Jorgensen Learning Center Newsletter Feed

Will Text Messaging and Multiple Simultaneous Communications Doom Meaningful Conversation by ...

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:55:40 +0100

Around the same time each month, I begin to get a queasy and nauseous feeling in the pit of my stomach. Is it something I ate? Is it that time of the month? Well, actually, it is! The middle of each month brings me my monthly wireless bill. Enclosed in that envelope (which usually takes me a few days to muster up the courage to open) is the total number of text messages that my twin 13 year old daughters have typed on their cell phone keyboards in the last month. Usually, it averages about 3,000 to 4,000 per daughter!! As a result, I have begun to ponder texting and text messaging, instant messaging and social networking (i.e., Facebook) and its effect on interpersonal skills and meaningful conversation. After a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about texting and multiple conversations, it appears that I am not alone in my fears.The article included an anecdotal story about a 17 year old High School student who was caught text messaging in class and was therefore sent to the vice-principal’s office. As the Vice-Principal was reprimanding the student about how he needed to focus on his teachers and not texting on his cell phone, he noticed the student’s fingers moving on his lap. The student was texting while being reprimanded for texting! Young people today, including my daughters, are in the constant state of socialization, either by cell phone, instant messaging or social networking. My daughters can do all three of these while doing homework! However, this raises an important question for this networking generation: can we have meaningful conversation and dialogue if this generation is holding multiple conversations with friends via cell phone, texting and social networking web sites, sometimes simultaneously? This question has great implications as to how meaningful learning conversations can occur. The WSJ article asked a pertinent question: Are these hyper-socializers serial time wasters who will have poor face to face interpersonal skills? What effect, if any, will it have on Learning Conversations and the JLC conversational guidelines of: Listening for Understanding, Speaking from the Heart, Suspending Certainty, Holding Space for Difference and Slowing down the Inquiry? Ben Bajarin, a technology analyst at a consulting firm in California, argues that these multiple conversations actually strengthen social skills. He believes that the young generation“is good at managing conversations and getting to the pithy essence of an issue which will help them in the workplace.” Mr. Bajarin goes on to say that while older colleagues’ waste time holding meetings, young people can sum up things in one sentence text messages. He claims that these young people know how to optimize and prioritize and call or set up a meeting if needed; otherwise, they text. Holly Gallagher, a human resource manager, believes that as the young generation enters the workplace, management must adjust to the new ways they socialize and communicate. She believes that “young people today want accessibility. If they have a problem or suggestion they will email or text senior managers, or even the CEO. They don’t have the old school notion that there are appropriate communication models.” Past generations accepted the belief that corporations were hierarchical, and you only communicated with your immediate supervisor. However, today’s generation has grown up in a freedom of information era. Ms. Gallagher sees a positive in all of this. In many corporations, lack of quality conversation and communication can cause things to go wrong (see, 1-800-Mattres(s), Leave the Last ‘s’ off for Sayonara article in the August, 2009 JLC newsletter Click Here to read). However, she states that “in a lot of corporations, if something goes wrong, it’s because so-and-so did not talk to so-and-so. But with young people, simultaneous conversations are always happening. This reduces the chances of not reaching success because the right people did not connect.” Well, there it is. A different perspective on what the future of communication and meaningful conversation might look like. The speed and ease of communication can cut both ways. While making communication more frequent, it can also be less personal and intimate. Maybe the future will hold different methods and forms of communication and meaningful conversation. However, from my perspective, the JLC Learning Conversation Guidelines will always be important elements for meaningful and successful conversation. It is up to educators, employers and families to continue the quest for the ultimate goal of meaningful and Learning Conversations. Quality conversations, regardless of the method, develop quality relationships. When we have quality conversations using the JLC Learning Conversation Guidelines, we develop common understanding among all participants, enhance the quality of the relationship, and allow for decision making that will be of value to all involved, regardless of the method of communication.

Special Feature - Forensic Systems Analysis

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:35:26 +0100

Forensic Systems Analysis Special Education Program JLC has assisted school districts in changing their systems to manage special needs children so that the districts complied with state regulations governing the handling of children with disabilities, as well as assisting districts in making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) on the mandated assessments for needier subgroups. The districts were in danger of losing federal and state funding. JLC worked with the districts to craft a correction plan to document their remedies in both general education and special education to improve the success of special needs students. This plan had to show what aspects of the systems needed to change in order for the special education students to have the same starting opportunities as the general education children. Click here to read more about how JLC can help your school district!

How a CHAT (along with JLC Conversational Guidelines) Can Forge Health Care Reform Consensus by ...

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 01:02:31 +0100

How a CHAT (along with JLC Conversational Guidelines) Can Forge Health Care Reform Consensus by Keith Riemer Shouting matches have broken out in town-hall meetings throughout the United States this summer over health care reform. Civility has given way to hostility and hostile environments, with bitter exchanges, name calling and vitriolic speeches. The abandonment of civility in these meetings has created tension, fear and animosity amongst and between Democrats and Republicans, young and old, the well-heeled and the middle class. Not only is it a question of a national health care system with a public option, but also, who is going to pay for this one trillion dollar undertaking. In the battle for consensus, there is a new tool that has been developed by researchers from the University of Michigan and the National Institutes of Health, called CHAT. CHAT stands for “Choosing Healthplans All Together,” and is being adopted by states all over the country as they grapple with how to balance a minimum health care coverage standard with one’s ability to pay for it. As U.S. lawmakers in the House and Senate try to agree (or disagree) on how to overhaul the health care system, several states and a non-profit groups have been challenging citizens to find a common ground in the struggle to control rising health care costs. This approach invites Americans from all backgrounds to engage in surveys, game simulations and dialogue to determine what they perceive as the most critical benefit selection that will address their needs and the needs of others. It also invites its participants to determine what the essential elements of health coverage are, and at what level of personal financial responsibility, given the limited funding available. The process works as follows: in the first round, individuals make choices for their families. In the second round, groups of three individuals make choices for their families. In the third round they choose coverage for their community by engaging in concessions and benefits trading. The last round asks individuals to go back and choose their own health care benefits again to see how they have changed their minds over the course of the exercise. Results from CHAT have shown that the exercise appeals to people across the political spectrum because it involves issues of choice, control, as well as shared concern for community’s well being. These ideas often transcend political preconceived opinions, however, CHAT’s gaming exercise exemplified the use of Jorgensen Learning Center’s (JLC) Learning Conversation™ guidelines: listening for understanding, suspending certainty, and holding space for difference which allowed for a meaningful dialogue that embraced diverse thinking and demonstrated inclusiveness. Though, the researchers who created CHAT may not be aware of the profundity of their exercise, in my view, engaging in a Learning Conversation™ is the reason their effort has been successful. Demonstrating meaningful dialogic principles allowed for diversity of thought to surface and be embraced--each participant had an opportunity to learn about how the program will effect not only them, but their community members as well, thus fostering inclusiveness. It is my belief that quality conversations develop quality relationships and ultimately quality thinking---I am hopeful that if the Leaning Conversation™ continues, maybe the shouting matches and vitriolic speeches will come to an end. I could not end this article without a comment about the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy and his passion for health care reform. Senator Kennedy lamented that it had become harder over the last few years to achieve bipartisanship in Congress. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, recently interviewed on Meet the Press, asserted that the late Senator Kennedy was a master of the Senate because he understood that there are differences of opinion in the Senate and that you work out your differences. Further, Senator Dodd suggested that Kennedy, in an effort to understand his colleagues, would listen for understanding when in conversation with them. Though I can’t be certain, it appears to me that that when Kennedy was listening for understanding, he was practicing a concept that JLC highly encourages: engage, acknowledge, and respond respectfully. So, the concept of the Learning Conversation™ is paramount to developing a common understanding among our fellow citizens no matter what their profession, rank or role in society is. When we have quality conversations using learning conversation™ guidelines we develop common understanding among the relevant parties, and enhance the quality of our relationships, thus engendering decision-making that will be of value to all concerned. From my perspective the guidelines listening for understanding, suspending certainty, and holding the space for difference allowed the CHAT exercise and Kennedy’s tenure in the Senate to be successful and rewarding for the greater good. For more information about the Learning Conversation™ Guidelines listen for understanding, speak from the heart, suspend certainty, hold the space for difference, and slow down the conversation and/or how JLC can assist with enhancing leadership development in your organization, visit www.GOJLC.com

1-800 Mattres(s) – Leave the Last ‘s’ off for “Sayonara” by Keith Reimer

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:28:50 +0100

1-800-Mattres(s), leave the last ‘s’ off for savings, was a well known and well received advertisement for the last 30 years. It was a catchy jingle that attracted millions of customers, much like the McDonald’s, Coca Cola or Burger King jingles. The message was seen in print and heard over the airwaves thousands of times over the last 30 years by millions of people. 1-800 Mattress was a successful business model based on a simple premise: offer simplicity and choice in buying a boring but basic necessity, a mattress, over the phone, have it delivered, and as a bonus have your old beat up mattress taken away. It was a model of steady growth that came to a crushing halt. The founder of the organization, Napoleon Barragan, claimed that it was a culture clash brought on by new management, along with an expansion into brick and mortar sales that caused the decline. Further, as part of its expansion into brick and mortar operations, in 2001, the company recruited seven new Vice-Presidents. However, the new V.P.’s, which included former large company executives, often clashed with the firm’s tight knit entrepreneurial culture. Mr. Barragan claimed that in the past delivery truck drivers and customer service agents would engage in discourse--conversation, if you will, and propel business decisions based on information received through their experiences with customers. The new V.P.’s, however, often challenged and rejected the input of the delivery person and customer service agent. The former C.O.O. of the company, Joe Vicens, claims that the constant battling led to lost opportunities, and also led to poor communication among the company’s management. This discord, and poor communication, according to Mr. Barragan and Mr. Vicens, resulted in a “failure to recognize that poorly located showrooms were damaging the bottom line, even as overall revenues were rising due largely to internet and phone sales.” The result of this lack of communication and conversation was that they did not know how much they were losing, and thus, made it difficult to prevent from continuing to happen. In hindsight, the former founder acknowledged that he should have groomed internal talent for management positions and nurtured a more unified culture. From my perspective, continuing the free flowing communication and seeking common understanding would have helped unify their culture. 1-800 Mattress may have survived if they recognized the value in what they were doing and enhanced their communication even more through Conversational Leadership, a concept espoused by the Jorgensen Learning Center (JLC) as the foundation to any organization’s success. Instead, this once thriving company with free flowing conversation and free flowing communication was brought to its corporate knees when both the conversation and the communication stopped flowing. This is exemplified by the salespeople and customer service agents no longer having conversations that sought common understanding which previously supported their success; the new management team was no longer listening for understanding, which is a conversational leadership guideline. As I see it, this company shut itself off to learning how to handle the new and emerging complexity inherent in change. The conversation died, no meaningful dialogue was exchanged, and there was by their own admission, no allowance for inclusiveness or difference by the new management team. This highlights another guideline of conversational leadership--holding the space for difference. Thus, a once thriving and vibrant company was unable to sustain itself due to the unintended consequences of placing new V.P.’s who did not value conversation as a success factor. When the conversation died, so did their success. Clearly, with disregard for the continued conversation with the delivery drivers and customer service agents, they violated yet another guideline, suspending certainty. Everyone wanted continued success, yet no one knew how to sustain it. In my view, the value of the conversational leadership conversation guidelines is a paramount tool which engenders success in any organization. Understanding and relating this tale of corporate demise through the JLC lens of leadership, the new corporate management team could have averted its demise if it utilized the guidelines. There are five guidelines in all; they are : listen for understanding, speak from the heart, suspend certainty, hold the space for difference and slow down the conversation. For more information about how Jorgensen Learning Center can assist with enhancing leadership development in your organization, visit www.GOJLC.com.

Mental Models--a book excerpt

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:29:08 +0100

Mental Models are our personal understandings of the world according to us; these models contain the attitudes, beliefs and assumptions that shape our daily actions. They govern our ideas of how things should work, how things are, and how things should or could be. These convictions form the basis of our personal and organizational thinking structure. Examples of mental models are: "All men are created equal' or 'We simply have an unlimited supply of resources and can throw away our waste". Mental models are often very hard to surface (which is what we do when we practice suspending certainty) because they are incomplete and constantly evolving, can contain errors and contradictions, are sometimes buried deep in our subconscious, and are overly simplified explanations of a complex world. The discipline of working with mental models starts with turning the mirror inward, learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny. It also includes the ability to carry on learning conversations that balance inquiry and advocacy, where people expose their own thinking effectively and make that thinking open to the influence of others. When someone is speaking with certainty, they are not just giving their opinion, they are providing you insight into the way they view the world. And if you can shift how someone thinks by shifting their mental models, then you will change the way they act. So we see that ultimately, leaders nurture quality relationships through quality conversations. Learning takes place in quality conversations. As learning takes place, thinking shifts. And as thinking shifts, behavior shifts.

Words Matter --an excerpt from JLC's forthcoming book!

Fri, 29 May 2009 19:17:28 +0100

Words Matter by Dena Hurst, Ph.D and Ray Jorgensen, Ph.D Because they are so powerful, words must be chosen carefully. Words are much more than letters strung together. They are the means by which we convey our thoughts to one another. Words touch all of our senses. They have a rhythm we can feel and hear. They evoke pictures in our minds. They help us recall memories, sights and smells and experiences. Like most other disciplines, leadership has its own language and to communicate as a leader is to speak in that language. Much of the traditional language of leadership has relied on metaphors from sports or the military. Motivational speeches are a way to “rally the troops,” making a good sale is “hitting a home run.” These metaphors call up for us very specific mental images, whether we are conscious of them or not. And these images create a certain world view, one that reinforces the industrial-military mindset. The new edge of leadership seeks to create a different world view, one that achieves results through cooperation and caring. And to speak the new language of leadership means choosing words that reflect a connection to other people and to the earth—organic words and metaphors rather than mechanistic ones. For example, the new language of leadership uses words like “grow” rather than ”build” and would compare team development to cultivating a garden rather than winning a game. This organic language changes our mental images, which, in turn, changes our world view to one of connectedness.

Learning is Leading-- an excerpt from JLC's forthcoming book!

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:54:53 +0100

by Ray Jorgensen, Ph.D and Dena Hurst, Ph.D To explain why leading and learning are synonymous, reflect on the words of Eric Hoffer: In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. In other words, learning is the key to remaining adaptable and flexible in times of change; those who are bound by certainty eventually become obsolete. As leaders should be those who remain ahead of the tides of change, they must by definition be learners. And as leaders should raise others to be adaptable and flexible, they must encourage learning in those whom they lead. Now, to give this discussion a few more twists… Leaders are at their best when they are learning, and not when they are teaching. It would seem natural, especially in our culture, to revere the wise leader who knows all. The problem with this, however, is that it is a myth. Leaders cannot know all, not about their organization, their industry, their environment, their people. And when leaders think they know all, they become trapped in certainty and risk becoming obsolete. And when those who follow them think the leaders know all, they risk stifling their own creativity by limiting their knowledge to that of their leaders. As was pointed out earlier, diversity in ideas is a powerful and natural resource for any organization. Why would any leader limit the creation and sharing of ideas for the sake of being right? Leadership is not having all of the answers. And leadership is not teaching one set of ideas. Further, remember the old saying about leaders being born and not made? Well, leaders are not born. They do not have some magic quality that distinguishes them from the rest of humanity. Leaders are made, and they are made from the sum of their learning experiences. The more they learn, the better the quality of their leadership. The more they remain learners, the more the quality of their leadership will continue to improve. By being in a position of learning, leaders are consistently open to the ideas of others, less concerned with the need to be right or to bear all responsibility and less focused on creating a world in their image. They become more intent on nurturing the organizations they lead and on growing the potential of the individuals in their care.

What You Focus on Grows!

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:57 +0100

By Liz Garavuso Some of the most meaningful conversational leadership work I have ever done involved sitting for three days staring at the walls in order to come up with one simple provocation to guide a 2 hour employee discussion. Weeks ago, I was planning for an annual workshop day that occurs every year on election day. I had clarity on the issue I wanted to tackle – I wanted to increase the effectiveness of the weekly grade level meetings. Those meetings were designed as the result of embracing the concept of professional learning communities. I had manipulated resources, much to my supervisor’s dismay, in order to ensure an opportunity for staff members to talk about their practice and ways to improve it. Unfortunately, the topic of those meetings often digressed into complaining sessions or opportunities to do the “administrivia” work required of the job: complete forms, purchase items, plan field trips, etc. Last year, I addressed this issue, convincing myself that it was an issue of me not being clear about what I wanted. So, I explicitly detailed my wishes. Needless to say, nothing changed. To make the complicated even more confusing, I was trying to plan this year’s workshop on the heels of having to deal with the aftermath of a much deserved disciplinary action for an employee which resulted in the building’s other employees focusing on “evil bosses” instead of meaningful instruction. Ripe with anger at the attempt of others to insinuate themselves into the work I needed to do to manage a difficult worker, I began planning a meeting that was destined to chastise and focus on the very things that would be counter productive to the more noble goal – more effective, account table teacher talk. Fortunately, I turned to a colleague who shared a phrase that I have heard a many times, “What you focus on grows.” I was literally stunned by the power and intent of that phrase and knew immediately that I had to find a way to center the upcoming workshop around this notion of nurturing more accountable teacher talk. So what was the three days of staring about? It took that long for this leader to get out of her own way. I had to recognize my feelings, accept my anger, let it go, focus on what I truly wanted as the outcome and the evidence I would need to collect to ensure its fruition, surface my mental models, envision a picture of success…in other words I had to practice the disciplines of conversational leadership that I knew would lead me to develop an effective approach to the workshop. The resulting provocation – “What might you do to make the grade level meetings more productive?” More importantly, the outcome of the workshop was not only a comprehensive list of actions that were generated by the staff members, but truly improved grade level meetings. Once again, I was reminded that the work of a leader is not the work of doing stuff. It is not the work of demanding or mandating stuff. It is not the work of coercing around stuff. Instead, the work of a leader is to facilitate the process of learning of others relative to a clear mission or purpose of the organization. And that facilitation of learning means one thing – that all in the organization talk, in an environment of honest inquiry, about the very work that needs to be done together to ensure the success of the institution’s goals. It’s a lesson I am sure I will need to relearn over an over again.

The Unexpected Twist

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:22:54 +0100

When first offered the chance to work with JLC in a Conversational Leadership study group of my peers, I have to admit that I was very skeptical. I have been with State Farm 30 years and I felt that it would be very difficult to teach an old dog new tricks. I thought my chance to develop additional leadership skills had passed long ago. I am glad that a long time friend and mentor twisted my arm to give the study group a try. I could not have been more wrong about these assumptions. I now look forward to these leadership development sessions and I learn something at each meeting that helps me be a better leader when I return home. Conversational Leadership led by Ray Jorgensen has really improved my leadership practice as a Vice President with State Farm Insurance Companies in Texas. I have learned a lot of exciting new concepts and meeting design techniques that help me work more effectively with my boss, my peers and my direct reports. As I recently learned in Dee Hock’s book "One From Many", the best leaders manage self first, boss second, peers third and direct reports last. Conversational Leadership helps you trust your team to accomplish great things by listening to their ideas and providing support to their inquiry. The first JLC lesson that resonated with me was that all leadership decisions are based on faulty data. If we suspend the certainty of our current mental models and stay in inquiry mode as a leader, we will learn more about our problems and potential solutions. I had the tendency to move into advocacy of a position very quickly because I am a very passionate person. I may not always be right, but I am seldom in doubt. That approach was choking off the leadership conversations that I needed to hear prior to making a decision. Ray and my peers taught me to slow down the inquiry and respect contributions made all participants. I am more successful today in meetings by asking more questions, listening for understanding and staying in inquiry mode. Respecting all points of view helps any leader make balanced decisions. Our leadership development group has progressed a great deal over the last two years. We started by learning JLC concepts and how they could help us improve meetings and leadership conversations. As Ray often preaches, conversations are the relationship, so allow time for leadership conversations to take place if you want to improve your relationships. Ray teaches meeting design basics to help everyone create an agenda that agenda items constructed using the Context, Purpose and Outcome approach. This CPO approach leads to more focus, better preparation and builds common understanding as each item is discussed. Our study group has moved from basic concepts to application by studying interesting Leadership Books prior to our sessions and using them as a basis for our conversations. We are able to apply lessons learned in each book to our current leadership challenges and we explore different points of view as we talk. This approach exposes each participant to new leadership concepts and allows us to have conversations on how we could apply these lessons back home in our practice. These conversations are scrimmages that help each of us break down old mental models and open our minds to new leadership possibilities. Asking the right questions is very important and listening to others share their insights builds the story that we need to tell when we face similar challenges back home. I have known most of our study group participants for many years. I thought I knew them very well prior to joining the group. I have been surprised by how my respect for them has grown due to the Leadership Conversations we have conducted over the last 24 months. I hope that I have made half as many contributions as the lessons and insights I have gained during our dialogues. I am a better listener thanks to this group. I have suspended my certainty thanks to this group. I have learned to be a better leader thanks to the patience of Ray Jorgensen and the participants in my conversational Leadership group. I hope you can experience the power of JLC Conversational Leadership program. Michael J. Hargis, CLU, ChFC Agency Vice President State Farm Insurance Companies

Reflections on Leadership

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0100

Reflections on Personal Leadership by Chy Davidson (a guest columnist for the JLC Learning Leader). Leadership is not something that you do…it’s who you are. I realized that the concepts, exercises and tools of the Jorgensen Learning Center were more that just theory. The practice of applying leadership must embody everything I do…professionally and also with my own family. It was that personal for me. During the summer, I attended the Tapping into the Spirit of Leading conference in Sag Harbor, NY, and worked with Team JLC to enhance my understanding and practice of learning conversations. When the JLC group asked me to respond to how I was using the tools of action learning in my daily activities, it focused me to reflect on when I actually had that first ‘aha’ moment. I reflected on an event that took place in April. It was another opportunity to work with Ray and to see how our groups of administrators were going to respond to the session. I entered the group not focused, because I was thinking about the most recent conversation with my daughter and I was contemplating whether I had pushed her too hard to compete in a major that was overwhelming her as a college freshman. “Should I let her come home or encourage her to stick it out?” I was feeling the burden that parents experience when their children are “growing through transitions”. As we circled and prepared to “check in” the first words I heard were: “sanity is more important than success”. It was at that moment that a weight was lifted off my shoulders and my decision had been made. I had already begun to apply, “listening for understanding” as a daily practice, and focused on what was being said, and not what I wanted to say. This simple application was assisting me in slowing down conversations. However, it was at home where I felt the tools could also be best applied and practiced due to the nature of the relationships with my four girls and my wife. Imagine if I could actualize these learning conversation techniques at home? I could then transfer them to any organizational environment! Creating “safely dangerous space” was going to be my initial focus both at home and at work. I found this to be the most challenging of all of the principles. At home, certain things can be talked about pretty freely, while at work moving the conversation to the place where I am comfortable exposing my thinking and risking the various reactions from others was an uncomfortable challenge. To engage in this type of conversation involved a shift in the organizational / family dynamic so that the risk I felt I was taking would be overcome by the feeling of respect and concern for the person or group. From my perspective, most organizations have established a culture of communication that inhibits individuals from engaging in conversations that create openness and safety. The difficult things that need to be discussed in our weekly meetings usually do not get discussed and many members end up talking about issues privately or “in the parking lot”. However, if the issue or concern was brought to the table, it would allow the organization to grow and encourage members to create more safe space and speak from the heart. For example, recently during a discussion at a cabinet meeting I was overcome with an intense feeling to discuss an issue that I was uncomfortable with. In the past I would have just let it go and had the conversation with one of my colleagues after the meeting. But I decided to give it a try and to my surprise, after we experienced the anger and tension of the moment, we (the group) realized the issue needed to be discussed and it resulted in a decision that favored the group and not an individual. Taking the risk was a major breakthrough for it allowed me to trust a belief in how systems work without fully realizing what the outcome would be…that was scary! As a result, it has put me on a mission to continually push myself with those uncomfortable feelings and bring up the conversation that may impact the attitudes and behaviors of the group in a professional way. This freedom that I thought was a new learned skill, I now realize, through engaging in conversations with my daughter, was in place all along. My daughter helped me to understand how our home had created safely dangerous space; she explained to me that she feels unconditional freedom to talk about issues and concerns that she is experiencing because she is comfortable that we love her and want the best for her. I’m thankful for the learning conversation guidelines and for how through my continued practice of these skill sets, I have increased my ability to improve my relationships though the conversation.

Conversational Leadership

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:01:18 +0100

Every successful group venture, whether in the business world, the family home, an educational setting or a community campaign, is the result of effective leadership. Simply put, leaders accomplish desired results by influencing others. The most significant contribution a leader can make is to change others through responsible stewardship. Many frustrated leaders fail to realize that they have a perfectly useful tool for stewardship and change in the art of good conversation. The steward/leader with a fundamental desire to effect common understanding and personal change can learn to accomplish those ends through conversational leadership. Meetings run by such leaders are going to look a little different and sound a little different than the status quo. They might feel a bit uncomfortable at first to participants unfamiliar with the techniques of conversational leadership. The improved quality of the meetings and the significance of their outcomes, however, make the guidelines for learning conversation worth practicing. Adults construct understanding through conversation, yet our meeting agendas rarely provide time for any conversation at all. The really useful discussion occurs after the meeting has been gaveled to an end, as stimulated minds seek to make sense of what they’ve just heard. Insights, alternatives and solutions are more likely to arise in the parking lot after the meeting if participants have not had an opportunity to engage in conversation about the issues during the meeting proper. An effective leader who seeks to chair a truly meaningful meeting in which actual change and progress occur will want to enhance the capacity for effective interaction among the participants. After all, if there is nothing to be gained from their attendance, why are they even at this meeting? Currently what happens at most meetings denigrates the purpose of gathering busy professionals around the table. If the leader believes that this committee or other group has something to offer in the change process, then he or she will want to learn to use these five guidelines for learning conversation, which were originally given to me by Sue Miller-Hurst: • Listen for understanding • Speak from the heart • Suspend judgment • Hold space for differences • Slow down the inquiry These guidelines, which are really disciplines to practice, not unlike healthy eating or exercise, are not learned instantly, nor are they transferred immediately to the meeting participants. However, each individual committed to improved meeting outcomes can begin to practice these skills and encourage their growth in self and others. A good place to start would be with the leader. Listen for understanding. Listen openly, without judgment or blame, receiving what others say from a place of learning rather than from a place of knowing or confirming your own position. Listen with equal respect for each person present, hoping to understand rather than to “fix,” argue, refute or persuade. At the same time, listen quietly to yourself as others speak. Speak from the heart. When sincerely moved to make a contribution, speak honestly from your own experience. Speak into the stream of developing common understanding, not just to fill silence or to have your position heard. Suspend judgment. Hold at bay your certainties and assumptions. Suspend any need to be right or have the correct answer. In fact, try to suspend any certainty that you, yourself, are right. Hold space for differences. Embrace different points of view as learning opportunities. Don’t counter with “but.” Instead, contribute with “and.” Remain open to outcomes that may not be your outcomes. Encourage contributions from those who have remained silent. Slow down the inquiry. Provide silent time to digest what has just been said. Allow further conversation to flow naturally, develop and deepen. Mastering these guidelines requires consistent practice to release the habitual ways of thinking, speaking and listening. For conversational leadership to succeed, participants must be truly present and filled with intention and energy. A good way for the leader to start is to post these five basic guidelines, explain each briefly, and then provide opportunities for practice. Once the group comes on board with enthusiasm, the leader might ask them to help assess the quality of the group interaction and suggest ways to improve the conversation. We invite you to visit www.rayjorgensen.com to learn how our services may be of assistance to you and your colleagues.

Fundamental Human Qualities

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:59:27 +0100

Leadership: Living, Learning, and Longevity I have a hope that leadership development doesn’t turn into terms that people dread—terms that become insulting. Everywhere I go and begin to talk to someone about leadership, the most common statement to me is, “great, another leadership fad I have to learn.” I hesitate for a moment, and say, “I’m not going to revisit TQL, TQM, quality circles, six sigma, etc. I’m going to talk with you about FHQ—Fundamental Humanistic Qualities. Of course, I had to have an acronym for this approach.” You see, FHQ is not new…it is not earth shattering. It is what we all share. It is how we all relate. It is the basis for how we can create a foundation of trust, commitment, learning, respect, relationships, and effective communication. Looking at that list, I think it would be hard for any of us to say, “my organization doesn’t need any of those items to succeed.” So, how can we achieve those desirable qualities in an organization? I say, focus on the fundamental humanistic qualities and then the fundamental organizational success will follow. After all, organizations don’t adapt to change, their people do! Also, evidence strongly suggests that much of the mechanistic organizational model antagonizes people to not engage their FHQs for the betterment of the organization. As John Maxwell states so appropriately, “Who you are determines what you see and the way you see it.” Do I have your attention? Can it really be this fundamental? Consider this: Relationships- We grow up in a complex set of relationships that shape who we are as adults and shape how we relate within the organizations we work. The two are not inseparable but are inextricably linked. Our relations as we develop impact our human bond with those around us. Further, the relationships we develop in our organizations impact the human bond we share within the organizations. So, understanding the individual humanistic quality of the need for relationships coupled with understanding the manner in which we can build a healthy relationship in organizations, allows one to create an environment where we feel “attached” to the organizational team. Trust- Trust is a fundamental need for human security and many will state it is “hardwired” into us. We are born with a biological need to trust. Further research supports the fact that people become trustworthy when they are shown or feel trust around them. Therefore, the Fundamental Humanistic Quality of trust resides in all of us and within the organizational environment if trust is perpetuated, the people in the organization become more and more trustworthy—leading to open, honest and constructive “engagement” in improving organizational performance. Learning- I suspect few would argue that each of us learn differently or that learning is a FHQ. Each of us goes through a continuum from novice learner to expert and significant research supports the fact that environmental factors play a key role in our learning. Therefore, being aware of the individual and the environment play crucial roles in learning and transfer to practice. Adults learn in environments that supports their individual learning styles. Developing those environments propels the organization to collectively want to learn and if the other FHQs are paid attention to, competitive advantage is maximized. Respect- We know there is a complex entanglement between our self-image and organizational attachment. What that means for us is when an environment of respect is created, the individual wants to belong and contribute to the team. Organizational environment, extended to include the physical environment, encodes how the organization respects/values its employees. Respect is a FHQ that allows individuals to either become “enrolled” in the organization or simply work there. Communication- From our childhood, we have used communication to make meaning and context out of things. Although we have been communicating with people our whole life, the process (and desire) of transmitting information is dependent on FHQs that exist within our organizations. People in organizations typically spend 75% of their time in an interpersonal situation so if we don’t pay attention to this FHQ, it is almost certain that the root of their major organizational problems will be poor communication. Effective communication is a FHQ to ensure proper meaning and context and is also an essential element of organizational success. Commitment- Commitment is at the core of social life. We live in a social fabric entwined from promises and threats and we spend much of our time determining which commitments are credible. Commitments in an organization are tangible and intangible. Through understanding commitment as a FHQ, one can achieve social embodiment of employees to achieve heightened organizational objectives. These are not the only FHQs. They are representative to illustrate that as leaders paying attention to what some refer to as “soft” leadership skills may produce the greatest “hard” results within our organizations. Also, I do not want to make light of the fact that enhancing the FHQ in an organization is easy. Simply, that if we have a foundation in which we can begin—that common understanding—then our journey to enhance your organizational FHQ is well paved. Understanding that there are different leadership styles, methods and techniques is valuable. Understanding that Fundamental Humanistic Qualities create a bounded link to organizational success takes away the nebulousness of many of those techniques and allows one to make an immediate connection with how to lead the organization. That, to me, makes living, learning, and longevity of my leadership more concrete and measureable.

Safety In Healthcare

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:56:52 +0100

Patient safety is an issue that touches each and every one of us. As a consumer, we obviously want to ensure a positive healthcare outcome each time we meet with our provider. As a healthcare system, we also want to make sure that every patient interaction is safe and effective. HealthGrades vice president of medical affairs proclaims that, “overall we see the number of patient safety incidents in American hospitals continuing to increase, at an enormous cost, and we still see a large gap between the incidence rates at the nation’s top?performing and worst?performing hospitals.” Further, the Institute of Medicine has assessed that as many as 98,000 patients die a year as a result of medical errors in hospitals and medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death for Americans. These are alarming facts but you might ask why such information is presented in a leadership newsletter and can Conversational Leadership play a role in reducing medical errors? The answer is yes and here is how! One of the central components of Conversational Leadership is effective conversation. Our consultants have learned to design conversations focused on influencing learning, the fundamental leadership requisite. As such, these conversations are called Learning Conversations with five interdependent guidelines. Listening for Understanding: When you listen for understanding you seek to understand an issue deeply and provide a safe space to extract what the person is feeling without judgment or blame and seek to live in the moment of the interaction from a place of learning, not knowing. In a study by the Institute of Medicine, “of 1,047 patients admitted to two intensive care units and one surgical unit at a large teaching hospital, 480 (45.8%) were identified as having an adverse event, where adverse event was defined as situations in which an appropriate decision was made when, at the time, an appropriate alternative could have been chosen.” Evidence exists that physicians are often rushed with competing elements for their time. If the clinical staff learned the Conversational Leadership strategies for listening for understanding, their limited time/interaction with the clinical staff and patient could be much more productive leading to a deeper understanding of the procedure to be performed and appropriate processes for the procedure, thereby eliminating/reducing medical errors in the process. Speaking from the Heart: When you speak from the heart you are candid and speak from your experience, for the moment. It is that genuineness that causes a deeper relationship to build during the interaction with the sole purpose of developing a common understanding and common purpose. From a book entitled, Crossing the Quality Chasm, two of the ten rules for redesigning the 21st Century Healthcare System to minimize errors are: (i) the patient is the source of control, and (ii) knowledge is shared while information flows freely. Studies show that when a patient is participating actively in the decisions about their own care they appear to have better outcomes, lower costs, and higher functional status than those who don’t participate. This means the relationship between the provider and patient has to be deeper to minimize medical errors and speaking from the heart can assist in achieving that objective. Holding Space for Difference: When we hold space for difference, we embrace differing views as an opportunity for learning. We actually acknowledge the usefulness of another point of view. As we examine errors in our hospitals for improvement in patient safety, every area must be explored. The diversity of thought concerning safety in various industries contains valuable insights; however, our own limiting views and mental models often preclude us from extracting those ideas and concepts. In a report to the President of the United States on medical errors in 2000 by a Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force, health care was declared as “a decade or more behind other high?risk industries in its attention to ensuring basic safety.” The recommendation was to look at how other external organizations (e.g., FAA, other nation’s healthcare practices, etc) address the issues of safety in a more effective manner. By understanding how to hold space for difference, the opportunities for exploring solutions significantly manifests itself. Suspend Certainty: As you suspend certainty you provide space for different opinions to enter the discussion. You hold a space for the need to be right or heard and especially hold your own opinion up for all to examine. A study from the Journal of American Medical Association stated that more than 10% of final?year residents feel unprepared to deal with certain types of care ?? including HIV/AIDS, substance abuse and geriatrics ?? this not a surprise to those who monitor skill levels of practicing physicians. Given this, it would appear that as residents gravitate through their programs; both facilitator and faculty need to be able to suspend certainty in their own limits of medical knowledge. Not doing so can lead to medical errors by residents proceeding with care due to fear of exposing their knowledge limitation—an issue many clinical professionals fear. Slowing down the Inquiry: As we allow time to digest the other person’s words and take time for the conversation to develop and expose, we deepen our common understanding of the issue we are analyzing. Consider that the average time a doctor spends with a patient is around 15 minutes to glean all medically important facts and 60% of all patients leave either forgetting to ask important questions to their provider or provide substantive information. Strategies to slow down the inquiry and provide opportunity for common understanding (two?way communication) is critical to reducing errors in medical practice and providing a deeper relationship. In a recent American Medical Group Association study, effective personal interaction with clinical leadership, coupled with leadership designing and communicating clear expectations, were amongst the major issues for physician retention during their first 90 days of work. By slowing down the inquiry, physician leaders can ensure a quality interaction and ensure safety expectations are understood (along with other expectations) thus leading to higher retention of a precious commodity—our newly enrolled physicians who understand medical errors in all contexts (business and clinical). Conversational Leadership has significantly more implications on patient safety then what has been presented in this paper. The purpose was to show brief and immediate benefits of how the conversation and strategies to ensure deeper understanding can improve patient safety. The examples were individual in nature and intended to illustrate a component and how it could impact patient safety directly. It must be stated that patient safety has many more components to assess, the least of which is the apparent imbalance between tort reform and patient safety policy. The Conversational Leadership practice of designing and using learning conversations is a system?based process that utilizes all five learning conversation guidelines interdependently and should be practiced in a way that utilizes all five components. Each component has strategies that can be engaged to maximize the effectiveness. To learn more about these strategies and how to apply and integrate them in your medical practice please feel free to contact Brian McElyea at Jorgensen Learning Center (bmcelyea@bellsouth.net) or (904) 513-2259.

Followership In A System

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:55:08 +0100

Try suggesting to someone—anyone in any position in business, education, government or any other segment of society—that “leadership” is not important, and brace yourself for a barrage of reaction. Everybody knows our companies and departments and organizations are crying for good leadership. But suggest in a loud voice that more people need to learn how to follow, and watch for a very different response. Followers are often equated with “dumb sheep” or “lemmings”—until someone stops to think about where leaders would be without followers or how the quality of followership enhances and even shapes the successful outcome of good leadership. “I never had a boss.” Long ago my dad told me he never had a boss. I asked how that was possible. I’d met people who were introduced as his employer or boss. He said something I’ve kept with me forever: “People don’t choose their bosses; someone simply ordained that person as the boss. True allegiance and commitment comes when an individual chooses to follow a person in a leadership position.” He added: “I’ve had lots of people of all different sizes, shapes and temperaments who claimed to be my boss. Each time a new boss was thrust upon me, I had the power of choice to decide whether or not I chose to follow that man or woman claiming positional power.” One of the expected outcomes of our American education system is economic independence—a job; a regular paycheck; gainful employment. Once an individual accepts employment, the employing organization, through formal or informal orientation, defines the supervisor-employee relationship. Typically, these relationships describe the supervisor as the “boss” over the employees. “Boss” defined By definition, a boss is somebody who is in charge of others, especially in a work environment. Or the boss might be the dominant individual in a relationship or group, the one who tends to make decisions and give instructions. Dominance is something we all understand from our years as children growing up in families where parents played a dominant role. In fact, our conditioning as children and as students in an adult-dominated system worked so well that we might actually feel comfortable when someone demonstrates dominance over us as employees at work. Relationships affect the system But what effect does that type of relationship have on the success of the overall system? Unfortunately, many boss-employee relationships make it difficult for people working in the system to develop their capacity to engage in a committed manner in order to help the system grow strong. Surprisingly, some people in this world refuse to allow someone to be their boss. They find this boss-employee relationship too much like a parent telling the children how to behave. All too often, when leaders attempt to use positional power to establish dominance over employees, working men and women dig in their proverbial heels and refuse to accept the directives, demands or guidance proffered. Boss vs. Leader Compliance and commitment represent the two most common ways an employee can choose to interact within the organization. Bosses demand compliance while leaders enroll people in vision. Which organization suits you? Some people work their entire careers in a boss-employee relationship and find it satisfying. Others complain, take off early, use sick days rampantly and merely exist in such an environment. The bossemployee dominance does nothing for their commitment to the organization or their ability to embrace a shared vision. The leader-follower relationship, on the other hand, promotes commitment and engagement among the work force. "Leaders rarely use their power wisely or effectively over long periods unless they are supported by followers who have the stature to help them do so." --Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower, 2003 The role of followers Effective leaders are in search of followers. Simply arriving at work and dusting off the “boss” sign will never get it done, as the Blue Collar Comedy’s Larry the Cable Guy states. Leaders enroll followers by stewarding them in three areas identified by Margaret Wheatley in Leadership and the New Science: • Self reference, or how they fit in; • Ongoing, consistent communication—with understanding; and • Relationships development When leaders keep in mind that relationships are developed through ongoing conversation, providing visionary guidance that helps people understand how they fit in, the chances of developing a committed workforce are greatly enhanced. Leaders are always in search of followers and are best served when they understand that followers must choose their leaders. So, as a leader, do you have followers or people who think you are their boss? Visit www.jorgensenlearningcenter.com or call 904.382.6522 for more info on how our services can assist you or your organization.

After Action Reviews

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:53:37 +0100

"The Army's After Action Review (AAR) is arguably one of the most successful organizational learning methods yet devised. Yet, most every corporate effort to graft this truly innovative practice into their culture has failed because, again and again, people reduce the living practice of AAR's to a sterile technique." -- Peter Senge An After Action Review (AAR) is an assessment conducted after a Big Picture item, project or major activity assisting support personnel and leaders to learn what happened and why. It may be thought of as a focused and disciplined professional conversation about an event or set of events that assists those involved in understanding why things happened during the progression of the process and to learn from that experience. Typically, an After Action Review is an example of an abbreviated Knowledge Management System. It provides an opportunity to surface and share the personal practical knowledge of the project team members. Although a common practice, the AAR does not have to be performed at the end of a project or activity. Rather, it can be performed after each identifiable event or milestone within a project or major event, thus becoming a live team oriented learning process. The AAR is a professional discussion that includes both the planning and implementation participants and focusing directly on the tasks and goals. It is not simply a critique of the Big Picture project or event. Rather it is a learning protocol to determine how to maintain practices that aided in the project or event completion and to refine or end practices that failed to support accomplishment. An AAR has several advantages over a critique: • It does not judge success or failure. • It attempts to determine why things happened. • It focuses directly on the tasks and goals that were designed to accomplish the project or hold the event. • The process encourages participants to surface important “lessons learned.” • Multiple participants are engaged so that more of the project action-items or activities can be recalled and more lessons can be learned and shared. As a leader, you are responsible for influencing the learning of the workforce. The AAR is a learning protocol that can assist you with developing those you lead by providing feedback. Typically, some feedback is direct and in real time. During major projects or activities, it is not always easy to notice how actions affect the outcome of the project or successful completion of an event. Usually, performances or actions leading to the successful completion of a project or event will be unclear or even unknown until a milestone is accomplished or the project reaches conclusion; conversely, actions or activities that hindered success will be equally difficult to determine. For these reasons, the AAR should be designed during the planning process and calendared as part of the project. A Leader should guide the After Action Review, rather than direct it, as it is worker centric and focuses on what was done correctly, incorrectly, and how to do better next time around. An AAR presents characteristics of both art and science; as such, a fine line between keeping the meeting from falling into disarray where nothing significant is accomplished, to people speaking in a formal and polite ways that mask issues where again, actual assessment is not realized. Steps for Conducting the AAR An AAR may be designed as formal or informal. The same JLC Meeting Protocols should be employed involving the frank and candid exchange of observations, perspectives and ideas. Regardless, all meetings require planning. The following Ground Rules are helpful in the design process. • Gather as many of the players as possible. • Establish the Context, Purposes and Outcomes of the AAR. • Review Learning Conversation Guidelines and JLC Ground Rules. • State the Big Picture item with the expected success indicators or evidence. • Describe the action-item or of the specific activity. • Encourage participation. • Invite participants to restate portions of their part of the activity. • Keep focused on action-item strengths and upgrades. • The following will help: Ask why certain actions were taken. Ask how they reacted to certain situations. Ask when actions were initiated. Ask leading and thought provoking questions. Exchange "war stories" (lessons learned). Ask participants what happened from their own point of view. Connect actions and events to subsequent results. Explore alternative courses of actions that might have been more effective. When the discussion turns to errors made, emphasize the idea of upgrading for future efforts and point out the challenges of making decisions in realtime. Inquire, Summarize and Inquire Again. Invite participants to discuss the events with in pairs and small groups. Follow-up on agreed-upon actions. Design a final report emphasizing “lessons learned.” Leaders who facilitate an AAR must remember to: • Remain neutral, positive and unbiased throughout the review. • Use learning protocols to draw out comments from all. • Immediately stop personal attacks. • Keep the focus on learning and continuous improvement. • Invite others to offer solutions from all participants • Avoid offering your own solutions. An effectively designed and facilitated AAR can have a powerful influence on the culture and climate of an organization. It is part of an ongoing system of learning and can assist in preventing future confusion on organizational priorities and philosophies and emphasize the idea that we learn from our mistakes.

Watch for Pebbles - Part 2

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:49:37 +0100

Last month I wrote about pebbles and ways not to stumble over them. As a recap, I discussed the old proverb: “Nobody trips over mountains. It is the small pebble that causes you to stumble. Pass all the pebbles in your path and you will find you have climbed the mountain.” I spoke about the new leadership paradigm of focusing on the result, guiding ideas and evidence that the results are being realized. In other words, senior leadership does not focus on the structures of accomplishing the result. That should be the work of the line leaders. All too often, senior leaders make their daily meetings around issues that involve structures, becoming project managers rather than project leaders. If senior leadership keeps its attention on supervising to the evidence that the results are being achieved, then line leaders can supervise (and have the freedom to design) the structures without interference from senior leadership. This simple shift becomes empowering to everyone in the system. Senior leadership is then able to spend more time focusing on those strategic issues (we call that working on the system) versus managing daily activities that line leaders would do in this new paradigm (we call that working in the system). As senior leaders concentrate on the evidence that we are achieving those important corporate goals, they may notice a lack of convincing evidence. To that end, we then ask the question: What is occurring in the system? If the line manager is not finding evidence of mission accomplishment, there is probably a deficiency of knowledge in the system about how to make the necessary adjustments (we call that personal practical knowledge). The senior leadership does not rush to judgment about lack of evidence. We believe in what Dr. Deming said: 99% of the people in the system are doing the very best they can to succeed; however, it is the structures we create that cause them to fail. Therefore, if our outcomes aren’t being realized, we critically analyze the structures we have in place and inquire about our personal practical knowledge to see if we can increase the system’s capacity to be more effective through knowledge/learning. Dr. Deming also stated, “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and THEN do your best.” The JLC triangle (see figure 1) places organizational focus in the right people’s hands. Senior leaders supervise to the evidence that the result they are attempting to achieve is being fulfilled. The line leaders focus on the structure construction and efficiency—using evidence to support their decisions. If the results are not in evidence, then we talk about the Personal Practical Knowledge issues that we need. An example might help bring this discussion to light: Result: To complete one part of a triathlon bike leg in ? x time. Guiding Idea: In order to complete the Biking leg in ? X time, I must increase my stamina and overall pedal speed. Evidence: 1. Minutes at the top of cardio?vascular range 2. Pedal speed per minute 3. Sustained pedal speed per 5?minute intervals 4. Sustained pedal speed at 10?minute intervals 5. And so forth Structure: 1. Gym time on stationary bike 2. Road work for x time 3. Speed work 4. And so forth Personal Practical Knowledge If my structures are not leading to the evidence that my desired result is being achieved, then I might need to consult a trainer who can offer me different structures that would show evidence that my result is being fulfilled. If you take the above example and place it in figure 1, you can see how the triangle keeps us focused on our organizational responsibilities and the most important aspects of what we are trying to accomplish (that result). Senior leaders should ask themselves: Are my Board discussions dealing with the top of the triangle (result, guiding ideas, and evidence) or the bottom of the triangle (structures and Personal Practical Knowledge questions)? Asking yourself this question as you look at your agenda is a good way to keep the proper focus as a leadership body. The triangle is a very powerful tool to clearly outline the result you are trying to achieve. That step is often overlooked in programs/projects, leading to lack of clarity on the desires of senior leadership. Next, as you design the guiding ideas (those “in order to achieve result x” statements) you will be compelled to do research around best practices to achieve a desired result. As the evidence statements are constructed, they provide the organization clear expectations of what the senior leadership is hoping to accomplish. Line leaders then have clear direction and can work with their teams to design structures they feel are most appropriate to support the desired result (very liberating, we find). If the evidence isn’t generated, we then can have objective discussions around what personal practical knowledge must be enhanced to improve the evidence. In this model we do not come from a place of knowing but from a place of inquiring. Lastly, in the words of Dr. Deming again, “everyone doing their best isn’t the answer. The first step in transformation is to learn how to change.” Jorgensen Learning Center is committed to this work for all to share and use. The ultimate goal is to build high quality professional relationships between senior leadership and line leaders. We believe that high quality relationships lead to high quality results. Figure 1:

Watch for Pebbles - Part 1

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:48:56 +0100

There is an old proverb that goes something like this; “Nobody trips over mountains. It is the small pebble that causes you to stumble. Pass all the pebbles in your path and you will find you have climbed the mountain”. This proverb has tremendous application in business today. Clearly planned and sequential steps focused on three elements—results, guiding ideas and evidence—seem to illuminate the pebbles and prevent the stumbling. Think of a mountainous problem you’ve recently encountered at work that requires a solution. Often, we jump at things we might put into place to solve the problem (we call those “things” structures). In the new leadership paradigm, we attempt to think differently. We ask ourselves, “in solving this problem, what result are we seeking?” Once that result is clearly defined, we now ask ourselves, “in order to achieve the result we are seeking, what action items must we accomplish?” That question speaks to the guiding ideas. Lastly, we prompt ourselves to think about evidence we must generate that the guiding idea is being accomplished in order for our result to be realized. It isn’t until we’ve drafted these three elements that we begin to think about what structures are necessary to achieve our result. It is a leader’s responsibility to focus on the three elements (results, guiding ideas, and evidence) and the manager’s responsibility to lead the structures—always ensuring the evidence they are generating is leading to the results they are trying to achieve. By practicing this results-oriented strategy, individuals will find that they climb the mountain and maneuver around the pebbles without stumbling nearly as much. Of course, in this process there will always be times when we stumble. The key is to learn and appreciate the mistakes we make along the way to climbing the mountain. The wisdom is best stated by a Japanese proverb: “Fall seven times, stand up eight.” And recall the words of St. Augustine: “Patience is the companion of wisdom.” In our next newsletter, I will discuss the full domain of action that Jorgensen Learning Center utilizes…these elements are only part of the triangle to which we subscribe.

Aspiration

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:47:54 +0100

Leaders design, implement and steward an active environment where individuals and teams within the organization can realize and achieve their full potential. People will feel motivated when two conditions exist in the system almost simultaneously: current reality and the desired future reality. Peter Senge speaks about this idea as an “integrating principle” in almost all of his publications dealing with the five disciplines. Once an adult clearly understand how his/her performance contributes to the accomplishment of specific results, a current performance reality is established. To establish creative tension, the team member must be able to compare and contrast the current reality with the desired outcome. Exactly what must I do differently to help move my team in the preferred direction? As the leader, you must enable a type of tension between the results which the current performance is generating now and that which is mutually agreed to be the expected and possible performance result. For example, a dentist is dissatisfied with his new assistant’s performance in supporting the insertion of a “crown.” The assistant will never develop the desired technique until he first recognizes how he is currently performing the job and contrasts that with the specific behaviors he could adopt to help the dentist more effectively. The assistant who holds both concepts as mental tension will self-monitor, correct mistakes, and in other ways move from the current reality to the desired performance. And whose job is it to provide that creative tension? The dentist’s—the leader who will ultimately benefit from the assistant’s improved performance, making patient care and satisfaction better and moving the entire team toward a better dental practice. This unfolding tension presents the condition of aspiration for the individual and also for the team. Focusing solely on the desired future condition or current reality removes the tension you are interested in developing. How well parents of small children would do to heed that notion! We have all heard the demand to “clean up this mess,” but a four-year-old is incapable of envisioning the desired result. She can see only the current reality: the toys strewn here and there, the overwhelming heap of items to be “cleaned up.” The frustrated parent knows exactly what a “cleaned up room” looks like. It is now the parent’s role, as leader, to help the child recognize and hold both realities in mind simultaneously. Adult learners, with their vastly extended life experience, will do this more easily, but it is still the job of the leader to patiently help them create the mental tension. Creative tension enables motivation in teams and individuals. A few guiding ideas help keep this practice on the radar screen. A. Establishing creative tension enables personal and team aspiration. B. Aspiring to continuous improvement must be modeled by the leader and all on the leadership team. C. The leader must initiate and maintain creative tension by holding both the current reality results and the desired future reality results simultaneously with individuals and teams. D. Once desired future reality results are being attained, new creative tension must be designed.

Innovation and Creative Tension

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:46:36 +0100

Innovation is no longer the exclusive realm of Research and Development teams or eccentric scientists in university laboratories. It is not Newton sitting under an apple tree or Descartes locked in his study on a cold night or a teenage Steve Jobs hunched over a computer in his garage. Innovation is not the result of activity in isolation. Innovation is applied creativity, captured potentiality. Innovation is the key to long-term sustainability for any organization, for standing still is no longer an option. Thus, innovation must be a shared responsibility—shared by employees, customers, clients, and vendors. On the flip side, innovation for its own sake is wasteful and ineffective; uncontrolled innovation is chaotic and disruptive; innovation not balanced with vision is destructive. Innovation is a powerful force, and one that must be handled with love and discipline. How do we do this? First, you must be clear about your organization’s purpose, core values, goals and desired future reality—in short, your organization’s vision. The vision defines the parameters of innovation. If you manufacture bottle caps, you might come up with brilliant ideas to improve the process of cap production or make caps that seal more tightly. You might even come up with a new bottle design to complement your caps. But you do not want to put energy into creating stronger shoelaces. Second, be clear about your expectations around innovation. Is innovation a priority in your organization? Are employees allowed time to think and create? Are they encouraged to openly share ideas with one another and with management? Do they understand what they can innovate? All of these points are critical. Employees must believe that innovation is your priority. This must be repeated to them as if it were a mantra. Structures (processes and procedures, rules, etc.) should be put in place that provide viable outlets for creativity and idea sharing. Employees should be given an allotted amount of creative time; a suggestion box could be established; the process for submitting ideas for review by management should be clearly understood, and so forth. Further, innovation requires collaboration, multiple ideas, multiple voices, and multiple perspectives. This approach helps with all of the stages of innovation: review, selection, quality control, scenario planning, implementation, and marketing. Part of your organization’s structure should be assembling creative teams, cross-functional and cross-disciplinary, to carry out and monitor the innovations that are approved. Employees should be permitted to seek the personal practical knowledge they need to connect to the source of their creativity. Perhaps they can be taught problem-solving methods, or encouraged to read or attend classes, to reach out to customers or vendors and ask questions. Innovation should not be limited to the product or service you offer, the “content” so to speak. It should extend to processes, the “how” of doing business, and to relationships, with whom we do business. There is no limit. Third, embracing failure is essential. You cannot operate a work culture in which nothing less than perfection is accepted. If people cannot fail without fear, then they will not take risks to be creative. Quality ideas will be stifled, and employees will either become complacent in their work or leave. I once worked with a manager in setting up performance standards for his operation. When I explained that the first step was to monitor current performance to see what the data indicated (number of errors in a particular process, in this instance), his response was that there was no need to track current performance. Mistakes were being made, so it obviously was not good enough. He expected 100% error-free work. His thinking is reflective of much of our traditional leadership theory, but it is not realistic. It is not so much that we avoid failure, but that we handle it with grace and learn from it. A corollary to this point is embracing the unpredictable pace, and seemingly erratic trail, of innovation. Progress is not linear, meaning it does not continue steadily at the same pace until it reaches fulfillment. It actually increases exponentially; once attention and energy are put towards an innovative path, success often comes much quicker than planned. And fourth, look outside your organizations and notice trends among your competitors and peers, learn about innovations in other industries, even in other countries. Have a forward thinking perspective will help you as you help move your organization towards its desired future reality. Fostering innovation can seem overwhelming to both leaders and employees; it does bring about a certain amount of uncertainty. But without that creative push, without focusing on the gap between where we are and where we want to be—or who we are and who we want to be—there will be no urge to shift from current reality. This state is what we at JLC call creative tension.

Journaling as Reflective Practice

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:45:44 +0100

Journaling as Reflective Practice As leaders of living systems, the ability to reflect is one of the most important disciplines to develop. Over the years we have found that, at particularly difficult times in life, when confused and disheartened, and times of exhilaration when life is filled with joy and happiness, the journaling practice helps center us and provides a space for reflection and learning. The Internet is filled with journaling advice, and journaling workshops abound. Most journaling teachers describe different kinds of writing such as “daily log,” “period log,” “dream log,” “dialogues.” Regardless of the style of writing you choose to practice, the most significant part of journaling is that it’s yours–to be listened to by you without comment or judgment, received, not analyzed. Journaling provides disciplined attention to your own experience and your own words, allowing you to absorb your own experience and take it seriously. Extremely difficult situations with enormous emotion attached can unfold in your journal, to be thought through from what might become a completely new perspective. You can later review your responses to situations in privacy without quick judgment from someone else. Journaling allows you to cope with significant events in your leadership role and offers a refuge to work on other things unfolding in your life. Journaling will show you that understanding is really more important than critiquing. The more practice you put into this work, the more you will deepen opportunities for understanding self and others. Many leaders enjoying this writing practice describe their reflections as stepping-stones to deeper understanding of the professional practice patterns. Following the advice of Peter Senge, remember: patterns are not random. When repetitive leadership responses appear in our writing, we should look for the underlying mental models and structures causing the pattern. This becomes a superior way to reflect on the source of our behavior, coming to see what it is that defines us as a leader. Although encouragement for a writing practice needs little additional support, sometimes the journal gets lost in the process of leading. When you notice that you’ve stopped, commit to writing this afternoon. It’s just that simple. The most common explanation for setting aside the journal is usually time: Many leaders with challenging careers have households with kids, cats, dogs, aging parents and responsibility for may people and things. There just doesn’t seem time to keep a journal. But leaders tell us that they are ready to occasionally set the journal aside for the sake of time only after they have internalized the discipline of personal reflection. Reflecting as a practitioner will serve you well as a leader and as a woman or a man.

Leadership Meeting Facilitation

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:44:15 +0100

The Learning Facilitator (Success is in the Conversation) Since JLC just finished a wonderful 2-day symposium on effective meeting facilitation, it seems fitting to discuss the learning facilitator this month. Francois La Rochefoucauld appropriately stated, "the reason why so few people are agreeable in conversations is that each is thinking more about what he intends to say than about what others are saying, and we never listen when we are eager to speak." Sound familiar? What does it feel like when you know you were really heard? In meetings, a critical component is to listen for understanding. To create a conversation that is based on attempting to learn from one another requires that we really listen to what others are saying. To make sure their point of view is heard and understood. For me, this was not an easy task until I began to step back from every conversation and ask myself, “what did I learn?” That simple question created a space for me to critically analyze whether or not I was listening for learning or listening to be polite. Adults like to know that they are truly being heard so we must create effective communication strategies that allow for learning to occur during our meetings. Secondly, Anthony Robbins states, "To effectively communicate, we must realize that we are all different in the way we perceive the world and use this understanding as a guide to our communication with others." In JLC speak, we call these mental models. Essentially, mental models are representations of reality that we use to understand particular phenomena. Mental models are so powerful to our human construction that they can strongly influence how and who we listen to. Understanding how to surface and suspend our mental models becomes critical if we want to break down communication barriers. Specifically since all of our mental models are incomplete, constantly evolving, usually not accurate representations of reality and they contain measures of uncertainty but still allow them to be used even if incorrect. As a learning facilitator, it becomes critical to understand mental models and their role in hampering and enhancing communication during a meeting. Thirdly, Peter Drucker states, “The most important thing in communication is to hear what isn't being said." A learning facilitator must read the room for tension and apprehension on members to speak. To sense fear by the participants to not speak. These are all common items in meetings we facilitate. To overcome this issue, JLC creates small teams to discuss an issue then they come back to the big group and report their discussions for synthesis and group think. By doing this, we make sure all members get involved, diffuse the dominant personalities in the room and enhance team learning. JLC learning facilitators design the meeting as a learning container where all participants become engaged and enrolled in the expected outcomes of the meeting. Lastly, Edward Bulwer-Lytton made the point, “the true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." A learning facilitator recognizes every point as a valuable contribution to the learning process and creates that container which is safe to present ideas and let the team build on them to create a unified product for the team. There are certainly many other areas a learning facilitator needs to be effective in and those will be explored in the next issue. We will explore the JLC Learning Conversation Guidelines at that time. JLC specializes in learning facilitation and we now provide a means for those who are interested in learning more to do so in our 2-day workshops.

Reflections on 2007

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:42:56 +0100

Another year has passed and what a year it has been! We continue to grow as a learning community, and interest in Conversational Leadership (CL) is rapidly increasing. Just as it seems that everything is picking up speed around us, CL compels us to slow down and develop those key relationships that will pave the way to future success. As we slow the inquiry, rich insights emerge - insights that enhance corporate results. All of this reinforces the JLC syllogism: if high quality relationships lead to high quality results AND the conversation enhances the relationship THEN Conversational Leadership improves the relationship and subsequently the results. Before we peek around the corner into 2008, let’s review some basic CL concepts - a ‘refresher course’ of sorts. In keeping with the Christmas spirit, we busted a few rhymes and went out on a limb to bring you this rhyming review. Like the little drummer boy, consider it our (very) humble gift: Our clients work is so fast-paced and demanding, We request the time to listen for understanding. Nothing more powerful as a means to start, Than to open up and speak from the heart. Certainly there is value in flexibility and bending, More patience is needed for suspending. Holding space for difference has a critical edge, Creating openings, removing the wedge. Slowing down the inquiry is worth the time, These are the JLC Learning Conversation Guidelines. That isn't all that JLC wishes to share, We facilitate and develop leaders that care. We stand behind our process without hesitation, We've seen that success is in the conversation. Meetings with context, purpose and outcome is key, CPO is how we refer to it at JLC. All of this takes discipline and dedication, It flows through the JLC certification. We hope this poem serves as a review, For we enjoyed sharing it with you. Okay, so it’s not Robert Frost, but you gotta admit it’s catchy. More than anything, we want to convey our dedication and passion toward Conversational Leadership. CL has powerful implications to organizational success and we’re honored to have been chosen by numerous companies across the U.S. to introduce the concept to their leaders. To date, we’ve worked with thousands of people, and in 2008 we anticipate taking our learning to the global stage! In future articles, we will continue to discuss JLC concepts in more detail. But first things first. We at JLC would like to say that it has been our privilege to share our learning with you in 2007 as well as learn so much from you and we look forward to 2008 with equal enthusiasm. Happy Holidays to all!!!

A Long-term Solution to a Global “Quick Fix” Problem

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:40:15 +0100

From the proverbial quest for the Holy Grail, to Ponce de Leon’s doomed search for the Fountain of Youth, man has sought a quick fix to his problems. While science and common sense tell us that exercise and nutrition lead to a longer, healthier life, diet fads abound. With all the diet fads, we should be the slimmest nation on earth, yet a record 63% of America’s population is overweight, with 32% of those obese. We know that saving money, investing wisely, and staying out of debt is the most certain path to wealth, yet a Google search for “fast money” turns up 124,000,000 hits and more Americans than ever before face record debt and bankruptcy. Companies are not immune to this futile quest since companies are simply collections of individuals. Thus, focus on short term solutions led to the demise or decline of companies like Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson, Adelphia, Halliburton, and Citigroup, to name a few. In today’s global economy, the effects of the proverbial “quick fix” are felt worldwide in such ways as higher prices, decreased trust, job pension loss, and negative environmental impacts. Do we have to hit rock bottom as a culture before we’re ready to admit that our lack of discipline to problem solving may not be the best approach? There is a better way and it isn’t all that complex; in fact, some might call it “back to basics” or common sense. It isn’t necessarily quick, but evidence suggests the results are long-lasting and very promising. The solution is best expressed through the philosophies of three men who have, fortunately, gained considerable attention in recent years: W. Edwards Deming, Peter Senge, and Stephen Covey. While Deming teaches in terms of 14 points, Senge of 5 disciplines, and Covey of 7 habits, each assimilates age-old wisdom and packages it in a way we can all understand and follow. Think Golden Rule, mixed with the book Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, tossed with a pinch of basic statistical knowledge, and you begin to get the idea. Deming, Senge, and Covey each espouse the importance of respect, creating a clear vision (individually and collectively), understanding how our actions affect others (systems thinking), and the importance of taking the time to talk. Earth shattering? Not in the least! But to implement their ideas requires the dreaded long-term view, mixed with focus, time, and discipline. To some, this sounds like work and accounts for why we often opt for unreliable short-term fixes. To others, like the 2007 winners of Japan’s prestigious Deming Prize (Rane Limited and Asahi Indian Glass Limited), or its U.S. counterpart, the Malcolm Baldridge Award, (Mercy Health Care System, and The City of Coral Springs, among others), the application of such principles is simply one small step on the path toward healthy growth. The consultants at JLC carry forth these sound philosophies by way of a practice called, “Conversational Leadership (CL).” CL uses Senge’s five disciplines as a foundational basis: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision and team learning. The process relies on the practice of dialogue, or disciplined conversation, to help groups become learning communities where ideas are freely shared. This disciplined exchange of ideas harnesses the energy and talent of everyone in a group, surfaces problems that are inherent in the system, and builds a shared sense of purpose and community. The word, “dialogue” derives from the Greek words for “free flow of meaning (dialogos),” and has been used by sages throughout time. In recent years, the practice of dialogue has formed the heart of a successful learning community started in 1992 by MIT’s Peter Senge. i Originally known as “The Dialogue Project,” it has evolved into The Society for Organizational Learning (SOL). This global initiative includes such powerhouse organizations as Boeing, The Department of Defense, BP, Coca-Cola, Harley Davidson, Nissan, Ford and Nike. Leaders, from these and many other groups, come together on a regular basis to “connect corporations and organizations, researchers and consultants to generate knowledge about and capacity for fundamental innovation and change by engaging in collaborative action inquiry projects.” ii One sub-group, known as the Knowledge and Innovation Network (KIN), intervened at Hewlett-Packard to encourage systemic changes that resulted in a $200 million dollars savings. iii Another SOL initiative, the Sustainability Consortium, focuses on ways companies can balance economic growth with environmental health. Consortium member, Plug Power, is a company that uses fuel cell technology to create cleaner energy. Under Senge’s tutelage, Plug Power is working toward its goal of “zero to landfill,” and boasts Honda as a major client. iv Disciplined dialogue works as evidenced by the number of fortune 50 corporations embracing it to slow down the inquiry needed to achieve deeper understanding of complex issues. At JLC, whether we facilitate groups within a company or a city, or coach individuals, we teach dialogue as a means to Conversational Leadership. CL is an approach based on the solid wisdom of teachers such as Deming, Senge, and Covey. It facilitates the systemic flow of knowledge and information with the following aim: to enable people to form self-sufficient learning communities that are proven to lead to long-term, sustainable growth. Think this sounds time-consuming? Consider all the time, manpower, and morale spent on repairing the damage done by “quick” fixes. i Society for Organizational Learning, http://www.solonline.org/aboutsol/ ii Society for Organizational Learning iii Society for Organizational Learning, http://www.solonline.org/public_pages/comm_KnowledgeAndInnovation/ iv Plug Power, http://www.plugpower.com/news/press.cfm

Our Future Depends on Dynamic Leadership: Is it in you?

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:13:44 +0100

Our Future Depends on Dynamic Leadership: Is it in you? Michael J. Hynes, Ed.D. Recently I had the wonderful opportunity to attend two professionally and personally life-altering symposiums: The Principals’ Center at Harvard University and Personal Leadership Development: Tapping into the Spirit of Leading at The Jorgensen Learning Center in Jacksonville, Florida. The two experiences confirmed for me some of the wisdom of the ages that has always inspired me. Sir Arthur Helps said, “It takes a great man to be a good listener.” That point was reinforced many times in the Jorgensen Learning Center symposium. With its emphasis on Learning Conversations as the way adults best learn, the importance of listening to each other was stressed over and over. It seemed to be the underpinning of the five Learning Conversation Guidelines: 1. listen for understanding, 2. speak from the heart, 3. suspend certainty, 4. hold space for difference, 5. slow down inquiry. Certainly each one of those guidelines assumes people are listening to each other. At the Jorgensen Learning Center, I realized that “success is in the conversation,” and that means the focus must be on relationships. Think about it. If a “dynamic leader” is to make a difference in any organization, it truly comes down to relationships. The “R Word” is what dynamic leaders need to embrace and utilize to move any agenda forward in their respective organizations. We were told, “Success of any venture depends upon the people involved in the change process.” The dynamic leader in the 21st century needs to understand and accept the fact that conflict will take place in any living organization. Mental models are the second of Senge's five disciplines for the learning organization (Senge, The Leader’s New Work, 1990). Much of the work involving mental models comes from Chris Argyris and his colleagues at Harvard University. A mental model is one's way of looking at the world. It is a framework for the cognitive processes of our mind. Simply put, it determines how we think and act. Dr. Jorgensen’s Learning Center addresses peoples’ mental models. One of the most important statements I heard that weekend was, “A belief is not something you possess; it is something that possesses you.” Talk about the importance of mental models! And it is so true, “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” The Jorgensen Learning Center feels that “leaders initiate and sustain an influence in a relationship that embodies purpose and confidence in a person or group.” As Howard Gardner’s latest book Five Minds for the Future informs us, “We live in a time of vast changes that include accelerating globalization, mounting quantities of information, the growing hegemony of science and technology, and the clash of civilizations. Those changes call for new ways of learning and thinking…” This reminds me of the wisdom of Napoleon: “Nothing is more difficult, and therefore more precious, than to be able to decide.” Our role as dynamic leaders is to nurture the relationships that help groups decide wisely through effective learning conversations. Then, as Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “We do our best that we know how at the moment, and if it doesn’t turn out, we modify it.” I have learned too that, as dynamic leaders, “We must resist the urge to focus on short-term results by placing our emphasis on long-term results and the systemic improvements that will generate the lasting change we are seeking.” (Ray Jorgensen) The whole concept of systems thinking and systems leadership for change is exhilarating to me. Once again it takes me back to the wisdom of a bygone era, when Henry David Thoreau said, “It is not enough to be busy…The question is: what are we busy about?” As the Jorgensen folks taught us, “An example of an amazing system-wide improvement is always based on building relationships, instilling a moral purpose, and understanding the change process.” I would say that type of leadership will help us know what we’re busy about—and help us make positive systemic change to our “busy-ness.” Based on these two amazing learning opportunities I have had at Harvard and the Jorgensen Learning Center, I feel prepared to begin my new journey: To be WHO I AM, BE WHERE I AM, LOOK AROUND, DECIDE AND DO. I know I’ll still make mistakes; I need to maintain my sense of humor and keep it all real, but I have a better sense now of how to do the best that I can. So I’ll live by Mark Twain’s rule: “Always do right; this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”

The Power of Time

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:12:51 +0100

Since the first of this year, I have hit the ground running, and in talking with others, I am learning that I am not the only one who is struggling to keep pace. Over the past few weeks, I have had opportunities to reflect on this—usually as I am standing in line or waiting in traffic. Why do we feel so rushed? So swept up in the ‘now’? I have no answer—I can only believe that 2008 is a pivotal year and I am hanging on for the ride. I find this approach far easier to cope with. Most of us assume we are guilty of some shortcoming when we find ourselves simply treading water to keep afloat. “I must get more organized,” we say. Or, “I have to prioritize the things in my life.” To these I say, “Stuff and nonsense!” We must bear in mind that we are part of a system, many systems. We respond to demands as they arise to the best of our ability and given the resources and knowledge we have. It is only in hindsight, as we look back at why events do not meet our expectations, that we second-guess our capabilities. And armed with this insight, what if we re-examine how we look at time (I borrow now from a wonderful little book, Ten Thoughts About Time)? What if we stop saying, “I don’t have enough time,” or, “I’ll never get that done in time”? All of life is part of a steady flow, and time is but one of the element of our systems. Time has always existed, yet it is only in the past two generations that we have become time-dependent. Time has gone from being part of the backdrop to a critical measure not only of what we do but what kind of person we are, whether we are punctual or organized, and, by extension, responsible or trustworthy. There are many economic and social interactions that can effectively and usefully be measured in terms of time, much like we measure temperature in terms of degrees or weight in terms of pounds (or kilograms). We are able to take this time, divide it up and try to reassemble it, buy devices to help us track it. But this time, “clock time,” is a technological artifice and should not be confused with “lived time.” Lived time is the time that is ours, which we infuse with thoughts and feelings and experiences. To get more personal time, you have to let go of the clock as the ultimate measure of time. The ultimate measure is the quality of the experiences and relationships you are able to fill your time with. To that end, we can move away from our old mental models of never having enough time, and instead create a new reality in which we have plenty of time. This is really not an issue of managing time (“clock time”), but rather of acknowledging that time is not something that we can manage. We can change our self-talk and tell ourselves that we have enough time. We can guard against dividing our time so that our “lived time” seems longer—much like summers seemed to stretch endlessly to us as children. Too many small pieces make time easier to use up. And we can move away from the belief that time is money, that if we are not producing something (to earn money) we are wasting time. On the contrary, many efforts bring value without bringing money. Thinking, creating, and planning are all essential functions driven not by a clock, but by our internal needs; the mind must do these things to maintain order, to grow and learn. Taking time to focus inward allows us the peace of mind to be fully present wherever we are, and not distracted by deadlines and schedules, which, in turn, brings value to not only ourselves, but to those with whom we interact. This is the edge, ultimately, where we should live, where we connect to one another as human beings.

Globalization: A Varying Perspective

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:11:27 +0100

Kofi Annan appropriately stated, "it has been said that arguing against globalization is like arguing against the laws of gravity." Annan's quote really resonated as a returning theme for us during our visit to the Middle East SoL conference. Additionally, the definition of globalization shifted as a result of the conference. Prior to the conference, it could probably be safely stated that one perspective of globalization they had was more of a business theory or practice and didn't truly acknowledge the impact and diverse meanings of globalization. Globalization has taken on a multi-dimensional aspect to us as a result of deepening our conversations with global leaders at the conference. The work done by Jan Scholte in defining globalization in five broad contexts seems apropos to review. Globalization as Internationalization- This is where the objective is to obtain cross-border relations with other countries. We embrace international exchange and focus on the interdependencies that exist. Globalization as Liberalization- This is where border restrictions are lifted in order to create a borderless world economy. Globalization as Universalization- This is where the spread of various objects, tools and experiences occurs to all corners of the earth (e.g., computing, tv, etc.). Globalization as Westernization or Modernization- This is where the social structures of modernity are spread around the world, quite frequently destroying pre-existing cultures in the process. Globalization as Deterritorialization- This is where the reconfiguration of geography where the social space isn’t defined in terms of geographic places. Anthony Giddens has defined this type of globalization as “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” It is through the globalization as deterritorialization seems to be the definition that best fits what we experienced in Muscat…and hopefully can continue to grow through our new international friends and community. The hope would be that through this form of globalization we can bring an end to territorialism in some scale through the sense of common values. One significant learning point in our global forum would be the sharing of common values that existed amongst all the cultures present—making the experience so rich and inviting. The deterritorialization that occurred at this SoL event was from the outgrowth of social connections with a common cause and shared meaning around our common values. The insight to be gained significantly reinforced the application of Conversational Leadership to bridge cultures and creates that common understanding necessary to move forward as unique but appreciative differences that make us more effective as a whole. For certain, globalization in its many diverse forms seems as necessary as gravity in the future. For JLC, we experienced the beauty of globalization where social relations were pure and the proverbial bridge we often feel exists in diverse cultures is mostly attributed to our own mental models. Once surfaced, the connections and interconnections of our shared common values quickly surfaces, releasing the beauty of the human spirit for all to see and appreciate.

Visit to Oman - Personal Reflection

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:10:05 +0100

From the moment we arrived at the gate for Emirates airline, I felt things had changed and were changing. Charming people with interesting accents greeted us at the Emirates check-in points and at the gate. Even with these gracious salutations, my responses to the Emirates’ personnel felt stilted and awkward. After so many years in schools with multicultural populations, accents do not typically bother me but my memories of 9-11 and the aftermath of hatred that followed in the media and in my NY consults was with me. Additionally, my family reminded me constantly up to the departure date to be careful on this trip; they kept telling me in many different ways “Americans are hated by other countries especially in the middle east.” I tried to shake of the feelings of foreboding, but meditation and alcohol failed to do the trick. After an eternity in the airplane with as much entertainment media as I could stand and upon arriving in Dubai and paying and enormous amount of money for a cup of tea, my mood was not improving. I shared my dark thoughts with my traveling companion and he responded, “I thought I was the only one feeling a bit out of sync.” The next thing that changed, of course from my vantage, is how people dress and speak. The men in the airport were wearing full length shirts and headgear, talking on cell phones and behaving in what appeared to be their ordinary ways. I could not understand any of the conversation around me and began thinking how many times people from other countries felt like me in restaurants, coffee shops, banks etc. at home. I read that other citizens of the world have a fairly good command of English ... I’m again noticing things changing in me. The first Global Forum Conference activity after an almost indescribably beautiful opening ceremony invited anyone with fluency in one or more languages to stand. Of course all stood, I didn’t notice any deaf people in the room. The facilitator then asked everyone fluent in only one language to please be seated. I and four other Americans took a seat. Incredibly, most of the room was still standing after those fluent in three and four languages were asked to sit. I was reminded of the joke about a person who speaks more than three languages is multicultural, a person who speaks two languages is bi-lingual and a person who speaks one language is an American. I fit the proverbial bill perfectly. Now my perspective about how I fit in in relation to the overall conference changed from cautious optimism to downright concern about my adding any value to these culturally diverse leaders. After the introductions and opening activities, the first set of table activities centered on identifying those in whom we had trust; trust as in relationships with friends and significant others. For the first time since leaving JFK airport, I began to relax. Men and women at our table were describing personal and professional situations where trust was an issue. The humanity that defined us all came through in the conversations. Fear, desire to be included and needed by others, and our own demons about self- reference unfolded. I was changing perspective again and learning how similar we were in virtually all aspects of our existence. As the next days unfolded, my presence in the Middle East changed. I was no longer uncomfortable with the dress and language challenges, and I began to meet people where they were and as they were. I changed and learned from a brilliant variety of cultures and perspectives. As we flew the iron bird home, I was consumed with thoughts of when ... when …when will the world’s cultures come together again as emissaries of peace and understanding. As a final note, out of conversation with my traveling companion came an old adage and an extension: to understand another’s language is to understand another’s culture ..... to understand the language of leadership is to understand the culture of leading.

Reflections on Building Community

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:08:09 +0100

Since recently moving to New England, Ray and I have enjoyed multiple opportunities to attend events in Cambridge, sponsored by both the Berkana Institute (www.berkana.org) and the Society for Organizational Learning (www.solonline.org). One such opportunity was a “Berkana” day with Margaret Wheatley and associates. The day began with this quote by Koffi Annan, former Secretary General for the United Nations: “The future of the world depends on women.” That opening statement startled me and I realized immediately that this was going to be a unique learning event. From that point forward, the day was filled with uplifting music, poetry that filled my heart and stories that gave me courage to make changes in my world. Many of the stories resonated with me, but there was this one above all for me. It was the story of Wangari Maathai’s as shared by Margaret Wheatley. Wangari Maathai, winner of the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize and founder of the Green Belt Movement, grew up in the highlands of Kenya. Kenya was an area of abundance where fish flourished in streams, fig trees dotted the hills, and the people tended their beautiful gardens. Over the years, more and more land was cleared, causing the Kenyan landscape to be transformed. As happens to many students, Wangari’s homecoming from an American college was stark and devastating. She found the village gardens empty, streams dry, the people malnourished, and virtually all the trees gone. Her devastation caused the construction of a singular question: “What could I do to return my homeland to state of beauty, hope and promise.” In answer to her question, Wangari decided to act. She formed a small group of village women and planted seven trees; two lived. Undeterred, she and her small team committed to planting more. Over time, other village women joined her small group and the trees began growing. In their community alone, six hundred trees were flourishing after a few years. Her activism inspired the Greenbelt Movement, which mobilized Kenyan women to plant over 30 million trees since 1977 that provide fuel, food, shelter, and income to support their children's education and household needs. This effort started over thirty years ago in a small village in Kenya. It reminded me of the famous quote by Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” As the day ended, I started thinking about my role in supporting and developing community in my own backyard. I look forward to engaging others in conversation about roles and responsibilities in my community.

Slip Sliding in the Zone

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:06:34 +0100

The JLC team enjoyed a recent weekend retreat with Peter Senge at the Omega Institute in Rhinebeck, N.Y. Two retired AT T leaders joined Peter in the activity facilitation, Lorri Lizzo and Michael Marlowe. The event focused on “Presencing” as as a label or pointer toward the experience of “presencing.” In an effort to illustrate “presencing” all participants were asked to find times when they observed a performance, motion picture, athletics competition and the like where the people engaged slipped “into the zone.” One such story was told about a young teacher, with some athleticism, but few basketball skills at a student-faculty game. The young teacher slipped into a zone and for about 8-10 minutes hit every shot he took. Others on the team fed him the ball and he made himself available for the passes. He was flowing with the team. He simultaneously was focused on scoring but aware of those in the periphery on defense and those ready to pass him the ball. His “presence’ enabled him to shut out the noise of the packed gym cheering wildly and to find the spot on the floor most advantageous for his next shot. Regardless of difficulty or distance, this young man was unstoppable. After a time time out, it was if someone threw the proverbial switch and the zone evaporated. I’m sure many of you can find times when this happened personally or when this “zone” was observed. Musicians experience the same phenomenon when the orchestra, ensemble or group seems to slip into a zone where the music unfolds seamlessly and sometimes surprisingly. Teams enjoined in learning have the same opportunities at meetings, where the individual, by practicing a learning discipline, joins with the collective and creates. Sometimes, the discipline of “listening for Understanding” enables and individual to truly focus on understanding the speaker and simultaneously be aware of the periphery. I’d like to invite you to notice your personal next frontier in developing your“Listening for Understanding” practice. Practitioners can do this during almost any interaction; even your next interactive snippet provides an opportunity to “Listen for Understanding”, notice your level of focus and to return to the discipline regardless of “mind drift.” This effort can be very intentional; simply notice your engagement and look to deepen your practice. As always, feedback is appreciated. Let us know how you have described your new frontier in Listening and how you are moving your practice forward. Stumbles are as important as successes in the learning process. Keep in mind our JLC mantra that “Learning is a thinking and doing process.” Happy listening to all.