The Longer View on Change

How long change does take! With starry eyes way back when Canada and I were younger, I envisioned progress as a given. My mother, Margie, a fighter for all things unfair, had infused me with hope and possibilities. Surely the only way was up. But not so fast!

Well, on the whole, we are making progress: more democracies worldwide, more educated women in developed countries, many communicable diseases long gone, lower crimes rates, an acceptance that we have something to do with global warming, an African-American U.S. President and growing cross-cultural understanding everywhere. Much to celebrate.

But, wait. In developed countries, although women outnumber men in university, men still are the majority in leadership positions and hold most of the wealth, as Michael Adams, President of Environics reports. Many studies contend that women still do the majority of household tasks (that could be a key reason for women not being in many boardrooms!). In urban Canada, multiculturalism reigns but the sea of leadership faces is still largely white (my observations). Vaclav Smil, author of Global Catastrophes and Trends: The Next 50 Years, estimates that a global pandemic is a 100% certainty in the not too distant future. He also says that it will take about 50 years to wean ourselves off fossil fuels on a large scale. Even David Suzuki, Canada’s foremost environmental evangelist is resigned to the slow pace of change!

So, I get it: change is non-linear and takes far more time than we expect. As with climate change, weather is erratic yet we can detect patterns in the climate over long periods of time and plan accordingly. Being adept at adapting and monitoring how to adapt and shape some events are the aces up our sleeves. As long as we have patience: this may take 100 years or more!

I now know what the book What We Believe But Cannot Prove means. Our day-to-day beliefs come from established theories but what about beliefs based on theories in progress?

A Surge of the "Yes, and" Mantra of Comedians Would Help World Peace

I never was very good at multiple choice questions because I could always see the complexity in the situation about which I was being asked. I eventually “trained” myself to be more deductive and logical, more black and white in order to pass the tests. However, it never seemed natural.

I have since learned that my complexity style can be a blessing and a curse: a blessing to see the world from a 360 view, which can enlarge my view and make me less reactive. A curse if I am trying to be succinct and really targeted in messaging.

So, when Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize out of the blue, I didn’t immediately do the “Yes, but” routine. After all, my complexity lens needed to do some thinking before passing judgment. OK. The world works in mysterious ways. Even Barack Obama was a bit taken aback!

That’s why comedians train themselves to go with the flow of an emerging situation by always saying “Yes, and” rather than “Yes, but”. They literally have to stay present in order to optimize generating the story lines. Their openness creates a richness of conversation and opportunity. The surprise becomes something constructive. Thus, I gather seeing complexity can be an asset in practicing “Yes, and”!

Both the “Yes, and” and the “Yes, but” reactions were in abundance after the Swedes awarded the Nobel to President Obama. This is the nature of our minds and our ways. In this instance, however, the former made us dig a bit deeper to better understand why the Swedes chose Obama.

As the comedian’s “improv” process catalyzes a creative and open path, so too does a world paradigm shift toward peace rather than war. The Swedes have set in action an opportunity for “improv” everywhere in the spirit of finding ways and means to world peace. The discipline of the “Yes, and” is a simple and powerful tool for discovering how to get there.

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.

The Pundits are Driving Me Crazy!

I’m a news junkie as all things related to leadership fascinate me. But the latest cacophony among the pundits about the effectiveness and management of various bail-out plans is becoming unbearable. It’s like going into a noisy room where everyone is talking over each other and at times screeching. Look around and all you see are white teeth, coiffed heads and perfect make up (for the women). No one looks real but they all give the air they know what they are talking about.

Pundits to me are those we see on TV stations like CNN over and over again who have an opinion about everything. Every move by Barack Obama’s administration is dissected to an inch of its life.

I get the impression that results must occur instantly otherwise the strategy must be wrong or it is not being handled properly. The pundits spend their time on the minutia and seldom raise their heads to put the situation into perspective. It’s like a running travelogue with no sensible reference to history, context and what we know about how change happens.

While experienced leaders recognize that resistance after about 30 days of the initiation of a major change is to be expected, I’m not getting that the pundits know this. In fact, in the absence of a balanced view on current events, they are the resistance!

In these difficult times, I expect media to play more than an obstructionist role. Help us sort out the complexities and see some light. Role model healthy dialogue so that we can replicate this locally in our homes and social meeting places. Respect those who are elected and the challenges they face. See how you can help them move things forward by balanced and knowledgeable reporting. Give those who have a deeper knowledge more air time.

For these reasons, I’ve turned to the BBC, CBC and digital media for calmer and deeper conversations. The interviewers and contributors tend to question and explore as a rule rather than tear down. I pick and choose my CNN encounters for such interviewers. Fareed Zakaria and others like him come to mind.

Who knows, I may become a digital junkie to widen my choices as that seems to be the way of the world! The spring issue of Strategy + Business Online makes it clear that online media is gaining rapidly in popularity particularly among the younger generations. Many are online while watching TV. They skip through ads with the aid of their digital video recorders looking for content that suits their interests.

From an advertising perspective, their habits are transforming the business. It took 127 years for newspapers to reach US$120 billion in ad revenues in the U.S. Cable television took 25 years. Online media has accomplished that amount in 13 years.

This more diversified media picture fits well with emerging research on “how to have influence”. In the fall 2008 MIT Sloan Management Review, Joseph Grenny, David Maxfield and Andrew Shimberg conclude that leaders who “combine multiple sources of influence are up to 10 times more successful at producing substantial and sustainable change”. Extrapolating to current events, although it looks like he’s biting off more than he can chew, Barack Obama’s “strategy” appears to align with these findings. Time will tell.

These are “wild west” times. “Settlers”, like some of the pundits, demand data before they accord the courtesy of support and encouragement. As in the past, it is the “pioneers” who forge new, sustainable paths. No proof. Just hard work and persistence in the face of the unknown. It’s a formula applicable to every leader in every organization.

Barack Obama's Spirit Has Taken Hold of Me

The world’s in a big dance. Everyone is a belle at the ball of an unprecedented historical event. For those that get suspicious when walking into a room of smiling people, this must be unnerving. Yet, the warmth and goodwill swirling around our feet and heads seems infectious. Is it possible that the more generous feelings towards each other catalyzed by the arrival of Obama at our doorstep are manifesting themselves in all manner of acts of kindness?

As a sample of one, I have found myself taking unusual steps towards helping others. The acts of kindness have come out of the blue as if they landed on me from afar and I just had to pass them on. These actions are in addition to my normal pattern of “being there” for others. I suspect that millions upon millions of others are also finding themselves leaning more towards others than is typical.

We appear to be witnessing the favorable impact of an inspiring leader. This is encouraging. Although we face extremely difficult times, just maybe our collective willpower will enable us to get ahead of the curve.

Historian Niall Ferguson who has been on a round of interviews about his new book The Ascent of Money paints different scenarios for the future, some quite grim. But he does believe that innovation and collaboration globally can get us through.

These we know are powered by our imaginations and feelings of goodwill. Barack Obama has given us a nudge. Provided he keeps up his end of the bargain, and we have no reason not to believe he means what he says, we may find that the flywheel of change and transformation gains traction and speed quickly.

Paying Attention Goes a Long Way When Leading During Crises

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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