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.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Candle Problems for Dummies: Not Apply Much Today
In his Ted.com presentation in July 2009 on motivation, Daniel Pink makes a significant point: there’s a gap between science (the evidence) and what business does. Nowhere is it more obvious than with the subject of rewards. His point: people don’t always perform better with bigger rewards. Because it depends on the problem. The more complex, the less effect an external reward. Yet, organizations, as a general rule, don’t differentiate their approaches.
The first decade of the 21st century has been bountiful in its non-routine problems, constantly surprising us and keeping us off balance. These “out of nowhere” occurrences don’t have easy solutions.
When we apply our known routines to them, the puzzles often remain. For example, the early warning system for tsunamis did little to help the people on the American Samoa Island because it was too close to the epicenter of the earthquake. Many economists saw the financial crisis coming but could not apply their collective pressure (their early warning signals) enough to influence key decision-makers. Life has definitely become more complicated. There is much more work to do to prevent and manage risk, to anticipate and to imagine.
Opening up our minds literally is the way forward. That means motivating people from within than without. Pink stresses three factors: “autonomy” (letting people direct their own work), “mastery” (having the opportunity to get better and better at what matters) and “purpose” (being involved in something beyond ourselves).
David Rock, author of Your Brain at Work, wraps up the challenge of motivation or engagement similarly in the acronym “SCARF”:
Status: praise and mastering a skill and being paid for it all boost an employee’s sense of status and by association—motivation. Threats to status like performance reviews do the opposite;
Certainty: uncertainty registers tension in the brain shutting down problem-solving ability. If leaders can create a perception of certainty, for example, by breaking down problems into small steps or by exuding the confidence that “We can do it!” the chains of uncertainty become less of a burden;
Autonomy: Many studies indicate that if people feel they are not being micro-managed, that they are able to direct their work decisions relatively freely, the more stress remains under control, the more inspired they are to do good work;
Relatedness: If individuals feel they belong (at work), they trust more and they are able to build the necessary relationships to innovate and to produce.
Fairness: Perceptions of unfairness activate hostility and undermine trust. Leaders that “do the right thing” help collaboration flourish.
As different from 20th century leadership and management, brain science in the 21st century is helping us better understand really what works. We know that threats to our well-being generate the fight or flight hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. Chronic doses of these hormones do not open up our minds to novel solutions. On the other hand, serotonin and oxytocin flood our brains when we are happy and engaged. In turn, they help us focus and undertake higher problem-solving skills.
Like evidenced-based medicine, the science of the brain is illuminating the way for “people-management”, providing the hard evidence as to why soft power works. The candle-light of soft power multiplies not only in our minds but it also generates the energy for innovation.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
http://www.brainleadersandlearners.com/
The first decade of the 21st century has been bountiful in its non-routine problems, constantly surprising us and keeping us off balance. These “out of nowhere” occurrences don’t have easy solutions.
When we apply our known routines to them, the puzzles often remain. For example, the early warning system for tsunamis did little to help the people on the American Samoa Island because it was too close to the epicenter of the earthquake. Many economists saw the financial crisis coming but could not apply their collective pressure (their early warning signals) enough to influence key decision-makers. Life has definitely become more complicated. There is much more work to do to prevent and manage risk, to anticipate and to imagine.
Opening up our minds literally is the way forward. That means motivating people from within than without. Pink stresses three factors: “autonomy” (letting people direct their own work), “mastery” (having the opportunity to get better and better at what matters) and “purpose” (being involved in something beyond ourselves).
David Rock, author of Your Brain at Work, wraps up the challenge of motivation or engagement similarly in the acronym “SCARF”:
Status: praise and mastering a skill and being paid for it all boost an employee’s sense of status and by association—motivation. Threats to status like performance reviews do the opposite;
Certainty: uncertainty registers tension in the brain shutting down problem-solving ability. If leaders can create a perception of certainty, for example, by breaking down problems into small steps or by exuding the confidence that “We can do it!” the chains of uncertainty become less of a burden;
Autonomy: Many studies indicate that if people feel they are not being micro-managed, that they are able to direct their work decisions relatively freely, the more stress remains under control, the more inspired they are to do good work;
Relatedness: If individuals feel they belong (at work), they trust more and they are able to build the necessary relationships to innovate and to produce.
Fairness: Perceptions of unfairness activate hostility and undermine trust. Leaders that “do the right thing” help collaboration flourish.
As different from 20th century leadership and management, brain science in the 21st century is helping us better understand really what works. We know that threats to our well-being generate the fight or flight hormones like cortisol and adrenaline. Chronic doses of these hormones do not open up our minds to novel solutions. On the other hand, serotonin and oxytocin flood our brains when we are happy and engaged. In turn, they help us focus and undertake higher problem-solving skills.
Like evidenced-based medicine, the science of the brain is illuminating the way for “people-management”, providing the hard evidence as to why soft power works. The candle-light of soft power multiplies not only in our minds but it also generates the energy for innovation.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
http://www.brainleadersandlearners.com/
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.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A Long Steady Glow from Early Beginnings: A Parent's Influence, Edward Kennedy's Leadership Legacy
Parents matter in the lifelong moral worldview of a person and the leadership philosophy thereof. In Edward Kennedy’s example, his mother was the teacher, his father the spark. Rose Kennedy, ever the torch bearer for the oppressed and the disadvantaged, inspired her youngest child and entire family with the source of great leadership: having a worthy cause.
“Teddy” Kennedy’s policy legacy is proof positive: despite tragedy and personal turmoil, over 46 years as a senator, he influenced the passing of 2,500 pieces of legislation. They included expanding health care (the “cause” of Kennedy’s life), increasing the minimum wage, revamping immigration laws and championing equal opportunity regardless of race, gender or disability.
The significance of our upbringing is a “no-brainer”. We know this. But, in the context of leadership for better or worse, it’s troublesome. Are constituents doomed or blessed depending on the early influences of their leaders? Given our storied human history to date, it appears we are. Yet, if we broaden our view from the short term, for example, in Teddy Kennedy’s case, there is a “long steady glow” which persists and is emblematic of progress. Leaders emboldened by worthy causes which benefit many not just a few do eventually have sustainable impacts.
The journey, however, is not easy, as illustrated by Teddy Kennedy. Mental resilience and toughness are necessary because causes have a cost: the journey is messy, taking unpredictable twists and turns often involving personal sacrifice and distress. One’s imperfections smack us in the face calling for “lessons learned”.
Are we up for this? Wangari Maathai, winner of the Nobel Peace prize, makes that point loud and clear in her recent book The Challenge of Africa. She sees hope amidst the poverty and desperation and the trails and tribulations. Her “Green Belt Movement” combined with the efforts of multiple other fearsome and extraordinary, ordinary leaders past and present are flicking the flywheel of positive change. Patience is required because change often spans more than any one person’s lifespan!! But, the legacy endures.
The “political mind” is a source of considerable study in the social and biological sciences. Breakthroughs in our understanding of neuropsychology show promise that we don’t have to be the prisoners of our early upbringing when faced with challenges outside our assumptions and beliefs. That is the learning opportunity for leaders.
There is one key ingredient which never goes away in the ongoing inquiry about great leadership and management: empathy. It’s a natural part of our human history. Without that in our family legacy, without empathy as a leader, it is difficult to nurture the “long steady glow” of progress.
“Teddy” Kennedy’s policy legacy is proof positive: despite tragedy and personal turmoil, over 46 years as a senator, he influenced the passing of 2,500 pieces of legislation. They included expanding health care (the “cause” of Kennedy’s life), increasing the minimum wage, revamping immigration laws and championing equal opportunity regardless of race, gender or disability.
The significance of our upbringing is a “no-brainer”. We know this. But, in the context of leadership for better or worse, it’s troublesome. Are constituents doomed or blessed depending on the early influences of their leaders? Given our storied human history to date, it appears we are. Yet, if we broaden our view from the short term, for example, in Teddy Kennedy’s case, there is a “long steady glow” which persists and is emblematic of progress. Leaders emboldened by worthy causes which benefit many not just a few do eventually have sustainable impacts.
The journey, however, is not easy, as illustrated by Teddy Kennedy. Mental resilience and toughness are necessary because causes have a cost: the journey is messy, taking unpredictable twists and turns often involving personal sacrifice and distress. One’s imperfections smack us in the face calling for “lessons learned”.
Are we up for this? Wangari Maathai, winner of the Nobel Peace prize, makes that point loud and clear in her recent book The Challenge of Africa. She sees hope amidst the poverty and desperation and the trails and tribulations. Her “Green Belt Movement” combined with the efforts of multiple other fearsome and extraordinary, ordinary leaders past and present are flicking the flywheel of positive change. Patience is required because change often spans more than any one person’s lifespan!! But, the legacy endures.
The “political mind” is a source of considerable study in the social and biological sciences. Breakthroughs in our understanding of neuropsychology show promise that we don’t have to be the prisoners of our early upbringing when faced with challenges outside our assumptions and beliefs. That is the learning opportunity for leaders.
There is one key ingredient which never goes away in the ongoing inquiry about great leadership and management: empathy. It’s a natural part of our human history. Without that in our family legacy, without empathy as a leader, it is difficult to nurture the “long steady glow” of progress.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Canadian Consular Officials in Kenya Low on Aristotle's Practical Wisdom
Now my retired mother is becoming extremely wary of travelling. She travelled all over the world with my father on business. But airplane crashes, VIA rail strikes and breakdowns, an ever-thickening U.S. border and no guarantee of protection from adversity by Canadian consular officials have dimmed her enthusiasm.
The apparent lack of good judgment by the Canadian consular officials in Kenya with respect to Suaad Hagi Mohamud’s plight sends shivers up our collective ordinary citizen spines (that’s most of us). The confidence that we will be protected from unfounded accusations as to our identity when travelling abroad has been dealt yet another huge blow, as many cases have preceded Hagi Mohamud’s.
Given what we know of the case, the most mysterious is the way in which decisions were made. They seem almost laughable in that the starting point was the Kenyan customs officials determining that Hagi Mohamud’s lips did not match those on her passport. After that the process went from bad to worse.
What was going on? Were Canadian consular officials spooked by some current terrorist threat and inadvertently transposed that to Hagi even when she produced every imaginable form of seemingly valid identification? Or, were they so rule bound that they lacked the ability to make a good decision? Is it possible that in the absence of this learned skill, they were tricked by their brains into making “bad” decisions and as a consequence created a truly farcical situation right up the line to the Prime Minister?
Aristotle would argue that in the face of what we know, all involved who had the authority to shape a good decision lacked “practical wisdom”—a master virtue that guides the application of the right amount and mix of their leadership virtues to a context specific situation. He called this a person’s “executive decision maker” necessary for stopping our range of virtues from “running amuck” and enabling us “to do the right thing in the right way at the right time”.
Practical wisdom evolves from experience and works best in an environment in which people are expected to use their good sense not just the rules. To be wise in the face of non-routine situations requires practice. A rigid bureaucracy does not allow wisdom to improve. Quite the contrary, it gets worse. This may be the real root cause of the problem.
The apparent lack of good judgment by the Canadian consular officials in Kenya with respect to Suaad Hagi Mohamud’s plight sends shivers up our collective ordinary citizen spines (that’s most of us). The confidence that we will be protected from unfounded accusations as to our identity when travelling abroad has been dealt yet another huge blow, as many cases have preceded Hagi Mohamud’s.
Given what we know of the case, the most mysterious is the way in which decisions were made. They seem almost laughable in that the starting point was the Kenyan customs officials determining that Hagi Mohamud’s lips did not match those on her passport. After that the process went from bad to worse.
What was going on? Were Canadian consular officials spooked by some current terrorist threat and inadvertently transposed that to Hagi even when she produced every imaginable form of seemingly valid identification? Or, were they so rule bound that they lacked the ability to make a good decision? Is it possible that in the absence of this learned skill, they were tricked by their brains into making “bad” decisions and as a consequence created a truly farcical situation right up the line to the Prime Minister?
Aristotle would argue that in the face of what we know, all involved who had the authority to shape a good decision lacked “practical wisdom”—a master virtue that guides the application of the right amount and mix of their leadership virtues to a context specific situation. He called this a person’s “executive decision maker” necessary for stopping our range of virtues from “running amuck” and enabling us “to do the right thing in the right way at the right time”.
Practical wisdom evolves from experience and works best in an environment in which people are expected to use their good sense not just the rules. To be wise in the face of non-routine situations requires practice. A rigid bureaucracy does not allow wisdom to improve. Quite the contrary, it gets worse. This may be the real root cause of the problem.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The "Jen Ratio": A More Nuanced View of Emotional Intelligence
Think of the jen ratio as a lens through which you might take stock of your attempt at leading a meaningful life.
---D. Keltner, Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life
Did you know that if you engage in five acts of kindness a week, you can elevate your personal well-being in lasting ways? You might think this is obvious. Try doing it while coping with the real world of chaos, much uncertainty for many, and news that is more bad than good. It’s a job to be kind and compassionate.
Think of how any organization would benefit from acts of kindness coursing through it hourly and daily. The rise of its positive emotion quotient would directly affect the quality and quantity of innovation!
“Jen” science, the study of positive emotion, has been hinted at for centuries by various philosophers and scientists such as Confucius, Socrates, Plato and Darwin. But “jen” has only come into its own recently in the shadow and dying embers of the industrial revolution.
As elite athletes have known for some time, we do not rise to our best through fear. The latter helps us survive under dire circumstances but it is not sustainable as a way of being.
The latest financial global crisis has demonstrated that Adam Smith’s “Homo economicus” has its limits. The pursuit of self-interest which does not focus on bringing out the good in others can lead to serious destruction. As Dacher Keltner, author of Born to be Good reiterates, self-interest, competition and vigilance have been built into our evolutionary makeup in order to survive, but these tendencies are only “half the story”. “Homo reciprocans” is a more apt description of our reciprocating nature and the importance of emotions when making economic or any other kind of decisions.
The good emotional side of humanity, called “jen” by Confucius, has always been with us. It is gaining ground in our consciousness globally as we become more connected and better informed. We were reminded of our good side by Henry Patch, the last surviving soldier to have fought in the trenches of the First World War, who died at age 111 on July 25, 2009. In his memoirs, written after he turned 100, he described the pact he and his fellow soldiers made: avoid killing the enemy if possible. Aim for the legs instead. Academics have picked up on this theme of our good emotional side for a number of decades.
In the 1990’s, Daniel Goleman and other researchers revived the rightful place of emotional intelligence as a driver of great leadership—the higher you go in an organization, the more important it is.
Not long after, Marcus Buckingham through his Gallup research of over 80,000 managers found that building on strengths of employees is a faster route to a positive climate and employee success than trying to change what isn’t there (transforming weaknesses).
Of late, even strategic planning has had a facelift with the introduction of the process called “Appreciative Inquiry” or “AI” for short. Like elite athlete practices, AI takes the high road by working on creating more of the exceptional performance of an organization through aspirational discovery, dreaming and design.
Since the late 90s, Martin Seligman, who became famous for his “learned helplessness” theory in the 1970s and 80s, started a growing worldwide movement called “positive psychology”. It builds on the works of famous humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Erich Fromm.
Recently, neuroscience is lending credibility to the value of “jen” (meaning “humane”), long ago advocated by Confucius. We are hard-wired to give to others and to act cooperatively. When we do so, the reward centers of our brains dense with dopamine receptors light up and hum with activity. Confucius recognized that cultivating “jen” developed character in self and others, led to the meaningful life and offset violence, materialism and needless hierarchy.
What is the “jen ratio”? The numerator refers to acts of kindness, compassion, awe, love, gratitude and even embarrassment. The denominator embodies the “bad” action when instead of establishing one’s own character by bringing the good of others to completion, a person is disdainful, critical, condescending and contemptuous (all the elements that make for “bad” relationships). It is well-documented that these actions do not lend a helping hand to anyone anywhere.
Researchers are now taking stock of the “jen ratio” of individuals, married couples, nations, cultures and different age groups. As Keltner remarks, “nations whose citizens bring out the good in others to completion thrive” as “trust (a key result of “jen”) facilitates economic exchange with fewer transaction costs, adversarial settlements, discrimination and economic inequality”.
Winners of a number of Nobel prizes in Economics concur. Cooperation beats cut-throat, winner-take-all competition in a complex societal system where trust ultimately must be a guiding principle. New research from the Center for Neuroeconomics further substantiates the value of trust to yield economic and well-being benefit.
Scandinavian and East Asian countries fare better in this regard than those in South America and Eastern Europe. Even poorer nations like India generate a higher trust level than wealthier nations like the United States. “Jen” trumps money!
The “jen ratio” is a simple measure and another tool for leader-managers. Acts of “jen” and “not jen” can be counted (see Buddhist “Pebbles in a Bowl” story below, as a simple method). With some deliberate practice, managers can generate higher “jen” ratios leading to higher performance all round---hard and soft--- underpinned by the increasing momentum of the “flywheel of progress” through good acts.
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6xYmh4Y-w
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html
http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/
http://www.myleadership.com/index.php?title=Pebbles_in_a_Bowl
---D. Keltner, Born to Be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life
Did you know that if you engage in five acts of kindness a week, you can elevate your personal well-being in lasting ways? You might think this is obvious. Try doing it while coping with the real world of chaos, much uncertainty for many, and news that is more bad than good. It’s a job to be kind and compassionate.
Think of how any organization would benefit from acts of kindness coursing through it hourly and daily. The rise of its positive emotion quotient would directly affect the quality and quantity of innovation!
“Jen” science, the study of positive emotion, has been hinted at for centuries by various philosophers and scientists such as Confucius, Socrates, Plato and Darwin. But “jen” has only come into its own recently in the shadow and dying embers of the industrial revolution.
As elite athletes have known for some time, we do not rise to our best through fear. The latter helps us survive under dire circumstances but it is not sustainable as a way of being.
The latest financial global crisis has demonstrated that Adam Smith’s “Homo economicus” has its limits. The pursuit of self-interest which does not focus on bringing out the good in others can lead to serious destruction. As Dacher Keltner, author of Born to be Good reiterates, self-interest, competition and vigilance have been built into our evolutionary makeup in order to survive, but these tendencies are only “half the story”. “Homo reciprocans” is a more apt description of our reciprocating nature and the importance of emotions when making economic or any other kind of decisions.
The good emotional side of humanity, called “jen” by Confucius, has always been with us. It is gaining ground in our consciousness globally as we become more connected and better informed. We were reminded of our good side by Henry Patch, the last surviving soldier to have fought in the trenches of the First World War, who died at age 111 on July 25, 2009. In his memoirs, written after he turned 100, he described the pact he and his fellow soldiers made: avoid killing the enemy if possible. Aim for the legs instead. Academics have picked up on this theme of our good emotional side for a number of decades.
In the 1990’s, Daniel Goleman and other researchers revived the rightful place of emotional intelligence as a driver of great leadership—the higher you go in an organization, the more important it is.
Not long after, Marcus Buckingham through his Gallup research of over 80,000 managers found that building on strengths of employees is a faster route to a positive climate and employee success than trying to change what isn’t there (transforming weaknesses).
Of late, even strategic planning has had a facelift with the introduction of the process called “Appreciative Inquiry” or “AI” for short. Like elite athlete practices, AI takes the high road by working on creating more of the exceptional performance of an organization through aspirational discovery, dreaming and design.
Since the late 90s, Martin Seligman, who became famous for his “learned helplessness” theory in the 1970s and 80s, started a growing worldwide movement called “positive psychology”. It builds on the works of famous humanistic psychologists such as Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Erich Fromm.
Recently, neuroscience is lending credibility to the value of “jen” (meaning “humane”), long ago advocated by Confucius. We are hard-wired to give to others and to act cooperatively. When we do so, the reward centers of our brains dense with dopamine receptors light up and hum with activity. Confucius recognized that cultivating “jen” developed character in self and others, led to the meaningful life and offset violence, materialism and needless hierarchy.
What is the “jen ratio”? The numerator refers to acts of kindness, compassion, awe, love, gratitude and even embarrassment. The denominator embodies the “bad” action when instead of establishing one’s own character by bringing the good of others to completion, a person is disdainful, critical, condescending and contemptuous (all the elements that make for “bad” relationships). It is well-documented that these actions do not lend a helping hand to anyone anywhere.
Researchers are now taking stock of the “jen ratio” of individuals, married couples, nations, cultures and different age groups. As Keltner remarks, “nations whose citizens bring out the good in others to completion thrive” as “trust (a key result of “jen”) facilitates economic exchange with fewer transaction costs, adversarial settlements, discrimination and economic inequality”.
Winners of a number of Nobel prizes in Economics concur. Cooperation beats cut-throat, winner-take-all competition in a complex societal system where trust ultimately must be a guiding principle. New research from the Center for Neuroeconomics further substantiates the value of trust to yield economic and well-being benefit.
Scandinavian and East Asian countries fare better in this regard than those in South America and Eastern Europe. Even poorer nations like India generate a higher trust level than wealthier nations like the United States. “Jen” trumps money!
The “jen ratio” is a simple measure and another tool for leader-managers. Acts of “jen” and “not jen” can be counted (see Buddhist “Pebbles in a Bowl” story below, as a simple method). With some deliberate practice, managers can generate higher “jen” ratios leading to higher performance all round---hard and soft--- underpinned by the increasing momentum of the “flywheel of progress” through good acts.
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6xYmh4Y-w
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html
http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/
http://www.myleadership.com/index.php?title=Pebbles_in_a_Bowl
Sunday, July 05, 2009
When You Answer to No One: The Michael Jackson Effect
When Michael asked for something, he got it. This was the great tragedy.
----Uri Geller
Michael Jackson’s great talent is undeniable. So is his tortured persona. Tragically, Jackson’s story is an extreme example of disaster catalyzed by the absence of accountability with some healthy built-in checks and balances.
Organizational life can be frustrating and not always fulfilling. But one characteristic both great and not-so-great organizations have in common is a modicum of accountability. That is, individuals are forced to report to someone and be held accountable for their behaviours and the results they produce. Shared values guide every day actions in the absence of thick and detailed procedure manuals. Formal and spontaneous feedback among peers and between “bosses” and their direct reports constantly adjusts decisions and behaviours toward “what works”.
The atmosphere of having to negotiate our agendas and views with others keeps us on our toes. We cannot simply run off easily on a self-destructive path (The Enrons, Nortels and other like companies excepted). Through teamwork, we actually arrive more often than not at better decisions than if left to our own devices.
There’s an evolutionary reason for this: our survival.
Sadly, there was no effective system of support for Michael Jackson. In this case, money did corrupt. A cautionary tale for all of us.
----Uri Geller
Michael Jackson’s great talent is undeniable. So is his tortured persona. Tragically, Jackson’s story is an extreme example of disaster catalyzed by the absence of accountability with some healthy built-in checks and balances.
Organizational life can be frustrating and not always fulfilling. But one characteristic both great and not-so-great organizations have in common is a modicum of accountability. That is, individuals are forced to report to someone and be held accountable for their behaviours and the results they produce. Shared values guide every day actions in the absence of thick and detailed procedure manuals. Formal and spontaneous feedback among peers and between “bosses” and their direct reports constantly adjusts decisions and behaviours toward “what works”.
The atmosphere of having to negotiate our agendas and views with others keeps us on our toes. We cannot simply run off easily on a self-destructive path (The Enrons, Nortels and other like companies excepted). Through teamwork, we actually arrive more often than not at better decisions than if left to our own devices.
There’s an evolutionary reason for this: our survival.
Sadly, there was no effective system of support for Michael Jackson. In this case, money did corrupt. A cautionary tale for all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
