Discretionary Leadership

Research conducted at Cranfield School of Management and at Brunel University has introduced a third perspective, that of discretionary leadership.

Surveys of top teams conducted at Cranfield, which included over 11,000 organizations spanning 14 countries, have identified three core capabilities required of today's corporate and public services leaders: visioning, dialogue, and the quality of communication between senior management and the rest of the organization.

Visioning

One of the key questions asked in the Cranfield survey was, “Do the members of the top team (e.g., president, chairman, CEO, directors, senior civil servants, etc.) hold different views concerning the future shape, nature, and direction of the organization?” The sample consisted of numerous private sector organizations, the National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (Britain), and the senior civil servants of the Australian Public Service (APS; see Table 4-1).

Table 4-1. Respondents Reporting Discrepancies of Vision, by Nation or Organization

Recognize that fundamental divisions exist within their top team concerning the future
20% NHS Top Team	32% Germany
21% NHS Board	33% China
20% Sweden	39% France
23% Japan	39% United States
25% Finland	40% Spain
30% Britain	42% Hong Kong
31% Austria	48% Ireland
Feel that top management hold fundamentally different views as to the future direction of their department
56% Australian Public Service

The greatest discrepancy at top team level occurs among top Australian civil servants, who believe that members of the senior management group hold fundamentally different views as to the shape and nature of the APS in general, of their departments, and in particular the future pathways that should be pursued. In contrast, in British NHS Trust organizations, only 20% of the executive team members and 21% of the majority nonexecutive board members highlight that fundamentally different views on the vision, future, direction, and shape of the organization are held by members of their respective groups. Of the private sector respondents, the Irish, Spanish, and French top managers compare with the Australian split of vision and diversity of view. The Swedish and Japanese respondents highlight the least difference of view concerning strategic direction at senior management levels.

Dialogue

For senior management to reduce the level of tension and understand the nature of differences that exist at top management levels, it is essential to create an environment that fosters the airing of views, the asking of questions, and entering into the kind of deep debate that ends with a declaration of intent. This process is vital to shift toward a cohesive top team who could effectively lead the organization. On the basis that meaningful dialogue, as opposed to casual conversation, is crucial to team-based leadership, a second fundamental question was asked in the Cranfield surveys: “Are there issues or sensitivities that merit, but do not receive, adequate attention at senior management levels?” (see Table 4-2).

Table 4-2. Respondents Reporting that Important Issues Go Undiscussed, by Nation or Organization

Believe there are issues that should be discussed but are not
36% France	63% Spain
47% Britain	67% Austria
49% Finland	68% Ireland
50% Sweden	66% NHS Board
58% Hong Kong	70% NHS Top Team
61% Germany	77% Japan
62% United States	80% China
Believe there are issues that should be discussed but are too sensitive; as a result, operation opportunity costs are experienced
66% Australian Public Service

The Chinese and Japanese top executives voiced the greatest number of concerns, indicating that important but disregarded issues predominate among senior management. The British NHS executive directors also reported high levels of inhibited dialogue at senior levels. The Australian civil servants followed the Irish and Austrians in their concern about issues not attended to, while the Finnish, British, and French senior managers identified the smallest numbers of sensitive issues impacting on the quality of dialogue at senior levels.

The vast majority of business and public service leaders report outstanding issues remaining unaddressed at senior levels, but that need to be addressed for the organization to progress. A vision for the future may be shared, but its translation into practical steps may give rise to operational difficulties in achieving synergy across the enterprise. For example, the concept of global brands may make perfect sense from the corporate center's viewpoint, but may not address consumer desire in particular countries or regions, leaving the local manager vulnerable in terms of meeting targets and promoting brands that do not suit that locality. Hence, how such conflicts of interests are raised and consequently addressed powerfully impacts on the future revenues generated; on costs incurred; and on the motivation, confidence, and development of the staff and management of the organization. The research shows that not being able to discuss such charged issues nurtures an environment of continuous missed opportunities.

Communicating

Within an environment of diversity, effectively communicating across complex structures is no easy matter. Given the different agendas senior managers need to address, and coupled with the varied expectations people have of their managers, it is an inevitability that sooner or later a senior manager will project an inappropriate or undesired message. To minimize the communication of such tensions, the Cranfield surveys identified six key interfacing behaviors that, if well managed, project trust, confidence, a sense of cohesion at senior management levels, and a discipline and consistency for effective follow-through. However, the survey also highlights differences of perception as to what constitutes effectiveness of behavior between top directors and their general manager subordinates (see Table 4-3).

Table 4-3. Interfacing Behaviors: Top Directors' (TD) and General Managers' (GM) Perceptions (in %)

	Japan		Britain		France		Ireland		Germany		Sweden		Spain		Austria		Hong Kong		United States
Perception	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM	TD	GM
Easy to talk to	82	62	73	65	80	76	87		78		84	83	75	77	80	64	80		78	65
Not easy to talk to								41		54								56
Discuss sensitive issues	69		66		71		52		68	63	66		44		60		67		62
Address safe issues		47		44		47		60				42		61		51		40		58
Understanding	78	61	68		61		52		41		63		53		58		53		60
Not understanding				70		48		67		68		48		61		51		66		48
Trust each other	73	61	65		66		61		75		71	66	58		63		71		63
Not trust each other				68		48		67		69				51		57		72		51
Implement decisions made in top team	89	76	72		74	64	91		83	64	79	73	70	69	65		78		78	60
Implement decisions that personally suit				44				50								41		50
Address long- and short-term issues	75	62	54		58		61		68		56		61		62		64	67	73	60
Address short-term issues				58		48		66		42		50		60		49

The six key interfacing behaviors are:

• Being easy to talk to

• Being sufficiently robust to discuss sensitive issues

• Displaying broad business understanding of how the organization functions

• Displaying trust of colleagues and subordinates

• Displaying cabinet responsibility in consistently implementing decisions agreed to in the top team

• Displaying sufficient breadth in knowing how to address long- and short-term issues simultaneously

For example, the British sample shows that 65% of top directors consider the way they behave displays a high level of trust in each of the members of the top team and in their general manager subordinates. However, 68% of the key general managers consider that the very same behaviors indicate that the members of the top team do not trust each other, nor do they display the necessary levels of trust in them. Across these six core behaviors, the survey results indicate that British and Irish top managers display the greatest level of dysfunctionality in terms of interfacing behaviors.