"This is no time for a novice," declared Prime Minister Gordon Brown at his party conference two weeks ago. What the British people wanted, he said, was decisive leadership and action that would help them with their mortgages, their jobs, their businesses.

His rallying call, a swipe at his inexperienced opposition leader David Cameron, brought him a brief reprieve. After all, in the current financial crisis, who better to lead than the Iron Chancellor who presided over our decade of economic growth and solemnly promised an end to the cycles of boom and bust.

Back in September, Brown's speech was a masterstroke. He was fighting a leadership battle within his own party, as rebel MPs urged a change of leadership. Yet soon after the conference, Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke, wrote in the Sunday Times that Brown lacked both leadership and clarity of purpose. "The prevarication and evasion may appear attractive at the moment, they are actually the most dangerous course of all."

These were prophetic words. The financial crisis has well and truly exposed Brown as a ditherer, incapable of making decisions under pressure. In the last few days, he and Chancellor Alistair Darling have driven the City of London into a frenzy of speculation. Their reluctance to take decisive action over the banking system has contrasted sharply with the leaders of Germany, Spain, Ireland, Greece and Denmark who have offered superior guarantees for their banks and assurances to the public. Brown's hesitation has undermined confidence, with the result that money has flooded out of the country and the stock market has crashed.

As one commentator said today, the only sensible conclusion to draw is that while he remains in office the economic crisis is likely to get even worse.  Another, in one of hundreds of comments on this story, puts it more starkly: "for Gods Sake Brown, take action, be decisive. This country is about to go down - either do something or move aside so that someone who will, can, before it's too late."

Also getting hundreds of responses is the blog of Robert Peston, the BBC's business correspondent, who has emerged as a popular hero in recent weeks. Several times a day, he unravels the complexity of the financial crisis and shows he is often several steps ahead of Treasury ministers. His calm, informative and clear-headed reports on radio, television and the web are a badly needed antidote to the government's obfuscation, confusion and side-stepping.

Another hero is Vince Cable, Shadow Chancellor for the third party in British politics, the Liberal Democrats. An economist by training, he is the only politician who has offered any specific policy responses to the crisis and has done so in a straightforward and clear way. But while he is revered by the public, he is sitting powerless between the two major parties, one of which is fiddling while London burns while the other waits for the kill.

In fairness, Brown is not the only leader who has been found lacking in recent days. Angela Merkel's confusing announcement about bank guarantees sent markets plummeting yesterday, while other European leaders have done little more than put on a show of united leadership while focusing on their own problems. Business and political leaders in the US were also shown to be in disarray last week when the financial bail-out package, first rejected by Congress, was only adopted after significant revisions.

In my next post, I will set out some guidelines for how to lead in a crisis, based on both my experience of coaching senior business leaders and on my research into how leaders responded in the aftermath of the crisis of 9/11.

But first, I'd like to ask what you think. How do you lead in crisis? What works and what doesn't work? How have your own business and political leaders responded to the current crisis? And what lessons have they learned?

Congratulations to Thomas P Cambell, who was this week named as the new director of New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art. Described as 'the outsider-insider' by the art world, the 46-year-old British curator beat off stiff competition from internal and external candidates, including the boss of his own department.

He will take up the post next January, when Philippe de Montebello, who has held the post for 31 years, steps down. At press conferences this week, a clearly delighted Mr Campbell described his appointment as "a dream come true."

And while he said it was too early to share his plans for the museum, he pledged to keep the museum "fresh and relevant" and made clear that he would listen to advice and "learn from the people I lead." He also acknowledged that he was inheriting "a well-run institution that is fiscally sound.''

The Met describes Mr Campbell as "a distinguished art historian and outstanding curator......as well as a solid manager and diplomat." He is also praised for his leadership qualities, his passion for art and for being well-liked by and stakeholders. From his early media interviews, he has shown himself to be smart, diplomatic, unassuming, inclusive and with a sense of humour.

So far, so good. But what are the challenges facing him in the coming months?

Personal challenges

• Managing the transition from Curator to Director The new job is quite a stretch from his previous role -- it involves producing around 30 exhibits a year, managing a staff of 2,600, a $201 million annual operating budget and a $1 billion-plus capital campaign. The big question is: does he have the experience? While he hasn't held a big management job, Mr Campbell has overseen and implemented a large project in The Antonio Ratti Textile Center, but as a largely unproven business leader, he might wish to enlist a strong commercial manager or consider some formal business training.

• Making an impact His predecessor is the longest-serving director in the Met's history and has left a huge legacy - doubling the museum's structure, adding new galleries and building its profile. As an insider, it will be more difficult for Mr Campbell to make an impact, but he needs to be more than just a safe pair of hands. He would do well to develop a new vision that is in tune with the current times and reveal more about himself and his personal passion for the Met.

• Managing perceptions In the coming months, he must be aware that everything he says and does will be noticed and analysed for clues about his leadership style, so he must be consistent and considered at all times. While already well-connected within the museum, he should nevertheless meet and listen to as many stakeholders as he can.

• High-profile social role The director's role involves a lot of high-profile socialising, so Mr Cambell needs to think about the demands on his time and energy. The Met is said to have vetted candidates' wives and families as part of the selection process, so hopefully his wife is also prepared for her huge supporting role.

Business challenges

• Uncertain economic climate This is not the best of economic times for building the Met's financial reserves and seeking sponsorship. He will need to find new donors who can pay for crucial collections and collectors who can make bequests. Many of these will come from outside the US, so he will have to be at ease with a range of cultures and styles.

• Competition in the art world Around the world, new art institutions with innovative agendas are competing for funds. Older institutions are also finding new ways to develop their brand and reach, as the Louvre has done by attaching its name to a new museum in Abu Dhabi.

• Balancing quality with commercialism Mr Campbell will be aware that he must maintain the Met's reputation for quality while ensuring its commercial success. He has in the past won kudos for mounting successful exhibitions.

• Balancing modernity with traditionalism Mr Cambell is more of a traditionalist than a modernist, but globalization has changed the world hugely in last 30 years and he needs to consider the attitudes and tastes of generations X and Y as well as the non-American world. Useful reading might include The Post-American World.
  

People challenges

• Learning from his predecessor Mr de Montebello will have a wealth of information and experience that will be vital for Mr Campbell in his new role. He will need to ensure he spends enough time with him and asks the right questions, including who are the key influencers in the Met and how the politics work.

• Managing disappointment Having been appointed ahead of two senior colleagues, he needs to ensure they remain motivated. It will be important to build relationships with them and ensure their expectations are managed effectively without undermining his own role.

• Building his team The Met is a well-oiled machine, but Mr Campbell needs to think about pulling together his core team. He may have to look deeper within the ranks of the Met or even bring in talent from outside. As he gets closer to January, he will need to sound them out on their views and involve them in the shaping of his vision.

• Maintaining a watching brief The next three months will be crucial time to watch, listen and reflect on the organisation, people and himself in order to prepare himself for the role.

What do you think? Do you have any suggestions or words of advice for Mr Campbell? Let us know your thoughts please.

I have a soft spot for creatives, those colourful creatures who occasionally crop up on the corporate landscape. They can be dizzy and vague, but often bring fun and lightness to work, together with a different perspective. I try to look out for the signs of creativity: an unusual turn of phrase, an interesting piece of art in the office, a funky haircut or a stand-out pair of shoes. And then I try to see where their creativity lies and how they are using it in their work.

Much of my coaching is with international bankers, lawyers, executives and business leaders, where it can be difficult to express creativity. Yet when I have noticed a creative streak and commented on it, clients have invariably opened up, revealing a completely different side from their cool, professional face.

There have been some exceptional discussions - a banker interested in fashion design, an engineer who wrote short stories, an accountant who was training to be a furniture designer and a lawyer who held exhibitions of his watercolours.

All were open and enthusiastic about their passions, but, in truth, none saw a way to bring that creative drive and energy to work.

This worries me. Creativity and right-brain thinking are becoming critical in the fast-changing business world, where innovation, ideas and quantum leaps in thinking are required. This has been underscored by many commentators, including Daniel H. Pink, who recently declared that the Master of Fine Arts is the new MBA, and Katharine Bell's conversation starter on these pages.

So why is it so difficult to bring creativity to work and what should we do about it?

The first part of that question is easy enough to answer: most business is routine, time-pressured and highly structured, leaving people little room to experiment or show creative flair. Unless you work at a company such as Google or Apple, creative thinking is normally done away from day-to-day work, at offsite meetings, in strategy units or by internal consultants or external advisers. Unleashing uncontrolled creativity is discouraged as it can result in disruptive change or chaos.

As to how you can bring creativity to work, let's step back for a moment. Ask yourself why you enjoy your creative passion so much. What does it allow you to do? To think laterally, to explore new ideas, visuals or perspectives? The opportunity to slow down, switch off or reflect? Or an adrenaline rush of excitement and energy?

The creative industries themselves can offer some direction in how to bring creativity to work. Ed Catmull, president of Pixar and Disney Animation Studios, believes that creativity is not an individual activity but rather involves groups of people from different disciplines working effectively together. He says teamwork, trust, clear values, strong leadership and dismantling the barriers that divide disciplines all help to foster more creativity at work.

The worlds of fashion, advertising and publishing also have some useful ideas. This summer I have been working with executives in all three sectors and have noticed some interesting differences in the way they operate compared with more traditional businesses.

First, fashion. The group I worked with made sure that managers were absolutely clear about its business imperatives, but also honoured the value of ideas, difference, expression and personal growth. Its leadership development programme included coaching by a film director to help senior executives 'fill the stage' as leaders - to know who they really were and how best to convey that. Executives were also encouraged to look good, feel confident and to become the best they could be, which translated into an overwhelming sense of vitality, individuality and energy.

The advertising industry offered further lessons: again, the firm underlined that it was first and foremost a business, but it nonetheless insisted that all staff - including the financial director and COO - had a creative pursuit. Evidence of those pursuits was on display in the firm's riotous reception - painted gorilla toes, a strange underwear 'installation', myriad self-portraits, puzzles and sculptures. Open spaces, shared dining areas, 'thinking' rooms and projects that encouraged interaction between the most senior and junior staff all contributed to the high-energy feel of the place. I also discovered that the company regularly invited students - of art, philosophy, music, literature, anthropology and religion - to look at their ideas from their differing perspectives.

Finally, to publishing, where I once worked myself as an editor and journalist. One of the most impressive aspects of publishing is how it manages to balance business rigour and creativity so effectively. A publisher once told me that he took his lead from the most successful writers on his list: highly structured and disciplined, they ruthlessly allocated their time to writing, thinking, family and fun. Publishers and editors are also amazingly adept at working both individually or in a team, at speeding up for deadlines or slowing down for creative thinking and never forgetting to step and regain perspective.

So there you are, a few ideas on creativity at work. Now I'd like to hear your views. What are your creative interests and are you able to bring them to work? What inhibits creativity at work? And do you have any suggestions about how your workplace could be come more creative?

If you're reading this column, I guess I've caught you at one of the best moments in your working year. The sun is shining, work is winding down for the summer and you're probably heading off for your annual holiday. You're ready to leave everything behind, to take some time out to reflect on your year to date. I'm lucky enough to be doing the same, from the cool hills above Portugal's windswept Algarve coast.

For many of us, this two-week summer vacation is an oasis in our working lives. Thoughts of the office, the credit crunch and global world disorder float away as we enjoy time with our family and friends, lazy walks to the beach or golf course and long, relaxing evenings. It's a brief window of happiness when life feels as it should - relaxed, full and happy. But it doesn't last long: in a blink, we'll be back at the office and back in the middle of all the problems, difficult people and tough decisions we briefly managed to escape.

But imagine what it would be like if you couldn't wait to get back to work, if you were actually reluctant to leave your job even for a short break because you enjoyed it so much. I'm sure there are some such lucky people out there, but what about the rest of us? Should we expect to be happy at work?

As a business coach, I've noticed that more and more managers and leaders are expecting to derive more happiness and satisfaction from their work. They are often young, talented and successful people who view their jobs as routes to self-actualisation. Yet this shift in the purpose of work raises many questions: how much satisfaction are we entitled to derive from work? And should employers be expected to provide meaning and happiness as well as a job and salary?

Far from being a pipe dream, companies are now beginning to take the concept of happiness at work very seriously, and for sound business reasons. A recent research paper by Alex Edmans, a finance professor at Wharton, found that US corporations with the happiest employees have a financial performance notably better than lower-ranked companies.

Felicia A. Huppert, professor of positive psychology at Cambridge university, says happiness has been scientifically proven to make us live longer and healthier and work more successfully. Happy folk use the left side of their brains more and have better immune systems. This has obvious implications for the creative thinking and innovation that is so valuable for business today. Moreover, as Edmans says, employee satisfaction is a very effective motivational tool and a powerful method of retaining key employees.

Google is one US company that repeatedly wins plaudits for being a great place to work. At the top of Fortune magazine's annual list of the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America," the company is well- known for caring about employees' welfare and its emphasis on corporate social responsibility.

Here in the UK, Happy, a small IT training company, is making its own waves. It has won numerous awards for being one of the most inspired places to work and for its its approach to employee and customer relations. Here are some of its guiding principles:

• Create an environment where people feel good about themselves. Research has shown that managers spend three times as much time telling people what they did wrong as telling them what they did right. How often you can spot somebody doing something right?
• Give people freedom. When did you personally work at your best? Probably when you were given freedom and trusted to do it your way. Is this what you provide for your people? Have they been challenged, trusted and given freedom?
• Ensure your people are working within your organisation's principles and have clear targets. Make the framework crystal clear, then give people the freedom to work out their own way to achieve it - this will create opportunities for innovation.
• Feedback is crucial to job ownership. Ensure that your people regularly receive feedback from their internal or external customers. And ownership reinforces both responsibility and innovation -- if people genuinely have full ownership, they will make sure it works.
• Choose managers according to how good they are with people. Do you appoint managers on the basis of core skills or length of service, regardless of their ability to motivate, support, and develop staff?
• Ensure managers know how they are doing with their staff. Do your managers regularly receive peer and upward appraisals?
• Recruit for attitude, then train for skills. At the interview, do you test people on their ability to talk through their CV and their ability to do the tasks? What about whether they show positive attitude, how supportive they are to others, or their ability to cope with change?
• Systems, not rules. Trust everyone to do their jobs to the best of their ability - with a clear set of principles and a framework, but without detailed rules and instructions. Have you ensured that a process or system can be changed if any member of staff can find a better way to meet the needs of customers?
• Celebrate mistakes. Saying 'I got it wrong' is a sign of responsibility and an indication of an honest and open corporate culture. If people haven't made any mistakes, they probably haven't tried anything new. Does your culture ensure people remain open or does it stifle learning?

What do you think about Happy's principles? Does your company or organization operate on these or similar guidelines? Are they realistic for your organization? Would your company be a better place - for leaders, employees or customers - if it followed these principles? Do you have any further suggestions?

Siemens AG, the European Union's largest engineering and technology company, is in reputation meltdown. And this week is likely to prove the most explosive yet in 18 months of turbulence.

Since 2006, Siemens has been mired in a corruption scandal that has seen several senior executives arrested over allegations of the use of bribes to land international contracts. They include Thomas Ganswindt, head of the telecoms division and Johannes Feldmayer, a member of the board. Heinrich von Pierer, head of Siemens' supervisory board, and Klaus Kleinfield, chief executive, have resigned as a result of the investigations but have denied wrongdoing.

Last year, two former officials were convicted in a Munich court of bribery and abetting bribery in a multimillion-dollar deal with the Italian energy utility ENEL. Both admitted paying kickbacks worth $8 million between 1999 and 2002 and said that slush funds had existed in the power division for many years. Siemens has said it will appeal the court’s ruling on the grounds that the legal situation in Germany was unclear at the time – the bribing of foreign employees did not become illegal under German law until 2002.

At present, nearly 300 current and former staff are under investigation for corruption. In May, a Munich court brought Reinhard Siekaczek, a former sales manager who worked at Siemens for 38 years, to trial. Siekaczek's defence was that he simply followed the orders of his superiors in setting up the slush funds. "It was actually no great art, no great system. It was relatively easy," he told the court. "The entire divisional executive knew that I was doing it." Siekaczek also said he tried to stop the bribes but was unable to influence his superiors.

Siekaczek's trial is likely to wrap up this week, coinciding with two other potentially explosive events for Siemens: the publication of its third-quarter results on July 30th and the likely announcement that the group is to sue its entire former executive board, seeking compensation for its alleged role in the scandal.

And it gets worse. Siemens is also facing a possible $1 billion fine by the SEC and has been named as one of 57 German companies listed in the Volker Report for alleged abuse of the UN’s oil-for-food program in Iraq.

No doubt Peter Löscher, the Austrian chief executive appointed in June 2007, will put a brave face on things this week. In his first year, he has streamlined and restructured the group, spent €1.8 billion clearing up the bribery system, introduced compliance training for staff and commissioned an internal investigation across several countries.
Löscher's senior executives privately claim that Siemens is now "the most squeaky clean company," but the smell of corruption remains.

So what can managers learn from Siemens' troubles?

First, who should be accountable if senior executives order managers to carry out questionable acts in the name of business?

Second, is it right or reasonable that companies can sue former executives for failing to act appropriately and damaging the company's reputation?

Third, should managers be able to sue their current or former employers if they end up in court for "following orders"?

What do you think?

Vikram Pandit is a brave man. He stepped up to head Citigroup when others flinched at the thought. Then he set about streamlining and rebuilding Citi, which had been laid waste by the credit crunch and under the regime of his predecessor, Charles Prince.

With steely resolve, Pandit wrote down billions of dollars, closed scores of branches, jettisoned parts of the business, slashed jobs and cut dividends. He didn’t stop there. Next, he tapped sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Gulf for nearly $30 billion, set up a new risk-management team, and cut the bank’s exposure to the sub-prime market.

Pandit’s latest initiative may be his boldest yet. His plan to overhaul Citi’s bonus system is an attempt to move the bank from a highly individualistic to a team culture. It is intended to cut down in-fighting among senior executives and promote co-operation across its investment banking, commercial banking, and wealth management divisions.

While other banks have reviewed their rewards systems in the wake of the credit crunch, arguably no one has gone as far as to base bonuses on the cooperation and performance of the company as a whole. Indeed, in an industry where rewards are inextricably linked to individualism and competition, this is little short of declaring war. Pandit Is said to want the system in place in time for next year’s bonuses, which is bound to stir up a hornet's nest of resistance among senior Citi executives.

Few bankers want to see their bonuses tied to businesses they cannot control, especially given the current volatile state of the industry. One online commentator in the New York Times recently wrote: “It will create even more innuendos and backstabbing by an already politically charged senior management…this will create a facade of where managers give the outward appearance of cooperation and will end up with hidden agendas and covert operations.”

So what is Pandit thinking? Is he on a groundbreaking mission to clean up Citi’s culture and make it more equable? Or is this a naïve – or reckless - attempt to change the fundamental nature of the beast? And what will be the effect on Citi in a year’s time? A more co-operative and high-performance workplace - or a wilderness of in-fighting and political intrigue?

In my experience of working with bankers, the collaborative, consensus-driven and sensitive manager is a rare creature. Where I have occasionally found them, they have been pressured to meet targets and drive results by bosses who are ruthlessly focused on the numbers. Even the banks that value soft skills and value collaboration are buckling under the current pressure.

Perhaps Pandit is a true visionary who is trying to change Citi’s culture for future generations: the checks and balances of team working will certainly curb the excesses of individual greed. But is this workable? Will this do more harm than good, given Citi’s current situation? What do you think?

Matrix management has been around for 40 years, but there have been few challenges to its efficacy and viability. Most writers and management theorists remain convinced that a matrix approach is superior to a hierarchy, but is it really the only alternative? Are there different ways to manage – for example, a truly integrated hierarchical/matrix system or do we need to think about a different system altogether?

Let’s take a look at a few fundamental questions to see if matrix systems are shaping up to the challenges of 21st century business. Here are some thoughts – drawn from my own experience and from Life in a Matrix, a great resource. Let me have your thoughts too.

Key challenges

• Multiple reporting lines can reflect the interests of functions, geographical regions and product lines, but they can also cause conflict, stress and confusion among staff if managers’ interests are not aligned


• Poorly defined management roles can result in turf wars or lack of accountability, which can erode organizational cultures


• Self-managing teams and individuals can free up management time and allow creative and flexible approaches to work – but not everyone can make the transition to self-management


• Organisations can set parallel priorities, but this does not always result in effective or efficient working


• Matrix systems are vulnerable to constant reorganization, which can disrupt the relationships that make them work: knowledge, experience and organizational know-how can be lost easily


• Responsive managers in a matrix can offer unparalleled opportunities for professional development, but inattentive managers can cause immense stress and over-work


• It can be difficult to keep track of who is overseeing performance if project completion is the key focus for businesses

How do you lead in the matrix?

• Make sure the culture is robust, supportive and you have the right values and behaviours in place


• Ensure that you are a skilled communicator: networking, influencing, coaching and facilitating skills are paramount


• Draw up clear goals, objectives, and performance metrics for managers and staff and see to it that they are aligned vertically and horizontally


• Empower teams to make decisions and to resolve conflicts at an appropriate level


• Don’t tinker with the structure, but let the networks and matrix evolve over time


• Use your expertise and personal network to influence those over whom you have no formal authority

How do you work in the matrix?

• Bolster your communication, networking and coaching skills


• Think about who is making demands on your time and attention


• Decide how much effort and attention each part of your workload requires


• Work out how to manage priorities and where you can do trade-offs


• Understand your managers’ situations and identify potential pressure points


• Ensure that each manager is aware of your entire workload and push back against unreasonable or conflicting demands


• Keep your manager informed about what you are doing and your progress

What are the possible effects of the matrix – on people and organizations?

• Greater focus on short-term projects rather than long-term issues


• Shorter attention spans as multiple projects are carried out simultaneously


• Transactional relationships as managers and employees trade off priorities


• More flexible – or more conflictual - management relationships


• More open/supportive – or more political/destructive – organizational cultures


• Greater uncertainty – more ability to deal with ambiguity or less accountability


• More productivity, challenge and growth – or more stress, pressure and fear

What is the future for the matrix?

What do you think? Has matrix management passed its sell-by date? Is there any realistic alternative in sight? What improvements or ideas do you suggest? Let me hear your thoughts.

One theme has emerged loud and clear from executives I have been coaching this year: the utter frustration of operating in complex and shifting matrix management systems. The complaints are legion: multiple and complex reporting lines, confusion over accountability, competing geographical and functional targets, lack of role clarity, too many people involved in decisions, lack of support from senior managers, and the politics and conflicts arising from continual organisational restructuring.

Only last week I heard one senior executive’s attempts to explain his direct, indirect and ‘dual solid’ lines of reporting across multiple functions, product lines, and geographic regions. He told me that in addition to running his own virtual team that spanned three time zones, he had responsibility for several head office projects, with the added problem of dealing with a line manager on one project who was his peer on another. By the time he had finished, my head was spinning.

Another manager told me how he was integrating a project team from a company which his own matrix organisation was taking over. As he went through each layer of complexity and challenge, he began to laugh – amusedly at first, but then with increasing despair. He confessed he was exhausted by the sheer complexity of the situation and was unable to answer my question: “At what point does all this become unworkable?”

This sounds like organisational hell to me, so why do companies continue to have such faith in matrix management? It is easy to see why it was regarded as a necessary innovation when it first emerged in the 1970s. Companies realized that vertically aligned structures did not address cross-functional or business-wide needs. Matrix structures broke down the hierarchies, allowing teams to share information across task boundaries and enabling managers and staff to build their knowledge and experience across projects.

By the 1980s, though, the belief in matrix structures was challenged, due to their inherent complexity and instability. Managers soon realised that they hindered rather than helped them work effectively: employees became confused over conflicting loyalties, with line managers retaining central control and dotted line managers imposing extra demands.

Yet matrix management continues today, even though we are arguably operating in a more complex environment than ever before. As well as the challenges of vertical and horizontal management, there is an unstable economic climate, advancing globalisation, strategic uncertainty and increasing levels of organisational rationalisation, mergers and takeovers. On top of this, organisations have been slow to realise the need for training in the skills necessary to navigate matrices: communication, influencing, coaching, negotiation and conflict management. The result is an almost impossible situation in which to lead or manage.

Despite the ubiquity of this problem, there are few resources for managers and leaders on the challenges of matrix management. Take a look at Kevan Hall’s very readable blog, and Christopher Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal’s evergree Matrix Management: Not a Structure, a Frame of Mind.

In the next post, I will examine some of the complexities of matrix management and offer some ways to deal with it. But first, what are your experiences of working in a matrix environment? Does it work for you or do you find it impossible to navigate? What are the daily realities for you and your staff? Do you think matrix management will survive, or do we need to develop a new system to replace it?

MORE ON MATRIX ORGANIZATIONS:
What Gets Lost on the Dotted Line (HMCL Article)

On Monday morning, two items on BBC radio got me thinking. The first was the news that Gordon Brown, our beleaguered prime minister, has launched a website where the public can put questions to him via YouTube. Like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Mr Brown has realised it was time to go interactive.

“I am here to answer your questions,” he says in his video clip. “Politicians get the chance in Prime Minister’s Questions [a weekly half-hour slot where MPs can grill the PM]. I think it’s time the public had a chance.” It’s not instant – we have to submit our questions by 21 June and he will answer the most popular “at some point soon”. But it was appreciated – a few hours after the announcement, the site had attracted thousands of subscribers.

For a heavyweight politician such as Brown this is a big move, prompted, no doubt by David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, who branded Brown “an analogue leader in a digital age”. Cameron, 41, set up his own site two years ago, offering a view of his home life that included a webcast of his family eating breakfast. This has turned out to be a powerful marketing tool for him and his party as his popularity ratings have steadily risen.

The next item was an interview with Jean-Pierre Garnier, the outgoing CEO of GlaxoSmithKline. Garnier, 60, has been a controversial figure during his eight-years leading the drugs manufacturer. Five years ago, shareholders voted against a pay package that would have allowed him to walk away with $36 million if he lost his job. He also drew fire for refusing to charge lower prices for HIV medicine in Africa and branding animal rights activists ‘despicable cowards’. Yet in the last couple of years he has managed to reverse his reputation and become one of Britain’s most respected businessmen.

On Monday, though, he was in the hot seat again. Having agreed to discuss GSK’s bird-flu vaccine for humans, Garnier instead found himself ambushed by questions about Seroxat, the company’s anti-depressant that has been linked to suicide impulses in young people. When asked whether GSK was prepared to make public all information about the potential dangers of the drug, Garnier became increasingly annoyed. The next question, whether he would leave a company that will “be honest” about the safety of its drugs, caused him to end the interview and walk out of the studio. “I am not interested in this question…” he said. “I wish you the best. Goodbye”.

We shall see whether Brown masters YouTube and attracts a new generation of Labour party supporters. But for Garnier, the evidence is clear: he is stuck in analogue mode. Unable to engage with his interviewer or flex his style, he revealed himself as a leader who is aloof, fixed and authoritarian. It’s difficult to imagine him engaging in a Q&A on YouTube-style with his employees or shareholders.

I’m pleased our politicians are using new media channels to connect with voters. That’s what we – especially the younger generation – expect. But are CEOs and business leaders up to speed yet? Does your CEO or boss communicate with you through a YouTube channel? Is he or she open to direct questions from you or the shareholders? If not, why not?

Or are you a leader who is considering engaging this way? What are the benefits? What are the problems? Are you aware of any leaders who are using this media in their companies? Does it work? Do you see any results in the workplace?

Let’s also hear some of the questions you’d like to ask if your CEO or boss gave you the opportunity to grill them online.

Thanks to all the readers who commented on last week’s post on Imposter Syndrome, especially to Parag, Jason and Omar – it takes courage to talk about being an ‘imposter,’ so thanks to you for coming forward. I was also encouraged to hear both the pros and cons of working with those suffering from imposter syndrome in business.

This week I want to set out some definitions of imposter syndrome and some useful steps for dealing with it. If you feel you are holding yourself back, or if you work with someone who displays this behaviour, read on.

It starts with recognising it in yourself and others. Imposter syndrome can be defined as a collection of feelings of inadequacy that persist despite evident success. ‘Imposters’ suffer from chronic self-doubt and a sense of intellectual fraudulence that override any feelings of success or external proof of their competence. They seem unable to internalize their accomplishments, however successful they are in their field. High achieving, highly successful people often suffer, so imposter syndrome doesn’t equate with low self-esteem or a lack of self-confidence. In fact, some researchers have linked it with perfectionism, especially in women and among academics.

Where does it come from? Some researchers believe it has its roots in the labels parents attach to particular members of the family. For example, one child might be designated the ‘intelligent’ one and the other the ‘sensitive’ one. Another theory is that parents can programme the child with messages of superiority: the child is so fully supported that the parents and child believe that he or she is superior or perfect.

Some common thoughts and feelings associated with imposter syndrome include:

“I must not fail” There can be a huge amount of pressure currently not to fail in order to avoid being “found out.” Paradoxically, success also becomes an issue as it brings the added pressure of responsibility and visibility. This leads to an inability to enjoy success.

“I feel like a fake” Imposters believe they do not deserve success or professional accolades and feel that somehow others have been deceived into thinking otherwise. This goes hand in hand with a fear of being “found out”, discovered, or “unmasked”. They believe they give the impression that they are more competent than they are and have deep feelings that they lack knowledge or expertise. Often they believe they don’t deserve a position or a promotion and are anxious that “somebody made a mistake”.

“It’s all down to luck” The tendency to attribute success to luck or to other external reasons and not their abilities is a clear indicator of imposter syndrome. They may typically say or think: “I just got lucky” or “it was a fluke”. Often this masks the fear that they will not be able to succeed the next time.

“Success is no big deal” The tendency to downplay success and discount it is marked in those with imposter syndrome. They might attribute their success to it being an easy task or having support and often have a hard time accepting compliments. Again, they think their success is down to luck, good timing, or having fooled others.

So what can you do to mitigate the negative effects of Imposter syndrome?

• Recognise imposter feeings when they emerge. Awareness is the first step to change, so ensure you track these thoughts: what they are and when they emerge.

• Rewrite your mental programmes. Instead of telling yourself they are going to find you out or that you don’t deserve success, remind yourself that it’s normal not to know everything and that you will find out more as you progress.

• Talk about your feelings. There may be others who feel like imposters too – it’s better to have an open dialogue rather than harbour negative thoughts alone

• Consider the context. Most people will have experience moments or occasions where they don’t feel 100% confident. There may be times when you feel out of your depth and self-doubt can be a normal reaction. If you catch yourself thinking that you are useless, reframe it: “the fact that I feel useless right now does not mean that I really am.”

• Reframe failure as a learning opportunity. Find out the lessons and use them constructively in future. This is a critical lesson for everyone.

• Be kind to yourself. Remember that you are entitled to make small mistakes occasionally and forgive yourself. Don’t forget to reward yourself for getting the big things right.

• Seek support. Everyone needs help: recognise that you can seek assistance and that you don’t have to do everything alone. This will give you a good reality check and help you talk things through.

• Visualise your success. Keep your eye on the outcome – completing the task or making the presentation, which will keep you focused and calm.

Do you have any further coping strategies for imposter syndrome? What works – and doesn’t work – for you? Have And what do you think Imposter Syndrome means for business – for example, which professions or sectors have a higher population of ‘imposters’?

Note: There are plenty of resources on Imposter Syndrome, including important work by Valerie Young and this further reading.