If you spend more of your life & work at the Skills end of the continuum, and not somewhere in the middle, then you will always feel that you are overcoming huge obstacles to getting things done. You need to move to closer to where your talent is.
Talent is where we connect with our desires. We know that we are gifted and see it reflected in the satisfaction we get from utilizing our talent.
If you are at the other end, where you Talent rules, then you need to develop Skills that help sustain your Talent's vitality. Talent is a resource that is optimized by Skills development.
The Love - Hate Continuum
This is where the stress gets manufactured.
If you do what you love, then you are free. If you are in a situation that you hate, the emotional toll grows with each day.
Think of your emotional life as a well, a cistern, waiting to be filled. You can fill it with pure, clean water, or you can poison the water with the toxin of stress.
Find what you love, and live and work with it. Let it fill the well of your life with joy, peace, freedom, fulfillment, fun and a real sense of impact. This is where fun in life & work is found.
Finding The Sweet Spot
Doing what you love and are talented to do would seem to be the sweet spot on these two continuum. Ideally that is true. But in reality, that spot is closer to the middle on the Talent - Skills continuum and closer to what you Love on the other.
Here though is what is important to understand.
The price of living on these two continuum is emotional. Call it stress if you will, but it is emotional.
We hide this emotional toll because many more of the skills that leaders need are analytical, decision making ones.
We spend a lot of time in our heads. We think through problems, make decisions, implement them, and move to the next one.
It is that transition from one analytical process to the next that builds up the pressure.
It is important to understand the connection between our minds, our bodies and our emotions. There are many scientists who understand the science of this better than I do. So, do your own research. But here is what I've learned.
I've come to see that most of what we think is rationalized emotion. Our motivations begin down deep inside of us, and come out emotionally in some settings, like in sports, and yet in organizational / work settings we find them expressed as rational thought.
We all know people who are like emotional time-bombs. They seem rational on the surface, but they have a hair-trigger anger that creates fear and stress in people. That is a picture of this connection between our emotions, mind and body.
The well of emotions needs constant replenishing with positive emotions. If those emotions are not there in your life or work, then you need to begin today to address them.
Time to Make Changes
If you know you are stuck in a situation that is more stressful than fun, where you talent is under-utilized, where you hate not only what you do, but the whole context of the work, then you need to make some changes. The sooner you change the better. Waiting only fills the well with more toxic emotions.
Where do you start? Start with the Circle of Impact Guides. If you are new to them, here is a helpful guide to understanding the sequence of ideas in the guides.
One of the questions that continues to dominate many of the conversations that I have with organizational leaders is the one related to how they should structure their business.
For example, yesterday in a conversation with a friend and client, we discussed the role of the administrative assistant in his business. Like many small businesses, this role has shifted from an essential one to a discretionary one. Many employment positions have gone away because the benefit does not match their cost.
The issue isn't whether the tasks that these people do are not valuable.
The issue is whether the role as defined is.
This is a picture of the shift being taken in many places from a traditional hierarchical business structure to one that I call a parallel one. This parallel structure is a network of relationships.
As you can see by this chart, there are some real differences between the traditional approach to organizing a business, and one built around relationships. This shift is hard for everyone who has spent their work life in a hierarchical structure.
In the traditional approach, a person is hired to fill a position. That position has a job description that outlines the specific tasks and responsibilities that they are to do. The employee's expectation is that is what their time at work will be like each day. Completing tasks that are assigned through the organizational design of the company. Responsibility is passed down to the employee,while authority is held at the top. This system worked well during an era of easy growth and social continuity. It does so because the ultimate purpose of the organization is institutional integrity.
In a network of relationships parallel structure, the job description is also relational. It means that the individual's character and engagement with people is part of what makes them a valued employee. Some may think this has always been true. And that is correct. These parallel structures of relationships have always formed when a specific need emerges. But they were seen as temporary or adhoc, not a permanent or essential part of the organization's structure.
What We Want
The greatest business failure of the past thirty years has not been scandals or financial collapses. It is the failure of business to understand the value of their employees. This failure originates in the structure of businesses.
If employees are functionaries in an administrative, production system, then their value is diminished, by let say at least 30%, and in some cases twice that.
If the business is organized to create order, then employees are hired to comply with that order. Institutional integrity becomes the goal of the organization.
However, in a network of relationships model, people bring much more to their work. This is what the team building movement has been teaching us for a generation. How people relate and work together is a key ingredient in an organization's success.
I suspect though that here again the value of the individual to company is still not perceived well.
If you were to sit down with each employee for coffee and talk about their lives, you would find what I am finding. There are three things that they want. Everyone says them differently, but they can be summarized simply.
People want their lives and work to be
Socially Fulfilling, and
Make a Difference that Matters.
This is what we all want. We want the values that matter to us to be central in how we live. We want some kind of purpose for our lives. There needs to be a point to it.
We also want our relationships to be healthy and whole. We don't like conflict. We don't like to be manipulated, to be taken for granted, or to be used for someone's selfish purposes. We want to walk into work hopeful and excited about the opportunity to share my day with the people with whom I work.
We want to feel at the end of the day that we did something that made a difference. Listen to what people say when they talk about a good day. One where they accomplished something. They overcame a challenge or an obstacle and succeeded at it. Also, they did something for someone else that was appreciated. It made a difference. There was real satisfaction in helping solve person's problems. That's what we want.
The Circle of Impact Connection
The lesson for me when I began to see this picture emerge is how congruent it was to the three dimensions of leadership that I had identified as the Circle of Impact.
The three dimensions that command every leader's attention are Ideas, Relationships and Structure. We tend to segregate them, thinking that it is easier that way. Instead it creates confusion and greater complexity. That is why the four Connecting Ideas - Purpose or Mission, Values, Vision and Impact - are essential tools for helping link together the three dimensions. And it begins by clarifying the Connecting Ideas.
The Circle of Impact applies to both kinds of structures, traditional and parallel, because this is a basic, fundamental understanding of all organizations, regardless of type. Every organization must address its ideology, its social context and how the business is structured to achieve impact. All of them. However, here's the difference.
The parallel structure, described above, is a Network of Relationships. Just like in a traditional hierarchical setting, this organizational structure requires attention to the Connecting Ideas, relationships and the organization of their work.
Networks of Relationships are formed around a Shared Mission and Shared Responsibility, where leadership, authority and responsibility to contribute are shared.
From this perspective of Shared Leadership, the responsibility of the individual is to take initiative to create impact. This is the most basic contribution of the team member. And because the group is organized as a network of relationships, their collaboration and communication is an essential focus of their relationships.
Most of us have experienced team work where there was a genuine experience of coming together as a group of shared purpose and contribution. And most likely, we see these experiences as the exceptions in our lives.
Let's return to my conversation with my friend and client about the administrative staff person in his office.
How can this perspective about parallel structures, networks of relationships, shared mission, shared responsibility, shared leadership and impact fit into his traditional business structure?
It begins with recognizing that each individual has unrealized potential waiting to be released. Everyone of us wants to work in an environment that is personally meaningful, socially fulfilling and makes a difference that matters. If that is so, then the first step is figuring out how those three personal goals can become the basis for the contributions of each person.
As a result, each person contributes that which is personally meaningful. Each person contributes in their interpersonal interaction that which is socially fulfilling. And each person contributes out of their own talent, expertise and character of personal initiative those actions that create the impact that makes a difference that matters.
For each person to do this means that the social structure of the business must change. And this shift is based on what each person shares with the whole of the organization.
Here's the insight that is a key to understanding this organizational change. Because these networks of relationships are parallel structures, they can work along side of, and even within the traditional structures of hierarchy. In fact they always have. But rarely as a core strategy, but rather as a tactical approach to team work.
We can see this is the way businesses define positions of employment. Instead of focused on contribution, the emphasis has been task oriented. As result, the value of the employee is not realized, and it makes the case for reductions in force must easier to make.
The future belongs to these parallel structures. Let networks of relationships form. Let them take collective initiative to make a difference that matters, then new vitally and impact will emerge.
Near the end of my father's career, the company for whom he had worked for over 35 years, was purchased, and, not so slowly, its assets drawn off and exploited for use by the parent company.
I remember him telling me of the day that he was on a management recruiting trip in Pennsylvania, and received a phone call that the company was not going to make payroll that week. He returned home to help usher through the closing of the company and be the last executive remaining as he handled the outstanding employee medical and benefit claims against the company. He was of an age where he could retire. It was a sad day for him. He had worked for the company his entire career.
My dad's story is not unusual. It is symptomatic of the time we are living in. I thought of my father as I watched last year's under-appreciated film, The Company Men. It is a story of executives and their families coping with change as their corporation goes through a series of downsizes simply to raise the share price. Like my father's experience, the film illustrates a very common experience of change. Here's a clip of a meeting where decisions are being made as to who is to be let go.
This has become a very normal experience for people. Even with a nice severance package, the emotional trauma of being fired is something that doesn't quickly go away. What lies behind this approach to quantifying the value of a company is a way of thinking about organizations that I believe is ultimately destructive rather than a path to sustainability. The logical outcome from over a century of this way of thinking has been the narrowing of the value of a company to something short term and specifically related to its financial value.
Consider the executive's rationale for downsizing staff and eliminating a division of the company in this exchange between Tommy Lee Jones and Craig T. Nelson's characters from the movie. .
Nelson: "Stock is stalled and revenue is flat."
Jones: "Entire economy is flat. We are in the middle of a recession."
N: "I only closed two of the shipyards. Should have closed all three of them. Stock is in the toilet."
J: "Everybody's stock is in the toilet."
N: "Well, the stockholders would like to see their share value maximized."
J: "Heh, Heh, Heh, Well ... sell the Degas'. ... three thousand jobs?"
N: "Gene, we aren't some little shipyard any more. I'm not going to keep pouring money into a losing operation."
J: "We innovate, retool ..."
N: "American heavy manufacturing is dead. Steel, auto, shipbuilding ... the future is in healthcare infrastructure and power generation."
J: "I have to be involved in any decision that affects one of my divisions."
N: "You wouldn't have approved the cut. ... You'd go behind my back to the board again, right?"
J: "They were good people, Jim."
Both men are backed up against a wall. They are caught by a way of thinking about the value of companies that worked in times where growth was relatively assured. Now, the competition is tougher, more astute and far more flexible in their ability to adapt to changing circumstances.
Do you think they could have seen this coming? I'm not sure. It goes back to how to you determine the value of a company. I'm not talking about how Wall Street values it, but the people who are touched by the company in some manner. How do they value the company?
Can the value of a company be reduced to one thing, like the share price, or the charismatic leadership of the CEO or a design innovation? Or is the value embedded in the whole structure and context of the organization?
We are in a time of global transition in all aspects of life. Short-term, reductive, passive aggressive, reactive thinking is not going to lead us out of a recession into a new era of peace and prosperity. Instead, we need to realize that our approach is failing, and that we need a new way to think about how organizations function. It must start with the willingness to be different, to think differently, and invest in changes that provide for long term development.
The Context of Change
The ancient Greeks had a word for change which is metanoia. Literally, it means a change of mind, but it has come to mean something much larger and more comprehensive. Metanoia points to a change of orientation, perspective and direction. There is a sense in the meaning that the change of mind is accompanied by some regret. So the change, upon reflection, is a choice to follow a different path. People choosing to turn toward different values and new ways of expressing them. Metanoia is a change that embraces the whole person, the mind, feelings and will, and is expressed in action that is change.
This change of mind is an awareness that the path we have been on is no longer sustainable. As I wrote in my post, The End and The Beginning, this change marks an end of an era in several ways. The nature of this redirection means that the recent past is no longer an adequate guide for understanding what we must do in the future. As I began in that post,
What if our past experience instead of illuminating the future, obscures it? What if the way we have always approached a problem, or the conduct of a single day, or the organization of our work makes it more likely that we end up not accomplishing what we envision?
The continuity between the recent past and the near future has broken down. This is a turning point for us. The 20th century may provide our most immediate experiential memory, but for the purpose of understanding the future, it is now ancient history.
Reflect upon the attacks on 9/11, our response to them, and the global recession of past three years, and our response to it. Can you see how the tried-and-true methods of the last century have not worked. Neither peace nor prosperity are being restored, in fact, the world is less peaceful and prosperous than it was a decade ago. Terrorism maybe contained upon our shores, but it still festers in places of poverty throughout the world.
Fear, doubt and diminishment in the confidence in our leaders and institutions are increasing. Greater diversity, interconnectivity, and, yes, even greater business efficiencies, are not answering the question about what it is that we must do.
We are now at a crossroads that requires metanoia, a change that is comprehensive and whole. This change of mind requires us to begin to see businesses as a whole organizations, rather than as a collection of interchangeable, discardable, transferable, value-specific parts. The company in The Company Men was dying because it too, like my father's company, was just a collection of assets to be exploited. There is no future in this way of thinking. To have a future requires us to change our minds and see things differently.
To change our minds, we need to make Three Turns of perception, understanding and orientation.
The Moral Turn In the first clip from The Company Men, above, Tommy Lee Jones' character raises questions about the selection of people to be let go. His response, that there is an ethical question involved, is met with a legalistic answer.
By reducing the decision to a question of share price and what is required under the law, the company is not just making a business decision, but also a moral choice.
What is a company that no longer manufactures its products? Is it now a money machine for its share holders as long as the money holds out?
The moral turn is first and foremost about the purpose or mission of the company.
Does a company whose actual purpose is share price encourage confidence and trust?
Does a company whose primary focus is share price understand its connection to the people who work in the business and the communities where they are physically located?
Is a company more than its financials?
Does a company have a responsibility that goes beyond its shareholders, and what is defined by what is strictly legal?
Every organization exists in a context that is greater than the sum of the parts of the organization. There is a culture that is physical, ideological, technological and social.
For example, what distinguishes an insurance company in London to one based in Sao Paulo or Detroit is geography and culture. Yes, they each ofter insurance plans. Yes, they each have customers. Yes, they each generate revenue. The difference is the local context that helps to define the culture of the business.
As a result ...
a company is not primarily its mission or purpose, but its values that are embedded in ideas and relationships within the context, culture and structure of the organization.
Values permeate the whole of the business, including those persons and organizations outside of the business who are influenced by it. Values inform its purpose, its vision of impact, its relationships with all those who are touched by the company, and how the company measures its impact.
The mission of a company is a product of its values.
When the purpose of the company is more than its financial value to shareholders, it is no longer, just a reservoir of assets to be exploited, but a context in which to create the future.
Recently I heard a presenter during in an organizational development workshop describe organizations that are mission driven as organizations on the rise. He used a diagram similar to this one that I use to describe organizations in transition.
When a company reaches a point of maturity or stabilization or equilibrium, the importance of its mission as a guide often fades. What follows is an increasing focus on its financial assets as its primary purpose. The presenter was convinced that once an organization shifts from a mission focus to a financial focus, it has entered a stage of decline. In effect, they no longer see how a company can grow, but rather be sold.
The moral turn that a company needs to make is to reaffirm its values and reestablish its mission as the driving force of the company as a whole.
The Social Turn When the value of a company is reduced to its share price, the company loses the value that exists within its social structure. Not every member of the organization benefits from a rise in the share price. As a result, the company fragments into internally competitive parts to see who will survive the company's disintegration.
For example, as a Boston Red Sox fan for over 45 years, I was particularly disappointed in their collapse this year. It was not that old patterns of attitudes and behaviors that had hampered the team in the past had returned. Rather, it was the squandering of the talent and potential that existed on paper, at least, at the beginning of the season.
By all appearances, the social environment of the team is the core reason for their decline. At the beginning of the season, they were the odds on favorite to win the World Series. Great pitching, the acquisition of two all-star hitters, and a coaching staff that had produced two World Series championships held great promise for the upcoming season. Yet all that collapsed into a mess in what appears to be based in a collective selfishness and lack of accountability for the team's social environment and on field performance.
The Social Turn is the recovery of the human dimension in organizations. As human beings we are social beings through which our individuality develops. Much of the fragmentation of modern business organizations isolates individuals and business units into individualized roles that make collaborative team work more difficult. As a result, the connections that exist between people in the workplace are treated as having marginal value.
In The Company Men, when Ben Affleck is fired, the stated reason is that his position is redundant. In effect, the company was recouping a cost that it viewed was exceptional rather than necessary. The company also loses in this kind of fragmenting of the social structure of the business. Affleck's character was not just a person in a cubicle, but was a connection point in a network of relationships that provided information and influence beyond the company. The value may be redundant, but it is a redundancy that creates strength and resilience, not weakness.
Social fragmentation is not just found in businesses, but in global society at large. Its destructiveness finds its way into companies and organizations, weakening their ability to marshal the talent that exists. The Social Turn is one that values relationships of honor, respect, humility, trust and mutual reciprocity. These values function to create a social fabric that allows for diversity and interconnectivity that creates the sustainability that businesses and communities need.
The Structural Turn The industrial model of business was conceptualized around the idea that a business is filled with a few smart people and a lot of laborers. The world has changed, yet the structures of organizations have not. Still the structure is a hierarchy of decision-makers "leading" a larger number of decision-implementers.
This approach does not work as well as it once did. Here are just a few reasons.
1. Technology levels the information playing field.
2. Advances in public education, and the expansion of higher education has created a society of workers who are much better informed and equipped to do decision-making type work.
3. The complexity of working in a global environment of diverse cultures makes it more difficult for a few people to know everything they need to know about the issues that confront their business.
4. The skills required for leadership and management of business are much more accessible to far more people than every before.
5. Hierarchical structures are organized for control through compartmentalization and standardization.
The Structure Turn that is taking place elevates personal initiative, network collaboration, and adaptive learning as the keys to the organization and leadership of businesses.
Instead of a structure organized around compartmentalized roles and defined areas of responsibility, the emerging structure is an open environment where the skills and resources needed for the work of the business is acquired through a network relationship structure.
In this structure each person is responsible for the whole of the project, not just their segment. Each person can function in the role of leader, while not having a title as one.
In this networked structure, the premium skills are placed upon thinking skills that are both analytical and intuitive.
As I recently commented to Dana Leman of RandomKid,
"Imagine Proctor & Gamble without bosses and managers, and everyone is a leader."
Leadership ceases to be a title, and becomes a set of behaviors and attitudes that all share. For the character of this kind of leadership to take root, it requires changing the structure.
The Structural Turn is towards an organizational culture where people are free to create and contribute, to communicate, to initiate and to pitch in where they see a need. Instead of being doers of assigned responsibilities, they are facilitators and problem solvers. In many companies, this kind of structure is developing. However, it must happen at the senior level for the turn to be successful.
How would the company in The Company Men function differently if they operated under a network structure?
1. More people would be engaged in meaningful reflection about the challenges facing the company because they knew that had an actual stake in its success.
2. Innovation would be more prevalent as employees practiced a higher level of leadership initiative and problem solving.
3. New business applications through employee ingenuity would expand the number and range of revenue streams the company has.
4. The company would be unified behind its shared values and mission.
5. The company would be a more attractive place for the top talent to work.
6. The company could more easily adapt to financial downturns.
7. Communities would be vying for the opportunity for the company to create a local operation.
The central message of the Three Turns is for your mission to drive change in the company, centered around values that unite people to create a shared company culture of trust, personal initiative, and a desire to contribute to the company's success. When this happens, the turn from hierarchical structure to a network one can take place as a natural evolution of the company.
Organizational culture is an important driver of any business. But culture is often seen as some vague organizational presence, typically personalized in the senior leader or owner. Culture is much more.
For example, take a person. Hair, skin color, gender, height, shape, family lineage, geographic location and many other facets of a person are the things that distinguish us. But our hair, or lack of it, does not define us a whole person. It is all these things and more. The whole of a person is very similar to what we think of as the culture of an organization or a town.
The culture of an organization therefore is something whole and complete, always shifting and changing as the context and the people within the organization change. Changes that are happening on a global scale are requiring us to pay more attention to precisely what is the culture of our businesses.
The shift that is taking place in organizational cultures is not incremental, but transformational. The mechanistic culture of the Industrial Age, think Henry Ford, defined the culture of most businesses over the past century. Today a more organic culture based on human interaction is emerging.
What drives these drivers? People, and the changes that they bring to their work in organizations.
A New Kind of Culture
Zappos.com is known for being a unique place to work. Its organizational culture stands out as distinctive. It is one of many businesses that have figured out how to engage its employees so that they want to give their best to their work.
Read the latest edition of their culture book (free for the asking at Zapposinsights.com), and page after page are brief stories by employees of their love and commitment to Zappos. Is Zappos the answer to the question about what the culture of work will look like in the future? No more so than any other business is the answer for every other business. Zappos does provide an indicator of the kind of cultural change that is possible.
In the 2010 Zappos Culture book, CEO Tony Hsieh explains the Zappos culture.
“For us, our #1 priority is company culture. Our belief is that if we get the culture right, most of the other stuff – like delivering great customer service, or building a long-term enduring brand and business – will happen naturally on its own. … So what is Zappos culture? To me, the Zappos culture embodies many different elements. It’s about always looking for new ways to WOW everyone we come in contact with. It’s about building relationships where we treat each other like family. It’s about teamwork and having fun and not taking ourselves too seriously. It’s about growth, both personal and professional. It’s about achieving the impossible with fewer people. It’s about openness, taking risks, and not being afraid to make mistakes. But most of all, it’s about having faith that if we do the right thing, then in the long run we will succeed and build something great.”
Tony Hsieh understands what Daniel Pink, in his book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, describes. Pink sees that people today are not motivated to excellence in their life or work by fear of punishment or just by financial rewards. Instead three personal factors - autonomy, mastery and purpose – are the key motivators.
Two Levers of Culture
At a deeper level, organizational culture is a values structure, especially those focused on purpose and mission, and respect, trust, openness and mutual reciprocity.
We can describe this human centered system by identifying two levers. These levers provide energy and strength to the system. One is self-leadership. The other is the functioning of the organization as a Community of Leaders.
The old industrial model of leadership was built around the idea that leaders control and the rest follow. That worked when followers lacked education and training, and business systems were relatively simple and predictable. Today, nothing is simple, and the complexity of organizational systems is such that talent has become an important differentiator between businesses. Talented people need development and the right culture to be able to reach their potential.
These changes also mean that each employee has greater responsibility for their work than ever before. That responsibility is carried out through their own personal initiative.
Personal initiative is the origin of all leadership. Without it, nothing begins or is sustained. In the past, this initiative came from a small, select group of people in positions of leadership. Now, leadership is less a role and more the way a person conducts themselves within the culture of the company.
Personal initiative is product of self-leadership. It comes from the individual him or herself. It is that expression of inner motivation that turns a person who is only there to do the job assigned into a person who is a creator and contributor to the developing success of the company.
Where does this drive for personal initiative that is leadership come from?
It begins with values. Not generic ones that appear on rest room walls with not so subtle reminders to do your best. Rather these values are personal ones that transcend the individual and form a basis for collaboration. These are the kind of values that are expressed by Zappos employee Darrin S. in the 2010 Zappos Culture book.
One of the best bits of advice I've ever received was, "Surround yourself with people that make you want to be your best self."
My Interpretation of "best self" is this:
- Purpose greater than one's own personal interests.
- Fear of stagnation
- Relentless quest for the truth in decision making.
- A thrill for the unknown when the right answer is difficult to determine.
- Trust in the effort of others.
- Genuine desire to watch others succeed.
Zappos has a high concentration of people with these values and the Zappos Culture is a product of these people.
People like Darren are self-motivated to lead from their individual place within the company's structure. They look for ways to contribute, to innovate, and to create an impact that matters. Grow up a company filled with people like Darren and the company is transformed into a culture of committed contributors.
Community of Leaders
Two experiences inform my understanding of the phrase "community of leaders."
One was a project where issues that began at the lower level of the company's structure would get passed up the line until it reached the head of the business unit. Instead of the issue being a dispute between two people or the performance of one person, as the issue was passed on, it changed into being a dispute between the union and the company. It was a culture problem. Managers and supervisors avoided taking responsibility because of a culture of mistrust.
The second experience was the tour of a local hospitals where we had the opportunity to meet and dialog with department heads and floor leaders. My opinion of the organization changed as I found middle-tier leaders who not only had a tactical and technical grasp of their specific area of responsibility, but also had a strategic grasp of the region's healthcare issues with an understanding of how the hospital was positioned to meet them.
A Community of Leaders is a way to describe an organizational culture where self-leadership is wide spread. It is more than just a collection of self-led people. It is an emergent culture where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The key change is relational and social.
As I describe above, a culture that avoids responsibility is not a culture where the relationships function well. Lack of respect and trust in any social system is sclerotic, creating an environment that is rigid, unresponsive and unable to adapt.
How many times have I been in a planning meeting with an organization and the group is pushing for greater accountability, not greater trust. In effect, they are looking for scapegoats to blame poor performance on. It is a symptom of a failing culture. If people are not willing to take initiative, to build open, respectful relationships, then something is wrong. I know this is the norm in many, many organizations. Conduct anonymous surveys of employees, and you'll hear it. The social/ relational dimension of an organization is not a second level area of leadership, it is the connectional, the ligament, the glue of the system.
A Community of Leaders is an organization whose self-led members contribute through the leadership of their own personal initiative to build relationships of respect and trust. In order to see this, we have to think a bit differently about how an organization can be a community.
There is the formal structure of departments, business units and process. And then there is the informal structure of relationship. It is this latter structure that needs development in most organizations. It is developed by creating a culture of respect and trust.
What can an executive leader of a company do to create a community of leadership culture?
First, YOU cannot create it. WE have to create it.
It cannot be controlled or mandated. It must be permitted to happen. There must be openness and freedom for people to take initiative to create the social environment that allows them to show up like Darren S. of Zappos to be their best every day. All you can do is support and facilitate, and most important join them as a co-participant.
Second, you have to understand what people want.
1. People want their lives and work to be Personally Meaningful. In other words, there are ideas, values, a sense of purpose or personal calling that they want to express in the way they spend every day. Work is personal, and becomes professional as it defines and guides their relationship to the company. The more a person’s core values are in synch with his or her work and aligned with the company’s mission, the more significant the workplace becomes as place to invest oneself in high endeavors and excellence in performance.
2. People want their lives and work to be Socially Fulfilling. They want their relationships to be whole and healthy, for respect, trust and openness to be valued and practiced in the workplace. This is more than just about the functioning of a project team or a business unit. There is unfulfilled desire that informs the cynicism and fear that is prevalent in so many organizations. It is a belief that better work results from relationships of trust and respect.
3. People also want their lives and work to Make a Difference that Matters. This desire is more than just to being successful or having a fun. People want to see the product of their effort at work creating a lasting benefit for their customers and clients. The sense of accomplishment that comes when one’s mission or their company’s mission is fulfilled through their contributions is what I identify in people. To Make a Difference that Matters is to create change.
Third, you have to be an example. If you are, then people will follow you. Deeds are much more important than words. If you are starting from square one, then let me suggest you take on developing the Five Actions of Gratitude as a discipline of relationship building within your company.
Say Thanks in gratitude to those who make a difference that matters in your life and work.
Give Back in service to those who make a difference that matters.
Make Welcome in open hospitality, inviting people to take personal initiative to make a difference that matters
Honor Others in respect and recognition, as the foundation of healthy relationships.
Create Goodness through one’s own personal initiative to make a difference that matters in life and work.
What I have found is that the greatest change happens within us. The world's needs are not as insurmountable as our own fear and reticence to change. It may be part ego, but what I find more often is that it is our lack of confidence in being able to succeed.
To take these three steps:
1. Letting go to let a community of leadership culture to develop,
2. Facilitating the development of a corporate culture which allows for people to find their life and work to be Personally Meaningful, Socially Fulfilling and To Make a Difference That Matters, and,
3. Making the Five Actions of Gratitude the basis of your personal and professional relationships,
will initiate a process of personal change that creates the opportunity for others to join you. As a result a cultural change will take place that will release the unrealized potential that resides in every company.
People are the levers of strength and change in organizations. Encourage their self-leadership and the result is a community of leaders. This is the future, possibly the only future that we have.
Creating an effective business structure is a very difficult proposition. I am not talking about a business or marketing plan. I referring to how a business is structured so that it functions well.
As you know, I look at this challenge through the lens of the Circle of Impact. My sense is that we need to foster alignment between the three dimensions of leadership - Ideas, Relationships and Structure. We do this by focusing on the conditions that create effective Communication, Collaboration and Coordination.
For me this is a baseline from which all organizations need to begin. What happens beyond that is a change in the function of each of the dimensions.
Communication ceases to be a major problem; your message gets out; and work related issues seemed to be less intractable.
Collaboration grows, new ideas emerge from the improvement of relationships, and the organization needs to change to accomodate a higher level of engagement and initiative by people.
Coordination, though, lags in improvement across departments, remote sites, and programs. The reason is that the system of organizaiton is always the last to change. It has the highest resistance to adapting to changing circumstances. As a result, the optimism that initially rose as communication and collaboration grew also begins to lag.
After a few months or years, a growing impression of either being at a plateau or in decline begins to be discussed openly. Whether rightly or wrongly, the perception that the organization has reached a Transition Point begins to take hold.
In reflection, we can see that the easiest things to change, did. New, fresh, inspiring ideas infused new confidence and motivation in people, impacting how they communicated and collaborated together. This is what is happening in many organizations.
The jump from one inspiring idea to the next ends up artificially propping up the emotional commitment of people to the company and their relationships together.This is not sustainable.
The resistance of the organization's structure to change remains the primary obstacle to a well functioning, fully aligned organization.
The distance and disconnect that employees have from the mission and outcome of the business is the most basic identifying mark of a structure out of alignment. Indifference that people have to their workplace grows. The desire to be left alone to do their job so they can get on to what really matters in their life becomes the defacto attitude of the workforce. In effect, there is no emotional access point for them to invest their whole selves in the work they do.
When this scenario is widely experienced in a company, inspiring ideas and motivational team building programs don't have a lasting impact. The problem is a structural or systems one. Issues of communication and collaboration are symptoms of the problem.
Assumptions about the Product of an Effective Organizational Structure
As I analyze organizations during various projects, I'm looking for various intangilbes that matter. Let's call them assumptions about what an organizational system should produce.
1. Initiative by employees measured by higher rates of engagement and contribution.
2. Interaction by employees that is open and collaborative and that transcends organizational barriers to achieve higher levels of efficiency and impact.
3. Impact awareness by employees who can express their own contribution to the organization's impact as a change that is a difference that matters.
These assumptions are difficult to measure, yet relatively easy to see.
Their performance is more evident when they are missing. People not taking initiative. When there is little interaction between people from different parts of the organization. When employees show little appreciation for the organization's mission and impact.
The question that many of us then have is how to do we redesign our organizational structures so that we realize a higher level of initiative, interaction and impact.
One way to address this issue is through strategic organizational redesign to creates an environment of Shared Responsibility.
Every organization has a responsibility or accountability structure. In older, traditional hierarchical systems, Responsibility resides in varying degrees throughout the organization, but not accountability, which is top down. A shared responsibility structure creates a shared space of mutual, collaborative, coordinated accountability. This illustration shows an organization where management, staff and the board of directors have a common ground of shared responsibility. The shared space is common ground because the expectation is that each person engaged in this space has an opportunity to contribute out of their own talent, knowledge and expertise within the strictures of their position and role in the organization.
For example, while some members of the management team would not ordinarily work along side of members of the Board of Directors, in this scheme they would because the structure is is organized to provide a shared space of contribution for impact. This approach lowers the organizational barriers that typically make it hard to create a common ground for work.
The purpose of this structure is not order or standardization, but alignment of the functions of communication, collaboration and coordination for the purpose of impact. It is the mission of the organization, not the structure, which drives the change in structure.
This approach is currently being developed for an international non-profit organization whose constituents are in all 50 states and 20 countries globally. The board is small in number; is highly active in collaboration with the staff; and works with a large number of advisors and supporters from around the world who contribute according to their ability.
This organization's aim to create an environment where participation is not boring or disconnected from its mission, but is marked by personal initiative, collaborative interaction, and an organization environment each person has the opportunity to make a difference.
The way an organizational design of this sort works is when the Connecting Ideas of purpose, mission, values, vision and impact are well defined and aligned within the structure, and the leadership of the organization serves as a faciliator of interaction and contribution. Because the organizational structure is a shared space for collaboration, the barriers for constituents to lead through their talent and abilities are low, producing a more highly engagement staff and board.
This kind of structure and leadership must be intentionally designed and developed. This is not a radical departure from the past, but at the same time, it is also not a logical step forward for most of the legacy structures that exist today.
This approach fosters a shared leadership of responsibility. Leadership from this perspetive is the impact or influence that is the result of the personal initiative take to create impact. When the senior leadership of an organization understands that this is where the future of organizations lays, it requires a change in their own leadership approach.
The Ultimate Question
Can legacy organizational structures change to this model of shared responsibility?
I believe it can. The pathway to this approach is in appreciating the importance of the relationship dimension for the creation of the strength and impact of an organization. From that perspective barriers to interaction and collaboration lower or are removed, enabling people to become more engaged with the purpose and mission of the organization, and to do so in relationship with other members of their organizational community.
My friend, FC, asked me the other day in response to my Weekly Leader column, Luis Urzua: Exception or Standard? whether I thought he was a born leader. I responded with,
"Not really. I'd say he is an intentional leader. It is a moral question of choosing to lead, and lead in a particular way, and not one of personality or talent."
In respect to FC, let me offer more explanation.
For a long time the nature / nurture question of human development has been a standard by which questions, like the one FC raised is discussed. The longer I deal with issues of leadership, the more I see the nature/nurture, born or made question as a secondary, less relevant issue. Because I see too many people who would not be characterized as being born a leader, who are leaders whose life and work make a genuine difference.
Talent is a major topic in organizational circles today. The conversation revolves around how to recruit, train and retain top-flight talent. There is definitely an aspect of this discussion that relates to the question of whether some is born to be a leader. I am not saying that talent doesn't matter, only that it isn't what makes a leader.
Leadership is only realized in action, by what one does with the talent they are born with.
The personality-centric view of leadership commonly called the "great man"(sic) or heroic theory of leadership, promotes a limited, idealize view of what a leader does. It has suggested, wrongly in my opinion, that leadership is a product of the projection of a leader's personality upon a group or organization. It is condescending to followers, colleagues, employees or other leaders.
Luis Urzua's leadership is seen in the choices that he made. They are moral choices, not simply tactical or strategic ones.
To lead in the circmustances that he and the other 32 miners faced, required him to step beyond managing. His leadership created an environment that elevated a collection of men, who had a death sentence upon their heads as soon as the cave-in began, to be a team that survived in a remarkably healthy state.
Luis Urzua chose to lead by unifying his men through confidence, discipline, structure and a mutuality of equality. His leadership did not allow individual concerns that each man had to eclipse the needs of the whole group. Only as a whole and intact team would they have survived, and done so as well as they did.
Luis Urzua's leadership reminds me of the leadership of Admiral James Stockdale, the highest ranking POW during the Vietnam War. I wrote about him here, here, and here. Their stories are similiar in that both were leaders of a group of men were living in a life and death situation. And both chose to lead in a manner that unified a group of men who easily could have lost hope, composure and began to think of their own survival as of utmost importance.
Leadership is a choice, and not a natural one. The natural choice is to put one's own welfare first, instead of the team's. I don't believe people are born to sacrifice their own benefit for the sake of others. It is something that is learned through mentorship, example, training and experience. For those for whom this kind of leadership seems so natural, my sense is that as a child they were influenced by leaders of this sort, and their home experience provided a learning environment to gain these values.
For Luis Urzua, it may well have been playing soccer. For James Stockdale, the lessons learned in studying the philosophy of the ancient Stoics. In both we see leadership that made the difference under the most extreme circumstances. As I point out in my Weekly Leader column, Luis Urzua's leadership is not the exception. It is the standard.
Dan McCarthy writes on an important topic that those of us in the leadership development world need to address - measuring the impact of "soft skills."
... if you’re trying to improve these skills, how to you know if you have or haven’t? And if you have, what’s the impact?
a question the training industry has been struggling with since the
early cavemen were teaching fire-starting and wooly mammoth hunting
techniques. There have been stacks of books and research that address
that topic, and quite frankly, I think it’s something we in the
training industry obsess about too much. I suspect a lot of training
measurement activity is self-serving, and if we were doing a good job,
line executives wouldn’t really care. Think about it ...
The problem isn't the program directly. Training and development programs are liking planning projects. They are the sort of thing that leaders and managers think should be done. They may not be exactly sure why. As a result, the focus and the measures for the program are not clear enough.
It is analogous to the raising of children. I'm basing this on thirty seven years involvement in a wide variety of programs focused on youth development. Over the years, I've found parents who want the best for their children thinking that involvement in activities are the key. So they run them from piano practice to soccer practice to scouts, and then home for school work, with the notion that their child is gaining something from the experience. What is missing is a clear goal for the activity. As a result, the activity becomes mere busy-ness, and whatever beneficial effect of the activity is quickly lost with the next activity.
The same is true for programs that develop "soft skills." It has to be more than an HR activity. The program needs to be tied to clear business goals.
This is why I emphasize "impact" over "results" with my clients. By impact I mean the capacity to create change or make a difference. A difference that is measurable and tangible. To put another way, if your program isn't creating change, then you have a compartmentalize context where each program functions within its own world of self-importance. The "soft skills" lose out in this case because they are not tied to business goals.
For example, what if an analysis showed that you needed to be more collaborative as a company. Collaboration is a "soft skill" founded on the ability to interact with people. There are many skills that contribute to collaboration that could be a part of the program. Here's the problem. Unless the development of collaboration is done within the context of the processes of the business, the benefit remains an abstract one without the level of impact needed. The difference has not been made, and as result soft skills are seen as irrelevant to meeting business goals.
Bottom line - "soft skills" development that are not tied to business goals are activities without a sufficient purpose.
The challenge for us in the leadership development world is to understand the nature of the business goals and craft our training and consulting to address those issues. We must be solution providers, not just activity organizers.
The Cartoon Network is conducting a Most Talented Kids contest. I know two of the finalists - Tiron and
Tonisha. They are on RandomKid's National Taskforce to Rebuild the Gulf along with my daughter. Tiron is an excellent artist, and Tonisha is one of the sweetest, most poised kids I've met in a long time. They lost their home in Slidell, Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina, and were the first family in their community to receive a Habitat house. Here's RandomKid's piece about the contest. Please click through the links and vote for these two kids.
PLEASE VOTE with ONE CLICK to support KIDS HELPING OTHERS!
Cartoon Network selected 20 "Most Talented Kids"
across the USA to be featured on their network and on their website. All
of the kids are gifted singers, actors, surfers, etc. But two siblings
stand out amongst the crowd. Tiron and Tonisha are featured for their community service work! These are remarkable
kids who survived Hurricane Katrina. After moving into their Habitat for
Humanity home in Slidell, LA, they hooked up with RandomKid to "pay it
forward". They have rallied their classmates around rebuilding
their community, and worked to inspire kids nationwide through a wide variety
of initiatives to get involved in rebuilding the gulf. They raised
$25,000 to help replenish Tonisha's school that is slated to reopen for the
first time this fall, three years after the storm. And they're
currently working with kids across the USA to fund Habitat for Humanity
homes in the MS Gulf Coast. All of the children in this
contest have followed their dreams. Wouldn't it be neat to recognize,
amongst these kids, two siblings who are achieving their dreams to help
You don't have to register, or give out any information.
Just click to vote. Click/vote more than once if you like.
Here's the question. Why don't we emphasis persistence more than talent?
The simple answer seems to be that talent is quantifiable and persistence isn't . Persistence is a function of character, and talent a function of ability.
When I think of persistence, it reminds of the moment in the film, Miracle, about the 1980 USA Olympic hockey team. The sequence you see in this scene from the film is the turning point in the story. The memorable line is "You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." Watch and see.
Persistence is both effort and mindset. It is a hard thing to create in other people, as we see in this clip.
This post continues what I discussed in my previous one - Developing a Talent Culture. I find that when people issues are discussed that they are not viewed in the organizational context, but rather in a relational context. What I mean is that people issues are not treated as business issues, but rather as the soft issues of interpersonal relationships. It is this kind of perspective that allows for compartmentalization and silos to form in organizations.
Talented people are sensitive to these issues because they intuitively understand that a lack of openness also means a lack of opportunity, and the lack of access to people and resources means that their natural inclination to collaboration will not be supported.
The structure issue can be a very complicated, complex, convoluted one. Let's make it simple by identifying four broad areas that constitute an organization's structure. Those areas are:
Governance Products/Services Operations Resources Development
To keep this as simple as possible, let's look at one step in each area that can be taken to increase the openness of the organizational structure.
Governance: Apart from enacting policies that encourage greater openness and collaboration, the most important step a governing board can do is discipline itself. By discipline, I mean the leadership focuses the board members on policy formation, and enforces policies against board members meddling in the work of executives. To focus on policy is to focus on the future. When the executive leadership of the company has confidence that their execution of board policy will not be interfered with, then they have a great openness to seek out multiple avenues for action. If executives, feel that the board is in a micromanaging mode, then initiative and risk taking, essential to innovation and growth, will be stymied. When each level of the organization focuses on their role and doesn't try to intrude into others, then governance provides a strong environment for talent to work.
Of course, there is meddling interference and there is collaboration. The difference is the recognition of the boundaries that guide organizational interaction.
Products/Services: This dimension of an organization not only produces but markets and sells products and services. An important step that an organization can take to attract talented people is treat the whole organization as an interconnected system of processes. In order for those in production to find meaningful connection to those in marketing, they have see how their individual work responsibilities are essential to the success.They need to see and understand, be able to work with a connectional understanding.
This happens on two levels. The deeper level is the design level. The design of the inter-connection of processes is essential to understand. I find in traditional business structures, that people lose a sense of this connectedness. They are so used to working their own individual role that they don't see their work in the broader context of processes and outcomes. All the books on systems theory are worthless if the actual design of how you work is inadequate. Therefore, it is essential that there is a clear sense of how each aspect of the production, sale and distribution of products and services is understood in this systemic, connected sense.
The other level occurs in interpersonal interaction. Silos are easy to develop if people don't see the connection. If they do see it, they often see it as a conflict, not as a collaborative asset. If one department doesn't produce their work on time, it slows another department down, and that loss of time gets passed down through out the system. This is what I see in a hosiery mill where I assisted in a systems change project. The result was a reduction of the manufacture of a pair of socks from six weeks to six days. When people understand where they fit in the system, and how the system works, then they have a better sense of their importance to the process.
Operations: This area of an organization could be consider as a part of the Products and Services side. Or, we can see the interaction between the two areas as an indicator of the organizational system at work. Operations often functions in the background. In fact, the vast majority of people in an organization operate behind the scenes, without recognition or a sense of their contribution to the company. If you want to create an environment attractive to talented people, regardless of what they do within the organization, then create recognition programs. Recognition by the board and executive team has great value in helping people connected to the whole business. it is also quite valuable to have recognition systems that are conducted by employees themselves. When your peers celebrate your good work, it creates an environment of togetherness that can be utilized for collaborative work.
Resource Development: Since we are looking at talent development, the simplest step take in Resource Development is to invest in the development of people. Because people are viewed as the soft side of a business, it is easy to think that they are not that important. The reality is that if your people are not improving their skills and abilities to work collaboratively, you are making intentional decisions to weaken the organization. I know the argument that people are the most expensive resource that you have and therefore a logical leverage for meeting the budget.
What I see taking place is a confluence of notions. People are costly. People tend to under-perform. By downsizing, we raise the productivity of those remaining, because they have to do the work of those who were laid off. Unfortunately, if productivity is really the goal, then investing in increasing it before you have to downsize is what makes sense. If they are under-performing, then invest in understanding why, and address it proactively. Yes, people development costs money. However the trade-off is an environment that is better positioned to attract people that are higher producers. If downsizing is a regular management practice, then talent people see that and know that it is not an environment suited to them.
If you want to attract talent, you have to be intentional about creating an organizational structure that fits with the kind of people who you want working for you. It is simple to understand, and extremely difficult to accomplish. It is so because everyone who is there has adjusted to the way things are, and any changes only mean increased difficulties for them. For this reason, you have be resolute in wanting to change your culture to attract talented people.