Developing Leadership and Measuring It: The Action Learning Question Program Could Be A Way Forward

Recognition as to the effectiveness of Action Learning as applied to the development of leadership skills, has been highlighted by two well known and internationally accredited academics and leadership practitioners, Michael Marquardt (Professor of Human Resources and International Affairs at the US based Elliott School of International Affairs and Program Director of Overseas Programs at George Washington University) and H.Skipton Leonard (Faculty member at the Carey School of Business at John Hopkins University). In a 2010 publication entitled "The Evidence for the Effectiveness of Action Learning", as published in the Action Leaning: Research and Practice Journal, they identified four reasons to support their conclusion regarding the impact of Action Learning in this field, being:

1.    Action Learning encourages people to take responsibility and action to achieve a desirable result or goal;

2.    Action Learning provides a disciplined process for reflecting and learning;

3.    Action Learning allows people to work on the specific skills necessary to get things done through people, and

4.    Action Learning provides people with the direct and indirect feedback necessary to learn complex leadership skills along the way.

Having considered the strengths associated with Action Learning as it applies to the development of leaders within organisations through either formal in-house leadership development programs or through less formal development, the question of measuring the success or otherwise of leadership development programs becomes the next issue to be addressed. In a recent edition of the MITSloan Management Review, Gandossy and Guarneri (Principal and Research Consultant respectively, from the US based Hewitt Associates, human resource consultants) reported that research from the top tier of US based companies identified the development of a range of holistic measures that addresses key organisational stakeholders namely, people managers, business leaders, HR professionals, and key organisational talent. These measures included, but were not limited to the following:

• identifying when key talents would be ready to move onto new roles within the organisation
• understanding the extent to which leaders take responsibility for their own development and that of their people
• identifying how leaders contribute to the development of talent as a corporate resource
• understanding the extent to which leaders 'walk the walk' on effective leadership behaviours
•  identifying the business trends that most influence leadership strategies within the organisation, and
• understanding the link between our leadership development programs and the internal supply of qualified candidates.

The real linkage that appears to be highlighted throughout the discussion presented by Gandossy and Guarneri relates to the extent to which an organisation can ensure that the leadership development programs are aligned to actual business needs as distinct to being abstract and somewhat detached from the organisational imperatives that need to be addressed.

The design of the Action Learning Question Program ("ALQ") addresses such needs by operating at the dual level of developing your staff but doing so in the context of resolving very real organisational challenges that, left unresolved, will hinder organisational efforts towards future and long term sustainability.

The 2015 public ALQ Program, referred to as Cross-Organisational Cohorts, (which recently concluded in November 2015) proved highly successful and delivered real solutions to the organisations that were represented, and real value to the individuals involved in the cohort.

Similar programs with bespoke ALQ Program structures are commencing in March 2016 as in-house ALQ Programs. These are developed for medium and large organisations that are, from a resource perspective, able to accommodate unique Learning Sets necessary for an effective program. Whilst structural elements are uniquely developed in these instances, both the in-house and the cross-organisational cohorts all operate under a common ALQ framework.

The support provided by the Australian Institute of Management ("AIM") has added further value to both the Cross-Organisational Cohorts, as well as the In-House Cohorts. AIM have identified the rigour and value of the Program, and have agreed to recognise completion of the Program (through undertaking a multi-tiered written assessment process) as one Credit Unit towards their highly acclaimed 8-Unit Graduate Diploma of Management and their 12-Unit MBA programs. Whilst this accreditation path is not compulsory, it provides a very sound base to support ongoing education and staff development - a very valuable process for organisations. 

OPTIMUM NFP in conjunction with Action Learning International Ltd. is currently preparing a further Cross-Organisational Cohort to commence in February 2016. Given the success of the recent Program, and the detailed expressions of interest received from five prospective cohort members to-date, it is recommended that you lodge your interest as early as possible, as these Programs are designed for a maximum number of participants of eight per Program. You can register on-line at www.optimumnfp.com.au (ALQ Workshop tab), or contact David Rosenbaum at drosenbaum@optimumnfp.com.au or on 0411-744-911 to register or to discuss the nature of the Program and how it may benefit your organisation, as well as yourself.

As the Principal of OPTIMUM NFP and Senior Consultant and Head of Relationship Management and Program Delivery for Australia at Action Learning International Ltd., I am well placed to structure a program that responds to your organisation's requirements. With the advent of both the Cross-Organisational Cohorts as well as In-House Cohorts, all organisations, irrespective of size, can now consider the practical benefits resulting from participation in an Action Learning Question program to solve sticky organisational challenges whilst simultaneously developing the leadership skills that your organisation will need in the coming years.

Contact David Rosenbaum at drosenbaum@optimumnfp.com.au or 0411-744-911 to discuss how an Action Learning Question program can assist your organisation achieve its objectives.

Fairness in Our Taxation System

We are currently hearing allot about our taxation system at the moment. Seems like the so-called national conversation is happening. Something that was very much absent in the previous incarnation of our federal government. But if this is what a national conversation looks like, then I am slightly underwhelmed by its process, let alone by its potential outcomes.

What I am really hearing is a government process of softening and filtering, where the discourse from government, frontbenchers and backbenchers alike, is really targeted at preparing the broader electorate for what perhaps could be a forgone conclusion. Perhaps I am getting very cynical about politicians, but then again, the last few years have probably prepared me well for higher than ordinary levels of cynicism.

One of the key descriptors in this 'debate' that is racing down the highway, is 'fairness' and 'equity' in our tax system. I feel that these words are being overdone with a sense that the more the word is used, the more it appears to be self-evident and the true driver of the 'tax debate".

Not so. Espousing these words and yet truly applying all considerations with regards tax to blowtorch of fairness and equity, would actually mean that our superannuation tax system would change drastically, as would our somewhat outdated and 'unfair' capital gains tax provisions. As would also, the strange array of corporate incentives that tend to allocate taxpayer largesse to the most inappropriate corporate beneficiaries.

It appears that fairness and equity must apply primarily to the GST, which by-the-way, it never can given the nature of what the GST targets and how it is calculated. Fairness and equity, however you define this, must apply to a complete rewrite of our tax system, not just elements thereof. From a sceptics perspective, it very much appears, despite whatever our politicians tell us, that the GST is the headline act, but there is much more that needs to be considered before placing at further risk, the most vulnerable in our community.

I suspect that the current debate, especially from the government's perspective, reflects deep underlying beliefs in a system or process that has been clearly debunked by an influential list of well regarded economists, the theory of 'trickle-down economics'.  Just to rehash, this theory espouses the notion that extra wealth being generated at the top of the wealth tree eventually makes its way down to the roots of the tree where we all benefit and live happier ever-after in an environment of growing economic prosperity. The only problem, and it is indeed a small problem that our government has an obvious ideological problem with in terms of recognising it to be a problem, is that it does not work.

This has been proven by the International Monetary Fund, where in its 2015 report entitled "Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective" wherein they state, in part, 
"...we show why policymakers need to focus on the poor and the middle class. Earlier IMF work has shown that income inequality matters for growth and its sustainability. Our analysis suggests that the income distribution itself matters for growth as well. Specifically, if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels." 

If we are going to continue down this facade of fairness and equality, perhaps the message is clear - focus our attention on the poorer and the middle class - that is where we are going to get the biggest 'bang for our buck'!

Shall we now continue with the so-called national conversation? If you can't find it, its in the press where all things fair and equitable are discussed.

  

Public Action Learning Question Program - Launch of 2016 Cohort follows Successful 2015 Program

Action Learning International in conjunction with OPTIMUM NFP is pleased to announce the launch of its second public Action Learning Question Program in Sydney in February 2016. The highly successful first Program commenced in mid 2015 and feedback from participants reflected the value that they saw in the Program. 

“The ALQ has been a wonderful opportunity to holistically address an organisational issue for me. The supportive environment and being able to access the knowledge and experience of a diverse group of people has been very positive and rewarding. Both the organisation and I have benefitted from the ALQ process.”         Anna Buddo, General Manager, Hunters Hill Ryde Community Services who participated in the Program

"David and Richard facilitated an excellent program.  As a professional facilitator myself, I had high expectations and they were met on every occasion the group met.  They were empathetic and stretched each participant on the program in the right way, so we grew and worked on our 'wicked problem' at our own pace."    A Management Consultant who participated in the Program

“The ALQ program is an organisational problem solving process where contributory factors and possible solutions to a problem are defined through a questioning and reflective process with other group members. The guided group discussion offers a rich source of thoughts for consideration, sparking new ideas for dealing with organisational and personal change.  The program has influenced my thinking to undertake a deeper process of building organisational strategy that I believe will assist NADO through its transition to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.”            Denise Heath, CEO, NADO Inc

“The ALQ was excellent in providing a framework to help me think through some business development challenges with my consulting business. I found the mixed cohort of commercial and not-for-profit sectors to be quite effective.  Input came from a variety of perspectives, which helped to frame some old challenges in a new way. The program was very effective at helping prompt me into new thinking.”        An HR Consultant who participated in the Program

This program embraces Professor Reg Revans’ widely accepted proposition that learning is best considered as a combination of programmed knowledge combined with insightful questions generated in groups known as action learning sets. In this manner, action learning is grounded from a proven theoretical practice, is organizational and business driven, aimed at addressing the needs of the organisation by tackling what has been termed ‘wicked’ problems, whilst being action and learning focused. 

Within this framework, the ALQ (“Action Learning Question”) program represents a process by which action learning is structured and undertaken within a defined time-­period, utilising a range of specifically created tools and resources, with the specific twin objectives of solving organisational challenges whilst developing organisational skills and expertise. This is referred to in the prevailing literature as the Return on Investment Model of action learning, and is to be applied to individual work-based challenges of the participant’s organisation. 

The program includes 6 structured sessions, of varying time periods and a mixture of face-to-face and virtual formats, conducted over a 3-month period. Ongoing contact is maintained with all participants by the program facilitators as well as amongst the participants using a Yammer communication platform. Participants are expected to apply various activities throughout the Program within their own work environments, working towards resolving the key issue that they bring to the Program. 

The program has been accredited by the Australian Institute of Management towards their Graduate Diploma in Management and their MBA programs.

The Program is scheduled to commence in mid-February 2016 and places fare limited to a maximum of 8 participants. 

For further information and to register on-line, visit www.optimumnfp.com.au and click on the 'ALQ Workshops' tab. (In-house ALQ Programs are also currently being run. Contact David Rosenbaum on 0411-744-911 to discuss the applicability of the ALQ Program to your organisation)

Build confidence in your future leaders - these are resources that must be invested in for the sake of sustainability

The 2014 Not-for-Profit Leadership Survey authored by OPTIMUM NFP and Growing People+Organisations, identified that 52% of respondent NFP CEO’s believed that whilst their management teams had strong technical capabilities, they lacked the leadership skills needed for the future.

The survey suggested that traditionally, managers were promoted or appointed into their roles for their technical or professional skills and they learnt to manage a team through trial and error. As suggested in the report, the high costs of staff turnover and the need to develop staff to achieve organisational goals meant that managers needed to have highly developed leadership skills more so than technical skills.

Emotional Intelligence, or EI as it is usually referred to, is very often seen as a necessity in leadership roles, especially when leaders are focusing on the implementation of change programs, where appropriate engagement with all staff is not only necessary, but also fundamental to the success of the change program.  EI has many facets including emotional self-awareness, emotional awareness of others, emotional self-management and control, emotional management of others, emotional reasoning, and expression.

Some authors suggest EI cannot be taught. Managers either have this skill or they don’t. Others suggest that whilst an innate leaning towards effective EI traits is prevalent amongst successful leaders, exposure to appropriate leadership and personnel development can either improve existing EI capabilities or at least expose potential leaders to a wide range of EI related attributes where in the right environment, and with the right mentoring, can over time, refine EI type skills.

In a potentially correlated issue, the Survey also found that 52% of respondents believed that their NFP’s inability to adapt to change was a risk to the sustainability of their organisation. A broader issue appeared to be the extent to which these organisations were change ready from a cultural perspective as well as from a technical preparedness level. In this regard the challenge for leaders is to understand what stage their organisation is at with regards its readiness to react to, and absorb change, identify the gaps, and then look to address them with a myriad of suitable approaches, before change is implemented. Of course when we talk organisational culture, be it for change readiness purposes or for general performance purposes, a leader’s EI becomes of paramount importance, given the role that the leader plays in both these issues.

Seeing the above issues in context, it becomes clear that leadership development training may become critical in addressing the challenging issues that face this sector into the future. Existing evidence suggests that traditional leadership development programs may have substantial shortcomings.  McKinsey and Co have identified four such shortcomings. These include:

• the fact that many of these programs overlook context by working on the invalid assumption that one size fits all;

• the fact that reflection is decoupled from real work, underpinning the absence of real-life application of acquired theoretical knowledge

• the fact that the need to change mind-sets which requires an associated change in behaviours is often overlooked, and finally

• the fact that such programs tend to overlook the Return-on-Investment aspect associated with the cost of such programs.

Alternatives do exist utilising an Action Learning framework. Action Learning as an approach for driving performance was originally proposed by Professor Reg Revans in the 1940s and over the years has led to significant international successes, especially in the NFP sector where the central focus on mission and values enables participants to develop relevant work-based solutions in their own organisations, whilst furthering their own personal and professional development. By doing so, the Action Learning process successfully addresses the shortcomings that McKinsey and Co has identified in existing leadership development programs.

OPTIMUM NFP is pleased to announce the launch of the Australian arm of UK based Action Learning international, which has successfully developed the Action Learning Question approach which is designed to aid leadership and personnel development, whilst focusing in the resolution of work-based challenges. These programs have been successfully running in the UK and Europe for the last 14 years in the commercial, public and NFP sectors, and have much to offer Australian not-for-profits.

Action Learning International is holding its public launch in Sydney on Wednesday 4^th June and limited places are still available to hear from the founders of the Action Learning Question program, Professor Richard Hale and Professor Joanna Kozubska from the UK. To register your interest in attending, please visit the OPTIMUM NFP web site and complete the online application, alternatively contact David Rosenbaum at drosenbaum@optimumnfp.com.au to indicate your interest.

Being a Not-for-Profit. Business vs Purpose - Is It Really a Contest?

I recently found myself embroiled in an online discussion that appeared to view the not-for-profit sector as necessarily being one that conceptually needed to be split two-ways. The initiator of this discussion appeared to be suggesting that on the one hand there were those NFPs who were larger and operated within a more corporate environment, whilst the other group of NFPs are those that are somehow more community based, potentially smaller, and are more ‘grass-roots’ orientated. 

The discussion centred on the perceived need for the ACNC, in the context of the current Federal Government’s recently introduced legislation which would seek to effectively close down the ACNC without necessarily identifying what, if anything, would replace it. The discussion centred on the pros and cons of the current ACNC in the context of what was needed, from a governance perspective, for the efficient running of this sector. A further dimension to this discussion was the role that consultants are playing in shaping the ongoing debate regarding the need for an additional regulator of the type and style of the ACNC.

There are different aspects to this discussion which are worthwhile further considering, especially in the context of a sector which everyone agrees, plays an important part in the economic and social life of the Australian community.

The importance of ‘community’ cannot be overstated. At this level it is worthwhile remembering that the role of this sector is important because of its very heavy focus on individuals. An American author writing about what is often referred to as the third sector (van Til – 2008), suggested that “society is best organized if voluntary organizations are numerous, effective, and thick in meaning”.  He further suggested that in a Western style democracy, there were only four institutional means of solving society’s challenges, namely governments, business, the third sector and finally, what he referred to as the “informal sector”, constituted by family and neighbourhood. This structure very much focuses attention on the distance between services design and delivery at a policy level and at a front-line service delivery level. 

The grass-roots service delivery approach that smaller third sector organisations espouse and are very good at delivering, must also be considered in the light of the economic realities that now face this sector, and will continue to challenge their very existence. 

A well known Australian academic who researched extensively the Australian nonprofit sector, the late Mark Lyons suggested that third sector organisations needed to carefully balance the need to maximise their financial bottom line without becoming purely bottom-line focused, indicating that profit was necessary to ensure sustainability and the ongoing provision of effective front-line services into the future. His call was for an appropriate focus on improving business performance within these organisations. His 2001 publication entitled “Third Sector” highlighted this business performance issue and the management practitioner conundrum when he stated “Over the past 20 to 30 years huge resources have been committed to developing understandings and techniques to improve business performance. But not all of the management techniques developed by and for business are directly applicable to third sector organisations. Third sector organisations have special characteristics that require their own solutions but little effort is put into developing best practice management for the third sector.”

The current and future economic reality within which third sector organisations operate necessitates the consideration and application of a wide range of commercial and managerial issues. These will not disappear in an attempt to change back the clock to an earlier era. The economy has changed and the social structures have changed. The challenge is to ensure that the changes required to be made by organisations in this sector are made in a way that focuses on the outcomes necessary to enhance the lives of those that rely on the services that this sector provide, whilst doing so in financially sustainable terms.

In this context, there is no substitute for sound governance practices and structures within third sector organisations. The ACNC could prove to be a very strong and effective tool for driving such governance frameworks across the third sector and its potential demise, in the absence of any realistic alternative is a negative for organisations operating within this sector as well as those who interact with it. If it is going to be replaced, the sector and those that involve itself with it should be given a detailed picture of what will replace it. Simply going back to what was in existence pre ACNC, may not suffice, especially given the challenging economic and social issues that Australia face and will face into the foreseeable future.

OPTIMUM NFP has been supporting not-for-profit organisations through the provision of strong nonprofit-specific governance related consulting assignments in areas of Risk Management, Strategic Financial Management, Strategic Planning, and Change Management. Contact David Rosenbaum for a free no-obligation meeting to discuss your not-for-profit’s requirements and how OPTIMUM NFP could assist.