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.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)