Leading Effectively Blog

Vision: Thrive vs. Survive

There was a new discussion started this week in our LinkedIn Group about signs of thriving CEO's.  A member asked: "What are the top 5 signs of thriving CEO's? Or in other words, in the current challenging environment, what are the keys for CEO's to thrive vs. survive?"

During the past year, we’ve been asking chief executives exactly this question – what does it take to be successful? After surveying nearly 150 leaders, 5 keys to success emerged - factors that executives say are critical to thrive in today’s world.

Here’s the single most important factor: Develop and communicate a strong vision.

The ability to communicate a strong vision emerged as the most critical factor. Three quarters of the 146 chief executives we surveyed selected developing and communicating a strong and compelling vision as an important factor for success in their current position. And they believe it’s more important than the financial performance of the organization, the company’s brand or changes in the industry.

Many of those who commented on the LinkedIn discussion noted the importance of vision. And they’re right. Research shows that the ability to communicate a strong vision and effective leadership are linked http://www.leadershipreview.org/2008fall/article1_fall_2008.asp.  Leaders who convey a strong vision are rated higher by their bosses and coworkers on several important factors than those who convey a weaker vision – factors such as the ability to lead change, being dynamic, competence in strategic planning, being farsighted, inspiring commitment, being original, and having a strong executive image.

What does a strong vision look like? Strong visions share three characteristics – they are clear, challenging and ideological. They use clear, unambiguous statements. They use language and ideas that motivate people. And they communicate a general, fundamental, enduring ideal. Here’s a great example: PhRMA President and CEO Billy Tauzin speaks about his vision for the company and how he communicates that vision.

Worried about your organization’s ability to weather the current financial crisis? Do a quick assessment of the company’s chief executives and think about the vision they’ve communicated via their memos, emails and casual conversations. Is it clear? Does it motivate and inspire you? If not, your leaders and the organization may be less well equipped to plan strategically for the future, inspire commitment from employees, and lead needed change. Ambiguity and uncertainty abound today. If you have a leadership role in your organization – as the CEO, the leader of a team or the manager of a project – follow the path set by successful leaders and communicate your vision in clear and compelling ways.

Stay tuned for the next success factor: Implement and execute successful change by gaining organizational commitment.

Leadership beyond leaders and followers: The case of the no-tipping policy, Pt 1

In my first two posts (27 Aug 2008 and 24 Sep 2008) I wrote about leadership in situations where there is no leader, in the sense that there is no asymmetrical influence, no person with more influence than others.  I argued that by thinking about leadership in terms of its outcomes of direction, alignment, and commitment (DAC) it is possible to think about such leader-less situations as still having plenty of leadership. 

Now I want to extend this line of thinking to situations where there is clearly a leader, a person who has more influence on others than they have on him.  I want to explore how an outcome view of leadership (seeing leadership as the beliefs and practices that produce DAC) reframes the leader-follower influence relation as a special case of a shared process.  In other words, the same underlying shared process that enables a leader-less group to create leadership is what enables a leader to create leadership.

Take the case of the restaurant owner who instituted a no-tipping policy, as reported in a recent article in the New York Times.

The owner, Jay, was disillusioned by the fact that the restaurant's wait staff and kitchen employees did not share his sense of passion for the business.  Instead, they were bickering over money.  The wait staff was constantly maneuvering for better tables, and the kitchen staff didn't believe they were getting their fair share.  After thinking about it for some time, Jay traced the problem to working for tips, which he decided hurt teamwork and lowered morale. A no-tipping policy would encourage his employees to concentrate on their work and stop expending so much energy on angling for tips.  He met with the staff, who agreed to the no-tipping policy.  (The details of this meeting are not reported in the article).  Tips were replaced by an 18 percent service charge split 3-to-1 between the wait staff and kitchen workers. 

The result has been what Jay hoped for.  Even though the wait staff is earning slightly less than before, they report being happier in their work and less anxious about what a customer will tip and how much others are making.  One waiter said that her work had "more meaning" than it ever had before.  Kitchen workers are making more and feel more connected to the business.

The following table presents two ways of interpreting these events.

The leader-influence interpretation	The DAC outcome interpretation
Jay develops a vision of better teamwork and morale, to be realized through a no-tipping policy.	Jay comes to believe that practices associated with a no-tipping policy (such as pooling service charges and sharing them out) will increase DAC.
Jay must influence his employees using a combination of his authority, personal influence skills, and vision for change.	Since DAC is a shared outcome, Jay must assure that his belief about the positive effect of a no-tipping policy on DAC is shared by the staff.
Jay meets with the staff.  He succeeds in influencing them to buy into the no-tipping policy.	Jay meets with the staff.  As a result of the meeting, they all share a belief about the positive effect of a no-tipping policy on DAC.
Jay's vision is realized.  Teamwork and morale improve as a result of his leadership.	Their shared belief and the associated practices are validated.  Teamwork and morale improve as a result of their leadership.
Leadership is framed as the behavior of the owner and the process of influencing and getting buy-in from followers	Leadership is framed as the shared beliefs and practices that produce DAC.

An important thing to notice about this table is that the DAC outcome interpretation does not invalidate the leader-influence interpretation.  In other words, the two interpretations are alternative valid ways of describing of what happened.  But they are not equivalent descriptions of what happened.  The DAC outcome interpretation provides a bigger picture of what happened to make leadership occur.  It gets beyond a leader-influence description while including it in a bigger framework.  From the perspective of the DAC outcome interpretation, leadership is not just about how a leader influences followers to buy into a vision, it is more broadly about how people who work together produce direction, alignment, and commitment.  DAC can be created even without a leader, and so creating DAC with a leader is one way to go, but not the only way.

In my first two posts, I talked about the practical value of a DAC outcome perspective for helping people create leadership when there is no clear leader present.  In my next post, I will get into the question of what difference it would make to a leader like Jay to adopt a DAC outcome perspective on leadership.

Trickle Up Economics or "What's a checkbook, Daddy?"

There's a part of me that can't help wonder what a radical return to the New Deal might do for our country in the current financial crisis and looming recession. Simply (overly simple, I know) what would be the effects of $700,000,000,000 put into the restoration of the U.S. and global infrastructure: roads, hospitals, bridges, schools, public art, digital information channels, and so on? One can imagine that putting everyone who can work to work would have several effects. People could pay their bills, including their mortgages and reduce their credit loads. People could buy things which generates more economic activity, including a restoration of our ability to generate wealth in countries who efficiently produce goods and services of high quality. Banks who have high investment in retail banking would immediately benefit and would worry less about lending to each other, since their repayment would no longer be a matter of fantasy or wishfulness.

This is a pipe dream, of course, as long as the “economic rescue” is in the hands of those who believe that the critical element of economic recovery is in the financial sector. Those would be the ones who have been recruited into the rescue army of the Fed Chairman and the Secretary of the Treasury. As an outsider with very limited knowledge of economics and a very shallow familiarity with balancing my checkbook (I’ll explain what a checkbook is later, children), I make no claim to expertise.

However, I suspect that the natural human tendency to believe in the importance of our part of any job may affect the approach taken. Even if some bankers got us into this situation, they are probably certain that only bankers can get us out. Also, even though trickle-down economics doesn’t appear to be supported by the evidence (a recent report shows that the U.S. has the 4th worst wealth disparity in the west). We are probably not ready to try “trickle up” as our main remedy yet.

I suppose the main point has to be that no one is going to get us out of this unless we all get us out of this. While it is a lot of fun taking blame potshots at people who are not in the room with me, I’m reasonably confident that all the stuff my parents taught me about hard work, frugality, building trust, and creating things that last (like a real legacy) are still worth pursuing. My mother was born in the midst of the Great Depression and she learned early that nothing great is built on greed. Everything of value is built on a commitment to leave more than I take.

Doug

Oh Yes, I Am a Fool For Shoes

My husband once announced that I had 200 pairs of shoes.  Hmmpf. 

So I went home and counted.  Quick like a bunny I put eight or nine pairs on the Salvation Army stack.  There.  Not 200.  Good.  Hmmpf.

How did he know?  Did he count them when he was putting up those shoe shelves for me?  Why didn’t he mind his own business?  Hmmpf.  Besides, a woman needs this many shoes.  Different seasons.  Different colors.  High and low heels.  Who could possibly get by with fewer?

So this week as I was shopping on ebay for more shoes, I thought of all the connections I could make to leadership.  As a leader myself, I tended to be a collector of wonderful tempting projects and initiatives, just like shoes.  New blue strappy sandals.  Demure grey suede pumps.  Ah, beautiful!  And the new ones all kept in their boxes on top of the shelves and given special treatment at first.  Called attention to.  Like press conferences and press releases for new leadership initiatives or organizational products.  Notice these fabulous new shoes!  Thank you very much.

After time, though, some old shoes wear out.  Some need to be culled to make room for new ones.  It’s a mistake to keep old ones that take up room and prevent us from buying new ones that would fit better or look better or be of better quality.  Same with our leadership.  When we keep just piling things on without regard to removing some old or less useful projects to make room, we can burn out our staff and weaken our efforts to start the new.

My colleague today asked me if I have any navy blue shoes.  I do indeed.  I have no navy blue outfits, but I have three lovely pairs of navy blue shoes that I used to wear with suits I used for interviews, public speeches, and television appearances.  One might fairly ask:
“Why not get rid of the shoes?”  It’s hard to do so when they’re so beautiful and comfortable.  Like old friends.  I like them.  They don’t take up much room.  But I really should put them on the Salvation Army stack.  Someone else could use them.

I don’t really subscribe to the view that shoes go out of style.  Not if you like them.  I have a pair of gorgeous open-toed slingback high heels on which people always compliment me when I wear them.  I have a photo of me wearing them and holding my baby daughter.  Thirty one years ago.  My daughter is thirty one, and so, obviously, are the shoes.  But they still look fabulous.  And I have a second pair from the same vintage:  breathtaking snakeskin strappy heels.  Thirty-five years old.  Are some projects like that?  Timeless and important?  No reason to ever be done with them?  Probably so.  Sometimes a company product is important to maintain even when it is no longer the cash cow.  It speaks to the brand, the history, the reputation.  And it may come back in style, like Hush Puppies.

In my class this week there was a young woman with great shoes.  Nice tan leather with flower flounces on one.  Fabric heels and cutout toes on another.  These shoes are great for someone young.  She can wear them a long time.  For me?  I can admire them but I’m more interested in comfort now.  I am still tempted by high heels, but I can’t wear them all day.  I have to have some “afternoon shoes.”  I bought a lovely pair of green wedged heels and some beautiful red strappy shoes on eBay this week, but I also bought a nice pair of very comfortable and well-made sandals that will serve me well in the afternoons.  I guess maturity brings a few compromises.  A new product or project should be eye-catching and attention-getting, but it’s a mistake if it’s not a fit with the company.

So.  200 pairs?  I’m not sure.  Maybe 200, if that’s the established norm.  But no more.  Just two hundred.  The navy shoes have got to go!

A Different Kind of Leader

With the U.S. elections less than a month away, I am thinking more and more about our country and the leadership I think we need as a nation – in terms of domestic issues and international concerns. No matter who wins the election, the new president will need to rapidly change their focus and, to some extent, their leadership style. Having won the election, the new president will need to shift from rhetoric that differentiates and divides to rhetoric that unites. Those who were the former opposition become colleagues. They will need to “win over” the supporters of the other candidates. It seems obvious enough, but it is a lot harder to pull off – partly because of the process it takes to become President.

I’m not a political scientist (or even close), but there’s something potentially damaging to the nation about political campaigns. Campaigns are essentially conflicts, and like other forms of conflict they can be conducted in a manner that is productive or dysfunctional. Presidential campaigns are both productive and dysfunctional, in my opinion. They are productive in articulating the issues we face as a nation and examining how we can best address them from different perspectives. They force us to reflect on where we are and need to be going as a nation on a regular cycle – and allow us to have a say (a vote) in what happens next. The dysfunction stems from what should be a separate conversation becoming the focus of the conversation as well as a system that is adversarial in a manner that is not always issue-focused (or even relevant in some cases). I’ve already mentioned I am not a political expert – the comments section provides an opportunity to provide another – perhaps more informed perspective.

I’ll start with the dysfunctional aspects (mainly so I can end on a positive note). There are basically two broad ways to motivate people - hope and fear. Every candidate has used hope and fear to engage the populace and connect with constituents; wordsmiths craft messages that communicate “I am the person that can provide what you hope for and my opponents are or will create what you most fear.” Unfortunately (to me anyway) fear is an effective tactic. Expansive and unreasonable fear is even better. Many political advertisements focus on deconstructing the other candidate to indicate they are not telling the truth and their promises of the things you hope for will be replaced with them doing things you fear. Every four years we get a lot of information about why someone would be a scary choice for President. We also hear a lot about how mud slinging is bad – but apparently it works because everyone uses it to some extent. 

I often watch political ads and debates and wish for more information about how that candidate is going to make our nation better rather than information about how the other candidate screwed things up or is a bad person.  As the campaigns heat up, the attacks get more personal and the dialogue less respectful. I cringe when I watch a lot of political ads as well as during the debates. Where are we supposed to learn how to engage with one another respectfully rather than name-calling? Where can we see critical thinking skills used to tackle issues and move us forward rather than sound bites that trigger an emotional response?  I hope the next President of the U.S. can become a role model for how to have respectful dialogue (even when we completely disagree) and how to work through conflict in a constructive manner.

The Nexus Effect

Wall Street.  Main Street.  Politicians.  The Middle Class.    Us.  Them.  Watching the financial turmoil unfold in the markets, the anger and finger pointing over who is to blame, I’m reminded of Einstein’s advice that “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it”  What manner or level of consciousness led to this current predicament?  I hope we can have a discussion on this and how it pertains to leadership.  More importantly, what level of consciousness would we need going forward?  I would like to offer some initial thoughts for discussion.

As Garret Hardin and the Tragedy of the Commons remind us – self-interest and short-term thinking is a level of consciousness that might have got us into this.  We are part of this problem, by virtue of action or inaction.  Leaders acting in the interest of their own group can lose sight of the larger commons that they are a part of.  And even well meaning action comes with unintended consequences. 

How can we move to a level of consciousness where leaders work collaboratively for the Prosperity of the Commons?  I’m struck by the image of a “Nexus” as a metaphor of leaders working across differences to address the pressing issues of our time.  The word nexus comes from the Latin word nectere, which means “to bind.”  The Random House Dictionary describes the word nexus as a connection across groups and to the center of a matter or situation.  Alfred Whitehead, the English philosopher, similarly described a nexus as a system of relationships where the whole is greater than its parts. 

How might this apply to leaders and leadership?  We could think of a Nexus Effect as the collective outcomes achieved when leaders (the parts) work across boundaries for the larger whole.  To return to Einstein - to address the collective problems of our time, we require a level of consciousness different from divisive "us vs them" mindsets to one of collaboration, partnership, and of leaders working across boundaries for the common good.

This can be described in the formula of 1 + 1 > (is greater than) 2 

The challenge of global proportions such as poverty, climate change, access to healthcare and education are issues that cannot be addressed in isolation.  Corporations, non-profits, and governments today have the collective resources and technological capacity to make a significant impact in addressing some of the most challenging problems of our time.  Achieving the Nexus Effect is not easy – it requires leaders to work together across differences that traditionally divide them.  Where the historical challenge for leaders has been about expanding the boundaries of their group, the Nexus Effect comes when leaders think and act across boundaries. 

How can leaders create a Nexus Effect in times of crisis?  What are examples of the Nexus Effect among leaders in our world today?

McCain vs Obama: The Final Nonverbal Debate on BusinessWeek.com

The final installment in my series of articles about the nonverbal communication of the two U.S. presidential candidates is up on BusinessWeek.com after last night's final debate. 

Since the first debate last month (Sep. 29, 2008) I have been paying close attention to each candidate's nonverbal communication, which accounts for as much as 93% of the message actually received by viewers.  I analyzed the nonverbals in the Vice Presidential debate (Oct. 2, 2008) and posted on this blog about the second Presidential debate (Oct. 7, 2008).

I invite you to continue posting your comments on both sites and I look forward to reading and responding to as many as possible.

Tragedy of the Commons for Blog Action Day 2008

As I reflected on various crises faced by humans these days, whether it's the global financial crisis or climate change, I was reminded of an article published in Science in 1968 by biologist, Garrett Hardin. The article, "The Tragedy of the Commons," aptly describes the underlying reason why we face these crises. The key point of the article is straightforward: when people act in their own self interest to maximize benefits that accrue to them, shared resources are destroyed, even when one's long-term interests are compromised as a result of short-term decisions to maximize individual gain.

Hardin uses a metaphor of herders who share a common area for grazing. The tragedy occurs when each individual herder attempts to maximize his gain by putting as many cows as he can into the common area to graze. When each herder takes such action, the commons are damaged or destroyed and all of the herders suffer.

If we apply Hardin's argument to the global financial meltdown or the meltdown of our glaciers, we can see that individuals, organizations and countries have engaged in practices that in the short-term, maximize gain to them. What worries me is that such short-term thinking will lead to a tragedy of the commons and to much human suffering and loss of opportunity. It also makes me wonder whether our leaders have the foresight and gumption to help us invest in the commons rather than deplete the commons to the point that it is no longer viable.

Stated simply, we could travel down a path leading to a Tragedy of the Commons or we could take a seemingly more circuitous route down an alley called the Prosperity of the Commons. The tragedy path brings with it short-term feelings of happiness (perhaps like a cocaine-high). The prosperity route comes with much pain and sacrifice but will ultimately bring benefits that are nearly impossible to see in the short-term.

The choice is ours.

Reflections on Poverty for Blog Action Day 2008

Today is the day I am supposed to write a blog about poverty.  I can get down to it now, since just yesterday I finally finished getting all my taxes done.  2005, 2006, 2007.  I had gotten behind in 1991 when Richard went to Desert Storm, and this is the first time I have finally gotten caught up.  So now I can think about poverty while I wait for my $7,364 refund to be deposited electronically in my bank account. 

I remember poverty.  My parents talked about it when they mentioned the Great Depression.  My Dad had been in the 3 C’s, as he called it, after he dropped out of school in the ninth grade to help support his family.  The Civilian Conservation Corps, one of Roosevelt’s Great Answers.  It saved a lot of people, and my father was one.  I guess then that I am a descendant of poverty. 

My mother’s family was of a different socioeconomic background.  Educated.  All teachers and stuff.  So my grandfather was a circuit riding preacher, and in the depression the donations dried up.  My grandmother was left to forage in the woods for food. She knew everything there that could be eaten.  But they had a cow and some chickens.  They sold butter and eggs and milk. They made out okay.

My own experience with poverty as a child was limited.  We were working class people.  My father was a letter carrier with job security.  We had an oil heater in the dining room, so we were warm.  (That was the only room in the house that had heat.  I slept upstairs in a cold room with 4 or 5 inches of homemade quilts on top of me to keep me warm.)  I had five dresses for school, one for each day. 

I think of my children’s experience with poverty.  We have always been middle class, even when I separated from their father and couldn’t afford to heat the house because I had to pay the mortgage.  Their memory of it is that it was fun, my picking them up from school and going to Shoney’s to eat dinner (kids were free) and do their homework, and then jump into the tub together because the hot water would only last for one bath, and then we all ran together and jumped in one bed.  Fun.  Four years of fun.  Oh yeah.

My husband Richard’s shop teacher had been through the Great Depression and advised him against poverty:  “Get a trade and you’ll be able to get a job.  Get two trades, and if you lose your job you can get another one.  Get three and you’ll never be out of work.”   He did that, and it has been true.  He has more job security than anyone I know.  He can do carpentry, plumbing, electrical, HVAC, design, construction, engineering, anything.  Where will we find guys like that in the next generation?  The people who don’t know about the Great Depression.  Who don’t know to avoid being poor.

Well, so I guess I thought I had a little experience with being poor.  Then I went to San Diego with a girlfriend in 1992 and we decided to take a bus down Baja to Encinada and points beyond.  We didn’t know there was a big difference between the buses the tourists took and the ones the locals took, and we ended up on a local “chicken bus.”  It even went on different roads.  Down roads from which the definition of “dust” was derived.  With thousands of little shacks up and down every hill, with foottrails going steeply up between dwellings made of cardboard, car doors, road signs, and any other flotsam and jetsom of the road from which they had been harvested.  It wasn’t safe to drink the water, of course, so we had to bring a big bottle of water, which I guess was my first time for that.

It was an awakening for me.  They didn’t have blogs back then, but I wrote a little thing about it and published it as a letter to the editor.  It ended with “and Sylvia used the rest of her Evian to wash her hair.”  Such a difference between us and the really really poor.

By now I have been on five mission trips:  The Dominican Republic, Madagascar, Cuba, and twice to India.  I have seen those hills covered with shacks in many places.  The poor will always be with us.  There are people, I have discovered, who would think they were rich to have such a shack.  I have met many people who only have two outfits.  Each a simple piece of cloth. 

In my first trip to India, we were invited to the home of one of the richest and most honored people in one of our villages.  She was Kumari, a businesswoman, well-to-do and much respected.  When we went to her home, a simple one-room grass dwelling, she offered us a Coke from her store, a small humble construction about the size of two phone booths.  She had refrigeration.  Probably nobody else in the whole village had refrigeration.  The Cokes were cold.  We were humbled.  We sat in the shade on assorted plastic chairs in the 20’ by 20’ dirt yard and gratefully enjoyed our beverage.  It could have been the nectar of the gods.  We figured out later that those plastic chairs belonged to many people from the village.  They had been gathered together to accommodate us.

Some of my ancestors had been potato farmers from Ireland.  They lived in holes they dug out of the hills.  When the potato blight came, they starved.  The ones who were lucky came to America on ships.  A lot of them died.  Some of my other ancestors were Choctaw Indians.  When the U.S. Government computed the poverty index sometime back, they said it was anything below two-thousand-something for a family of four.  At that time, the average income for a Choctaw family was less than $700 a year.  And it was for way more than four people.  The Choctaws were very poor people.  But they were one of the five civilized tribes.  (That means they didn’t fight back.)  So back in the eighteen-hundreds, when the Irish were starving, the Choctaws sent them some money!  A hundred dollars or so.  An enormous amount of money at the time.  I have a painting on my wall that commemorates this.  The Irish hired a Choctaw to paint it, for their anniversary.  The poor, honoring the poor.

We really know nothing about poverty, except by our history.  America is the country that has risen above poverty.  That is our heritage.  That should be our legacy.  We should never allow people to live in tents in America.  If rich folks want to know what to do with their billions, they can go to Mexico or India, yes.  The people need them there.  But the people need them here, too.  We have people living in tents, the American equivalent of shacks on the hillside. We should be ashamed.

Developing Trust: Leadership and a New Kitten

My son went to Atlanta to visit his sister, and when he returned he brought a pitifully skinny street kitten home with him.  The cat, now named Jasper (Holstein, I added, since he's black and white), is underwriting the vet's next vacation at my expense, but has managed to gain 2 pounds in a month, which is 50% more than his original 4 pounds!

Jasper Holstein bonded with my son Isaac immediately.  I've heard that cats always do that with the people who rescue them.  I don't know.  Trust was instant, and certain.  Slower with the rest of us.  I've watched Jasper developing trust with my other two cats. 

Pumpkin Jack, an orange tabby who was a local street kitten until my female cat brought him to us last Hallowe'en, is still young enough to play with him, at Jasper's unrelenting insistence.  Jack still doesn't completely trust Jasper, but Jasper flings himself at Jack with complete abandon, legs and arms splayed, vital organs completely exposed.  Total trust.  Jack is more cautious.  Jasper is still young, but he's big enough to hurt.  All his little sharpies are in good working order.  Jack chases and allows chasing, but when Jasper pounces,  Jack growls and spits and hisses.  Jasper then jumps a couple of feet straight in the air, and walks away.  "No problem.  I'll be back."

The other kitty, Yoda, a Siamese who also came to us as a pitiful lost kitten a few years ago, covered with kerosene, his ears full of mites and held painfully at half mast, still suffers from some of the ill effects of his weeks on the street.  One is blindness.  At first Jasper jumped on Yoda the same way he did on Jack.  He learned quickly that that wouldn't work with Yoda.  Yoda would just sit down, close his eyes, move his ears to half mast and wait for Jasper to give up.  If Jasper jumped on Yoda while Yoda was walking across the floor, Yoda would just wear him like a fur stole, and keep on going.

So since playing didn't work, Jasper grooms Yoda.  Jumps on him and licks him all over.  Like he's Yoda's tiny mother.  He interacts with the two big cats in completely different ways, but he appears to trust them both completely.  And he seems to have made them trust him.  He started curling up to sit and sleep with them after just a day or two.

And then there's me.  One of the things that most irritates me about a cat is if it runs and hides from me.  I'm not as fast as I used to be.  It's hard for me to get a cat that runs from me.  And Jasper is quick.  He can dart out a door in a heartbeat!  But the endearing quality of this little kitty is that he doesn't run away.  He darts out, but he allows himself to be retrieved. 

We talk about how to develop trust a lot in our leadership programs.  Especially the question comes up of how to re-establish it after it has been broken.  I know humans are not completely like animals.  (This is a hypothesis, of course.  The evidence is still out.)  But there are some lessons here from Jasper. 

Jasper certainly had plenty of reasons not to trust.  He had had a rough time of it until Isaac rescued him.  He could have fallen back on any of these reasons as an excuse not to trust, but he didn't.  He gave everyone, including even the veterinarian, a fresh chance.  There was no cynicism in this small cat.  Even starving, he never growled at the other cats or fussed.  He was glad to get whatever he could from anyone, and he strategically figured out what the best way was to fit in.  He made no unreasonable demands on anyone.  He figured out how to serve each one.  He runs from Jack, but he doesn't run from me.  He holds Yoda down to groom him, but he doesn't try to hold Jack down.  He chases Jack but he doesn't chase Yoda.

So we need to give one another fresh chances too.  We need to let go of cynicism and find ways to serve one another.  We need to make an effort to understand one another as individuals.  We need to figure out ways to fit in and be useful instead of throwing our weight around and making unreasonable demands.  Trust is a bit elusive, but I think if we are trustworthy ourselves, that is the first step.