One thing we have not been short of during the recession is the views of various pundits telling us how the world is changing and that L&D has to adapt accordingly; in fact several previous reviews have covered articles with a similar theme. But I make no apology for reviewing another such article because each one makes different points and gives us cause to stop and think about our own ability to change.
The author starts by contrasting a course he ran 10 years ago with one he runs today, contrasting the different learning methods, duration and design. This led me to think even further back to the first course I ran at Ashridge even longer ago; forty eight managers, mostly from UK companies, for four weeks, all listening to me and others delivering generic and relatively academic content. How different is this from the type of tailored, interactive, modular and practical designs that MTP’s customers are now demanding.
Whichever timescale one takes, the message must be that change is still taking place and is accelerating, requiring even more flexibility from those L &D professionals who wish to stay ahead of the game. This article provides a number of insights that indicate the likely direction of change, in particular the development of the Internet and the greater availability of information.
However, rather than follow the standard line that we must learn to deliver learning via the Web, the author makes a different but more valuable point. The most important impact of Google, Wikipedia etc, is that it is making course participants more knowledgeable about business and management concepts so that the knowledge gaps between the trainers and the trained are becoming smaller all the time.
I have to confess to being unsure about this phenomenon but realise that my views may be coloured by the fact that a lot of MTP’s work is in the financial area, which may not be typical. However I am in agreement with the author’s conclusion; that those running courses in the future will need to have a higher level of facilitating skills, rather than just relying on their ability to deliver good content. The author also makes the valid point that ‘the death of deference’ is upon us; if facts can be checked instantly on Blackberries and iPhones, we must expect more challenges to our expertise and be prepared to take our content beyond facts to their interpretation.
Other points in the article are more obvious, the need to have an international mindset and to understand cultural diversity, to remember that the future powerhouses of India and China will, in the long-term, not tolerate the US oriented models of leadership and management.
There is also reference to the Holy Grail of evaluation, confirming that L&D departments will have to show value for money; not exactly a startling insight. However, rather than falling into the trap of suggesting impractical ROI calculations, the latter part of the article suggests that this can be achieved by more innovative design of learning programmes. The emphasis of design should be on making programmes do more than achieve learning; they can be used to provide research reports and as vehicles for innovation, making sure that the power of bright people coming together is harnessed to add value. Those of us who have already managed projects of this kind as part of blended programmes will know the challenges involved but there is certainly likely to be even more pressure for this kind of approach.
An example of an innovative course design is provided at the end of the article - a ‘live case study’ where managers from one company help to solve the problems of another. This made me realise that some things never change. While I was running my 48 strong Ashridge course, someone called Reg Revans was advocating something very similar under the heading of ‘Action Learning’. Maybe Reg was just 40 years ahead of his time!
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2725.html
Thursday 4 March 2010
HR’s transformation through the ‘noughties’, by Helen Gilbert, Personnel Today, 12 January, and report on IRS survey, Personnel Today, 26 January
I have combined these two articles as they are closely related and both quite short. The first article is a collection of quoted views from a number of academics and senior HR people about the future outlook for the HR profession, which makes it more valuable from the typical article containing the - probably prejudiced - views of one person. The second article merely reports the results of a survey which looked at how HR departments are rising to the challenges of the recession.
It is best to look at the survey first. It covered employees in 253 companies and the most interesting outcomes were:
• In only 26% of companies was the HR Director on the main board.
• Despite this, 66% of respondents felt that the influence of HR has increased over the past two years.
• Half of the companies surveyed had a documented HR strategy (perhaps the more important insight is that half do not!).
These results provide a context for some of the comments in the other article. As one would expect, the academics were the most critical of HR people (though anyone who has worked in an academic institution will know how awful their own HR practices normally are) and this comment from Andrew Kakabadse of Cranfield was typical - ‘there are a few smart business-thinking HR Directors but not enough’. Paul Kearns - a consultant and author - was even more damning - ‘we’ve allowed Charlatans to come into HR - anybody can enter our profession’. He criticises the CIPD for being slow to make sure that qualifications are a condition of entry to senior roles. Nick Holley of Henley is depressed by HR’s lack of influence and the fact that many HR people hide behind employment law.
As one would expect, the practising HR Directors are less critical; Angus McGregor, HR Director of Eversheds, counters the views above by suggesting that HR has become the ‘career choice for talented graduates’ because of its variety and business focus.
It would have been good if the article could have finished off with some kind of conclusion, other than that the perceptions of academics/consultants and practitioners are very different. There was however one interesting extra revelation at the end of the article - the ‘ten most influential HR professionals and thought leaders of the noughties’. There is not space to repeat the full list but an interesting feature is that only three out of the ten were in HR Director roles; the rest were academics or consultants. And none of those whose thoughts were quoted in the article were in the top ten list!!
To read these articles go to:
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/01/05/53345/hrs-transformation-through-the-noughties.html
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/01/19/53725/irs-survey-effective-hr.html
It is best to look at the survey first. It covered employees in 253 companies and the most interesting outcomes were:
• In only 26% of companies was the HR Director on the main board.
• Despite this, 66% of respondents felt that the influence of HR has increased over the past two years.
• Half of the companies surveyed had a documented HR strategy (perhaps the more important insight is that half do not!).
These results provide a context for some of the comments in the other article. As one would expect, the academics were the most critical of HR people (though anyone who has worked in an academic institution will know how awful their own HR practices normally are) and this comment from Andrew Kakabadse of Cranfield was typical - ‘there are a few smart business-thinking HR Directors but not enough’. Paul Kearns - a consultant and author - was even more damning - ‘we’ve allowed Charlatans to come into HR - anybody can enter our profession’. He criticises the CIPD for being slow to make sure that qualifications are a condition of entry to senior roles. Nick Holley of Henley is depressed by HR’s lack of influence and the fact that many HR people hide behind employment law.
As one would expect, the practising HR Directors are less critical; Angus McGregor, HR Director of Eversheds, counters the views above by suggesting that HR has become the ‘career choice for talented graduates’ because of its variety and business focus.
It would have been good if the article could have finished off with some kind of conclusion, other than that the perceptions of academics/consultants and practitioners are very different. There was however one interesting extra revelation at the end of the article - the ‘ten most influential HR professionals and thought leaders of the noughties’. There is not space to repeat the full list but an interesting feature is that only three out of the ten were in HR Director roles; the rest were academics or consultants. And none of those whose thoughts were quoted in the article were in the top ten list!!
To read these articles go to:
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/01/05/53345/hrs-transformation-through-the-noughties.html
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/01/19/53725/irs-survey-effective-hr.html
How being different can help companies succeed by Alastair Dryburgh, Management Today, March 2010
I looked forward to reading this article as there are so few good contributions on strategy and, at first sight, this one seemed to be covering issues of much relevance to managers during the economic downturn. After reading it and being very disappointed, I called in my colleague Chris Goodwin for a second opinion; Chris is much more in touch with latest thinking on strategy and very quick to spot anything that is outdated or superficial. And he certainly did spot both these features and his disappointment was even higher than mine.
The basic argument at the beginning of the article is hard to argue with; the obvious truth that being distinctively different from competitors is a good thing and is important to business success. But the author then suggests three secrets of success:
• To focus on the customer.
• To use the ideas of Michael Porter.
• To steal from competitors.
The need for customer focus may seem to be an obvious truth and many businesses succeed by following that approach but the author does not make any convincing link between customer focus and being different from competitors. In most industries all the successful players are likely to have good customer focus and, as a single approach, this is not going to work, indeed it might even lead to lots of ‘me too’ offerings. In many rapidly changing markets, the best way of achieving major differentiation is to know more than the customer; to be like Apple, to know what the customer is likely to want in the future and to persuade them to desire your innovative new products.
The lack of depth in much of the article’s content is betrayed by the shallowness of his advice to readers concerning Michael Porter; that we should use his ideas ‘even if we don’t read his book’. The obvious question which we would like to have addressed to Mr Dryburgh is - which of Porter’s ideas out of his eighteen books are you referring to?
The rest of the article indicates that he was probably referring to Porter’s first book on Competitive Strategy in 1980 though his article in the HBR a year earlier made the initial impact. Though much of the content is still valid today, the author does not seem to realise that the thinking of Porter and his peers has moved on, for instance that it is also possible to differentiate by a unique bundling of activities that competitors cannot or will not copy.
Though we do not like his choice of language, the author does make a good point about the idea of stealing from competitors, how it is often best to wait for others to innovate and - subject to patent protection - improve on their ideas. It would have been even more impressive to mention ‘Fast Second’ the more recent work by Geroski and Markides which produces convincing evidence that in many cases - particularly large organisations - copying innovation from others is more successful than being first mover.
The author does make a brave attempt to produce examples of Porter’s three generic strategies (Cost leadership, Differentiation, Niche Player) but on further examination these do not quite fit. Porter’s more recent thinking would suggest that Southwest Airlines and Ryanair are not just about cost leadership, it is more about these companies having unique strategic positioning within their sector. And are JD Wetherspoon and Reckitt Benckiser really examples of true differentiation or are they just excellent, customer focussed operators?
Maybe we are being little unfair because the issues around strategy are complicated and is difficult to summarise all the complexities in one relatively short article. But our advice to Mr Dryburgh would be to ignore his own advice and to read Porter’s later articles, in particular the one titled ‘What is Strategy?’ He would then perhaps appreciate how dangerous it can be to oversimplify something that is not at all simple.
To read this article go to:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/article/985301/how-different-help-companies-succeed/
The basic argument at the beginning of the article is hard to argue with; the obvious truth that being distinctively different from competitors is a good thing and is important to business success. But the author then suggests three secrets of success:
• To focus on the customer.
• To use the ideas of Michael Porter.
• To steal from competitors.
The need for customer focus may seem to be an obvious truth and many businesses succeed by following that approach but the author does not make any convincing link between customer focus and being different from competitors. In most industries all the successful players are likely to have good customer focus and, as a single approach, this is not going to work, indeed it might even lead to lots of ‘me too’ offerings. In many rapidly changing markets, the best way of achieving major differentiation is to know more than the customer; to be like Apple, to know what the customer is likely to want in the future and to persuade them to desire your innovative new products.
The lack of depth in much of the article’s content is betrayed by the shallowness of his advice to readers concerning Michael Porter; that we should use his ideas ‘even if we don’t read his book’. The obvious question which we would like to have addressed to Mr Dryburgh is - which of Porter’s ideas out of his eighteen books are you referring to?
The rest of the article indicates that he was probably referring to Porter’s first book on Competitive Strategy in 1980 though his article in the HBR a year earlier made the initial impact. Though much of the content is still valid today, the author does not seem to realise that the thinking of Porter and his peers has moved on, for instance that it is also possible to differentiate by a unique bundling of activities that competitors cannot or will not copy.
Though we do not like his choice of language, the author does make a good point about the idea of stealing from competitors, how it is often best to wait for others to innovate and - subject to patent protection - improve on their ideas. It would have been even more impressive to mention ‘Fast Second’ the more recent work by Geroski and Markides which produces convincing evidence that in many cases - particularly large organisations - copying innovation from others is more successful than being first mover.
The author does make a brave attempt to produce examples of Porter’s three generic strategies (Cost leadership, Differentiation, Niche Player) but on further examination these do not quite fit. Porter’s more recent thinking would suggest that Southwest Airlines and Ryanair are not just about cost leadership, it is more about these companies having unique strategic positioning within their sector. And are JD Wetherspoon and Reckitt Benckiser really examples of true differentiation or are they just excellent, customer focussed operators?
Maybe we are being little unfair because the issues around strategy are complicated and is difficult to summarise all the complexities in one relatively short article. But our advice to Mr Dryburgh would be to ignore his own advice and to read Porter’s later articles, in particular the one titled ‘What is Strategy?’ He would then perhaps appreciate how dangerous it can be to oversimplify something that is not at all simple.
To read this article go to:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/article/985301/how-different-help-companies-succeed/
Finding your strategy in the new landscape, by Pankaj Ghemawat, Harvard Business Review, March 2010
Initially I thought that this article was too broad and theoretical for this blog but I changed my mind as I read it through. I will however be selective in the points I bring out, focussing mainly on those with learning and HR implications.
The author starts with a statement that quite surprised me; that during the recession most international companies have been concentrating much more on home markets and have been toning down their global ambitions, as evidenced by a significant drop (51% to 31%) in the number of companies emphasising globalisation in their communications to shareholders. His further argument is that these companies will need to adjust this approach quickly if they are to take advantage of the major growth markets post-recession, particularly India and China.
He also argues that those who are to succeed in global markets in the future will need to be much more selective about where they invest and, once they have chosen, they will also need to adapt much more closely to the different requirements of countries and to regions within countries. Only in markets where globalisation provides economies of scale - for instance sectors where large advertising and research investments are required - will the multi-nationals have any advantage over local competitors.
This will mean that there will have to be careful adaptation of products to local needs and this will place much more reliance on local management talent. No longer will headquarters in New York or London be able to determine what will be provided for which segments of the market. There will need to be much stronger regional control; General Motors and IBM are quoted as companies who have already set-up regional headquarters in China and it is expected that dual headquarters - one in Asia, one in the West - will become the norm.
The prediction is that global structures will wither and the power will flow back to country managers as they resist attempts to standardise and insist on meeting the needs of their different markets. The present imbalance of top personnel will change as companies realise that American and European top management cannot deliver in increasingly complex markets; they need people with regional knowledge to develop and implement effective strategies. There will therefore be a need for companies to rethink their recruitment and talent management practices.
Companies will also have to change their approach to communications, using the new collaborative tools of the Web to enable people in the looser organisations to keep in touch with each other. There will also have to be a rethink about language use as it may be unrealistic in the future to expect Chinese and Indian managers to listen to English delivered with Western accents.
This is not an easy article to read but it is one that is thought provoking and insightful. A must read for any HR person who is likely to be faced with this sort of challenge in the future.
To read this article go to:
http://hbr.org/2010/03/finding-your-strategy-in-the-new-landscape/ar/1
The author starts with a statement that quite surprised me; that during the recession most international companies have been concentrating much more on home markets and have been toning down their global ambitions, as evidenced by a significant drop (51% to 31%) in the number of companies emphasising globalisation in their communications to shareholders. His further argument is that these companies will need to adjust this approach quickly if they are to take advantage of the major growth markets post-recession, particularly India and China.
He also argues that those who are to succeed in global markets in the future will need to be much more selective about where they invest and, once they have chosen, they will also need to adapt much more closely to the different requirements of countries and to regions within countries. Only in markets where globalisation provides economies of scale - for instance sectors where large advertising and research investments are required - will the multi-nationals have any advantage over local competitors.
This will mean that there will have to be careful adaptation of products to local needs and this will place much more reliance on local management talent. No longer will headquarters in New York or London be able to determine what will be provided for which segments of the market. There will need to be much stronger regional control; General Motors and IBM are quoted as companies who have already set-up regional headquarters in China and it is expected that dual headquarters - one in Asia, one in the West - will become the norm.
The prediction is that global structures will wither and the power will flow back to country managers as they resist attempts to standardise and insist on meeting the needs of their different markets. The present imbalance of top personnel will change as companies realise that American and European top management cannot deliver in increasingly complex markets; they need people with regional knowledge to develop and implement effective strategies. There will therefore be a need for companies to rethink their recruitment and talent management practices.
Companies will also have to change their approach to communications, using the new collaborative tools of the Web to enable people in the looser organisations to keep in touch with each other. There will also have to be a rethink about language use as it may be unrealistic in the future to expect Chinese and Indian managers to listen to English delivered with Western accents.
This is not an easy article to read but it is one that is thought provoking and insightful. A must read for any HR person who is likely to be faced with this sort of challenge in the future.
To read this article go to:
http://hbr.org/2010/03/finding-your-strategy-in-the-new-landscape/ar/1
Hostage at the Table by George Kohlreiser, published by Jossey Bass
I confess to having some initial prejudice against this book. This was firstly because it was labelled as a ‘Warren Bennis book’ and I recall once hearing a most disappointing lecture on leadership from Bennis, who came with a high reputation. The second basis for my prejudice was that, even though he is now a professor at IMD, Kohlreiser’s main claim to fame is as a hostage negotiator, which seems a long way away from the context of leadership that the book claims to address.
However, I was soon won over and found it to be the most thought provoking reading on inter-personal behaviour that I have come across in a long time. The main theme of the book is that it is easy and common for people in personal and business life to become trapped in a ‘hostage state of mind’ which causes feelings of dependency, helplessness and despair. This is not in the interests of either party - the hostage taker or the victim - because people in this state are not empowered to give of their best. Victims look for ways to avoid action; non-victims believe that everything is possible. The link to leadership is that not only do good leaders refuse to become victims, they also avoid imposing this mindset on others.
The secret of avoiding or breaking out of the victim mindset is bonding with others and the presence of ‘secure bases’ - people, countries, religion - which will provide protection and comfort; he quotes the phenomenon of hostages bonding with their captors as an example of this - there is no other secure base during captivity. Leaders need to understand that those who have good bonding with others and secure bases will perform to their full potential but, on the other hand, will suffer hugely if these are taken away. Good leaders are proactive in providing the secure base when it is needed and are fully aware of the consequences when one of the team suffers a loss. Failure to be sensitive in such circumstances can be a major source of conflict and dialogue and listening skills are essential ways of helping people move out of their hostage mindset.
There is also a chapter on negotiation which continues the same themes but does not really provide anything new; merely confirming the importance of ‘win/win’ outcomes in different language. There is however a final chapter titled ‘living with a hostage free state of mind’ which links the content to self-esteem and provides some of the connections to leadership which are sometimes missing in earlier chapters. It suggests that leaders with real self-esteem will have ‘empowered humility’ whereas those without will display arrogance and loftiness. I thought that perhaps the author should be asked to look at some of our political leaders as case studies!
Overall, a thought provoking work that is well worth reading. Though there are lots of good stories to make the reading easier, I would have liked to have seen a higher proportion in a business context. At times I would like to have seen more on solving the problems rather than merely identifying them but there is still enough content to help even the most successful leader to re-examine their style.
However, I was soon won over and found it to be the most thought provoking reading on inter-personal behaviour that I have come across in a long time. The main theme of the book is that it is easy and common for people in personal and business life to become trapped in a ‘hostage state of mind’ which causes feelings of dependency, helplessness and despair. This is not in the interests of either party - the hostage taker or the victim - because people in this state are not empowered to give of their best. Victims look for ways to avoid action; non-victims believe that everything is possible. The link to leadership is that not only do good leaders refuse to become victims, they also avoid imposing this mindset on others.
The secret of avoiding or breaking out of the victim mindset is bonding with others and the presence of ‘secure bases’ - people, countries, religion - which will provide protection and comfort; he quotes the phenomenon of hostages bonding with their captors as an example of this - there is no other secure base during captivity. Leaders need to understand that those who have good bonding with others and secure bases will perform to their full potential but, on the other hand, will suffer hugely if these are taken away. Good leaders are proactive in providing the secure base when it is needed and are fully aware of the consequences when one of the team suffers a loss. Failure to be sensitive in such circumstances can be a major source of conflict and dialogue and listening skills are essential ways of helping people move out of their hostage mindset.
There is also a chapter on negotiation which continues the same themes but does not really provide anything new; merely confirming the importance of ‘win/win’ outcomes in different language. There is however a final chapter titled ‘living with a hostage free state of mind’ which links the content to self-esteem and provides some of the connections to leadership which are sometimes missing in earlier chapters. It suggests that leaders with real self-esteem will have ‘empowered humility’ whereas those without will display arrogance and loftiness. I thought that perhaps the author should be asked to look at some of our political leaders as case studies!
Overall, a thought provoking work that is well worth reading. Though there are lots of good stories to make the reading easier, I would have liked to have seen a higher proportion in a business context. At times I would like to have seen more on solving the problems rather than merely identifying them but there is still enough content to help even the most successful leader to re-examine their style.
Tribal Leadership by Dave Logan, John King and Halee Fischer-Wright, published by Collins
The authors of this book are all from one USA consulting firm - CultureSync- which was previously unknown to me and again I tried not to be prejudiced by the Foreword from the ubiquitous Warren Bennis!
The book is structured around a five step framework for organisational transition; from the least desirable stage one - which is similar to gang warfare - to the ultimate utopia of stage five when everything is great for everybody. The message for leaders is that a key part of their role is too recognise the existing stage and move their tribe upwards. A tribe is defined as a group of between 20 and 150 people - effectively the number that can be personally known to each other - and the implication is that larger groups should be broken up or will naturally do so.
One of the attractions of the book is that the five stages are identified by catchy phrases that summarise the prevailing culture, ie:
• Stage one - Life sucks.
• Stage two - My life sucks.
• Stage three - I’m great.
• Stage four - We’re great.
• Stage five - Life’s great.
The point is made that the two extremes are unusual. Most leaders have tribes that are between stages two and four but should be trying to move them up and at least to stabilise around stage four. The identification of the stage should be based on observations of language and behaviour, not subjective and self-serving judgements.
The authors’ research and interviews show that good leaders often experience an ‘epiphany’ which drives them to make the all important move from three to four; from personal satisfaction to the well being of the tribe, from individual to tribal achievement. They realise that selfish ‘I’m great’ behaviour fails and that they need like minded people to move to the next stage.
Before moving on to the ultimate goal of stage five, the authors take a diversion into coverage of the importance of values and networking. These chapters do not provide much that is new and I was not too impressed with the emphasis on ‘dyads’ and ‘triads’. This seemed to be rather too contrived and theoretical for my liking (particularly when they adopted the American trend of making everything into a verb and talked about ‘world class trading!) I also found the chapter on strategy rather too prescriptive, suggesting that we should be ‘re-strategising’ every 90 days by asking some fundamental questions about values and behaviour.
The final chapter on the ultimate goal of stage five - with everyone loving life and working towards the same ‘noble cause’ - is interesting in that it clearly is a great leadership achievement if you can get your tribe to this state. Apparently only 2% make it but it was disappointing to see that most of the examples were relatively small organisations and in ‘not for profit’ environments. It was at this point that I began to wonder about the compatibility with growth and shareholder goals and how these elements can be reconciled. Are there occasions when the tribe’s love of life and noble causes is not in line with shareholder interests, even in the long-term?
It would have been good if these issues could have been explored further because, without this balance, I was left feeling that, while being a good read, the book is too theoretical and one dimensional to be the basis for a leader’s way of working. But the five stage framework is still a powerful basis for assessing where your tribe is now and where you want to be.
The book is structured around a five step framework for organisational transition; from the least desirable stage one - which is similar to gang warfare - to the ultimate utopia of stage five when everything is great for everybody. The message for leaders is that a key part of their role is too recognise the existing stage and move their tribe upwards. A tribe is defined as a group of between 20 and 150 people - effectively the number that can be personally known to each other - and the implication is that larger groups should be broken up or will naturally do so.
One of the attractions of the book is that the five stages are identified by catchy phrases that summarise the prevailing culture, ie:
• Stage one - Life sucks.
• Stage two - My life sucks.
• Stage three - I’m great.
• Stage four - We’re great.
• Stage five - Life’s great.
The point is made that the two extremes are unusual. Most leaders have tribes that are between stages two and four but should be trying to move them up and at least to stabilise around stage four. The identification of the stage should be based on observations of language and behaviour, not subjective and self-serving judgements.
The authors’ research and interviews show that good leaders often experience an ‘epiphany’ which drives them to make the all important move from three to four; from personal satisfaction to the well being of the tribe, from individual to tribal achievement. They realise that selfish ‘I’m great’ behaviour fails and that they need like minded people to move to the next stage.
Before moving on to the ultimate goal of stage five, the authors take a diversion into coverage of the importance of values and networking. These chapters do not provide much that is new and I was not too impressed with the emphasis on ‘dyads’ and ‘triads’. This seemed to be rather too contrived and theoretical for my liking (particularly when they adopted the American trend of making everything into a verb and talked about ‘world class trading!) I also found the chapter on strategy rather too prescriptive, suggesting that we should be ‘re-strategising’ every 90 days by asking some fundamental questions about values and behaviour.
The final chapter on the ultimate goal of stage five - with everyone loving life and working towards the same ‘noble cause’ - is interesting in that it clearly is a great leadership achievement if you can get your tribe to this state. Apparently only 2% make it but it was disappointing to see that most of the examples were relatively small organisations and in ‘not for profit’ environments. It was at this point that I began to wonder about the compatibility with growth and shareholder goals and how these elements can be reconciled. Are there occasions when the tribe’s love of life and noble causes is not in line with shareholder interests, even in the long-term?
It would have been good if these issues could have been explored further because, without this balance, I was left feeling that, while being a good read, the book is too theoretical and one dimensional to be the basis for a leader’s way of working. But the five stage framework is still a powerful basis for assessing where your tribe is now and where you want to be.