Motivation, Rewards, and Leadership

The good news is that the world really is all about you.  

Therefore, the world is what you make it. 

_____________________________________________

Here are a few thoughts-for-the-day with which you may, or may not, agree.  Regardless of how you feel, I hope you find a moment to stop and think about your beliefs and the basis upon which those beliefs have been built.

1.  Employees do not need to be motivated - In organizational life managers are often charged with the productivity and well being of the staff.  It is management's job to make sure the staff is focusing on the task at hand, and that everyone is sufficiently motivated.

But, is it really management's job to motivate you?  Is the manager the one responsible for each person's motivation?

If we assume that it is management's job to motivate us, we assume that we are not inherently motivated.  The cause of motivation is outside of us - a gift to be received from someone else.  If we don't receive the gift every day, we will not feel motivated.  This belief places the responsibility for the level of motivation squarely on management's shoulders, giving us someone to blame when motivation falls below required levels.

I suggest that this model is flawed.

Yes, management has a role to play in creating an environment that does not squash motivation like an unwelcome bug.  "It is right and human for managers to care about the motivation and morale of their people, it's just that they are not the cause of it." (Koestenbaum and Block - Freedom and Accountability At Work)

We are also responsible for our own morale.  If we come to work depressed, it is not only management's responsibility to pull us out of our depression.  If we feel unmotivated by our work, it is not only management's job to detect our lack of motivation and give us a rousing pep talk.  We are all responsible for our own morale and motivation.

We have freedom; we have a choice.

(See: Motivation, Vision and Motivation in this blog)

2.  Rewards do not explain and drive behavior -  The holy grail of compensation has long been "What gets rewarded gets done."  If you want something done, put a reward on the result.  If you want to encourage a certain behavior, put a reward on it.  The reverse has also been true - if you want to discourage a behavior or result, take away a reward (usually money) every time it happens.

Yes, compensation systems are important.  Yes, compensation systems are often designed based on a desire to encourage certain behaviors.  No, compensation systems are not successful in creating long-term motivation, and achieving desired results.  Short-term results, maybe.  But, long-term results, no.

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.

For the long-term it's not what gets rewarded that gets done.  It's what is rewarding gets done. (Katzenbach - Why Pride Matters More Than Money)

As an alternative, treat employees as you would anyone who is actively contributing to the wealth of the organization.  They are the ones who are creating the products and services that make the organization successful.  Compensation is important, but not because it will change behavior.

(See: Money and Motivation in this blog)

3. Leadership is abundant, not rare - Many organizations are leader-focused.  The person at the top of the hierarchy is the fearless leader, and those in the rest of the organization are the followers.  Leadership is reserved for those with titles and offices, for those who attend the board or leadership team meetings.  Employees are trained to do their jobs, or put through employee development programs to help them become better employees, supervisors, and managers, but they are not considered leaders.

Yes, it is very important for the top leaders to offer a clear vision, set the tone for the corporate ethics and values, keep the organizational culture connected to the realities of the market, and to display the courage to take action.  This is a seat of great power that comes with great responsibilities.  It is important that these top leaders use their power with care and grace, for they are creating a tone that will color the behavior of others.

But these leadership behaviors are not reserved to only the nose-bleed seats.

Organizations will find that, given the opportunity to take on the challenge, leaders exist at all levels.  What is required is for managers and supervisors to create the space for others to take action.  

No, not everyone wants to be a leader.  

But, people rise to a challenge.  If you want to encourage leaders at all levels, you need to start by making room in your organization for people of good character to understand the vision and share it with others, express their ethics and values, touch the realities that define their market, and both see the courage of the leaders at the top, and show their own courage by making choices and taking risks.  

(See: A Leader's Power, Ownership, 100% Responsibility, Changing Minds - The Importance Of Character in this blog)

___________________________________________


Thanks for taking the time to read through this blog entry.  Hope it sparked some thoughts or feelings about leadership. 

If you are interested in more thought provoking reading, the preceding is largely based on the work of Peter Koestenbaum and Peter Block in Freedom and Accountability At Work.

My thanks go to Dr. Koestenbaum for his long dedication to improving both government and business organizations.

Great Leadership In Troubled Times

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.

Vision and Motivation

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.

-

Resistance

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?

Appreciative Inquiry

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):

1. DISCOVER: The identification of organizational processes that work well.
2. DREAM: The envisioning of processes that would work well in the future.
3. DESIGN: Planning and prioritizing processes that would work well.
4. 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 Appreciative Inquiry Commons
• Appreciative Inquiry with Teams, G R Bushe, Organization Development Journal, Date: 01/01/1998
• Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Approach to Building Cooperative Capacity, Author: Frank Barrett , Ronald Fry, 2005
• Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change, Cooperrider, Whitney, 2005

The Good Society

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?

Time

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.

The Courage and Vision to Innovate

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

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 facing, 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.

Peter Block - Servant-Leadership

Peter Block is an author, lecturer, and organizational consultant who has some very intriguing thoughts about service. 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)

Note:  I realize that some of the links on this post are broken.  At this time I do not have links to the text for the full address given by Peter Block.  If you would like more information, I am sure Peter would be happy to share his thoughts with you directly.  You can reach him through his web page http://www.peterblock.com/ .


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).  Unfortunately this information is no longer available on line.  
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?”

Applying the Diamond to Life

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 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.