues about still seeking the respect of his father (personal issues from the past). This resulted in Fred finding it difficult to challenge his boss (the father figure) when his role required him to give tough upward feedback.

    So Fred’s behaviour was stuck in an eternal battle that stemmed from his past. On the one hand he was driven by a desire to succeed. On the other hand he found it difficult to use the behaviours that would enable him to succeed.

    Once this underpinning pattern was uncovered, Fred was able to see that using the power and authority of his role was necessary in order for him to succeed.