Soul Force Rising

Sometimes I wish I had a much broader liberal arts education. The events in Egypt have opened another awareness door bringing bits of knowledge about the world from the background to the foreground. But what’s the real story? How did it come to this where young people are risking life and limb for the sake of a better life?

Back in the 1920s, Gandhi called it “soul force” or power devoted to justice and truth. When people are not treated with respect and dignity, when a leader’s moral authority no longer is directed to the interests and needs of ordinary people, the soul force rises. It is ingrained in our beings.

There is typically a spark that unleashes the energy of the simmering soul force. For Gandhi and many other Indian leaders it was April 10, 1919 when 379 demonstrators were massacred in an enclosed public square in Amritsar, India by a British General, Reginald Dyer. An estimated ten thousand had gathered in Jallianwala Bagh square to hear pro-Gandhi speakers.

In the background, the city was in chaos, with groups of Hindus and Muslims together burning buildings and tearing up railroad tracks in defiance of the rule of the “Raj”. Meanwhile Dyer, incensed that people had ignored his banning of all large public gatherings, barked an order to open fire (for ten minutes) directly into the densely packed crowd in Jallianwala Bagh. Screaming men, women and children ran for safety but there was nowhere to go in a space no larger than Trafalgar square. The narrow streets quickly became clogged bottlenecks.

Churchill’s sense of justice was shaken as was Gandhi’s. But Dyer was never held to account for his actions. The subsequent investigations concluded that martial law was justified and blamed Gandhi’s movement for undermining the rule of law. Although Churchill, who was not a fan of Gandhi's tactics and philosophy, tried every angle to see Dyer punished, the culture of the military won the day.

But, the spark of the soul force was struck. Gandhi so sympathized with the victims of Amritsar that he decided to call an end to his “splendid isolation” and join mainstream Indian politics.

It appears this is what is happening in Egypt. Too many injustices have piled up. The spark of Tunisia plus the kindling of social media ignited a firestorm.

As in society, can this happen in an organization? You bet. The difference is that the organization simply dies---goes bankrupt due to management malfeasance. Or, it languishes in mediocrity, increasing its numbers of beaten up employees while the courageous and the young people flee the premises.

We are all connected by the soul force. It is potent. When enabled for the sake of “the good society”, a concept espoused by the former Professor of Economics Emeritus at Harvard, John Kenneth Galbraith, it spreads as a powerful and positive force for change for the benefit of many.

Today, we have a powerful enabler: social media.

Sources:
Arthur Herman, Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry that Destroyed an Empire and Forged an Age.

John Kenneth Galbraith, The Good Society: The Humane Agenda.

The Upside to Tiger's Legacy

Good judgment comes from experience.

Experience comes from bad judgment.

---Oscar Wilde

The rich and powerful have an extra burden to bear: resisting the temptations that easily come their way and in so doing demonstrating to others strength of character. If fame comes early in life, such as in the case of Tiger Woods, the test of character is even more difficult. It’s easy to get “messed up” if the normal process of growing up is interrupted. If parents and significant others around a young person get caught up in the “not normal” environment, checks and balances becomes endangered species. The same applies in an organization. If a boss’s “bad” behaviour is allowed to run amok wreaking emotional havoc among employees, “good” character takes a back seat to “anything goes”. The collateral damage is considerable.

In the early days of my career in the health field debate raged about who was responsible for personal health. The individual? The system? A combination? Stop “blaming the victim” loomed large among the proponents that it’s the system that does it. Other more hard-nosed pundits and researchers said flat out that when push comes to shove the individual is responsible. In the end, the consensus is that both matter. Which is more important depends on the situation.

With Tiger, something went awry in the development of his value-system. He joined a burgeoning group of sports celebrities, politicians and CEOs who have lost their way and been found out. The system of support that Tiger had, whatever it was, was insufficient to help him self-correct.

The upside to Tiger’s downfall is the lesson for the younger generation of golfers. Although his ex-wife Elin Nordegren professes to have been totally unaware of his infidelities, you can bet that within the golf community the guys knew but kept their counsel. That the most famous athlete in the world who happens to be a pro golfer can be caught and fall from grace leaves a strong message for all up and coming young pro golfers and athletes in general: watch your values and habits. They could come back to haunt you.

Thoughts and habits do define one’s character. We all have a choice and it helps to have a few stern friends along the way.

How to reduce government:scare away the young folks

It's walking the fine line of being a positive leader of the federal public service, but at the same time pushing them and not being captive to them.

---Stephen Harper, CBC Radio Interview

Watch what you wish for, as the saying goes. The fine leadership line has to be the right one and one of the styles clearly unworkable for Gen X and Y is not “my way or the highway” or something mushy called “positive leadership”. They want the right kind of leadership at the right time, often characterized by “What do you think?” or “What do you know?” or “How can we get to this exciting goal?”. Come to think of it, so do baby boomers. But, they are already captive and awaiting their pensions.

The latest skirmish between Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and federal civil servants on the Stats Canada long survey (now to be made voluntary which messes up the reliability of the data) illustrates to the younger generations that only the submissive should apply to the federal government for a job. It’s a brilliant strategy by a leader who wants to downsize without having to pay the costs of letting people go. Decide what you want in advance. Pretend that you have consulted. Pay no attention to any contrary evidence. Stare down the protesters, many of whom are experts in their fields about the matter in question. Do what you want anyway. The downsizing takes care of itself quite tidily. Speeds up the numbers who can retire but haven’t. Scares off any talented folks, especially the young, who want to make a difference.

Gen X and Gen Y want to be involved in decision-making, want to feel that their opinions count and most certainly to have fun. A dictatorial culture of fear is not on their checklist as a nice place to work. Further, as a highly educated bunch, they know a thing or two about “the truth”. The evidence from research does merit serious consideration in the decision making process. Debate, dissent and “brainstorming” help steer the path to solutions that have lasting value.

All generations and cultures value authoritative leadership: being visionary and passionate about a cause, valuing teamwork and getting the job done. Few like authoritarian leadership as it muffles wonderful talent and the potential for great innovation. Stephen Harper may only have meant that his opinion matters too and that he should be "authoritative" as a leader. But, in practice, his fine line seems to be bending toward "push" than "positive".

Cut Tiger Some Slack: He's Not a Preacher or a Politician

Scratch a man or a woman and you’ll find a child.

~common saying

Most would agree that when Tiger gave his 13 minute “forgive me” speech on February 19, 2010, he looked haggard and nervous, his emotions close to the surface. The commentary afterwards ranged from understanding to downright nasty: empathetic versus unforgiving. In the unfolding Tiger story, we are all actors struggling with “learning to become more conscious, competent human beings”. We’re not in the habit of cutting our superstars much slack, often because we hold them to a higher standard than ourselves or an equal standard. The Tiger Woods of the world though are engaged in the same melodramatic journey of life as we are. It’s a perilous journey fraught with unexpected twists and turns that call our character into question frequently.

We don’t dispute Tiger’s competency. Groomed from the age of 2 or so to be the greatest golfer in all time, he’s well on the way. On the deeper “who am I?” human question. It appears not.

Think about it. Did he have much time to ponder his inner life beyond what it takes to put a little white ball into a hole in the middle of a “lawn” faster than competitors? Deep grooves there in his brain on that one. A bit mixed up on the more general: “What’s the right thing to do in life?”

Adults have a cognitive life cycle just as children do. Debate rages in academia about how to characterize the evolution of an adult mind, in general. For simplicity’s sake, Erik Erikson’s typology offers some insight into Tiger’s struggle.

Erikson poses three interconnected, evolutionary stages in adulthood each with its own identity and life satisfaction dilemmas:

Love: Intimacy vs. Isolation (Young Adults, 20 to 34 years):

“Am I loved and wanted?” “Shall I share my life with someone or live alone?”

The challenge at this stage is to develop a mature sense of the meaning of love and how to love. How to form long-term commitments to others. How to be "in relationship" at work, in the community, with family, to contribute.

Care: Generativity vs. Stagnation (Middle Adulthood, 35 to 65 years)

“Will I produce something of value?”

The virtue to be developed during this period is to “care”. To put energy into guiding the next generation, contributing to society.

Wisdom: Ego Integrity vs. Despair (Seniors 65 years and onwards)

“Have I lived a full life?”

Starting with our 30s, the virtue to be fully developed by our "golden years" is deep self-understanding. Combined with contemplating accomplishments and looking back on the people in our lives, we have the opportunity to achieve great satisfaction with our efforts over many decades.

Applying Erikson’s view of adult development to Tiger, he’s still grappling with commitment. He’s only 34 years old!!

No excuse though for leading a double life. But, in the context of the bubble he grew up in and the fame and fortune that ensued, we can understand how he veered away from the ethical, healthy path. We recognize from his words that he’s learning how to accept help from others. He has activated a part of himself that likely has been under utilized: “life-reflection” in which he develops self-insight and a self-critical perspective. He’s just a newbie at this!

Although he wasn’t as smooth or emotionally demonstrative as a preacher or a politician typically is, Tiger made it clear that prior to the Thanksgiving 2009 incident that blew his cover, he was only thinking about himself. He was “at effect” of impulses. He was not thinking about the impact of his behaviour on his family, his golf buddies, young people who look up to him, his sponsors, etc. He was, in his mind, above the fray, “invisible” and was free to play by social rules different from the mainstream.

Tiger is now consciously trekking through a mind-jungle. When he clears a new path, he will be somewhere he’s never been before. He will see himself in the world differently. He will see others anew. It’s taxing. It’s painful. And, it is courageous.

Many adults don’t reflect enough. Consequently, their “geniuses within” never reach their full potential. For Tiger, this may not be the case. He’s working on it, probably as hard as he does his golf game.

Tiger asked us to look into our hearts and support him in his journey. Let’s do that especially if you are older than 35 years. It’s what we are supposed to do: care for the generations behind us. Support them to succeed because we should know: the only way to success is through failure.

Unless we recognize the extent to which our present is determined by our past, we make the same mistakes over and over again.

~Manfred Kets de Vries, Leader on the Couch.

A Prodigy's Mid-Life Crisis: The Tiger Effect Re-Visited

Imagine growing up as a child prodigy where everyone “Oohs and awes” around you? Then, unlike many child prodigies, you grow up and become one as an adult. Through your eyes you look out into the world and what do you see? Lesser mortals? Fawning adults? Beautiful women falling all over you? Fearful competitors? The next mountain to climb? I can do it better?

Whatever you see, that’s what you believe whether it’s true or not. Then, you shape and conduct your life accordingly. While “can-do” optimism in principle is good, it can be downright dangerous if you have not walked over hot coals like most mere mortals along the way. With the ability to recognize red flags underdeveloped and a big well of confidence over-riding danger zones, you risk falling into traps.

And into a trap Tiger Woods fell. Somewhere along the line, Tiger made certain decisions that have come back to haunt him. He has no roadmap for dealing with significant personal failure. Failure has never been an option as he has until his fateful middle of the night car accident controlled the avoidance of it superbly. But, this time, with his father who was his guidepost gone, Tiger lost his bearings. Opportunity to repair the damage lurks but it’s going to be Tiger’s most difficult “tournament”.

We have seen this often in business: Martha Stewart, Conrad Black, the Enron, Eatons and Nortel folks, the 2008 financial melt-down and so on. Adult-onset prodigy development can be more dangerous than in childhood. Especially if wealth and power are added to the mix.

We mere mortals are subject to this too. Our judgment can become skewed if we are not on the alert to challenge our assumptions, debate and discuss them with others and send out some trial balloons. That’s the value of real team work in this all too complex society in which we live.

Much has been written about the challenge of good judgment and strategic decision-making of late. For example, Michael Roberto in Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer asserts that “differences in mental horsepower seldom distinguish success from failure” in smart decision-making amidst complexity. Adding to the “why” of this conundrum, Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton in Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense conclude that managers routinely ignore or reject solid evidence” that “damage careers and companies over and over again”. Our brains, that is, our minds, are both friends and foes.

Where was Tiger’s team? Who challenged his judgment? Some likely did. It appears from the current fall-out that Tiger paid little heed. Child prodigies are according to the literature “extreme specialists” who are finely attuned to a particular field of knowledge and who demonstrate “effortless mastery”. The caveat is that such mastery is not demonstrated “across the board”. Aye, here’s the rub for Tiger. What a shock for him and his entire ecosystem.

This is a character challenge for Tiger and for those who support him. Character, according to Manfred Kets de Vries in The Leader on the Couch, is the “sum of deeply ingrained patterns of behaviour that define an individual” from the Greek word meaning “engraving”. How will Tiger re-engrave all that goes into shaping his behaviour? What behaviours (driven by values) will his supporters from the “Tiger they knew before the downfall” use to either help Tiger or set him loose to fend for himself?

The way ahead like so much of life these days is not clear. In the months ahead, we will either be inspired or dismayed by Tiger’s and others’ actions.

As the Accenture ad featuring Tiger intoned, “It’s what you do next that counts”.

Paying Attention Goes a Long Way When Leading During Crises

Every interaction is a form of confrontation---a clash of priorities, a struggle of dignities, a battle of beliefs.

--- P. Koestenbaum, In LaBarre, 2000, p. 222

White water rafting is an apt metaphor for surviving in our current environment. Times of crisis, which keep rolling in one after another, starkly show whether a leader can adapt or not. Times of crisis test the leadership within each of us regardless of position. Many don’t make it because of an unwillingness to let go of old assumptions and beliefs and be present to the new. Where are you as a leader in this regard?

For the majority of us, turmoil first comes as external and beyond our control. But, whether we like it or not, our adaptation challenge is the same as those who are in the depth of the chaos: we are left to scramble without having been there before. How can we get beyond the fear and atmosphere of negativity from the terrorist attack in Mumbai and the continued turmoil in financial markets around the world? How can we help those around us both at work and at home cope with the escalating level of uncertainty?

This is the ultimate test of leadership: dealing with the emotional upheaval (yours and that of those who look to you for guidance) and the lack of information and best practices upon which to draw.

Paying attention helps. Robert Quinn in his book Building the Bridge As You Walk On It calls this “detached interdependence”. It means paying attention to what’s happening, transcending a need to control and allowing others to find and express their full capacities. It means being humble and strong and open to others’ views, yet not being attached to whether they like us or not. Underneath the stance of “paying attention” is clarity of our purpose---personally and organizationally. People “get” leaders and managers who are inspired by a reason for being no matter how dire the external circumstances are. They will rise to the occasion.

That’s why it’s fascinating to watch what various leaders do in these unusually turbulent times. What they do is typically a direct expression of their leadership beliefs in relating to people and getting the job done. What they do becomes an internal moral challenge: to serve one’s own interests or those whom they serve. It is a challenging polarity, as Quinn likes to remind us.

An example is the CEO of Maple Leaf Foods. In confronting his firm’s role in causing people to die from an outbreak of listeriosis in August 2008, he demonstrated this moral choice. Michael McCain quickly closed down the suspected Toronto plant and apologized profusely. He repeatedly used words to the effect that “the buck stops here”. McCain did not finger point and he kept the lines of communication open with the media. His pain was obvious, showing his own vulnerability but at the same time his resolve.

In the December issue of the Globe and Mail’s Report on Business McCain said he was doing what was right. “The core principle here was to first do what’s in the best interests of public health, and second to be open and transparent in taking accountability.” Although he emphasized that the handling of the situation was very much about his team not only himself (“It’s just what we are”.), he was reluctant to identify the obvious---his team was dependent on his core values and his willingness to be adaptive.

There is much more to the Maple Leaf story yet to be told. How McCain discovered the greatness within himself to “do the right thing” will become another interesting layer. How he struggled and the mistakes he made while trying to figure his way through the horrible situation will be most informative for preparing others when calamity strikes.

Quinn has some tips and comments related to leading and adapting during great uncertainty which likely mirror some of what McCain did:

--recognize that excellence requires you to go where you have not been before
--understand that leaving the comfort zone is terrifying
--in high uncertainty, you cannot rely on knowledge
--you must surrender your sense of control and begin to learn in real time
--in uncertainty and learning, you must continually clarify the desired result
--keep it simple. Establish a few operating rules, and move forward
--the learning process is improvisational; you must create as you go
--you launch a thousand ships knowing most will sink
--it is normal to be scared
--listen carefully to criticism
--forget self-interest and focus on collective success
--give yourself time to process feedback and get through the emotions
--trust yourself and others

If paying attention is a primary tool for stabilizing a crisis and leading effectively in general, being prepared is equally important. The Mombai massacre unfortunately revealed that India was not prepared, especially at the local level. The Taj hotel burned for more than three hours before firefighters arrived. Numerous police personnel were killed. The soldiers struggled for three days to gain control.

The recent crises in India (terrorism), the United States (financial implosion) and Canada (listeriosis outbreak) make one thing very clear: smart strategic and tactical planning and good governance are essential parts of a leader’s tool kit. Adaptive leadership is the thread that binds.

While the Cat's Away, the Mice Come Out to Play: Canadian Listeriosis Outbreak is a Hard Lesson in Leadership Governance

Learning teacheth more in one year than experience in 20, and learning teacheth safely, when experience maketh more miserable than wise…it is costly wisdom that is bought by experience.

--- Roger Ascham (1515-1568) in The Street Master

The listeriosis outbreak traced to one Maple Leaf Foods plant in northern Toronto glaringly shines a light on the ethical and moral dilemmas underlying leadership. With 11 people dead so far and many more ill, the impact of the assumptions and beliefs of leaders within the food security system is tragic and economically costly. Only a full inquiry will unearth where the system went wrong. It’s a hard lesson in system governance and one which we will likely find was entirely preventable.

The movie Beautiful Mind gives us some clues as to the dilemmas inherent in any system and the principled solutions which are possible. Princeton University professor John F. Nash Jr. shared a 1994 Nobel Prize with three others for his research on “games theory” or the science of strategy in conflict situations. In 2005, two more researchers were awarded the Nobel for their games theory work. Clearly, the phenomenon has struck a chord in our increasingly complex society.

In layperson’s terms, Nash and other researchers have demonstrated that outcomes depend on not just your own decisions but also on what others do as in driving through an intersection. The particular scene in the movie illustrating Nash’s “ah ha” is a university bar where men and women are meeting and greeting and clearly influenced by each others’ actions. Taken further, Nash and other mathematicians demonstrated that co-operation in most instances trumps butting heads. It explains why some groups or individuals, organizations and countries succeed in promoting co-operation while others suffer from conflict. It has been used to explain economic conflicts such as price and trade wars, the workings of the stock market and why some communities are more successful (economically) than others in managing common resources. However, it won’t work without trust. That’s’ where things get “dicey”.

A clash of cultures (assumptions, beliefs and values) within the system can wreak havoc with making the right decisions. A public safety system such as food security requires many redundant checks and balances. Who does what when remains the repeatable big question as lessons are learned. There are hints in the press that government loosened the reins a little on the shop floor, giving more control to industry to police itself. Maybe that didn’t happen. If it did it would have stirred the “pot” of leadership assumptions and beliefs. What now is going to govern preventing serious food-related bacterial outbreaks in the general population?

A family story that has animated our history for 77 years provides some direction. I never understood while I was growing up why my mother Margaret would often bring up the subject of her sister Adelaide. To me it was history. To her, it was and still is painful, “what if?” history.

In my adult years, I’ve come to understand the senseless tragedy of Adelaide’s death—being at the wrong place at the wrong time when the system could do little to help her. At the same time, I have a strong appreciation of the advances that have been made to protect other young children from the same fate.

My grandmother on my mother’s side liked to travel and she yearned for her homeland. In early 1931, she embarked, with her two little girls Margaret, 5 years old and Adelaide 8, on a voyage across the Atlantic to Liverpool. Little did she know they were heading straight into a diphtheria epidemic! Within days of landing, both young girls became seriously ill and were hospitalized. Only my mother made the trip back. Why she survived and Adelaide did not remains a mystery.

In those days, although a successful vaccine had been developed, it was not widely available. It took the discovery and development of sulfa drugs following WW 11 to open up protection for the general population. Regular vaccinations for infants, children and boosters for adults are routine in developed countries.

What does this say about governance now? Since we know what prevents senseless deaths, the values and beliefs of a leader then and now no longer drive the ethics of decision-making. Instead, it’s the evidence of what works. Inotherwords, when in doubt wherever you are as a leader in the system, default to the evidence.

A just released World Health Organization (WHO) report on the determinants of health reinforces this principle. The blue-ribbon panel of International experts concluded that “social injustice is killing people on a grand scale.”

The evidence, according to the panel, is clear and irrefutable: societies, like the Nordic countries, are healthier because they spend generously on universal social programs, reduce income equalities, and regulate important health determinants such as food, housing and labour markets. In the spirit of “games theory”, the economies of these countries do not suffer. They thrive as expected. Sweden, for example, continues to do a credible job at balancing and re-balancing the needs of the free market (private enterprise) with the quality of life needs of the population, as a whole. These findings hold for rich and poor countries alike.

In light of the current food security scare in Canada, the WHO report is timely. For those leaders who wrestle with competing interests to make ethical decisions, the WHO findings “lead the way”. You might think that these findings have nothing to do with you in your organization. You might not like the WHO’s findings because of the kind of business you are in. Alternatively, the findings might be “bang on” for you. In reality, there are lessons to be learned no matter what your leadership challenges are and in what part of the system you work.

The WHO report speaks of the lack of political leadership and moral courage as key barriers. In every organization, not just government, these factors are relevant and play a role in influencing important outcomes. The food security problem in Canada, at the moment, is a symbol of the co-operative tensions in any complex system and that serious collateral damage can occur if the cat’s away.