Voir en

français

Leadership – easier said than done

In his 2020 annual report, my predecessor in the Ombud’s office asks a challenging question: “Why are relations with the hierarchy the number one source of conflicts reported to the Ombud’s Office?” 

Underlying this observation is another interesting question: “Why is it still the case today when our Laboratory has built a considerable offer of high-quality management and leadership training?”

Reflecting on this, I would like to share with you some key findings of a very interesting research report  from the UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), which gives some leads, or at least may get our thinking going, on why demonstrating leadership, even when equipped with the required skills, is easier said than done.

By taking a systems perspective rather than considering the capability of individual leaders, the report outlines some organisational factors that may limit the ability of capable managers, even when equipped with specific knowledge and skills through training and experience, to exercise their management and leadership skills. 

Let me present to you a few of those factors that resonate most in the Ombud’s Office. And I hope this will prompt you to read the full report and see how it resonates for yourself, in your own practice of management.

Hierarchy and bureaucracy 

Managers may be called upon to exercise leadership on one hand, while still having to respect a clear decision-making hierarchy on the other hand. Faced with these two – sometimes opposing – demands, managers may be discouraged from making their own decisions after they are reprimanded the first few times for taking the initiative.

Similarly, and because the best ideas about operational aspects come from those who do the job, managers should ideally be empowered to implement more efficient ways of working that are suggested by their teams. However, failure to allow time for forward planning reduces opportunities to seek bottom-up feedback. It may also cause managers to operate primarily in firefighting mode and apply directive management skills. Even managers who have had leadership training and development might find it difficult to reconcile the strategic direction from the top, on one hand, with the day-to-day needs and interests of their people, on the other.

The report also points out that classic hierarchy, where individuals defer decisions to the higher level in the hierarchy, may slow down collaborative working between groups or departments. 

Another point in relation to hierarchy and rather heavy bureaucracy is that experienced managers who are expected to embrace and implement change quickly, without always being involved in shaping the direction of change, might themselves not buy into the purpose of the programme, projects or activities. 

Finally, for organisations that regularly restructure and have a fast-moving change agenda, if the next round of changes is put forward before the previous programme settles, managers may feel they do not have enough time to learn new behaviours and to develop them amongst their staff. 

Short-term, bottom-line focus

When performance management and promotion processes focus on task-related performance objectives, one can forget that the job of managers is radically different from completing operational tasks. The primary role of managers is to organise and influence others, and this requires a different set of skills. Nevertheless, if leaders know that they will be primarily judged on how well they meet their operational objectives, they may sometimes focus on hitting short-term performance targets rather than on empowering their staff. 

If good performers are promoted into managerial positions without considering their leadership potential, or if good individual performance allows people to get away with poor behaviours, the efforts invested in training and development might not achieve their objectives. 

Resource constraints also make it difficult for managers to remain flexible to staff needs, while some cost-cutting solutions only add more processes to manage (e.g. heavier reliance on associated members of the personnel, managing contractors, suppression/streamlining of centralised support services, etc.).

Individualism

In theory, middle and front-line managers should be achieving their objectives through managing people. However, in times of cost cutting and competition for resources, individual choices are sometimes dictated by the “survival mode” in which they feel they operate. They may focus their efforts on what is likely to serve their individual interests and will not compromise delivery for staff empowerment. 

If the performance management process itself reiterates the priority given to meeting operational objectives over developing people, and focuses on individual performance, it may also reinforce the need for managers to find flaws in their team members’ performance rather than celebrating successes. 

Sameness over diversity

The challenge for leaders and managers today is embracing workforce diversity. Diversity comprises not just differences in people’s demographic characteristics but also in their work styles, individual motivations to come to work and opinions on the best way to perform their job. 

Still, people management processes can inadvertently favour sameness over diversity. To avoid this phenomenon, objective and rounded assessment in the selection and rewarding process are needed, rather than allowing individuals to be picked based on unconsciously noted similarity between the assessors and the candidate.

Furthermore, overly prescriptive frameworks may restrict the scope for discretion. Although managers are instructed to consider staff behaviours when rating performance, those behaviours, considering the infinite range of individual behaviours in a diverse workforce, are difficult to measure objectively. This is why managers may have to rely on delivery targets to differentiate individual performance. 

As a fully trained and experienced manager, you have, in theory, the capability to empower, motivate and engage your team. Still, if you experience difficulties doing so, it may be that organisational processes do not always give you the ability to apply those managerial skills in practice. It is worth reflecting on how these organisational factors may affect your practice of management, and on how you may limit their influence, in order to better fulfil your capability to manage.


Laure Esteveny

I want to hear from you – feel free to email ombud@cern.ch with any feedback or suggestions for topics you’d like me to address. 

NB: If you would like to be notified about posts, news and other communications from the CERN Ombud, please register to receive the CERN Ombud news.