Reputation vs. What have you done for me lately?

I recently read an article in INC. Magazine titled 9 Beliefs of Remarkably Successful People, by Jeff Haden, and was struck by several of his key points.

In the article, which is well worth your reading, he points out a number of beliefs that will certainly set your ego-based brain thinking.  A little reflection on each point would be a valuable exercise because you might discover something about yourself that you either like and need to emphasize, or don't like and need to change.

One belief that struck me as particularly important is:

I have never paid my dues.
Dues aren't paid, past tense. Dues get paid, each and every day. The only real measure of your value is the tangible contribution you make on a daily basis.

No matter what you've done or accomplished in the past, you're never too good to roll up your sleeves, get dirty, and do the grunt work.  No job is ever too menial, no task ever too unskilled or boring.

Remarkably successful people never feel entitled--except to the fruits of their labor.

We have all heard people say "I've paid my dues."  What this really means is that I have done a job that I didn't enjoy, or that I now see as below me, and because of my past work I no longer have to do that task.  The job should now be done by someone else.  When I say "I've paid my dues," I also mean that others, perhaps our boss or coworkers, should recognize my past contribution, my "history" in the organization, and give me credit for what I've done.  It's time for someone else to have their turn in the barrel.

The problem is, as Haden points out, history rarely counts.

Don't get me wrong.  Your history is incredibly important in creating your reputation.  Your reputation is the mental picture others carry of you filed away in their heads waiting for just the right moment to bring your name to mind.  It's your reputation that opens doors of opportunity.  It's your reputation that gives people a positive or negative feeling about your skills, knowledge, and abilities.

But, it's what you have done lately that maintains that reputation.  You can have a long history of contributing to the company or organization, but if you are seen as no longer contributing, your prior reputation isn't going to help. 

If your goal is to be noticed, or to be seen as an asset to the organization, it is both the history of outstanding performance, and the current reality of continuing performance at an exceptional level that combine to unlock opportunity.

None of this is to suggest that you have to do every job in the office.  Certainly not!  That's why there are many people in your organization.  It takes lots of people, doing their jobs, to get things done.  (For a little mind-twist on a related subject see the prior blog post 100% Responsibility.)

But, it is important to understand that when someone needs some help, or the work piles up and the whole system starts to grind to a halt, you are not exempt from pitching in, even if the job is menial, dirty, or boring. 

In the end, no, you haven't paid your dues.  But, you certainly have created a reputation.  I hope it's a good one.

_______________________________________________________

PS:  It is probably important to note that there is a difference between your reputation and your character.  For most of us the two are parallel.  But, it is very possible to have a tarnished reputation while retaining an exceptional character.  

Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.                   Abraham Lincoln

This possible polarity might be a good topic for a future blog post.

Also, you might find the prior blog post Changing Minds - The Importance of Character interesting.

Steering By The Rear View Mirror

As corporate and government leaders we depend on data and historical trends to make sense of today's economy.  We look at quarterly performance, study charts of changing sales numbers, analyze trends in housing prices, and examine the number of new jobs created last month.  Unfortunately, much of the data has been disappointing, or worse, very negative.  Then, using this historical data, we make policies that take us into the future.

All of these are valid sources of information.  These indicators, and many more, have lead to a general agreement that the depth and breadth of the recent recession has had a devastating effect on both business and government.  Unemployment has been at unprecedented levels.  In addition, the world economy has been tested almost to the breaking point several times.

Working on the assumption that this is all true, then it stands to reason that caution should be the word of the day for organizations that want to survive.  Our tendency has been to cut back, lower costs, reduce services, hunker down and weather the storm.  It comes as no surprise that this is what the majority of our leaders have advised for several years.

This advice may have been very appropriate for the time.  After all, who could argue with recent history?  It is natural for us to set our course based on past experiences.  It is natural for us to make forecasts based on historical data.  It is natural for us to be cautious.

However, the one thing we can count on in life is change.  When things change, whether that change is rapid or gradual, an organization needs to be able to react by adjusting its course to match the new conditions.  There comes a time when leaders, boards of directors, or others charged with steering the corporate ship must take their eyes away from the rear view mirror and focus on the road ahead. 

Here's the challenge: History, and our natural caution, would tell us to hold to our conservative course until things have turned around.  In other words, we should hold on until we see recovery in our rear view mirror.  It's a bit like riding a roller-coaster sitting backwards.  But, if we prepare ourselves for what has passed, that last dip or rise, we will not be ready for what is coming.

Our program cuts and reductions in products and services have prepared us to survive the past, but are we prepared for the future?

Have our cuts placed us in a position where we cannot respond to the future opportunities and demands?  Are we put in a position where we need to gain back customers, or the trust and confidence of the communities we serve?

Today, we find ourselves, in both business and government, in a position where our roller-coaster ride is beginning to move upward.  But, how many organizations are prepared to take on the demands of a improving economy?  Do we have a game plan for recovery?

For businesses, now would be a very good time to know what needs to be done to win back customers that left because of reduced service, responsiveness, or lack of innovative products.

For government, now would be a very good time to know what long-term effects past decisions to defer maintenance will have on the long-term integrity of infrastructure, and how service reductions will change the quality of life in our community.

It takes courage to buck the popular trend.  (See the "Great Leadership In Troubled Times" post in this blog)  A leader who begins talking about recovery when "everyone knows things are bad' may have trouble selling the message that we need to recreate our organization to deal with a growing economy.  But today, the organizations that are ready to move to the next level of success are the ones that will ride the proverbial roller-coaster without suffering a bad case of whiplash.

Yes, things have been difficult.  But, we cannot let that historical fact turn us into a deer in the headlights of a recovering economy.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time, and still maintain the ability to function." (As quoted by Marcus Buckingham in First Break All The Rules.)  I would modify this slightly for this discussion by suggesting that the test of a first rate leader is the ability to hold two opposing models of success in the mind at the same time, and retain the ability to move forward.

As much as we would like for life to be full of quick and perfect answers, the truth is that life is messy and full of shades of gray. (See the Polarities post in this blog)  Business is not simply good or bad.  In these interesting times we need to be prepared for both good and bad.  The economy is not simply good or bad.  Today it is a complex mix of both good and bad. 

The natural tendency is for the people in our organizations, both leaders and staff alike, to demand certainty.  They want black or white answers to every question.  But, the organizations that succeed in this economy will be those that can embrace uncertainty, and navigate these hazy, uncharted waters.

This is an interesting time for people within organizations at all levels.  This is a time when everyone needs to learn from the past, but look to the future.  If we insist on steering by the rear view mirror, we will all crash and burn.

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

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

The Polarity of Leading in Social Systems vs. Political Systems

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.

Getting the Right Thing Done for Society

(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. )

Change

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.)

Polarities

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.

The Basic Leadership Diamond

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.