Australian Government - click here to go to our home page

go to start   text resizing

Australian Public Service Commission
Employment policy and advice - Click to go to the Publications page

related resources

On our website

on our site

Site help

help with using this site

Site menu

news

Home page
> Archive > The leadership challenge for the APS: An internationally comparative benchmarking analysis
> Employment policy and advice
‹ Previous page

Last updated: 16 September 1996

The leadership challenge for the APS: An internationally comparative benchmarking analysis

Please note: This document is for reference purposes only and is no longer considered by the APS Commission to be current. It may contain good practice advice and/or advice on the transitional arrangements between the 1922 and 1999 Public Service Acts.

Andrew Korac-Kakabadse
Professor, International Management Development
Cranfield University School of Management

Nada KoracKakabadse
Senior Research Fellow
Cranfield University School of Management

Copyright Reserved
Not to be reproduced in part or whole without the permission of the authors

... when I did the rounds of the Secretaries they smiled and said yes that is a great idea but are we convinced? That is OK ... Some ideas you have to have in place. Others you dont - but you can create a hook to hang on what you need
SES Australian Public Service (APS)

I dont always operate by consensus. There are times when I have to go out and say this must be done and it will be done and we will do it. Of course this depends on my relationship with the department.
SES Australian Public Service

I find the capacity to have meetings endless meetings where they deal with trivial detail and I sit there thinking about this entire waste of time, not matters of importance. So I get impatient. I think we don t collectively work to change what we don't like .
SES Australian Public Service

Three separate comments from top civil servants employed by the Australian Federal Public Service representing different styles, philosophies and approaches to leadership. Are such differences unusual? Comparison with senior executives from the private sector suggests a strong no. Equal diversity of style and philosophy of leadership is common place.

This guy came in January 1992. He first attacked people. He said these guys are accountable - pop pop pop and then that sort of woke everybody up and they thought this guy is prepared to fire people .
Simon Gillham, ex Thomson Consumer Electronics, describing the style of Alain Prestat, the then newly appointed Chairman of Thomson. (France)

The first thing is to say you have got to have openness before you can have a robust dialogue ... We now give much more information right the way through the organization and that was a consequence of what we went through in terms of reorganization and of trying to change the culture .
Colin Sharmon, UK Senior Partner KPMG (Formerly KPMG Peat Marwick)

The comments of Simon Gillham concerning the newly appointed Alain Prestat and of Colin Sharmon both suggest intense involvement in their organizations, but in quite different ways.

These comments are made by leaders, each describing the different approaches they adopt to promoting the betterment of their organization. Their approach is the result of the behaviour that they consider necessary to sustain a leadership role and their interpretation of the requirements for leadership in their context.

The dual aspects of personal approach tempered by the requirements of separate contexts, promotes an interesting variety of contributions from managers in the upper echelons of organizations. All of the five above interviewees agree that effective leadership is crucial to the success of any organization.

we have developed quite an ambitious programme, a painstaking programme over the next couple of years to look at people who are high users.
SES Australian Public Service

In this paper, the concepts of leadership, values and culture of organisation are explored. Particular attention is given to examining the dynamics of individual and team leadership. It is postulated that top people and top teams have a crucial impact on the running of todays organisations. The results of an extensive survey conducted across the departments of the Australian Federal Government and supported by the Australian Public Service Commission, are presented. These results will be benchmarked against the results of a world wide survey of business and health service leaders, spanning twelve countries.

Emphasis will be given to the necessity of conducting effective team leadership through high quality dialogue and through Cabinet responsibility in order to successfully lead and maintain the organisation on its agreed path. Finally, approaches to the development of leadership for those already in top positions and for those entering into such challenging positions, will be discussed.

Leadership

Born out of concern that changing economic conditions and the emergence of new institutional forms are to challenge present practices of leadership, the Top Executives Competency Surveys were initiated at the Cranfield School of Management, UK. In pursuing an examination of top management performance, particular attention was paid to working within a theoretical framework that would capture the reality of the demands made on managers.

Most studies of top managers have tended to fall into one of two categories: those that focus on examining the attributes of individuals in terms of behavioural, attitudinal or deeper personality dimensions, or those that are driven by job, role or organisational type criteria.

The original and insightful work of Professor Elliot Jaques, examining, in the 1950s, different cultures within the workplace, provides the conceptual bridge between individual behaviours and role requirements. Crucial to the work of Jaques is the concept of discretion. The discretionary element of role refers to the choices senior managers need to make in order to provide shape and identity to their role and that part of the organisation for which the person is accountable.

The contrast to the discretionary element of role is the prescriptive side, namely, the structured part, which is predetermined and which focuses and restricts the individuals behaviour. In effect, the prescriptive part of a managers job is that part over which the manager has little choice, other than to undertake the duties that are required of him/her.

Hence, the underlying philosophy of the Cranfield surveys is to refer to the senior managers job as unevenly split between the leadership elements (discretionary) and the management elements (prescriptive), with the discretionary component predominating.

Such distinction is particularly pertinent, as providing leadership in circumstances of substantially conflicting priorities is likely to make considerable demands on the senior managers. The individual senior manager will need to make choices between unclear alternatives and is equally likely to need to devote considerable attention to nurturing key interfaces with influential internal and external stakeholders, in order to ascertain their commitment to a meaningful way forward.

What choices are made and how commitment is negotiated, highlights the impact the stakeholders have on the organisation, as well as the capabilities of senior managers to effectively respond to such challenges. There is no reason to assume that even if the capacity of top management in the organisation is considerable, each of the members of the Senior Executive would form similar conclusions as to the shape, size, direction, desired qualities of the total organisation and thereby the shape and cost of each of the key functions/divisions units in the organisation.

Hence, senior managers beliefs concerning what to lead, how to lead and when to lead, highlight one key question: to what extent do senior managers share their views and concerns with each other?

On this basis, fundamental to effectively leading an organisation is to ensure a high quality dialogue amongst the members of the Top Team. Equally important to ascertain is whether the culture of the organisation and the values staff and management share or otherwise, assists or inhibits quality dialogue.

The preliminary results of interviews and case study analyses, examining the behaviours and values of senior managers in the Australian Public Service and the culture of these organisations indicate that where the quality of dialogue is high and the relationships amongst senior managers is positive, the issues and concerns facing the organisation are likely to be more openly addressed. Where, however, relationships are tense and the quality of dialogue restricted, certain issues and problems tend not to be raised, because to do so would generate unacceptable levels of discomfort amongst certain or all of the members of the Senior Executive. In effect, such discomfort would be experienced as unwelcome and too overwhelming to face up to the problems confronting the organisation.

Ironically, the case studies in both the private and public sectors highlight that unless the top team is working reasonably effectively, issues which need to be addressed are not. Namely, the senior management of the organisation knowingly allows the organisation to deteriorate because they feel too uncomfortable to jointly discuss and attend to key issues and challenges facing the enterprise.

The Study

The research concentrates on examining the relationship between the quality of dialogue amongst senior managers in the Australian Public Service (APS), their capability to form cohesive views as to the future direction, shape and nature of their organisation and the possible impact of their behaviour and philosophy on the rest of the organisation. Attention is also given to examining the values held by the senior managers and their views as to the culture of organisation within the APS.

Results of Analysis

Comparison is drawn between the 750 respondents from the Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Officers grades (SOs) within the APS, 5,500 top manager respondents representing private sector organisations across 12 countries, and 550 chairmen, CEOs, directors (executive and nonexecutive) of National Health Service (NHS) Trusts, UK. Exploration is undertaken in terms of,

Strategic Intent

One key question is asked, namely Do the members of the Senior Executive (Presidents/ CEOs/ MDs/ EDs/ Directors/ GMs/SOs1) hold different views as to the future direction of the organisation? (Table I )

Table 1 Fundamentally Different Views Concerning the Direction of the Organisation (%)
  Japan UK France Ireland Germany Sweden Spain Austria Finland USA China Hong Kong NHS2 Top Team NHS Board APS
YES 23 30 39 48 32 20 40 31 25 39 33 42 20 21 56

Fifty-six percent of the SES (Bands 1,2,3) and SOs who completed this questionnaire consider that the members of the senior management group hold fundamentally different views as to the shape and nature of the organisation and future pathways it should pursue.

Of the private sector respondents, the Irish (48% of respondents), Spanish (40%) and French top managers (39%) compare with such diversity of view. The Swedish (20%) and Japanese (23%) respondents highlight the least differences of view concerning strategic direction at senior management levels.

Of the NHS Trusts, distinction is drawn between the Executive Committee (Top Team) and the Main Board. Constitutionally, only two executive committee directors sit on the main board, accompanied by three nonexecutives including the Trust Chairman. Twenty percent of the Top Team members and 21% of the board members highlight that fundamentally different views on vision, future direction and shape of organisation are held by the members of their respective groups.

Dialogue

Dialogue is explored as the capability to address and/or resolve issues of sensitivity at senior management levels. One question is asked, namely Are there issues or sensitivities that merit attention but do not receive attention at senior management levels? (Table 2).

Table 2 Sensitivity of Dialogue (%)
  Japan UK France Ireland Germany Sweden Spain Austria Finland USA China Hong Kong NHS3 Top Team NHS Board APS
YES 77 47 36 68 61 50 63 67 49 62 80 58 70 66 66

The Chinese (80%) and Japanese (77%) private sector respondents highlight the greatest number of concerns, indicating that important but unattended issues predominate senior management levels.

The senior managers of the APS (66%) follow the Irish (68%) and Austrian (67%) private sector senior managers. The British, Finnish and French senior managers identify the least number of sensitive issues impacting on the quality of dialogue at senior levels.

The NHS top team respondents also report an inhibited dialogue at senior levels (70%). In effect, the top team members experience greater inhibition in terms of dialogue than the members of Boards of Trusts (66%).

Basically, other than for the French respondents, 1/2 to 2/3rds of respondents report outstanding issues remaining unaddressed at senior levels but which need to be addressed in order to progress the organisation. The Australian APS respondents are no different to the other sample of top managers, in both the private and public sectors, emphasising the strain senior managers are likely to experience in responding positively to difficult challenges.

Managerial Behaviour

Six aspects of senior manager behaviour are explored, namely approachability, addressing sensitivities, being understanding, trust, commitment to decision implementation and the long term/short term orientation of top managers. (Table 3).

Distinction is made between the responses of SES, Presidents, Chairman, CEOs, MDs, Executive Directors and those holding general manager (GM) and Senior Officer positions. The aim is to identify whether compatibility of view exists between top level managers and the general managers/Senior Officers below them, concerning the behaviour and effectiveness of the top team.

The Irish and Germans offer the greatest contrast of responses in terms of the members of the top team being easy, or not easy to talk to. However, only 55% of the SES consider their own colleagues as easy to address. Fifty-three percent of the SOs highlight that the SES are not easy to approach.

In contrast, substantial differences of response across all the country respondents emerge to the question Do the members of the Top Team openly discuss sensitive issues? For example, 69% of Japanese top managers consider they openly address sensitive issues, whereas 47% of the Japanese GMs consider that the top team address more safe issues. In contrast, the Irish and Spanish responses indicate that 52% and 44% respectively of top managers consider they more openly address sensitive issues whereas 60% and 61% of their GMs respectively consider that safe issues are discussed.

Equally, the APS respondents highlight similar results whereby 40% of the SES consider that sensitive issues are discussed and 78% of the SOs feel that the SES address only safe issues.

Regarding the issue of understanding, Japan is the only country where the views of both the top managers and GMs are positive and supportive. In contrast, the percentage of private sector GMs in the UK, Ireland, Germany and Spain, who consider that their top management do not understand each other is higher than the top managers who consider that they have a good understanding of each other.

In keeping with these results for the APS, 33% of the SES consider themselves understanding and supportive, whereas 76% of SOs think otherwise. In France, Sweden and Austria, the percentage of private sector top managers who consider that they understand each other, is higher than that of their GMs who think that their top managers lack understanding of each other.

On the issue of trust, the Japanese responses highlight similar levels of compatibility to the Swedes. For both samples, the top managers indicate that the levels of trust amongst the members of the top team is high, an opinion that is shared by their GMs. The greatest degree of incompatibility of view of the private sector responses arises from the Irish, UK and German samples, whereby 67%, 68% and 69% respectively of their GMs consider that the behaviour of their bosses is indicative of low levels of trust amongst the members of the Senior Executive.

Of the APS sample, 36% of SES consider that they trust each other as top team colleagues, whereas 74% of the SOs state that the members of their top team behave as if they do not trust each other.

Table 3 Managerial Behaviours: Comparative Response by Seniority (%)
  JAP UK FRA   IRE GER SWE
  TOP GM TOP GM TOP GM TOP GM TOP GM TOP GM
Easy to talk to 82 62 73 65 80 76 87   78   84 83
Not easy to talk to               41   54
Discuss sensitive issues 69   66   71   52   68   63 66
Address safe issues   47   44 47   60 42
Understanding 78 61 68   61   52   41   63
Not understanding         70 48   67   68   48
Trust each other 73 61 65   66   61   75   71 66
Not trust each other       68   48   67     69
Implement decisions made in top team 89 76 72   74 64 91   83 64 79 73
Implement decisions that personally suit 44 50
Address long and short term issues 75 62 54   58   61   68   56
Address short term issues       58   48   66   42   50
  SPN AUS HK US APS
  TOP GM TOP GM TOP GM TOP GM TOP GM
Easy to talk to 75 77 80 64 80   78 65 55
Not easy to talk to           56
Discuss sensitive issues 44   60   67   62   40
Address safe issues   61   51   40   58   78
Understanding 53   58   53   60   33
Not understanding   61 51 66 48 76
Trust each other 58   63   71   63   36
>Not trust each other   51   57   72   51   74
Implement decisions made in top team 70 69 65   78   78 60 52
Implement decisions that personally suit       41   50       59
Address long and short term issues 61   62   64 67 73 60 50
Address short term issues   60   49           63

KEY
TOP Presidents/CEOs/Chairman/MDs
GM General Managers
APS Australian Public Sector SES Senior Executive Service SOs Senior Officers

Equally, compatibility of scores from the Japanese respondents emerge in response to the question Do the members of the Top Team implement decisions jointly made in the top team? Eighty-nine percent of the Japanese top management group indicate they do and 76% of their GMs agree. A contrast of scores between the top management group and the GM sample is identified by the British, Irish and Austrian private sector respondents. The Irish respondents provide for the greatest contrast, with 91% of top management indicating that decisions jointly made in the top team are implemented, whereas 50% of their GMs consider that their senior managers implement only those decisions that personally suit the individual, irrespective of whatever was jointly agreed.

For the APS, 52% of the SES consider that decisions made in the top team are jointly implemented, whereas 59% of the SOs report that, in their opinion, the members of the top team implement only those decisions that personally suit the individual.

In response to the question Do the members of the top team address long and short term issues?, the Japanese respondents again provide the most comparable, positively oriented responses. Seventy-five percent of the respondents in the top management category consider that they address both long and short term issues and 62% of the Japanese GM sample agree. In contrast, the Spanish respondents report that 61% of top management and 60% of the GMs consider that the top team address only short term issues.

Equally, the APS responses highlight that 50% of SES consider that they address long and short term issues, whereas 63% of senior officers consider that the SES address only short term issues. Similarly, the private sector respondents of the UK, France, Ireland, Germany and Sweden report similar trends.

Culture and Leadership

The phrase, culture of organisation, refers to the sentiments, behaviours, deeply held values, routines and accepted ways of doing things held by staff and management that have become part of the fabric of the organisation. It is assumed that the culture of any organisation significantly influences and shapes staff and managements ways of addressing and thinking about the challenges and issues facing them, their teams and the organisation.

In this survey, values are subsumed within the analysis of culture, and are taken to mean those aspects of work and working life that are deemed as positive and valued and hence should be promoted and enhanced as a fulfilling everyday experience.

Hence, two key elements of culture are identified, namely the predominant attitudes people hold towards work, ways of working and towards the organisation and the fundamental values that can substantially influence the shaping of opinions and behaviour of staff and management

Five groups of attitudes and five separate groups of values emerge from statistical analysis. The five attitudinal groupings are termed: promoting a performance culture, work satisfaction, discipline, specialist orientation and independence. The five values factors are termed: work practices, service oriented, professionalism and conduct, rights and duties and workplace democracy values.

Attitudinal Factors

A Performance Oriented Culture is viewed as one where the internal systems and controls are considered as helpful and supportive and curb wastage in the use of resources. Further, senior management acting in a reasonably cohesive manner and communicating effectively on key issues contributes considerably to growing a performance oriented environment. In addition, the respondents view a positive performance culture as requiring that change be considered as meeting the demands of current and future challenges facing the organisation and that decisions are made on sound and accurate information Also, daily work activities should be considered as sensibly organised in line with organisational goals, which in turn are recognised as clear and reasonable

Work Satisfaction is considered to emerge from having a role which challenges and stimulates the role incumbent as well as providing the opportunity to utilise ones skills and abilities as appropriate. Being stretched and the effective use of skills combined with the feeling of recognition and respect that the job engenders, enhances work satisfaction and commitment to the organisation.

Discipline refers to being disciplined in the pursuit of tasks and initiatives. Attention to procedures and details is emphasised. Further, those who display high levels of discipline also respect people who stick to the rules and pay attention to details.

Specialist Orientation refers to the work satisfaction that comes from the pursuit of specialist rather than the general management work. The respondents report that they value being members of a profession and being respected for their expertise. In fact, the respondents highlight that there should be more specialists in positions of authority.

Independence and individuality are highlighted as aspects of the senior manager experience. Interference and control applied by others is resented.

Values Factors

Work Practices values relate to those behaviours and orientations which are identified as supportive of high levels of individual contribution and performance. Attention to both internal and external interfaces is emphasised. Holding a service focus and responsiveness to client needs is equally placed with team working, flexibility and consultation. Further, respecting each persons unique approach is coupled with organisational considerations which the respondents identify through such terms as recognition, individuality, efficiency and particularist principles. Maximising on opportunities in an environment of openness of communication motivates people to additionally attain high levels of performance.

Service Oriented Values highlight the need for respect of others, for supportive leadership and efficiency and effectiveness in the organisation, in order to provide for innovative and quality services to clients and value to the community. Characteristics of organisational and community values are social justice, morale of employees and organisational reputation. These two orientations emphasise the need for holding values which promote the provision of service, internally and externally.

Professionalism and Conduct Values refer to what the respondents consider supports a high standard of personal conduct from individuals in the workplace. Being effective in ones job by providing quality results is related to holding a strong sense of loyalty and commitment to ones colleagues and the organisation. Further, a personal sense of integrity in terms of how one goes about undertaking tasks, forming relationships and delivering on commitments made, are seen as aspects of professionalism.

Rights and Duties Values highlight the importance of being held accountable for the discharge of responsibilities in public office. It is also considered that in order to be effectively held to account, it is important that the individuals concerned are able to take a broader view on issues, for example, hold an opinion on natural justice. Participation of others in the process of accountability is equal coupled with a need for privacy and the protection of the individual.

Workplace Democracy Values emphasise respect and caring for people as well as the involvement of others in the dialogue and decision making process as concerning work related issues.

Valuing Culture and Leadership

In comparison to elements of organisational culture, the survey respondents provide their view as to how they rate the quality of leadership they experience in the APS. Table 4 presents the mean scores of elements of culture or organisation, namely shared attitudes, shared values and a mean score for leadership in terms of perceived top team effectiveness, whereby scoring 1 represents, not at all valued and 5, highly valued.

As can be seen from table 4, aspects of shared attitudes are rated above average, with the lowest being Independence (3.06). The values held by the respondents are rated considerably higher, with professionalism and conduct and rights and duties values being rated the highest. In contrast, top team effectiveness, on the above six dimensions, is rated lowest (2.23).

In essence, the respondents feel that the organisation in which they work is oriented towards establishing a performance culture, with people being reasonably well satisfied, being sufficiently disciplined, coming from a specialist background and recognising they have a degree of independence.

Values are held in considerably higher esteem. Values concerned with high standards of work practice and holding a service orientation are rated as important and are actively promoted. Values concerned with high standards of professionalism and conduct and the rights and duties of office are most highly rated in the APS. Comparable emphasis is given to those values concerning workplace democracy.

Table 4 Benchmarking Leadership in the APS (1 Low 5 High)
Culture of Organisation Mean Score
Attitudes
Performance Culture 3.24
Work Satisfaction 3.54
Discipline 3.23
Specialist Orientation 3.2
Independence 3.06
Values
Work Practices 3.9
Service Orientation 3.8
Professionalism and Conduct 4.52
Rights and Duties 4.1
Workplace Democracy 3.9
Leadership
Top Team Effectiveness4 2.23

The comparatively low scores on the leadership factor, suggests that the respondents view their organisation as reasonably satisfactory, well-principled but lacking in cohesive leadership and clear direction. The implication is that introducing new or improved innovation and services, changing the structure of the organisation or more fundamental change, is unlikely to work as intended, as the leadership contribution necessary for effective implementation is considered as lacking.

Top Team Dynamics

Five key themes have emerged from the study. First, cohesion at senior levels within the APS over the shape, direction and purpose of the organisation, is a damaging issue, particularly worthy of attention. Although promoting a shared sense of Cabinet responsibility is as much an issue of leadership in private as well as public sector organisations, the APS results highlight particular concerns in this area.

Second, in keeping with the private sector experience, the sensitivity experienced over conducting meaningful dialogue highlights that particular concerns have remained unresolved.

Third, differences of perception do exist between top management and their immediate levels below on six key dimensions of behaviour, which if allowed to continue could substantially damage the credibility of both the top management of the APS and their policies and inclinations. Although these differences are a phenomenon of both the private and APS samples, the APS results highlight a considerably greater need for concern.

Fourth, key shared attitudes and values are viewed as both positive and highly valued by the respondents.

However, and fifth, when compared against the ratings ascribed to the six leader behaviours, the senior management of the APS are deemed as far less valued than the existing culture of organisation. In effect, the results indicate that the APS is viewed as having developed a positive internal culture, as being a satisfactory place to work supported by strong shared values concerning conduct at work, providing service and peoples rights and yet the leadership is viewed as negative and unsatisfactory.

The question is, what is the impact of such negatively perceived leadership on the organisation? Particular aspects of impact on organisation and impact on individuals within the APS (Tables 5 and 6) are identified and correlated against current perceived quality of dialogue and cohesion over visioning.

Impact of Top Team (APS)

At both the organisational and personal level, very similar results emerge. Due to both perceived poor quality dialogue and lack of unity over visioning, the approach to management exhibited by the central office of various government departments is considered as more sponsoring power and rules and regulations oriented styles of management (Table 5). Styles that value performance and professionalism are minimalised. Further, due to the varying quality of dialogue at the top, the personal style of top managers is considered as more insensitive to people.

In terms of clarity concerning future direction, the goals of the various departments are considered as unclear. In fact, the greater the degree of splits of visioning, the more short term are the goals being pursued.

In addition, the poorer the quality of dialogue and the split of visioning, the less effectively are central office and departmental objectives communicated.

As far as the introduction and management of particular organisational operations are concerned, the outsourcing of particular operations, and the restructuring of departments and/or particular units, is considered to occur with greater frequency when top management are divided as to the future direction of the organisation. The implication is that the respondents consider such innovations are more the endeavour of one senior individual, or small group of top managers, pushing through change without the support and backing of their colleagues.

Table 5 Top Team Impact (Organisational) on the APS
Issues Dialogue Visioning
Management Style
Sensitive to People -XXX XXX
Power Oriented XXX XXX
Rules and Regulations Oriented XXX -XXX
Performance Oriented -XXX
Organisational Goals
Medium Term -X  
Long Term -X -XXX
Unclear XXX XXX
Communication
Centre Objectives -XXX -XXX
Departmental Objectives -XXX -XXX
Organisational Operations
Outsourcing   -XXX
Restructuring   -XX
Promotion of Policies -XXX -XXX
Implementation of Policies -XXX -XXX
Effective Client Relations -XXX -XXX
Effective Relations with other Agencies -XXX -XXX
Innovative Application of IT -XXX -XXX

Significance: X-05 XX-01 XXX-001
- negative correlation.

Not surprisingly, when it comes to the promotion and development of external relationships, the process can be described as fraught. Due to perceived differences of view concerning the future and poor quality dialogue, the promotion and implementation of policies and the development of effective relations with various client groupings and other agencies, are seen as hampered.

Such circumstances epitomise a stop/start practice to offering new developments to the community and other agencies. Further, the innovative application of IT is seen as equally hampered by poor quality dialogue and splits of visioning.

Table 6 Top Team Impact (Individual) on the APS
Issues Dialogue Visioning
Senior Management (Region/Division)
Demotivated XXX
Performance Oriented -XXX XX
Do What is Required XXX
Clear Areas of Responsibility -XXX X
Morale -XXX -XXX
Hindrances in Current Position XXX XXX
Family Life/Career Impact   -X

Significance: X-05 XX-01 XXX-001
- negative correlation.

In terms of impact on individuals (Table 6), due especially to poor perceived quality dialogue at senior levels, management in the regions or divisions view themselves and are viewed as more demotivated, lacking clear areas of responsibility, experiencing substantial hindrances in their current position, are not driven to be performance oriented and fundamentally just do what is required of them.

Not surprisingly, morale is considered as low in such circumstances. The fact that the members of senior management may hold and promote different views concerning the future of their organisation seems to have less of an impact on people, except on issues of morale and adding to the burden of having to cope with hindrances in individuals current positions.

Hence, the styles adopted by senior management more powerfully influence the daily working experience of staff and lower level management, than lack of clarity concerning direction.

Comparisons with the private sector in the area of impact is somewhat more difficult, as understandably the impact measures vary considerably across the two sectors. However, a similar pattern of results emerge whereby issues such as productivity, cost management and control, profitability, clarity of strategic direction, morale and decision making are viewed as directly related to the degree of cohesion (or the lack of it) and the quality of dialogue (or lack of it) practised by the Top Team (Table 7).

Table 7 Impact of Top Team (Private Sector) on People and Organisation: Poor Quality of Dialogue and Visioning
Areas Needing Attention %
Employee morale 42
Profitability 39
Clarity of Strategic Direction 35
Productivity 35
Employee Performance 34
Response to New Initiatives 34
Quality of Decision Making 30
Trust 26
Commitment to Decisions 25
Leadership Style 24
Cost Management and Control 22
Relationship Between Departments 22
Inaccuracies to Clients/Customers 21
Poor focus on Customer Groups 20

% refers to percentage of responses identifying key issues requiring attention, with the respondents having the opportunity to make multiple responses.

Equally, similar patterns emerge for NHS Trusts (UK), whereby morale, quality of relationships with external bodes and internal units, the interface between clinicians and management, are identified as more needy of attention than restructuring and cost management and control (Table 8).

Similar to the APS results, the British NHS Trust findings identify people, structure and strategic process issues as worthy of greater attention. Effectiveness of service delivery and ability to handle patient demands is placed lowest on the list of priorities (Table 8), which is not the case with the private sector, whereby response to new initiatives and productivity are placed higher on the list of concerns requiring attention (Table 7).

Table 8 Impact of Top Team (NHS Trusts) on People and Organisation: Poor Quality of Dialogue and Visioning
Areas Needing Attention %
Trust 38
Understanding Between Clinicians and Management 34
Quality of Decision Making 34
Relationship with External Bodies 28
Clarity of Decision Making 26
Clinician/Nursing Morale 26
Interfacing Internally 26
Restructuring 24
Commitment to Decisions Made 24
Cost Management and Control 22
Effectiveness of Service Delivery 22
Ability to Handle Patient Demands 22

% refers to percentage of responses identifying key issues requiring attention, with the respondents having the opportunity to make multiple responses.

Developing Leaders

The message is similar challenges face international business leaders and Health Service leaders as face Australian government leaders.

An additional insight paralleling private sector, health services sector and Australian government leaders is that all of those interviewed intuitively knew the situation they faced. The hurdle to overcome in interview was winning the confidence of the interviewee so that the person felt comfortable to more openly discuss their experiences and often their anguish, at their seeming powerlessness to overcome what are tense but challenging human problems.

What has emerged from this study is that the feeling of not getting ones act together is, in fact, an experience of normality. The question is why? In response, it is considered that leading an organisation in todays world places its top management in a never ending paradox.

Gaining Advantage: Overcoming the Paradox of Leadership

Why, as an organisation, do anything different? One basic reason is to promote advantage for the communities or markets one serves. In order to gain advantage, particular strategies have to be identified which take account of current challenges, the context in which the organisation finds itself, expected future pressures and demands and where the organisation should ideally position itself now and for the future, in order to enhance its value.

Within such a scenario, considerable differences of view do exist concerning current circumstances, future developments and present and future purpose of organisation. To state the obvious, strategy and leadership are intimately linked, but these terms hold different meanings for different people.

Such differences are captured and examined in an analysis of vertical and horizontal synergies. It is the particular combination, varying by circumstance, of vertical and horizontal synergies that gives strategy meaning and can equally highlight differences between leaders.

Vertical synergies are concerned with economics, costs, structures of organisations, overheads; namely those aspects of organisation that need constant attention and curtailment in order that the organisation can operate efficiently. A vertically integrated organisation is one that is economically well structured and administratively efficient in order to meet its key objectives. Clarity and cohesion of view emerge on issues of vertical integration through reliance on data. Is this organisation too expensive? Do we have the cost/overhead base needed to respond to current and future demands? Do we have too many people? Such questions require information in order to support their resolution. If nothing else, top management can make unilateral decisions and then apply financial and organisational levers to ensure that the organisation remains on course.

On issues of vertical synergy, authoritarian oriented decision making works, despite peoples more negative sentiments concerning their dislike for such an approach.

In contrast, horizontal synergies are concerned with issues of quality, being responsive to external needs, providing service and being sympathetic to the needs of clients externally and to staff and management internally. In effect, horizontal synergies require a consultative management style, namely effective team work, open dialogue and an attitude of sharing and cooperation, all so as to be responsive to changing external demands.

Vertical synergies work better under centralised management control. Horizontal synergy promotion needs devolution of structures, the empowerment of people and reliance on informality rather than formality and clarity of jobs and roles. Therein lies the paradox. How can one control costs and prune expenses, and at the same time promote an internal environment of openness, trust and cooperation? How can one, as a senior manager, say to a subordinate or colleague, give me feedback on what our clients need even if it is critical of me, and at the same time expect that person to freely respond when they feel that the very same senior manager who is asking the question, may remove them or their job within the next financial year?

Figure 1 1990s Leadership: A Paradox

Chart: the leadership paradox

It is possible to effectively but separately lead for vertical and horizontal synergy strategies. However, to lead for both promotes a gap of leadership, a gap that may be filled by strife, division, tension, fundamental difference of view concerning the future, buck passing responsibility upwards and feeling no sense of responsibility for ones leadership role. The phenomenon of the leadership gap is an experience common to the top management of private and public sector organisations. The question is, which organisation today can afford to only promote vertical or horizontal synergies? Very few the requirement is to do both!

Reducing The Leadership Gap

The challenge of leadership requires maximizing synergies whilst attempting to constantly minimise potentially damaging strains. Seven key strategies are identified as mechanisms for reducing the gap of leadership.

Think Issue Not Territory

Todays reality is that top managers are attending meetings, hearing agreement on key issues, walking out of meetings recognising that commitment is not forthcoming, knowing that the agreements reached are worthless. Most have the insight as to what is happening around them but find it difficult to action such insight because of the personal discomfort experienced in addressing such problems. The first step to overcoming such difficulties of dialogue is to concentrate on organisation wide issues and not be driven by territorial concerns.

... people who can learn ... have a broader perspective which they bring to bear on the analyses and contemplation of a problem. They can actually think about a range of options ... you can see the richness of their ideas. SES Australian Public Service

If the example provided by top management is that of being able to take an overview of a situation, such a perspective is more likely to emerge from staff and management lower down the organisation. However, if the example from the top is preserve ones territory, that pattern of behaviour is replicated lower down.

Promote The Qualities of Leadership

Apart from intellectually recognising that need for a helicopter view, the challenge to emotionally accept and address sensitivities and concerns, is considerable.

Two words capture the qualities for effective leadership maturity and wisdom. Maturity can be defined as the capability to invite, receive and handle well feedback. Wisdom can be defined as the capability to identify appropriate pathways forward when direction is obscure(d).

In effect, the robustness and courage to stand back, recognise the nature of the current dynamics within the structure and then identify the best ways forward where guidance seldom exists, are the nature of the qualities of leadership. Part of that process is getting others to talk to you when relationships may be strained. Onthe job experience, discussions, mentoring and counselling can help develop such qualities. In effect, the individual is being taken from a state of professional skill to a higher order state of trusting their own judgement as to how to progress within demanding circumstances. The apt combination of intellectual/ professional and street skills, forms the foundation for the personal qualities of leadership.

Get The Dialogue Right

As stated, within any larger setting, differences, diversity and tension are normality. Differences should not be elevated to the status of a worrying problem, but should be kept at the level of irritants. Keeping irritants as irritants and not allowing for the emergence of undermining constraints, requires the establishment of a common language within the organisation. That starts with a common language at the top.

The question is do senior management sufficiently respect themselves and the responsibilities of their roles to stand above daily frustrations and allow for the emergence of a process which helps them approach and meet current and future concerns?

Process, how we talk to each other, is as important as content, what do we talk about? The skill is to stimulate a debate in a manner that is workable to the key managers of the organisation. High quality dialogue needs to be crafted as much as any new service or product.

Get The Interfaces Right

Making complex structures work is dependent on the quality of interfacing within the organisation. Effective interfacing is a crucial lever to making strategies and policies work. If such practice is not held dear at the top, then distortion of policy during the phases of implementation is an expected and natural outcome. Hence, it is important to portray a consistency of message, so that in a disciplined way, important initiatives are effectively cascaded down the organisation.

The question is, do the managers at the key interface points in the structure recognise their degree of responsibility in terms of consistency, discipline and Cabinet responsibility? The Cranfield results for both the APS and the private sector indicate yes, if those managers feel themselves to be responsible members of the Executive. Having clarified who is and is not in the broader Executive, then such feelings of responsibility are inculcated by the setting of ground rules concerning dialogue and behaviour. Such ground rules are better promoted within a culture of learning.

Promote Learning

The policy and organisational agendas are set at the top.

Promoting positive processes and context agendas requires engendering a learning culture, sensitive to different environments and promoting the feeling of confidence to seek varying but cohesive ways through diversity and challenge. Such learning is seen to involve the following elements,

Promote Vision Not Ego

Each senior manager should ask him/herself, what is the basis for the strategy I am pursuing, to satisfy my ego or belief in the vision I am proclaiming? What really motivates, my belief in the vision or the fact that it is my vision, my ideal, me as the key driving force? Basically, what motivates me for leadership, vision or my ego?

Anyone in a role of command needs the confidence to clarify and pursue particular courses of action. However, to what extent does any person need to clarify and pursue their direction as opposed to accommodating alternate view points, winning the commitment of others and still maintaining their particular course of action?

Accommodating alternate viewpoints essentially requires a capability to work with contradiction. Understanding the agenda of others, the reasons as to why they hold their particular perspective and the degree to which they can realistically manoeuvre from their original position, requires a capability beyond an interpersonal skill of communicating effectively and being seen as accessible.

What is required is a capacity to recognise the spread of strategic agendas, why people are committed to any one or more strategies or visions and the possible pathways to a shared platform. Undoubtedly, the personal skills of winning confidence and working with others are important in the process of negotiation of reconciliation of differences, but so also are the conceptual skills of finding pathways through contrasting logics.

The biggest blockage to finding pathways through complexity is not a cerebral inability but ego I know I am right and I want my way. In terms of daily corporate life, such a perspective does little to enhance cohesion and effectiveness.

Promote Cabinet Responsibility

Do the members of the Executive display that they desire Cabinet responsibility in terms of how they behave rather than what they say? If certain senior colleagues disagree with a new initiative, do they fully challenge and debate the issue at meetings, or do they undermine and block the venture, displaying their resistance to the rest of the organisation, and/or even the outside world but outside the meeting? Is the greatest fear one has ones own colleagues?

If yes, Cabinet responsibility does not exist.

Where horizontal synergy strategies are being pursued, full acceptance of Cabinet responsibility, is vital. Staff, lower level management and external stakeholders need to witness the active support of all of the top team for key policies and initiatives. It is only through communicating good example that demanding new ways of doing are accepted and cascaded down the organisation.

Attaining Cabinet responsibility is a two step process. First, a conscious decision needs to be made, do we really want Cabinet responsibility and intend to practice it or not? Second, its continuation is the result of having promoted a feedback culture. Could you, for example, face a colleague and say, You said you were going to do this and you have done the opposite!

Only when dialogue reaches the point where such comments can be made and are seen as positive, does full Cabinet responsibility exist. Otherwise, one is playing with words.

Attaining and maintaining Cabinet responsibility is a fraught process, but it does have its rewards. Full acceptance of Cabinet responsibility provides for the grit which stimulates positive debate as opposed to inhibition and back room conversation.

Being Leaders

A positive, forward looking culture in an organisation is grown and sustained by the culture makers of the organisation, primarily top management.

Poor example from the top spreads through the organisation like uncontrollable flames, inducing unhelpful behaviour and undermining morale internally and image externally. Under such circumstances, people retreat to only doing the familiar basics because to do anything else is to take risks. Such negative cycles are promoted by poor leadership.

Dysfunctional behaviour as this however, can be substituted by positive, forward looking contributions, namely through the leaders of the organisation. One key distinguishing feature between being a leader or an administrator is to be honest as to whether striving to achieve the following feels like work, namely, promoting a sense of Cabinet responsibility, stimulating an environment conducive to open dialogue and gaining the ownership of others towards a discipline for consistency of behaviour on agreed matters.

For those who consider these attributes to require an investment of time and application, it is likely that they are more leaders than administrators. For those who acknowledge the above, attempt to engender such perspectives in the organisation but in between everything else, they are likely to hold more of an administrative mentality.

The diversity of pursuing the dual synergies underlying strategy, requires positive leadership. Only through effective leadership from todays senior public servants, can management skills be then properly applied.

 

1. CEO Chief Executive Officer
MD Managing Director
ED Executive Director
GM General Manager
SES Senior Executive Service
SOs Senior Officers

2. NHS National Health Service

3. NHS National Health Service

4. Respondents were asked whether the members of the top team were,