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”.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
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.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Martin Needs A Rabbit Hat Trick
When the chips are down, great leadership has the opportunity to shine. Can Paul Martin reach into his well of determination and imagination to demonstrate great leadership? It is possible if, in his mind, he believes that he can and must do it. From that point of belief, provided he never wavers, the likelihood of pulling a rabbit out of a hat increases dramatically.
Why bother though? First, the majority of Canadians do not want an election in the near future. Instead we want action that transcends party lines. It’s time to get beyond policy and execute as that, in the end, is the true final measure of great leadership—getting things done. Secondly, this spinning of wheels as a nation doesn’t help us “eat”. All parties are responsible to us to keep the momentum going on tackling the big issues that stand in the way of Canada thriving in a globalized world.
Take two policy items, the National Child Care Program and financial support needed by our cities and towns to repair and maintain their crumbling infrastructures. Applying the 80:20 rule, the decades of debates are finished, the consensus is in---let’s get on with it. If the budget does not pass, both are in jeopardy. The consequences of postponing action on these and other issues far outweigh the value to our country of bringing the federal government down over a sponsorship scandal.
In our short history, minority governments have forged many great “deals” that have benefited our lives. With no one party having the balance of power, our political leaders are forced to dig more deeply to identify and stand up for their beliefs while taking into account that which is best for the nation. They are compelled to enter into joint discussions and debates both on and off the record that cause them to find common ground despite philosophical differences. Decades of research on creativity and innovation have taught us that better solutions typically emerge under such circumstances. If our members of parliament today choose to leverage the opportunity for collaboration as did their mentors before them, they will leave an enduring legacy.
Today, that future legacy falls most heavily on Paul Martin’s shoulders. Rather than simply asking his political opponents to wait until the facts are in on the Gomery inquiry, why not also invite them to join with him in moving some critical national agenda items forward now? Why not get them inspired about the significance of the opportunity to affect Canada’s future positively, a chance that may be fleeting and not return for some time to come regardless of who is in office?
But, Martin can’t do this alone. The great leadership opportunity is available for all the party leaders to pursue. Should they conspire to take the government down prematurely without a real attempt at consensus, each will bear the burden of failing Canada.
Although not easy to see, a critical “tipping point” is facing us: which way will it go? Deng Ming-Dao’s famous quote applies: “A deviation of a hair’s breath at the center leads to an error of a hundred miles at the rim”. Great leaders manage the tipping point, the seemingly innocuous, small change in direction in the present time that can have a domino affect (positive or negative) for generations to come. This is the rabbit in the hat trick that now confronts Prime Minister Martin. This is the opportunity of legacy that his political colleagues face also. Will egos or great leadership direct the way?
A demonstration of great leadership may not save the day in the long run for Paul Martin. It is highly likely we will go to the polls before his formal time as Prime Minister is up. Let the chips fall where they may. However, if he can, at this pivotal time in our nation’s evolution, put his leadership acumen in overdrive, he may succeed in fulfilling the role for which he was elected—making Canada a better place. By persuading his political foes to postpone the election and instead to roll the ball forward on items already in the works, admittedly with some changes to suit all factions, Canada’s “flywheel” of accomplishments at home and on the world stage will gain not lose momentum.
Why bother though? First, the majority of Canadians do not want an election in the near future. Instead we want action that transcends party lines. It’s time to get beyond policy and execute as that, in the end, is the true final measure of great leadership—getting things done. Secondly, this spinning of wheels as a nation doesn’t help us “eat”. All parties are responsible to us to keep the momentum going on tackling the big issues that stand in the way of Canada thriving in a globalized world.
Take two policy items, the National Child Care Program and financial support needed by our cities and towns to repair and maintain their crumbling infrastructures. Applying the 80:20 rule, the decades of debates are finished, the consensus is in---let’s get on with it. If the budget does not pass, both are in jeopardy. The consequences of postponing action on these and other issues far outweigh the value to our country of bringing the federal government down over a sponsorship scandal.
In our short history, minority governments have forged many great “deals” that have benefited our lives. With no one party having the balance of power, our political leaders are forced to dig more deeply to identify and stand up for their beliefs while taking into account that which is best for the nation. They are compelled to enter into joint discussions and debates both on and off the record that cause them to find common ground despite philosophical differences. Decades of research on creativity and innovation have taught us that better solutions typically emerge under such circumstances. If our members of parliament today choose to leverage the opportunity for collaboration as did their mentors before them, they will leave an enduring legacy.
Today, that future legacy falls most heavily on Paul Martin’s shoulders. Rather than simply asking his political opponents to wait until the facts are in on the Gomery inquiry, why not also invite them to join with him in moving some critical national agenda items forward now? Why not get them inspired about the significance of the opportunity to affect Canada’s future positively, a chance that may be fleeting and not return for some time to come regardless of who is in office?
But, Martin can’t do this alone. The great leadership opportunity is available for all the party leaders to pursue. Should they conspire to take the government down prematurely without a real attempt at consensus, each will bear the burden of failing Canada.
Although not easy to see, a critical “tipping point” is facing us: which way will it go? Deng Ming-Dao’s famous quote applies: “A deviation of a hair’s breath at the center leads to an error of a hundred miles at the rim”. Great leaders manage the tipping point, the seemingly innocuous, small change in direction in the present time that can have a domino affect (positive or negative) for generations to come. This is the rabbit in the hat trick that now confronts Prime Minister Martin. This is the opportunity of legacy that his political colleagues face also. Will egos or great leadership direct the way?
A demonstration of great leadership may not save the day in the long run for Paul Martin. It is highly likely we will go to the polls before his formal time as Prime Minister is up. Let the chips fall where they may. However, if he can, at this pivotal time in our nation’s evolution, put his leadership acumen in overdrive, he may succeed in fulfilling the role for which he was elected—making Canada a better place. By persuading his political foes to postpone the election and instead to roll the ball forward on items already in the works, admittedly with some changes to suit all factions, Canada’s “flywheel” of accomplishments at home and on the world stage will gain not lose momentum.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
1000 Golf Balls a Day Revisited
Tiger Woods’ epic battle with Chris DiMarco for a fourth Masters underscores the magic and the joy of mastery. We know it when we see it. When the going gets tough, masters rise to the occasion. Both Tiger and Chris demonstrated that years of hard work do pay off when it counts. They combined skill, sheer determination and superb management of their emotions to create an unforgettable 2005 Masters. But, as they proved to us, mastery is a “shot by shot, hole by hole” challenge. It is elusive and must be earned again and again. So it is with great leadership.
I first wrote about the analogy between mastery in golf and leadership in June 2004 for the “Leader’s Edge” a newsletter for members of my website, http://www.myleadership.com. At the time, Tiger was into his second year of struggling to regain his winning momentum against a formidable field of top golfers. V. J. Singh, Phil Mickelson and other masters in their own right were relentless in their pursuit of bettering their best. When Tiger skipped a beat, they stepped in to raise the bar. They reminded all of us, including Tiger, that there is no final destination with mastery. Like life itself, it is a journey. The results of the 2005 Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia suggested to me that revisiting this interesting topic of “mastery” would be timely.
Howard Gardner’s study of extraordinary individuals such as Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi (Creating Minds) reinforced already well-known research in cognitive psychology circles. It takes at least ten years of focused dedication for an individual to gain initial mastery in a field of endeavour. Thereafter, hard work still prevails in maintaining mastery and innovating beyond the first level. Assuming that the field of leadership is no exception to the ten year rule, it follows that few leader-managers will become great without using the tools of mastery. Leadership like everything else is hard work.
In the golf world, the tools of mastery continue to evolve in relation to the field of players. A high level of fitness is now a given since Tiger Woods turned pro. Many have followed Tiger’s lead improving their eating habits and transforming their flab and pot bellies into “buffed” works of art. Like Tiger, they work on their mental toughness with their “thought coaches”. They adhere to rigorous, deliberate pre-tournament regimes, for example, hitting 1000 balls a day is not unusual. They surround themselves with coaches on every aspect of their game who provide them with regular feedback. During the tournaments, they track their performance diligently and maintain an optimistic outlook in the face of adversity of which there is naturally a great deal in golf. In that few find themselves at the top of the leader board, they philosophically acknowledge the lessons learned and move on preparing for the next tournament…back to the tools of mastery to hone their gifts.
How many leaders do you know, yourself included, who work that hard at becoming a masters? We have much to learn from the masters in other fields including a sport such as golf.
Let’s examine three of the major tools: keeping statistics, maintaining optimism (acting like you are a pro) and practicing deliberately every day.
As a culmination of all their preparations, on an operational level, elite golfers are encouraged to record at least three key tournament statistics:
The number of greens in regulation (GIR). For a par 3, a GIR would be 1 shot on the fairway, 2 drives for a par 4 and 3 for a par 5.
The number of putts to put the ball in the hole. Two per hole on average is a good statistic.
The number of up and downs. When the golfer is in a mess, has not hit the fairway but a bunker, for example, if he gets the ball in the hole with 2 shots (or less), that’s an “up and down”.
If a golfer has a sense of how he is doing on his “stats” as he’s playing, he can gage his strategies and control his mind somewhat better with each ball. He can also use the statistics to set goals later.
How do these translate to leadership? What are the relevant statistics? We tend to default to the business measures familiar to all accountants and line managers responsible for budgets. Certainly, they are vitally important, but the majority are “lag” measures occurring after the fact of leadership, good or bad. What are the “lead” measures that reflect leadership mastery? Here is a list derived from those described in Robert Quinn’s book, Building the Bridge as You Walk on It, and from other practitioners:
Walking the talk—being internally-directed, continually examining any hypocrisy and closing the gaps between your values and behaviour.
Emotional IQ--being other-focused, letting go of your ego and putting the common good and welfare of others first, seeing the world through their eyes, not just your own.
Risking--moving out of your comfort zone to experiment, seeking real feedback, adapting and learning as you go. Nurturing a grounded vision that is based on “bread and salt” gained from walking around and listening to employees.
Engaging—energetically pursuing goals with and through others (no lone wolfs).
If a day for a leader is like a tournament, then these softer leadership measures are the hole by hole/conversation by conversation guide to outcomes. Imagine how much better leaders we would each become if we paid attention to these statistics every day as elite golfers do for every tournament?
The second tool of mastery, maintaining optimism in negative circumstances, is a test of character constantly. On the golf course, it can make the difference between recovery (back to par or better) or a string of bogeys and double bogeys or worse. Martin Seligman (Learned Optimism and Authentic Happiness) asserts that optimists, besides being generally in better health, are unfazed by defeat—they see it as a challenge and try harder. Pessimists give up more easily and get depressed more often. Clearly, in golf there is no room for pessimists! For leaders, realism is important but no one follows a pessimist or someone who goes around bemoaning the situation or the deficiencies of others. Optimists inspire and offer hope. They challenge people to dig deeper into their wells of creativity to overcome the obstacles.
The third tool of mastery, deliberate practice, means consciously knowing what you intend to work on and doing it every day most of the day. Golfers, to become and remain elite, need to practice three to five hours per day. For “elite” leaders, the 80:20 rule applies: spending most of your time on leadership rather than having your head buried in desk work. All of the aforementioned indicators require a leader to get out of her office frequently and when in the office to have an open door. Try this little test: when a person enters your office, do you stop what you are doing (for example, emails) and focus your attention on that person? That’s the mark of a leader showing respect for another—being “other-focused”. Just as too many priorities undermine achieving anything well, we can’t become a master by practicing more than about three things at once. These will vary for each leader on a journey of mastery, as they do for each elite golfer.
As in golf, achieving mastery in leadership, even in difficult circumstances, brings about a greater sense of confidence and aliveness. That increased well-being becomes infectious. We attract others to us to join in doing extraordinary things. Positive energy overcomes cynicism. The community of which we are a part as a leader gets stronger, more resilient and effective. There is no other choice then for leaders—they must become masters otherwise their organizations will stay below the radar of greatness.
In June, 2004, I reflected on the future for Tiger. I wrote: “Note to Tiger: Gardner and others’ research indicates that mastery occurs in ten year cycles. So, Tiger, you’ve had your first breakthrough in mastery at a relatively early age in golf (but you started young). Most don’t get there until their 30s. You are now slogging your way toward your second level of mastery. It’ll take a bit more time and we know that because you never give up, you will rise to another astonishing level in golf.”
His fourth Masters title does indeed prove that Tiger is a master par excellence. He kept his focus, worked on his game, learned from his mistakes, rebounded from missteps on the spot, and checked his emotions as best he could. He has propelled himself into another stratosphere of mastery, joining other greats in the game. It is a new beginning for Tiger and, relatively speaking, a new challenge for his competitors.
Leaders take notice. To become and remain great, with building a vibrant and successful organization as proof, never stray from the tools of mastery.
I first wrote about the analogy between mastery in golf and leadership in June 2004 for the “Leader’s Edge” a newsletter for members of my website, http://www.myleadership.com. At the time, Tiger was into his second year of struggling to regain his winning momentum against a formidable field of top golfers. V. J. Singh, Phil Mickelson and other masters in their own right were relentless in their pursuit of bettering their best. When Tiger skipped a beat, they stepped in to raise the bar. They reminded all of us, including Tiger, that there is no final destination with mastery. Like life itself, it is a journey. The results of the 2005 Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia suggested to me that revisiting this interesting topic of “mastery” would be timely.
Howard Gardner’s study of extraordinary individuals such as Albert Einstein and Mahatma Gandhi (Creating Minds) reinforced already well-known research in cognitive psychology circles. It takes at least ten years of focused dedication for an individual to gain initial mastery in a field of endeavour. Thereafter, hard work still prevails in maintaining mastery and innovating beyond the first level. Assuming that the field of leadership is no exception to the ten year rule, it follows that few leader-managers will become great without using the tools of mastery. Leadership like everything else is hard work.
In the golf world, the tools of mastery continue to evolve in relation to the field of players. A high level of fitness is now a given since Tiger Woods turned pro. Many have followed Tiger’s lead improving their eating habits and transforming their flab and pot bellies into “buffed” works of art. Like Tiger, they work on their mental toughness with their “thought coaches”. They adhere to rigorous, deliberate pre-tournament regimes, for example, hitting 1000 balls a day is not unusual. They surround themselves with coaches on every aspect of their game who provide them with regular feedback. During the tournaments, they track their performance diligently and maintain an optimistic outlook in the face of adversity of which there is naturally a great deal in golf. In that few find themselves at the top of the leader board, they philosophically acknowledge the lessons learned and move on preparing for the next tournament…back to the tools of mastery to hone their gifts.
How many leaders do you know, yourself included, who work that hard at becoming a masters? We have much to learn from the masters in other fields including a sport such as golf.
Let’s examine three of the major tools: keeping statistics, maintaining optimism (acting like you are a pro) and practicing deliberately every day.
As a culmination of all their preparations, on an operational level, elite golfers are encouraged to record at least three key tournament statistics:
The number of greens in regulation (GIR). For a par 3, a GIR would be 1 shot on the fairway, 2 drives for a par 4 and 3 for a par 5.
The number of putts to put the ball in the hole. Two per hole on average is a good statistic.
The number of up and downs. When the golfer is in a mess, has not hit the fairway but a bunker, for example, if he gets the ball in the hole with 2 shots (or less), that’s an “up and down”.
If a golfer has a sense of how he is doing on his “stats” as he’s playing, he can gage his strategies and control his mind somewhat better with each ball. He can also use the statistics to set goals later.
How do these translate to leadership? What are the relevant statistics? We tend to default to the business measures familiar to all accountants and line managers responsible for budgets. Certainly, they are vitally important, but the majority are “lag” measures occurring after the fact of leadership, good or bad. What are the “lead” measures that reflect leadership mastery? Here is a list derived from those described in Robert Quinn’s book, Building the Bridge as You Walk on It, and from other practitioners:
Walking the talk—being internally-directed, continually examining any hypocrisy and closing the gaps between your values and behaviour.
Emotional IQ--being other-focused, letting go of your ego and putting the common good and welfare of others first, seeing the world through their eyes, not just your own.
Risking--moving out of your comfort zone to experiment, seeking real feedback, adapting and learning as you go. Nurturing a grounded vision that is based on “bread and salt” gained from walking around and listening to employees.
Engaging—energetically pursuing goals with and through others (no lone wolfs).
If a day for a leader is like a tournament, then these softer leadership measures are the hole by hole/conversation by conversation guide to outcomes. Imagine how much better leaders we would each become if we paid attention to these statistics every day as elite golfers do for every tournament?
The second tool of mastery, maintaining optimism in negative circumstances, is a test of character constantly. On the golf course, it can make the difference between recovery (back to par or better) or a string of bogeys and double bogeys or worse. Martin Seligman (Learned Optimism and Authentic Happiness) asserts that optimists, besides being generally in better health, are unfazed by defeat—they see it as a challenge and try harder. Pessimists give up more easily and get depressed more often. Clearly, in golf there is no room for pessimists! For leaders, realism is important but no one follows a pessimist or someone who goes around bemoaning the situation or the deficiencies of others. Optimists inspire and offer hope. They challenge people to dig deeper into their wells of creativity to overcome the obstacles.
The third tool of mastery, deliberate practice, means consciously knowing what you intend to work on and doing it every day most of the day. Golfers, to become and remain elite, need to practice three to five hours per day. For “elite” leaders, the 80:20 rule applies: spending most of your time on leadership rather than having your head buried in desk work. All of the aforementioned indicators require a leader to get out of her office frequently and when in the office to have an open door. Try this little test: when a person enters your office, do you stop what you are doing (for example, emails) and focus your attention on that person? That’s the mark of a leader showing respect for another—being “other-focused”. Just as too many priorities undermine achieving anything well, we can’t become a master by practicing more than about three things at once. These will vary for each leader on a journey of mastery, as they do for each elite golfer.
As in golf, achieving mastery in leadership, even in difficult circumstances, brings about a greater sense of confidence and aliveness. That increased well-being becomes infectious. We attract others to us to join in doing extraordinary things. Positive energy overcomes cynicism. The community of which we are a part as a leader gets stronger, more resilient and effective. There is no other choice then for leaders—they must become masters otherwise their organizations will stay below the radar of greatness.
In June, 2004, I reflected on the future for Tiger. I wrote: “Note to Tiger: Gardner and others’ research indicates that mastery occurs in ten year cycles. So, Tiger, you’ve had your first breakthrough in mastery at a relatively early age in golf (but you started young). Most don’t get there until their 30s. You are now slogging your way toward your second level of mastery. It’ll take a bit more time and we know that because you never give up, you will rise to another astonishing level in golf.”
His fourth Masters title does indeed prove that Tiger is a master par excellence. He kept his focus, worked on his game, learned from his mistakes, rebounded from missteps on the spot, and checked his emotions as best he could. He has propelled himself into another stratosphere of mastery, joining other greats in the game. It is a new beginning for Tiger and, relatively speaking, a new challenge for his competitors.
Leaders take notice. To become and remain great, with building a vibrant and successful organization as proof, never stray from the tools of mastery.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Charisma Falls Short
“The great communicator”. “A complex personality, conservative in some areas and radical in others.” “The contradictory Pope”. This is the consensus that has emerged with the death of Pope John Paul II---he achieved a “radiant public success” and he created an “unholy divide”. He was charismatic, reaching out to the people, particularly youth and the poor, but he ruled the corporation (the Catholic Church) with a “monarchical style of papal government”. In the opinion of a number of theologians and authors, the Pope unfortunately disregarded the collegiality agreed to in the 1962 Second Vatican Council. Instead, he required absolute loyalty to the party line in Rome. But, others feel that the Pope’s style in a chaotic, uncertain world was appropriate. Clearly, the views of his leadership are divided.
To continue the evidence of polarized views, the Pope as media star preached human freedom and moral opposition to war, terrorism and the death penalty. On the other hand, many expressed the view that he “leaves a demoralized priesthood, a frustrated laity, and a church in anguished, internal conflict”. His ultraconservative views on modern issues, the critics argue, created a “gated” Vatican City composed of like-minded conservatives. It appears that there are limits to charisma!
But, why do we admire charisma despite its underside? We like leaders to “walk the talk”—get out and about and connect with us. Interact. See how we are feeling. Size up the “lay of the land”. No leader can do that sitting behind a computer in an office or attending interminable meetings. The Pope traveled far and wide to meet with the ordinary folks, in particular. This enabled him to gather valuable ideas from first hand experiences, build relationships and enrich his understanding of the “front –line’ issues.
By getting out from the Vatican, the Pope also sent a message that he was an advocate. This is important to people generally with leaders. We feel more secure with a leader who seems to care about us and who is in a position to advocate for us with other powerful leaders. Our voices become his voice in helping to make a better world. It is his genuine concern for us, his comfort in an insecure world that makes him charismatic.
But then there’s “the rub”. We do expect that a leader act on the field data. We tire of the constant media outings if our voices are not translated into sound policies that reflect a balancing of competing interests. We become deflated if our calls to action fall on deaf ears and we receive “ancient answers to new questions”. Herein lies the “contradictory Pope”. The critics maintain that he chose to act on issues through his lens and that of a small inner circle. They call this an authoritarian way of leadership. Daniel Goleman, the empathy guru, would add that such a style of leadership eventually negatively impacts the culture of an organization---that style is unsustainable, in the long run.
Some may argue that it’s impossible for a leader to reconcile all the demands of his people. Better that he projects certainty and confidence, makes some tough choices. True, the clarity of certainty is important at any point in time. But, we do not like to be left out though. A prime strength of effective leaders is to engage us in dialogue in order to make the difficult decisions and to determine priorities. The missing ingredient, is that the Pope, according to the volumes of media reports since his death, did not encourage a dialogue of differences within the corporation—the church--- to assist in formulating strategy.
Thus, charisma is a tricky pathway for any leader. We know from the research on great leaders that being charismatic (a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty) is helpful but not essential. That which matters more is humility and strong personal will to engage many in a journey of contribution together. Smart strategy is an essential part of the journey emanating from the collective wisdom. Charisma is therefore earned in a different way when a leader engages all the right constituents not just a few.
Pope John Paul II used his strong personality and his love of “being on the road” to foster conversations among various world religions to promote justice, peace and solidarity. His charisma opened doors. At the same time, ironically, the critics argue, it kept important doors closed within the Catholic Church itself. It fell short of the ultimate test for moving an organization forward so that it survives and thrives in an ever-changing world.
The future is not clear for the Catholic Church as its membership is on average declining. The next Pope has significant work to do: preserve valuable traditions while adapting to modern dilemmas. It is the latter, in the critic’s opinions, that Pope John Paul II resisted balancing. On the positive side, he has set the stage and agenda for the next Pope. His priority, based on the public debate on Pope John Paul II’s legacy, will be re-balancing tradition with modernity to integrate conflicting views. This is essential to ensure that the Catholic Church continues to be a meaningful organization for many people around the world.
To continue the evidence of polarized views, the Pope as media star preached human freedom and moral opposition to war, terrorism and the death penalty. On the other hand, many expressed the view that he “leaves a demoralized priesthood, a frustrated laity, and a church in anguished, internal conflict”. His ultraconservative views on modern issues, the critics argue, created a “gated” Vatican City composed of like-minded conservatives. It appears that there are limits to charisma!
But, why do we admire charisma despite its underside? We like leaders to “walk the talk”—get out and about and connect with us. Interact. See how we are feeling. Size up the “lay of the land”. No leader can do that sitting behind a computer in an office or attending interminable meetings. The Pope traveled far and wide to meet with the ordinary folks, in particular. This enabled him to gather valuable ideas from first hand experiences, build relationships and enrich his understanding of the “front –line’ issues.
By getting out from the Vatican, the Pope also sent a message that he was an advocate. This is important to people generally with leaders. We feel more secure with a leader who seems to care about us and who is in a position to advocate for us with other powerful leaders. Our voices become his voice in helping to make a better world. It is his genuine concern for us, his comfort in an insecure world that makes him charismatic.
But then there’s “the rub”. We do expect that a leader act on the field data. We tire of the constant media outings if our voices are not translated into sound policies that reflect a balancing of competing interests. We become deflated if our calls to action fall on deaf ears and we receive “ancient answers to new questions”. Herein lies the “contradictory Pope”. The critics maintain that he chose to act on issues through his lens and that of a small inner circle. They call this an authoritarian way of leadership. Daniel Goleman, the empathy guru, would add that such a style of leadership eventually negatively impacts the culture of an organization---that style is unsustainable, in the long run.
Some may argue that it’s impossible for a leader to reconcile all the demands of his people. Better that he projects certainty and confidence, makes some tough choices. True, the clarity of certainty is important at any point in time. But, we do not like to be left out though. A prime strength of effective leaders is to engage us in dialogue in order to make the difficult decisions and to determine priorities. The missing ingredient, is that the Pope, according to the volumes of media reports since his death, did not encourage a dialogue of differences within the corporation—the church--- to assist in formulating strategy.
Thus, charisma is a tricky pathway for any leader. We know from the research on great leaders that being charismatic (a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty) is helpful but not essential. That which matters more is humility and strong personal will to engage many in a journey of contribution together. Smart strategy is an essential part of the journey emanating from the collective wisdom. Charisma is therefore earned in a different way when a leader engages all the right constituents not just a few.
Pope John Paul II used his strong personality and his love of “being on the road” to foster conversations among various world religions to promote justice, peace and solidarity. His charisma opened doors. At the same time, ironically, the critics argue, it kept important doors closed within the Catholic Church itself. It fell short of the ultimate test for moving an organization forward so that it survives and thrives in an ever-changing world.
The future is not clear for the Catholic Church as its membership is on average declining. The next Pope has significant work to do: preserve valuable traditions while adapting to modern dilemmas. It is the latter, in the critic’s opinions, that Pope John Paul II resisted balancing. On the positive side, he has set the stage and agenda for the next Pope. His priority, based on the public debate on Pope John Paul II’s legacy, will be re-balancing tradition with modernity to integrate conflicting views. This is essential to ensure that the Catholic Church continues to be a meaningful organization for many people around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
