Leading Questions

Sustaining engagement

Dan Pink posted this video under the theme of "motivation through engagement."

There are many clever people who know how to use technology to engage people with ideas. This is not the challenge. It is a totally different thing to sustain that engagement for a real change in behavior.

One of Dan's commenters wrote,

I love the concept, but I’d like to see this same study done on those same stairs a year from now. I suspect that those numbers will drop significantly once the novelty wears off — and it becomes more annoying than interesting.

Still, the concept is powerful and intriguing and I can see a lot of relevance to other industries and problems. (Stephen Palmer)

Engagement requires leadership. By this, I mean, that someone needs to constantly be looking for ways to engage people in the idea. It doesn't have to be much, but it has to happen.

How can engagement with the stairs be sustained?

Right now, the stairs are a curiosity. They need to become a social gathering point for group creativity. So, engagement could mean a video contest of a group of people who write and perform a song on the stairs and post to YouTube as a contest. I suspect that groups from all over Europe would come to this subway station to perform and video their song. 

Whatever the endeavor, leaders have to keep the idea of the initiative before people all the time. If it is a online discussion at a social networking site, the person who is in the leadership role needs to respond to people. Do so and interaction and conversation is sustained.

Engagement with ideas is an social thing that is facilitated by technology, not the other way around. If you want to motivate through engagement, you have to stay involved. It is the way to sustain and grow an idea's spread.

Transition Points and Space

This week's Weekly Leader column - Living in Transition Space - looks at a different way of understanding change.
Instead of thinking of change as simply disruptive, we should look at it as a transition process. Our natural tendency will be to focus on the transition point. However, we typically living in the transition space between those junctures of change.

I'm convinced that the frequency of these transition points are going to increase. As a result, we need to develop new ways of approach our work as organizational leaders. This is what the column addresses this week.

The Importance of Executive Experience

Donald Sensing writes an interesting and insightful post on President Obama as Chief Executive. He uses Mae West and the Peter Principle as his reference points for describing the President's performance in office.

We have here a Mae West presidency, which I illustrate with two quotes of the platinum blondeshell:

1. It's better to be looked over than overlooked.

2. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

And,

... the trip illustrates perfectly why the president is a premier example of the Peter Principle.

"The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter. ...

The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails.

I'm not totally convinced about the first assessment. Though after the last two weeks with the UN, the G-20 and the Olympics, I'm more open to the notion. 

I am very much convinced that the Peter Principle has come home to roost in the President. His lack of executive experience has been telling all along. The true believers won't buy this critique, but anyone who has had to run a business sees the tell-tale signs of inexperience.

Here are three examples of poor executive performance by the President.

1. Managing the budget. Many executives ascend to the highest office in their companies and take on the attitude that the budget is now their personal slush fund. Not only the rise in indebtedness, but the assumption that all our economic problems are solved by throwing money at them, is evidence of an inexperienced executive.

2. Growing the ranks of middle management. President Obama's use of executive czars is no different than adding more layers of management to a company's staffing chart. Obviously he doesn't know or understand what lean management means. In effect, the czars serve as unaccountable surrogates for the President. This weakens the chief executive officer's position making him more removed from the day-to-day happenings in the organization.

3. Leading by making hard decisions. This is one part of Sensing's post that I found most insightful as he writes about the relationship between Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower.

After John F. Kennedy was elected, President Dwight D. Eisenhower spent many hours with him. One of the key lessons was this: "All the decisions you will make," said Eisenhower, "will be hard decisions." Dwight went on to explain that the easy things will be tended to by cabinet secretaries and others of the administration with executive authority. But the tough ones will always be kicked to higher levels to be decided. At every level, the decisions become more and more difficult until, at last, the presidential inbox is filled with nothing but the most difficult items. 

Executive inexperience shows when the executive tries to do too much, tries to be too influential in too many areas, tries to push too many agendas, and consequently fails to maintain command of the big picture. This becomes a picture of a leader without focus or discipline.

From the Iowa caucuses through to today, my impression of Barack Obama is of a talented rhetorician, but not an executive. Unfortunately, making eloquent speeches is really a secondary task of the presidency. It can enhance or detract from the executive responsibilities, but being president is not the same as being the chief spokesperson for the American people.

President Obama will succeed or fail based on his executive abilities, not his politics or his rhetorical skills. He has much to learn, and little time to do so. 

HT: Instapundit

See New Now - by Gerald de Jaager & James Ericson - a Leading Questions review

We've all heard that perception is reality. What is perception but a mixture of observation, assumptions, our own history and the real world context we are in. Our perceptions are changed into stories to help us explain why the world is the way it, and what we must do with it. When our perceptions become too narrow, too defensive, too calcified, then we stop learning and life's goodness begins to recede.

It from this perspective that I began to read Gerald de Jaager and James Ericson's fine new book - See New Now: New Lenses for Leadership and Life. It is a book of brief stories intended to open our perceptions about life and leadership. The authors speak of these stories as lens because the stories enable us to visualize more than the story itself. We can see simple, compelling truths that guide us to perceive how we can be better leaders.

De Jaager and Ericson are connected to the Masters Forum in Minnesota, a program that has brought top-level thinkers and business leaders to their community. I've been reading Jim Ericson's blog - Conversational Kindling - for some time, and just love his talent for telling a story. 

The stories are quite short, but well written, and the purpose of the story is clear. It would be a great tool for any leadership team that wanted to expand their ability to think and communicate together.

I'm going to focus on just one of the 24 stories in this book. It deals with the presence of fear in the workplace. The chapter is The Baboon Reflex. They begin with a description of how baboon's hunt better alone than in groups.

Anything like that ever happen in your organization, or your life? Forgetting the team's goal and worrying instead about who might be gaining on you? These baboons had a goal and they had motivation to achieve it that's just about as powerful as any motivation could be: food and survival. In today's terms, they were "highly incented." But fear undermined them nonetheless.

This is just part of one of many compelling stories. The authors have not just published a book of stories, but have also created study guides for each of the "lens." This is a valuable resource for leaders who want to deepen the interaction of their team.

I highly recommend this book. It is a book and resources that will open, simply, clarify your perceptions so that wisdom and insight for leading will result.

Building a "sticky" leadership team

My latest Weekly Leader Leadership Q&A column - Sticky Leadership - is about how leaders function in a more relationship based structure.

Listen to Martha, "Follow the Leaders"

Martha is a high school friend of our family who happens to be on the search committee for the new pastor of our church. Over lunch last week, we were talking about her experience on the committee and her thoughts about the leadership role this new person will take.

Martha is a bright young woman, and one particular comment stood out as an insight of extraordinary wisdom.

He shouldn't come in with an agenda. Instead, he should follow what we are doing already, and learn how to lead us.

The idea that leaders should follow is not precisely the same thing as followership. That has more to do with how those who follow can lead. This idea of Martha's is instead the idea that leaders should follow at times.

For this to happen it requires three capacities.

First, the capacity of personal maturity that allows for a new leader not to be intimated by a new setting and new people to lead.

Second, the capacity of humility that enables the leader to recognize that he or she doesn't have all the answer, doesn't know all the information necessary, and does not have a sufficient breadth of relationships to lead without following.

Third, the capacity to listen, observe and learn from others.

Many leaders are ill-prepared for a position of authority. They may have certain analytical skills that makes for good decision-making. But they lack these personal attributes that are often the difference between effective and ineffective leadership.

New leaders would be wise to listen to Martha and recognize that learn to follow is an asset that will pay dividends as their tenure as leader is played out.

Thank you, Norman Borlaug

Norman Borlaug has died. Who you may ask? You should ask because this scientist is one of the great men of the 20th century.

From a 1997 Atlantic Monthly article by Greg Easterbrook.

Borlaug is an eighty-two-year-old plant breeder who for most of the past five decades has lived in developing nations, teaching the techniques of high-yield agriculture. He received the Nobel in 1970, primarily for his work in reversing the food shortages that haunted India and Pakistan in the 1960s. Perhaps more than anyone else, Borlaug is responsible for the fact that throughout the postwar era, except in sub-Saharan Africa, global food production has expanded faster than the human population, averting the mass starvations that were widely predicted -- for example, in the 1967 best seller Famine -- 1975! The form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths.

Borlaug was the 1970 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. From the presentation address.

This year the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Parliament has awarded Nobel's Peace Prize to a scientist, Dr. Norman Ernest Borlaug, because, more than any other single person of this age, he has helped to provide bread for a hungry world. We have made this choice in the hope that providing bread will also give the world peace.

Who is this scientist who, through his work in the laboratory and in the wheat fields, has helped to create a new food situation in the world and who has turned pessimism into optimism in the dramatic race between population explosion and our production of food?

Norman Borlaug, a man of Norwegian descent, was born on March 25, 1914, on a small farm in Cresco, Iowa, in the United States, and originally studied forestry at the University of Minnesota. It was as an agriculturalist, however, that he was to make his greatest contribution.

Here are selections from his Nobel lecture - The Green Revolution, Peace and Humanity.

The Subverting of Hierarchy

A decade ago The Cluetrain Manifesto was released as a prescient picture of what we are now coming to understand as the future that is fast becoming the present.

The Cluetrain authors, in a revolutionary style reminiscent of Martin Luther's 95 theses nailed to the Wittenberg church door starting the Protestant Reformation in 16th. century Europe, posted 95 theses on the nature of organizations, markets and life in the age of the Internet. The entire book is available free online here.

The seventh Cluetrain thesis - Hyperlinks subvert Hierarchy - is a point about information flow and access to that flow. A hyperlink like this one takes you to some other place in the online world. In this case, the main page at Wikipedia, but it could be any one of a billion different places. This ability to access information places power in the hands of people that we previously did not have.

Recently I heard Manuel Lima speak on the visualization of networks. You can follow his exploration of this topic at his blog Visual Complexity. 

In his presentation he compared the French Encyclopedia of the 18th century with Wikipedia. As you can see from this slide from his presentation, the growth of information in our time is staggering. This growth of information and our access to it is forcing organizations to change.  From this one picture you can see how we now truly live in the Information Age.

Hyperlinks may subvert hierarchy but that is not replacing hierarchy. Reading Clay Shirky (See his recent book, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations) may lead to the idea that we will see corporations go away, though he doesn't say this. In its place, we will all be self-organized into online social networks linked by our own hyperlinked profiles and communication means. This is already happening, but it is not replacing the traditional hierarchical organization.

For example, the free e-book, Managing Morale in a time of change is a product of the very phenomenon that both Cluetrain and Shirky identify.

The larger picture is something a bit different from simply being the end of formal organizations and the rise of community. Instead, we are seeing a shift of social influence that is more significant than the subverting of hierarchy.

Since humankind began to create communities and stop wandering as hunter/gatherers, hierarchy has formed as the power base of all organizations. Read Homer and the Old Testament history of the early Hebrews, there were always persons who held power and authority in a hierarchical structure that secured power and created order for their society. The difference between one lord and another lord was often (1.) the strength of their military defensive power and (2.) their moral vision that created either a just, prosperous society or not.  This is what we know of hierarchy up to this very day. It is the nature of hierarchical power that is at the center of the debate about healthcare today.

What Cluetrain, Shirky and many others point to is the realization that hierarchy's claim upon our lives has been loosened. I characterize this change as the end of institutionalism and the rise of social connection as the organizing principle of organizations.

In hierarchy, there is order from top to bottom. Power resides in a graduated scale with greater power held by the few at the top, down through the organizational structure to lesser power held by the many at the bottom. It is the unequal hold of power that also drives the politics of Washington.  These vertically integrated structures existed for millennia on the control of the lower levels of organization. Control of access to information, resources and opportunity were some of the ways that hierarchy functioned. In a time where most people were undereducated to their potential, and where the skills required to produce things were simple and repetitive, hierarchy worked. It is what made the industrial revolution so productive. In this instance, the worker in a hierarchical structure was only as free as their income allowed them to be. Dreams of wealth and advancement were not most peoples' privilege. Yet, beginning in the 15th and 16th centuries this began to change as exploration of the world, and tools for communicating ideas began to spread to the masses.

In our day it is hard to imagine a world without easily available reading material. However, prior to Gutenberg's moveable type press, the cost and time constraints on the production of printed information was such that the vast majority of people across the globe were functionally illiterate. As literacy and education became more common, so did the range of opportunities available to the average citizen grow.

Yet still, hierarchy ruled because there was not the means for any other kind of organization. Over the past generation this has begun to change. Today, collaboration is fast becoming the norm in how business gets done.

Collaboration is the ability of people to communicate and coordinate complex work processes in an efficient and effective manner. It is dependent on the ability of members of the collaborative group to work together, to communicate effectively and share in the rewards and responsibilities of the project.

Many collaborative groups function not by hierarchy, with one person in authority who delegates the tasks of the project. Rather these groups are lead by the "first among equals". This view also known by its Latin form, primus inter pares, treats the organization of work from the perspective of whomever has the knowledge, experience, expertise or responsibility is the leader. From this perspective, leadership is not a role, but how we relate in the social context of work.

In a collaborative project, with one person's client, the lead will be taken by the person who has the information or skills to address the specific need of the client. So, if a planning client of mine needs assistance on employee pension plans, then I bring in the expert on that area, and they take the lead on helping my client establish the best approach for them.

In hierarchical structures, leadership is a function of position, authority and power. In collaborative structures, leadership is a function of the character and influence of people in a social context. Personal character, communication skills and the ability to share power are keys. 

While this may seem rather mundane and ordinary for many of us, it is revolutionary in the context of hierarchy. It is so because it means that leadership is not held as a private privilege, but rather shared as a common responsibility. It is this way of work that is creeping into the hierarchies of organization as changing them from within.

It would be nice to think that this is all a very rational, forward thinking process, but typically it is not. Instead, when hierarchy breaks down, and goals and standards must be met, the last resort is to call a meeting to see who has any ideas for getting out of the mess.

What is pushing the acceleration of the adoption of this approach are many causes. However, at the heart is the access to information and tools for communication that the internet provides. The e-book noted above was the work of 36 people from 11 countries on four continents. The discussion that is captured by the book took place over 12 days, and the production of the e-book a little over a month more. This is the model of the future in miniature.

What needs to happen is for companies to embrace the subversion of hierarchy in favor of social collaboration and allow for their businesses to grow from within at all levels. I don't think that hierarchy will ever go away. It will lose its hold on people and society as each of us realizes the level of freedom and opportunity that comes from our connections to one another.

Yes, subvert and elevate hierarchy to be an incubator of shared collaborative leadership. This is the future that would have scared Agamemnon, Caesar, Henry VIII, Hitler, Stalin and all the little dictators who use hierarchy to subvert the interests of their people to their own private ones.

It is the future. Embrace it now, and learn to lead to strengthen hierarchy through its subversion to a more socially connection environment for work.

You are in control of you - Admiral James Stockdale on surviving in stressful situations

This week's Weekly Leader column - You are in charge of you - looks at the stress that comes from losing one's job in the context of the story of James Stockdale, the highest ranking US POW imprisoned during the Vietnam War.

A long section from an excellent interview posted at the Academy of Achievement where Admiral Stockdale tells about how he managed the psychological stress of imprisonment, and the role that the philosophy of Epictetus had in his survival.

Admiral, how did you survive psychologically? The other men you mentioned perished under the same circumstances.

James Stockdale: I don't know. I didn't feel like I had more vitality than the next one. I had things to do. I was alone a lot, and I found ways to talk to myself and to bolster my own morale. I was getting occasional letters from my wife Sybil. And she would from me. She probably wrote 50 and I got six, and I probably wrote 20 and she got two or something like that.

After I came out of Alcatraz, we all came back to the regular prison. They tried to get me to go downtown. They tried everything. They would give me the ropes three times a week. One of my original breakthroughs was self disfiguration. I was given a lot of times in the ropes in room 18, which is the main torture chamber of Hoa Lo prison. It also serves as kind of a ceremonial chamber when no prisoners are in there. In that, the only room in the building, a great big building with plate glass windows, and they had big heavy quilts that they drew across it. I was in there and they were about at their wits end. Two officers were working me over. Pi Ga, my torture guard, was always there to take me wherever they wanted. It was about mid-afternoon and they said, "Okay, you've done okay, today. Now you want to get washed up." I knew what that meant. That meant we were going downtown that night.

The Coming Deficits Crisis

Raise your hand if you would run your household finances or your business like Congress and the White House manage theirs?

Of course, all us understand that we live with limited financial resources. We balance our check books and work hard at keeping positive cash flow from month to month.  Now the numbers coming out of Washington are not just big, but predict a looming disaster ahead.

John Fund in the Wall Street Journal writes about David Walker, a CPA who served in a variety of government positions since the Reagan administration.

"We suffer from a fiscal cancer," he tells a meeting of the National Taxpayers Union, the nation's oldest anti-tax lobby. "Our off balance sheet obligations associated with Social Security and Medicare put us in a $56 trillion financial hole—and that's before the recession was officially declared last year. America now owes more than Americans are worth—and the gap is growing!"

If you looked at your bank account and you owed more than your worth, you'd have to declare bankruptcy. Let's assume that we are now at that point at a nation. Just for conversation's sake. We are our of money. So, how do we then address this statement floating through Facebook status updates?

No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, post this as your status for the rest of the day.

This only makes sense if you are not responsible for paying for the health care of the nation. Just pass it off to someone else, and feel pleased about your compassionate nobility.The thought that came to mind when I read it was to imagine what it would require to put 300 million people on life support because the aim of health care is for no one to die.

Now here's the real issue that no one in Washington is willing to address. Listen to what Walker has to say.

"We have four deficits: a budget deficit, a savings deficit, a value-of-the-dollar deficit and a leadership deficit," he tells one group. "We are treating the symptoms of those deficits, but not the disease."

Mr. Walker identifies the disease as having a basic cause: "Washington is totally out of touch and out of control," he sighs. "There is political courage there, but there is far more political careerism and people dodging real solutions." He identifies entrenched incumbency as a real obstacle to change. "Members of Congress ensure they have gerrymandered seats where they pick the voters rather than the voters picking them and then they pass out money to special interests who then make sure they have so much money that no one can easily challenge them," he laments. He believes gerrymandering should be curbed and term limits imposed if for no other reason than to inject some new blood into the system. On campaign finance, he supports a narrow constitutional amendment that would bar congressional candidates from accepting contributions from people who can't vote for them: "If people can't vote in a district not their own, should we allow them to spend unlimited money on behalf of someone across the country?" (emphasis mine.)

We can wring our hands about health care and climate change, but if we don't address the crisis of spending in Washington, there will be nothing left to do anything. 

Walker makes an important point about the sequence of change.

"President Obama got the sequence wrong by advocating expanding coverage before we've proven our ability to control costs," he says. "If we don't get our fiscal house in order, but create new obligations we'll have a Thelma and Louise moment where we go over the cliff."

After Katrina, it was clear that the problem with federal government programs was their organizational systems. For example, last year the federal government determined that the FEMA trailer program would end and the people who had been given them would have to move into new housing. This decision seemingly was made without any assessment whether there had been sufficient recovery of the housing based. It was a bureaucratic decision instead of one of based on human need.

I agree with Walker. We need to change the functioning of the government before we create a crisis that will paralyze the nation.

An Additional Thought

The impact of these rising deficits has been impacting state and local governments for years. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels writes about what is happening with state tax revenues in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

State government finances are a wreck. The drop in tax receipts is the worst in a half century. Fewer than 10 states ended the last fiscal year with significant reserves, and three-fourths have deficits exceeding 10% of their budgets. Only an emergency infusion of printed federal funny money is keeping most state boats afloat right now.

Most governors I've talked to are so busy bailing that they haven't checked the long-range forecast. What the radar tells me is that we ain't seen nothin' yet. What we are being hit by isn't a tropical storm that will come and go, with sunshine soon to follow. It's much more likely that we're facing a near permanent reduction in state tax revenues that will require us to reduce the size and scope of our state governments. And the time to prepare for this new reality is already at hand.

The coming state government reset will be particularly wrenching after the happy binge that preceded this recession. During the last decade, states increased their spending by an average of 6% per year, gusting to 8% during 2007-08. Much of the government institutions built up in those years will now have to be dismantled.

If this is happening to state governments, you can be sure that it is happening to your local municipal ones.

During the early part of the decade, I had several projects working with local governments and organizations supporting them. At that time, a sales tax revenue conflict emerged in several states. In essence, locally generated sales taxes went to the state to be distributed back to local municipalities. In a number of states, the state held onto those revenues, putting a huge burden upon city and county governments. Then good times returned and local and state governments began to expand.

Governor Daniels is right to be concerned. This is what happens when politics and class warfare, from both sides of the political spectrum replace leadership and wisdom in public office. Nothing that I see in happening in Washington gives me hope that this pattern has changed.  State and local governments are beginning to understand this. They must operate within their financial means. Washington just prints more money. 

I don't know what the answer is from a policy perspective. I do know that at the heart of this deficits crisis is an ethical crisis. And until we address the issues of power, wealth and influence in Washington, the rest of the nation is going to be at risk.

Be sure to read all of Fund's article and share it with family and friends.