Did Barack Obama visit “the dark night of his soul” in the aftermath of the Newtown Connecticut mass killing of innocent children? That the time is now to do something?
Crises can bring out the best in a leader aided by circumstances opening the way. “Moments of greatness” as Robert E. Quinn from the University of Michigan asserts come infrequently to leaders. Most of the time, leaders operate in a normal state staying within their comfort zones, allowing external forces to direct their behaviours and experiences. But, “the fundamental state of leadership (greatness) shows up when leaders don’t copy anyone”. They “draw on their own fundamental values and capabilities, operating in a frame of mind that is true to them”.
President Obama has a rare opportunity to change the destructive gun culture that sets America significantly apart from other developed nations.
Will he take up the mantle of greatness? Not for its sake but for the innocent lives that will be saved. What a legacy if he does.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Thursday, July 01, 2010
The Longer View on Change
Well, on the whole, we are making progress: more democracies worldwide, more educated women in developed countries, many communicable diseases long gone, lower crimes rates, an acceptance that we have something to do with global warming, an African-American U.S. President and growing cross-cultural understanding everywhere. Much to celebrate.
But, wait. In developed countries, although women outnumber men in university, men still are the majority in leadership positions and hold most of the wealth, as Michael Adams, President of Environics reports. Many studies contend that women still do the majority of household tasks (that could be a key reason for women not being in many boardrooms!). In urban Canada, multiculturalism reigns but the sea of leadership faces is still largely white (my observations). Vaclav Smil, author of Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next 50 Years, estimates that a global pandemic is a 100% certainty in the not too distant future. He also says that it will take about 50 years to wean ourselves off fossil fuels on a large scale. Even David Suzuki, Canada’s foremost environmental evangelist is resigned to the slow pace of change!
So, I get it: change is non-linear and takes far more time than we expect. As with climate change, weather is erratic yet we can detect patterns in the climate over long periods of time and plan accordingly. Being adept at adapting and monitoring how to adapt and shape some events are the aces up our sleeves. As long as we have patience: this may take 100 years or more!
I now know what the book What We Believe But Cannot Prove means. Our day-to-day beliefs come from established theories but what about beliefs based on theories in progress?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Message to Any Leader Anywhere: Neglect Retail Leadership at Your Peril
No bond, no trust
No trust, no credit
No credit, no progress
---Andrew Romano, (January 22, 2010). The Trouble with Barack. Newsweek.
Scott Brown brought retail leadership to Massachusetts. Despite her solid track record and capabilities, it appears that Martha Coakley did not. Legions of political scientists, pollsters and pundits know this well. So do employees everywhere who wish their managers would really connect with them at the visceral level. A few years ago, I interacted with about 400 employees engaged in a merger. My role was to help the transition, build cultural bridges, get them talking with each other to kick start relationships. At every session, the voice and presence of a president past arose to haunt us. “Dave” was most beloved by all in one of the organizations. His kind of leadership was what they valued.
“What was it about Dave that you really liked?” I asked. The answer was always the same: “He cared”.
I continued probing: “What did that look like?”
“Well”, they replied, “every morning, he walked through the office and said hello, asked us about our families and work.”
“Tell me more”, I said. I wanted to better understand how Dave ticked. Almost in unison, they recited that he was not always in meetings, as was the case now with the new leaders. Furthermore, he listened to them and took action.
I don’t think it mattered that Dave could not act on every issue, every “whim” of employees. They knew that Dave had to consider many factors. But, they gave him a fair amount of slack on “substance” because he connected with them emotionally.
Ironically, if Dave had just connected and not taken action, he would not have been revered and missed. There are limits to “retail” leadership.
The expectations are high for Scott Brown, a newly minted Republican senator. So are they for Barack Obama to take lessons from Mr. Brown. Both, however, are in the same boat. People want to see and feel progress at the every day life level. In the end, substance does matter.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A Surge of the "Yes, and" Mantra of Comedians Would Help World Peace
I never was very good at multiple choice questions because I could always see the complexity in the situation about which I was being asked. I eventually “trained” myself to be more deductive and logical, more black and white in order to pass the tests. However, it never seemed natural.
I have since learned that my complexity style can be a blessing and a curse: a blessing to see the world from a 360 view, which can enlarge my view and make me less reactive. A curse if I am trying to be succinct and really targeted in messaging.
So, when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize out of the blue, I didn’t immediately do the “Yes, but” routine. After all, my complexity lens needed to do some thinking before passing judgment. OK. The world works in mysterious ways. Even Barack Obama was a bit taken aback!
That’s why comedians train themselves to go with the flow of an emerging situation by always saying “Yes, and” rather than “Yes, but”. They literally have to stay present in order to optimize generating the story lines. Their openness creates a richness of conversation and opportunity. The surprise becomes something constructive. Thus, I gather seeing complexity can be an asset in practicing “Yes, and”!
Both the “Yes, and” and the “Yes, but” reactions were in abundance after the Swedes awarded the Nobel to President Obama. This is the nature of our minds and our ways. In this instance, however, the former made us dig a bit deeper to better understand why the Swedes chose Obama.
As the comedian’s “improv” process catalyzes a creative and open path, so too does a world paradigm shift toward peace rather than war. The Swedes have set in action an opportunity for “improv” everywhere in the spirit of finding ways and means to world peace. The discipline of the “Yes, and” is a simple and powerful tool for discovering how to get there.
I have since learned that my complexity style can be a blessing and a curse: a blessing to see the world from a 360 view, which can enlarge my view and make me less reactive. A curse if I am trying to be succinct and really targeted in messaging.
So, when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize out of the blue, I didn’t immediately do the “Yes, but” routine. After all, my complexity lens needed to do some thinking before passing judgment. OK. The world works in mysterious ways. Even Barack Obama was a bit taken aback!
That’s why comedians train themselves to go with the flow of an emerging situation by always saying “Yes, and” rather than “Yes, but”. They literally have to stay present in order to optimize generating the story lines. Their openness creates a richness of conversation and opportunity. The surprise becomes something constructive. Thus, I gather seeing complexity can be an asset in practicing “Yes, and”!
Both the “Yes, and” and the “Yes, but” reactions were in abundance after the Swedes awarded the Nobel to President Obama. This is the nature of our minds and our ways. In this instance, however, the former made us dig a bit deeper to better understand why the Swedes chose Obama.
As the comedian’s “improv” process catalyzes a creative and open path, so too does a world paradigm shift toward peace rather than war. The Swedes have set in action an opportunity for “improv” everywhere in the spirit of finding ways and means to world peace. The discipline of the “Yes, and” is a simple and powerful tool for discovering how to get there.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Margie's Health Care Reform Advice for President Obama
Language matters in leadership. Look at what has happened with President Obama’s use of the term “public option” for health care reform. Who would’ve have thought that hope and goodwill, the populace feelings that elevated Barack Obama to the American Presidency, would turn into fear and paranoia?
In Canada, people like Margie, who has lived many of her years without universal health coverage, knows what fear is. As a 5 year old, she watched her 8 year old sister die from diphtheria. Margie survived barely. Neither was denied access, as the incident happened in England. Back in Canada, it would be another 43 years before true universal health coverage was available to Margie and her family. In the interim, she and her husband paid full price, as you go, and later paid premiums to private health insurers to keep the costs reasonable. Her husband always managed to work out “deals” with hospitals to pay them back on a monthly basis after Margie’s hospital stays for childbirth. The financial costs for raising a family remain vivid in Margie’s mind. It was tough!
Fast forward to 2009, it is incomprehensible to Margie that the United States, one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial nations in the world, has a health “care” system like she experienced in Canada 40 odd years ago.
But, Margie is a political “junkie”, having studied political science at University (she graduated with her degree when she was 55!). After having watched closely the debates and the rhetoric, Margie has an idea.
Stop talking about “public option”. Start communicating the message that a system will be created to allow 47 million or so American citizens without coverage to buy into an “affordable option”. Assure the majority that has health coverage that nothing will change. That is, there will be nothing lost. Improvements will be made as is typical for any system. Life will go on as usual. No worries.
Well, Margie knows it’s not quite that simple, because the costs in the existing health insurance system are spiraling out of control. Critics worry about a “parallel” system competing with a “public option”. Margie thinks that sounds strange for a society that prides itself on competition. Whatever! Borrowing a phrase from the grandkids! Furthermore, how can coverage for 47 million more be financed?
Margie says: “One step at a time”. That’s how it was done in Canada. Tommy Douglas, who spearheaded the reform, started small---Saskatchewan. That “pilot” evolved over a few decades. It’s hard to implement full-scale change. Much easier to begin “where the love is”, learn as you go and, build “buy-in.
In Canada, people like Margie, who has lived many of her years without universal health coverage, knows what fear is. As a 5 year old, she watched her 8 year old sister die from diphtheria. Margie survived barely. Neither was denied access, as the incident happened in England. Back in Canada, it would be another 43 years before true universal health coverage was available to Margie and her family. In the interim, she and her husband paid full price, as you go, and later paid premiums to private health insurers to keep the costs reasonable. Her husband always managed to work out “deals” with hospitals to pay them back on a monthly basis after Margie’s hospital stays for childbirth. The financial costs for raising a family remain vivid in Margie’s mind. It was tough!
Fast forward to 2009, it is incomprehensible to Margie that the United States, one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial nations in the world, has a health “care” system like she experienced in Canada 40 odd years ago.
But, Margie is a political “junkie”, having studied political science at University (she graduated with her degree when she was 55!). After having watched closely the debates and the rhetoric, Margie has an idea.
Stop talking about “public option”. Start communicating the message that a system will be created to allow 47 million or so American citizens without coverage to buy into an “affordable option”. Assure the majority that has health coverage that nothing will change. That is, there will be nothing lost. Improvements will be made as is typical for any system. Life will go on as usual. No worries.
Well, Margie knows it’s not quite that simple, because the costs in the existing health insurance system are spiraling out of control. Critics worry about a “parallel” system competing with a “public option”. Margie thinks that sounds strange for a society that prides itself on competition. Whatever! Borrowing a phrase from the grandkids! Furthermore, how can coverage for 47 million more be financed?
Margie says: “One step at a time”. That’s how it was done in Canada. Tommy Douglas, who spearheaded the reform, started small---Saskatchewan. That “pilot” evolved over a few decades. It’s hard to implement full-scale change. Much easier to begin “where the love is”, learn as you go and, build “buy-in.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Comedian-in-Chief, Fly-Swatter Extraordinaire: Obama Raises the Stakes
I have a cartoon from one of the newspapers showing President Barack Obama responding to a request from Prime Minister Stephen Harper: “Well, I’ll cough on you if you insist, but I don’t think charisma is contagious. Now with additional Obama feats such as swatting a fly successfully within the tenth of a second required and charming the press corps with skillfully delivered good jokes, the bar just keeps rising higher. Harper will need to go to improv school to crack the Obama leadership ceiling.
There’s a spontaneity within President Obama not well-developed in Harper. Comedians know how important that quality is to connect with an audience. That’s why they take improv, or responding and creating in the moment, very seriously. Deep down, it’s a control and trust of oneself issue. Loose or tight. Acting into thinking rather than planning into acting. Tough to do if a leader wants to have everything figured out and never look silly.
Yet, we warm to anyone, let alone a leader, who shows he’s just like us. He has to battle some of the ordinary things in life like swatting annoying flies and not taking life too seriously all the time. When we engage in these day-to-day activities, we don’t always win. The fly gets away because we were not fast enough or the joke goes over “like a lead balloon”.
It could have gone either way for Barack Obama. But, would it have really mattered? Negative results would most certainly have given his critics more reason to doubt his abilities. But, those with a gentler, kinder view would have applauded his efforts because he tried. “No guts, no glory”, as the saying goes.
Plato argued that we are “sitting in a chariot drawn by two horses: reason and passion”. Researchers who study how good decisions are made have found, not surprisingly, that we use both horses to do so. Interestingly, emotions usually lead the way as they make a direct unconscious connection with our actions just as our breathing does. Reason takes a little more work. From an evolutionary perspective, as Joseph LeDoux from New York University describes in The Emotional Brain, connections in our brains from the emotional to the cognitive systems are stronger than connections from the cognitive to the emotional systems.
Given the automatic precedence of emotion over reason in our brains, President Obama has a significant advantage over those leaders who muffle their fun and passionate sides. Like many aspects of leadership, much can be learned. If Prime Minister Harper spent some time with our Second City folks, I’ll bet we’d see a slightly more spontaneous and funny side of him. It would be good for his ratings. His rational, highly competitive nature might just buy into that!
There’s a spontaneity within President Obama not well-developed in Harper. Comedians know how important that quality is to connect with an audience. That’s why they take improv, or responding and creating in the moment, very seriously. Deep down, it’s a control and trust of oneself issue. Loose or tight. Acting into thinking rather than planning into acting. Tough to do if a leader wants to have everything figured out and never look silly.
Yet, we warm to anyone, let alone a leader, who shows he’s just like us. He has to battle some of the ordinary things in life like swatting annoying flies and not taking life too seriously all the time. When we engage in these day-to-day activities, we don’t always win. The fly gets away because we were not fast enough or the joke goes over “like a lead balloon”.
It could have gone either way for Barack Obama. But, would it have really mattered? Negative results would most certainly have given his critics more reason to doubt his abilities. But, those with a gentler, kinder view would have applauded his efforts because he tried. “No guts, no glory”, as the saying goes.
Plato argued that we are “sitting in a chariot drawn by two horses: reason and passion”. Researchers who study how good decisions are made have found, not surprisingly, that we use both horses to do so. Interestingly, emotions usually lead the way as they make a direct unconscious connection with our actions just as our breathing does. Reason takes a little more work. From an evolutionary perspective, as Joseph LeDoux from New York University describes in The Emotional Brain, connections in our brains from the emotional to the cognitive systems are stronger than connections from the cognitive to the emotional systems.
Given the automatic precedence of emotion over reason in our brains, President Obama has a significant advantage over those leaders who muffle their fun and passionate sides. Like many aspects of leadership, much can be learned. If Prime Minister Harper spent some time with our Second City folks, I’ll bet we’d see a slightly more spontaneous and funny side of him. It would be good for his ratings. His rational, highly competitive nature might just buy into that!
Saturday, May 30, 2009
How CEOs and Presidents mess up: a case of the U.S. border security saga
Each president is in a certain way a prisoner of the structure of power.
---Hugo Chavez
Until former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush squared off in a debate in Toronto, I believed that the relentless thickening of the border between the United States and Canada was due mainly to ignorance, paranoia and myopia. I also believed that if we could “hit” those roadblocks head on with evidence seasoned by diplomacy and some creative thinking, then we could stave off the “an error of a hundred miles from a slight deviation of a hair’s breath”.
Whoops, it’s far more complicated! Ignorance of a different and more serious order: those at the top have no idea what it’s like to cross the border. The power gap (or bubble) is the real driver of ignorance. How does one counter that?
The stunning realization hit me when both Clinton and Bush professed ignorance about the June 1, 2009 date when everyone must have a passport when entering the United States either by land, sea or air. As reporters in the major newspapers reported, both men were “befuddled”:
Clinton: “I literally don’t know anything about this. And most Americans don’t. I promise you’ve got my attention.”
Bush: “I’ll be frank with you Frank (directing his comment to the chair of the debate, Frank McKenna, former Premier of New Brunswick). I don’t know about the passport issue. I’m sorry to claim ignorance but….I guess I am. What happened to the E-Z pass?”
The legacy of the 9/11 disaster lives on: same mistakes. The guys at the top don’t know what’s going on. Why? Their privileged positions enable them to escape the ordinariness of life. Sure, Bush is now scooping up his dog’s poop after a sabbatical of eight years but I’ll bet he’s never gone through the hassle of the U.S.-Canada border crossing, ever. Ditto for Bill.
This is a CEO/President problem in any organization. Take Nortel which is a shadow of its former self, teetering on oblivion. Back in John Roth’s time at the helm, I was asked to help its major research lab in Brampton to “get with the program”, code for having to make a 90 degree turn in its strategic direction and start aligning itself with Roth’s vision. This was an order.
The lab, which had grown into a creative and vibrant ecosystem of hundreds of engineers, software designers, programmers and the like, dutifully generated, through many brainstorming sessions, an exciting roadmap forward. It took about 6 months—a quick turnaround. People were pumped and engaged. Then, without warning, Roth disbanded the lab. A team that was an in-house strength for Nortel never had a chance to help the organization adapt. All those relationships and talent wasted!
The insider “intelligence” was that Roth was never informed well enough, if at all, about the lab’s value—current and potential. People speculated that the “power bubble” prevented Roth from being better informed. With no strong advocate, the lab disappeared into oblivion. Perhaps this was the “deviation of a hair’s breath” that, if prevented, might have helped Nortel be more resilient when the technological meltdown followed shortly thereafter.
Are we seeing the same phenomenon now with the U.S. border security issue? It seems eerily similar. The people at the very top (the Presidents) not aware that the genie is really out of the bottle and impending disaster of a bigger kind lurks around the corner.
Psychologists call this “cognitive dissonance”: once we have made a judgment, we embrace confirming information and discount disconfirming information. We hold the view in place by tagging the confirming information with a positive emotion and the disconfirming with a negative emotion. In the common vernacular, these are called “pigheaded” decisions. History is replete with copious examples of leaders falling prey to such emotional tagging, unable to “see” reality and the best solution, as a result.
Will Barack Obama be able to transcend the power bubble and the cognitive dissonance that goes with it? The jury is out.
Check out S. Finkelstein, et al in the January/February 2009 Ivey Business Journal or their book, Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions and How to Keep It From Happening to You.
---Hugo Chavez
Until former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush squared off in a debate in Toronto, I believed that the relentless thickening of the border between the United States and Canada was due mainly to ignorance, paranoia and myopia. I also believed that if we could “hit” those roadblocks head on with evidence seasoned by diplomacy and some creative thinking, then we could stave off the “an error of a hundred miles from a slight deviation of a hair’s breath”.
Whoops, it’s far more complicated! Ignorance of a different and more serious order: those at the top have no idea what it’s like to cross the border. The power gap (or bubble) is the real driver of ignorance. How does one counter that?
The stunning realization hit me when both Clinton and Bush professed ignorance about the June 1, 2009 date when everyone must have a passport when entering the United States either by land, sea or air. As reporters in the major newspapers reported, both men were “befuddled”:
Clinton: “I literally don’t know anything about this. And most Americans don’t. I promise you’ve got my attention.”
Bush: “I’ll be frank with you Frank (directing his comment to the chair of the debate, Frank McKenna, former Premier of New Brunswick). I don’t know about the passport issue. I’m sorry to claim ignorance but….I guess I am. What happened to the E-Z pass?”
The legacy of the 9/11 disaster lives on: same mistakes. The guys at the top don’t know what’s going on. Why? Their privileged positions enable them to escape the ordinariness of life. Sure, Bush is now scooping up his dog’s poop after a sabbatical of eight years but I’ll bet he’s never gone through the hassle of the U.S.-Canada border crossing, ever. Ditto for Bill.
This is a CEO/President problem in any organization. Take Nortel which is a shadow of its former self, teetering on oblivion. Back in John Roth’s time at the helm, I was asked to help its major research lab in Brampton to “get with the program”, code for having to make a 90 degree turn in its strategic direction and start aligning itself with Roth’s vision. This was an order.
The lab, which had grown into a creative and vibrant ecosystem of hundreds of engineers, software designers, programmers and the like, dutifully generated, through many brainstorming sessions, an exciting roadmap forward. It took about 6 months—a quick turnaround. People were pumped and engaged. Then, without warning, Roth disbanded the lab. A team that was an in-house strength for Nortel never had a chance to help the organization adapt. All those relationships and talent wasted!
The insider “intelligence” was that Roth was never informed well enough, if at all, about the lab’s value—current and potential. People speculated that the “power bubble” prevented Roth from being better informed. With no strong advocate, the lab disappeared into oblivion. Perhaps this was the “deviation of a hair’s breath” that, if prevented, might have helped Nortel be more resilient when the technological meltdown followed shortly thereafter.
Are we seeing the same phenomenon now with the U.S. border security issue? It seems eerily similar. The people at the very top (the Presidents) not aware that the genie is really out of the bottle and impending disaster of a bigger kind lurks around the corner.
Psychologists call this “cognitive dissonance”: once we have made a judgment, we embrace confirming information and discount disconfirming information. We hold the view in place by tagging the confirming information with a positive emotion and the disconfirming with a negative emotion. In the common vernacular, these are called “pigheaded” decisions. History is replete with copious examples of leaders falling prey to such emotional tagging, unable to “see” reality and the best solution, as a result.
Will Barack Obama be able to transcend the power bubble and the cognitive dissonance that goes with it? The jury is out.
Check out S. Finkelstein, et al in the January/February 2009 Ivey Business Journal or their book, Think Again: Why Good Leaders Make Bad Decisions and How to Keep It From Happening to You.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Leading in an Interconnected World: Black and White is Out, Wild Cards and Probabilities are In
The “revolutionary physics” of our world can’t be managed by thinking in black and white. Are we convinced yet?
The relentless onslaught of “surprises”, such as the Mexican swine flu, underscores that big brains are needed. Not just among leaders and managers. All of us. Whether we like it or not, we are being forced to anticipate, adapt and act speedily in the face of surprises and work harder and smarter on the anticipation part.
Educators have long recognized that the world is in dire need of and has a severe deficit of adaptive learners. The May-June 2009 Futurist has devoted almost the entire issue to anticipating and preparing for “wild cards”. As a backdrop, it reports that the Association of American Colleges and Universities is highlighting more than ever that critical reasoning and integrative thinking must be at the top of the skills list for all graduating students. While always an important goal, the drumbeat is getting louder.
Putting this into the context of leading and managing, we need a rapid escalation in the numbers of leaders and managers who are “adaptive”. These are men and women who can function well when conditions are not optimal or when situations are unpredictable. They can get on with the task demands when the problems are messy and require “thinking out of the box”, improvising and negotiating with others to seek out shared interests.
These capabilities are inherent requirements in high risk jobs in societies around the world. Military personnel, firefighters, police, airline pilots and paramedics, for example, know they must “think on their feet”, value the team and loosen up on hierarchy. Now, the rest of us must get on with adding “adaptive leadership” to our tool kit.
Where does one start? Based on what we know from leaders who succeed in the long run, the first step is to be open to this way of being. Not all of us have “open personalities”. Barack Obama does. George Bush did not to the degree necessary given the situations he faced. Openness is correlated with curiosity, creativity and love of learning. These can be cultivated. Messy situations provide perfect places in which to practice.
The dynamic forces of our world societies today better suit a leader like Barack Obama. He’s an outsider. He embraces “geeks”. He doesn’t separate the world into winners and losers. He’s on the lookout for what works. He’s ready to listen and learn. He knows he will be held accountable for mistakes that occur on his watch. He doesn’t fight unpredictability, he embraces it. He understands and works with probabilities.
Joshua Cooper Ramo expresses this way as a “quantum view” coined by the famous physicist Niels Bohr. In his book, The Age of the Unthinkable, Ramo describes the signal for activating the quantum view when you face something strange and “mad” in your environment such that your mind says, “Are you kidding?”
Ramo likes the gardening analogy for leadership used by Friedrich von Hayek in his acceptance speech for the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics. Hayek was quite disconcerted with our simple treatment of complex phenomena. He urged us not to try to bend history as “the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate growth by providing the right environment, in the manner a gardener does for his plants.” To do so requires a revolution, letting go of our view as architects or builders controlling a system to gardeners cultivating a living ecosystem.
From a leader-manager vantage point as well as a citizen of the world, “wild cards”, surprises, messy situations and probabilities become the welcome drivers of change.
The relentless onslaught of “surprises”, such as the Mexican swine flu, underscores that big brains are needed. Not just among leaders and managers. All of us. Whether we like it or not, we are being forced to anticipate, adapt and act speedily in the face of surprises and work harder and smarter on the anticipation part.
Educators have long recognized that the world is in dire need of and has a severe deficit of adaptive learners. The May-June 2009 Futurist has devoted almost the entire issue to anticipating and preparing for “wild cards”. As a backdrop, it reports that the Association of American Colleges and Universities is highlighting more than ever that critical reasoning and integrative thinking must be at the top of the skills list for all graduating students. While always an important goal, the drumbeat is getting louder.
Putting this into the context of leading and managing, we need a rapid escalation in the numbers of leaders and managers who are “adaptive”. These are men and women who can function well when conditions are not optimal or when situations are unpredictable. They can get on with the task demands when the problems are messy and require “thinking out of the box”, improvising and negotiating with others to seek out shared interests.
These capabilities are inherent requirements in high risk jobs in societies around the world. Military personnel, firefighters, police, airline pilots and paramedics, for example, know they must “think on their feet”, value the team and loosen up on hierarchy. Now, the rest of us must get on with adding “adaptive leadership” to our tool kit.
Where does one start? Based on what we know from leaders who succeed in the long run, the first step is to be open to this way of being. Not all of us have “open personalities”. Barack Obama does. George Bush did not to the degree necessary given the situations he faced. Openness is correlated with curiosity, creativity and love of learning. These can be cultivated. Messy situations provide perfect places in which to practice.
The dynamic forces of our world societies today better suit a leader like Barack Obama. He’s an outsider. He embraces “geeks”. He doesn’t separate the world into winners and losers. He’s on the lookout for what works. He’s ready to listen and learn. He knows he will be held accountable for mistakes that occur on his watch. He doesn’t fight unpredictability, he embraces it. He understands and works with probabilities.
Joshua Cooper Ramo expresses this way as a “quantum view” coined by the famous physicist Niels Bohr. In his book, The Age of the Unthinkable, Ramo describes the signal for activating the quantum view when you face something strange and “mad” in your environment such that your mind says, “Are you kidding?”
Ramo likes the gardening analogy for leadership used by Friedrich von Hayek in his acceptance speech for the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics. Hayek was quite disconcerted with our simple treatment of complex phenomena. He urged us not to try to bend history as “the craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather to cultivate growth by providing the right environment, in the manner a gardener does for his plants.” To do so requires a revolution, letting go of our view as architects or builders controlling a system to gardeners cultivating a living ecosystem.
From a leader-manager vantage point as well as a citizen of the world, “wild cards”, surprises, messy situations and probabilities become the welcome drivers of change.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Halve the $1.3 trillion United States Deficit in Four Years? Now That's a BHAG!
We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster.
---Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)
I have frequently encouraged leaders to adopt “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” (BHAGS). Otherwise called stretch goals, they set a challenging line of sight for everyone in an organization, harnessing and focusing energy. I picked up the strategic thinking concept almost 15 years ago from James Collins and Jerry’s Porras’s Built to Last research. After listening to Barack Obama’s special joint meeting of Congress last evening, I came away astounded by his boldness and ambition for the United States. When I heard his goal around the deficit-reduction, it was as if James and Jerry had been talking to him.
Barack Obama’s pledge to cut the United States $1.3 trillion deficit in half by the end of his first White House term made me gasp. Now I really know what a BHAG is! I cannot even fathom how he will do it. Neither can the pundits who are generally laudatory about his big dreams, confidence, decisiveness, inspiration and his “walking the talk”---openness, transparency and accountability. But when people shake their heads and conclude it can’t be done, that’s likely the time to sit up and take notice.
Collins and Porras said that BHAGs should “reach out and grab you in the gut”. They should be “tangible, energizing and focused”. And, above all else people should “get it right away with little or no explanation”. Well, I can attest to “grabbing me in the gut”! We “get it” and the goal definitely fits the other criteria. At the same time, this is a “shock and awe” strategy. Not your typical war gambit. Given the massiveness of the debt and the structural weaknesses underlying the problem, this has caught our attention, as I gather a BHAG is meant to.
For those who like data, these BHAGs no doubt make you nervous. “How does Obama ‘know’ that he will do this”, you might ask? Well, he doesn’t. Although, we can assume he has undertaken some serious number-crunching with his very bright advisors and staff.
Big goals and visions are characterized by one key quality: there is no proof they will happen. As Joel Barker pointed out in one of his videos in the 90s, pioneers made the data. They created the results by rolling up their sleeves and venturing out into the wilderness, the frontiers where they had never been before.
So, it is with the Obama administration’s deficit reducing BHAG. George’s Bush’s Iraq war might seem the same. The irony however is that President Bush failed to pay close enough attention to the data before initiating the war in Iraq and while he oversaw the unfolding story. It was only in 2007 that Bush changed course with a surge of troops and a paradigm shift in strategy: setting up platoons in every neighbourhood of Baghdad to work jointly with the people. That strategy appears to have had positive results albeit after much carnage and heartache.
In this instance, because Obama attests to “learning as he goes” as did Lincoln, FDR and many other great leaders, he will likely adapt his strategy (the "how" of getting there) frequently because of an openness to the unfolding story. As a consequence, the probability of success---finding the path forward that “works”---is much more likely.
---Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)
I have frequently encouraged leaders to adopt “Big Hairy Audacious Goals” (BHAGS). Otherwise called stretch goals, they set a challenging line of sight for everyone in an organization, harnessing and focusing energy. I picked up the strategic thinking concept almost 15 years ago from James Collins and Jerry’s Porras’s Built to Last research. After listening to Barack Obama’s special joint meeting of Congress last evening, I came away astounded by his boldness and ambition for the United States. When I heard his goal around the deficit-reduction, it was as if James and Jerry had been talking to him.
Barack Obama’s pledge to cut the United States $1.3 trillion deficit in half by the end of his first White House term made me gasp. Now I really know what a BHAG is! I cannot even fathom how he will do it. Neither can the pundits who are generally laudatory about his big dreams, confidence, decisiveness, inspiration and his “walking the talk”---openness, transparency and accountability. But when people shake their heads and conclude it can’t be done, that’s likely the time to sit up and take notice.
Collins and Porras said that BHAGs should “reach out and grab you in the gut”. They should be “tangible, energizing and focused”. And, above all else people should “get it right away with little or no explanation”. Well, I can attest to “grabbing me in the gut”! We “get it” and the goal definitely fits the other criteria. At the same time, this is a “shock and awe” strategy. Not your typical war gambit. Given the massiveness of the debt and the structural weaknesses underlying the problem, this has caught our attention, as I gather a BHAG is meant to.
For those who like data, these BHAGs no doubt make you nervous. “How does Obama ‘know’ that he will do this”, you might ask? Well, he doesn’t. Although, we can assume he has undertaken some serious number-crunching with his very bright advisors and staff.
Big goals and visions are characterized by one key quality: there is no proof they will happen. As Joel Barker pointed out in one of his videos in the 90s, pioneers made the data. They created the results by rolling up their sleeves and venturing out into the wilderness, the frontiers where they had never been before.
So, it is with the Obama administration’s deficit reducing BHAG. George’s Bush’s Iraq war might seem the same. The irony however is that President Bush failed to pay close enough attention to the data before initiating the war in Iraq and while he oversaw the unfolding story. It was only in 2007 that Bush changed course with a surge of troops and a paradigm shift in strategy: setting up platoons in every neighbourhood of Baghdad to work jointly with the people. That strategy appears to have had positive results albeit after much carnage and heartache.
In this instance, because Obama attests to “learning as he goes” as did Lincoln, FDR and many other great leaders, he will likely adapt his strategy (the "how" of getting there) frequently because of an openness to the unfolding story. As a consequence, the probability of success---finding the path forward that “works”---is much more likely.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Barack Obama's Spirit Has Taken Hold of Me
The world’s in a big dance. Everyone is a belle at the ball of an unprecedented historical event. For those that get suspicious when walking into a room of smiling people, this must be unnerving. Yet, the warmth and goodwill swirling around our feet and heads seems infectious. Is it possible that the more generous feelings towards each other catalyzed by the arrival of Obama at our doorstep are manifesting themselves in all manner of acts of kindness?
As a sample of one, I have found myself taking unusual steps towards helping others. The acts of kindness have come out of the blue as if they landed on me from afar and I just had to pass them on. These actions are in addition to my normal pattern of “being there” for others. I suspect that millions upon millions of others are also finding themselves leaning more towards others than is typical.
We appear to be witnessing the favorable impact of an inspiring leader. This is encouraging. Although we face extremely difficult times, just maybe our collective willpower will enable us to get ahead of the curve.
Historian Niall Ferguson who has been on a round of interviews about his new book The Ascent of Money paints different scenarios for the future, some quite grim. But he does believe that innovation and collaboration globally can get us through.
These we know are powered by our imaginations and feelings of goodwill. Barack Obama has given us a nudge. Provided he keeps up his end of the bargain, and we have no reason not to believe he means what he says, we may find that the flywheel of change and transformation gains traction and speed quickly.
As a sample of one, I have found myself taking unusual steps towards helping others. The acts of kindness have come out of the blue as if they landed on me from afar and I just had to pass them on. These actions are in addition to my normal pattern of “being there” for others. I suspect that millions upon millions of others are also finding themselves leaning more towards others than is typical.
We appear to be witnessing the favorable impact of an inspiring leader. This is encouraging. Although we face extremely difficult times, just maybe our collective willpower will enable us to get ahead of the curve.
Historian Niall Ferguson who has been on a round of interviews about his new book The Ascent of Money paints different scenarios for the future, some quite grim. But he does believe that innovation and collaboration globally can get us through.
These we know are powered by our imaginations and feelings of goodwill. Barack Obama has given us a nudge. Provided he keeps up his end of the bargain, and we have no reason not to believe he means what he says, we may find that the flywheel of change and transformation gains traction and speed quickly.
Monday, January 05, 2009
"I'm here to listen and learn" is an Obama refrain: Is he for real?
When I happened upon a CBC documentary on Barack Obama’s visit to Africa in August 2006, I couldn’t help think---is he for real? Over and over again he said to the ordinary folks, “I am here to listen and learn.” Frankly, I couldn’t believe my ears. The words almost sounded strange because they have not been commonly used by George W. Bush. “I’m the decider” has been more his style and phraseology.
After too many years of that kind of rigid leadership, I view Barack Obama through slightly jaded eyes. It is not that I don’t want to believe in what he is saying and how well he has put together a transition team. It’s just going to take some getting used to. The natural tendency is to not let one’s expectations rise too high in case they are dashed!
But, to use the well-worn phrase, I am “cautiously optimistic”. Scientists likely identify with my feelings. When President-elect Obama announced Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize winning physicist as his Energy Secretary, according to various media reports, most let out a collective sigh of relief.
Obama’s words on the role of science in his administration no doubt came as a happy shock. “My administration will value science.” “We will make decisions based on facts and we understand that the facts demand bold action.” Yikes! Can he really mean this? After years of ideology trumping science and non-scientists over-ruling scientists, is Obama really going to stay the course of not omitting inconvenient facts if they don’t suit his position?
A look back into Obama’s history yields some hope, literally. His book Dreams from My Father is chock full of clues. Barack Obama’s mother set the stage for his values. Obama describes his mother as “a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for the New Deal, Peace Corps, (and) position-paper liberalism.” His father’s birthplace in Kenya provided concrete evidence of the struggles of ordinary folks. He also witnessed the poverty, the corruption and the constant battle for security in Indonesia where he lived for a while with his mother and her second husband. Empathy for the little people appears to have been “bred in his bones”.
Obama tells story after story of observing the challenges of people in his travels and most significantly through his efforts at becoming an effective community organizer. This is a guy who went around interviewing people in a down and out area of Chicago to find out what they wanted to change to make their lives better. Various mentors took Barack Obama under their wings and slowly but surely helped him through the extremely frustrating challenge of community development. My head tells me that no one would hang in for as long as Obama did without being truly sincere in his quest to help, to listen and learn.
In his words, he describes the apathy he encountered in a neighborhood and the insights that arose from such an experience: “As it was, many had already given up the hope that politics could actually improve their lives…” “Yet what concerned me wasn’t just the damage loose talked caused efforts at coalition building, or the emotional pain it caused others. It was the distance between our talk and our action, the effect it was having on us as individuals and as a people.” “The continuing struggle to align word and action” and the role of self-esteem in rising out of despair, “led me into organizing.”
Now, he has been given a chance to align word with action on the world stage. This deeply curious and reflective leader has a huge agenda and also a strong foundation where he has learned what matters at the feet of ordinary/extraordinary people.
I will watch with great anticipation. His lessons of triumph and failure will be a backdrop for learning more about how to succeed as a leader in our current world of chaos and opportunity.
After too many years of that kind of rigid leadership, I view Barack Obama through slightly jaded eyes. It is not that I don’t want to believe in what he is saying and how well he has put together a transition team. It’s just going to take some getting used to. The natural tendency is to not let one’s expectations rise too high in case they are dashed!
But, to use the well-worn phrase, I am “cautiously optimistic”. Scientists likely identify with my feelings. When President-elect Obama announced Steven Chu, a Nobel-prize winning physicist as his Energy Secretary, according to various media reports, most let out a collective sigh of relief.
Obama’s words on the role of science in his administration no doubt came as a happy shock. “My administration will value science.” “We will make decisions based on facts and we understand that the facts demand bold action.” Yikes! Can he really mean this? After years of ideology trumping science and non-scientists over-ruling scientists, is Obama really going to stay the course of not omitting inconvenient facts if they don’t suit his position?
A look back into Obama’s history yields some hope, literally. His book Dreams from My Father is chock full of clues. Barack Obama’s mother set the stage for his values. Obama describes his mother as “a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for the New Deal, Peace Corps, (and) position-paper liberalism.” His father’s birthplace in Kenya provided concrete evidence of the struggles of ordinary folks. He also witnessed the poverty, the corruption and the constant battle for security in Indonesia where he lived for a while with his mother and her second husband. Empathy for the little people appears to have been “bred in his bones”.
Obama tells story after story of observing the challenges of people in his travels and most significantly through his efforts at becoming an effective community organizer. This is a guy who went around interviewing people in a down and out area of Chicago to find out what they wanted to change to make their lives better. Various mentors took Barack Obama under their wings and slowly but surely helped him through the extremely frustrating challenge of community development. My head tells me that no one would hang in for as long as Obama did without being truly sincere in his quest to help, to listen and learn.
In his words, he describes the apathy he encountered in a neighborhood and the insights that arose from such an experience: “As it was, many had already given up the hope that politics could actually improve their lives…” “Yet what concerned me wasn’t just the damage loose talked caused efforts at coalition building, or the emotional pain it caused others. It was the distance between our talk and our action, the effect it was having on us as individuals and as a people.” “The continuing struggle to align word and action” and the role of self-esteem in rising out of despair, “led me into organizing.”
Now, he has been given a chance to align word with action on the world stage. This deeply curious and reflective leader has a huge agenda and also a strong foundation where he has learned what matters at the feet of ordinary/extraordinary people.
I will watch with great anticipation. His lessons of triumph and failure will be a backdrop for learning more about how to succeed as a leader in our current world of chaos and opportunity.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Barack Obama Activated Our Natural Empathy and Cooperation
The Republicans didn’t have a chance against Obama given the context of fear from which Americans wanted to escape. According to neuroscience, we all hold to a greater or lesser extent two moral world views---conservative and progressive. Sometimes, we hold both at the same time on an issue-specific basis. These modes of thought are hard-wired into our brains through biology and experience. They literally “light up” and drive our behaviour, often unconsciously, depending on the language, images and stories of the world around us.
Applying the world view contexts to the presidential election results, the financial crisis coupled with a myriad of legacy issues (war in Iraq and climate change, for example) tipped the balance towards empathy and cooperation. Since Barack Obama’s language of hope and change related closely to the latter, his stories appealed across a broad spectrum of people who were ready for a change. His messages, so different from the fear, coercion and isolationism of the last eight years, activated en masse the progressive moral world view of millions of American voters and people from all walks of life around the world.
As Professor George Lakoff, a distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley describes in The Political Mind, the differences between the two moral world views are like a nurturing versus a strict parent. The nurturing parent models empathy, responsibility for oneself and others and the strength to carry out those responsibilities. The strict parent model, on the other hand, is concerned with authority, obedience, discipline and punishment.
In political terms, the progressive view champions caring—taking responsibility, acting courageously and powerfully. The role of government is to protect and empower—a social justice model. That means having in place a range of supports for community life beyond the hard services such as police, fire, the military, roads and well-run financial and legal systems. The softer services figure prominently in the government’s agenda---a social safety net, clean water, safe food, accessible health care and education, disaster relief, consumer and worker protection and environmental stewardship, etc...
Unlike the nurturing side of the progressive view, conservative thought politically is concerned with obedience to authority—knowing right from wrong and being loyal within a hierarchy. The role of government is to protect us from evil and minimize constraints such as regulations, taxes, unions, and certain anti-individual freedom laws. This model of government is more laissez faire.
In reality, each one of us and our political leaders link these different world views in a variety of combinations. What holds sway for voters is contingent on the situation and how it impacts our emotional needs. For Obama, the “perfect storm” of issues matched his generally progressive philosophy and acumen at mobilizing people, that is, engaging and empowering individuals and groups in managing their own wellbeing in tough times.
Now that the cheering has subsided, we are left wondering whether this cool, calm and seemingly centred and caring president-elect is who he seems to be. He has yet to create the data which will prove one way or the other. Academics have taken to analyzing his language and thoughts (contradictory) and comparing and contrasting his apparent attributes to former presidents. He compares well to Kennedy, Lincoln, Roosevelt (Franklin D.), Reagan and Clinton. The pundits are conducting their post-mortems in minute detail looking for any signs of what is to come.
One of them reflects the “morning after the party feelings.” Our very own Rex Murphy of CBC TV and the Globe and Mail believes that “Hillary woke Mr. Obama out of his dangerous complacency and gave him a taste of humility—not a welcome flavour…to the Obama palate.” Murphy goes on to explain that “she found his weak spot---the patrician element in him, the high yuppie disdain.” “She also taught him that some people in politics go for the jugular.” So, who will we see? The humble Obama from which empathy and caring arise or the patrician, overly cool Obama?
In that few get training in how to be a president in advance of landing the job, like most leaders, he’ll be learning as he goes. He and we will find out who he is as the issues are confronted and dealt with.
We can be certain though that he will be more curious, open and collaborative than his predecessor based on his track record. That’s good news. In that empathy and “real” reason” are both needed, we might see Hillary again working with not against Obama. For her many supporters, that will be a welcome outcome.
Applying the world view contexts to the presidential election results, the financial crisis coupled with a myriad of legacy issues (war in Iraq and climate change, for example) tipped the balance towards empathy and cooperation. Since Barack Obama’s language of hope and change related closely to the latter, his stories appealed across a broad spectrum of people who were ready for a change. His messages, so different from the fear, coercion and isolationism of the last eight years, activated en masse the progressive moral world view of millions of American voters and people from all walks of life around the world.
As Professor George Lakoff, a distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley describes in The Political Mind, the differences between the two moral world views are like a nurturing versus a strict parent. The nurturing parent models empathy, responsibility for oneself and others and the strength to carry out those responsibilities. The strict parent model, on the other hand, is concerned with authority, obedience, discipline and punishment.
In political terms, the progressive view champions caring—taking responsibility, acting courageously and powerfully. The role of government is to protect and empower—a social justice model. That means having in place a range of supports for community life beyond the hard services such as police, fire, the military, roads and well-run financial and legal systems. The softer services figure prominently in the government’s agenda---a social safety net, clean water, safe food, accessible health care and education, disaster relief, consumer and worker protection and environmental stewardship, etc...
Unlike the nurturing side of the progressive view, conservative thought politically is concerned with obedience to authority—knowing right from wrong and being loyal within a hierarchy. The role of government is to protect us from evil and minimize constraints such as regulations, taxes, unions, and certain anti-individual freedom laws. This model of government is more laissez faire.
In reality, each one of us and our political leaders link these different world views in a variety of combinations. What holds sway for voters is contingent on the situation and how it impacts our emotional needs. For Obama, the “perfect storm” of issues matched his generally progressive philosophy and acumen at mobilizing people, that is, engaging and empowering individuals and groups in managing their own wellbeing in tough times.
Now that the cheering has subsided, we are left wondering whether this cool, calm and seemingly centred and caring president-elect is who he seems to be. He has yet to create the data which will prove one way or the other. Academics have taken to analyzing his language and thoughts (contradictory) and comparing and contrasting his apparent attributes to former presidents. He compares well to Kennedy, Lincoln, Roosevelt (Franklin D.), Reagan and Clinton. The pundits are conducting their post-mortems in minute detail looking for any signs of what is to come.
One of them reflects the “morning after the party feelings.” Our very own Rex Murphy of CBC TV and the Globe and Mail believes that “Hillary woke Mr. Obama out of his dangerous complacency and gave him a taste of humility—not a welcome flavour…to the Obama palate.” Murphy goes on to explain that “she found his weak spot---the patrician element in him, the high yuppie disdain.” “She also taught him that some people in politics go for the jugular.” So, who will we see? The humble Obama from which empathy and caring arise or the patrician, overly cool Obama?
In that few get training in how to be a president in advance of landing the job, like most leaders, he’ll be learning as he goes. He and we will find out who he is as the issues are confronted and dealt with.
We can be certain though that he will be more curious, open and collaborative than his predecessor based on his track record. That’s good news. In that empathy and “real” reason” are both needed, we might see Hillary again working with not against Obama. For her many supporters, that will be a welcome outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
