Leading Effectively Series
|
« October 2008 |
Main
| December 2008 »
The United States is celebrating Thanksgiving this week. The fourth Thursday in November is set aside as a day to pause and be mindful of all that we have to be thankful for. At CCL, we have much to be thankful for and you, our readers, are certainly on that list. Here is wishing you a happy Thanksgiving. We'll be back to posting next week.
"The First Thanksgiving", painting by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris (1863–1930).
My good friend Vidula Bal (at least I hope I'm still on that list) had some useful advice in this space for President-elect Obama. She seems to be a fan of surrounding oneself with smart people and then exercising discernment about what they have to tell you. It would probably be easier to take Vidula along to ride shotgun, as my experience suggests her BS detector is a finely tuned instrument with no lack of calibration opportunities.
That being said, I was interested in what discernment might look like and have started reflecting on some pieces of that puzzle. The question I started with was “who would I call discerning and what do they do that merits that term?” Here are two elements that rose from the mist early on. As predicted by Vidula, they all involve the way one uses one’s social context.
One aspect of discernment is the capacity to forsee the implications or consequences of choices one makes for others. This requires a broad acquaintance with and concern for people who are different from you and each other and a determination to eschew imperial ambitions. I'm reminded of a negative example I saw earlier today when I walked back from the beach to the coffee shop where my writing takes place. I saw a man and woman with two small boys, each about 3 years old. The boys were the typical tow-headed beach tots, each with a boogie-board in tow. My attention was drawn because the woman was unhappy with one of them who ignored his companion’s plea to stop running into him and she was grabbing him away. As they walked by me, I saw that each of the boys had large tattoos on his back and around one arm. While cute in that “my child is really my pet” kind of way, I couldn’t help wondering how happy these boys will be in a dozen years when they are wanting to join their own adolescent culture but they wear the parental “brand.” Cultural imperialism is no less coercive just because it is “counter-cultural” in the local context.
For our President, discernment means that rich or poor, native, early immigrant, or just-immigrated, male, female or whatever new gender we invent this week, all will be affected by your choices and forethought given to the impact on the rich diversity of this land will pay off.
Another element of discernment relates to the obligation and opportunity the President has to make meaning for the collective of the Nation. The care and feeding of the American soul is in his hands and if one does not see that there is such a (metaphorical) thing, how will one preserve it? Now that everyone is re-reading Team of Rivals, we may have a resurgence of awareness that reputation really is something important. Lincoln wanted, above all things, to be esteemed by his fellows. To him that meant that he would do the right thing and thereby preserve his name and the name of the Union. The world has chosen to suspend its judgment about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave in hopes that we will, once again, stand for more than personal aggrandizement and greed. Discernment in this case means that the President and those who surround him recognize that every choice, every conversation (whether in public or in private) define the identity of this country: its soul. Our kryptonite has always been the fear that separates us into categories of race, wealth, culture, gender, and every other possible division. Since we seem to have elected a president from across the great divide, wouldn’t it be nice to become a whole nation?
Just a thought or two, Mr. President-elect. You’d still be better off putting Vidula in the Cabinet. How about Secretary of State?
Your basic presidential non-advisor,
Doug
Some tough but necessary remarks from Guy Kawasaki over at Open Forum. We all want leaders to feel our pain, not to make it. This hurt we're feeling from a sore world economy, it's going to leave a mark. Try not to leave a scar.
A brilliant thought leader in the field of executive coaching calls it "the curse of mediocrity." His contention is that 'good enough' pushes away the possibility of 'insanely great.' I'm an American, so I like the sound of that, but I'm not sure that it isn't misleading in a way. There are many fields in which the aspiration to be "insanely great" (or to create products that are) is the most virtuous path. What they have in common, however, is that they are activities or products that demand admiration. The phrase "insanely great" comes, of course, from Steven Jobs who wanted a product to be transcendently desirable and got his fulfillment with the MacIntosh computer (and the iPod and the iPhone, etc.). The experience people have in our Leadership Development Program ought to be insanely great and it often is, evidenced by the impact it has on them and those they lead.
However, I think the wish for greatness in coaching may be misleading to the extent it stimulates our normal narcissism. The comparison with midwifery is instructive here. The coach is neither the mother nor the baby and though there may be enormous gratitude on the part of the mother for her services, she is not the star. She presides over and secures the process of birth.
The greatest coaching will not draw any attention to itself. The genius coach is not the one who sees the path forward clearly, but who sees the boundaries of thought, imagination, and emotion that may be limiting the person being coached, and who propels that person over them. She does this less through overt brilliance than through her own curiosity wrung through a realistic humility. She leaves the person being coached in charge of his choices and options and keeps the spotlight on him. Will coaches understand that standing in the shadows is the place of greatness as a coach?
Doug
Dear Mr. President (Elect),
Congratulations on your election into office! I'll bet the thrill of victory seems like a distant memory already.You’ll be coming into power under difficult circumstances: For the first time in 40 years the country is at war during a presidential transition, retail sales in October slumped 2.8% (the largest decline since 1992), the Senate is considering extending $25 billion in loans to the auto industry (not to mention the billions designated for the financial sector bailout), OPEC slashed production quotas by 1.5 million barrels a day at the end of October – an action that had minimal effect on falling oil prices.The list of crises and resultant emergency measures goes on and on.
Given the calamities occurring on almost every front, I think it my duty as a citizen to help provide you with a realistic job preview. In a leadership role like yours, you can expect to be deluged with data, figures, trends, information, theories, and opinions from a wide variety of experts. You probably already have been. Know, however, that you’re not alone. Leaders from all walks of life experience this barrage. Because they can’t possibly be everywhere at every moment, they have no choice but to rely on information from others. At first, this dependence can be unnerving. After all, you (like other senior leaders) have ascended to your position based on your individual skills . . . your ability to locate and process information, your communicative aplomb, your intellectual horsepower.
When leaders get to the point that they can no longer survey the informational landscape alone, they must develop one of the most under-acknowledged but critical leadership competencies: the ability to discern. Discern what? Good information from bad, reliable sources from unreliable ones, priorities from nuisances, competence from incompetence, realism from hype, and so forth. When leaders are good at discerning, we take the results for granted. Organizations (or nations) work smoothly because sound decisions are made at all levels. When they’re bad at it, the results are the stuff of despair. Mediocrity becomes the pathetic stunt double for excellence, crises overshadow priorities, and people shake their heads in disbelief at the quality of decisions.
Here’s the irony. Discernment belongs to the social sphere. Each of the standards above (i.e., what is good, reliable, or a priority) is determined in and through communication with others. That’s why you’ll need to surround yourself with others who will tune in, tell the truth, and argue. These actions will shape the standards of your presidency.
So, Mr. President, I hope you’re able to find some time to tune up your BS detector (and those of your Cabinet members) prior to your arrival in the White House. You’re going to have a lot of people coming at you with a lot of information. You’ll need those radars in top shape to make the best decisions. Let me know how I can help.
 In the category of unintended benefits of new technology, I'd like to note the impact of Bluetooth on a top fear among adult Americans: the fear of public speaking. What is it that leads people in airports (already generally oblivious to everything around them) to assume a license to shout all their unreflected opinions, speculations, and intentions? I was in the food court at O’Hare when accosted aurally by a guy two tables over declaiming loudly to someone in another state. It occurred to me that he might not have actually needed the mobile network given the volume he was employing. Cell phone use in public places is already a polluting plague, but when it is coupled with that little radio device hanging from an ear, it turns normally taciturn introverts into broadcasters.
I’m quite certain that my high school drama teacher would have been delighted with this technology. He used to tell us to “speak to the last row in the auditorium.” Were he still active, he could just say, “speak as you do when you have the Bluetooth microphone 4 inches from your mouth!” Perhaps the fact that the headset is small and not in direct line of spit leads people to bellow like preachers at Hyde Park corner. In any case, the end of public speaking as a top fear is near. For the shy executives who don’t speak up, buy them a new Bluetooth in-ear headset and see that 360 improve.
Your friendly curmudgeon,
Doug
In part 1 of the case of the no-tipping policy, I described how a no-tipping policy came into being and improved morale using two alternative descriptions: one described the case in terms of a leader-influence model, the other described it in terms of a leadership outcome model.
So what? What difference does it make that I can take the same events and describe them in some alternative way? Specifically, what difference does it make to a leader like Jay?
To refresh your memory, here’s the table from the last post describing the two alternative interpretations:
|
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. |
Looking at things from Jay’s perspective, what difference do the interpretations make? How would using one interpretation or the other make things different for Jay? For his employees? For the business?
Imagine there are two Jays, identical in every way except for their interpretation of leadership. Call one Jay I (for “influence) and the other Jay O (for “outcome”).
Jay I frames his task as influencing (persuading, convincing) his employees that they should buy into his vision of the future. Jay O frames his task as assuring that he and his employees share the belief that a no-tipping policy would produce better outcomes (better DAC). A big difference here is that Jay I sees himself standing in relation to his employees as a force stands in relation to an effect. He is the mover; they are the moved. Jay O on the other hand sees both himself and his employees as being a force, as movers; it is their shared beliefs and behavior that is the effect and that needs moving. He sees the whole way they all work together to create DAC as the object of leadership, not just the employees.
Of course, like Jay I, Jay O may (and doubtless will) use his powers of influence in the process of assuring that they all share a belief in the no-tipping policy. But, since Jay O aims to create shared belief (not just influence others), he is likely to me more open to allowing followers to influence him, to use dialogue, to explore others’ ideas. Jay I, on the other hand, is more likely to see such approaches as a distraction from the main event of getting people convinced.
The end result for Jay I is that his employees have been moved to buy into his vision. The end result for Jay O is that they have all moved together to agreement on what will create better direction, alignment, and commitment among them all. What’s the difference? Don’t Jay I and Jay O end up in pretty much the same situation? For now, maybe they do. But in the future, Jay I will have to rely again on the vision-influence approach (which may or may not work again depending on the quality of the vision and the openness to influence of his employees), whereas Jay O has helped create an ongoing community that knows how to reach consensus. I would argue that this is a more sustainable approach, more likely to work in a wider variety of circumstances in the future.
(UPI Photo/Pat Benic)
Whether one approves or disapproves of the outcome, we have seen a sizeable majority of Americans embrace the vision offered by Barack Obama. Few concepts about leadership have more currency than the idea that what a good leader offers is a vision that inspires followers. As a consequence, leadership itself is often understood as the process by which a leader inspires followers through vision.
The underlying metaphor here is one of cause and effect. The leader is the cause, while the followers’ inspiration is the effect. It’s as if, prior to the leader’s vision, followers are walking around with no vision of their own. As if the leader’s vision fills up an empty place in the heart of the follower and thus creates inspiration where there was nothing.
But this picture of how a leader’s vision works cannot be right. Followers are not empty canvas upon which the leader paints a vision. If vision is a picture or image of the future, a scheme of hopes and dreams, and plans for how to achieve them, then surely followers, as human beings, have vision of their own long before any encounter with a leader’s vision.
The vision of the follower, moreover, is powerful and consequential. As the repository of the follower’s hopes and dreams (whether of her own future or also including the future of others), the follower’s vision is a causal force of its own. The follower’s vision is as likely to inspire the leader as the other way around.
A more practical way to think about vision is that the leader’s vision comes into dynamic interaction with the vision of followers. In this dynamic interaction, the causal power of multiple visions can produce a mutual inspiration in which the leader finds himself moved as much as the followers. Leader and follower embrace one another’s vision. In this way of thinking, leadership is not primarily a process of one-up influence, but at its heart is a social and relational process of shared meaning-making. The part played by interpersonal influence is important but secondary to the part played by the mutual construction of a shared future.
Is this something Obama is wise to? I think so. In the speech that marked his emergence at the 2004 Democratic convention, he said, “For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga: a belief that we are connected as one people.” And in his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation.” He addressed his political opponents, saying, “to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too. “ And he spoke to those around the world in similar terms: “to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores . . . our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared . . . “
It is tempting to dismiss this as mere words. But words have power, and, for better or worse, these words have already engaged with the vision of millions around the world. What will happen as a result?
We already know quite a bit about how one person can influence another. I think we need to understand better how people mutually construct shared futures. I’m going to be watching the Obama presidency as a case study from this perspective, and I will report from time to time on my observations.
I have been burdened for several days with the notion that I needed to blog about the election somehow. And yet, the voice on my other shoulder would say, this is surely what everyone is doing. Would I not just be joining the crowd? And one of my colleagues has already written blogs about the nonverbal communication of the candidates, and communication is my specialty too. I don’t want to do the same thing he has already done. And I’m not a politico. I don’t have great knowledge of political history or strategy or theory. But I do have a few opinions.
As I buckled down to some of my other work, writing a guidebook about how to use stories in leadership, it dawned on me that this was my blog: the stories. For many of us, the stories stole our hearts. Obama’s stories are wonderful, and he used them very well in his campaign.
Barack Obama is a natural storyteller. Obama’s own story, being from a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother, living in Hawaii with his grandmother and in Indonesia with his mother and stepfather, and ending up at Harvard, is a powerful example of the American dream. He noted that such a story could only happen in the United States. It reminds us of our potential.
I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.
He told the story of his grandmother, and it ended up being a heart-touching part of his campaign, when he went to visit her on what was to become her deathbed, even before all the votes were in. Obama’s grandmother raised him during part or most of his childhood. He spoke of her lovingly and frequently. He mentioned the efforts she made in his upbringing and inspired legions of grandmothers who are also raising their own grandchildren. He made a powerful connection. He reminds us of our responsibility.
McCain’s stories we had heard before, but we hadn’t heard them from him. In his nomination acceptance speech, he told us about his experience as a war prisoner, and we were moved. In a debate, he also told about a bracelet that he wears for a fallen soldier. Those were the only memorable stories from his campaign, really. There is still so much he has never told us. He has always been more private about his personal life, and this campaign was really no different. Barack Obama told us almost as much about McCain’s heroism as McCain did himself.
One of the most impactful stories President-elect Obama told us was about Ann Nixon Cooper, in the closing moments of his acceptance speech in Chicago on November 4. He used the specifics of her life as well as generalities of the time in which she has lived for 106 years to create a powerful story about the resiliency of America. The audience followed his lead into a stirring repetitive response of “Yes, we can.” He reminds us of our own heroism, and that of others.
 Americans like stories. They want to hear their leaders tell stories, and they want to hear the stories of their heroes. Storytellers are healers, because they look for the issues that touch our hearts as well as our pocketbooks and they look for the deep issues that are important to us. Stories are memorable. They are an encapsulation of stuff that’s important, and they give us a way to remember it. Obama’s stories speak of love for family, commitment to deeply held values, commitment to education and service. They inspire us. They remind us of our own commitments and our possibilities. Yes, America loves stories, and I hope we will love telling Barack Obama’s story for years to come.
 At the Greensboro, NC airport, for only $5.00, Horace will heal your shoes and provide some personalized coaching on the topic of your choice. My choice was politics and business, seeing as we just elected a new president and the economy is in the pits. Horace was willing to be both encouraging about my political choices (happily they agreed with his) and interested in exploring the finer points of the impact of political leadership on business climate.
Part of what instigated this coaching session was the surprising (to me and to Horace) information on the front page of the “Money” section of USA Today that stock prices have done better under Democrats than Republicans over the last 55 years. Especially interesting has been the fact that in the first year following the election of a Republican stock prices average a drop of almost 2% and following the election of a Democrat they average an increase of almost 10% (9.7%).
Horace promised to use this information to gently tweak his Republican clients, but it got me thinking about how misleading stereotypes can be. And to the extent that stereotypes may shape choices leaders make, how seriously they can sabotage otherwise brilliant people.
This affects succession planning and talent management generally in pernicious ways. Studies stretching over the last four decades have consistently shown that we select or nominate for selection people who are like us. While that may be a useful strategy when there is little change in the marketplace, where can you find business strategies that work in rapidly churning economic environments? Successful organizations have the capability to develop and promote leaders who are right for the next turn, not the last.
I was in the audience at a conference several years ago in which a consulting firm reported on its work with the top industrial leaders of an emerging Asian economy. They proudly discussed their process for generating a competency matrix for the next generation of corporate leaders by surveying these leaders on what would make for success. In the results it was abundantly clear that they had described their own considerable strengths, but not what the new leaders would need to be like. An example was the absolute absence of any orientation toward innovation or entrepreneurial skill, in spite of (or because) the nation was moving toward a true market economy. A generation of industrial giants reared on economic dynasties could not be expected to recognize that the success of the next generation would require an altogether different mix of competencies. This is the greatest challenge imaginable: creating systems for preparing the next generation of leaders for general management. It is dauntingly difficult to recognize that my skills are not the perfect match for what comes next.
As I sat in his chair, Horace happily greeted the procession of suits and uniforms who streamed by his stand. He told me about his market research (“It’s usually slow on Wednesdays. More people fly on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays.”) and I watched his customer development process (“Hey, how’re you doing?”). He had determined that a combination of authenticity and good humor were the key strategic elements for building his business (seeing the sad state of my own shoes, he promised “I can heal those for you” with a reassuring smile). Tomorrow’s successful leaders will accurately read the news, challenge their own prejudices, assume nothing, and win in markets the pundits predict and those they don’t. They’ll also have very attractive shoes.
Your well-shod friend,
Doug
|
