Leading in complex spaces

This is the third of three posts I wrote about how government can function better.

• The first explains how we often apply the wrong solutions because we don’t understand the difference between issues that are ‘complex’ and those that are merely ‘complicated’.
• The second talks about how we can make better policy and services by linking policy and delivery together in multi-disciplinary teams.
• And the third (this one) talks about what I think good leadership looks like. Because without good leadership, none of the rest matters.

So, without further ado…

My checklist for being a good leader:

1. Provide inspiring goals for your teams to work toward
2. Design an organisation with the right mix of people, teams, and culture to achieve those goals
3. Hire for attitude as much as for skills
4. Provide a working environment where people feel they have what they need to succeed
5. Create an environment where everyone can communicate freely within their teams, with other teams, and with leaders, and know their opinions are valued and respected
6. Trust the teams to get on with the work
7. Carve out the space for your teams to carry on by explaining their work plainly and compellingly to other leaders and stakeholders
8. Rock the boat, but stay in it

1. Provide inspiring goals for your teams to work toward

For centuries companies have been motivating people through rewards and punishments — salary, bonuses, the threat of dismissal. And as long as the work was simple and repetitive, rewards and punishment drove productivity. But much of today’s work requires creativity, conceptual thinking, judgement, and discernment — it’s a different kind of work, and it turns out there’s a different way to motivate people to do that work well. The best way to get people (and teams) to excel in that kind of work is not to offer them more money (beyond a certain point), it’s to create a working environment that (1) provides them a sense of purpose, (2) gives them autonomy over their work, and (3) enables them to pursue mastery of their craft. That is Daniel Pink’s theory of ‘intrinsic motivation’, and it’s proved to be very successful in today’s ‘knowledge economy’.

I’ll come back to autonomy and mastery later, but I believe it all begins with purpose. People want to feel like they’re a part of something important, something that makes the world a better place, even in some small way. A leader’s first job is to make sure the people who work at the organisation are inspired to get out of bed in the morning and come to work.

It’s not rocket science — inspired people will care more about the work they do, and so will do it with more care. Uninspired people will work less attentively, or leave. People need to see a link between the work they’re doing every day and the goals their organisation is achieving. I believe it’s the leader’s first job to make sure that link is clear. Set clear, inspiring goals for the organisation, or for your part of the organisation. And set those goals together with your team — that will ensure they buy into them.

Communicate those goals clearly, and often, throughout the organisation. Be passionate about those goals, and don’t be afraid to communicate that passion to everyone else. Your passion will help them understand that what they’re doing matters. If you don’t communicate in that way naturally, identify some people who do, and enlist them to help you spread the word.

Without inspiring goals, you will lose good people, and the people you retain will lose motivation. And without good, motivated people, all the rest of the work leaders do will be insufficient. But setting and communicating inspiring goals is just the starting point.

2. Design an organisation with the right mix of people, teams, and culture to achieve those goals

A prison needs people who understand security, people who can support others to identify and achieve their goals, and people who know how to work with people who have experienced trauma or have substance misuse or mental health concerns. It needs admin staff and managers. It needs a culture where processes are known and followed strictly, where staff are supportive of the people they work with, and where managers empower and support staff to make difficult decisions on the fly, and adapt processes for changing realities.

A digital service design team needs people who can identify what service users need, people who can identify ways that a service could meet these needs, and people to write the code to make the service work. It needs people to keep the team on track through all the stages of delivering a service. It needs a culture where the various team members share their work regularly, with each other and with external stakeholders, and are comfortable acknowledging what they don’t know, asking for help, and working through uncertainty.

An organisation that aims to improve the safety and security of prisons, protect the public from harm, reduce re-offending, and deliver swift access to justice (these are the goals of the Ministry of Justice) will need people who are good at identifying the best ways of doing those things, and people who have the skills to deliver the services that make those things happen. Those people might communicate with each other on a daily basis, occasionally, or never. The choices senior leaders make about how that organisation is designed will determine whether its people feel like they are set up to succeed or set up to fail, and whether the organisation is able to achieve its goals or not. The culture senior leaders set will determine whether or not people feel comfortable in their work environment, able to speak out when they recognise an opportunity to improve practices, and motivated to bring their best effort to work every day.

Digital teams often say they feel adrift when they don’t have a product manager, less effective when they don’t have a delivery manager, less able to understand the people who use their service when they don’t have a user researcher, less able to communicate to users of their service when they don’t have a content designer, or less able to identify the best things to build when they don’t have a service or interaction designer.

Digital teams that don’t work directly and regularly with policy makers often feel like they can’t impact anything beyond the digital aspects of the service they’re delivering, even when they identify incoherences in a policy related to their service. Policy teams that don’t work closely with digital teams often feel like they can’t influence how digital services function, even if a digital service might be needed to achieve their objectives.

It’s the leader’s job to make sure teams are set up with the right people to achieve their goals, teams are connecting with the parts of the organisation they need to achieve their goals, and that when gaps arise in teams, they are filled as quickly as possible (with the right people).

But for an organisation that does work that requires creativity, conceptual thinking, judgement, and discernment, having the right mix of backgrounds and experiences is just as important as the right mix of skills. Organisations that hire people from the same geographic area or social class, people who went to the same kinds of schools — they end up with the same kinds of solutions over and over again.

Creativity, innovation, and new approaches arise when people challenge each other to think about things in new ways, and that happens when we bring people together who think differently.

To be successful, leaders must design team structures, hiring practices, and organisational culture in order to bring together diverse thinkers from diverse backgrounds (not just diverse skill sets), and ensure they all feel comfortable to fully participate in the team on their own terms — never being afraid to bring their whole range of life experience to work (see point 5).

3. Hire for attitude as much as for skills

Of course the person you hire needs to be able to do the job — I wouldn’t hire a service designer to be a software developer, or vice versa (unless they have experience in both!), but I also wouldn’t hire a software developer or service designer just because they have years of experience in the field my team is working in. I think skills and experience are necessary, but not sufficient.

At the Ministry of Justice, our design community has been using aspects of Patrick Lencioni’s ‘Ideal Team Player’ framework for several years now to ensure the people we hire will not only be able to do the job, but will help us build the kinds of team environments that are motivating to work in. And I believe it’s worked. We look for people who are not only good designers, but who are also ‘humble, hungry, and [people] smart’.

We’ve grown from 12 designers about four years ago to an extremely supportive community of over 60 service and interaction designers today. The community regularly self-organises to create smaller communities of action around topics of mutual interest, and designers who leave to pursue other opportunities often find themselves considering a move back to MoJ at some point. The community we create here is surely a large part of that.

4. Provide a working environment where people feel they have what they need to succeed

There’s a prerequisite to Daniel Pink’s ‘autonomy, mastery, purpose’ framework. Before you can motivate people by providing those things, you need to make sure the basics are in place for them to be able to do their job. First, pay them enough so they don’t have to worry about money. You don’t have to offer them millions, but the pay package should be competitive with what they could get elsewhere.

Then make sure they have access to the tools they need to do their job well — an office environment that fits the kind of work they do and is pleasurable to come to, a laptop that just works — the first time and every time — software that just works, and hassle-free access to the trainings and other support they need to do their job well and build new skills. All those costs will be a drop in the bucket compared to what you pay the person in salary and recruitment costs, so not providing that kind of environment would be penny-wise and very pound-foolish.

This can be particularly difficult in government, however, where bureaucratic rules can make it a nightmare to procure a new piece of software or a training that’s outside the framework of preferred training suppliers. I think it’s the leader’s job to shield their teams from this bureaucracy as much as possible — find ways to ensure your teams don’t feel the friction of your organisation’s bureaucracy.

Even if it means paying another person to be the bureaucratic wrangler, you’ll generate ten times that value in increased productivity and recruitment costs you won’t have to spend, as people will stay instead of looking for someplace else where they can just get what they need to be successful without having to fight for it.

5. Create an environment where everyone can communicate freely within their teams, with other teams, and with leaders, and know their opinions are valued and respected

I’ve had the great fortune to work in two organisations whose leaders went to great lengths to create an environment where everyone felt safe to be themselves and express their views. More than safe — encouraged.

I’ll never forget when our CEO at OneWorld told me that when I chaired our weekly team gatherings, I should wait longer for people to say something before moving on to the next topic. I hadn’t realised it, but in my desire to move things along (and avoid awkward silences), she pointed out, some people who don’t communicate as quickly or as naturally as I do were getting left behind. By the time they were ready to contribute, the moment had passed them by. As a leader, it was my job to make sure the space was open for everyone to participate, in their own time, in whatever way felt most comfortable for them.

Sometimes this is as simple as pausing a bit longer — embracing the silence — to allow others the space to speak. Often it’s more complicated though. Noticing the person who’s not contributing and making the effort to find out why — discreetly so they don’t feel singled out — and to find a way to include them more effectively.

Over the long term, this is about setting a tone. As a leader, I try not to speak first. As a privileged white man, I try not to speak too often, or for too long (those who know me might snicker at this, but I swear I’m trying!). And I try to notice who hasn’t been participating and to use my privilege to bring them into a conversation.

Amanda Smith, the former Head of User-Centred Policy Design at the Ministry of Justice, is a master of creating psychological safety. She carves out team time every week. She alternates the meeting through different days and times of day to make sure everyone can join most of the time, regardless of recurring days off, or if they have to finish work a bit earlier or start a bit later because of their caring responsibilities. Activities are sometimes verbal, sometimes visual, sometimes written. It’s ok to have your camera on or off, but Amanda’s camera is always on… unless of course she needs to have it off. New people are always given a chance to introduce themselves. Directions are always clear, and she takes great notes of meetings to share with people who weren’t able to participate, or couldn’t capture everything themselves for any reason. Amanda sets an amazing tone — everyone in her teams feels valued and comfortable participating.

As a leader, I also set the tone that it’s ok to talk about your personal life. I think that when you devote the vast majority of your waking hours to an organisation, it should feel like a second home. I take the time to get to know my colleagues, at all levels. My one-to-one meetings on Mondays always start by talking about the weekend — the work can come later. First I want to know about my colleagues’ holidays, their pets, and their kids’ science projects (if they want to share). But I start by sharing about my life, to subtly let them know that it’s ok to talk about their life, if they want to. I also try my best to notice when they don’t seem to want to talk about their personal life, and move the conversation on to work stuff.

I try — as much as I can — to practise radical candour with all my colleagues. Kim Scott’s philosophy essentially boils down to this: develop a relationship of mutual trust and respect with the people you manage, and then tell them the truth about their work. They will only grow as a professionals if they hear the truth — both about what they’re doing well and about what they could do better — but they’ll only really hear the truth from someone they trust and respect.

I learn about my colleagues. I listen to their perspectives. I tell them about me, and I tell them my perspectives. I treat them like friends. I’m honest with them like I am with my friends. In fact, my best friends from adulthood are all people who started out as colleagues. (Perhaps that’s the greatest benefit of setting a culture of psychological safety in your team… I wonder, is it that being a better leader makes you more friends, or that being a better friend makes you a better leader?)

6. Trust the teams to get on with the work

Once you’ve hired the right people, you’ve put them in the right structure, and set the right culture, the rest pretty much does itself. Having done all that, I find I don’t need to sweat the small stuff. I’ve never rejected a request for leave of any kind. I rarely (but not never) have to have difficult conversations with the people I manage.

To slightly paraphrase Netflix’s former chief talent officer, Patty McCord, hire only fully formed adults, and then let them get on with the work.

Ultimately, I guess my leadership philosophy boils down to this: we hire collaborative people who are genuinely motivated to do great work, we develop trust in each other, and as a result, we do great things together.

But there’s one last thing a leader must do for their teams…

7. Carve out the space for your teams to carry on by explaining their work plainly and compellingly to other leaders and stakeholders

A great leader will give their teams explicit permission to work in the ways I’ve talked about, but will also explain the work to other senior leaders in clear, compelling ways. This will create the organisational cover teams need to be able to do the work the way they’ll need to.

This is particularly important in the digital spaces I’ve been working in because teams in government don’t automatically have the permission to do the things many agile teams need to do: try a range of options to solve problems; test, fail, and learn; and speak openly and publicly about the work, for example.

Government organisations also don’t tend to fund teams (rather than projects) the way agile design and delivery work requires. If their teams are going to have the mandate they need to design, deliver, and maintain great services, leaders need to do the hard work to get their bosses to agree to fund in this way.

8. Rock the boat, but stay in it

Stealing this one (with their permission) from Mark Buttanshaw and Helen Bevan. Change doesn’t happen quickly in complex systems and large organisations. But it does happen, often after a long accumulation of positive actions taken by loads of people and teams. As Mark says, “persevering in those complex problems and as a leader is important!” We need people who are committed to making things better, and who stick out the hard times.

Teams need to see that from their leaders, and organisations need leaders like that if they’re ever to change. Big change happens gradually, gradually, gradually, suddenly! And if we don’t power through all the gradualies, we never get to the suddenly.

—

Apologies for the very long post, but, unfortunately, leadership is a bit more complicated than being nice and being thoughtful (although those are probably the two main elements). Please do share any thoughts about any of these points, or additions of your own, in the comments below. Or tweet to me @jallen300. Just try to be nice… and thoughtful. ;)

And if, after all that, you’re still interested in hearing the first two posts in this series — on how I think we can make government function better — those posts are here:

• It’s complex, not complicated: How we often apply the wrong solutions because we don’t understand the difference between issues that are ‘complex’ and those that are merely ‘complicated’.
• Making better policy and services: How we can make better policy and design and deliver better services by linking policy and delivery work together in multi-disciplinary teams who spend more time in the real world.