Candor is both a "leadership" issue and a "follower" issue - and normally both play a role simultaneously.


If a leader has been in the role for some time, then the degree of candor will often be a product of the leader's track record. When the leader has a record of retaliating against the "messenger", then candor will be stifled. When the leader has taken the message and applied it productively and acknowledges the source of the information, then candor will be enhanced.

A leader who is insecure in the role will try (as most humans will) defend his/her decisions and perhaps attack the "accuser". Conversely, a leader with strong E.I. will embrace the information as a way to improve the leader's and the organisation's performance.

When a leader is new to the position, then the organisation will be tempted to accept the initial rhetoric, but will normally wait to see some "form" - i.e. is the leader a retaliatory type or an enhancing type (from a candor perspective.)

Followers will be tempted to shy away from high risk (to themselves) situations. But their tensions revolve around the balance between risk aversion versus self-optimisation. The follower will therefore attempt to understand the leader's likely response to a candid communication, and will act accordingly. Where risk is perceived to outweigh self-optimisation opportunity, then candor will be stifled. Where self-optimisation outweighs risk, then candor will prevail.

What the leader needs to be wary of is that there are two players in the candor process. In order for the leader to obtain quality feedback, then high-risk perceptions of followers need to be minimised.

There are two issues at play here: quality of management; and communications strategy and receptivity.


Firstly, there is the "quality of management" embedded in the leader/manager. If the manager is a poor manager, then one of the manager's failings may be the inability to see the potential of trust, among other "soft" attributes. Just because he/she is the manager doesn't mean they are right or they know all the answers, or that they are skilled communicators.

Remember that many CEOs and senior managers are promoted from "the field" or from "grass roots". They may be excellent technical operators but that does not necessarily imbue them with the skills needed to manage effectively.

Where the manager is lacking certain skills, and the followers are aware of or suspect those shortcomings, then it is the responsibility of the follower to couch the attributes and benefits of the "sell proposition" in terms that the leader/manager will understand.

This leads to the second issue: communications strategy and receptivity. Most people are right-brain (preference for creative, abstract, etc) or left-brain (eye for detail, methodical, etc). The right or left brainedness relates to preferences and not abilities. Effective managers tend to have a comfort in both hemispheres rather than in one or the other. Ineffective managers are often predominantly one or the other.

The importance of this is in one's communications strategy. If you are a right-brainer and have come up with an idea that is abstract and "touchy-feely" such as "trust", and you express that idea to a left-brainer in abstract terms, then it will not, in all probability, resonate. You must express the idea in terms that a left-brainer will understand; for example:

- exactly what is proposed
- how will it work
- who will be effected
- what are they being asked to do
- how much will it cost, how long will it take, etc
- exactly what will be achieved
- exactly how will it add to the manager's KPOs

The idea is still "soft" and abstract but expressed in terms the manager will understand.

If on the other hand the manager is right-brained and you have an idea that is highly complex and detailed, then the way you might approach it is by stressing:

- the bigger picture (feelings, competitive position, the future, how stakeholders will feel, impact on consumers)
- the impact on KPOs in broad terms

Only when the manager asks for details on implementation or operations should you offer those details.

The right-brain manager needs to be "switched onto" the idea before he/she needs to know details of how it will operate.

Conversely, the left-brainer needs to know how it will operate before he/she gets switched on by the idea.

Bottom line: concepts and ideas do not incubate in a vacuum - they are fed by the subjective mind-sets of those who must deliberate their worth. The process of deliberation is lubricated or hindered by one's comfort zone. You are more likely to feel comfortable with a concept if it is couched in the terminology of one's mind.

From a Board's perspective, the thing that will protect its reputation is to deliver to the organisation's shareholders, that which they have promised to deliver. Such delivery must be legal, compliant and ethical. If you do "only" that, then your reputation will be enshrined regardless of all the "mother-hood" characteristics often cited.

Like most things, it depends! Much depends on one's definition of "involved".


If one is a director of a listed company, and has been appointed to that position because of one's particular expertise (eg. legal, financial, IT, etc) then it is inevitable that one will "be involved" with management in order to provide suitable oversight and guidance, from one's board position.

If a director sits on a sub-committee, then it is inevitable that there will be "involvement" with staff in order to carry out the duties of that committee.

Where the company is not listed, it is pervasive that the roles of shareholder / director / manager are carried out by the same person/people. Director's "involvement" therefore cannot be avoided.

I suppose the key distinction needs to be made (for a listed entity) between communicating and interacting with staff versus directing their activity. If a director instructs a staff member to act, without going through the CEO, then the CEO is undermined, the staff member may be conflicted about priority and obligation, but more importantly, the director loses his/her ability to provide robust independent oversight, thus defeating the very purpose of his/her appointment as a director.

The following questions were raised on the Next Director blog: Is strategic thinking a mindset or a process? Is it innate or learned? How can individuals develop this expertise? What distinguishes top strategic thinkers from other executives? How should organisations accomplish this? What do individual executives need to do?



A lot depends on how one defines one's terms. One definition of "Strategy" is "a long term plan for success". Therefore "Strategic" thinking is the ability to think in terms of plans for success. Contemporary usage of the terms however imply a "high-level", "more important" view, or an approach that makes fundamental changes to some core assumptions. It's not a matter of what is "right or wrong" here, but what is meant by the question as that informs the response.


If one asks whether is it possible for managers to "think about success", or be taught "how to think about success", then this is possible as evidenced by every business school that teaches strategy. Part of the challenge then is to define "success", as this is not universally agreed.

Is "Success" that which management defines or subjectively determines as "success"; or is it some independent measure that management strives to achieve, such a shareholder objectives as interpreted by the Board?

If one's intent in asking the initial questions is to determine whether people can be taught techniques for thinking out of the box or laterally, then the qualified answer is yes, they can be taught techniques, but their comfort and spontaneity with the process relies on their right or left brain tendencies. A person with a preference and comfort with right-brain (creative) thinking is more likely to have thoughts or ideas that challenge conventional assumptions than someone who is predominantly left-brain. Each can be taught techniques that enable them to cope with their "non-preferred" hemisphere, but they are unlikly to have total comfort there. Having said that, the most powerful and successful leaders appear to have comfort in both hemispheres.

Furthermore an organisation that has promoted all its senior managers from the "shop-floor", say, from a large manufacturing operation, is likely to have most of those managers exhibiting left-brain tendencies (i.e. eye for detail, predictability, etc). The problem occurs when they are asked to start thinking creatively as part of their management responsibilities, which they may find either hard to do or find to be stress-inducing.

In response to the specific questions:

1. Is strategic thinking a mindset or a process? The act of establishing a "path" to a corporation's objectives is a process. The act of creatively developing a successful outcome may require a right-brain approach, thus may be "mindset" dependent subject to the context and the nature of the objective.

2. Is it innate or learned? Right and left-brain tendencies are innate.

3. How can individuals develop this expertise? Processes can be taught (and are taught in most business programs. Innate tendencies can be complemented by teaching an understanding of those innate tendencies and their impacts, and the way to offset stress or discomfort in one's self.

4. What distinguishes top strategic thinkers from other executives? My experience indicates that firstly, "top performers" within an organisation have the ability and comfort of working effectively in the right-brain (creative) space while understanding the left-brain (implementation) implications of those creative concepts. Secondly, they recognise the right-brainedness or left-brainedness of people and the organisation and sculpt their communications to suit those hemispheral preferences.

5. How should organisations accomplish this? Develop an understanding of its right/left brain character of the organisation and its people. In particular, understand when stress and discomfort is induced when people are asked to perform outside their "preference zone" for a significant period of time.

6. What do individual executives need to do? Reflect on their own hemispheral preferences and understand the preference of their superiors and subordinates. Contemplate the degree that sculpting communications and expectations to suit the target will have in achieving their objectives.