Someone asked me what kind of skills you need to work at Common Purpose. I think you need an ability to juggle priorities or keep the plates spinning, whichever metaphor you prefer. When recruiting new staff it was one of the key skills I looked for. Moving into an internal service providing role (from delivering our courses in London to supporting course delivery teams across the world as Curriculum Director) has highlighted this for me. We have to walk a fine balance between providing a swift and prompt service and working on long-term projects. I recently got married and had to juggle all the ‘wedmin’ with having a life which included non-related, wedding activities such as trying to get fit and work. Everything is a constant juggle.

I’m wondering what impact all this juggling has on our ability to concentrate and be at our best for everything we do. Is it an innate human condition? Or is it a symptom of the modern age? What say you?

Business coach Dave Crenshaw in his book, ‘The Myth of Multitasking’, argues that when we think we are being productive and multitasking, we aren’t. This is because on average we get interrupted every three minutes either by email, phones, texts, people, other thoughts etc. It then takes us a minute or two to get back to where we were, before a minute later getting interrupted again.

Crenshaw believes multitasking slows you down, because as you switch between tasks you spend your time retracing your steps rather than being productive. So in fact we just refresh our memory on each task and where we are with it before moving on, making multitasking a myth (or so the argument goes). Technology doesn’t help as we now have to deal with such a mountain of information and stimulus – our brains simply haven’t evolved to deal with this at the same rate at which technology has evolved!

I find this fascinating, although I don’t buy into it 100 per cent. We clearly do more than refresh our memory on tasks – we complete things, work on multiple projects and so on – but I also know when I’m bouncing from one thing to the next, that I am not at my most effective (as just proved by getting a text which stopped me – I read it, lost my train of thought and had to refocus!). So this leads me to ask – how effective are you at juggling, what conditions do you need to be effective at it, and when do you struggle with it?

This post was written by Andy Coxall, Curriculum Director, Common Purpose.

I left the accountancy firm in the summer of 1989 to pursue my interest in art, ultimately graduating with a degree in Fine Art from Northumbria University in 1993. In my twenties I became self-employed working on commissions and community projects, I founded an artist-led collective, and I worked part-time for social services in a day centre for adults with learning disabilities.

In 1999 I joined Helix Arts as Development Director, working three days a week. And in 2000 I became a father with the arrival of the first of our two sons, Harvey.

For the past eleven years I have combined part-time work at Helix Arts with my arts practice and fatherhood.

At Helix Arts I worked three days a week becoming Director in 2006 and Chief Executive in 2010. During this time I was instrumental in growing the charity, in scale and reputation, into a national leader in its field, providing a platform for the company to reach more people, drive up quality standards, build new partnerships, sustain growth and improve efficiency. Between 2001/02 & 2009/10 Helix Arts achieved growth in turnover of 272%, total value of projects 1225%, earned income 562%, whilst increasing core costs by only 103%. 2009/10 was Helix Arts fifth consecutive record year enabling the charity to grow from six to nine permanent staff. Today the charity has a turnover of around £500k and currently employs nine part-time staff working between 22.5 and 30 hours per week.

My arts practice has continued to develop, with over fifteen performances, screenings and events over the last decade, increasingly outside of the UK.

And at home I have enjoyed being with my sons and enabling my wife to also work part-time as a midwife.

In 2007 I also joined the board of directors of North Tyneside Art Studio, becoming chair in 2009, and this year I have joined the governing body at Harvey’s new high school.

However, I am now forty-one, I am more passionate than ever about art and culture and the role of the third sector in society, I believe I have a lot to offer, and I am looking for a new challenge; but if I fancied a leadership role in a larger charitable institution, working part-time, could I secure one?

Unfortunately I don’t think so, and I think that’s a missed opportunity, not just for me and the organisation I might work for, but for anyone who chooses to lead part-time, for whatever reasons, and for all the organisations that could benefit.

So, in order to encourage organisations, large and small, to consider applications from part-time workers for key leadership positions, I will briefly outline how we made part-time working a key strength at Helix Arts, I’ll cite some current research and thinking on this topic and finally I’ll suggest some ways in which organisations might better capitalise on part-time leaders.

Work-life balance as core strength

The key to leading effectively part-time is fully understanding the role, and prioritising time and resources effectively to deliver the role. It’s a combination of flexibility and discipline.

Since 2007 all staff at Helix Arts have recorded their time to 15 minutes in order to achieve a Full Cost Recovery costing profile for the work of the charity. In 2009/10 I worked 1002 hours and 15 minutes at Helix Arts (134 days). The breakdown of my time during the year was as follows: 28% internal relations – managing the performance of the team; 26% external relations – developing relationships with partners, funders, collaborators and advocates; 29% organisation development – developing the organisation to meet current and future needs; 6% governance – working in partnership with the Board to lead the organisation effectively; and 11% personal administration.

This personal time recording discipline (which I started in 2002 whilst doing management training), coupled with a clear understanding of my leadership role, enabled me to both lead effectively without unnecessary overworking, and to develop and refine the future role of the new Chief Executive, also a part-time position, in line with the business plan. Helix Arts successfully transitioned to its new Chief Executive earlier this year.

The following is extracted from an external evaluation of Helix Arts organisational development programme, 2007/08 to 2010/11:

Work in balance – all of the staff at Helix Arts work part-time “at least 75% wouldn’t be here if that wasn’t the case” says Toby Lowe (then Head of Programme) “that is what attracted me to coming here.” It is really unusual for a whole company to work in this way, and particularly to offer senior management positions on such a basis. When Andrew McIntyre (Fundraising & Business Support Manager) joined the organisation the whole work culture surprised him “It is just so healthy, people come in on time and leave on time, they never seemed really stressed – that isn’t typical of an arts organisation!”

A Story of Change: Helix Arts’ implementation of Arts Council of England Thrive! Funding – An Organisation Development Programme, 2007 – 2010, Gayle Sutherland

As a result of this embedded culture of placing work-life balance at the heart of the organisation – and valuing diversity, in the broadest sense – Helix Arts continues to attract exceptional candidates for positions at all levels in the organisation, and benefits from extremely low levels of sickness and high levels of employee retention.

More broadly, the evidence base for the benefits of working part-time is extensive. Perhaps most radically, the new economics foundation (nef) makes a compelling case for a new standard 21 hour working week in their publication 21 hours – Why a shorter working week can help us all flourish in the 21^st century (2010).

Whilst I want to focus specifically on the dynamics of leading part-time, I think it is worth pausing to consider some of nef’s broader thinking in this area.

Generally: ‘By sharing working hours and tasks more equally, everyone would be able to undertake more meaningful work and, by shortening the working week to four days we could create a better balance between paid work and the vital “core economy” of family, friends and community life.’ Page 16, 21 hours

On citizenship: (a much shorter working week would free up time to…) ‘…participate, enriching civil society, strengthening democratic processes and making it easier for voters to hold politicians to account.’ Page 22, 21 hours

On benefits for business: ‘Women’s talents can be more fully realised if they find it easier to combine paid work with other responsibilities. Men will have the chance to become more rounded and emotionally intelligent individuals as their daily routines, identities, and values are more closely connected with home and family. Integrating paid employment with the rhythms and interests of domestic life will make managing or ‘juggling’ the two spheres less stressful and divisive. Emotional intelligence and better balanced lives are both known to produce better outcomes in the workplace. There is evidence, too, that people who work shorter hours are more productive, hour for hour.’ Page 24, 21 hours

nef go on to provide detailed arguments building a powerful case for a much shorter working week focusing on three key drivers: ‘Safeguarding the natural resources of the planet’, ‘Social justice and well-being for all’, and ‘A robust and prosperous economy’.

‘A much shorter working week would change the tempo of our lives; it would re-shape habits and conventions and profoundly alter the dominant cultures of western society. It would help to promote sustainable social justice, well-being, and the good life, to safeguard the natural resources of the planet, and to build a robust and prosperous economy.’ Page 25, 21 hours

The Work Foundation is a little blunter in their key messages for employers summarised in About time for change (The Work Foundation, in association with Employers for Work-life Balance, 2003), stating ‘The smartest and most forward-looking organisations will see that by putting work-life balance at the heart of their cultures and their strategic plans they will not only be satisfying employees and creating more equitable workplaces, but increasing their productivity and responding competitively to significant changes…’ Page 3

About time for change presents a number of case studies of organisations reaping the considerable benefits of placing work-life balance at the centre of their organisational culture: ‘At PricewaterhouseCoopers we firmly believe that promoting work-life balance is a “business critical” issue and not simply the “right thing to do”.’ Page 14

In terms of making my argument, perhaps the most useful quote is from Lloyds TSB who state that they view ‘…their worklife balance policies as not just being about ‘helping the bank to meet its core strategic aims’ but also: ‘about moving from a “long hours culture”, where attendance matters more than achievement, to an environment where people are valued for the results they deliver and the competencies they demonstrate…’ Page 15

So what might be the critical success factors to leading effectively part-time? I can think of six:

1. Having a clear (shared, agreed and understood) strategic direction – knowing the priorities, understanding the key drivers, having a strategy in place with clear performance indicators and robust reporting mechanisms. Here, the relationship with the board is key.
2. Having a strong and empowered senior management team in place – having the right people around you. This creates great opportunities to develop the performance of other team members by sharing responsibility through effective delegation.
3. Having a clear focus on the strategic rather than the operational/programme role/function – always ask, is this a truly strategic task?
4. Highly structured and effective team working and communication – through good annual appraisal processes, one-to-one supervision, team meetings, away days and internal communications systems.
5. Rigorous time management – planning forward (best time estimating), capturing (recording), reflecting and adapting (analysis) – and ruthless prioritisation – knowing what’s important, and what can wait or be delegated.
6. The willingness of non-executive boards to think differently. Perhaps this is one of the main barriers to leading part-time. So there is a job to do here too – to make the case by evidencing, to board members in particular, that leading part-time can be effective and value adding.

And what might the rewards be?

• A wealth of new perspectives and approaches from individuals who not only see the bigger picture, but are part of it.
• The opportunity to attract and develop talented individuals through offering flexible working patterns to increasing numbers of potential employees who demand them.
• A happy, motivated, hard-working, fulfilled leader!
• And don’t forget, a part-time leader takes a part-time wage – do you really need, and can you really afford a full time leader?

This post was written by Robert Laycock, a visual artist and consultant specialising in organisation development, leadership development and business planning – with a particular focus on the arts, cultural and third sectors http://www.peoplepurposeplanning.co.uk/

He is a Common Purpose Tyne & Wear Matrix Graduate 2005/06, and readily cites Common Purpose as a key influence on his leadership and life choices.

Twitter: @robertlaycock

That’s why we launched the Young Million campaign – not necessarily to find employment for these young people (there are many excellent initiatives that exist to do this), but to provide them with the development opportunities they might have had were they in work so that if, or hopefully when, they find a job they are not behind the game. I can’t help but go back to those days when I was desperately trying to get a foot on the employment ladder but struggled, despite an Oxbridge degree; and that was at a time when the economy was buoyant and had record low rates of unemployment. I wish there had been a Young Million course then to give me a leg up!

I am truly delighted to see how fantastic the response has been from our alumni to the Young Million idea. From all across the UK, time, space and money have been donated to get these workshops off the ground. Against the backdrop of these statistics it is so inspiring to see how much the ‘more established’ leaders care about helping these young people to enter the labour market. As one Common Purpose graduate (an ex-investment banker) said to me the other day, “we have to do our bit to ensure that the talent of the next generation isn’t lost entirely”.

It is heartening to see that the workshops are working on so many levels. As well as developing their leadership skills and having the opportunity to meet and get CV and interview tips from local employers, participants tell us they are getting a huge boost in self-confidence and gaining a peer support group, both of which keeps them motivated through difficult times. One participant in the North East, a university graduate, told me yesterday that the course was the most motivating and useful thing she had ever done!

So we will continue to offer workshops across the UK and hope that people and organisations will continue to be as involved as they have been. But I worry about this dangerous skills and development gap that is continuing to grow. It was great to see our Young Million campaign highlighted on the BBC News yesterday, on TV, the BBC website and radio – I hope this will encourage other organisations to find their own ways to bring such issues to the fore and bridge that gap.

This post was written by Adirupa Sengupta, Chief Executive, Common Purpose UK.

Here’s what happened when Chris Mathias, Founder, Arbor Ventures and Common Purpose Trustee, took action on the 360 Day 2011.

My action for the 360 Day was to put myself in a position to find, and then carry out, a random act of kindness. Sunday the 9th in the afternoon – I was feeling a bubbling excitement and a little bit nervous. What would happen if I could not find an opportunity for a random act of kindness (preferably to a stranger)? What a shame that would be.

Monday the 10th dawned. Today was the day – the 360 Day. Started off going to the gym with my wife – not too many opportunities there for random acts of kindness – I did not think anyone would thank me for gratuitously lifting their weights! Then a morning of taking and receiving calls – a whole bunch of them – a very low opportunity environment. Lunch, bunch of meetings in the afternoon.

It is 4.45pm and I am no nearer my random act of kindness (which I have now taken to referring to as RAK). I decide to go for a walk and find someone. I go to Starbucks and buy a coffee – think that leaving a super large tip is not really a RAK of the sort I was looking for, but do it anyhow and am thanked with a huge grin! I take a seat by the window so I can look out for anyone who might be a RAK recipient. I spend 25 minutes and watch London walk past. Everyone looks busy, purposeful and self-contained. I am not sure I know what a RAK recipient looks like, but I am sure that it is none of the people who stride past my window in the next while.

Give up – I am hosting a business dinner, so get back for that. Drinks, small talk, speeches, food and coffee. It is now 10.30pm and I am headed home.

I lie awake and think “what a disaster”. I could not find a single opportunity for a RAK. Either the opportunities are much more limited than I thought, or I am rubbish at finding them. BUT – something has changed. I spent the day much more aware of others, and that was good. More than that though, I am committed to keep on looking – I am not going to give up until my RAK is complete

I give a pressing example from my own home city, Bristol; just one such impossible task requiring brave and tenacious leadership.  It addresses the long existing need in defined communities for a comprehensive and credible strategic plan for economic and social development.

Human beings have always been interested in arranging their communities in order to make the most of available resources. That has meant, over thousands of years, devising living spaces in which people could congregate safely for shelter, commercial exchange and the general conduct of everyday life.

Those spaces have usually been merely utilitarian in design. However, the greatest societies in history have had exceptional aspirations, seeking to develop aesthetically pleasing spatial conceptions underpinned by an ambition to produce an ideal built environment where form and function were perfectly combined. And that sense of ambition also spread beyond the creation of buildings and public spaces into the provision of other elements such as educational and health services as well as high class cultural activity.

Our task is to match the best that has gone before in all those respects, to reject the bland and the mediocre and instead to create a wonderful place for our children and grandchildren to inhabit.

When looking for inspiration for the basis of a plan for the future of the City Region around Bristol I was drawn to the impressive work of Daniel Burnham who developed in 1909 his outstanding One Hundred Year Vision for Chicago which completely changed the city and allowed the development of a new order of opportunity.

In particular I believe we should take notice of the challenging vision statement which he borrowed from Goethe when he exhorted his fellow activists to:

“Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood.

Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remembering

that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die.”

This post was written by John Savage, Executive Chairman of Business West.

For starters, I’d say I don’t always practice what I preach.  What I have noticed is that as a leader in a crisis situation, if you get exasperated, manifested in many ways such as speaking louder and faster, this can be interpreted as you not being in control. This is the case even if in your intensity you are 100% in control and are thinking as sharp as a razor…

My experiences as a leader has been in Iraq as a US Army Reserves officer with small tactical nation-building team circa 2003-2004. In the private sector I’ve been a line manager and later co-founder of a cleantech venture capital partnership. In crisis situations although the inclination is to act immediate, try to stop, take a breath, and say to yourself remember you and your team’s training. Falling back on stipulated processes even if never before practiced in real provides provide immediate structure and focus to the team.

But sometimes the crisis is unanticipated and there has been no contingency training. Personal experiences include a group of people quickly morphing into an angry mob.  Or it’s December 2008, the global economic system is melting around you and your portfolio company calls notifying you that they cannot make payroll next week.  Say to yourself ‘this is part of the job description’ and try and de-link/ disconnect the rising stress level. Nation building as an American soldier in a foreign land means unanticipated stressful situations with the locals and at times it is a matter of life and death. Tell yourself it is part of the job and actually the situation isn’t a surprise.  A private sector example is that realising that making investments in young start-up companies is by definition is high risk. That is means macro environment inputs can throw the best laid proforma plans out of whack. It is the nature of the beast so do not take it personally. Managing through the situation is part of the job description.  Further, remember that as a leader this usually means privileges in rank, pay or social status but with that means that you are expected to be a leader providing structure and direction when necessary particularly in a crisis.

Finally, I’d comment that one misconception particularly for new leaders is that you are expected to have all the answers and that you are expected to be able to functionally perform all of your teams jobs. This is not the case. What being a leader can mean is taking the deep breath, calmly ask for input from select team members and if necessary even be vocal as you work out the logic of an action plan. It is ok to seek input and it is ok to acknowledge you may not have the functional team members expertise and even experience (it is not atypical for a leader to be younger than other team members). Doing this does not have to signal your confusion or inability to lead since you never forget that in the end you are still the responsible one. Being a leader means that you are expected to make a decision. The buck stops with you since when it is all over you will be the first to be held accountable. If you are using a consensus model of crisis leadership remembering this will help cut through the noise and fog of processing multiple inputs and coming up with your clear action plan.

Written by Mark Huang, co-founder of Novus Energy.

Ruthless is defined as “without pity or compassion, cruel, merciless”. This is hardly the way anyone would like to be remembered, except for the few so obstinate in branding themselves as contrarian to established values.

There are however nuances even in this definition. Nero may have been described not too long ago as cruel, but not as ruthless. History is however always written by victors or by successors and it took two thousand years for Nero to be partially reconstructed as a mid-level poet and a progressive politician destroyed by conservative forces.

There are also different contexts in which the meaning of ruthless is strongly flavoured by the situation.

My grandmother, who lived in a medical environment, used to quote a proverb that roughly translated meant that a compassionate doctor will lead you to your grave, whereas a harsh one will deliver you back to health. Possibly she was influenced by the fact that her father-in-law was a surgeon and to a surgeon every solution to a problem leads to using a sharp knife.

In my own experience I found that if compassion causes indecisiveness more people get hurt than if one decides rationally and then deals with the negative consequences of such decisions in a humane and sympathetic manner.

I recall a situation in 1990 when, as a consequence of the 1986 big bang revolution in the City I had to address a staff of 1500 people to tell them that half of them were no longer qualified for the job they were holding and should look for alternative employment. It was hurtful, despite the fact that those concerned knew it already, deep in their heart, and were unhappy and frustrated in their roles. Eventually they all found new jobs better suited to their skills. Had I hesitated for compassion, they might not have succeeded in reconstructing their career, as both competition and their personal bitterness would have increased.

Life is never fair. As decent human beings, we all strive to follow our sense of justice and compassion to make it fairer. Choosing the right path between aspiration and feasibility is the key to success in this endeavour. My advice is to follow the path of feasibility but also to ensure that you do not leave human debris behind you. It tends to hit you back when you least expect it, either through your conscience or through the merry-go-round of life.

Written by Rudi Bogni, Common Purpose UK Trustee, Philanthropist and former Banker.

Possibly the best book I have read over the past few years has been Doris Kearns Goodwin’s “Team of Rivals” about the political genius of Abraham Lincoln. Those who saw Doris talk about it at the Hay Literary Festival were spellbound. I began it one morning and became addicted to it, picking it up at every possible opportunity until I had finished it – and it is long. Then I began it all over again. Why? Quite simply, the book is long because it needs to be. She draws together the whole cast of characters that occupied the political stage in the years up to and including the Civil War, ultimately ending on the death of Lincoln with a postscript detailing the responses of those who had been his enemies, to his death – his rivals. These rivals had been the other three contenders to become the first Republican President of the USA. In victory, caused by the fact that he was the preferred second choice to each of the other three much more famous and favoured candidates, none of whom could muster the necessary majority – he invited them to join him in his cabinet. Thius the Team of Rivals was born.

What is so riveting is that they all despised this hick from the sticks, this self taught lawyer from humble origins. They despised him because he said he wanted to abolish slavery, but would not immediately do so. They despised him because he put his faith in what he saw, not in the assertions of special interests. Thus he would during the Civil War promote Ulysses Grant to become commander of his forces when he had previously been demoted for insolence and was a famous drunkard – yet he was a brilliant strategist. Lincoln was extraordinary. Against the wishes of his generals he sat in on all court martials that might have ended in an execution. To paraphrase him he said he would not countenance the execution of a man whose legs got the better of his heart, because he himself understood the instinct and wouldn’t create a widow or a mourning mother for the crime of desertion. The only executions he allowed were for deserters who had killed or wounded comrades in an effort to protect their skins. Everyone accused Lincoln of not understanding soldiers, but he did. They loved him for his humanity. On slavery too, he took it slowly, he needed the people to be ready for its abolition. He wouldn’t bow to the ideas of the educated Washingtonians. He said and I paraphrase again, that a man finding a snake wound between the limbs of his sleeping children would hesitate to beat it to death. He should wait until it was out in the open. His better educated rivals used analogies from the classics that ordinary folk didn’t relate to. Lincoln’s genius lay in understanding the people. I cried when I read the letters in the postscript where his rivals expressed their sorrow at his passing and acknowledged his greatness for understanding what they did not.

I write this because the question of how leaders judge the pace of change depends on what sort of leaders they are. Those in business divide into two camps. Those who see creativity as a series of iterations that deliver a range of products that are destined for obsolescence within a fairly short period of time, thereby guaranteeing them of an ever changing and growing market, or those who are game changers. These are the men and women who don’t respond to change, they make it and the world of  the Internet and its close cousins would be a first port of call. However, if we move away from business to explore the arena of politics we face a very real conundrum. Most of the great leaders of the past would not have survived the constant interrogation of the modern media and the Fourth Estate now so dominates opinion that a career is made or broken on satisfying the demands for reaction or action from the leader writers (what an ironic title that is). This response argues against any form of strategic leadership vision emerging as the passion for it is soon overrun by the need for the spin of it closely followed by the defence of it and ultimately a retreat from it. The status quo, like treacle keeps editorial writers in business.

So…only great leaders, or should we say informed leaders can effect or respond to the pace of change. Obama sensationally mastered social networking and funding mechanisms to become the first Afro-Caribbean President, his hero? Lincoln. It is fascinating to see whether his timing is genius or his downfall. Will America come to love his healthcare revolution before the time for re-election? The thing about change is that most people don’t like it until it has happened. Its anticipation is stressful even if after the event everyone wonders what the fuss was about.

I prefer a model which depends on presenting a new situation as if it is a response to an already voiced need and wrapping a narrative around it that makes the proposition sound like a natural extension of what has been said or done before. For me, as a Dutchman looking out on Britain, my adopted and much loved home, I feel a terrible anxiety that leadership today is incapable of the leaps of imagination that could conceive of our greatness once more. Not in an Imperial sense, but in the meaning of embracing a vision of what our future might be and what the first steps towards that might be. It brings on a deep melancholy when I think of two of Britain’s greatest assets, The BBC and Royal Mail, solid gold yet slightly tarnished and in need of a polish and some love resisting the onslaught of barbarians who cannot see how irreplaceable these things are or how much more precious and relevant they could yet become.

Leaders who survive ask themselves on a regular basis, what could destroy me and explore their weaknesses. The vain and inadequate die through inaction, the successes develop a story which they believe and their colleagues believe, because when you really believe it and the story makes sense you walk differently and your eyes have a different fire to them. No one really judges the pace of change, because that can only be done in hindsight as a post hoc rationalisation. Those that come through it best have some things in common though. They understand what their values are and what is not for sale. They do not fear being disliked and they are honest and possessed of an ambition to be as good as they hoped to be when they were young. Most of all they can master the knowledge that open minds need to be kept open and that certainty of outcome is never assured, but swiftness of response and a pirate grin can turn mistakes into opportunity. Ultimately I would have to say that the great leaders I have met, become part of the change through a strange osmosis which is down to the fact that they can only be successful doing what they believe in and understanding how to tell that story in a compelling way which makes us want to join them or buy things from them!

So…back to Lincoln. He listened to the people, he was of the people, he had known hardship and was unimpressed by wealth or the sycophancy of others. How many of those have we got and how can we make some more?

Written by Tim Smit, Chief Executive (and co-founder) of the Eden Project.

At a recent dinner I sat next to a delightful, intelligent and well-respected journalist who told me that all public schoolboys (and by extension girls) were fools and should not be allowed to stand for Parliament. Further down the table someone was explaining that ALL bankers are by definition evil. And to my left someone was discussing Zimbabwe claiming that the entrepreneurial spirit had left the country with the whites.

The thing about bias is that by definition we all think we are unbiased. I am no exception. No judgement I have ever made has been tainted by the spectre of bias, of pre-judgement, of personal desires, of inherited or environmental predispositions, of anything but the simple, clear-headed application of logic and common sense.

It could, of course, be that bias is a good thing in leaders. Another word for bias might be vision. Or ideology. Or single-mindedness. The ability to believe in something is a huge attribute of leaders, and yet frequently that belief is based on no more than a hunch, a gut feeling – in other words, bias.

The trick is to know when to switch off the bias and look at an issue squarely with intellect, not prejudice. That requires self-knowledge. I don’t suppose I have it.

Written by Richard Charkin, Common Purpose UK Trustee and Executive Director at Bloomsbury Publishing.

And then there are Steve and Apple: a leader and a company not afraid to take the long view, patiently building the way to the future envisioned for the company. Not afraid to invent the future and to be wrong. And almost always willing to do one small thing — cannibalize itself. Under Steve, Apple was happy to see the iPhone kill the iPod and iPad kill the MacBook. He understands that you don’t walk into the future by looking back. If you do, you trip over yourself and break your nose. Just look at Hewlett-Packard, and you know what I am talking about

Extract of article taken from: Gigaom.