Workshop
People Management
23th of June 2011
Isabelle Van Cauwenberge
Benoit De Visscher
“Decoding the DNA
of public and private
sector leaders”
Hudson Research
-Key findings
-Lessons to be learned
Background to this study
•In our work with public sector clients, the question often arises
as to whether this sector needs a different type of manager: “How
alike or unalike are senior leaders in public and private sector?”
•Extensive research exists on the differences between public and
private sector organisations but less attention has been paid to
differences in leadership behaviour.
•The objective of our study was to explore differences in
leadership traits between public and private sector senior
managers.
•In order to better understand what differentiates managers from
both sectors, Hudson used its Business Attitudes Questionnaire
(BAQ) to analyse personality characteristics of over 1000 senior
leaders in both sectors in Europe.
Methodology
Hudson’s Business Attitude Questionnaire (BAQ)
was used as a basis for this study
•
Hudson R&D developed the BAQ based
on the widely recognised ‘Big 5’ personality model,
which measures 25 aspects of an individual’s personality
•
This questionnaire has proven to predict professional
performance through hundreds of assessment
and development centres worldwide
Sample population (European)
•
Senior leaders (N, N-1 or N-2): 1,185
(700 private vs 485 public)
•
Public sector middle managers (N-3 and N-4): 955
Focus on comparing
•
Senior leaders: public versus private
•
Within public sector: men versus women senior leaders
•
Within public sector: senior managers versus middle managers
•
Within public sector: age - 40 versus + 40
What we expected to find: our hypotheses
1. Comparable complexity of the
organisational setting
Public and private senior managers show
the same global business attitude pattern
2. Public sector context is less stable
Public sector senior managers are more
innovative and conceptual
3. Public sector complex interaction
with multitude of stakeholders
Public sector senior managers less focused on
short term results, but rather cautious and mindful
4. Public sector strong involvment
in policy making
Public sector senior managers stronger
conceptual and strategic focus
5. Public sector objectives
less concrete and unequivocal
Public senior managers are less confident
about the outcome of their initiatives
6. Public sector lower amounts of indiscretion
and managerial autonomy
Public senior managers more oriented towards
compliance with rules & less towards trusting others
Our hypotheses challenged and confirmed
Public and private senior managers show
the same global business attitude pattern
Public sector senior managers are more
innovative and conceptual
Public sector senior managers less focussed on
short-term results, but rather cautious and mindful
Public sector senior managers stronger
conceptual and strategic focus
Public senior managers are less confident
about the outcome of their initiatives
Public senior managers more oriented towards
compliance with rules & less towards trusting others
With younger managers
starting to test the limits!
Small differences, big impact
Some highlights
Private sector senior leaders
tend to be more communicative
and positive in their relationship
with other people.
Public sector senior leaders are
more prudent, more
conceptually and strategically
oriented and more innovative.
They are clearly more resultoriented and persevering and
more optimistic when assessing
risks.
They make up their mind based
on rules and regulations and
less on networking and
communication.
Which leader do you need or which competencies do you want to be
developed in the non-profit sector in order to guarantee an optimal
organizational development in the future?
Public versus private sector senior leaders Small differences with a major impact
Senior leaders in public sector:
• Are more focussed on monitoring rules and procedures and feel they have less
freedom in the way they can manage
• Are more focussed on long-term policies and on finding innovative and conceptual
solutions and less on short-term results
• Act in a less competitive way and do not pay so much attention to relationships and
networks
• Are more inclined to “monitor” and less to “facilitate”
• Are more inclined to “control” rather than to “believe and trust”
• Are more focussed on “creating a long term strategy” than on “winning in the “shortterm”
Public sector senior leaders are more mindful, private
sector senior leaders are more result-oriented
Public sector:
men versus women in senior leadership positions
Women senior leaders show a more outspoken profile compared to
their male counterparts:
• Women focus more on extraversion and especially on “Motivating others” and on adopting a
more open communication style.
• Women pay more attention to social relationships
BUT compared to the average female population women senior leaders in the public
sector score lower on “Altruism” – they after all adopt a rather cold attitude
Both male and female senior leaders go for a certain degree of
thought leadership, with:
• Women being more open to changes induced by the organisation
• Men being keener on exploring innovative approaches
Women senior leaders seem to use a more mindful and warmer
leadership style compared with their male counterparts
Public sector:
senior versus middle management
Middle managers have the same profile as senior managers,
although less extreme, less pronounced: middle managers seem to
be prepared to progressively take on leadership responsibilities.
We see the following differences:
• Middle managers score lower on typical leadership characteristics (Decisive, Extraversion,
Leading, Persuasive, Motivating and Strategic)
• Middle managers score higher on more operationally focussed dimensions (Helpful, Meticulous
and Rational)
Clear leader-follower congruence between senior and middle
management level
Public sector:
The new generation of senior managers: less is more
Younger senior leaders in public sector:
• Show less autocratic or paternalistic leadership behaviour
• Show a higher personal ambition to change things and to do things the way they wish to
• Do not tend to spontaneously involve others in the decision-making process
• Are not always very optimistic about the outcome
• They develop a personal opinion and are prepared to critically question ideas put forward by
others
In the public sector 10% of the senior managers are less than 40
years old versus 30% in private sector
Senior managers in the private sector have a stronger personality
profile and appear to get more opportunities at a younger age than
their public sector counterparts.
Overall conclusions
There are differences but let’s not overestimate these differences
What public sector managers can learn from private sector
managers: wielding influence, not authority
• Huge challenge: cope with confrontation without being confrontational
• Improve the capacity to build positive, motivating relationships with stakeholders
What private sector managers can learn from public sector
managers: mindful and instrumental leadership behaviour
• Focus on long term strategy and the creative process of building a conceptual vision
• Strategic leadership facilitates a charismatic effect
An open question as final conclusion
Knowing that:
• Public senior managers are more focussed on the long term rather than on the short
term
• Public senior managers are more focused on creating and monitoring regulations
and rules rather than on taking high risks
How would our economy look today if it had been
managed
by senior public sector leaders?
Leadership development for public sector
Coaching on communication, networking and building partnerships
When external coaches: massive experience with public sector is a
prerequisite
Younger public managers: support and coaching in their drive to change
things, to implement change and to built a community
Recognition of the goals that are achieved by senior public leaders, to
increase motivation
Senior leaders learn through challenging experiences: explore possibilities
of exchanging private and public sector leaders
Assessment Centers en
Learning Centers: from
diagnostic to
development
From diagnostic to development - overview
Vision on development
Assessment/Development Centers: to evaluate potential
Learning Centers, Mentoring en Coaching: to develop skills and
competencies
Support your employees
“Talent management” is about the development of talent
needed for your future organization, by helping realizing the
potential of your actual employees
Therefore you need a true “talent mindset” within your
organization, the belief that talent
–Is critical to your organization, today as well as tomorrow
–Can be developed (making mistakes is an option)
Development Center to start development
Measuring strengths, weaknesses and identifying potential
to start coaching- and development path
Standardized approach cfr. Assessment
Rather confronting for participant: measuring first, followed
by feedback in order to create awareness
A traditional individual DC - example
WK 1
Intake
Setting goals, understanding context
Development center
2/3 to 1 day
Consisting of:
• competency based and motivational interview
• simulation exercises
• personality questionnaire
• reasoning tests
• learning styles questionnaire
WK 2
WK 3
Report
Feedback
• Evaluation for each competency
•Advice on further development
•Additional reports: learning style, willingness
• Creating self-understanding and acceptance
• Future and development oriented
WK 4
Feedback + HR
and management
Development
•Giving insights
•Discuss development needs
Example learning styles questionnaire
Example willingness to learn
Leadership cannot be taught: but it can be learned
Hudson’s experience, backed up by empirical studies,
shows that:
The majority of learning takes place in situ: by creating
experiences in the workplace that are specifically
tailored to developing specific, identified competencies
(both strengths and development needs)
A fair amount of development is enabled through coaching
and mentoring – particularly when combined with a
feedback loop around the experiences garnered in the
workplace development track
Some learning can indeed take place in a classroom
environment, provided that the group dynamic is used to
Learning Center in stead of DC
• Focus on creating awareness during LC
• Safe place to learn: feedback with a coaching attitude, invitation for
self-reflection and discovering answers oneself
• Participants from same organisation work individually and in small
groups
• Participants learn by practicing and observing others
• No focus on theory: practicing takes 70% of program
When using a Learning Center?
•
You have detected a gap for some competencies within a particular target group
at your organization, or you want to focus on some important future
competencies
•
You want to go one step further than potential evaluation, and focus
immediately on potential development
•
You are looking for an alternative to traditional learning more using coaching
techniques which gives you bigger added value
-
You want to give a safe place to try new behaviors and get feedback on it
-
You want to place the ownership of the personal development to the people
-
You want to create/develop a culture of feedback inside the organization
-
You want to give the opportunity to experience the difference between managing
and coaching
How does it work, a LC?
• General: 2 days – 2 to 3 subjects – 4 to 8 participants – several
trainers
• Program: Some theory and concepts – Simulation exercises –
Feedback sessions – Self-reflection – Practicing again and other
feedback – Detecting individual strengths and development needs
together with other participants and trainers
• Prior to LC: setting subjects/competencies, individual interviews on
expectations, filling in some tests like BAQ, 360° followed by
individual feedback sessions
• After LC: integration of insights in personal development plan
• Possible follow-up: with (team) coaching, master class
Contact:
Isabelle Van Cauwenberge
Senior Manager
Moutstraat 56 | 9000 Gent | Belgium
t: +32 (0)9 242 53 51
m: +32 (0)497 52 63 33
isabelle.van.cauwenberge@hudson.com