The Leadership Mind

Legacy

2011-10-21T10:07:00.000-07:00

Let's say you are a manager who has worked in an organization for a number of years. You have worked hard to create new processes and systems that assure that your division is working at top efficiency. You have developed a policy manual, written rules, and if you happen to be in government, you have written ordinances, resolutions, and helped create laws that reflect the desires of the community. And, today you receive an attractive offer to go to another organization.

You have enjoyed your work, put your heart and mind into the tasks of creating a great organization. You feel invested in the success of your current employer. But, this offer is too good to pass up.

As you pick up the phone to make the call accepting the offer you pause to think about what will happen to the people and systems you are leaving behind. You think about your legacy.

Your thoughts may be that things will be just fine. After all, you created the right rules, and set up the right processes. What could possibly happen?

Six months after you leave you run into a team member from your old company. The first thing out of her mouth is "Why did you leave? Everything has changed. It's not the same place without you."

This does not take you by surprise. After all, the manager they hired to replace you changed all of the systems, rules, and processes.

Your say, "Yes, I have heard that the systems all changed. We had it running pretty well before I left, didn't we."

But your friend says, "It's not about systems and processes. The new ones work as well as the old. It's about how we work together, how we communicate, and how we feel about the organization. It's about what is valued, and our pride in our work."

And, this is when you learn about your legacy.

All of this time you were thinking that the things you built, the words you wrote, the rules or laws you helped create, the way you made things run, was your legacy - what you were passing on to the next generation.

But, in reality, your legacy was found in the minds you touched, the values you instilled, the environment you created, and in your authenticity, your ethics, your vision, and your courage.

Systems and rules can be changed. Structures can be torn down or sold. Political tides can (and will) ebb and flow. Corporate climate can change. None of these contain your legacy.

The only thing you leave behind with any certainty is what is carried in the hearts and minds of those you have touched.

Use your time wisely, for whether it is long or short, it is not unlimited. Give those who will carry on when you step out of the organization the gift of a legacy that will serve them well when they stand in your shoes.

-
-
-

For another look at the concept of legacy, you might enjoy this blog entry found on the Fast Company web site - What Is Your Leadership Legacy by Craig Chappelow

Learning Is Doing

2011-05-30T11:17:00.000-07:00

In these tough economic times more and more workplaces, both business and government, have sharpened their pencils, gotten down to brass tacks, cut out the fat, tightened their belts, and adopted new production measures - because we all know "what gets measured gets done." It has been very important for managers and leaders to be able to prove that each and every employee is doing what needs to be done, every minute of every day.

Top management has said that if you are not at your post, focused on your assigned task, you are not doing anything. And, if you are not doing anything, you are wasting the company's time and money.

The concerns of management certainly can be understood. Stockholders are unforgiving of companies that do not operate efficiently. Citizens are unforgiving of governments that waste taxpayer dollars. In either case, dissatisfaction with the organization's leadership can lead to changes at the top. CEOs and politicians alike hold positions that are constantly at stake.

So it is not surprising that management's emphasis has remained on ensuring that employees are doing something that contributes to the success of the organization; doing those things that can be measured, proven, and demonstrated with hard facts.

In the face of this emphasis on facts and reality (See blog posts on The Leadership Diamond and Reality), true leaders are faced with the dilemma of finding ways to operate a profitable and efficient organization while still encouraging employee growth and learning. These leaders understand the need to take care of today by delivering efficiency and quality, and to take care of the future by investing in the managers and leaders of tomorrow.

In a recent blog post (Learning and Teaching) the need for learning, both adaptive and generative, was discussed. Adaptive learning is the learning that helps us survive. Organizations, like individuals, must learn in order to compete, gain resources, and survive in a competitive climate. Generative learning is the learning that "enhances our capacity to create" (Peter Senge). It is this learning that lets the organization move beyond mere survival, create new and better solutions, and reach new levels of achievement.

If an employee spends time learning, improving the chances that the organization will survive or will reach a new level, then that employee is doing something that contributes to the long-term success of the organization.

Even when the immediate results of the learning cannot be measured in profitability, number of widgets made, or popularity in the polls, learning that leads to the creation of good and competent managers, leaders who can take the organization to the next level, or creative thinkers that discover new ways of solving the problems of today is essential to the success of the organization.

If you are a leader, manager or politician, you have the opportunity to ensure that your organization is taking time to step back from the business of the day to take in the big picture (see The View From The Balcony), encouraging creativity and experimentation (see Everyday Creativity), expanding knowledge and skills (see Knowledge Skills and Talents), and improving the health of the organization. All of these efforts will help you create a successful organization.

In successful organizations learning is doing.

Interview With Eric Schmidt - Google

2011-05-03T09:35:00.000-07:00

Below is a link to an interview with Eric Schmidt that was recently posted by McKinsey. For those of you involved in hiring and managing people, particularly creative people, you may find Schmidt's early comments on these topics interesting.

For those of you in the IT business, you may find Schmidt's thoughts on mobile computing and "big data" interesting as well.

McKinsey Quarterly - Interview with Eric Schmidt

Great Leadership In Troubled Times

2011-02-27T11:14:00.000-08:00

When one reads the headlines of the day it is clear that we live in troubled times. The Middle East and Africa are ablaze, pirates sail the seven seas, Central America is mired in drug wars, and here at home our national, state and local politicians struggle to balance fragile budgets teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

Today, it becomes easy to believe that "desperate times call for desperate measures." And, perhaps this is true. The problem is that when leaders become desperate they often loose sight of what it is to be a leader, and what great leadership might look like.

Leaders are human, and subject to the same pressures that affect us all. Public opinion is a powerful force. It is tempting to take popular positions because by doing so leaders can feel supported, loved, and admired. They may also believe that they have chosen a wise course of action.

However, as the plaque posted in the Council Chamber of at least one Southern California city states:

What is right is not always popular. What is popular is not always right.

Great leadership requires more than saying or doing things that make a large number of people happy. Great leadership requires vision, a connection to reality, strong ethics, and sometimes, exceptional courage (Peter Koestenbaum) (One of the first blog posts in this series provides a quick overview of these attributes.)

Great leaders are those who will take the time to define "what we are trying to create as a result of our effort." (Peter Block) Great leaders are those who understand that it is usually not the first answer that comes to mind that is the best answer. Great leaders are those who will go deeper, beyond the obvious answers like "We are trying to balance our budget.", "We are against raising taxes.", "We are against cutting programs." Great leaders are the ones who see, and can help other see, the connections between our vision for the future and our current reality, understand our ethical challenges, and expose their courage to act in a visible and transparent way.

If you are a leader, take time to reflect:

What is your vision? Does it go far enough to answer the question "what are we trying to create as a result of our efforts?" (Click here for more on the importance of vision.)
Are you connected to reality, and not just a point of view? (Click here... and here for more on Reality.)
Do you understand the ethics of the situation? Remember, ethics is more than following the law. (Click here for more on Ethics) (Also, this article - Ethics and the Prince - may be of interest.)
Do you have the courage to do what is right? What is right may actually be what is popular. But it also may require opposing popular opinion. Do you have the courage to act? (Click here and here for more on Courage and Free Will.)
Talk about each of these points with the people you trust and value. Don't exclude those who disagree with you. They may be the ones who can be of the most help in clarifying your thinking.

Finally, one of the biggest challenges of the world we live in is that great leaders are often not recognized until the danger has passed. It is likely that your efforts won't be recognized until the smoke has cleared and history is being written by the survivors.

Leave your ego at the door. Do your best. Invite others in to help. And, we will all get through these troubled times.

Learning and Teaching

2011-01-26T10:41:00.000-08:00

My joy in learning is partly in that it enables me to teach.
Seneca

The above quote is from Seneca the Younger, an early Roman philosopher and statesman. Although he is thought to have made this statement during the early part of the first century AD, the sentiment expressed is as true today as it was in his time. The real joy in learning is very often found in the use of the new knowledge, and the passing on of that knowledge to others.

The importance of learning, and the passing on of knowledge, should strike a chord with strong leaders. As discussed in an earlier blog post (The Seeds of Change), organizations are organic in nature, which means that they are constantly growing and changing. For the organization to be growing in the desired direction, leaders need to be sure that focused learning, and the passing on of new knowledge, is encouraged, and that both learning and teaching are highly valued attributes in the workplace.

The leader plays a special role in this process because by modeling the desired behavior (showing that the acts of learning, teaching, and applying new knowledge are valued) the organization has a greater chance of embracing a culture that values growth and change. Learning and the application of new knowledge is in essence "change".

Peter Senge talks about two types of learning: adaptive learning, and generative learning. Adaptive learning is the learning that helps us survive. Organizations, like individuals, must learn in order to compete, gain resources, and survive in a competitive climate.

Generative learning is the learning that "enhances our capacity to create" (Senge). It is this learning that lets the organization move beyond mere survival, create new and better solutions, and reach new levels of achievement.

A leader who is both a learner and a willing and enthusiastic teacher helps to create an organizational culture that acknowledges the necessity and value of both adaptive and generative learning, and an organization that enthusiastically sees and reaches for possibilities.

Freedom and Accountability

2010-09-16T16:43:00.000-07:00

Every act we perform is, in its foundation, a free one (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 49)

___________________________________
The western world is in love with the concept of freedom. It is the most precious aspect of society. Whether it is the freedom of religion or speech, the freedom to choose our political leaders, or to pursue the life we choose without fear of interference from individuals or governments, freedom is essential and paramount in all things.

However, when we move from our societal craving for freedom to our personal lives, or the workplace, we seem ready to give up our freedom and are willing to put our happiness and our level of motivation in the hands of someone else. In the workplace we call this someone else "management". It becomes management's job to give us rewarding work, to motivate us, to make us into high-performing individuals and teams. We tell ourselves that our mechanical systems of rewards and punishments, measurements, strategies, or command and control structures get the behaviors that we want from our organizations. In short, we create these devices to help eliminate the need for the exercise of free will.

Koestenbaum and Block suggest that this "escape from freedom," as Erich Fromm called it, is in large part due to the fact that "...with freedom comes accountability, and with accountability comes guilt, and with guilt comes anxiety. Since our freedom leads to anxiety, it is easier to repress it than to bear it proudly." (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 30) Both in our lives and in our work it is often easier to deny our freedom and allow others to choose than to make difficult choices ourselves.

But this creates an interesting paradox. By allowing others to choose I have made a choice. I have chosen to give others the power to choose for me, which in itself is an exercise of my free will. Therefore, I am still accountable, at least to myself, for the results of my decision.

Arguments are sure to be put forward showing how, at least in certain circumstances, I had no choice in the matter: "I hate this job, but if I don't come to work I will be fired. I have no choice but to come to work." Or, "The law says I have to pay my taxes. I have no choice. If I don't pay my taxes I will go to jail."

When these statements are examined more closely we see that there is an element of choice in each. I choose to continue to go work at a job that I hate because I am unwilling to deal with the consequences of walking away from the job. Instead of choosing to look for another job, I choose to continue working at the one I have. I am accountable for my choice to continue in an unpleasant job instead of changing my situation. I choose to pay my taxes because I am not willing to be accountable for the consequences related to not paying my taxes. Regardless of why I made the choice to pay my taxes, it is still my choice to make the payment.

We are not always in control of the alternatives among which we may choose. Having free will does not imply that life will always be perfect, or that the choice of another option would have provided us with great happiness. But through the exercise of our free will we are able to embrace our humanity, and to take on the succession of risks that life has to offer.

Recognizing that we are free gives us the ability to exercise control over our existence, and lets us shift from blaming others for how things are to being accountable for our life. "Once the inevitability [that we are accountable] is recognized, we will be inclined to place the full blame [or credit] on ourselves rather than on others or on objective situations beyond our control." (Freedom And Accountability At Work, Koestenbaum and Block, 2001, P. 79)

The good news is that you have free will, and that opens up a world of opportunity. The bad news is that you have free will, and that opens up a world of accountability. Good luck with both.

Self As Instrument

2010-09-02T19:44:00.000-07:00

No matter where you go, there you are.
(Source: possibly Confucius, biblical, or Star Trek)
____________________________________

Many people go through life taking the events of each day as they happen, happily addressing each challenge, and then heading home with the sense that they did the best that they could, given the circumstances. Tomorrow is another day, not to be worried about until the morning comes.

But for those who find themselves in situations that require change, where their vision of the future is different from the realities of today, and where they have made the choice to play an active part in achieving that vision, such a laissez-faire approach does not work. If change is to occur, some sort of intervention is required. And the only tool that any individual has to bring about change is themselves - their actions, behaviors, dialog, questions, and choices. They must choose to use their skills and abilities in deliberate and thoughtful ways to influence others. In short, they must use themselves as the instrument of change, a concept often referred to as self as instrument.

As with any instrument, before one becomes a virtuoso there is learning, practice, and performance. A musician does not decide to become a pianist and immediately leap onto the stage at Carnegie Hall. Practice and preparation is necessary before the performance. Nor does a leader decide to become an instrument of change and immediately charge forward to success without introspection and learning.

Katherine Curran, Charles Seashore, and Michael Welp summarized the concept of self as instrument best in their November 1995 presentation to the ODN National Conference:

Perhaps the most powerful instrument we have in helping our clients navigate change is ourselves. Our ability to use ourselves potently relies in large part on the level of awareness we have about the impact we make, and our ability to make choices to direct and modify that impact.

Awareness is the key. Developing the mind so it is aware of self, others, situations, and patterns is the beginning of being able to use yourself as an instrument of change. Self-awareness and self-management become the first requirements.

In Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman lists these as the first two dimensions of what he has termed emotional intelligence. True self-awareness requires reflective self-examination, feedback from others, and knowledge of who you are, where you are going, and why you are going there. Self-awareness is not something that is intrinsic, it is developed over time, often with the help of others guiding the self-discovery process.

In his book Leadership From The Inside Out, Kevin Cashman suggests:

Leadership is not simply something we do. It comes from somewhere inside us. Leadership is a process, an intimate expression of who we are. It is our being in action. Our being, our personhood, says as much about us as a leader as the act of leading itself.

Cashman's statement about leadership is also applicable when we are becoming an agent of change; it is not simply something we do. It is a process, an intimate expression of who we are. It is moving from passive observer to active participant.

But, why all this talk of self when what we want is to influence others to join us in the pursuit of our vision? The answer is: through the understanding of yourself, you become a more authentic leader, one who "aligns both actions and behaviors with [your] core values and beliefs". (An Overview of Self as Instrument Using a Leadership lens and a Coaching Application, Debbie Kennedy, December 29, 2006) This authenticity is visible to those who would be followers and companions on the journey to the desired future, and encourages the development of trust between the leader and the followers. Also, "Followers learn by observing the positive values, psychological states, behaviors and self-development being modeled by the authentic leader..." encouraging the same behavior in the followers. (Kennedy)

You have the ability to become a leader who makes a huge difference in your organization if you are willing to devote the time to develop the tools you need to be an effective instrument of change - to develop your "self as instrument". The journey to virtuosity begins inside by learning about who you are, developing self-awareness and self-management (and as Goleman would suggest, in the development of social-awareness and relationship management). It continues by becoming clear on what you want to accomplish as a result of your effort, and why it is important to create a particular vision of the future.

Once you have developed the ultimate instrument (yourself), no matter where you are, you will have with you everything you need to be an authentic leader who can make a difference.

The Language of Leadership

2010-08-19T19:48:00.000-07:00

German philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) once said "Language is the house of being." And, although when a philosopher speaks one must be careful about implying the wrong meaning, in this case Heidegger has said a mouthful, particularly for those interested in leadership.

Noted philosopher, author, and mentor, Dr. Peter Koestenbaum, amplifies Heidegger's statement by suggesting that everything exists in language. Without language there is nothing (Do You Have the Will to Lead, 2002, 18 minutes into the program material). Therefore, the words that a leader chooses are fateful. In Koestenbaum's view, a leader who wants to change the culture of an organization must start by changing the language. (The Philosophic Consultant, 2003, P. 87-88)

Although this can be a monumental task, it can be done. When Dee Hock, the person responsible for the creation of what we now know as the Visa Credit Card system, was trying to establish what he called "an equitable international credit system", conflict and confusion reigned supreme. Representatives from countries that were traditional enemies were expected to work together. Religious, cultural, and class differences were constantly boiling just below the surface. Open and direct communication was not part of the international culture.

In his book Birth of the Chaordic Age, Hock notes "Rarely was a person referred to by name. The language suggested object or thing, not person. " But, as the leader of the effort, Hock began to casually, "... and, without suggesting that anything was amiss," change this conversation by always responding with the person's name, and gently questioning the characterization. As he changed the language related to personal relationships, the tenor of the language used by others changed. The words that Hock used were fateful - he nudged the organization into a culture that recognized its members as people, not a race, class, or nationality. (Birth of the Chaordic Age, Dee Hock, 1999, P. 234)

The language we use exposes our customs, traditions, norms, espoused and hidden values, rules of the game, skills, competencies, habits, and more. To use the terms of Koestenbaum's Leadership Diamond, the language we use exposes our Vision, Ethics, Reality, Courage, Polarities (and how we mange them), and our desire to achieve Greatness.

One of the great challenges for a leader is to consciously choose the right words, to create what Dr. Koestenbaum calls "an envelope of language", to construct the House of Being that surrounds the successful organization. Your challenge is to be purposeful in your choice of words, and the time to use them. This requires deliberate thought, planning, tenacity, and dedication to the desired outcome.

The goal is not to ignore the things that need to be addressed by simply using positive language. Denying the reality of our current situation does not help or change the organization.

The goal is to use opportunities to communicate, as Dee Hock did, address what needs to be changed, and to shift the course of the organization toward what we are trying to create as a result of our effort.

_________________________________________________________________________

For more about language and its role in leadership see the earlier blog entry A Leader's Power.

Changing Minds - The Importance of Character

2010-06-20T10:10:00.000-07:00

Whether you are a leader of a nation, corporation, organization, club or other collection of people, one of your first tasks is to get people working in the same direction. In prior posts we have talked about the importance of vision in bringing people together behind one cause. But we have not talked about what to do when you have a vision that is not necessarily shared by others in the group. The problem is not that they don't understand the vision. They understand perfectly. However, they disagree with the goal, methods, do not trust that the desired outcome is appropriate, or just generally think the idea is wrongheaded.

What do you do to change the minds of the people you wish to lead into the future?

In his book Changing Minds, Howard Gardner takes on the challenge of describing this process of bringing your message to your audience, and of successfully changing how people think and feel about the goals you have set before them. Although there are many factors to consider, in this blog entry I want to focus on just one that I believe to be so powerful that if it is not properly considered and respected it will knock the blocks out from under everything you are trying to accomplish.

Gardner says "To change minds effectively, leaders make use of two tools: the stories that they tell, and the lives that they lead." (Changing Minds, Howard Gardner, P. 69) We will cover the concept of story telling in another post, but here I want to focus on the importance of the lives leaders lead.

Imagine a leader of a country who runs for office on a platform founded on upholding the laws of the country, who is then found guilty of tax evasion; the leader of a union organization who secretly has his home built by non-union labor to save money; a leader of a corporation who presses for wage concessions from the employees to save the company, who then accepts a multimillion dollar salary or bonus. These leaders, regardless of how impressive they have been, have destroyed their credibility.

To accomplish your goals you need a dedicated group of people working toward the same ends - your desired ends. As Gardner says, the stories you tell will connect you and your desired goals to the people who will help make it happen. But, for your team to follow you through thick and thin they must trust you. Although trust is based on a number of things, in summary people will trust you if they can see that you have integrity, are competent, have a track record of success, and care about them. In short, that you are of good character.

If the life you lead is not consistent with the goals you express, and does not provide evidence that you have an interest in the well being of those who follow you, you will have undermined your character in the eyes of those who might be your most important asset. You will be unable to create the energy and motivation in your team needed to move the organization toward any significant goal.

Gardner says "... impressive leaders have integrity. They take time for daily analysis and reflection... They are marked by openness to changes in the world and in oneself... [are flexible] in the presentation of their fundamental themes... [and have a] deep commitment to a mission coupled with humility about one's actual potency." (Changing Minds, P 110-111)

"Leaders cannot be effective - and cannot call for sacrifice - unless their stories and their persons strike a resonant chord with their audiences." (Changing Minds, P. 75) When a leader's "person" is out of sync with what a leader says, and when a leader's behavior does not match the behavior that is being asked of the organization, there is little chance that the leader can be successful.

The life you lead speaks volumes to others about whether you are worthy of their support.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jon Huntsman, a self made billionaire said "There are no moral shortcuts in the game of business -- or life. There are, basically, three kinds of people: the unsuccessful, the temporarily successful, and those who become and remain successful. The difference is character." ( http://knowledge.emory.edu/article.cfm?articleid=888)

Money and Motivation

2010-05-28T07:49:00.000-07:00

For decades the newspapers have enjoyed reporting about Corporate America gone wrong with stories of greed inside Wall Street and big-energy, and wrongheaded decisions by corporate leaders. Even after so many years of learning from the school of hard-knocks, the business community continues to make decisions that cause the common person to scratch their head and wonder how such smart people can be so dumb.

We all wonder what is it that makes these Captains of Industry, and the people who follow them, choose the path that leads to having their names and faces plastered on the front page as they do the "perp-walk" into the court house?

The answers are probably many, but at least one is tied to the subject of Money and Motivation.

Without getting into a long conversation about Maslow's hierarchy of needs, "the forces that motivate us tend to shift depending on our personal needs." (Why Pride Matters More Than Money, P. 27) Everyone is driven to fill basic needs, but what is considered "basic" can vary from person to person.

Our drive to make money beyond the amount required to provide basic needs is tied to our motivation to achieve recognition as an important and successful person. Corporate America has learned how to use this drive in its leaders and employees to press for higher and greater achievement of certain goals, usually the sale of products, and accumulation of earnings for the company.

This is a focus on individual success, and what author Jon Katzenbach refers to as Self-Serving Pride. Each individual is pressed to achieve a goal, sometimes at the expense of others within the organization, and sometimes at the expense of the organization itself. Enron and the financial market collapse are great examples of workers achieving individual goals and seeking individual rewards regardless of the effect of their behavior on the health of the company or community. Katzenbach suggests that organizations are missing the point when it comes to constructive motivation. He writes about the power of pride, particularly institution-building pride, and its role in motivation.

By focusing on money, organizations have found a simple and quick way to push individual performance to great heights for short periods of time. However, it is often easy for self-serving employees to take advantage of these money-based incentives, increasing their compensation at the expense of the organization's long term health.

But for the success of the institution over long periods of time it is important to appeal to the employee's emotional commitment, and to establish systems that support the creation of institutional pride.

Leaders need to understand that what motivates the people at the top of the organization is not necessarily what motivates people on the front line. Therefore, the things that build institutional pride at the top (quarterly earnings, competitive advantage, brand) are not necessarily the things that build institutional pride for the majority of the workforce (working for a highly respected organization, being trusted and supported by managers and supervisors, high quality products, having the tools and systems that allow employees to do great work).

People who are emotionally committed to something - be it a person, a group, an enterprise, a cause, or an aspiration - behave in ways that defy logic and often produce results that are well beyond expectations. They pursue impossible dreams, work ridiculous hours, and resolve unsolvable problems.

The organizations that have found ways to tap into this emotional commitment are the ones that create long term success by meeting the basic needs for all employees, and establishing reward systems that recognize individual, team, and organizational success. The employees within these systems take pride in being part of a winning team, and an organization that is highly respected.

Katzenbach points out that "money attracts and retains, whereas pride motivates." (Why Pride Matters More Than Money, P. 128)

In our society, money is an important part of any compensation system. Pay must be competitive, sufficient, and focused on creating institutional-pride. But, without other systems in place that create institutional-pride, employees will always go to the organization that offers the highest pay.

Organizations that create institutional-pride retain the top performers, gain the advantage of emotional commitment, have employees who care about the quality of the service and product, and can achieve greatness.

Influence

2010-04-19T13:47:00.000-07:00

It has often been said that leading from the top is one thing, but leading from within the pack is quite another. For every organization there are only a handful of top positions; positions where there is an implied right to lead, or power to make decisions. Those who find themselves in the middle or bottom of the hierarchy sometimes question their own ability to be leaders, or to have any influence on how the organization works.

The key word here is "influence". It is true that not everyone can occupy the corner office. But it is also true that everyone can find a way to be a leader, to have some "influence" on how things are done, and to make a difference.

What exactly is influence, and how does it become part of leadership from the middle? Here are a few thoughts to chew on.

Influence, as Dr. Robert Cialdini of ASU says, is the "ultimate power tool". Those who understand how to use influence can have a profound effect on their organization, regardless of their position.

Influence has gotten a bad rap because it is often seen as a process used to get people to do things that might not always be above board. However, like any tool, it can be used to build up or to tear down. Properly used, influence can help your organization, team, or work group achieve things that might not otherwise have been possible.

Having and applying influence depends on a number of underlying concepts. Here are a few to consider:

Reciprocity - If you have done something for me, I feel some obligation to do something for you. When we are negotiating, if you have moved back from your opening position (a position that was most beneficial to you) to a fall back position that is better for both of us, I feel inclined to move my position as well. "No" is not a final answer. When you get a "no", introduce a fallback position.
Scarcity - People are motivated to have what they can't have, or to move if there is a narrow window of opportunity. Helping people understand that an opportunity is short-lived can help move things along.
Authority - We prefer to say "yes" to authority. If you have expertise or a background that places you in the position of being an expert, start by exposing your weaknesses, then offer your background of experience and knowledge. Present your strengths only after showing your weaknesses. Your authority is strengthened by showing that you are aware of your shortcomings.
Consistency - People like to do things that are consistent with prior actions. Sometimes this is a challenge, particularly when the prior actions may be taking the organization down the wrong path. However, searching for ways to show consistency is important. Even a change of direction can be seen as "consistent" under the right circumstances. Also, get people to commit to actions in a public setting, get them to write down what they have agreed to do, and followup conversations and agreements in writing.
Consensus - People and organizations like to look at what others are doing. Leaders often import practices that have succeeded for others. And, organizations often follow trends in behaviors that their leaders see as positive. You can help identify these trends, bring them to the attention of your peers and managers. And, you can use your influence to help the organization choose the paths that are most advantageous.
Likeness - You are more influential if people feel that you are "like" them. This may seem like a negative trait, but good or bad, it is true that people are generally more inclined to favor people who they see as similar to themselves - people who think like them, value the things they value, have goals that are consistent with their goals, and see the world in ways that are similar to their views. This doesn't mean that you have to become like the person you are trying to influence, but if you search for the similarities and emphasize those as you work together, you will have a better chance of being influential with that person.

There is more to influence, but by now you probably are getting the idea that you can have influence on your peers and leaders without having to have a position of power from which to work. There is plenty of reading on the concept of influence. Dr. Cialdini has written extensively on the subject, as have many others.

In addition to Cialdini's work, I can recommend Influencer - The Power to Change Anything by Kerry Patterson and a host of co-authors.

Use your influence for good and positive change. Help others use their influence to improve the organization and achieve goals that lead to success. And, don't be afraid to use influence when it is taking you in the right direction.

Ownership

2010-03-06T11:07:00.000-08:00

Imagine this scene: You walk out of your front door to pick up the morning paper. On the ground next to the paper is an empty take-out food container. You pick up the paper, look at the empty container, and go back into the house leaving the the trash on your front doorstep.

"Difficult to imagine", you say. Why? This scene is played out every day on the streets of our communities, and in the halls of our organizations.

How can it be that in one case we can't imagine leaving trash on our front door step, and yet we will allow trash to remain on the sidewalk of our town as we walk by. In our home, we will expect workers to do their jobs correctly, but in our organizations we will tolerate work that is only "good enough to get by"?

The difference is "Ownership".

In our example, you are (or at least are imagining that you are) the homeowner. This is your property. Some thoughtless person has thrown their trash on your property, and it offends you.

When you walk down a street, or are working for an employer, your feeling of ownership is very different. You may feel like you are part of the community, or are a loyal employee, but you are not the owner. It is someone else's job to pick up the trash, or it is someone else's job to oversee the work of the other employees.

Within an organization, when the top leader or manager is the only one who feels ownership for the quality of the work, or the accomplishment of a goal, life is very difficult. Everyone does their part, but only their part. This is not out of spite, nor is it even a conscious attitude on the part of the employees. Many feel ownership for their part of the product. But, if the product is not completed on time, or does not meet the quality standards required by the customer, it is not their fault. It is someone else's fault. It is the owner's fault.

In the same organization, when everyone feels ownership of the final product, or accomplishment of a goal, the atmosphere is very different. The top leader or manager now has allies, other owners who care about the end result, not just their part of the project. To continue the metaphor above, you now have many homeowners who are willing to either pick up the trash on the front step, or help others do it. But, have no doubt that the trash will get picked up.

For a leader, the goal is to change the conversation within the organization from one of tasks and parts, to one that focuses on what we are trying to construct together. This is not an effort to make every person responsible for every action or task. However, when many people see what is being constructed, can speak about the end result as well as their contribution to that result, and begin to feel ownership in the final product, the likelihood of success is increased many fold.

Peter Block, an author, consultant, and expert on bringing people together, says that "Ownership is the decision to become the author of our own experiences," (Community - The Structure of Belonging, Peter Block, P. 128). This is true for communities both inside and outside of our organizations. When people choose ownership they move from the role of victim, employee, or observer, to architect of the world within which they choose to live.

After reading this, the next time you are walking down a street and see a piece of trash you will automatically think about whether you are an observer or an owner of the community.

________________________________________________

I want to point your attention to the comment below from Robin Reid. Robin is both an organizational development expert with years of great experience under his belt, and a good friend. His comment is right on the money with regard to the relationship to ownership and decision making. Thanks for the insight, Robin.

Why Teams Don't Work

2010-02-13T10:50:00.000-08:00

Teams have become the centerpiece of our corporate and government structure. Whether you are Toyota, the White House, or a local public works department, teams are used to take on every major task, and solve challenging problems. Business schools have taught the wisdom of teams for decades. So when the Harvard Business Review published an article titled "Why Teams Don't Work - An Interview with J. Richard Hackman"" in May 2009, many heads were turned.

Hackman, who is a professor at Harvard University, and an expert on social and organizational psychology and teams, says:

Research consistently shows that teams underperform, despite all the extra resources they have. That's because problems with coordination and motivation typically chip away at the benefits of collaboration.

This is not what we learned in school. We learned about the synergy of the team, how teams help overcome the weaknesses of the individuals that make up the team, how many hands make light work, and that if you want something done better, give it to a team.

However, as you probably suspected, this is not the end of the story. Hackman goes on to help us understand what gets in the way of creating high performing teams.

One of the primary road blocks to having a high performing team is lack of clarity regarding who is on the team. Hackman points out that the CEO is often responsible for these fuzzy boundaries related to team membership. There is a hesitancy to exclude people from teams, and a tendency to include people on teams for purely political reasons. The solution: "putting together a team involves some ruthless decisions about membership; not everyone who wants to be on the team should be included, and some individuals should be forced off."

It comes as no surprise to anyone who has worked on a team that teams need a compelling direction. Hackman warns that the process of setting this direction can be emotionally demanding, require the exercise of authority, and may arouse anxiety, angst, and ambivalence. Not everyone will be able to embrace the selected direction, causing some change in the makeup of the team.

Some of the facts about teams that Hackman points out are:

Teams do not need to be harmonious to produce an excellent result, In fact, some tension appears to bring out better performances.
Teams do not need to be big to perform well. Hackman suggests no double-digit teams. Big teams wind up wasting everyone's time. He advises CEOs to consider his finding that "...having a huge senior leadership team... may be worse than having no team at all."
Newness may be a liability. Teams that have been together for some time perform better than teams where membership is changed on some regular basis. Changing membership to inject creativity may hamper rather than help team performance.
Teams with "deviants" (people who are willing to challenge the group thinking) perform better than teams that are never challenged.

There are two other resources that you might consult if you are working within, leading, or creating teams. The first is The Wisdom of Teams by Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith. The second is Why Teams Don't Work - What Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right by Harvey Robbins and Michael Finley. Both are excellent references for any leader struggling with how to create high performing teams.

Everyday Creativity

2010-01-06T16:09:00.000-08:00

Dewitt Jones, the highly regarded National Geographic photographer, has taught literally thousands of leaders some very important lessons about bringing creativity into the workplace. Here are a few of the topics Jones covers:

Perspective - Learn to change lenses; change the way you look at challenges and problems. Are you too close to the situation? Are you not close enough? Are you seeing things from only your perspective, or are there other perspectives that are valid ways to look at the situation? You will almost always find that there is more than one right solution.

Try - If you don't try, you have already failed. There should be no penalty for trying. Leaders should encourage others to try, and have no fear of failure.

Patterns - We all fall into patterns of behavior, and ways of thinking. In order to find creative solutions, we must break these set patterns. Seeing things in a new light is necessary to find creative ways of dealing with challenges.

Technique - Train your technique so that you know how to use your equipment (tools of the trade) without having to think about the technical part of the job. For Jones, this means being a skilled photographer who intuitively knows how to adjust his photographic equipment for various lighting conditions. For a leader, it may mean being comfortable with the technology of your business, with computer systems or applications, or with communication channels. The technique of using the tools should not get in the way of being creative.

Potential - Every situation has places from which you can view events, people, and interactions. Find the place of most potential. This may be a place that is unusual for you, in your role as leader, to stand. However, it is in this place where you will most clearly see what is going on down on the stage, and how you may be able to influence the outcomes. (See the earlier post on The View from the Balcony).

Windows of opportunity - The world provides us with windows of opportunity. These may be instants in time, days, or months. Be patient. And, be ready to take action when the window of opportunity opens.

It's up to you - Whether you are the leader of an organization or one of the staff members, there is no one to whom you can delegate creativity. If you are the leader, you affect the organization's culture. Is creativity encouraged? Is there a penalty for trying? Are patterns allowed to be broken? Do people know how to use their tools? How skilled is their technique? Do you encourage people to take advantage of windows of opportunity?

I encourage you to check out the very short video by Dewitt Jones - Everyday Creativity. It is a very inspiring and information filled 22 minutes.

Every Leader Needs a Coach

2009-11-27T11:01:00.000-08:00

In the world of sports there is a natural tendency to respect those who have succeeded on their own. These are the Olympians who have climbed to the summit by sheer strength of will, and raw talent. They have shown us all how to win. They have made it look easy. These are the heroes of the press, and the public. We look at a Tiger Woods or a Kobe Bryant and marvel at their success.

But, what makes Tiger Woods or Kobe Bryant so good?

Each has extraordinary talent. Each has tenacity, focus, and perseverance. Even if they did nothing more, each would be considered a good player in their respective sport. However, each has taken an additional step, a step that has helped them achieve their well earned reputation. Each has a coach.

Why would someone as talented as these players use a coach?

The answer is actually relatively simple. Tiger Woods cannot see his swing, Kobe Bryant cannot see his form. In the heat of the game, neither can be an unbiased judge of how they are playing.

The same is true in business and government. In the heat of the board room, when the future is clouded by the fog of war, sagging economies, and a need to change the organization, leaders are not always the best critics of their own performance, or the best judge of how their behavior is affecting the organization. A coach who can view the play from the sidelines can be an invaluable ally.

The role of coaching in the business and government world has changed over time. According to a recent article in the Harvard Business Review (HBR):

Ten years ago, most companies engaged a coach to help fix toxic behavior at the top. Today, most coaching is about developing the capabilities of high-potential performers. (Harvard Business Review, January 2009, "What Coaches Can Do for You", Diane Coutu and Carol Kauffman)

In the business and government world, about half of the coaches employed today are focused on the positive side of coaching, developing high-potential talent to assure top corporate performance. Another quarter of all coaches are focusing on strategic issues and organizational dynamics.

For the potential leader or manager seeking to improve and grow, a coach can provide insight into how behaviors are affecting the organization, an independent assessment of the extent to which change efforts are achieving the desired results, or insight into which new behaviors are or are not working. However, as the HBR pointed out in an article in 2007, learning and growing takes a significant amount of effort:

The development of genuine expertise requires struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self-assessment. There are no shortcuts. It will take you at least a decade to achieve expertise, and you will need to invest that time wisely, by engaging in “deliberate” practice—practice that focuses on tasks beyond your current level of competence and comfort. You will need a well-informed coach not only to guide you through deliberate practice but also to help you learn how to coach yourself. (Harvard Business Review, July-August 2007, "The Making of an Expert", K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely)

Don't expect instant success, and at the same time, expect constant progress. True mastery of of any trade or profession takes time. (See the blog post - 10,000 Hours)

Finally, you might find the following very short video of Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, interesting. If Eric Schmidt can benefit from having a coach, so can you.

100% Responsibility

2009-10-30T17:25:00.000-07:00

If you search the Internet for articles on the concept of 100% responsibility you will find many entries that talk about taking responsibility for your own life, or how managers and leaders are always 100% responsible for the organization's results. These are good ways to view 100% responsibility, but I don't believe they get to the heart of the true meaning.

This concept was first introduced to me by Robin Reid, an organizational development consultant who worked with my organization in the 1980s (see note below). As our management team worked through this concept with Robin, there was a great deal of push-back and resistance. Managers didn't like the concept. It flew in the face of how they viewed their role in the organization.

However, in my experience, this concept had a huge impact on me and how I approached my role as an employee, manager, and leader in my organization.

The concept itself is relatively simple:

We are all (employees, managers, leaders) 100% responsible for our organization's success, products, and results.

"How can that be?", I hear you say. You are thinking, "I am only an employee. I am not responsible for the final product. I am not responsible for the output of other departments. I am not responsible for decisions made by the board, or council. I am only responsible for my own actions." And, these statements are, in part, true.

But, consider an extreme situation. You are in a car that is headed over a cliff. The driver is oblivious to the problem. Do you blithely head off into oblivion, or do you pull the hand break? My guess is that you would feel a certain sense of self-preservation (responsibility), and might do something to prevent your ultimate demise.

In this admittedly extreme example, you are a passenger, not the driver. But, your status as a passenger does not preclude you from acting when the situation calls for it. The driver has the primary responsibility for the safety of the journey, and this responsibility is not changed in any way by your responsibility as a passenger. The driver's job is to operate the controls; you cannot operate the controls for the driver. But, when things begin to go badly, you have the right to express your concern. You have the right to influence in whatever way you can. And, in the end, you have a responsibility to act in the best interest of the occupants of the car.

Your expression of concern, and ultimate action, may cause conflict later. However, there are long term consequences that are important enough to allow for a little conflict.

Responsibility is not something that can be divided easily. When I am only 50% responsible for the outcome, I can do what I think is proper, and still have the project fail. I can feel good that my part was done perfectly. But, if my responsibility stops when I hand off to the next person in the chain, doing my part 100% right is little comfort when the end product is flawed or broken.

I may not be the one who "operates the controls" for all stages of the production or project, but my concern should be similar to that of the passenger in the car. When things are not going well, I have a duty to participate in getting the system back on track. My feeling of responsibility does not diminish the responsibility of the other people involved in the project. Each person is responsible for his or her contribution to the whole. And, if each person feels ownership in the final product, we are more likely to work as a team, welcome the help of others, and strive for a successful outcome instead of simply the success of one person's portion of the project.

On a deeper level, this acceptance of full responsibility, to be "...accountable for all the implications of our actions [or inactions] grows directly out of accepting the fact of our free will." (Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block, Freedom and Accountability at Work, P. 78-79) Responsibility is a choice. Our choice to speak up when we identify something that requires the attention of others, or to remain silent and tell ourselves that "it wasn't our fault" is exactly that, a choice. Our decision to speak up does not diminish another person's responsibility to carry out their job in a responsible manner. But our decision to act expresses our ownership of the result, not just pieces of the system.

A decision to be 100% responsible is something anyone within the organization can make. And, every time someone makes a decision to be 100% responsible, for ownership of the result, everyone wins.

Note: Robin Reid gives credit to Hyler Bracey, from The Atlanta Consulting Group, for introducing him to the concept of 100% responsibility. I can find no Internet site for this organization, but I did find a link and reference to Hyler Bracey, author of Managing from the Heart.

The Decision Making Continuum

2009-10-11T17:40:00.000-07:00

In your role as manager, one of the quickest ways to cause confusion within a group, team, or organization is to make assignments or establish goals without being clear on how decisions related to that assignment or goal will be made. If you have a team that is high performing, filled with enthusiasm, and hard-charging, you can change all of that by pulling the decision-making-rug out from under them just when they think they have the project under control.

To avoid this problem, as you work with others make it a point to get clear up front on how decisions related to the task at hand will be made.

Here are a few tips for getting clear on which decision making style might be appropriate for a given situation:

Now Hear This

Manager Role: The final decision has been made. Provide Information. Facilitate limited discussion.
Team Member Role: Ask for clarification as required. Limited input.

Trial Balloon

Manager Role: Discuss tentative decision that has already been made. Ask for reactions and suggestions. Make final decision. (The decision may change based on the discussion.)
Team Member Role: Provide reaction and suggestions.

The Buck Stops Here

Manager Role: The final decision has not been made. Present the issue. Ask for ideas and suggestions. Make final decision.
Team Member Role: Provide ideas, suggestions, and alternative solutions.

Coach

Manager Role: Ask the team to help create a decision. Present the issue. Define resolution boundaries. Facilitate problem solving and/or analysis session with the team. Approve final decision resulting from the discussion.
Team Member Role: Participate in problem solving and/or analysis session with the team. Generate recommended solutions as a group.

You Tell Me

Manager Role: Present the issue. Define resolution boundaries. Approve the final decision as long as it fits the defined boundaries.
Team Member Role: Participate in team-facilitated problem solving and/or analysis session. Team generates recommended solution and course of action.

As you move from "You Tell Me" to "Now Hear This" in the decision making model, employee involvement is reduced, and manager involvement is increased.

You might note that there is no case where the employee or manager is totally absolved of responsibility in making the decision. In "You Tell Me" the manager is still expected to establish boundaries and approve the final decision, although that decision may be more ceremonial in nature. In "Now Hear This" the employee retains the obligation to ask clarifying questions and understand the decisions that are being made.

Establishing the decision making style early will help avoid problems later. Also, maximum empowerment will be found in groups that know how decisions will be made. A quick way to kill the feeling of empowerment is to change decision making styles midstream, shifting to a more manager-controlled style.

_______________________________________

Please note, this material is based on the work Gary Winters did with my organization in the early to middle 1990s. Gary and Eric Klein have since gone on to author a book called To Do or Not To Do - How Successful Leaders Make Better Decisions, published in 2005. I have not read the book, but I do know Gary Winters. And, knowing him, I can assure you that you will find a complete and understandable discussion of decision making therein. You may also want to check out Gary Winters' blog, The Leadership Almanac, at http://garywinters.com/.

The Exhausted Leader

2009-09-29T22:09:00.000-07:00

From time to time I hear stories of people who have worked themselves to the point of utter exhaustion. These are often people who work very hard at their jobs, who invest more than 100% every day, who go home at night only to sleep fitfully, and return the next day to do it all over again. This cycle of work-sleep-work seems never ending, and eventually takes its toll on the body and mind.

This is not to say that everyone experiences this cycle. There are those who approach each day as a new challenge, who are energized by the opportunities every morning brings, and who are able to maintain a balance between work and home.

So, what is the difference between these two sets of people? Why would one set reach exhaustion, while others feel excited and energized by the same work?

Poet, author and lecturer, David Whyte offers one possible answer in his book Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity (P 113 - 138).

Early in his career Whyte found himself running a nonprofit he had founded. The organization was devoted to a cause that was near and dear to his heart. However, the running of the business was pushing aside the time to stay connected with the cause, or to devote himself to his real love, poetry. He was busy - busy running a business that, although successful, gave him no time to focus on his true interests.

In the midst of his "busyness" he found that his energy was gone; he was exhausted. He certainly cared about the nonprofit and its educational goals, but for some reason he found that he had lost his ability to keep up the pace.

One late evening, while sitting in his home sharing a bottle of wine with a close friend and adviser (Brother David), he decided to seek his friend's help in understanding his condition. Whyte said, "Brother David, tell me about exhaustion." A moment passed between the two while Brother David considered the request. Then Brother David replied: "You know that the antidote to exhaustion is not necessarily rest?"

Whyte was a bit surprised by this response, and after giving this some thought asked, "What is it, then?"

To which Brother David answered, "The antidote to exhaustion is wholeheartedness. You are so tired through and through because a good half of what you do here in this organization has nothing to do with your true powers, or the place you have reached in your life. You are only half here, and half here will kill you after a while. You need something to which you can give your full powers. You know what that is; I don't have to tell you." (P. 132-133)

This brief exchange between David Whyte and Brother David reaches out to those who are experiencing exhaustion and begs them to examine whether their work is aligned with their true power and interests, or if it fits the place they have reached in their life. Being half present at work is an exhausting experience. And, as Brother David said, "being half here will kill you."

Also, Brother David's point was that to regain the energy and devotion to his work, Whyte needed to match his work with something to which he could give his "full powers", or his full devotion.

In many cases, we know when we are in a job or position that does not match our power. We can feel the dissonance, the discord. We also have a feeling for where our power and interests lie. What is called for is the courage and creativity to seek changes that lead us to this new reality.

The courage needed to make these changes cannot be over stated. Taking steps to leave one position in favor of another, to change careers, to pursue your passion requires an inner commitment and strength. It invites risks. And, it also offers rewards. Only you can assess the value of making the shift to work that matches your power.

But remember, exhaustion may be a sign; a sign that you are "half here", and "being half here will kill you."

______________________________________________________

A final note on Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity:
I highly recommend this book to anyone who finds themselves pondering the greater meaning of the human journey through life. Whyte is an insightful and inspiring writer who touches the heart and mind in deeply meaningful ways. The examination of work as a pilgrimage of identity will ring true to anyone who has ever wondered about their chosen profession, or considered a leap of faith into another line of work.

Opening Your (Johari) Window

2009-08-21T10:02:00.000-07:00

Back in the 1950s two fellows names Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham developed a tool to help people better understands their interpersonal relationships and communications. Over the past 50 or 60 years this tool, known as the Johari Window (that’s a combination of Joe and Harry), has been used countless times to help individuals and groups learn more about themselves, and their managers, subordinates, and leaders.

The concept of the Johari Window is relatively simple. Consider the fact that there are things about yourself that you know, and very likely things about yourself that you don’t know. Also, it is fairly obvious that there are things about you that others know, and there are things about you that others don’t know.

This simple premise forms the basis of a very interesting conversation about who you are, your blind spots, what you are willing to share with others, and the great unknown.

If you read the earlier blog post on Trust, you might remember that part of what makes a leader trustworthy, and therefore successful, is communications – letting people know what you are thinking, and what drives you. And, as this communications is going on, you are exposing things about yourself to others. You are enlarging the part of the Johari Window called the Arena – the part that both you and others know about you.

The larger the Arena (this area of shared knowledge) the better your understanding of how others see you, and the better others understand the characteristics that make you who you are. Because you are open, your coworkers do not need to interpret or insert meaning. They can understand your words and actions for what they are. This openness contributes to a more trusting relationship.

Do not confuse openness with agreement. People will still disagree on policies, direction, and goals. But, by removing the need to insert meaning, or imply motives, the debate can focus on the topic of the work. I do not have to agree with someone to trust them; but, I do need to understand them, and have an understanding of what drives them.

The Johari Window below shows what happens as self disclosure and communications begin to expand the Arena. Your Blind Spot shrinks, you are seen as more genuine (the Façade shrinks), and there are fewer questions about your motives and how you will react to your team (the Unknown shrinks).

If you are interested in doing an online exercise using the Johari Window there is one at this URL - http://kevan.org/johari. Instructions are found on the web site.

If you are interested in doing the exercise in person, talk to that coach I suggested you get in the Trust blog entry, or contact me and maybe I can give you a referral. My contact information is on the right side of the blog page.
.
.
.

The Paradox of Success

2009-07-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

Organizations, like people, sometimes reach a point where the ego, either the collective ego of the organization or the ego of the organization’s key leaders, has swollen to the point where growth is stifled. New learning becomes impossible. Innovation and exploration slow or stop.

“We are the best!” “We are bullet proof!” “We are too big to fail!”

When an organization has become so certain that it is the model for others to follow, that it has the answer to every problem, and/or that it is so competitively superior to others that there is no need to look for improvements in services, products, or delivery systems, the end is near.

The employees of these companies are often the first to detect these signs. The problem is that within organizations where this mindset is held at the highest levels it may be difficult or impossible for lower level staff to get top level managers to see the signs.

In his book The Paradox of Success, John O’Neil gives a few telltale signs that help identify when an organization needs to step back, regroup, and invest in some serious organizational self-renewal. O’Neil suggests that we watch for:

Centralization vs. Decentralization of Power – In pyramidal structures the decision-making capacity is located at the top, in the top manager’s office. In self-renewing organizations, knowledge and decision-making power are dispersed where the action takes place.
Adaptability of leadership – The old, more typical, organizational structure has the strong leader; single point of control; a lonely, isolated, resourceful, and action oriented leader. A self-renewing organization develops and nurtures large numbers of leaders who know how to work alone and in teams. These leaders swarm around trouble, and know when and how to retreat to think deeply, and plan carefully.
Flexible structures and procedures – The typical organization is massive, hardwired with policies and procedures, specialized by department and function, and slow to respond to change or mistakes. The self-renewing organization is light and flexible, situation-responsive, quick to adapt. It thrives on partnerships and strategic alliances, continuous learning, and is aware of its shadows – those places where the taboo topics, and the dark side of both corporate and individual personalities lurk. (The Paradox of Success, John O’Neal, 1994 – P. 254)

Individuals and leaders of organizations need to treasure truth-telling friends and associates. They need to listen whether the news is good or bad. They need to seek out teachers and mentors who will challenge them, and introduce them the undiscovered country where growth and improvement lie. Learning is the fuel that will enable both individuals and organizations to sustain success.

Your role is to be a “truth-telling” friend to the organization and its leaders. Or, if you are the leader, your role is to seek out and listen to those who can see the truth and are willing to say it openly. (This is easier said than done for many leaders.)

Your role is to find a teacher or mentor who can lead you into the wilderness where self discovery and learning can take place. Or, it might be that your role is to become a teacher or mentor who can help others on their journey of growth and discovery.

Either way, you have a role. If you choose to play it, both you and your organization have a chance at success.

What is the truth about you? What is the truth about your organization? Who should you tell? Who should you seek out? Who are your teachers or mentors? When does your journey of renewal begin?

.

10,000 Hours

2009-07-11T09:20:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, my friend Tim Scudder (CEO at Personal Strengths USA) posted the following on one of the networking sites we both frequent: "Just read Outliers by Gladwell. 10,000 hours to achieve mastery!? Speaks volumes to the value of retaining and developing people."

I have often thought about the importance of developing and retaining good people. Clearly investing in the growth of our employees is essential to the success of the organization.

But,Tim's comment caused me to stop and reconsider my thinking about the organizational costs of loosing an employee who has reached a significant level of mastery. His comment made me think about the true value of the individual, and the importance of retaining and continuing to develop these exceptional people.

From a leadership perspective, the knowledge, skills and abilities of the people within the organization contribute to the success of the entire system. (See the blog post on Knowledge, Skill and Talent) The stronger your team, the more likely it is that you can achieve your goals.

In Outliers, Gladwell states “…[T]en thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert – in anything...” (P. 49)

At first blush it seems that this in not that hard to achieve. Any employee who had worked for five years has invested 10,000 hours in a job. So why is it that finding people who have achieved mastery is so rare?

When you examine what mastery requires, it is more than time-in-grade. Mastery requires study and focused effort. For example, an employee may come into the organization having an idea of what leadership requires, but they may spend only a few hours each week developing their leadership skills; only a few hours in practicing the craft. It may take many years, even decades, to achieve the 10,000 hours necessary to develop a great leader.

If you do the math (and this is admittedly very rudimentary math based on some very gross assumptions), at a total cost of $100 per hour (including all overhead related to employing a person), and assuming that a person spends maybe ¼ of his or her time actually working on developing mastery of a chosen field, it will take 40,000 hours for a person to achieve the 10,000 hours of investment in a chosen field. This is equal to about 20 years of work. During those 20 years, the organization will have invested over $4 million in that employee’s development. If the person spends significantly less than ¼ of their time each week invested in developing their craft, mastery may never be achieved.

What is lost when that 20 year veteran, that person who has achieved mastery, walks out the door?

At a minimum, you will be trying to attract another highly experienced person from a competitor or related business. According to Human Resources experts like Hewitt Associates and Bliss & Associates, the best case cost for lost productivity, recruitment, and training will be 150% of the person's salary. (Julie Clark, City of Carlsbad HR Director) In the worst case, you will invest years bringing the new person up to a level of mastery that was lost.

A leader (and the organization as a whole) must consider not only the monetary costs of loosing an employee who has achieved mastery, he or she must also consider the systemic costs.

What were the costs to the classical music world for the loss of Mozart? What would be the cost to Apple for the loss of Steve Jobs? How would the world be different today if we had lost the other masters of their craft before their contribution was made?

What would be the cost to your organization of the loss of key leaders or "masters"?

Tim said that the concept that it takes 10,000 hours to achieve mastery speaks volumes about value of retaining and developing people.

I believe that it not only speaks, it shouts.

.

What Makes a Culture Successful?

2009-06-28T09:03:00.000-07:00

For decades there has been a discussion going on in the ranks of culture wonks regarding whether corporate culture has a significant impact on a firm’s long-term economic performance. The conventional wisdom says that there is a direct link between corporate culture and success. But, where was the proof?

In the early 1990s John Kotter and James Heskett published Corporate Culture and Performance, in which they studied the relationship between culture and success. Their work uncovers some of the things a manager or leader can do to create a culture that supports the success of the organization.

Admittedly some of the examples in the book are dated. The economy of 2009 has taken some very good companies into uncharted territory regardless of their culture. But, if we look at culture as something that survives beyond the economic cycle, that creates a foundation of the vision, ethics, reality and courage for those who live within the culture, we find that Kotter and Heskett have some great advice for leaders even in today’s turbulent times.

Having a strong culture is often cited as an important element in an organizations success. Kotter and Heskett point out that having a strong culture is not enough. History is full of examples of organizations with strong cultures that were either negative or did not adapt as the world changed around them. Strength of culture does not guarantee success.

These non-adaptive cultures were often characterized by arrogance, bureaucracy, centralization, and insularity. Managers tended to hold on to strategies that were no longer relevant. And, managers in these organizations were likely to make it difficult for anyone below them to implement new processes or procedures. The hierarchy required involvement from the top when implementing new or better strategies. (P. 142 – 151)

Successful cultures were those that had values and norms that helped it adapt to a changing environment. In these cultures managers paid close attention to the world around them, and made incremental changes in strategies and practices to keep the firm’s culture in alignment with “reality”. (See prior blog entries on Reality.)

These managers and leaders were driven by a desire to meet the needs of all constituents – customers, employees, stockholders, and the community. These values also emphasized the importance of people (See prior blog entries on Ethics.), and processes that encouraged changes that created “…competent leadership throughout the management hierarchy.” “[T]his value system is key to excellent performance … because it tends to energize managers and get them to do what is needed to help firms adapt to a changing competitive environment.” (P. 143)

The research of Kotter and Heskett has empirically shown that valuing vision, ethics, and reality are essential to a culture’s success. Their work also suggests that managers and leaders need to exhibit free will and courage to successfully lead their organizations through turbulent times.

……………….

For those of you who are interested in leadership, this might be a good time to go back and review some of the early posts on this blog related to the Dr. Koestenbaum’s work on the Leadership Diamond – Vision, Ethics, Reality, Courage.

Here are a few links, just to get you started:

Leadership Diamond Basics
Free Will
Going Deeper
What is Real
Change
Polarities
Asking the Right Questions

……………….

How to Search Prior Blog Entries:

To search for prior entries on this blog, you can type key words into the search box located in the upper right portion of any blog page. Typing "Reality" into the search box will yield all blog entries where the term "Reality" has been used.

Skills, Knowledge, And Talent

2009-05-23T08:22:00.000-07:00

Please note that there are several great comments posted at the end of this blog. Be sure to click on the "comment" link at the bottom of this entry to see the comments. And, thank you to all who have shared their views.

______________________________________

We often read or hear about leaders who are described as skillful, knowledgeable, or talented. But, what does it mean to be skillful, knowledgeable, or talented? And, can a person who wants to be a successful leader become skillful, improve their knowledge base, or expand their leadership talent?

Part of the answer lies in the definition of skills, knowledge and talents. Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman examine the difference between skills, knowledge and talents in their book First Break All The Rules.

According to Buckingham skills are the "how-to's of a role" (p. 83). Skills can be transferred from one person to another. A person can learn a how to hold a golf club, build a house, write a sentence, or do arithmetic. Skills are an important part of being successful at any endeavor. And, without skill any resulting action or effort will be clumsy and ineffective.

Knowledge is "what you are aware of" . There are basically two types of knowledge: "...factual knowledge - things you know, and experiential knowledge - understandings you have picked up along the way." (p. 83)

Factual knowledge would be the rules of mathematics, accounting, scientific principles, or other similar fact-based information. Like skills, fact-based knowledge can be learned from others and/or gained through some form of education. (p. 83)

Experiential knowledge is harder to teach. It is less tangible, more related to patterns and connections. To gain experiential knowledge you must take time to stop, reflect on past experiences, and find meaning. Experiential knowledge may be different for each person because each will experience a different pattern of life. (p. 83-84)

Talent is a totally different phenomenon. Talent is the pattern of thinking and feeling that comes from the very core of the individual. Some people care deeply about precision and accuracy, discipline, and responsibility. Others have a drive to compete, be competent, strive to achieve a mission, or dedicate themselves to a certain belief. And, others may feel strong empathy, value interpersonal relations, dedicate themselves to the success of a team, or exhibit great courage in overcoming resistance. (p. 84-85) Buckingham breaks talents into three categories: striving talents, thinking talents, and relating talents.

Striving talents explain the why of a person. They help you understand why a particular person cares deeply, and why they try a little harder than others in certain circumstances.
Thinking talents explain the how of a person. They explain how a person analyzes situations, how decisions are reached, whether thinking is linear or intuitive process, or is the person systematic or creative.
Relating talents explain the who of a person. They explain the relationships the person is likely to build, in whom will the person trust, the way the person will relate to strangers, and expose deep feelings about the way the person will manage interpersonal relationships. (p. 85)

Buckingham says that talents cannot be taught. If a person does not have a particular talent, there is very little a person can do to inject it into themselves or others. Talents are difficult (if not impossible) to transfer from one person to another.

If Buckingham is right, this creates an interesting situation for us in our role as leaders. It becomes essential to understand ourselves deeply; a process that takes dedicated self-examination.

Knowing our own skills, knowledge, and talents is the start. We can then develop ourselves through purposeful learning, receiving coaching, and reflection (making sense of our experiences). We can also make use of this self-knowledge to help us identify people who bring skills, knowledge, and talents to the organization or team that are complimentary to our own.

This self-development takes courage and the ability to admit that we may not have every attribute necessary to create success (or as Dr. Peter Koestenbaum would say, "Greatness").

Relying on others is easier for people who already have a strong relationship awareness skills, or what Buckingham calls "relating talents". (P. 252) It may be harder for people who tend to be autonomous thinkers. But, regardless of your personal talents, being able to bring the right people together at the right time is essential to the success of any endeavor.

If you are interested in doing some meaningful self-reflection, nothing beats having a great coach to guide you along the path. As one of my colleagues (and one of my unofficial coaches) Ray Patchett pointed out to me one day "Even Michael Jordan has a coach." No matter where you are in your career, the corporate hierarchy, or how good you think you are, there is no substitute for having someone who can help you take a realistic look at yourself.

In his article "Teaching Smart People How to Learn" (Harvard Business Review, May , 1991), Chris Argyris points out that professionals often find learning about themselves most difficult. Self-examination and questioning our own behavior is extremely difficult, particularly for those who have achieved some professional status. Having someone who can help you through the discovery process, who cares about your success, opens pathways to greatness that many never discover.

The more you understand about yourself the more you are going to be able to understand others. Also, the better you understand your own skills, knowledge, and talents, the better you can identify where to improve yourself, and when to bring others close to you to help fill in gaps.

The Ladder of Inference

2009-04-26T09:35:00.000-07:00

How do you define Truth? What do you believe about human capability and motivation? What do you believe about human nature?

You probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about these questions. But, these definitions, beliefs, and assumptions about others are always acting, filtering, and coloring your response to what is going on around you.

Here's an example. You are driving down the road at a sedate 40 miles per hour in fairly heavy traffic. A small, beat up sedan comes up from behind you, zigzagging in and out of traffic, traveling far too fast for conditions. He cuts in front of you, almost taking off your front bumper. Hanging his head out the driver's side window, he shouts something at you, and speeds away, continuing to quickly weave through traffic.

Your first thoughts are probably "What an Idiot!" or something more forceful. Because of our western culture most of us assume that it is inappropriate to flaunt traffic laws, or to endanger other drivers. You know from the kind of car the person was driving and the way he was behaving that this is clearly some deadbeat nut who shouldn't have a driver's license. In fact, you may feel this so strongly that you offer the fellow a parting disparaging salute as he drives away.

You have observed a situation, applied your filters and assumptions about proper highway etiquette and behavior, and have come to a conclusion about the character and motivation of that person, and you have acted on your conclusions.

You have just climbed the "Ladder of Inference". (To see if you climbed the correct ladder, read the last paragraph of this post.)

Here's how the Ladder of Inference works:

I observe objectively - Observation by itself is not a biased activity. When I observe I see what happens, hear what was said, or experience a situation - no more and no less.
I select data from what I observe - Here is where the filtering begins. I create assumptions about which parts of the event I have observed are important. This assumption about importance is based on how the things that have been observed affect me, or fit into my cultural experience. A person from one culture may not understand the significance of events that occur within another culture. Culture can be large (a country, religious group, political party, or shared language), or small (individual, family, or workgroup).
I add meaning to what I have selected - At this point, I imply meaning using the norms of my culture, or experience.
I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added - This process begins to fill in gaps in knowledge. Where I don't know something about the event, I naturally assume that the motivations, behaviors, wants, desires, likes and dislikes should match my own. These assumptions take the guesswork out of understanding the situation.
I draw conclusions which prompt feelings - Now that I understand the situation, and have filled in the gaps with assumptions, I can draw conclusions about why the person is behaving that way. And, of course, I immediately begin to have feelings about these conclusions.
I adopt beliefs about the world - Based on my conclusions, I can now see that there are things within the world that are out of alignment (or in the case of a positive conclusion, in alignment). I am having either negative or positive feelings about the situation. And, at this point, I believe some form of action, whether it is a physical act, spoken words, or other behavior on my part, is necessary.
I take action based on my beliefs and feelings - I now fully understand the entire situation and take the necessary action: I give the departing driver a negative hand gesture. Or, in the case of a work situation, perhaps I say something that I believe to be appropriate based on my conclusions about the current situation. This is often an emotional, rather than a rational response.

This move up the Ladder of Inference takes milliseconds. It happens all day long. It happens when we interact with people, and when we read the news. It also affects how others see us as they climb their own Ladders of Inference.

There are a few things you can do to help cut down the number of times you run up the ladder:

Make your thinking process visible to others by explaining your assumptions, interpretations, and conclusions. This is easier to do in the office where there are other people around to help you think through things than it is while you are alone, driving down the road. But, even when you are alone, you can take a moment to examine your journey up the ladder before deciding what action you will take.

Invite others to test your assumptions and conclusions. When you have the opportunity to work with others, have them help you think things through.
Use respectful inquiry to help others make their thought processes visible. Use open and nonjudgmental questions, rather than questions that exhibit a bias.
Explore impasses, and don't agree to disagree too soon. This helps you avoid hidden or unspoken assumptions and conclusions that hide the journey up the Ladder of Inference.

Next time you find yourself having an emotional reaction to something, take the time to notice what triggered this feeling. Observe the events that have occurred. Examine the data you selected. Think about the filters you use to interpret information. Identify your assumptions and conclusions. Understand the root of your feelings. And then select the action you will take.

________________________

The above has been borrowed from information prepared by my good friend and mentor, Jim Boylan. Jim knows a great deal more about this than I do. So, if you are interested in the deeper implications of how the Ladder of Inference affects relationships, I can put you in touch with Jim. Send me an email (contact information is in the right side of the blog page), and I will send you Jim's contact information.

________________________

By the way, in case you are curious, the fellow driving the beat up sedan was on the way to the hospital with his wife who was seven months pregnant. Her labor started unexpectedly in the car. The hospital was only 2 blocks away. The life of both the mother and the baby were at risk. What he shouted out of his window was "I am so sorry, please excuse me."

What did you think he said?

________________________

Here is a slide that can be used when talking through the Ladder of Inference with a group.

Trust

2009-04-04T08:47:00.000-07:00

Trust is the essential ingredient in any successful relationship. Whether that relationship is between two people, within a family, organization, community, or government, trust is the element that allows the relationship to function effectively.

In their book "The Leadership Challenge" Kouzes and Posner express the importance of trust this way:

Trust is at the heart of fostering collaboration. It's the central issue in human relationships within and outside organizations... Individuals who are unable to trust other people fail to become leaders. (The Leadership Challenge - P. 163)

In "The Speed of Trust", Stephen M. R. Covey notes that in high trust organizations the speed of every aspect of the business goes up and costs go down, whereas in low trust organizations speed suffers while costs can rocket upward. (The Speed of Trust - P. 13)

Trust is the lubricant that lets an organization work smoothly and quickly. In high trust situations ideas are communicated with a minimum of effort, tasks are completed without excessive oversight, processes flow without excessive rules, and people feel valued and empowered. In a low trust environment, a cultural friction develops that causes the slowing of systems, growth of management structures to oversee and monitor work, establishment of new bureaucracies, and creation of rules. In these environments true leadership becomes almost impossible.

Because they can't bear to be dependent on the words and work of others they [leaders] either end up doing all the work themselves or supervise work so closely that they become overcontrolling. Their demonstration of lack of trust in others results in others' lack of trust in them. (The Leadership Challenge - P. 163)

The leader's own assumptions about the organization play an important role in creating a high trust environment. Edgar Schein says that "... a fully connected [communication and information] network can only work if high trust exists among all the participants and that high trust is partly a function of leader assumptions that people can be trusted and have constructive intent." (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 370)

If a leader starts from the position that people cannot be trusted, communication and information networks cannot function quickly. The cultural friction slows every aspect of the organization.

A lack of trust is often translated into a feeling of suspicion. A leader working in a suspicious system feels that everything that is done should be questioned. Employees feel that they have to cover their backside with extra work, and that everything will be checked, and double-checked. Within all of this effort, the lack of trust (suspicion) robs the leader and the organization of time and money.

Mahatma Gandhi believed that "When there is suspicion about a person's motives, everything he does becomes tainted." (The Speed of Trust, p. 8) Therefore, in organizations where there is low trust, no matter how much additional work is done, it is the underlying motives of the leader or workers that will be questioned. There will always be the search for the hidden agenda or conspiracy.

In his Leadership Diamond Model, Dr. Peter Koestenbaum expresses the belief that trust is an essential part of the ethics of the leader. (The Philosophic Consultant, P. 46) Koestenbaum would agree with Schein that a leader's assumptions about the organization, and the leader's ability to behave in an ethical manner toward the organization (an attitude of care and empathy for humanity, and how our actions affect others), contributes to the environment of trust within an organization.

But, if the experts agree that trust is so important to a leader's success, 1) why do so many leaders fail to understand that their inability to succeed is tied to their own inability to establish trust within their organizations? And, 2) what can a leader do to create trust when it does not naturally exist?

Before a leader can start to build (or rebuild) trust, a leader must understand that a trust gap exists. This is a bit like starting any 12 step program - the first step is recognizing that you have a problem, and need help. Without recognition, you can never cross the gap because you are unaware that it exists.

As to why so many leaders fail to see the trust gap, it is hard to say. But it is likely that the answer lies within the leader. Kouzes and Posner show that managers and leaders "... with the highest control scores have the lowest personal credibility." (The Leadership Challenge - P. 166) Credibility is an essential element in trust; we tend to trust people we see as credible. Highly controlling behavior on the part of the leader sends a signal that is received as "You don't trust me." When I see myself as trustworthy, and receive the signal that says I am not trusted by the leader, I respond in kind; I will not trust the leader.

Let's say you are the leader in question. Breaking this cycle starts with you. Before you can ask others to trust you, you must first demonstrate your trust in others. This means going first, being willing to risk, and communicating.

Communications - letting people know what you are thinking, when you are thinking it, and why you are thinking it - is the starting point. Constant, person to person, open, and honest communications is a step in recreating a trusting relationship. Self-disclosure, and a willingness to be vulnerable to others whose behavior you cannot control is all part of this process. (The Leadership Challenge - P166-170)

There is more to the process. And, if you are interested in taking the journey required to rebuild trust, I recommend both The Leadership Challenge, and The Speed of Trust. In addition, a good coach could be worth their weight in gold (literally speaking). Creating trust within your organization could make the difference between success and failure, for both you and the organization.

-

The Comfort of the Cage

2009-03-14T08:58:00.000-07:00

There is an oft told story (perhaps apocryphal) about how to train an elephant to stay wherever its trainer wants it to be. As the story goes, when the elephant is first born, it is chained to a stake making it impossible for the elephant to move beyond the length of the chain. After a while, the elephant learns that its efforts to break the chain are futile. It gives up the effort and begins to live within the area defined by the chain. Later in life, the elephant's keeper no longer needs a heavy chain and stake to control the giant beast. The keeper simply ties a rope to the elephant's leg, and the elephant, knowing from prior experience that it cannot break the tether, allows the rope to limit its movement. It has become comfortable within an invisible cage.

"Comfortable" may not be the right word. Maybe "resigned" is more appropriate. But, the message is the same. We all are trained to live within limits that are defined for us by others. It begins when we are young, and continues while we are learning our craft, or practicing our profession. It happens in families, and in personal relationships.

These limits, rules and boundaries are part of the culture within which we exist. Edgar Schein, an expert on the subject or organizational culture, noted that "any group with a stable membership and a history of shared learning will have developed some level of culture." (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 15) This shared learning can be a good thing, preserving the group's ability to remain healthy and thrive, or a bad thing causing the group to continue practices that create limits and boundaries that serve no useful purpose.

Schein says that it is the "unique function of leadership" to identify dysfunctional cultural norms or values, to manage cultural evolution, and help groups survive in a changing environment.

Regardless of whether the cultural norms are positive or negative, these norms may have become so ingrained in the group's culture that they are now base assumptions; assumptions that have become so strongly held that any other way of thinking or behaving would be inconceivable, just like the elephant in the above story. (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 22) In fact, organizations often find that any attempt to examine these base assumptions is destabilizing.

However, if the culture includes assumptions, behaviors, and norms that are negative or do not contribute to the survival of the organization, it may be time for a change.

One way to go about examining these base assumptions is to use a technique known as double-loop learning, or frame breaking. This process, first described by Argyris and Schon, is based on the idea that underlying assumptions, norms, and limits should be questioned through a series of loops (each response is questioned again) that expose the layers upon which we build our cultures, actions, and systems.

This process is difficult and uncomfortable for any group. A leader that digs into the base assumptions will experience considerable push back from the members of the group. Schein says that "The human mind needs cognitive stability. Therefore, any challenge to or questioning of a basic assumption will release anxiety and defensiveness." (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 23) However, double-loop learning offers a way for an organization to understand the foundation upon which its culture is built, and to begin the change process when those base assumptions no longer serve the needs of the group.

If our elephant applied double-loop learning to its situation from time to time, it might find that the environment had changed, and new opportunities were available that had previously seemed unthinkable.

If our elephant applied double-loop learning I wonder where the elephant might be today.

Ethics and the Prince

2009-02-28T09:03:00.001-08:00

In 1513 Niccolo Machiavelli published a book titled The Prince, a work that would become synonymous with a complete lack of moral and ethical behavior in the pursuit of power. In the 496 years that have passed since its first publication, The Prince has been reviled and rejected by many, while it has been studied and embraced by various leaders and scholars for its raw and unvarnished assessment of how leaders (Princes) come to power, and how they retain their position in the world.

One chapter (chapter XVIII) titled "In What Way Princes Should Keep Their Word", is of particular interest for those studying leadership in both public and private positions. Machiavelli has the uncanny knack of putting into words behaviors, feelings, and beliefs that exist deep within many who find themselves in leadership positions, and exposing the related costs and benefits in nonjudgmental terms. He applies no value systems other than those related to the desire to obtain and retain power. (Peter Koestenbaum would refer to this dark side of human behavior as the shadow side of the Leadership Diamond).

Here is an example from the beginning of chapter XVIII:

How praiseworthy it is that a prince keeps his word, and governs by candor instead of craft, everyone knows. Yet, the experience of our own time shows that those princes who had little regard for their word and had the craftiness to turn men's minds have accomplished great things and, in the end, have overcome those who governed their actions by their pledges. (P. 62, The Prince, Bantam Classic edition, March 1981)

Today's headlines are filled with examples of leaders who, knowingly or unknowingly, still subscribe to Machiavelli's assertion that those who have the "craftiness to turn men's minds" will be the ones who succeed in our society.

Machiavelli goes on to say:

... a wise prince cannot and should not keep his pledge when it is against his interest to do so and when his reasons for making the pledge are no longer operative. If all men were good, this would be a bad precept, but since they are evil and would not keep a pledge to you, then you need not keep yours to them. Nor did a prince ever lack legitimate reasons by which to color his bad faith." (P. 62, The Prince, Bantam Classic edition, March 1981)

Today, as in Machiavelli's time, situational ethics often come into play. When I assume that you are not ethical, or will not live up to your promises to me, I am immediately freed from any responsibility to keep my promises to you. Or, when the situation under which a promise was made changes, I am no longer expected to live up to my promise. I am free to behave as necessary under the new circumstances.

How often have we used this reasoning to excuse our decision to abandon a promise, contract, or pledge? This happens in both private industry and government. It happens in both national politics and local city councils. It happens among families and friends. We have seen this in many debates over the financial crisis, pension reform, and employment relationships. We have seen this in international business, foreign relations, and cultural conflicts.

The challenge for leaders is to be conscious of this natural and deeply rooted ability to rationalize away reasons to maintain ethical standards when situations change. Peter Koestenbaum writes that "... ethics contains two important elements. One is the profound value of empathy and the other is the overarching power of principle." (P. 108, The Philosophic Consultant) Maintaining a leader's connection to empathy and principle in a world of changing realities is challenging at best.

Koestenbaum goes on to say that "Being ethical is always a decision."(P. 114, The Philosophic Consultant) It is a choice, an act of free will. Therefore, it is necessary that leaders remain conscious that they have a choice when it comes to how they will demonstrate their ethics to the world.

Machiavelli explains that we can easily sacrifice our ethics to achieve what we see as a necessary end. Koestenbaum challenges us to keep empathy and principle in our minds as we choose what our behavior will be.

For leaders, the constant struggle is that what is easy is not always ethical, and what is ethical is not always easy.

Leadership and Perception

2009-02-16T13:27:00.000-08:00

In order to get the full benefit of this blog entry, you must read and carefully perform the task described in Part One before moving on to Part Two. Following the instructions precisely is essential.

If you are game, read on.

Part One

Below you will find a link to a video posted by the Visual Cognition Labs. When you are ready, click on the link and play the video. Here's your assignment:

This very short video shows two teams who will be passing basketballs between members of their respective teams. There is a White Tee Shirt team and a Black Tee Shirt team.
Your task is to focus on the White Tee Shirt team and count the number of times the basketball is passed between members of the White Tee Shirt team.
The number of passes will be difficult to count because at least one of the passes is visually blocked by a member of the White Tee Shirt team, therefore you will have to focus carefully.
Play the video only once.
Record the number of passes you observe.
Here is the link http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/flashmovie/15.php (Note, your computer must have JAVA enabled in order to be able to play the video.)
Go.

When you are done, you may scroll down to read Part Two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't Read Ahead... Be sure to complete Part One before moving on to Part Two

Don't Read Ahead... Be sure to complete Part One before moving on to Part Two

Part Two

If you have not completed part one. Go back to the first part of this blog entry and follow the instructions.

If you have completed Part One, you are ready to answer the following questions:

How many passes did you count? Answers typically range from 12 to 15. Personally, I counted 14.

Did you observe anything unusual during the passing of the basketballs?

Did you see the gorilla? Yes, there was a gorilla in the video.

If you didn't see the gorilla, go back and play the video again. This time you can ignore the number of passes between team members.

Based on a study performed by Daniel J. Simons and Christopher F. Chabris of the Psychology Department at Harvard University, as well as studies conducted by other researchers referenced by Simons and Chabris, somewhere between half and two thirds of participants in this experiment will not see the gorilla on the first pass.

This is a phenomenon referred to "Inattentional Blindness": a failure to perceive objects that are there because our attention is focused elsewhere. Inattentional blindness occurs even when the object of interest is momentarily obscured by something of importance that would have been noticed had the observer been more generally aware.

For example, if you have ever entered a theater and been so focused on finding a seat that you did not notice one of your friends waiving to you from across the room, you experienced inattentional blindness. Your focus on the task of finding a seat obscured your ability to recognize the wave from your friend. Inattentional blindness happens when what we are looking for does not match the objects that we are seeing.

The concept of inattentional blindness does not only apply to interesting visual demonstrations like the clip you just watched. It also applies to systems, ideas, groups, and leaders.

When what we expect to see does not match what we see, we can experience inattentional blindness. When systems are set up to handle certain kinds of processes, problems, or issues, they can be blind to opportunities for improvement. When ideas are proposed that do not match what we are expecting to hear, we ignore them or are not even aware that they were expressed because of inattentional blindness. And, when leaders have a strong focus on what they want to achieve, they may miss opportunities. Their inattentional blindness may make them fail to see the gorilla in their midst.

Leaders can protect themselves from this phenomenon. Here are a few rules to live by:

Encourage those around you to offer their observations, ideas, and suggestions even though they may challenge the stated goal, outcomes, or norms. They may be identifying a gorilla that other team members are not seeing.
Step away from the action and into the balcony (see the prior blog entry on The View From the Balcony) to make sure you are seeing the whole picture, not just the part that you find most interesting.
Be aware that we often see what we expect to see. We can be blind to even big changes that do not match our expected reality.

Perhaps we will cover more on this topic in future blog posts.

Let me know what you thought of this exercise.

A Leader's Power

2009-01-31T09:09:00.000-08:00

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of leadership books on the market. The various authors tell stories of success, describe the attributes of great leaders, suggest how to discover your personal strengths, help you get in touch with your emotions, and teach the importance of creating a compelling vision. All of these are important messages about being a successful leader.

As you can probably tell from the past 30 (or more) blog posts, I believe that understanding what these authors have to say, learning about what it means to be a leader, and developing your own leadership mind is essential to becoming a successful leader. Everyone can learn a great deal from those who have studied leadership in its many forms, and have found meaning and wisdom in the examples of success.

Few, if any, of these authors suggest that a rote practice of the techniques found in their books will lead to success. Leadership is more than the simple repetition of acts performed by others.

So, what's the point of all of this learning? If copying the example of others is not a formula for success, what can a fledgling leader do to make a difference in an organization? What can a person do to move an organization in a certain direction? You might ask yourself, "How can I be the leader I want (or need) to be"?

Change the Language
First I suggest that "knowledge is power". All of the learning you have done about leadership, emotional intelligence, vision, ethics, courage, reality, and other concepts makes a profound change within you. This understanding of the roots of leadership lets you see the organization from a broader perspective.

A leader cannot successfully mandate that an organization become something that it is not over night. Meaningful, lasting, and sustainable change takes time. As Peter Senge says, change is organic, it grows from within.

This change often begins with one simple act; a change in the language used to describe the organization, the work, the people, the vision and goal, and the world within which the organization exists.

Lou Tice of the Pacific Institute teaches about the power of the words we use to describe ourselves, our organizations, and our world. People tend to move toward that which they think and talk about. Therefore, the words we choose when we describe our reality, our future, and ourselves are fateful.

I am not suggesting that you lie to yourself. Those of you who are acquainted with Dr. Peter Koestenbaum will understand the value of being well grounded in reality and truth. However, the leader has the power to inject into the conversation words, concepts, visions, and dreams that, over time, change the conversations going on in the hallways and offices of the organization.

When you change the language, you change the conversation.

As the conversation changes, you find that the beliefs, norms, values, visions, and attitudes of the organization begin to change. These define the culture of the organization.

As you change the conversation, you change the culture.

As the culture changes, the leader will find that those changes that could not be mandated at the beginning begin to grow and become part of the new fabric of the organization.

This is one of the few powers of the leader: the leader can change the language. When you change the language, you change the conversation. When you change the conversation, you change the culture.

Because of the knowledge you have gained by studying leadership, you are more likely to choose the right words.

Make Space
The second power a leader has is the ability to make space. One of the ways a leader can show what work is important is to allocate scarce resources to certain projects. When we think about the allocation of resources we usually think of money, equipment, and people.

However, we often feel the leaders job is done once money, equipment, and people have been assigned to a project. But, if we fail to give those people the time on their calendars, a way to work without being pulled back into other assignments, and a way to focus quality time on the important work, what we have done is create more work that is indistinguishable from the work that is already being done. We have not created space for success.

If you are a leader you can underline the importance of work by giving those who are allowed onto the team space to succeed: money, equipment, people, a place to work, and time.

Because of the knowledge you have gained by studying leadership, you are more likely to understand which are the important tasks that need space.

If you changes the language so that people begin to talk about what's important, and create space for important work, you have taken two huge steps toward becoming one of those leaders that the rest of us will study in the years to come.

Interview with Daniel Goleman

2009-01-25T19:20:00.000-08:00

The Harvard Business Review just published a short (10 minute) interview with Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence, and Primal Leadership, two books that have been referred to in a number of past blog entries.

If you are interested in hearing straight from the "horse's mouth" what is meant by emotional intelligence, and the role it plays in a leader's success, play the video below.

OOPS - Sorry, HBR has removed the video. Hope you got to see it while it was available.

Self Knowledge and Awareness

2009-01-10T08:36:00.000-08:00

What is it that sets top leaders apart from the average performer? Why are some people better at moving an organization forward than others? In the book Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman puts a microscope on these and other questions about leadership to discover what sets the great leaders apart from the rest of the crowd.

One of the first discoveries Goleman shares is that there are four competencies of Emotional Intelligence (EI) - and not a single technical or purely cognitive competency - exhibited by these top performers. (P. 36-37, Primal Leadership) This discovery puts Goleman in the camp of authors who believe that it is not necessary to be born a leader. Leadership can be learned. (This is good news for all of us.)

These four dimensions of Emotional Intelligence identified by Goleman fall into two categories - Personal Competence, and Social Competence: (P. 39, Primal Leadership)

Personal Competence:

Self-Awareness
Self-Management

Social Competence:

Social Awareness
Relationship Management

Each of these competencies is worthy of study. I recommend Primal Leadership as an easy and accessible way to learn more about these and other aspects of leadership.

The first EI competency that Goleman discusses is self-awareness. On the surface, that may seem like a simple thing - "Of course I am aware of myself. So what's the problem?" However, I don't think the topic is quite that simple.

True self-awareness requires reflective self-examination, feedback from others, and knowledge of "who you are, where you are going, and why you are going there." (For more about this read the blog titled: Asking the Right Questions, and Cashman's book Leadership from the Inside Out.) These questions get to the heart of defining what matters most to you, and the values that drive you.

There are a number if instruments you can use to get an understanding of who you are and what drives you. For example, tools like the Strengths Deployment Inventory (SDI) give you an insight into how you relate to others (relationship awareness), your motivations, and how you change when things are not going well. This information prepares you to both be more self-aware and socially aware in your relationships. This is also a very useful to use in groups or teams that gives each member a boost in their self-awareness, as well as a better understanding of social awareness and relationship management styles that help the group work more effectively. (For more on the SDI instrument, email me - jelliott2k@gmail.com - and I'll send you some background.)

Self study is essential. Tools for improving self-awareness and receiving feedback help. But underlying it all, you must have a desire and openness to new information; a desire to know more about yourself and how you relate to others, and the openness to take in new knowledge about yourself, even when that knowledge may not be consistent with you prior image of yourself.

If you have that inner drive, you will gain self-awareness, and take a fateful step toward being an emotionally intelligent leader.

Vision and Motivation

2008-12-20T09:57:00.000-08:00

There are probably hundreds of authors who have talked about the importance of vision in leadership. Vision is, without a doubt, one of the essential elements that goes into separating the average top manager from the successful leader.

Here are a few examples of what some of the thought-leaders of our day have had to say about the importance of leadership in our organizations:

The Leadership Diamond, developed by Dr. Peter Koestenbaum, incorporates vision as one of the four foundational components of leadership.
Kouzes and Posner's book, The Leadership Challenge, lists "inspiring a shared vision" as one of five essential steps to being a successful leader.
Kevin Cashman shows that before you can help others reach their potential, you must define yourself, and get clear on your vision. In his view, vision forms the cornerstone of personal success and fulfillment.
Daniel Goleman, and his co-authors of Primal Leadership, define six leadership styles, with visionary leadership being at the top of the list.

In every case, the wizards of leadership thought agree that to be motivated and successful an organization must have a clear and compelling vision of what it is they are trying to create as a result of their effort.

The relationship between having a clear vision and a motivated workforce is illustrated by the often retold story (perhaps apocryphal) about the architect Christopher Wren. Wren lived in London in the mid 1600s, and was known as an accomplished architect who's designs included the Royal Observatory, Trinity College at Cambridge, and St. Paul's Cathedral.

As the story goes, St. Paul's Cathedral, as well as the majority of London, burned to the ground in the great fire of 1666. During the rebuilding of the cathedral, Wren was visiting the construction site, watching his design take shape, when he noticed two workers laboring side by side laying bricks in one of the outer walls of the new cathedral. One of the workers seemed dull and slow, and clearly not engaged in his work. The other was laboring hard, with enthusiasm, doing fine work at an impressive pace.

Wren approached the first bricklayer and asked him what he was doing. The bricklayer replied, "What does it look like I'm doing? I'm laying bricks." Wren then went to the second bricklayer and asked the same question, "What are you doing?" The second bricklayer looked up and greeted Wren with a smile and a nod, and replied "I am building a beautiful cathedral, sir."

The difference between these two workers was that one saw only meaningless labor, while the other had a vision of what he was trying to create as a result of his effort.

Koestenbaum describes vision as the crowning achievement of human evolution. Vision is the means by which we see the future. German poet Rainer Maria Rilke said "The future enters into us, in order to transform itself in us, long before it happens." Koestenbaum adds, "It is not just the future that transforms itself. It is the future in us that transforms us now so that the future itself can happen to us." (P. 277-278, The Philosophic Consultant).

Kouzes and Posner define vision as "... an ideal and unique image of the future." (P. 95, The Leadership Challenge) This image of the future is not limited to improving on what exists. It can be a leap from "what is" to "what can be" without any knowledge of how to get from where we are to where we are going.

Peter Block, in his book The Answer to How is Yes, would agree that knowing how to move from today into the future is not a requirement. What is required is a commitment to the future, and the "how" will become evident.

At the risk of oversimplifying, Cashman's Leadership from the Inside Out shows how important it is to align actions and persona with the deeply seated values that drive the individual. When an individual's values are aligned with the organization's values and vision, there can be a partnership that leads to success for both. When there is alignment, the individuals within the organization are like the second bricklayer in the Christopher Wren story.

And finally, in Goleman's Primal Leadership, visionary leadership is one of six essential leadership styles. Visionary leadership helps "...people to see how their work fits into the big picture, lending people a clear sense not just that what they do matters, but why." (P. 57, Primal Leadership)

There is agreement among the great thinkers of the leadership world on the subject of vision. It is a magnet into the future; it inspires personal commitment; it is essential to moving forward together. And, when it is missing, organizations wander in the wilderness.

If you see yourself as a leader, you need to ask yourself if you have inspired a shared vision within your organization. You may be amazed at the answers you find, and the possibilities that present themselves when the answer is Yes.

-

Dealing with Resistance

2008-12-06T10:07:00.000-08:00

In the last blog entry we took a very quick look at some of the forms of resistance that you might encounter as you embark on a change effort. This topic seems to hit home with many of you, and has raised the natural question of how to deal with resistance when it is encountered in its various forms. Therefore, this blog entry contains a few thoughts about what to do when you find yourself face to face with resistance.

Peter Block says that “there is no way you can talk {someone} out of their resistance because resistance is an emotional process. You cannot talk people out of how they are feeling.” He goes on to say that “the basic strategy is to help the resistance blow itself out, like a storm.” (Flawless Consulting, P. 161)

Block suggests that there are three steps to dealing with resistance:

Identify in your own mind the form of the resistance (see the description of the types of resistance in the previous blog entry.)
Name the resistance – use neutral language to describe the form that the resistance is taking.
Be quiet – let the person respond to your statement about the resistance. Don’t keep talking. Live with the silence and tension.

(Flawless Consulting, P. 163)

Use open ended questions or statements, instead of questions or statements that can be replied to with yes or no answers.

If you encounter a situation where the person or group you are working with is avoiding responsibility for the problem or solution, you might say "You don't see yourself as part of the problem." Then, be quiet, and listen.

If you are working with someone who is giving you very little, and one word answers, you might say "You are giving me very short answers. Could you say more?

If you are working with someone who is silent, you might say "You are very quiet. I don't know how to read your silence."

You are probably beginning to get the idea. Your statement begins with a description of the behavior (You are very quiet.) which is followed by a question or statement about what is needed (can you say more?) or how this affects the work you are trying to do (I don't know how to read your silence.).

(Flawless Consulting, P. 163-166)

This process of identifying, naming and being quiet provides a mechanism for getting the resistance out on the table so it can be addressed.

It might also be helpful to think about resistance in terms of the Leadership Diamond model that has been covered a number of times in this blog. This model is based on the importance of vision, ethics, reality and courage. Peter Koestenbaum writes that resistance to vision is blindness. Resistance to reality is denial. Resistance to ethics is indifference. Resistance to courage is fear. (Leadership – The Inner Side of Greatness – P. 29)

Being aware of these concepts may help you identify the form of resistance that you are encountering. For example, someone who is constantly asking for more and more detail may be expressing a lack of confidence, or their fear. Your statement to this person might be "Your need for lots of detail tells me that you are uncomfortable with this project (or change effort). Tell me what is making you uncomfortable." Or more directly, "What are your fears?"

And finally, as you work with change efforts it is helpful to keep in mind the fact that organizations are not mechanical devices that can be changed by removing one part and replacing it with another. Change is an organic process. It starts small with seeds of ideas, a few people with a new vision, or a spark of brilliance, and grows over time into something that will change the organization forever. Resistance to the growth of new ideas, processes, and structures is normal even in nature. But, just as in nature, growth is difficult to stop. Leaders who are unafraid to identify and name resistance can clear the path for healthy growth that will bear the fruits of success.

(See the April 1999 FastCompany Magazine for an article by Peter Senge on this subject.)

Resistance

2008-11-15T10:15:00.000-08:00

I have wanted to post a blog entry on the subject of resistance for some time, but for some reason have not gotten around to it. So the question is: “What have I been resisting?”

Resistance is a subtle and interesting thing within each individual and group. Unless you are aware and observant you may not readily identify resistance in one of its many forms. And, you may find that you unwittingly participate in the process of resisting while thinking that you are helping move a project or change effort along.

Edgar Schein, one of the leading experts on culture says that individuals and organizations resist change when there is a lack of psychological safety. Schein defines psychological safety as the ability to see the possibility of solving a problem without loss of identity or integrity. Without psychological safety individuals or groups will deny data that creates discomfort; in other words, people will resist. This denial of discomforting data is called strategic myopia. (Organizational Culture and Leadership p. 298-300)

According to Peter Block, this denial of data or pushing back against the proposed change or project is a reaction to an emotional process taking place within the individual (or group). It is a natural reaction when faced with change, or the prospect of having to address difficult organizational problems.

Block provides an interesting list of what he calls The Faces of Resistance that may help you in identifying when you are working with someone or a group that is using resistance as a tool to avoid change. Keep in mind that some of these forms of resistance are very subtle and elusive:

Give me more detail – The person (organization) keeps asking for finer and finer bits of information.
Flood you with detail – The person (organization) gives you too much detail.
Time – The person (organization) says that he/she/they would really like to change but the timing is off.
Impracticality – The person (organization) says that he/she/they live in the “Real World” and are facing “Real Problems”, and can find practical problems with any change or solution.
Attack – The person (organization) adopts the most direct form of resistance – attack the change agent directly.
Confusion – The person (organization), after hearing the explanation or description of the suggested change several times, continues to be confused, and resists concepts necessary to understand a situation or idea.
Silence – The person (organization) remains stoically silent and passive in the face of the need for change.
Intellectualizing – The person (organization) “…starts exploring theory after theory about why things are the way they are…” “Spending a lot of energy spinning theories is a way of taking the pain out of a situation.”
Moralizing – The person (organization) "...makes great use of certain words and phrases: ‘those people’ and ‘should’ and ‘they need to understand.’ It is all about those other people, not me."
Compliance – Even when the person (organization) complies with a recommended change with no negative reaction at all, you may find that you have a low-energy agreement that will result in initial compliance, with gradual return to the old systems.

(Flawless Consulting – Peter Block, Chapter 8 Understanding Resistance, P. 140-148)

Not every question or push-back is a form of resistance. But, with these thoughts in mind, maybe you will be a little better prepared to identify when you or people you are working with are resisting rather than working together to change things for the better.

I suggest reading the chapter on resistance in Peter Block’s book Flawless Consulting for a better description of how to identify and deal with resistance in its many forms.

One final note; Schein points out that in dealing with resistance that grows from a lack of psychological safety the visionary leader becomes essential because “…the vision sometimes serves the function of providing the psychological safety that permits the organization to move forward.” (Organizational Culture and Leadership, p. 301)

If you are leading a change effort and feel significant amounts of resistance (which you can now identify), you might ask yourself whether you have provided the individuals or groups that are resisting with sufficient ability to see the possibility of solving a problem without loss of identity or integrity.

So, why are you putting off that important project or change effort? What are you resisting?

Authenticity

2008-10-26T09:07:00.001-07:00

The entries in this blog over the past year hopefully have made it clear that there is more to leadership than sitting down in an office with your name on the door and giving orders. We have all worked with people who approached leadership from this perspective, but I doubt that many of us would consider these people good role models, or the kind of leaders we would want at the helm when crossing the unknown sea.

There are also leaders who inspire in us a willingness to tackle the most difficult problems, or to go where no one has gone before. And, they are able to do this without having to raise their voice or demand our compliance.

What is the difference between these two types of leaders? Why are we bored and demotivated by one, and inspired to reach for the stars by the other?

There are probably many reasons, but I want to suggest one answer that deserves your consideration.

When we believe that we have a leader who truly cares for us and our success, who believes in our abilities, who listens and considers our suggestions, who supports us in success and failure, and who communicates his or her thoughts and feelings; in short, when we have a leader who is authentic in every way, we feel valued, and are willing to invest ourselves in the success of that leader and our organization.

In August of 2001, Peter Koestenbaum described Authenticity in the following way:

Authenticity includes:
Underscoring the centrality of both caring and integrity in helping people to feel valued and treated fairly. This is ethics.

Supporting people in mastering the anxiety of grave uncertainty, the insecurity of frequent failures, and equip them to rely on their inner resources to maintain their dignity as well as their obligations to the future of the whole organization. This is courage.

Strengthening people to survive amidst the chilling environment of a harsh economy, bitter competition, political infighting, and unforgiving stock exchanges. This is reality.

Lighting up the intellect to fashion new, creative and imaginative solutions to intractable problems. This is Vision.
(Peter Koestenbaum - August 6, 2001)

Peter Block, an organizational development consultant who has spent many years working with leaders, describes authenticity in the following way:

Deeply understanding the other person's point of view gives feeling of authenticity. The first order of business is to understand the situation rather than correct the other person's perception. (The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion, p. 168-169)

Authentic behavior... means you put into words what you are experiencing... as you work. (Flawless Consulting, second edition, p.37)

Authentic leaders listen, support others, express their feelings and thoughts, make visible what is going on inside their heads,

Also, authentic leaders help others move from dependency (the theory that the leader or manager is totally responsible) to an understanding that each person is responsible for exercising their own free will and choice.

Paternalistic behavior on the part of a leader removes power, choice, and freedom from the employee. Authentic behavior leads to empowerment, and an understanding that the individual must exercise his or her free will to affect the work environment.

It must be noted that authentic behavior on the part of a leader can create anxiety in those who follow. Anxiety should not be seen as a negative emotion. In fact, growth cannot happen without anxiety. Every time you enter a new situation you experience some level of anxiety. The important thing is how you deal with the anxiety. Do you try to remove yourself from the situation that is causing the anxiety, or do you embrace the anxiety and allow it to give you the energy and courage to face the new situation? Removing yourself assures that the anxiety will go away. But, facing the anxiety and leaning into your discomfort assures that you will grow and develop new skills and abilities.

This entry is a work in progress. For me, authenticity remains one of those things that we all know when we see it, but is hard to describe in words. Your suggestions and thoughts on how to improve this description of authenticity would be appreciated.

Regarding: The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems

2008-10-26T08:37:00.000-07:00

The following story was posted as a comment to the blog entry titled "The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems". I thought this was a good example of trying to lead within social and political systems, so I have moved it from the comment section to a full blog entry. I hope you find this story interesting.

Bob, thanks for taking the time to share this experience with us.

___________________________________________

I read with great interest, your posting of 9/27 on "The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems" in the Leadership Diamond Blog.

You posed the following question:

"Do any of you have opinions about how a leader who finds him or herself within a "political system" can succeed using the leadership concepts and models we have discussed in this blog?".

The definition of success in such an environment, may differ from more traditional definitions. If you will indulge some personal history, I will attempt to explain how success turned out for me. Perhaps it will be helpful to others.

I held a middle-management position in a "political system"-driven organization for about seven years. For the first five years, the company was privately held, owned and headed by an idividual and later acquired by a publicly held company who owned and operated it for the last two years I was there. No matter who owned it, it remained a very political system.

For the vast majority of those seven years, the company grew about 30% each year and experienced an employee turnover rate of 33-40% per year, a good percentage of those being terminated by the organization.

The turnover rate among my staff, I consider to be near zero. We lost one young staff member to a tragic automobile accident, and one other because her spouse was transferred to another city due to a reorganization at his company. None left by choice or by force.

My mission, with regard to my staff, was to provide an environment for them to succeed by insulating them as much as possible from the negative environment of the larger organization. I placed myself in between to channel "the bad stuff" to me and "the good stuff" directly to them.

The examples you cite contrasting social systems with political systems rang true for me. You quote:

"Within Political Systems:

Feedback: Never trust positive feedback from immediate boss, there will always be a “price tag” included. Trust third-party feedback but not from direct supervisor."

I was fortunate in that I could trust my boss to a greater degree as he was a person of good character. But only so far, as his own survival was at stake as well. For survival, it was imperative to develop a trusted peer network for information. The more data points, the better. Those relationships were developed incrementally over time as you learned who was trustworthy and who was not. It amazes me to this day how quickly information could flow in the event a storm was brewing.

"Decision Making: Never make decisions until the last possible moment. Keep your options open."

Yes. And I would further add, make no decision unless you're forced to. Things that stick out, tend to get chopped off.

I was not familiar with Dr. Koestenbaum's work then. Having more knowledge of it now, I believe that by applying the principles of the Leadership Diamond, one can be "successful" doing the right things in one's sphere of influence.

If these principles are not valued at the management level of the organization, though, I am not convinced that one can accomplish this long-term. Unless the "top" is willing to change, you'll eventually be plowed under by the organization's true values.

Bob

Friday, October 10, 2008 1:07:00 PM

Appreciative Inquiry

2008-10-05T10:08:00.000-07:00

There is an expectation within many organizations that leaders know where an organization is going, and how the organization will get there. Certainly in some cases this is correct - there are leaders with clear vision who know what they want to achieve, and how to achieve the desired result.

It is also true that many (perhaps most) organizations don't always work like well oiled machines. Leaders find themselves mired in cultures that no longer serve the needs of the customers, employees, or other constituents; or the leader finds that he or she must deal with systems that do not create the desired result even though, from a technical perspective, everything appears to be working as designed.

When faced with these types of issues, leaders have a number of choices. If we assume that there is the will (free will, choice, courage) to change the culture or systems in question, the leader can use one of a number of problem-solving models. However, problem-solving models have been applied to organizations for years with very mixed results.

Perhaps it is time for leaders to consider a new (or at least relatively new) approach to changing cultures, systems and behaviors. Perhaps it is time for leaders to consider Appreciative Inquiry , or AI. (click here for a definition provided by Wikipedia)

According to the the Appreciative Inquiry Commons (sponsored by Case Western Reserve University):

Appreciative Inquiry is about the coevolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations, and the relevant world around them. In its broadest focus, it involves systematic discovery of what gives “life” to a living system when it is most alive, most effective, and most constructively capable in economic, ecological, and human terms. AI involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential. (Emphasis added)

In the AI Process the conversation shifts from what is wrong with the organization or system to a description of what works, what is right, and finding ways to build on the strengths that already exist.

The value of choosing to follow an AI process over the usual problem solving approaches is that the organization avoids slogging through the negative energy created by the typical problem solving model, and instead finds that it is engaged in a fast, energetic, positive, and inspiring dialogue about what "can be":

In AI the arduous task of intervention gives way to the speed of imagination and innovation; instead of negation, criticism, and spiraling diagnosis, there is discovery, dream, and design. AI seeks, fundamentally, to build a constructive union between a whole people and the massive entirety of what people talk about as past and present capacities: achievements, assets, unexplored potentials, innovations, strengths, elevated thoughts, opportunities, benchmarks, high point moments, lived values, traditions, strategic competencies, stories, expressions of wisdom, insights into the deeper corporate spirit or soul-- and visions of valued and possible futures. (From the Appreciative Inquiry Commons - What is AI)

At the risk of oversimplifying things, in general, the AI process takes the participants through four steps (The lis below is from the Wikipedia entry on AI):

DISCOVER: The identification of organizational processes that work well.
DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.
DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.
DESTINY (or DELIVER): The implementation (execution) of the proposed design.

AI is not a miracle drug, or a once-size-fits-all model. But if you are a leader looking for a way to draw the culture of your organization to a new place, or change systems that are steeped in tradition, AI may be that answer to your prayers.

If you are interested in some additional reading on this subject, here are a few sources:

The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems

2008-09-27T12:09:00.000-07:00

All of the entries in this blog to date have assumed that the target audience (our readers and leaders) live and work within a system that values people who are open, communicative, care about the human element in the organization, and are proactive and energetic. However, Richard Beckhard and Reuben Harris, in their book Organizational Transitions – Managing Complex Change, Second Edition, point out that not all organizations are based on the values typical of what they call "social systems" (systems that are concerned with the social order of the organization).

Some organizations will form around "political systems" that may have vastly different "reasons for being" than systems that take on the values of "social systems". Beckhard and Harris point out that “Political behavior is behavior designed to further the goals of a person or group, more or less regardless of the effect on others. Some rules of political-system behavior are vastly different from rules of social-system behavior.” (P. 25)

They include an example that contrasts the feedback and decision making structures within political and social systems to illustrate their point:

Within Social Systems:
Feedback: Always provide open feedback on positive and negative aspects of behavior. Emphasize the positive, support and reinforce.
Decision Making: Get facts quickly, make decisions, take risks.

Within Political Systems:
Feedback: Never trust positive feedback from immediate boss, there will always be a “price tag” included. Trust third-party feedback but not from direct supervisor.
Decision Making: Never make decisions until the last possible moment. Keep your options open.

(From Figure 3-1 System Norms – P. 25)

If it is true that some systems have political values that are inconsistent with the values of social systems, then perhaps leaders in "political systems" as defined by Beckhard and Harris should behave differently from those who exist within social systems.

Do any of you have opinions about how a leader who finds him or herself within a "political system" can succeed using the leadership concepts and models we have discussed in this blog?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Dee Hock on Leadership

2008-08-17T10:04:00.000-07:00

I have been rereading a book titled Birth of the Chaordic Age by Dee Hock, founder and former CEO of VISA, in which Hock describes his experiences in pulling together one of the largest (if not the largest) credit card company in the world in 90 days. His story of finding order in chaos (living in a chaordic world) is both fascinating and inspiring.

But it is his philosophy about leadership, people, and management that draws me back to his work today. In this time of chaos in our world, our work, and our lives, his thoughts on leadership speak of character, trust, caring, and power – not power over people, but power that takes the organization to a higher level of dedication to service and ethics.

Here are a few quotes from Birth of the Chaordic Age (1999), published by Berrett-Koehler, Inc.:

Leader presumes follower. Follower presumes choice. One who is coerced to the purposes, objectives, or preferences of another is not a follower in any true sense of the word, but an object of manipulation. Nor is the relationship materially altered if both parties accept dominance and coercion. True leading and following presume perpetual liberty of both… (p. 67)

A true leader cannot be bound to lead. A true follower cannot be bound to follow. (p. 67)

The first and paramount responsibility of anyone who purports to manage is to manage self; one’s own integrity, character, ethics, knowledge, wisdom, temperament, words, and acts. (p. 69)

The second responsibility is to manage those who have authority over us: bosses, supervisors, directors (p. 69)

The third responsibility is to manage one’s peers – those over whom we have no authority and who have no authority over us – associates, competitors, suppliers, customers – the entire environment. (p. 69)

…[I]f one has attended to self, superiors, and peers, there is little else left. The fourth responsibility is to manage those over whom we have authority. The common response is that all one’s time will be consumed managing self, superiors, and peers. There will be no time to manage subordinates. Exactly! One need only select decent people, introduce them to the concept, induce them to practice it, and enjoy the process. If those over whom we have authority properly manage themselves, manage us, manage their peers, and replicate the process with those they employ, what is there to do but see they are properly recognized, rewarded, and stay out of their way? It is not making better people of others that management is about. It’s about making a better person of self. Income, power, and titles have nothing to do with that. (p. 70)

This does not mean that the leader has nothing to do. On the contrary, a leader’s job is complex and requires the dedication of mind, body and soul.

First and foremost it requires that a leader select decent people. These people must be ready to work in an environment where they are responsible for their own actions – they must manage “self”. They must choose accountability, and be ready to take on the challenge of being leaders within the organization from whatever position they may hold. They must have the courage to be part of a system, however chaotic it may be, where they are as responsible as their “leader” is for success.

Once these “decent” people have joined the organization and have accepted the mantle of leadership as described by Hock, the leader’s role becomes one of making space for the work to happen, (more on the concept of “making space” in a future blog entry). This involves not only getting out of the way, but also providing time, resources, information, and removing barriers so that the important work of the organization can get done.

Perhaps you have noted the connection between Hock’s approach to leadership and Koestenbaum’s theory of the Leadership Diamond. Hock is heavily invested in ethics – the caring for how your actions, or lack of action, affects others, character, and authenticity; and courage – the free will and choice involved in being a leader, choosing to start with managing “self”, and playing a leadership role regardless of your place in the hierarchy.

There is a great deal in his writing that any leader might find helpful and inspiring in times when chaos threatens to engulf the world.

The Seeds of Change

2008-08-11T13:05:00.000-07:00

Just before the turn of the century (the 21^st century) a number of leadership-gurus started turning heads by talking about the organic nature of organizations, and how traditional theories of organizational change were proving to be wrong. One of these leaders was Margaret Wheatley who, in her book Leadership and the New Science, said:

The dominant world view of Western culture – the world as machine – doesn’t help us to live well in this world any longer. We have to see the world differently if we are to live in it more harmoniously. Leadership and the New Science, (p. 172), Margaret Wheatley, 1999

She went on to say that an organization’s “…behaviors don’t change just by announcing new values. We move only gradually into being able to act congruently with those values.” (p 130-131)

This view of organizations as something other than machines was also expressed by Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline and the Dance of Change.

In an article (Learning for a Change) published by Fast Company Magazine in May 1999, Senge brought his view of the organic nature of companies to the casual reader. He said:

We need to think less like managers and more like biologists. …Companies are actually living organisms, not machines. …Perhaps treating companies like machines keeps them from changing… We keep bringing in mechanics – when what we need are gardeners. We keep trying to drive change – when what we need to do is cultivate change.

If we approach our organizations as mechanical systems we develop high level leaders who drive change through formal, top-down change programs. If we approach our organizations as living systems we develop leaders at all levels who approach change as a natural part of the growth of the company.

Senge goes on to point out that in nature “nothing that grows starts large; it always starts small." In his view, in the natural world, “…no one is in charge making the growth occur. Instead, growth occurs as a result of the interplay of diverse forces.”

These forces are not under the control of any one person including the person at the top of the organizational structure, the “leader.” They are the natural forces that exist within every organization.

In Senge’s opinion, we often “use the word 'leader' to mean 'executive': The leader is the person at the top. That definition says that leadership is synonymous with a position. And if leadership is synonymous with a position, then it doesn’t matter what a leader does. All that matters is where a leader sits.”

Historically we have assigned to the leader the power to make organizational changes, to take an organization in a certain direction, or to know what changes are needed even when the people within the organization can’t see the need for change. The leader was seen as all-powerful and all-knowing. Change efforts were directed from the top, handed down from on-high and, more often than not, doomed to failure.

If all that matters is where a leader sits, there is little hope that strong leadership will be found at the line level, where leadership is most important.

The Wheatley and Senge research tells us a number of important things about organizations:

We must view organizations as organic rather than mechanical structures.
Change comes about through growth from inside the organization rather than through a mechanical repair of existing systems.
To quote Senge, “Just as nothing in nature starts big; the way to start creating changes is with a pilot group – a growth seed.” Start small.
For these seeds of change to survive and grow, organizations must have line leaders (people at the heart of the value-generating process – who design, produce, and sell products; who provide services; who talk to customers) who will nurture and care for the change efforts.
Meaningful and lasting change comes from inside the organization.
The planting of seeds in areas that are surrounded by gardeners in the form of committed and motivated people is much more likely to result in lasting change than programs that are the result of top down efforts.

Those of us who are trying to bring new ways of thinking into an organization will do well to bear in mind the organic nature of change. Whether your goal is to bring the Leadership Diamond into the decision making process of your organization, or to change a process or service that results in improved customer satisfaction and a better bottom line, every change effort should consider the value of planting seeds, and developing line leaders who act as gardeners.

The Good Society

2008-08-03T10:54:00.000-07:00

During the last few thousand years, philosophers and authors have tried to define the role of government in creating The Good Society. These great thinkers struggled to define the perfect social system and the quality of life experienced by the people that lived within the systems they envisioned. Their approaches differed, and the quality of the resulting societies changed based on the values held by each of the philosophers.

In his book The Executive's Compass – Business and the Good Society, James O’Toole provides an interesting overview of several thousand years of philosophical thinking about The Good Society, and which of those societies might be best for humanity. O’Toole says:

To Aristotle, it [the good society] permits some of its members to live “the good life.”
To Hobbes, it provides sufficient order to allow material progress.
To Locke, it guarantees life, liberty and property.
To Rousseau, it preserves as much as possible of the conditions of liberty and equality that humankind enjoyed in “the state of nature.”
To Adam Smith, it has nearly absolute economic freedom.
To Thomas Jefferson, it consists of people who live in small-scale, rural communities characterized by a high quality of life.
To Alexander Hamilton, it consists of people who live in modern industrial cities characterized by a high standard of living.
To Marx, it has nearly absolute economic equality.
To J.S. Mill, it allows nearly absolute social freedom.
To Harriet Taylor Mill, it allows women to enjoy the equality of opportunity with men.
To Weber, it is governed by laws, so that no citizen is treated arbitrarily.
To Martin Luther King, it guarantees the “natural rights” of all its members, without regard to their race, sex, religion, or class.

(p. 19-20, The Executive's Compass – Business and the Good Society, James O’Toole, 1993)

How can there be so many different definitions of what constitutes The Good Society?

Perhaps the answer can be found by applying some of the principles of the Leadership Diamond.

The Ethics point on the Diamond gives us some insight into this question. From an ethical perspective, every philosopher defined The Good Society based on an underlying set of values and assumptions about how people within a society should be treated and live. Their underlying ethics and values shaped their thoughts about the quality of life people within the society should experience. Their underlying ethics and values also helped each philosopher clarify his or her thoughts about equity and justice.

When we see that it is possible for so many thought leaders to differ widely on the definition of what constitutes The Good Society, it should come as no surprise that governments across the country, and around the world, have difficulty agreeing on exactly how government should behave to create what is best of the community.

Perhaps the answer is that there is no single Good Society, and to recognize that there are many societies that may be chosen by a community to serve its needs. Perhaps what is necessary is for the community to invest the time and effort to first define its values, and to use those value statements to help define the vision of what it is they want to create as a result of their efforts. Once defined, perhaps the role of government is to reflect the ethics and values of the community in its effort to live within The Good Society.

What are your thoughts on The Good Society, and the role of government in its creation?

LPV: Leadership Point of View

2008-07-29T08:38:00.000-07:00

(The following was contributed by Mark S. Thanks, Mark, for taking the time to share your thoughts with the group. The "Pizza Lunch" that Mark refers to is a monthly lunchtime gathering of people who want to share ideas and thoughts about leadership.)

_________________________________

I brought up the topic of the importance of a “leadership point of view” (LPV) at one of our recent Dr. K. pizza lunches. This is a concept/phrase I learned in my Masters of Executive Leadership program at the USD School of Business and was coined by Ken Blanchard. Jim suggested I explain this idea further in this blog.

Developing a LPV is just another way of saying what do you really believe in, where did it come from, and how will you enact it in your business and personal lives? On the surface, this idea seems pretty basic, but it is amazing how few leaders have taken the time to really dig deep and answer the following questions:

Who are the influencers (leaders) in your life who have had a positive (or, in some cases, negative) impact on your life, such as parents, teachers, coaches, or bosses? What did you learn from these people about leadership?

Think of your life purpose. Why are you here, and what do you want to accomplish?

What are your core values that will guide your behavior as you attempt to live your life “on purpose”?

Given what you’ve learned from past leaders, your life purpose, and your core values, what are your beliefs about leading and motivating people?

What can your people expect from you?

What do you expect from your people?

How will you set an example for your people?

These questions are all important to explore in the role as an “authentic leader”.

Finally, at the end of exploring these questions, we all were required to share our LPV with the rest of the class. This was intended to be a precursor to sharing our LPV with the people we lead at work. It can’t be overstated how important it is for the folks you work with to learn more about their leaders - where they came from, what they value, what they expect from “you” and what you can expect from “me”.

(Editor. I just want to add a few words about "authenticity". Dr. Koestenbaum talks about Leadership being the sum of two vectors - Competence and Authenticity. Competence deals with skills and abilities, while authenticity deals with character. The questions that Mark has outlined above go to the heart of who you are. The answers become a way of examining your character. This exercise is well worth your time if you want to learn more about yourself.

Also, take a look at the Blog Entry titled Asking the Right Questions for more on this subject. Also you might find the short story at the bottom of that entry interesting.)

Emotional Intelligence and the Leadership Diamond

2008-07-26T09:34:00.000-07:00

In the highly acclaimed book Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman, and his co-authors Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee, describe the attributes of great leadership. In chapter one, in the first paragraph they say “Great leadership works through the emotions.”

This bold statement moves the discussion of leadership away from formulas and “how-to” manuals into the realm of the mind, and the human side of the workplace. Goleman says

No matter what leaders set out to do … their success depends on how they do it. Even if they get everything else just right, if leaders fail in this primal task of driving emotions in the right direction, nothing they do will work as well as it could or should.

Goleman and the co-authors go on to show how emotional intelligence (EI) includes elements of self-awareness and self-management, social awareness, and relationship management.

As you read Goleman’s thoughts about leadership you discover that ethics and empathy play a huge role in defining great leadership. Words such as emotions, self-worth, transparency, honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, flexibility, initiative, optimism, empathy, understanding, the needs of others, inspiration, and cooperation are used to describe the traits of great leaders.

Those of you who are familiar with the leadership diamond may be seeing the connection between the Ethics point of the Leadership Diamond and the characteristics of great leaders described by Goleman.

Goleman goes on to connect the Ethics and Vision points of the diamond by stating:

Of all the EI competencies… empathy matters most to visionary leadership. The ability to sense how others feel and to understand their perspectives means that a leader can articulate a truly inspirational vision.” (Primal Leadership, p. 59)

For those of you interested in how the human side of the Leadership Diamond works, I encourage you to pick up Goleman’s book, Primal Leadership, and give it a quick read. You will learn that great leadership (part of what creates an opportunity to achieve Greatness as defined by the Leadership Diamond) is a key factor in the success of an organization. Using your emotional intelligence, and being able to get in touch with the human side of the organization is an essential part of achieving "greatness". But, it does not take a Super Hero (male or female) to be a great leader. We all have the ability to bring our emotional intelligence to the forefront, and to create opportunities for our greatness within our organizations.

Goleman’s work is a valuable contribution to those trying to become great leaders, and leaders who can successfully apply the Leadership Diamond in their daily life.

Ethics

2008-07-13T11:05:00.000-07:00

The Ethics point on the Leadership Diamond is probably one of the most difficult to define. When we hear the word "Ethics" we immediately think of the most common meaning: the process of dealing with the difference between what is right an wrong, or the more philosophical use of the term related to existing within society's rules and morals. Although these definitions are helpful, when we use the term in relation to the Leadership Diamond we have an additional layer of meaning to consider.

Ethics, when used as part of the Leadership Diamond model, means being of service, doing things that honor you and others as human beings, and understanding that people matter. Ethics incorporates empathy for others and understanding that there are principles that help us decide which path leads to integrity, trustworthiness, and keeping our promises. (The Philosophic Consultant, © 2003, p. 107-108).

In the larger world, a breach of ethics can lead to punishment and jail. This lapse in ethics usually means that laws have been broken, often for personal gain at the expense of others. This is what we saw with ENRON, Broadcom, and Tyco, just to name a few. It is also hundreds of cases of backdating stock options, misuse of corporate money, and other examples of fraud.

However, in the leadership world of Peter Koestenbaum, ethics goes deeper than the legal system. At its philosophical roots ethics contains empathy and principle. “Empathy is the struggle against emotional indifference. And principle is the fight against unscrupulous behavior.” (The Philosophic Consultant, © 2003, p. 108). Dr. Koestenbaum goes on to add that ethics involves “reaching out, understanding how other feel, and caring about that.” He also says that principle is “doing what is right, not necessarily what feels good, keeping promises, integrity, and being thoroughly trustworthy.”

In its Leadership Diamond context, a breach of ethics could be a behavior that would be considered illegal, but it is more likely that this ethical slip would be a personal failure of character that would make it difficult for the person creating the breach to be a strong and effective leader.

If we look at the ethics of the law as the body, the ethics of the Leadership Diamond would be the sole. The two together make the complete person, and the effective leader.

The authors of the Successful Manager’s Handbook (Previsor, © 2004, p. 586-588) suggest that in order to make ethical decisions in business, a manager or leader must give thought in advance to a number of factors that will affect the decisions made in support of the business. These factors include:

The values involved for the individual, company, community
How different constituencies view the issues before you
What your values and code of ethics tell you about the decision you are about to make
The consequences of the various choices you might make
Listen to and consider the concerns of others

Finally, a leader should not leave the consideration of ethics and conduct until faced with a situation requiring immediate action. Devoting time to examining personal, organizational, and community values, morals and ethics, and developing your own code of ethics that supports your vision of what you are trying to create is essential to being able to use the strength of the Leadership Diamond to create greatness in all that you do.

(Note - Wikipedia has an interesting article on Ethics on its web site. Although Wikipedia is not known as a reliable source of information for academic purposes, you might find this summary of the philosophical view of ethics an interesting read.)

Motivation

2008-06-29T06:26:00.000-07:00

Traditional thinkers will tell you that “What gets rewarded gets done.” However, Kouzes and Posner, authors of The Leadership Challenge, suggest that this well worn statement is a little off. In their minds it should read “What is rewarding gets done.” (p. 40 The Leadership Challenge). This thought goes to the heart of what drives a successful organization – motivated people doing meaningful, rewarding work.

Peter Koestenbaum has said that “The most powerful sources of motivation are not money or fear of punishment, but rather pride, honor, self-respect, self-development, and a sense of accomplishment. …(U)ltimately, only you can motivate yourself.“ (p. 160-161 - Leadership The Inner Side of Greatness, 2002)

If it is true that motivation comes from the inside, that you are responsible for your own motivation, and ultimately the quality of your life, then the real question is: What motivates you? And, why have you chosen to do the job you are now doing?

In his book, Crossing the Unknown Sea – Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity, David Whyte wonders at how we can “…spend a third of our lives preparing ourselves for our work, and find ourselves forgetting the original inspiration behind all that preparation the moment we take a seat at our new desk.” (p. 164) (See a previous post on this blog “Applying the Diamond to Life” for an additional reference to this work.) Our own motivation brought us to this point, but somehow, once settled behind Whyte's proverbial desk, we allow our motivation to wane and we attempt to substitute the motivation and goals of others for our own.

But true motivation comes from the inside when we are doing what we consider to be “good work”. Whyte says that

“The stakes in good work are necessarily high. Our competence may be at stake in ordinary, unthinking work, but in good work that is a heartfelt expression of ourselves, we know, in the end, we are our gift to others and the world. Failure in truly creative work is not some mechanical breakdown but the prospect of a failure in our very essence, a kind of living death. Little wonder we often choose the less vulnerable, more familiar approach that places work mostly in terms of provision. If I can reduce my image of work to just a job I have to do, then I keep myself safely away from the losses to be endured in putting my heart’s desire at stake. (Crossing the Unknown Sea, p. 13)

By choosing ordinary, unthinking work we may find ourselves in a career path that provides no motivation beyond safety and low risk. These may initially be strong motivators, but in the long run, a safe and risk-free existence may not prove to be fulfilling. Finding work that provides a "heartfelt expression of ourselves" may mean stepping out of the safe and cool shade of uninspiring work into the light and heat of work that provides meaning and a vehicle for us to share our gifts with those we serve.

These authors tell us to shift from believing that others are responsible for our energy, happiness, and motivation to recognizing that we are in control of our own destiny. Understanding this is a key to gaining control of your life and ultimate happiness.

So, the questions become - What motivates you? Are you doing "good work"? Or, are you waiting for others to come along and light your motivational fire?

The Truth As We Know It

2008-06-13T17:44:00.000-07:00

Noted author and expert on organizational culture, Edgar Schein, points out that there are many ways to establish what is “true” for an organization, groups, or individuals within a group. These definitions range from the moralistic to the pragmatic (neither of which is meant to be a prejudicial term), from the more faith or belief based to the scientifically tested theories of truth. Schein lays out six types of truth that may be found within organizations or groups:

Pure dogma, based on tradition and/or religion: It has always been done this way; it is God’s will; it is written in the Scriptures.
Revealed dogma, that is, wisdom based on trust in the authority of wise men, formal leaders, prophets, or kings; our president wants to do it this way; our consultants have recommended that we do it this way; she had the most experience, so we should do what she says.
Truth derived by a “rational-legal” process, as when we establish the guilt or innocence of an individual by means of a legal process that acknowledges from the outset that there is no absolute truth, only socially determined truth; this includes majority rule where things are decided by a vote.
Truth as that which survives conflict and debate: We thrashed it out in three different committees, tested it on the sales force, and the idea is still sound, so we will do it
Truth as that which works, the purely pragmatic criterion: Let’s try it out this way and evaluate how we are doing.
Truth as established by the scientific method, which becomes, once again, a kind of dogma: Our research shows that this is the right way to do it; we’ve done three surveys and they all show the same thing, so let’s act on them.

(From page 102 – Organizational Culture and Leadership, Second Edition, copyright 1992)

So what is true? We all take it for granted that we know what is true. We express our opinions about truth every day in our behaviors, conversations, assumptions, dress, habits, in short every part of our daily life. We express what we believe to be true about ourselves, our employer, our families, our friends, our city, and our country through the acts of daily life.

We seem to know what is true.

But, if the truth is so easy to see and know, why are there so many arguments over what is true, or how people should live, or which culture should survive and which should cease to exist?

Gaining an understanding of how the organizations you work with, and the people you interact with, define their truth will help you understand where the root of many misunderstandings may lie.

In a recent address to the Alliance for Innovation (June 6, 2008 – Greenville, SC), highly regarded teacher, author and lecturer, Rafe Esquith, said that to be a successful teacher you must be able to approach issues from the perspective of the children you are trying to reach. You must first understand the truths of the world from the child’s perspective.

The same advice would be helpful to anyone trying to affect an organization, group or individual – To be a successful leader, first understand the truths of the world as seen from within your organization, group, or from the individual perspective.

Getting the Right Thing Done for Society

2008-06-08T09:28:00.000-07:00

(Contributed by Courtney)

Is operating Government like a business really the best thing? Many citizens wonder why things get addressed so slowly and question all of the “hurdles” that bureaucracy adds on. Can society be better served by those who have more of a closed and intimate decision making process rather than try convening a town meeting each time there is a discussion? The answer is different for everyone… it depends on who you ask.

I like to think of Government (be it Federal, State or Local) as a protector. They provide a safe haven and create an environment that many in this world would die to have. Government can be seen as an entity formed to serve as a moral compass for leading people towards safety and an improved quality of life. With the goal of common good in mind, Government promotes an open process to gather all the stakeholders together prior to decision making. Although Government is often criticized for being slow and some what unclear, it can also be viewed as holding a vision for the future and can be applauded for not moving forward based on gut reaction.

Corporate America also belongs in society. Corporate America is a force that drives the world economic market, claims victory when trampling the competition, and supplies the world’s population with commodities to make the globe turn. Their focus is narrow and specific, making Corporate America much more clear and concise. They are driven by profit. Each outcome is defined and precise… no variation... there is no gray. Corporate America has enough flexibility to make decisions in a split second, and has few controls when deciding what is right for them.

The two cultures are poles apart. So is it all about the population who will benefit from the efforts or is it about the dollars spent and saved at the end of the day? That brings us to the ultimate question… do you do what’s right or what matters when managing a business?

In my opinion… there is no doubt as to how Government should operate.

(Editor: Courtney points out an interesting polarity that is worth considering more deeply. She asks: Is it appropriate to run our government like a business? Can you serve the needs of the general population by taking a business approach to dealing with public issues? Any thoughts?

I invite others to join in this discussion. )

Time

2008-05-17T10:06:00.000-07:00

Time is an interesting thing. We all are given the same number of hours in each day. And yet at the end of the day, some have made mountains out of molehills, while others have moved mountains.

According to Dr. Koestenbaum, the ability to seize control over how you experience time is an important trait of the leadership mind. How you perceive time affects how you tackle the challenges of leadership.

In his book Leadership – The Inner Side of Greatness (p. 185) Dr. Koestenbaum talks about how the Pentagon uses the concept of time in the process of selecting generals. The general rule (pun intended) is that while effective executives may perceive time in terms of ten-year blocks, a good general will perceive time in longer spans, perhaps twenty-five-years or more. This larger sense of time gives the general the ability to perceive past, present, and future events as a single continuum. The actions of today can be evaluated with regard to how they will affect the future of the organization, or their ability to accomplish a specific goal.

If you are spending all of your time focusing on how to get through the day, you will not be able to effectively lead an organization that needs to perceive the events of today in a framework of the past, present, and future.

One way of improving your ability to look into the future is suggested by Kouzes and Posner in their book The Leadership Challenge (p. 106-107). They describe a study done by El Sawy of USC that shows that by reflecting on the past before looking into the future an executive can improve both the detail and the depth of his or her future vision. Sawy says:

If we want to plan for the distant future, and we want the (executives) to elongate their time horizons in their image of the future, let them talk about history first.

Kouzes and Posner do not suggest that the past is the future, however, they do suggest that taking time to reflect on a rich set of experiences improves the ability to envision the future.

Change

2008-04-27T09:59:00.000-07:00

In every organization (and at some point, in every life) there is a cry for change; people within the organization will have an overwhelming feeling that systems, structures, cultures, missions, purpose, or products must change to remain relevant in the world today. And, as this cry for change goes up, these same organizations will find that there an undeniable resistance to change within the organization that will confound the process.

Where does this resistance to change come from? And, why do we experience this polarity within the organizations we serve, and even within ourselves?

Richard Beckhard and Ruben Harris, in their book Organizational Transitions (now out of print), have boiled this phenomenon down, and created a little formula that helps us understand resistance to change:

Here is how this formula works:

LD - This is the level of dissatisfaction with the status quo. If you are very dissatisfied with how things are right now, you are motivated to change. However, if dissatisfaction is low, or even Zero, change will not be possible.
DC - This is the desirability of the proposed change or end state. If the end state is very desirable, then change is possible, however if a person cannot see the value in the new state of affairs, or the end state is undesirable, change will not be possible.
PV - This represents the ability of the person who is considering the change to hold the vision that change is possible. If the task of undertaking the change is possible, even if it is difficult, then change can occur. But if the task seems impossible, or out of the reach of the people who are involved in the change effort, change will not happen.
Xc - This part of the formula represents the cost of change. This cost can be in dollars, personal energy, self respect, any form that is of value to the organization or person involved in the change.

When we take the level of dissatisfaction times the desirability of the end state, times the vision of whether the task is possible or not, we get some sense of the importance of the change to the organization or person. These factors must be greater than (must out weigh) the perceived cost of the change before any change effort can successfully move forward.

Trying to apply real numbers to these variables is difficult at best. You will not be able to simply apply the formula and come up with an answer that tells you whether or not change can occur.

However, what you can do is evaluate each of the three factors on the left side of the equation. If you are experiencing resistance to change it is likely that the resistance is related to one of these three factors. Also, if any one of these factors is Zero - change is seen as a having no value - then the driving forces that would bring about change will always be less than the perceived cost of change.

If you can find a copy of Beckhard's book, look at page 98 for a description of this concept. (When I last checked, you could get a used copy of this book for $0.40 at Amazon.com.)

The Courage and Vision to Innovate

2008-04-25T08:33:00.000-07:00

Rob Here, 1st time caller to the Leadership Blog...

Innovation is a topic of thought in my mind recently and in my reading and mulling I can see Diamond implications worth discussing- so here it goes.

Systems and analytical thinking are beneficial in many organizations. In these types of Organizations the Reality point on the Diamond is sharpened with Logic to make objective decisions free of wishy washy emotion. New ideas are purified in the crucible of past experience and cost benefit analysis. This mindset works great for maintaining a status quo, for avoiding risk, for remaining consistent and predictable.

This Reality heavy bias can also produce a looming barrier for innovation.

Truly "new to this world" innovation requires Courage and trust to review the idea with new eyes and an intuition bias. An idea that is new to a Reality based organization will be judged severely if it does not fit within past proven methodology - this is a barrier to innovative thinking.

In the Book "Breakthrough! Innovation Management Practices" (Thanks for the book Jim) a concept to combat this Reality bias is described as;

"Experimental Thinking" The definition is An approach to thinking about challenges that demand change, problem-solving, unique solutions and encourages the individual to avoid evaluation of new ideas and concepts, while building upon the ideas of others, and considering the positive aspects of ideas.

An innovative process gives time for visioning, dreaming, and intuition while experimenting with an avoidance of evaluation and judgment until a much later stage in the process.

Courage and Vision need to be emphasized to be innovative, when added to a strong base of Reality the Diamond of the Organization can be enlarged leading to an opportunity for true "Greatness".

Rob.

(OK Jim, I did it, I posted on your Blog, now please loosen the thumb screws!) ;)

Polarities

2008-04-12T09:15:00.000-07:00

In the introduction to the book Polarity Management - Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems, Dr. Barry Johnson says that the bad news about life is that we all face a large number of unsolvable problems. However, the good news is that, in many cases, we can stop trying to solve these problems and begin to manage them by addressing these problems as Polarities.

According to Dr. Koestenbaum, the concept of polarities is at the heart of the Leadership Diamond model. From his perspective the points of the Leadership Diamond can cause conflict and create unsolvable problems as described by Dr. Johnson. However, this conflict brings us tension, and with the tension comes the energy necessary to manage polarities.

For example, lets take a quick look at Vision and Reality. Vision implies looking into the future, imagining what could be, creating something that does not currently exist, and not being limited by barriers. On the other hand, Reality can imply being focused on what currently exists, understanding barriers, knowing what tools and resources are available, and not being blinded by any wish or day dream that takes you away from the truths of life.

The conflict between vision and reality is not a problem to be solved, it is a polarity to be managed. Dr. Koestenbaum tells us that the ability to hold the conflicting concepts of vision and reality in your mind simultaneously is an essential part of the leadership mind. Being able to identify polarities, understanding the gap between two polar concepts, and feeling the tension created by the pull of both is part of being a leader. Koestenbaum suggests that we:

Ask for clarity, but accept ambiguity, demand certainty, but adapt to surprises.

Here are a few of the common polarities that we face as leaders:

Team - Individual
Democracy – Dictatorship
Work – Play
Life – Death
Reality – Fantasy
Rich – Poor
Man – Woman
Active – Passive
True – False
Us – Them
Proactive – Reactive
Centralized – Decentralized
Principles – Rules
Flexible – Inflexible
Empowered – Powerless
Internal – External
Organized - Unorganized

When you objectively view each side of a polarity you find that each contains positive and negative qualities. The challenge for the leader is to work to maximize the positive, while minimizing the negative characteristics of both ends of the spectrum.

In this process of understanding polarities, a leader discovers that life is rarely entirely in one camp - the world is not "organized OR unorganized". It is "BOTH organized AND unorganized" at the same time. Businesses are not "focused on teams OR individuals", they are "focused on BOTH teams AND individuals". Life is rarely Either/Or, it is usually AND.

What we experience is that life is a balance between polarities. Constantly moving. Shifting from one form to another. Offering first the positive and negative qualities of one side of the polar equation, and then moving toward the other pole.

The strong leader is one that is prepared to work in this world of ambiguity, and help others navigate through the confusing waters filled with polarities.

In the book The Art of Happiness at Work, the Dalai Lama points out that in western society we are taught to choose between polarities - we are schooled to pick between "either/or". However, in a world that is consistently filled with "both/and" a choice between "either/or" will be frustrating because neither choice will satisfy. Learning to hold competing thoughts simultaneously, and to understand the positive and negative qualities of both is necessary to be a successful leader.

If any of you (my faithful readers) are interested in doing a post analyzing a polarity that you are interested in, post a comment with your email address and I will set the blog to allow you to be an author. I would love to have your contribution to the discussion.

In a future blog post we will look at how to use a Polarity Map to help identify true polarities, and understand the positive and negative attributes of each side of the polarity.

Asking the Right Questions

2008-04-06T09:17:00.000-07:00

If you have read much of Peter Koestenbaum's work, you have discovered that Dr. K teaches by asking the right questions rather than handing you the right answers. Although he is diligent about explaining many complicated concepts, much of the work of translating concepts into action is left to you, the reader. And, this is as it should be.

In his book The Answer to How is Yes - Acting on What Matters, Peter Block says

Getting the question right may be the most important thing we can do. We define our dialogue and, in a sense, our future through the questions we choose to address: Asking the wrong question puts us in the philosopher's dilemma: We become the blind (person) looking in a dark room for a black cat that is not there.

Block adds that "The right questions are about values, purpose, aesthetics, human connection, and deeper philosophical inquiry. To experience the fullness of working and living, we need to be willing to address questions that we know have no answer."

Both Koestenbaum and Block challenge us to find the right questions.

Within a business or government organization the questions that are most often asked are about things that are near the surface of our existence. We ask how to make the greatest margin or profit on our product, how to attract and serve customers and gain market share, how to motivate people; in short, we ask how to be successful (however we measure success) in our chosen field.

Although Peter Block would perhaps disagree with me, I believe these are all important questions that need to be addressed. However, I agree with both Koestenbaum and Block in that these are not the first questions that should be asked by an individual or group.

When viewed through the Leadership Diamond, the most important questions become those that take you more deeply into the individual's or group's purpose for being.

In the opening section of Kevin Cashman's chapter on Personal Master (see Leadership From the Inside Out - Becoming a Leader for Life) there is a story that sums up, at least for me, the value of asking the right question:

I once heard this story about a priest, who was confronted by a soldier while he was walking down a road in pre-revolutionary Russia. The soldier, aiming his rifle at the priest, commanded "Who are you? Where are you going? Why are you going there?" Unfazed, the priest calmly replied, "How much do they pay you?" Somewhat surprised, the soldier responded, "Twenty-five kopecks a month." The priest paused, and in a deeply thoughtful manner said "I have a proposal for you. I'll pay you fifty kopecks each month if you stop me here every day and challenge me to respond to those same three questions."

Therein lies the beginning of a very deep and valuable discussion with yourself, your business, or your organization: "Who are you? Where are you going?", and "Why are you going there?"

References:
The story of the Russian priest and soldier is from Kevin Cashman's Leadership From the Inside Out - Becoming a Leader for Life, and can be found online in a slightly different version at this link.

Other references include:
The Philosophic Consultant, by Dr. Peter Koestenbaum
The Answer to How is Yes, by Peter Block

Peter Block - Servant-Leadership

2008-03-30T11:36:00.000-07:00

Peter Block is another author, lecturer, and organizational consultant that has some very intriguing thoughts. Below you will find excerpts from the keynote address Peter gave to the 2005 International Servant-Leadership Conference in Indianapolis Indiana. Links to the full address, and the Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership are included in the text below. (Visit
http://www.peterblock.com/ for more on Peter Block and his work)

Excerpts from the Keynote address, 2005 International Servant-Leadership Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana Published in The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, Volume 2, Number 1, 2006, by Larry Spears and Shann Ferch (Gonzaga University in collaboration with The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership) The full address can be found by clicking here and then opening the link titled Servant-Leadership: Creating An Alternative Future: More information on Servant=Leadership can be found at http://www.greenleaf.org/

Servant Leadership: Creating an Alternative Future

Change the conversation, change your thinking, change your life.

…(M)aybe the audience creates the performance. Maybe the listening creates the speaking. Maybe citizens create leaders, maybe employees create bosses, maybe students create teachers and children create parents. Maybe the purpose of problem solving is to build relationships.

The only way the future gets created … is through invitation.

I’d rather have two people in the room who chose to be there than a thousand who were sent.

…(T)he idea of invitation is very powerful. What constitutes a powerful invitation? One that says, “Please come, and if you come here’s what’s required of you.” Most invitations are too soft, there are elements of begging: “Please come, it’s going to be great, nothing much will be required of you, it’s not going to take long, we’ll be fast, it’ll be organized, Robert’s Rules of Order, there’ll be food, there’ll be drink, the seats will be comfortable, and if you can come late, come at all, leave early, whatever, please come. God bless you.” A powerful invitation is one that says, “We want you to come! Now if you choose to come, here’s what will be demanded of you. You’ll have to show up. You’ll have to engage with your peers in powerful conversations. You’ll have to leave your interests at the door. We didn’t come together to negotiate; the future’s not created through negotiation, it’s created through imagination. It’s created from a dream… (A) possibility creates an alternative future. We’re not coming to negotiate. Leave your interests at home. You’re coming to engage in the primary actions between you and other citizens, you and other people who came. If you’re willing to live by these requirements, please come.”

To me servant-leadership… is a leadership that confronts people with their freedom.

… (T)he act of love is to confront people with their freedom, is to assemble, lead, in a way that says the choice resides in all of us. What greater gift can you give somebody than the experience of their own power, the experience that they have the capacity to create the world?

The skill of servanthood to me is to get good at questions that no matter how you answer them, you’re guilty. No matter how you answer this question you’re on the hook for being a creator of the future. You’re on the hook for being accountable. You create questions so people will choose accountability. We can’t hold each other accountable. We think we can legislate accountability. We can do performance management, we can have rules of the road that we’re (going to) enforce, but people talk about empowerment when all they really want to talk about are boundaries and limits, what will happen to me; we talk about consequences, there’ve got to be consequences; all of these are forms of patriarchy and they have no power. They have no power to create an alternative future. They have no power in the world. The question is, “How do I engage people so they choose to be accountable?” Well, questions do that. There are certain questions that if you start to answer them, you’re in trouble. No matter what you answer, you are responsible for creating an alternative future. The task of servant-leadership, in my mind, is, “Change the conversation, change the future.”

…(T)he questions have to be ones that have embedded in them the notion that choice resides in the world. It doesn’t reside in leaders; it doesn’t reside in the cause. It’s not in the performer, in the parent, in the teacher; cause resides in people’s connectedness to each other, in individuals.

Most of our organizations and communities are parent-child, boss-subordinate, mayor-citizen conversations — we think that matters. We think the boss-subordinate relationship matters, but I don’t think it does.

We think bosses are responsible for the emotional well being of their subordinates. If they have a depressed, low-morale team, it’s their fault! ...Maybe people are responsible for their own emotional well-being. What would it be like to be in a world where individuals were responsible for their own emotional well being, and we didn’t pretend that the boss was cause and subordinate was effect?

Here are some thoughts about conversations that have the power to create an alternative future. One’s the conversation of possibility. What’s the possibility I came here to live into or to create?

There’s a conversation of ownership. Take whatever you’re complaining about and say, “What have I helped do to create that situation?” Beautiful question. “What’s my contribution to the problem? What have I helped do?” It means I’m an owner. Whatever I complain about, let me turn that question and say, “How have I created that thing?” It’s a conversation of ownership.

There’s a conversation of commitment. Commitment means, what’s the promise I’m willing to make with no expectation of return? That’s a commitment. …“What’s the promise you’re willing to make with no expectation of return?” … Now who do I make the promise to? To peers. If you’re in a leadership spot and you want to create choice, engagement among people working for you, then you say let them make promises to each other. Let them sit in witness of those promises, peers, and say, “Okay, is that enough?” and that shifts the focus from boss-to-subordinate to peer-to-peer.

(W)hy not ask each individual, “What are you here to create? What’s the vision you have?” Now people get nervous: “Suppose we don’t have agreeable, compatible visions,” but I’ve never heard a vision that wasn’t embraceable. I’ve never heard an individual say, “The possibility I’m living into is to walk over people. To succeed at the cost of others.”

“Well, suppose my only purpose in leading would be to bring the gifts of the margin into the center. I just love that thought. I have no idea what it means, but I love the thought. And suppose when we come together we agree for the next six months we’re only going to talk about gifts. And we do it in the moment. We do it with each other and say, “You know, here’s the gift I’ve gotten from you in the last ten minutes.” And you teach people to breathe that in. Most people, when they’re given love or given a statement of gifts, exhale. And they begin a story. And so that’s the thought. And then you devise ways of doing that. So the gift conversation has a lot of power to it.

…(H)elp is just a subtle form of control. People want to give advice to each other. They want to tell you what they did when they were at your stage of life. They have an answer for you, and it’s called generosity; for me it’s mostly a conversation stopper. Whenever you engage people in powerful questions you have to set them up very carefully and tell them, do not help each other. Do not give advice. Do not mask your advice in questions: “Have you thought of this, have you thought of that?” Do not tell them what you did at this stage.

I want you to substitute curiosity for help. Every time you have the instinct to be useful, helpful, to have an answer, to give advice... Ask the other person, “Why does that matter to you? What’s the meaning that that has to you? What’s at stake for you?” In a deeper sense you say, “I came here to serve you by valuing meaning over speed. Meaning over efficiency. Meaning over problem solving.” People say, “I’m a problem solver.” I know you are, but it’s only a part of who you are. You have to inoculate people against the search for the quick answer, by asking them: “What does this mean? Why does it matter to you?”

Going Deeper

2008-03-29T07:53:00.001-07:00

The terms vision, ethics, reality and courage are relatively easy to understand. When we hear the words we quickly understand what they mean and can readily bring to mind images that provide a context for each concept. We know what it is to have vision, to behave ethically, to be connected to the real world, and to act with courage.

However, over the ages many wise and thoughtful authors have challenged humanity, both as individuals and collective societies, to examine this tendency to live life at the surface. They have taught those who chose to be students that it is necessary to think more deeply about our values and assumptions, to study our beliefs, to question facts, and to carefully inspect our fears, our motivations, and the very core of our being.

This all sounds very ominous, dark and a little frightening.

But, there is hope. Taken in small doses you can get in touch with your inner being, and see into the nooks and crannies that make you who you are, without having to hire a psychiatrist.

What you gain from this introspection is a better understanding of what drives you, what you value, what core beliefs shape your thinking, and why you react the way you do in certain situations. (This is a way for you to "Get into the Balcony" on a more personal and intimate scale. See the post below for more information.)

What you lose is the ability to live at the surface. You can no longer mentally hide out. You will find yourself examining your thoughts, what you say, the things other people say, and the world that is presented to you by others at an entirely new level. Admittedly, this can be a little scary because you find that you hold yourself to a new standard that can be difficult to maintain.

To help you on your journey, I would like to recommend a few resources:

Leadership from the Inside Out, by Kevin Cashman, is a great book for introspection, and self-examination. If you follow Cashman through the process, and do the exercises he describes in the text, you will discover many things about yourself, and gain a new understanding of what drives you, what makes you behave the way you do, what you value, and how to put this new knowledge into action. If you click here you will find a short article from Fast Company magazine from 1999 that talks about Cashman and his approach to developing a leadership mind.
Organizational Culture and Leadership, by Edgar H. Schein, gives you some insight into the culture of organizations. Although Schein's approach is very different from Cashman, the ultimate goal is the same - to gain an understanding of what drives an organization, what it values, and what beliefs and assumptions the organization as a whole makes about itself and the world around it. The first couple of chapters will give you the flavor for Schein's approach to understanding organizational culture. Click here to see a quick overview of Schein and his concepts.
The Philosophic Consultant, by Peter Koestenbaum, is probably the best of Dr. K’s books on leadership principles. He covers all aspects of the Leadership Diamond model, and the deeper meaning of each concept in a way this is accessible to all. In 2000 Fast Company Magazine did an article on Dr K that gives you a feeling for his philosophy and his theories, as well as his desire to look deeply into the concept of leadership.
The Answer to How is Yes - Acting on What Matters, by Peter Block, briefly touches on the idea that the inward journey is a necessary part of being able to do meaningful work. It is an easy read, with a perhaps a less easy message about the need to focus on purpose rather than methods, and on doing what matters rather than on tools and techniques. You can read an interview with Peter done by the National Staff Development Council by clicking here.
The Heart Aroused - Poetry and the Preservation of the Soul in Corporate America, by David Whyte, is perhaps the most philosophical of the books on this list. David is a poet, author, and lecturer of some renown. In this book, David invites you, the reader, to bring your fears, loves and dreams into the workplace. Of course, this cannot happen without first discovering what it is that you fear, love and dream. I recommend this book for your more reflective moments, when you are not in the mood to do the work that Cashman puts you through.

If any of you have recommended books or articles, please post a comment with the information. Maybe I can add a new post with additional resources based on your suggestions in the near future.

What is Real?

2008-03-15T09:10:00.000-07:00

Reality is the fully integrated recognition that there is a world around you that is in essence different from you, does not care about you, but is a world that you desperately need. (Dr. Peter Koestenbaum, Philosopher, author and Mentor)

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself. And, you are the easiest person to fool. (Richard P. Feynman, Physicist, 1918-1988)

Reality is all around us. And yet, we rarely stop to examine our perceptions, or critically examine the conversation that goes on inside our head.

We tell ourselves that we know what is real, that we live a life well grounded in reality. We assume that our reality is what matters. And, therein lies the problem.

Unfortunately, a connection to reality is not as simple as forming our opinions and living our lives within our self-created perception. Nor is reality based on accepting a dogma that is espoused by our political party, religious leaders, or teachers. Reality demands an examination of perceptions and teachings, and a drilling down until we reach the facts that underlie all that exists around us.

Reality can be a hard master. Money, laws, physics, culture, and time do not change to accommodate assumptions. However, a great leader will understand the realities that apply to a particular situation, and will use this knowledge to select the path that leads to success.

Don't confuse reality with current conditions. For example, existing laws may prevent you or your business from entering a certain market, or your city from providing a certain service. But laws can be changed. So the reality that may be most important is not the present law, but the process for changing the law and the likelihood of success.

External realities are sometimes easier to deal with than the inner realities of the soul. We all have an inner vision of who we are, how we interact with others, and how our coworkers, bosses, classmates, teachers, families and friends perceive us. We find ways to make our inner selves comfortable with the fact that we did not complete our work on time, did not attend a class, or did not deliver on a promise or commitment. We separate our inner selves from reality in order to make ourselves comfortable with who we are and how we behave.

Ignoring the reality of who you are, how you are perceived by others, and living in a fantasy world is just as dangerous as ignoring external realities to anyone who wants to be an effective leader.

As you apply the concepts of reality in your leadership life, a clear understanding of both external and internal realities will help you develop the two critical characteristics of great leaders - Authenticity and Competence. (There is more at this Blog Entry - Authenticity, and this entry - Gaining Competence)

____________________________________________

PS - If you can't deal with reality, you might be interested in a world called Second Life. Take a look at this short summary with links to the Second Life web site. There are people that now spend as much (if not more) of their time in a virtual reality, as they spend in the so-called "real world".

Gaining Competence

2008-03-08T09:02:00.000-08:00

Learning any new skill, or becoming competent in any new subject takes time an effort. And, it comes as no surprise that the same applies to learning to apply the concepts of leadership to your life at work and home.

One way to understand this is to use the metaphor of learning a new sport. For a moment, lets say you have never ridden a horse. As you move through the process of mastering the skills and techniques that will allow you and your mount to float effortlessly over even the highest jumps (or fences), you move through the four stages of competence:

Unconscious incompetence - At this stage you don't know what you don't know. You have no idea that there are muscles you have never used, or that there are signals you send to the horse through your seat, legs and hands. You have no concept of the depth of the knowledge you will need to master the sport.
Conscious incompetence - At this stage you become conscious of the vast amount of learning necessary to master the sport, and that you do not yet have the skills that will make you a successful rider. But, the good news is that the world of possibility has opened before you, and you are ready to take on the challenge.
Conscious competence - Now you have learned the skills, but each time you apply them it takes significant conscious effort to remember the correct position, command, sequence, and subtle nuisances of the relationship between your and your horse. After completing a ride, you are exhausted from the effort of having to think through every muscle movement, and correcting every error.
Unconscious competence - And finally, you have reached the stage where you have mastered the sport. You and your horse communicate without even having to think about commands or analyzing feedback. You flow together around the course as if you are one. No conscious effort is required to apply the skills that only a few months or years ago seemed so foreign and difficult.

It is the same with leadership. The concepts of leadership initially seem difficult and cumbersome. It is difficult to hold all that you have learned in your mind at the same time. And it is particularly hard to call on the concepts when you are under stress, or on a tight deadline, or the proverbial waste material has hit the rotating blades.

However, comfort comes with practice. Every time you apply the concepts of leadership you take a step toward unconscious competence. And, at some point in your future you will find that you are able to apply a leadership perspective to the challenges of life.

Applying the Diamond to Local Politics

2008-03-01T15:39:00.000-08:00

Lets suppose that there is something that you need from your local city or town council. And, just for argument sake, lets suppose that this is your first experience with your local political process.

What might the leadership diamond teach us about how to approach the problem?

I have penned (or typed) a short piece of advice to those who are interested in addressing their council with some advice on how to proceed. The final paragraph of that little advice column shows how applying the leadership mind to the challenge of local politics can give you the edge.

To read this short column please click >>>>HERE<<<<.

Applying the Diamond to Life

2008-03-01T06:44:00.000-08:00

You don't have to wait until you are facing a huge, overwhelming philosophic problem to begin applying the Diamond's principles. There are many opportunities in life where a few minutes of contemplation on how your current situation can be viewed within the Diamond may change your direction forever.

Author David Whyte illustrates this point in his book Crossing the Unknown Sea - Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity:

"We can spend a third of our lives preparing ourselves for our work, and find ourselves forgetting the original inspiration behind all that preparation the moment we take a seat at our new desk." ( p 164).

A vision of our future, of how we want to make a difference in the world (or at least our small part of the world) drives us toward a career, school, a job search, and finally our choice that places us firmly within the working world. Our vision of the future pokes, pulls, and prods us until we settle ourselves on a path.

However, it is courage that will keep us on the path that eventually leads to making our vision become a reality. Whyte goes on to explain that it is courage that gives a person "...the ability to remain unutterably themselves in the midst of conforming pressures." The pressure from our friends to conform, to become part of the system, and to not rock the boat, to think and act in the accepted way, can be an irresistible force unless we have a clear vision, and our courage is firmly in place.

On this most personal and private level the time a person devotes to getting clear on his or her particular vision of the future and how that vision (and the process of moving toward that vision) effects both the person and those who are closest to him or her is time well spent. In addition, a person must be ready to call upon his or her courage to keep their feet on the path.

Your first task, upon taking your seat at your new desk, is to firmly plant your vision before you and keep your feet pointed toward your chosen future.

The View from the Balcony

2008-02-24T09:27:00.000-08:00

Understanding the concepts of the Leadership Diamond and putting them into use are two very different things. When you are in the heat of the moment, locked in a debate with someone with strong opinions, struggling to make yourself heard, it is difficult to keep your vision (what you are trying to create as a result of your effort), ethics (how your actions will affect others), and reality (the real, and undeniable facts) in the forefront of your mind. While locked in a struggle with others the desire to win, to make your point, and to show your courage, will often hide more rational thoughts.

However, my good friend, Ray Patchett, has taught me that this is the exact moment when you can be most effective by taking a moment to mentally step from the stage, where you are one of the players, into the balcony, where you can see the entire play unfold. This mental leap up into the cheap seats gives you a new perspective of the entire drama. You can see each of the players and the roles they have assumed, the audience (those affected by the outcome of the drama), the theater (the environment in which the play is taking place), the props (the theatrical devices that are part of the play to enhance the effect), and yourself.

When you make a mental move away from the argument to a vantage point that lets you perceive all of the parts, you can more effectively apply the concepts of the Diamond to your role. Although you cannot be responsible for how others will behave, you can be responsible for your performance.

You can practice this in situations at times when you are not an actor, but find yourself to be an engaged observer. Step back to see all of the parts that are being played. Hear the words that are being used that attempt to make each player's points. And, think more clearly about how vision, ethics, reality and courage help to create a space for greatness.

Free Will

2008-02-16T08:44:00.000-08:00

Leadership begins with recognizing that we are free to choose; free to choose our beliefs and attitudes, free to acknowledge our anxiety, and to turn the energy that anxiety creates into a positive force for change. This freedom is, in and of itself, a force to be reckoned with. Once free will is accepted and embraced, you become fully aware that you are accountable for the choices you make. You are accountable for how you exercise your free will.

Now this all sounds very dark and negative - all this talk about anxiety can be a bit oppressive. However, the interesting thing is that once you become comfortable with the idea that you have free will, and that you have the ability and the right to choose your path, a huge burden is lifted from your shoulders. You no longer are the "victim of circumstances"; you are no longer "just an employee" with no say in how the organization is run; you are no longer forced to follow others to ends that you do not support. This is an extraordinarily empowering experience. And, it is an experience that has its roots within you, within your decision to embrace your free will and accountability.

That is the philosophical part of this post...

I would be interested in hearing your comments on:

How free will and accountability work for you
How you have dealt with those who would take away your right to free will
What difficulties this concept of free will poses for you
Or, other comments that come to mind.

Thanks for participating in the Leadership Diamond Blog.

Jim E

The Basic Leadership Diamond

2008-02-14T13:02:00.000-08:00

We will be having many discussions about the Leadership Diamond, and how it applies to life, the universe, and everything (to quote Douglas Adams). So, just to make the corners of the diamond visible to all, I am posting this diagram summarizing, in the most basic terms, the concepts of the diamond.

In general the basic concepts are:
Vision:
Having a clear vision of what it is you are trying to create as a result of your effort is essential to being able to know how to apply the other points of the diamond.

Ethics:
Ethics, as it is used in the Diamond model is more than behaving within the law. The Diamond uses this term to describe an attitude of care and empathy for humanity, and how our actions affect others. It includes our ability to dedicate ourselves to the well being of another human being.

Courage:
For me, courage is the action point of the Diamond. It takes courage to face the challenges that stand between today's reality and the vision of the future. It takes courage to change the status quo. It takes courage to move when others are against you. It takes courage to begin change.

Reality:
Being connected to the real world is essential for success. You cannot live in a fantasy world. You must face the realities of today - the moral, financial, legal, and physical realities. You cannot pretend that realities do not exist. However, once you are grounded in reality, you can begin to see the steps necessary to deliver on the vision you have in mind.

Polarities:
Conflict and contradiction are part of life. The world is filled with cases where you will be faced with polarities - conflicts between two ideals or choices. What you will discover is that the world is not black or white, good or evil, right or wrong. You soon find that the world is comprised of polarities where both cases are valid - it is black AND white, it is good AND evil, at the same time. Balancing polarities is part of mastering the Leadership Diamond.

Greatness:
This is perhaps the most difficult of the basic concepts of the Diamond. To me, greatness comes about when a person has pushed the points of the Diamond to their maximum extent. When your vision is as grand as you can make it, when your ethical base is as strong as possible, when you are aware of all of the realities surrounding you, and when your courage is at its peak, you can achieve greatness.

Start at the Beginning - Resources

2008-02-02T10:47:00.000-08:00

Welcome!

Every journey begins with the first step. And, every blog begins with the first entry.

For those of you who are not acquainted with Dr. Koestenbaum, or the concepts of the Leadership Diamond, it might be a good idea start with some information that will help you put your mind into the proper frame of reference. Therefore, this first blog entry will give you a few references and resources that may prove useful.

Dr. Koestenbaum has written a number of books that will be mentioned from time to time in these posts. Of his many works, the two that will probably be of most use to the participants in this blog will be the following:

Leadership - The Inner Side of Greatness

The Philosophic Consultant - Revolutionizing Organizations with Ideas

In addition, more information is available about Dr. Koestenbaum and his work at his web site, www.pib.net (Philosophy in Business).

The next blog entry will begin to deal with the concepts of the leadership diamond. You are invited to post, comment, participate, challenge, and think deeply about leadership, greatness, and your role in making your organization the best that it can be.

Welcome, and thank you for your participation.

PS - If you would like to be able to make new posts, in addition to your ability to comment on existing posts, let me know by including your name, email address, and a statement about your interest in a comment to any post on this blog. I will be happy to change the blog settings to allow others to be authors of content.

As you might expect, I reserve the right to keep the discussion on topic, respectful of others, and focused on learning and developing our understanding of leadership.