One of the most persistent challenges for any organisation is deciding what good leadership actually looks like in the context in which it operates — and then finding ways to promote and embed it.
The result is usually some form of leadership competency framework outlining the “behaviours we want to see”; the general idea being that once people understand what is expected of them, they’ll merrily go ahead and deliver it.
Would that it were so simple.
Over the years, we have had a significant hand in designing many such frameworks – and seen many more examples than would be considered healthy. Some are thoughtful, some are over-engineered, and a few probably looked better laminated than lived.
After nearly two decades trying to help organisations define and embed what “good” looks like, we believe that there are three main challenges to overcome when designing such frameworks, each with its own pitfalls, and opportunities.
We frame them under three simple headings: codify, simplify, and embed.
Codify
When asking groups to think about what kind of leadership is needed in their world, I often get them to debate whether leadership skills are truly transferable across industries. Would Barack Obama have made a good CEO of Topshop? Could Sir Alex Ferguson have turned around a struggling NHS Trust? (At least A&E would be nearby if he decided to kick a boot at someone.)
It’s a light-hearted way of landing a serious point: context matters.
Whilst there are some universal truths about good leadership, every organisation exists within in its own particular context that makes different demands on its leaders. Unless you take time to define what’s needed for your organisation, right now and in the future, and in your own language, you end up with a copy-and-paste framework that engages no-one.
Listening, engaging, and codifying the type of leadership that you actually need is the essential, and often missed first step.
Simplify
My rule of thumb here is simple:
‘If an HR or OD specialist struggles to understand or explain what the framework actually means, or how it should be used, then the rest of the organisation has little chance.’
Behavioural frameworks should be clear, usable, and memorable. Leaders don’t need another complicated model to interpret; they need something they can understand and develop towards.
We’ve seen so many over-complicated examples that break this rule of simplicity — and they all lead to confusion, and ultimately to non-, or mis-use.
Embed
A client once summed this up better than I ever could:
‘Frameworks and values should be neither a poster, nor a coaster.’
They were right. A framework that only exists on a wall, or in an onboarding pack, isn’t worth the laminate it’s printed on.
The real test is whether people refer to it naturally — in performance conversations, in recruitment, in feedback. Once it starts showing up in the way decisions are made and the language people use, you know it’s actually being lived.
Embedding doesn’t mean shouting louder. It means quietly making the framework part of how work gets done, until it’s hard to imagine operating without it.
If your organisation recognises more than a few of these challenges — or if you’re curious about how to codify, simplify and embed a framework that genuinely shapes leadership behaviour — join us at our next HR Lunch on 11th November.
Mike Thackray, OE Cam Partner