Headline in the business section of Florida Today (part of the USA Today group) on 5/7/11: "Couldn't be better for CEOs: Leaders in top companies made more in 2010 than in booming 2007"
Sometimes I think I'm in the Twilight Zone. How can the general public read about the HUGE disparity between CEO wages and the rest of the country and not go a little crazy? It can't be that the news doesn't get out because the media is controlled by those same rich and powerful, since I easily stumbled on it in a two page business section of a rag of a newspaper that doesn't even use spell check. Then this morning I hear an interview with John Boehner declaring that they will NEVER raise taxes on the wealthy because they creates jobs. So how do I reconcile huge unemployment numbers and companies still cutting back, when it would seem that some of the $50-80,000,000 salaries could be used to create jobs?
How much is enough? If I complain about the disparity in the distribution of wealth in this country I am called a socialist. But somewhere along the line I think people confuse democracy and capitalism. I know that greed of these proportions is not about the money, because they can't spend it all. I think it's about "The American Dream" that we all have the freedom to do anything we want, and that includes having more money than we can spend. So the average workers with average salaries don't get up in arms when they hear about these disparities. Instead they are proud of the example, because it means "one day I could be that person." Of course they have as much chance of that as becoming professional athletes (another fantasy that we gladly pay for). Somewhere along the way I think we lost our way. And if these CEO's are an example of leadership I think we need to reconsider what leadership is about.
For a jolting perspective of another way to run a company read Ricardo Semler's The Seven-Day Weekend. The guy took his company, Semco, from annual revenues of $4M to $212M in 20 years by giving up control and letting the employees make decisions and take responsibility for their well-being and the well-being of the company. What if followers create leaders, and not the other way around? Check out Semco's common sense approach to business, and having a life. As I was reading about the Semco story I kept scratching my head thinking this is crazy. You can't have so few controls! But when I read about our "leaders" making record amounts of money in one of the worst financial times in global history I scratch my head again.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Human behavior: it's not rocket science. Too bad...
The other day my 24 yr. old son and I were discussing a recent newsletter from one of my clients, a financial analyst. In it, he shared a link to a a rather eye-opening little worksheet published by the NYT: a do-it-yourself budget balancing puzzle (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html). I remarked that it it didn't seem too painful for me to resolve the nation's deficit problem, once given the relevant information and seeing the cause-effect. In fact, when approaching this a citizen of the United States, and not focused on my own special interests, it seemed like a no brainer. And I could see how another person with a different perspective might get to the same place differently. But in either case, getting there wasn't the impossible task we are led to believe.
I asked out loud why our "leaders" in Washington weren't doing the same exercise (based on the findings of the president's bipartisan commission). Why isn't this information out there as publicly as the lives of The Jersey Shore? Why aren't our elected representatives held publicly accountable for taking on the same responsibility, such that their own special interests put in front of the greater good can be seen just as clearly and openly as "the emperor's new clothes?" Why isn't what is obvious to most intelligent people, regarding of political leaning, the focus of public debate, rather than the bickering? Instead we get sound bites, slogans and superficial yet emotionally dramatic diversions from the real issues.
I know I must sound naive, but the alternative seems too depressing. Then my son made a comment that struck me yet again. "It seems crazier to say we can have transparency in congress then it was for John F. Kennedy to say we would put a man on moon. And he didn't even have a clue as to how we would do it. On paper, putting a man on the moon seems a lot more difficult. But in reality when you factor in human behavior it's much more difficult to get transparency in congress."
Ouch.
I asked out loud why our "leaders" in Washington weren't doing the same exercise (based on the findings of the president's bipartisan commission). Why isn't this information out there as publicly as the lives of The Jersey Shore? Why aren't our elected representatives held publicly accountable for taking on the same responsibility, such that their own special interests put in front of the greater good can be seen just as clearly and openly as "the emperor's new clothes?" Why isn't what is obvious to most intelligent people, regarding of political leaning, the focus of public debate, rather than the bickering? Instead we get sound bites, slogans and superficial yet emotionally dramatic diversions from the real issues.
I know I must sound naive, but the alternative seems too depressing. Then my son made a comment that struck me yet again. "It seems crazier to say we can have transparency in congress then it was for John F. Kennedy to say we would put a man on moon. And he didn't even have a clue as to how we would do it. On paper, putting a man on the moon seems a lot more difficult. But in reality when you factor in human behavior it's much more difficult to get transparency in congress."
Ouch.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Writing my first email newsletter has become a process that has helped me gain clarity about where I want to go with my work life (what I want to do when and if I grow up). As one of my peers is fond of saying, "the reason parents are always asking their kids what they want to be when they grow up is because they're still fishing for ideas!" I must admit the irony in having turned 55 this month and that I'm still doing stuff like this. That made me realize how when I was younger I would think less and just do. For better and for worse. Then I accumulated all this stuff over the years - some wisdom, some knowledge, lots of clutter and irrelevant garbage disguised as important. I should've been doing more housecleaning more often, but maybe this is how it works?
While the newsletter I created looked interesting, it, like my default brain, had lots of stuff, including clutter. My shadow side: not knowing when enough is enough. As my StrengthsFinder assessment validated, my intuition is good and I was drawn to finding newsletters I had that I actually liked. I saw & felt the distinction. I yearned to recapture the simplicity that lies beneath the rubble. I followed where my energy was drawing me. And noted where I was being sapped. Which then drew me to my SF assessment itself, a more focused look into what really makes me tick, articulated better than I was doing myself. The irony of it's recommendation that I find a partner for whom that was their strength was not lost on me.
So basically I clarified that my passion is simply coaching leaders or visionary thinkers, and then working with them with their organizations to create the kinds of organizations that are places like I describe below. Everything below, btw, is taken from some part of my own StrengthsFinder, mostly various pieces from the Action-Planning Guide section adapted for this purpose. In other words, it just validates that this is what I'm made to do and love to do.
Primary Focus:
While the newsletter I created looked interesting, it, like my default brain, had lots of stuff, including clutter. My shadow side: not knowing when enough is enough. As my StrengthsFinder assessment validated, my intuition is good and I was drawn to finding newsletters I had that I actually liked. I saw & felt the distinction. I yearned to recapture the simplicity that lies beneath the rubble. I followed where my energy was drawing me. And noted where I was being sapped. Which then drew me to my SF assessment itself, a more focused look into what really makes me tick, articulated better than I was doing myself. The irony of it's recommendation that I find a partner for whom that was their strength was not lost on me.
So basically I clarified that my passion is simply coaching leaders or visionary thinkers, and then working with them with their organizations to create the kinds of organizations that are places like I describe below. Everything below, btw, is taken from some part of my own StrengthsFinder, mostly various pieces from the Action-Planning Guide section adapted for this purpose. In other words, it just validates that this is what I'm made to do and love to do.
Primary Focus:
- Coach visionary thinkers and leaders who share their original ideas. Encourage them to dream big dreams.
- Certain forward-looking thinkers will feel completely understood. They get that their inventive minds can change the future.
- Prefer to spend time with people who respect and approve of my (our) talents.
- Helping people see connection and purpose in everyday occurrences.
- The organization puts Connectedness into practice.
- People understand how their efforts fit in the larger picture.
- People see the connections among their talents, their actions, their mission, and their successes. When people believe in what they are doing and feel like they are part of something bigger, commitment to achievement is enhanced.
- There’s an understanding of the commonalities inherent in humanity and universal capability, a shift from the mindset of “us” and “them.”
- We spend more time building on great talent than fixing weaknesses.
- We identify and invest in the parts of the organization that are working.
- We make sure that most of our resources are spent in the build-up and build-out of these pockets of excellence.
- We make most of our weaknesses irrelevant. For example, finding a partner, devising a support system, or using one of our stronger talents to compensate for one of our weaker ones.
Monday, January 11, 2010
I began this as the inaugural newsletter for my company, MasterCoaches. But as it unfolded it started to feel more like a blog entry. Interesting, but not sustainable as an ongoing offering, and I created something different for the latter. But not to let it go to waste, I offer these thoughts here.
If you are a leader in an organization, for better or worse, people (always “other people”) are probably your greatest asset and challenge. You see, people are complex. I once heard a great distinction between complicated and complex that illustrates this point. Take a jet airplane (not literally, these days!). It’s a complicated bit of machinery, even if the airlines want us to believe that turning on your cell phone will cause it to crash. Now despite the complicated systems and equipment that make it work, it can in fact be taken apart and reassembled as often as desired. Now take the crew (again, no hostages please). They are complex. Unlike the aircraft they operate, they are not so predictable. Just when you think they are or should be, they do weird or unexpected things. Even our spouses, whom we purport to know intimately, will surprise us regularly. Why, we usually even surprise ourselves! Any time you throw a human being into the equation, things get...complex. That’s why within the field of economics, which supposedly has “laws,” there is a subset called behavioral economics.
Since I presume that you are human, nothing I’m saying should not come as a shock. Yet it’s remarkable how intelligent well intended people could so easily miss the point. Before I offer some glimmers of hope, let me share a recent event that illustrates the point.
I live in a relatively small town that nonetheless has an outstanding performing arts center. We consistently get Broadway shows and top performers, ranging from Tony Bennett to B.B. King, Harry Connick Jr. to The Moody Blues, South Pacific to Stomp. This 2000 seat performing arts center happens to be a part of our local community college, what is called a direct support organization. Like the other two DSOs associated with the college, it has it’s own volunteer Board of Directors. All three boards are essentially comprised of this city’s movers and shakers, ranging from the former CEO of Harris Corporation, a major national defense contractor, to CEO’s of hospitals and universities. The overseers of the DSO’s and the college itself are a five member Board of Trustees appointed by the governor. Four of the five are attorneys, the fifth is a lobbyist. I share this so you know that that these are well educated intelligent leaders, all volunteers committed to being of service. The same is true of the other three boards. What could go wrong?
Three weeks ago the Board of Trustees fired (they prefer disbanded) all three boards to be replaced by three new ones with five members each, the majority of which include a trustee, college employee and the college president. Oddly enough, the dozens of fired movers and shakers were all caught completely off guard and guess what, they were angry. The flurry of newspaper articles and editorials culminated in a public meeting where the trustees explained their actions, three weeks after the fact.
The complicated part was explained fairly well. The justifications relating to fiscal and fiduciary accountability made sense, to varying degrees, and one could agree that some new actions were overdue.
The complex part, not so much. While the trustees apologized for hurt feelings, there was no ownership for the gross lack of communication and dialogue that preceded the actions. Given that all the organizations rely heavily on fund raising, the hurt feelings of the biggest fundraisers in the county was not insignificant. While the trustees demonstrated a painful lack of people skills (you know, those “soft skills” we talk about in large organizations), so did the esteemed leaders on those boards who chose to take their ball and go home, foregoing the bigger mission they were there to serve.
While the complicated parts are being enacted in this reorganization, the complex parts remain in disarray. Humpty Dumpty’s going to need a lot of glue.
Although the scale and scope of what took place may differ, I’m confident that the theme is an issue in virtually every organization represented by my readers. It could be the leader perspective and the lament of “how do I get people on board?” or “why do people make things so complicated, why won’t they just...” It could be the other side and complaints like “there’s no respect or appreciation” or “if only they would listen (or even let me speak).” Fill in your own observation about how people can be complex and unmanageable.
While the alternatives are fairly simple, we don’t make them easy.
Management is fine for processes and things where there is certainty and predictability.
Leadership is necessary for dealing with the unknown and uncertainty, especially people.
Leadership in this sense is not about having answers or exerting authority. It’s about creating the space for people to show up powerfully. That means people have the space
to voice their doubts or concerns
to contribute to vision they care about
to take personal ownership
to be accountable to peers because they’re in it together and see that connection
to utilize their strengths and gifts
to care
How is this done? Through honest, open, even vulnerable conversation. Not from behind the dais or the job description, but from eye level, person to person. And we don’t sacrifice depth for efficiency if we want sustainability. The esteemed trustees enacted an efficient outcome. It remains to be seen if they created the foundation for sustainable success.
If you are a leader in an organization, for better or worse, people (always “other people”) are probably your greatest asset and challenge. You see, people are complex. I once heard a great distinction between complicated and complex that illustrates this point. Take a jet airplane (not literally, these days!). It’s a complicated bit of machinery, even if the airlines want us to believe that turning on your cell phone will cause it to crash. Now despite the complicated systems and equipment that make it work, it can in fact be taken apart and reassembled as often as desired. Now take the crew (again, no hostages please). They are complex. Unlike the aircraft they operate, they are not so predictable. Just when you think they are or should be, they do weird or unexpected things. Even our spouses, whom we purport to know intimately, will surprise us regularly. Why, we usually even surprise ourselves! Any time you throw a human being into the equation, things get...complex. That’s why within the field of economics, which supposedly has “laws,” there is a subset called behavioral economics.
Since I presume that you are human, nothing I’m saying should not come as a shock. Yet it’s remarkable how intelligent well intended people could so easily miss the point. Before I offer some glimmers of hope, let me share a recent event that illustrates the point.
I live in a relatively small town that nonetheless has an outstanding performing arts center. We consistently get Broadway shows and top performers, ranging from Tony Bennett to B.B. King, Harry Connick Jr. to The Moody Blues, South Pacific to Stomp. This 2000 seat performing arts center happens to be a part of our local community college, what is called a direct support organization. Like the other two DSOs associated with the college, it has it’s own volunteer Board of Directors. All three boards are essentially comprised of this city’s movers and shakers, ranging from the former CEO of Harris Corporation, a major national defense contractor, to CEO’s of hospitals and universities. The overseers of the DSO’s and the college itself are a five member Board of Trustees appointed by the governor. Four of the five are attorneys, the fifth is a lobbyist. I share this so you know that that these are well educated intelligent leaders, all volunteers committed to being of service. The same is true of the other three boards. What could go wrong?
Three weeks ago the Board of Trustees fired (they prefer disbanded) all three boards to be replaced by three new ones with five members each, the majority of which include a trustee, college employee and the college president. Oddly enough, the dozens of fired movers and shakers were all caught completely off guard and guess what, they were angry. The flurry of newspaper articles and editorials culminated in a public meeting where the trustees explained their actions, three weeks after the fact.
The complicated part was explained fairly well. The justifications relating to fiscal and fiduciary accountability made sense, to varying degrees, and one could agree that some new actions were overdue.
The complex part, not so much. While the trustees apologized for hurt feelings, there was no ownership for the gross lack of communication and dialogue that preceded the actions. Given that all the organizations rely heavily on fund raising, the hurt feelings of the biggest fundraisers in the county was not insignificant. While the trustees demonstrated a painful lack of people skills (you know, those “soft skills” we talk about in large organizations), so did the esteemed leaders on those boards who chose to take their ball and go home, foregoing the bigger mission they were there to serve.
While the complicated parts are being enacted in this reorganization, the complex parts remain in disarray. Humpty Dumpty’s going to need a lot of glue.
Although the scale and scope of what took place may differ, I’m confident that the theme is an issue in virtually every organization represented by my readers. It could be the leader perspective and the lament of “how do I get people on board?” or “why do people make things so complicated, why won’t they just...” It could be the other side and complaints like “there’s no respect or appreciation” or “if only they would listen (or even let me speak).” Fill in your own observation about how people can be complex and unmanageable.
While the alternatives are fairly simple, we don’t make them easy.
Management is fine for processes and things where there is certainty and predictability.
Leadership is necessary for dealing with the unknown and uncertainty, especially people.
Leadership in this sense is not about having answers or exerting authority. It’s about creating the space for people to show up powerfully. That means people have the space
to voice their doubts or concerns
to contribute to vision they care about
to take personal ownership
to be accountable to peers because they’re in it together and see that connection
to utilize their strengths and gifts
to care
How is this done? Through honest, open, even vulnerable conversation. Not from behind the dais or the job description, but from eye level, person to person. And we don’t sacrifice depth for efficiency if we want sustainability. The esteemed trustees enacted an efficient outcome. It remains to be seen if they created the foundation for sustainable success.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Change is a Self-Inflicted Wound
I shared my last blog entry with a client, a senior executive in a national company. He felt it would be helpful if I articulated the real business impacts of applying or not applying the approach I discussed. He also was curious about how companies designed to create the environment I proposed actually worked. Excellent questions, especially in light of the rest of his comments about his own company. And that may be a more meaningful way to illustrate my response.
I had asked what might give his company a new more sustainable future. He replied that it starts with a new vision of who we can be. And that is my own starting point in addressing his questions. I need to add that the concern he now has about his company is that the current leadership is not actually cooperating on a plan they all believe in and they appear unwilling or unable to to have an open and honest conversation about getting past that and being onboard together. And that, he surmises, is holding back the company.
What are the business impacts of NOT adopting my approach, he asks?
In this case it started with senior leaders going into a strategic planning workshop where they are asked at the onset to voice any and all concerns and leave no loose ends. Yet afterwards some admitted that they didn’t really agree with all that transpired but “why bother bringing it up, I’ll do what I want anyway”. And that was concerning the vision they crafted for the company! You could call that dishonesty, a lack of trust or simply lip service. The impact in this actual case evolved into “holding back the company”!
If you go back to my notion of a team as a group of individuals focused on common goals that they all care about and commit to for a shared purpose, then another impact is the lack of team, and perhaps worse, the illusion of one. The resultant workgroups act independent of a unified company vision and purpose and the momentum and power of true teams is lost. It is also unlikely to be found, since there persists an illusion that they are acting as a team, or as one aligned company for that matter.
There is also an apparent awareness on the part of these leaders that they are not all on board with one coherent vision or plan for the company, as personal agendas take priority over cooperation. The lack of openness and trust prevents a conversation about this from even taking place. So in the absence of clear leadership managers and employees focus on their day to day. Innovation, growth and long term sustainability are sacrificed and healthy debate about multiple perspectives and possibilities is avoided. Leadership remains reactive, not proactive. Employees don’t know what potential ideas they may have align with the future nor if they would even be given anything more than lip service. Or maybe it’s better to apply their potential in their own small pockets of the company, like their leaders model? Perhaps the biggest impact of operating this way is not so much on the day to day, business as usual, but on the future that will never emerge or risking becoming extinct when the competition innovates?
What are the business impacts if the DO adopt my approach, he asks?
There are numerous ways I can respond. I can start by continuing with the context above. In their strategic planning workshop a vision was created. Rather than the lip service that seemed to emerge (notwithstanding some positive direction that did have real value), a more open, honest and engaging (maybe even conflictual) conversation would have taken place. In this process they would clarify the company’s values, it’s purpose in the deepest sense, and the vision that naturally evolves from that. In many ways that is already present but bringing it into greater awareness and being intentional with it has huge value in driving actual decisions, actions and results. The opportunity then is to articulate it into a core ideology that represents the company’s principles and when integrated throughout the business this provides a sense of meaning and direction for the entire company. The leadership team would’ve emerged as a team. From there the company would be anything but held back!
Along those lines there are many areas where these “soft skills” or people orientation impacts business and the bottom line. There are also numerous organizations that have implemented some or most of these distinctions to varying degrees and quite successfully. Perhaps the most succinct way of making the point would be to reference a recent in depth study done at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSP) by what they called their Barrier Analysis team. You can reference senior NASA official Wayne Hale’s blog: Stifling Dissent at http://nasawatch.com/ which, if you read the comments, will point you to this link: http://www.opennasa.com/2009/01/30/pathways-beyond-the-barriers/ where a member of that team explains the Barrier Analysis team’s process and conclusions. In essence, this diverse interdisciplinary team found an organizational culture not unlike many seen in corporations, where the orientation I am advocating is absent. The illustrative video they shot mimics the experience of my own clients at NASA.
They concluded “We decided to focus on coming up with pathways from the barriers to the ideal states that would be highly actionable and have high impact by covering multiple issues. The four guiding concepts are: Servant Leadership, Freedom to Pursue New Ideas, Integrative Thinking, and Relevance.”
Leadership was characterized as “developing people, removing obstacles from their paths, and creating an environment where employees feel safe to push boundaries in the course of doing their jobs” and an emphasis on “identifying, selecting, and promoting leaders with team-forming and “people” skills”.
“Promoting the Freedom to Pursue New Ideas is based in the recognition that fresh ideas and different perspectives are vital to the evolution of an organization” and “Calculated risks are essential to push the state-of-the-art.”
“Integrative Thinking is about thinking globally and acting locally. Across systems, disciplines, and organizations, we can all focus our effort more effectively when we understand what context we operate in.”
“Thinking integratively also ties into encouraging new ideas by building teams of people from fields that you wouldn’t traditionally associate and changing the dynamics of how teams interact.”
They further state “the most critical context is our value to public and political stakeholders - Relevance.” This ties into my points about an organization’s values, purpose, principles and core ideology.
Lastly, they state “Ultimately, we believe barriers to inclusion and innovation can be overcome in four ways - leading through facilitation (not dictation), welcoming the pursuit of new ideas, understanding the context of what we do, and demonstrating relevance to the American people.”
They conclude stating that “where it will get really hard” however is getting buy-in from managers and employees who are on the other side of the senior management bubble and have become jaded by change efforts that continue to devolve into lip service.
I couldn’t help but recall the words of a man I greatly admire, Peter Block, a consultant/change agent, self-described organizational idealist, who states “change is a self-inflicted wound.” Peter is passionate about the notion that you don’t “get” people to do anything. That people will commit to what they really care about, and they need to be invited into that conversation. And they are free to decline or choose on purpose, because they will asked to make sacrifices for a greater good, for a possibility that is meaningful to them. And if they choose to create change, it will be with a true sense of ownership and commitment.
Those guiding concepts are not mandates or strategies. They are pieces of the possibility that constituents are invited to participate in. They are the beginning of the bigger conversation that surfaces dissent, makes room for real ownership and commitment, and brings the gifts of those on the margins into the center. And everyone will not be on board. But as Margaret Mead once said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
In conclusion, my client finally stated “ Why would a group like yours not be able to help?” and he proceeded with the analogy of a dysfunctional family brought into therapy where not everyone is open to help. He felt, with good reason, that this was the best analogy to describe most senior leaderships. As a former psychotherapist, this was not lost on me. However, therapy is about fixing or healing. What I do (coaching, for lack of a better professional descriptor) is about serving. Whereas fixing requires something (or someone) to be broken, the work I do is about creating a future that people care about. I never met a patient who didn’t show up as a request to be fixed. But when I started seeing them through this new lens, I discovered that every one of them had a possibility, a future, that they really did care about. I can’t say that they got better, because we stopped seeing that need. I can say that when invited with care, there was a future they were excited about living into and they came alive.
There are always some people who would rather be right than happy. But at least they could be given that choice. Peter Block calls that confronting people with their freedom. Joseph Campbell said you get “the call” and either take it or not (and it will come again). I call it being human. And as Peter told me more than once “this too shall pass.”
I had asked what might give his company a new more sustainable future. He replied that it starts with a new vision of who we can be. And that is my own starting point in addressing his questions. I need to add that the concern he now has about his company is that the current leadership is not actually cooperating on a plan they all believe in and they appear unwilling or unable to to have an open and honest conversation about getting past that and being onboard together. And that, he surmises, is holding back the company.
What are the business impacts of NOT adopting my approach, he asks?
In this case it started with senior leaders going into a strategic planning workshop where they are asked at the onset to voice any and all concerns and leave no loose ends. Yet afterwards some admitted that they didn’t really agree with all that transpired but “why bother bringing it up, I’ll do what I want anyway”. And that was concerning the vision they crafted for the company! You could call that dishonesty, a lack of trust or simply lip service. The impact in this actual case evolved into “holding back the company”!
If you go back to my notion of a team as a group of individuals focused on common goals that they all care about and commit to for a shared purpose, then another impact is the lack of team, and perhaps worse, the illusion of one. The resultant workgroups act independent of a unified company vision and purpose and the momentum and power of true teams is lost. It is also unlikely to be found, since there persists an illusion that they are acting as a team, or as one aligned company for that matter.
There is also an apparent awareness on the part of these leaders that they are not all on board with one coherent vision or plan for the company, as personal agendas take priority over cooperation. The lack of openness and trust prevents a conversation about this from even taking place. So in the absence of clear leadership managers and employees focus on their day to day. Innovation, growth and long term sustainability are sacrificed and healthy debate about multiple perspectives and possibilities is avoided. Leadership remains reactive, not proactive. Employees don’t know what potential ideas they may have align with the future nor if they would even be given anything more than lip service. Or maybe it’s better to apply their potential in their own small pockets of the company, like their leaders model? Perhaps the biggest impact of operating this way is not so much on the day to day, business as usual, but on the future that will never emerge or risking becoming extinct when the competition innovates?
What are the business impacts if the DO adopt my approach, he asks?
There are numerous ways I can respond. I can start by continuing with the context above. In their strategic planning workshop a vision was created. Rather than the lip service that seemed to emerge (notwithstanding some positive direction that did have real value), a more open, honest and engaging (maybe even conflictual) conversation would have taken place. In this process they would clarify the company’s values, it’s purpose in the deepest sense, and the vision that naturally evolves from that. In many ways that is already present but bringing it into greater awareness and being intentional with it has huge value in driving actual decisions, actions and results. The opportunity then is to articulate it into a core ideology that represents the company’s principles and when integrated throughout the business this provides a sense of meaning and direction for the entire company. The leadership team would’ve emerged as a team. From there the company would be anything but held back!
Along those lines there are many areas where these “soft skills” or people orientation impacts business and the bottom line. There are also numerous organizations that have implemented some or most of these distinctions to varying degrees and quite successfully. Perhaps the most succinct way of making the point would be to reference a recent in depth study done at NASA’s Johnson Space Center (JSP) by what they called their Barrier Analysis team. You can reference senior NASA official Wayne Hale’s blog: Stifling Dissent at http://nasawatch.com/ which, if you read the comments, will point you to this link: http://www.opennasa.com/2009/01/30/pathways-beyond-the-barriers/ where a member of that team explains the Barrier Analysis team’s process and conclusions. In essence, this diverse interdisciplinary team found an organizational culture not unlike many seen in corporations, where the orientation I am advocating is absent. The illustrative video they shot mimics the experience of my own clients at NASA.
They concluded “We decided to focus on coming up with pathways from the barriers to the ideal states that would be highly actionable and have high impact by covering multiple issues. The four guiding concepts are: Servant Leadership, Freedom to Pursue New Ideas, Integrative Thinking, and Relevance.”
Leadership was characterized as “developing people, removing obstacles from their paths, and creating an environment where employees feel safe to push boundaries in the course of doing their jobs” and an emphasis on “identifying, selecting, and promoting leaders with team-forming and “people” skills”.
“Promoting the Freedom to Pursue New Ideas is based in the recognition that fresh ideas and different perspectives are vital to the evolution of an organization” and “Calculated risks are essential to push the state-of-the-art.”
“Integrative Thinking is about thinking globally and acting locally. Across systems, disciplines, and organizations, we can all focus our effort more effectively when we understand what context we operate in.”
“Thinking integratively also ties into encouraging new ideas by building teams of people from fields that you wouldn’t traditionally associate and changing the dynamics of how teams interact.”
They further state “the most critical context is our value to public and political stakeholders - Relevance.” This ties into my points about an organization’s values, purpose, principles and core ideology.
Lastly, they state “Ultimately, we believe barriers to inclusion and innovation can be overcome in four ways - leading through facilitation (not dictation), welcoming the pursuit of new ideas, understanding the context of what we do, and demonstrating relevance to the American people.”
They conclude stating that “where it will get really hard” however is getting buy-in from managers and employees who are on the other side of the senior management bubble and have become jaded by change efforts that continue to devolve into lip service.
I couldn’t help but recall the words of a man I greatly admire, Peter Block, a consultant/change agent, self-described organizational idealist, who states “change is a self-inflicted wound.” Peter is passionate about the notion that you don’t “get” people to do anything. That people will commit to what they really care about, and they need to be invited into that conversation. And they are free to decline or choose on purpose, because they will asked to make sacrifices for a greater good, for a possibility that is meaningful to them. And if they choose to create change, it will be with a true sense of ownership and commitment.
Those guiding concepts are not mandates or strategies. They are pieces of the possibility that constituents are invited to participate in. They are the beginning of the bigger conversation that surfaces dissent, makes room for real ownership and commitment, and brings the gifts of those on the margins into the center. And everyone will not be on board. But as Margaret Mead once said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
In conclusion, my client finally stated “ Why would a group like yours not be able to help?” and he proceeded with the analogy of a dysfunctional family brought into therapy where not everyone is open to help. He felt, with good reason, that this was the best analogy to describe most senior leaderships. As a former psychotherapist, this was not lost on me. However, therapy is about fixing or healing. What I do (coaching, for lack of a better professional descriptor) is about serving. Whereas fixing requires something (or someone) to be broken, the work I do is about creating a future that people care about. I never met a patient who didn’t show up as a request to be fixed. But when I started seeing them through this new lens, I discovered that every one of them had a possibility, a future, that they really did care about. I can’t say that they got better, because we stopped seeing that need. I can say that when invited with care, there was a future they were excited about living into and they came alive.
There are always some people who would rather be right than happy. But at least they could be given that choice. Peter Block calls that confronting people with their freedom. Joseph Campbell said you get “the call” and either take it or not (and it will come again). I call it being human. And as Peter told me more than once “this too shall pass.”
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Human Being: The New Competitive Advantage
I couldn’t help but notice the irony while reading a news article about how retailers are responding to the current economic crisis. Customer service was being touted as a new competitive advantage! Nothing about the notion that customer service at one time was considered a minimum standard, a fundamental of good business practice. Or is that simply a tainted nostalgic partial memory?
Maybe this global slap on the side of our collective heads is just what we need? Maybe we have been numb for too long? Maybe it IS time to take a closer look at business as usual?
For years now retailers have been gradually changing the size of their offerings while keeping the prices the same or higher. One could call this a clever response to a tough situation. But when that practice shifts into patently deceptive, like recessed bottoms on yogurt containers, one has to also consider the intent. Are we as consumers that pathetic that we can’t deal with rising costs more honestly so we reward these tactics for keeping us blissfully ignorant? Maybe this is not an indictment about us or them, but a mirror for us to notice what we are them, and the kinds of stewards of the world that we have become?
It seems to me that long ago we stopped having conversations that reflected connection and caring. We settled instead for this “us and them” relationship and accepted a role as consumers instead of partners. And now we get crazy about the abuse of this power that we so eagerly relinquished. Retailers are deceiving us. Customer service is a joke. CEOs come up with new levels of greedy and immoral behavior. And we act helpless and take no responsibility for what we have colluded to create.
I guess I shouldn’t complain. It’s good news for me. Everything I do as an executive coach and consultant for organizations is now in vogue. Authenticity is in. It’s become a competitive advantage. Building relationships that are meaningful might be worth something now. Imagine a company where people were thoughtful about what they did, made the requests they really needed to make, made promises they intended to keep, new perspectives were valued and solicited, there was earnest conversation about what people cared about? Imagine what a company could do if they connected with their employees and constituents and really engaged about what win-wins looked like? Imagine a company so transparent that it would be unheard of for a CEO to buy $26,000 chairs to decorate his office? Imagine a world where such transgressions that shock us wouldn’t happen because we were all watching and transparency, caring, a sense of ownership and accountability prevailed? “It’s OUR company and that’s NOT OK!”
As an executive coach I have frequently found myself asking leaders at all levels what might seem like very basic questions that stopped them in their tracks. We don’t ask the questions begging to be asked like low hanging fruit. We stopped being curious and stick only to what we know. We equate exchanges of data with real conversations, which we don’t have time for. We stopped caring and connecting. We call it work and leave the best of us at home for the hours that remain. I once told my brother that made no sense. As Shakespeare said, “work is your love made visible”. He replied “no, that’s why they call it work, stupid!”.
I realized that my brother held the majority view. But oddly enough, in the sacred space of a coaching relationship, my clients invariably confide in me what they truly yearn for. And it’s to be truly engaged in life, to feel alive and make a difference. To be self-expressed. To realize their potential. To do meaningful work. To be a part of something bigger than themselves. Usually in retirement if they make it that far.
So I say, OK, if customer service is the new competitive advantage, why not design companies built for this:
This people orientation used to be called “the soft skills.” One CEO client calls them “the important skills.” I’m an idealist but not naive. There is always a shadow side. Not everyone wants to care. Not everyone will handle such trust well. But that’s what life is about. Like in any relationship, you can strip away trust, caring, commitment and conversation in favor of compliance, function and certainty. You sacrifice, at the least, sustainability. And you create a world that can be managed, but it is small and without life. And it denies the unique capacity we as human beings have been granted to imagine and create what has never existed before.
Maybe the next headline will read: “New competitive advantage: integrate humanity back into business and care again.”
Maybe this global slap on the side of our collective heads is just what we need? Maybe we have been numb for too long? Maybe it IS time to take a closer look at business as usual?
For years now retailers have been gradually changing the size of their offerings while keeping the prices the same or higher. One could call this a clever response to a tough situation. But when that practice shifts into patently deceptive, like recessed bottoms on yogurt containers, one has to also consider the intent. Are we as consumers that pathetic that we can’t deal with rising costs more honestly so we reward these tactics for keeping us blissfully ignorant? Maybe this is not an indictment about us or them, but a mirror for us to notice what we are them, and the kinds of stewards of the world that we have become?
It seems to me that long ago we stopped having conversations that reflected connection and caring. We settled instead for this “us and them” relationship and accepted a role as consumers instead of partners. And now we get crazy about the abuse of this power that we so eagerly relinquished. Retailers are deceiving us. Customer service is a joke. CEOs come up with new levels of greedy and immoral behavior. And we act helpless and take no responsibility for what we have colluded to create.
I guess I shouldn’t complain. It’s good news for me. Everything I do as an executive coach and consultant for organizations is now in vogue. Authenticity is in. It’s become a competitive advantage. Building relationships that are meaningful might be worth something now. Imagine a company where people were thoughtful about what they did, made the requests they really needed to make, made promises they intended to keep, new perspectives were valued and solicited, there was earnest conversation about what people cared about? Imagine what a company could do if they connected with their employees and constituents and really engaged about what win-wins looked like? Imagine a company so transparent that it would be unheard of for a CEO to buy $26,000 chairs to decorate his office? Imagine a world where such transgressions that shock us wouldn’t happen because we were all watching and transparency, caring, a sense of ownership and accountability prevailed? “It’s OUR company and that’s NOT OK!”
As an executive coach I have frequently found myself asking leaders at all levels what might seem like very basic questions that stopped them in their tracks. We don’t ask the questions begging to be asked like low hanging fruit. We stopped being curious and stick only to what we know. We equate exchanges of data with real conversations, which we don’t have time for. We stopped caring and connecting. We call it work and leave the best of us at home for the hours that remain. I once told my brother that made no sense. As Shakespeare said, “work is your love made visible”. He replied “no, that’s why they call it work, stupid!”.
I realized that my brother held the majority view. But oddly enough, in the sacred space of a coaching relationship, my clients invariably confide in me what they truly yearn for. And it’s to be truly engaged in life, to feel alive and make a difference. To be self-expressed. To realize their potential. To do meaningful work. To be a part of something bigger than themselves. Usually in retirement if they make it that far.
So I say, OK, if customer service is the new competitive advantage, why not design companies built for this:
- It’s OK to voice dissent, be acknowledged, have a conversation and then make commitments you really care to keep. You no longer need to be concerned about which yeses mean yes and which are really no.
- There is a welcoming space for new ideas to be acknowledged or considered. You are actually a part of what you’re at work for.
- Your unique gifts and talents don’t need to be hidden away or left at home or in the parking lot. We build on and capitalize on people’s gifts rather than focus on deficiencies.
- Teams are distinguished from work groups comprised of individuals with their own agendas (“I did my part now you do yours”). Teams have common goals they care about and members help each other in the service of that. The ball does not get dropped.
- Multiple perspectives are honored and agreement is not confused as truth.
- Learning is part of the culture, not just knowing answers. We can innovate and not only stick to what we know, even when it no longer serves.
- People are encouraged and empowered to think and engage, rather than continue to implement policies that may no longer make sense. There is a sense of connection and ownership.
This people orientation used to be called “the soft skills.” One CEO client calls them “the important skills.” I’m an idealist but not naive. There is always a shadow side. Not everyone wants to care. Not everyone will handle such trust well. But that’s what life is about. Like in any relationship, you can strip away trust, caring, commitment and conversation in favor of compliance, function and certainty. You sacrifice, at the least, sustainability. And you create a world that can be managed, but it is small and without life. And it denies the unique capacity we as human beings have been granted to imagine and create what has never existed before.
Maybe the next headline will read: “New competitive advantage: integrate humanity back into business and care again.”
Monday, January 26, 2009
Life is a Mystery to be Lived
This is the first entry in my blog. A first step on a journey, and like any journey it ought to have a destination or purpose. Ideally the journey of my writing is an expression of my personal journey, my purpose.
Along those lines I pondered what I might I entitle this blog, something different than the name of my company, the meaning of which would elude most people anyway (but that’s another story). A quote that has been speaking to me of late came to mind: “I don’t believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive” Joseph Campbell
Possibilities that showed up included these: “Awake in life, Alive at work.” “Good work on purpose” ...and a number of others. Then I thought perhaps it would be more organic if I just stopped looking for the short pithy catchy phrase and just rambled a bit in an attempt to capture my thoughts and see what there was to be seen.
A good starting point is one day years ago when my friend and colleague Eric Kohner asked me what I yearned for. What did I salivate for? What could I not, not take a stand for? What got my juices going? While my brain had no answer, when I surrendered myself, from the depths of my being I heard a shout, “consciousness!” I yearned for people to be conscious, to be awake, to be connected to whatever they were doing and whoever they were being. To go that extra step and be thoughtful, on purpose. To connect the dots and be alive, rather than be drones, numb to whatever they were there for. And there could be anywhere. Just be awake and engaged.
I had found myself increasingly frustrated as my coach training taught me to ask more questions, to be curious, gradually dissolving the veil of blissful ignorance and righteousness that had become my life. I think I always saw the insanity around me: customer service that had no intention of serving, promises of satisfaction that could only lead to more longing. A world where trust me meant watch out and business meant big brother. And the scope of the insanity was so immense and my helplessness so palpable that blissful ignorance and righteousness was just a natural cadence to slip into.
I heard it said that at some point all of us get “the call” but we don’t necessarily notice it or answer it. But nature is funny that way and patiently will call again. And again. Sometimes we become desensitized and it lives as a dull nagging we have come to tolerate, like a familiar limp that we cease to notice until life hits back and the twinge of pain reminds us that we are off center.
I don’t know exactly what to make of my call. For as long as I could remember I was always very sensitive about people, noticing more nuances than I cared to, including in myself. I was told I was smart and so it made sense to seek answers for the questions always floating in my head. I studied psychology because maybe if I understood what makes people tick I could have an impact on the insanity I sensed? On the circuitous path towards becoming a psychotherapist I vacillated between seeking answers and knowing, neither of which satisfied me for very long. Maybe it was because, as Yeats once said, “Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved.” And what does it mean to live the mystery?
Along those lines I pondered what I might I entitle this blog, something different than the name of my company, the meaning of which would elude most people anyway (but that’s another story). A quote that has been speaking to me of late came to mind: “I don’t believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive” Joseph Campbell
Possibilities that showed up included these: “Awake in life, Alive at work.” “Good work on purpose” ...and a number of others. Then I thought perhaps it would be more organic if I just stopped looking for the short pithy catchy phrase and just rambled a bit in an attempt to capture my thoughts and see what there was to be seen.
A good starting point is one day years ago when my friend and colleague Eric Kohner asked me what I yearned for. What did I salivate for? What could I not, not take a stand for? What got my juices going? While my brain had no answer, when I surrendered myself, from the depths of my being I heard a shout, “consciousness!” I yearned for people to be conscious, to be awake, to be connected to whatever they were doing and whoever they were being. To go that extra step and be thoughtful, on purpose. To connect the dots and be alive, rather than be drones, numb to whatever they were there for. And there could be anywhere. Just be awake and engaged.
I had found myself increasingly frustrated as my coach training taught me to ask more questions, to be curious, gradually dissolving the veil of blissful ignorance and righteousness that had become my life. I think I always saw the insanity around me: customer service that had no intention of serving, promises of satisfaction that could only lead to more longing. A world where trust me meant watch out and business meant big brother. And the scope of the insanity was so immense and my helplessness so palpable that blissful ignorance and righteousness was just a natural cadence to slip into.
I heard it said that at some point all of us get “the call” but we don’t necessarily notice it or answer it. But nature is funny that way and patiently will call again. And again. Sometimes we become desensitized and it lives as a dull nagging we have come to tolerate, like a familiar limp that we cease to notice until life hits back and the twinge of pain reminds us that we are off center.
I don’t know exactly what to make of my call. For as long as I could remember I was always very sensitive about people, noticing more nuances than I cared to, including in myself. I was told I was smart and so it made sense to seek answers for the questions always floating in my head. I studied psychology because maybe if I understood what makes people tick I could have an impact on the insanity I sensed? On the circuitous path towards becoming a psychotherapist I vacillated between seeking answers and knowing, neither of which satisfied me for very long. Maybe it was because, as Yeats once said, “Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved.” And what does it mean to live the mystery?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)