Former President Bill Clinton put his finger on the fiasco in New Orleans---no one person was in charge. There was the illusion with FEMA, the Federal Emergency Measures Agency, but something has gone terribly awry.
As one military commander noted whose troops will be rebuilding the infrastructure, there are two views from which to manage the situation: the soda straw and the 360. Although he meant that you have to be there to understand what it is really like, on a larger level the soda straw approach might aptly be the right image underlying the problem.
It has taken Russ Honore, the no nonsense three star army general, to fill the leadership vacuum at the top. As one television commentator exclaimed, he is everywhere 20 hours a day, hands on, cutting through the bureaucracy, getting the job done, and strongly exclaiming his non-acceptance of b.s. The people of New Orleans clapped as they watched him make order out of chaos. The New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin couldn’t be happier. He’s now got a buddy who is listening and who takes action.
I have a coaster on my desk with a famous saying: "A deviation of a hair’s breath at the center leads to an error of a hundred miles". Yet another Commission on a preventable disaster will be struck and will describe in minute detail not one but many critical errors by leaders who should have known better. The echos of prior disasters such as 9/11 and the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle crashes will most certainly be heard.
What are the echos? Silos. Inadequate sharing of timely information among the accountable agencies. No overall accountability (or power) by the right organization to plan and coordinate. Cultures that prevent people below the top from speaking up. Policy, structural and financial decisions that fly in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary---a heads in the sand approach to preventing disasters when multiple studies by reputable experts are ignored or minimized.
The 9/11 Report called for a different way of organizing government that is quick, imaginative and agile in its responsiveness, not ad hoc and incremental. Repeatedly it used the term unity, as a means of prevention and execution when trouble happens. For example, strategic intelligence and operational planning must work hand in hand. It’s a no brainer intellectually, but, in reality, much tougher to do without leaders to guide the way from end to end.
We too often think of leadership as the strategic part of the equation and operational planning as management. The New Orleans chaos suggests otherwise---we need leadership at each step of the way for decision making success and implementation effectiveness. Strategy and action are intertwined. The 360 view is essential.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Monday, August 01, 2005
Sir John A. Macdonald Likely a High “EI” Leader
It’s almost impossible to be a great leader without strong people skills. Given our perpetual fascination with contemporary and historical political leaders---why they are or are not effective---a check on their “emotional intelligence” (how leaders handle themselves and their relationships) can help connect the dots. Canada’s revered and pragmatic first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, appears to meet the “EI” criteria.
A leader’s manner matters. People watch leaders and take their emotional cues from them. In effect, a leader’s attitude toward others affects the mood around him like a “contagion” positive or negative. Douglas McGregor, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT, enshrined the notion in the 1950’s with his Theory X (stick) and Theory Y (carrot). His central message: people thrive on genuine respect from others; managers who honour this desire will be much more successful at “motivating” workers than those who do not. Rutgers University’s Daniel Goleman has continued the “relationship management” theme stressing that the emotional task is the “primal” leadership capability.
Judging from recent research of 500,000 people by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves, top leaders, in general, have some work to do on their EI. The San Diego consultants found that EI scores increase with titles upward toward middle management and then steeply decrease thereafter. CEOs seem to be a hard nosed lot relying more on themselves than those around them. If middle managers are getting the message and their CEOs are not, the former are in a tough position. Clearly, we’ve got some work to do in our modern organizations to strengthen primal leadership.
In Canada’s early days, relationship-focused leadership from Sir John A. Macdonald helped lay the foundation for the nation’s resilience and moderation amidst a changing world. Macdonald was a bridge-builder, forging regional coalitions and dialogue across languages, religions and geography. Wilfred Laurier called him “gifted as few men in any land or in any age”. Historians Jack Granatstein and Norm Hillmer noted that “he understood that sugar caught more flies than vinegar.” Pierre Burton wrote in The National Dream that “the twinkling eyes, the sardonic smile, the easy tolerance, the quick wit, and the general lack of malice made Macdonald an attractive figure in and out of Parliament.”
Some things are universal. Those admirable qualities of Macdonald would be welcome in any situation. Cheerfulness and warmth spread easily like a friendly virus. They lift up moods and inject camaraderie and cooperation into any group working together. As Goleman says in Primal Leadership, “leaders with that kind of talent are emotional magnets” to which people “naturally gravitate for the pleasure of working in their presence.”
A leader’s manner matters. People watch leaders and take their emotional cues from them. In effect, a leader’s attitude toward others affects the mood around him like a “contagion” positive or negative. Douglas McGregor, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT, enshrined the notion in the 1950’s with his Theory X (stick) and Theory Y (carrot). His central message: people thrive on genuine respect from others; managers who honour this desire will be much more successful at “motivating” workers than those who do not. Rutgers University’s Daniel Goleman has continued the “relationship management” theme stressing that the emotional task is the “primal” leadership capability.
Judging from recent research of 500,000 people by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves, top leaders, in general, have some work to do on their EI. The San Diego consultants found that EI scores increase with titles upward toward middle management and then steeply decrease thereafter. CEOs seem to be a hard nosed lot relying more on themselves than those around them. If middle managers are getting the message and their CEOs are not, the former are in a tough position. Clearly, we’ve got some work to do in our modern organizations to strengthen primal leadership.
In Canada’s early days, relationship-focused leadership from Sir John A. Macdonald helped lay the foundation for the nation’s resilience and moderation amidst a changing world. Macdonald was a bridge-builder, forging regional coalitions and dialogue across languages, religions and geography. Wilfred Laurier called him “gifted as few men in any land or in any age”. Historians Jack Granatstein and Norm Hillmer noted that “he understood that sugar caught more flies than vinegar.” Pierre Burton wrote in The National Dream that “the twinkling eyes, the sardonic smile, the easy tolerance, the quick wit, and the general lack of malice made Macdonald an attractive figure in and out of Parliament.”
Some things are universal. Those admirable qualities of Macdonald would be welcome in any situation. Cheerfulness and warmth spread easily like a friendly virus. They lift up moods and inject camaraderie and cooperation into any group working together. As Goleman says in Primal Leadership, “leaders with that kind of talent are emotional magnets” to which people “naturally gravitate for the pleasure of working in their presence.”
The Leadership-Management Conundrum
I am frequently asked to explain the difference between management and leadership and always find myself slightly at a loss. The two-columned approach describing one versus the other just doesn’t do justice to the reality. Because I see management and leadership linked like fraternal Siamese twins, I cannot offer up with any enthusiasm a chart that provides the right description.
I’ve taken to using the awkward term “leader-manager” as a means of communicating the connectedness. In my mind, both capabilities dance together in each of us like two focused ballroom dancers vying for mastery together. One needs the other to get inspired, agree on the plan, and provide support for getting the job done. Both leadership and management are needed throughout the entire “dance”. It is a creative collaboration that brings life to a system, to a challenge.
I have been tempted to drop the word “manager” or “management” altogether. We’re at the stage in our human history where the term seems out of date, at least in relatively sophisticated, evolving democracies. Technology has taken over many of the controlling and monitoring functions heretofore prime responsibilities of managers. We now have the luxury and freedom to exercise our natural leadership no matter what level in an organization. But, I continue to wonder if the term “leadership” is enough to encompass the full range of capabilities required to help teams and whole organizations move forward. Can “leadership” stand on its own without “management”?
The persistence of this conundrum, management versus leadership led me to review the thoughts of several of my favorite authors---Mary Parker Follett, Kurt Lewin, Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis, Douglas McGregor, Margaret Wheatley, Anthony Jay and many others. “Leadership” emerged as the preferred, more modern capability but by no means has “management” dropped out of the discussion. Instead it has taken on a more humanistic meaning that reflects the rapid rise of democracy in the workplace. To my surprise I did discover a new word that gets around the awkwardness of “leader-manager” and at the same time captures the connection: “linking leadership.”
More on this later.
I’ve taken to using the awkward term “leader-manager” as a means of communicating the connectedness. In my mind, both capabilities dance together in each of us like two focused ballroom dancers vying for mastery together. One needs the other to get inspired, agree on the plan, and provide support for getting the job done. Both leadership and management are needed throughout the entire “dance”. It is a creative collaboration that brings life to a system, to a challenge.
I have been tempted to drop the word “manager” or “management” altogether. We’re at the stage in our human history where the term seems out of date, at least in relatively sophisticated, evolving democracies. Technology has taken over many of the controlling and monitoring functions heretofore prime responsibilities of managers. We now have the luxury and freedom to exercise our natural leadership no matter what level in an organization. But, I continue to wonder if the term “leadership” is enough to encompass the full range of capabilities required to help teams and whole organizations move forward. Can “leadership” stand on its own without “management”?
The persistence of this conundrum, management versus leadership led me to review the thoughts of several of my favorite authors---Mary Parker Follett, Kurt Lewin, Peter Drucker, Warren Bennis, Douglas McGregor, Margaret Wheatley, Anthony Jay and many others. “Leadership” emerged as the preferred, more modern capability but by no means has “management” dropped out of the discussion. Instead it has taken on a more humanistic meaning that reflects the rapid rise of democracy in the workplace. To my surprise I did discover a new word that gets around the awkwardness of “leader-manager” and at the same time captures the connection: “linking leadership.”
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Calling Up the Leader Wihin Us In A Crisis
London’s 7/7 demonstrated once again that in times of crisis, great leadership quickly shows up and guides the way out of chaos and confusion. We expected it of the formal political leaders, Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Mayor of London, Ken Livingston. They came through admirably with their uplifting and defiant oratory and calls to action. We saw it, as we did during 9/11, in the thousands of small acts of courage by emergency personnel and ordinary people rescuing and comforting the injured. What is at work here in these moments of greatness?
Let’s assume that the definition of a crisis is being jolted out of our comfort zone. The true meaning of course is in the eyes of the beholder. One person’s crisis may not faze another. Nevertheless, we’ll assume that the situation is either life- or organizationally-threatening. The solution to the crisis cannot be found in the status quo. We must draw on something else to light the way out.
Robert Quinn, author of Building the Bridge As You Walk On It, claims that “leaders do their best work when they don’t copy anyone. They draw on their own values and capabilities”. In moments of crisis, they enter a “fundamental state of leadership” that is temporarily out of their comfort zone.
Quinn outlines four steps for great leadership in a crisis:
1. Get clear on the results you’d like to create;
2. Let your own internal direction be your guide;
3. Be other directed—sacrifice your personal interests for the common good;
4. Pay deep attention to what is unfolding and learn from it as you go.
When the situation is a matter of life or death, seconds count in the immediate aftermath of a sudden unexpected crisis. Whether leadership and personal survival kicks in, as described by Quinn, depends on how well we manage our automatic biological response.
According to researchers such as John Leach from Lancaster University in England who study human behaviour in dangerous situations, only 10 to 15 percent of people remain calm, figure out a plan and lead others. The same number---approximately 10 to 15 percent---screams and cries uncontrollably. Approximately 75 percent “will be stunned, bewildered and show impaired reasoning and sluggish thinking”. The feeling of being out of control clearly overwhelms the majority of people in the unfamiliar catastrophic circumstance. Fight or flight gives rise to “freeze”. Yet a small percentage over-rides the panic and swings into action. Why?
Emergency training and prior experience in surviving a crisis appear to be key factors. The mental maps derived from the lessons of survival significantly boost our chances of finding our way out of a catastrophic situation and stepping into the zone of leadership. Drills and rehearsals really do work but we have not always been the best students. How many people really pay attention on an airplane to the directions about the emergency exits and what to do with air bags, etc.? In that we compute the unlikelihood of a catastrophe occurring in our lives, we play “Russian roulette” and ignore the “mental mapping”. Yet, it is this preparation that can call up the great leader in each of us and save our life and potentially those of many others.
This preparedness of mindset is a pre-requisite to leading organizational crises as much as a sudden personal one. If emergency training and previous experience helps, then it follows that we can better that 10 to 15 percent showing leadership during times of great duress. We can develop our potential to be great leaders by preparing ourselves mentally in advance. We can use the lessons of survival conduct in emergencies to help more of us live in our discomfort zones with great success when needed. In so doing, we can make a profound impact on our collective well-being.
There’s another kind of preparedness---preventing or reducing the risk of a catastrophe in the first place. And, there’s nothing like eyes and ears “on the ground” to increase the probability of offsetting a possible disaster. Herein lies the real measure of great leadership in these complex times—engaging many, particularly the front line, in leading the way.
We’ve done it for years with programs such as “Neighbourhood Watch” and other grassroots efforts. More recently, “Amber Alerts” for missing children have generated many successes. We’ve learned from disasters such as 9/11, SARS and the water quality meltdown in Walkerton, Ontario that the right information-gathering and sharing across “silos” as well as top notch management and supervision (meaning---accountability) would have averted or minimized the unfolding of events. Great leadership is therefore not that complicated—being a “first preventer” is always better than being a “first responder”.
Let’s assume that the definition of a crisis is being jolted out of our comfort zone. The true meaning of course is in the eyes of the beholder. One person’s crisis may not faze another. Nevertheless, we’ll assume that the situation is either life- or organizationally-threatening. The solution to the crisis cannot be found in the status quo. We must draw on something else to light the way out.
Robert Quinn, author of Building the Bridge As You Walk On It, claims that “leaders do their best work when they don’t copy anyone. They draw on their own values and capabilities”. In moments of crisis, they enter a “fundamental state of leadership” that is temporarily out of their comfort zone.
Quinn outlines four steps for great leadership in a crisis:
1. Get clear on the results you’d like to create;
2. Let your own internal direction be your guide;
3. Be other directed—sacrifice your personal interests for the common good;
4. Pay deep attention to what is unfolding and learn from it as you go.
When the situation is a matter of life or death, seconds count in the immediate aftermath of a sudden unexpected crisis. Whether leadership and personal survival kicks in, as described by Quinn, depends on how well we manage our automatic biological response.
According to researchers such as John Leach from Lancaster University in England who study human behaviour in dangerous situations, only 10 to 15 percent of people remain calm, figure out a plan and lead others. The same number---approximately 10 to 15 percent---screams and cries uncontrollably. Approximately 75 percent “will be stunned, bewildered and show impaired reasoning and sluggish thinking”. The feeling of being out of control clearly overwhelms the majority of people in the unfamiliar catastrophic circumstance. Fight or flight gives rise to “freeze”. Yet a small percentage over-rides the panic and swings into action. Why?
Emergency training and prior experience in surviving a crisis appear to be key factors. The mental maps derived from the lessons of survival significantly boost our chances of finding our way out of a catastrophic situation and stepping into the zone of leadership. Drills and rehearsals really do work but we have not always been the best students. How many people really pay attention on an airplane to the directions about the emergency exits and what to do with air bags, etc.? In that we compute the unlikelihood of a catastrophe occurring in our lives, we play “Russian roulette” and ignore the “mental mapping”. Yet, it is this preparation that can call up the great leader in each of us and save our life and potentially those of many others.
This preparedness of mindset is a pre-requisite to leading organizational crises as much as a sudden personal one. If emergency training and previous experience helps, then it follows that we can better that 10 to 15 percent showing leadership during times of great duress. We can develop our potential to be great leaders by preparing ourselves mentally in advance. We can use the lessons of survival conduct in emergencies to help more of us live in our discomfort zones with great success when needed. In so doing, we can make a profound impact on our collective well-being.
There’s another kind of preparedness---preventing or reducing the risk of a catastrophe in the first place. And, there’s nothing like eyes and ears “on the ground” to increase the probability of offsetting a possible disaster. Herein lies the real measure of great leadership in these complex times—engaging many, particularly the front line, in leading the way.
We’ve done it for years with programs such as “Neighbourhood Watch” and other grassroots efforts. More recently, “Amber Alerts” for missing children have generated many successes. We’ve learned from disasters such as 9/11, SARS and the water quality meltdown in Walkerton, Ontario that the right information-gathering and sharing across “silos” as well as top notch management and supervision (meaning---accountability) would have averted or minimized the unfolding of events. Great leadership is therefore not that complicated—being a “first preventer” is always better than being a “first responder”.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
The Glass Half Full: The Road to "Here-Be-Growth" Leadership
Do you see life as “win-lose” or “win-win”? Are you a pessimist or an optimist? If you want to strengthen your leadership capacity, try turning the alarm bells down and the joy of living up. Most people respond to positive leaders because they feel more creative, enthusiastic, and willing to persist through difficulties. So say Martin Seligman and many other positive psychology researchers.
We have our share of “wedge” leaders but they always fail to inspire. They operate as if they were on a battlefield dealing with enemies and the perceived subversive side of people or the “other” side. Such negative-thinking leaders create low trust, fearful, intolerant environments. In the short run, leaders who act as if the “glass is half empty” may gain compliance. But they never win hearts, an essential pre-requisite of leading change.
As Seligman describes in Authentic Happiness, “positive emotion causes better commerce with the world”. It opens our minds to new ideas and new experiences. Philosophers use the term ethical “realists” to describe people who believe that their fellow humans are generally purpose-driven, want to make a difference and find meaning in their lives, including at work. Barbara Erickson, at the University of Michigan, places positive emotion in the bigger context of evolution. By engaging our strengths, of which optimism is one among many, we help ourselves to continue our survival. That is, by working on the glass half filled side of the equation, we “broaden our abiding intellectual, physical, and social resources, building up reserves we can draw upon when a threat or opportunity presents itself”. A positive frame of mind, it appears, is particularly helpful in difficult times.
Some leaders may worry that all this happiness interferes with critical thinking. That is, seeing the world through “rosy-coloured glasses” clouds good judgment. But, not so according to the researchers. When events are threatening, happy people apparently readily change tactics, introduce a healthy, skeptical mindset into the situation and bear down with an analytical set of tools. In that good problem-solving regardless of circumstance depends on an open mind and a willingness to engage with others, better to be an optimist than a pessimist!
It’s true that some of us have more positive affect than others—just like we’re all creative but we have different levels. Our genetic heritage charts our emotional path; however, it does not control us. We can through our will or intention develop a greater capacity to work on the joyful side of life to our benefit.
Take the win-lose scenario. In the film Beautiful Mind starring Russell Crowe, we are introduced to the thesis of the nonzero sum game in which the net result is positive (not one side or person winning and the other losing). In biology as in human history, we are seeing the impact of this theory. Despite our current experience of terrorism and other terrible acts against others, anthropologists contend that over the centuries and across the world, we have been and are moving from savage to barbarian to civilization. Translating this into “living” organizations and cultures, the more they utilize positive-sum games as a way of operating, the increased probability of surviving and flourishing.
Positive feeling is, in Seligman’s view, a win-win approach. From a leader, it sends a signal of “here-be-growth”, not win-lose, but expansiveness and wins for everyone.
The pessimists will still caution that there are times when deadly competition faces us and we must act. Eat or be eaten. Live or die. Fear and anxiety may serve us better under such dire circumstances than seeing the best in people. There are times in organizations for this mindset, for leadership that takes us through situations that threaten our survival. In society, we have our police forces and legal systems to keep dangerous behaviour in check. In the meantime, let the rest of us work on the better side of humans—a key role for leaders. Seligman’s quote from Thomas Edison, one of the world’s greatest inventors, is most apt: “if we did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves”.
We have our share of “wedge” leaders but they always fail to inspire. They operate as if they were on a battlefield dealing with enemies and the perceived subversive side of people or the “other” side. Such negative-thinking leaders create low trust, fearful, intolerant environments. In the short run, leaders who act as if the “glass is half empty” may gain compliance. But they never win hearts, an essential pre-requisite of leading change.
As Seligman describes in Authentic Happiness, “positive emotion causes better commerce with the world”. It opens our minds to new ideas and new experiences. Philosophers use the term ethical “realists” to describe people who believe that their fellow humans are generally purpose-driven, want to make a difference and find meaning in their lives, including at work. Barbara Erickson, at the University of Michigan, places positive emotion in the bigger context of evolution. By engaging our strengths, of which optimism is one among many, we help ourselves to continue our survival. That is, by working on the glass half filled side of the equation, we “broaden our abiding intellectual, physical, and social resources, building up reserves we can draw upon when a threat or opportunity presents itself”. A positive frame of mind, it appears, is particularly helpful in difficult times.
Some leaders may worry that all this happiness interferes with critical thinking. That is, seeing the world through “rosy-coloured glasses” clouds good judgment. But, not so according to the researchers. When events are threatening, happy people apparently readily change tactics, introduce a healthy, skeptical mindset into the situation and bear down with an analytical set of tools. In that good problem-solving regardless of circumstance depends on an open mind and a willingness to engage with others, better to be an optimist than a pessimist!
It’s true that some of us have more positive affect than others—just like we’re all creative but we have different levels. Our genetic heritage charts our emotional path; however, it does not control us. We can through our will or intention develop a greater capacity to work on the joyful side of life to our benefit.
Take the win-lose scenario. In the film Beautiful Mind starring Russell Crowe, we are introduced to the thesis of the nonzero sum game in which the net result is positive (not one side or person winning and the other losing). In biology as in human history, we are seeing the impact of this theory. Despite our current experience of terrorism and other terrible acts against others, anthropologists contend that over the centuries and across the world, we have been and are moving from savage to barbarian to civilization. Translating this into “living” organizations and cultures, the more they utilize positive-sum games as a way of operating, the increased probability of surviving and flourishing.
Positive feeling is, in Seligman’s view, a win-win approach. From a leader, it sends a signal of “here-be-growth”, not win-lose, but expansiveness and wins for everyone.
The pessimists will still caution that there are times when deadly competition faces us and we must act. Eat or be eaten. Live or die. Fear and anxiety may serve us better under such dire circumstances than seeing the best in people. There are times in organizations for this mindset, for leadership that takes us through situations that threaten our survival. In society, we have our police forces and legal systems to keep dangerous behaviour in check. In the meantime, let the rest of us work on the better side of humans—a key role for leaders. Seligman’s quote from Thomas Edison, one of the world’s greatest inventors, is most apt: “if we did the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astound ourselves”.
Sunday, May 22, 2005
The Road is Your Footsteps, Nothing Else
South American poet Machados is on to something. The path to the future, let alone the future, cannot be known in advance. Having intentions and views of outcomes are useful. But, don’t be fooled by specific action plans or strategies which are invented and unproven. Witness the results of the “strategies” of our national politicians. I’ll bet they did not do a SWOT analysis!
The journey to the desired outcomes is a messy business. Nature’s method of “strategizing” provides a more realistic view in today’s environment. It is a self-organizing system finding order amidst chaos and complexity. If we add to the equation, many people (connecting) and information (lots of it, unplanned and uncontrolled), the system eventually discovers good solutions to vexing disturbances, according to Margaret Wheatley (Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time). As Myron Rogers, an author in her book explains, “when an individual changes, the neighbours take notice and decide how they will change.” Belinda Stronach’s astonishing move to the Liberals supports this view. This was followed by more exchanges of information and more interconnecting of multiple players leading to one of the possible outcomes.
Strands of other forces, often imperceptible guide the journey. Stephen Harper failed to work with Belinda’s strengths, an approach that all great leader-managers utilize. If the newspaper reports are correct, he instead focused on her “weaknesses” (too soft on core policy issues, beliefs not quite aligned with his). His actions suggest that he was unable to see Belinda as a bridge between the two cultures he needs to unite—the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. For the foreseeable future, it’s checkmate! Every manager of strategy, beware. Each person counts in the formulation as well as the execution steps. Even the outliers.
D. Wayne Lukas, a famed American horse trainer, who has broken every record in the history of his sport concurs. His mantra---the “horses are always right”, is core to his success. In that the term “manage” has an equine origin, meaning “to handle, to train horses”, we can stretch the analogy to humans. Lukas is adamant that developing world class talent and thus achieving world class results means paying attention to the small things that enable people (and horses) to develop their potential. The strategy that produces outstanding results follows because the spirit, the identity from which all else flows is engaged.
Thus, identity is another crucial strand, contributing to the “footsteps on the road”. For an organization, it manifests as collective identity and the collective wisdom. Using the polls as an indicator, most Canadians did not want the minority Liberal government to fall. Although the issues were hotly debated from coast to coast, the net of the conversations fell on the side of restraint rather than more chaos. Is it possible that Canadians drawing on our values as a nation overall knew what was right, at least in the short term? Take any organization and poll its members especially those on the front line. The seeds of great strategy are always there ready to be cultivated by leader-managers. It requires honouring the culture first and then paying attention to the abundant local “intelligence”.
In Here Be Dragon, Peter Newman recounts an extraordinary demonstration of a shared identity and experience shaping the road ahead. When the Germans seized Prague in the early part of 1939, the citizens found their way to St. Wenceslas Square, “the city’s and country’s spiritual heart”. Spontaneously, they broke into their national anthem—“Where is My Home?” An “invisible conductor” led them to the same spot to declare their identities. The seeds of future action were sown.
This “invisible conductor” is a great leader’s sixth sense. It is not neat. It is not based on the 25 certain steps to the future. It is more nuanced and emergent. Henry Mintzberg in Strategy Bites Back explains the process as a “recipe not meant to be followed exactly….add a drop or two of that, a pinch of the other. Let yourself be led by your palate and your tongue, your eyes and your heart”.
The journey to the desired outcomes is a messy business. Nature’s method of “strategizing” provides a more realistic view in today’s environment. It is a self-organizing system finding order amidst chaos and complexity. If we add to the equation, many people (connecting) and information (lots of it, unplanned and uncontrolled), the system eventually discovers good solutions to vexing disturbances, according to Margaret Wheatley (Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time). As Myron Rogers, an author in her book explains, “when an individual changes, the neighbours take notice and decide how they will change.” Belinda Stronach’s astonishing move to the Liberals supports this view. This was followed by more exchanges of information and more interconnecting of multiple players leading to one of the possible outcomes.
Strands of other forces, often imperceptible guide the journey. Stephen Harper failed to work with Belinda’s strengths, an approach that all great leader-managers utilize. If the newspaper reports are correct, he instead focused on her “weaknesses” (too soft on core policy issues, beliefs not quite aligned with his). His actions suggest that he was unable to see Belinda as a bridge between the two cultures he needs to unite—the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives. For the foreseeable future, it’s checkmate! Every manager of strategy, beware. Each person counts in the formulation as well as the execution steps. Even the outliers.
D. Wayne Lukas, a famed American horse trainer, who has broken every record in the history of his sport concurs. His mantra---the “horses are always right”, is core to his success. In that the term “manage” has an equine origin, meaning “to handle, to train horses”, we can stretch the analogy to humans. Lukas is adamant that developing world class talent and thus achieving world class results means paying attention to the small things that enable people (and horses) to develop their potential. The strategy that produces outstanding results follows because the spirit, the identity from which all else flows is engaged.
Thus, identity is another crucial strand, contributing to the “footsteps on the road”. For an organization, it manifests as collective identity and the collective wisdom. Using the polls as an indicator, most Canadians did not want the minority Liberal government to fall. Although the issues were hotly debated from coast to coast, the net of the conversations fell on the side of restraint rather than more chaos. Is it possible that Canadians drawing on our values as a nation overall knew what was right, at least in the short term? Take any organization and poll its members especially those on the front line. The seeds of great strategy are always there ready to be cultivated by leader-managers. It requires honouring the culture first and then paying attention to the abundant local “intelligence”.
In Here Be Dragon, Peter Newman recounts an extraordinary demonstration of a shared identity and experience shaping the road ahead. When the Germans seized Prague in the early part of 1939, the citizens found their way to St. Wenceslas Square, “the city’s and country’s spiritual heart”. Spontaneously, they broke into their national anthem—“Where is My Home?” An “invisible conductor” led them to the same spot to declare their identities. The seeds of future action were sown.
This “invisible conductor” is a great leader’s sixth sense. It is not neat. It is not based on the 25 certain steps to the future. It is more nuanced and emergent. Henry Mintzberg in Strategy Bites Back explains the process as a “recipe not meant to be followed exactly….add a drop or two of that, a pinch of the other. Let yourself be led by your palate and your tongue, your eyes and your heart”.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Just a Leaf
War is in the air these days. So is security. Underlying the 60th anniversary of V-E Day is the constant drumbeat: people want leaders who help them to remain alive, to experience the joys of day-to-day living with their families, friends and business colleagues. The Liberal surge in the polls despite our mixed feelings on Martin’s leadership may reflect the “bottom line” for the majority---we do not want war at the federal level. We want action that will help us build prosperity together. Inherent in our scenario of wellbeing is security not instability and chaos.
Think about our flag. As a Vietnamese refugee, who is now a lawyer in Ottawa points out, there is “no star, no sun, no moon and no stripe. Just a leaf.” Simple and modest. Nature-based, reflecting the value of life itself, each and every life. Such sentiments run deep especially at this time of year as the life spouts everywhere in our natural environment while we also reflect on our great wars.
“Just a leaf” embodies a strong message for any leader: build rather than destroy. Our great Canadian artist, Alex Colville who painted and drew the mud, fear and horror of WWII, claims that the experience of war sharpened his awareness of time and life’s most basic parts----a job, a house, a car, children, a dog! Not surprisingly, his paintings in peacetime commemorate the extraordinary, ordinary people in moments of disquiet and joy. It is the ordinariness of life that great leaders honour and hold sacred.
Think about our flag. As a Vietnamese refugee, who is now a lawyer in Ottawa points out, there is “no star, no sun, no moon and no stripe. Just a leaf.” Simple and modest. Nature-based, reflecting the value of life itself, each and every life. Such sentiments run deep especially at this time of year as the life spouts everywhere in our natural environment while we also reflect on our great wars.
“Just a leaf” embodies a strong message for any leader: build rather than destroy. Our great Canadian artist, Alex Colville who painted and drew the mud, fear and horror of WWII, claims that the experience of war sharpened his awareness of time and life’s most basic parts----a job, a house, a car, children, a dog! Not surprisingly, his paintings in peacetime commemorate the extraordinary, ordinary people in moments of disquiet and joy. It is the ordinariness of life that great leaders honour and hold sacred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
