At a recent in-house leadership development programme I was delivering, I came across an unusual number of lateral leaders among the participants.  These were senior managers with accountability for achieving results through people or teams over whom they had no formal authority.

The setting was a medical facility where a high level of collaboration and co-operation was required across a multiplicity of disciplines and functions.  The programme participants, senior managers, were drawn from various departments e.g. clinical, nursing, catering, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physiotherapy, social work, administration, facilities, IT.

Over the course of the programme, I brought up the subject of the challenges of lateral leadership with three separate groups of participants.  What I found really interesting was that few – if any – of our lateral leaders were aware that ‘lateral leadership’ was not only an established term,  but was a bona-fide management style .  These were all senior professionals, highly qualified and accomplished in their primary disciplines, professions or functions.

What they were very well aware of, however, was the day-to-day challenge of achieving the objectives of their own role while relying in part, or sometimes totally, on the discretionary co-operation of their colleagues or peers. In some cases, on peers from outside the organisation.

In this age of cost-cutting, re-sizing and getting more done with fewer resources, change initiatives have grown increasingly complex.  Most high-level change initiatives now involve multiple functions, disciplines or departments within and often between organisations.  These days many such interventions involve an entire sector.  Consequently, new kinds of collaborative partnerships, alliances and associations are on the increase.

In these conditions – with numbers of interim projects, virtual work groups, temporary teams and voluntary committees on the rise – the traditional command and control management style just won’t work.  Oftentimes there is no carrot and no stick.  This raises some interesting questions and challenges for the emerging lateral leader:

What are the imperative characteristics of a great lateral leader?

How can a newly appointed lateral leader become productive and effective quickly?

What added-value can a lateral leader bring to an organisation?

How does the lateral leader motivate a work-group when there’s no financial reward available for collaborative results?

Consensus v. conflict.  How can the lateral leader manage facilitate effective problem-solving and decision-making?

What motivates peers or colleagues to yield their discretionary ‘followership’ to a lateral leader?

These are some of the questions that #kaizenblog host Elli St.George Godfrey (@3keyscoach) and I (@MiriamAhern) will be discussing on Twitter #kaizenblog on Friday 3^rd February 2012 ( 5pm GMT/12pm ET/9am PT).  Why not join us?

Miriam Ahern is Managing Partner of Align Management Solutions.  She is a Certified Management Consultant.  Miriam is President of the Irish Institute of Management Consultants and Advisers.

Share this article..

ALIGN PUBLIC SECTOR PAY DEAL MONITOR

© Align Management Solutions – Tel: 087-223.8562

COMMENTARY:

While the second-level teachers were slow to embrace the protections offered, it has taken the 2,100-member  Irish Federation of University Teachers (IFUT) over a year (May 2011) to be convinced to back the public service agreement. The union’s executive agreed to provide an additional hour’s tuition or other duties in exchange for assurances over  aspects of what they refer to as ‘academic freedom’.

Five months after the initial agreement was  negotiated,  (25th August) the  rank-and-file Garda body, though not an ICTU-affiliate, voted by 75% in favour despite the initial hostility expressed by the Garda Representative Association’s executive to the proposals.

The Public Service Committee  voted by 66:34 [1,899 in favour out of 2,885 votes cast] to back the agreement as forecast for the past six weeks but getting participation from  all of the nine trades unions  whose members voted  against it.

Speedy and effective implementation will be a major hurdle for public service management and for union leaders to bring their members with them.

The public sector pay and performance deal  will have a comfortable 60:40 majority when the formal vote is taken by the Irish Congress of Trades Unions next Tuesday (15th June).

The decision by the SIPTU and IMPACT members, the two largest public sector unions, to vote  by two-to-one and three-to-one respectively in favour  ( 11th June) ensures that the deal will be adopted by the ICTU Public Services Committee next week. The issue now is whether public service management has prepared effectively for a speedy and efficient implementation.

The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (1st June) strongly backed the pay terms though the work changes/ reforms may not affect them as much as other, ICTU-affiliated public service employees.

The main nurses’ union, the INMO voted ( 28th May) by four-to-one against the pay deal in line with their executives’ recommendation but they are likely to work the reforms when the deal is expected to be ratified  in mid-June but will focus on staffing levels.

The 1,800 medical laboratory technicinas ( a SIPTU affiliate) have backed the pay deal while about 500 craft workers, who are members of the TEEU electricians’ union, voted (28th May) by two-to-one to reject the terms as recommended by the union’s executive. Likewise the  Unite public sector members have  rejected the terms in line with the union’s recommendation which consistently has opposed centralised national pay deals.

The Irish Medical Organisation did not have a members’ ballot as many are self-employed contractors  and, instead, its four ‘craft committees’ made the decision (20th May) to back the  proposed agreement.

The small IFUT university lecturers’ union has voted about two-to-one against the terms (24th May) as recommended by its executive . The result is along the lines of the three larger teachers’ unions.

The three main teachers’ unions have completed their ballots with the two second-level teacher groups voting against and the INTO primary teachers in favour (21st May). Like all other ballots so far, the members have  confirmed the position of their executives making it even more likely that the public services ICTU committee will vote by nearly two to one in support of  ’Croke Park’ acceptance.

The ASTI seems less keen on going on its own against the deal but the TUI may have to eat its words  or else quit Congress to retain credibility.

The vote by the CPSU lower-skill civil servants to reject (12th May)  is in line with their protests  and Passport/Social Welfare  Office disruption earlier in the year. They are trying to get the pay cuts restored before the end of this year but are likely to abide by any majority ICTU public service committee decision.

The odds of acceptance have significantly increased with the change of position by IMPACT’s executive (6th May) recommending acceptance. That means that over 64% of the ICTU public service voting strength is now backing the ‘Croke Park’ proposals.

The government’s U-turn on addressing public service pension increases and costs has helped swing the largest public service union – IMPACT –  which represents  fire fighters and refuse collectors to County managers and top-level HSE management.

The PSEU middle-grade civil servants have produced the first ballot result (5th May) with a two-to-one in favour as recommended by the union’s executive.  It is a strongly ‘pro-partnership’ union. Their senior colleagues in the AHCPS have also voted in favour (7th May)by a large majority.

Public service committee unions have  revised the weighting for each union’s voting strength (4th May) .  It is generally  one vote for every 100 public service  employees in their ranks. They will be generally in proportion with their public sector members ratio which ranges from one-tenth of Unite; one-third of SIPTU; and about 90% of IMPACT members.

SIPTU’s recommendation to accept the pay deal (13th April ) tilts the balance back towards possible acceptance with the  six unions  backing the deal having 43.4% of the total vote. The eight ICTU unions  recommending rejection have a 31% share of the members. IMPACT, with 21%, is still formally staying neutral after the shock refusal of its executive to back acceptance last Thursday (8th April ) but its leadership to trying to persuade the union executive to soften its opposition.

SIPTU’s lower-skill members are vulnerable to outsourcing  of support services and  the deal’s accords on future outsourcing options seems to have swung its executive.

The INMO nurses’ executive decision to recommend rejection  (April 13th ) is a serious setback as their members already have been working 5 over 7 days shift rosters and have adopted more flexible working practices than most IMPACT or SIPTU members.

No surprise that the CPSU executive (lower-skill civil servants) are opposing the deal (April 12th) despite their  Passport Office disruptions last month having widened the gulf between the general public and citizens against public sector unions.

Share this article..