Many years ago I went to the Emmanuel College, Cambridge University May Ball. I had been invited by a friend from school who took a degree course there. I hasten to add it was only the May Ball I went to \u2013 that\u2019s as close as I got to Cambridge University!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I hadn\u2019t done particularly well at the Grammar School we were both at, and so I went with the view that I would meet with lots of people who I would struggle to engage with, and that I would know far less than them in all meaningful areas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nevertheless, I had agreed to meet my friend Steve a couple of days before the May Ball in order to spend some time with him, see a little of Cambridge and meet his friends \u2013 including my partner for the event as I not met her previously. When I arrived, he duly took me to meet one of his friends. I can\u2019t remember the friend\u2019s name, or much else about the meeting, other than when we went into his room he was there with his bicycle. The bicycle was upside down and the friend was scratching his head. He greeted us and then outlined his problem by saying, \u201cI\u2019ve got a slow puncture and need to mend it, but I can\u2019t find out how to get the rest of the air out of the inner-tube.\u201d I was amazed. One of the greatest young brains in the UK and he didn\u2019t know how to get the air out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I often think back to that experience. I think it was the point when I realised that there was a difference between knowledge and skills, and it was a reminder of how dangerous and unproductive it is to assume what people might know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I was reminded of it again last week. I was working with some senior leaders and we were discussing leader ship theories, models and practices. I decided to use John Adair\u2019s Action Centred Leadership Model and asked who had heard of it and could explain it to me and the others present. None of the three people present had heard of it. I was astonished. I (wrongly) thought that it was the sort of \u2018foundation\u2019 leadership theory that every leader knows about. And the reason why I haven\u2019t blogged about it previously is because I assumed that it was too well known to be worth it. Perhaps I was wrong?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some people also refer to it as the \u201cI, We, It\u201d theory, and others as the \u201cTeam, Task, Individual\u201d theory. This is because of the naming of the three overlapping or interlocking circles (see the diagram above):<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Adair\u2019s view was that all three of these aspects are required to successfully lead (and manage) given situations. They are overlapping circles as each supports the others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I personally see it as a foundation theory as it\u2019s one of those that can be used in any situation \u2013 and if something isn\u2019t going quite right, or things aren\u2019t running as smoothly as perhaps the leader thinks they should be, it\u2019s a great one to check against as to how they are leading. When doing this, it\u2019s often possible to recognise that a leader is directing, conducting or encouraging more activity in one or two of the circles, to the exclusion of the other(s) \u2013 and there can lie the reason for things not being on track. In visual terms, one or two of the circles become disproportionately large in comparison to the other(s).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whilst the theory is relatively new \u2013 having been developed and publicised in the 1960s \u2013 some people now see it as being too simplistic. This is not a view that I share \u2013 I think that there lies its strength and power. Leadership shouldn\u2019t be seen as complicated as it really isn\u2019t \u2013 if leaders make it overcomplicated, people will not follow. Simplicity is the beauty of this model, which then makes me wonder why it took until the 1960s for someone to come up with it! Perhaps Charles Mingus had the answer when he said, \u201cMaking the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that\u2019s creative\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n