Leadership Questions and Answers

Bureaucracy - unacceptable red tape or a useful organizational structure?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:13:00 +0000

Bureaucracies grow to administer policies, procedures or regulations that an organization deems necessary to accomplish its mission. Without the bureaucracy and more recently, it's computerized equivalent, we would have to invent a procedure or process each time we wanted to accomplish what could be a routine task like registering a birth or placing an order.

Unfortunately some bureaucracies decide to actually become the mission which means that rather than providing a service they create work by building barriers to accomplishing the tasks. An immigration service, for example, may reinvent its role and consider it productive that applications are not processed efficiently. This is when we get "red tape."

All organizations, all systems for that matter, have automatic control mechanisms that keep them in some state of healthy, dynamic equilibrium, internally and with their environment. Such mechanisms are necessary for existence but, just like our immune system, can themselves get out of control and harm their host.

Technorati Tags: leadership, bureaucracy, red-tape, organization, routine tasks, mission, equilibrium, immune system

Is your workplace dysfunctional?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:53:00 +0000

Q Is your workplace dysfunctional? If this is true is it because the people who work there are dysfunctional, are the processes used to run the business dysfunctional, or is it some combination of these 2? Or something completely different?

A All workplaces exhibit some degree of dysfunctionality. Neither human beings nor the processes they create are perfect. A healthily functional workplace will act to restore functionality when the cost of dysfunctionality is greater than the cost of restoration.

People who stay working in dysfunctional processes become dysfunctional. Dysfunctional people are likely to accept/create dysfunctional processes. It may be impossible to separate people and process! The place they come together is in leadership. In this case let's call it "self-functionality." An effective leader will not allow his/her time/energy to be wasted or that of people on his/her team.

Is there a link between sustainable business practices and financial performance?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:53:00 +0000

Q. (cont.) Do you believe there is a verifiable link between a company's corp. social responsibility initiatives and its financial performance?

A. A sustainable business requires social responsibility. Unfortunately business "success" that is achieved by externalizing costs can go undetected for years while the business reports strong but distorted financial performance. It has yet to be proved that socially responsible investments are more successful but I suspect that day is not far off. Meanwhile it is a matter of belief and there are strong arguments for the case.

A business that is managed to satisfy it's stockholders only, and that means competing with other businesses to deliver investor value only, will inevitably short-change other stake-holders. Disgruntled employees, pissed-off customers and unpaid vendors will spread the word and the community at large won't want it in their back yard.

The success of the information-based, global economy contains the seeds of destruction of anti-social corporate behavior. Increasing transparency combined with 24/7 feedback from anyone anywhere are every day asserting accountability, making millions of new connections between business practices and stakeholder needs. This sea-change may take a while but it appears inevitable.

Technorati Tags: leadership, sustainable business practices, financial performance, social responsibility, externalized costs, transparency, feedback, accountability

Does taking a proactive approach to adversity have the potential of changing your perception of the same?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:02:00 +0000

Q (from Ron Hurst, cont.) Recently I was challenged to consider how adversity in the workplace could be leveraged to initiate organizational transformation. Armed with a heightened sense of awareness to adversity I have so far found less of it overall. What is your experience?

A. It makes sense that a heightened awareness of adversity might lead to the discovery of less. Such consciousness shifts my perspective on what is happening to me and to others. I see, whenever circumstances change beyond our hopes or expectations, whether we are really suffering, falling into victim-hood or failing to seize an opportunity.

Change of almost any kind can be perceived as adverse and we need to learn healthy responses. Classically we use fire drills, flight simulators and dry runs of all kinds to build confidence in the face of the new and unexpected. Notice how these proactively present potential adversities but with a safety net that allows us to relax enough to understand how we can be most effective. Then in the workplace and without a safety net except for their coaching, powerful leaders proactively apply stretch-goals to demonstrate how self-defined goals can be too conservative or, if you will, adversity averse. Meanwhile there remains the constant promise that "you may get to keep your job if you do your job."

So it is clear we already use the prospect of adversity as a motivator but it only exercises our fear-based responses to external events and that is the danger lurking in any proposition about proactive adversity. When we get beyond fear to confidence and courage our motivations are our aspirations. Failure to cultivate these keeps an organization in 'survival mode' in which survival is doubtful at best and transformation is impossible.

Presently I can see no other approach to transformation than letting aspirations focus organizational energy. This means relegating the use of adversity to potential and in scenarios only. It means proactivly eliminating fear so that potential or real adversity can be seen as an opportunity to find confidence, act courageously and realize those aspirations.

Technorati Tags: leadership, adversity, perception, transformation, change, stretch goals, motivation, courage, aspiration, confidence

How can corporations best fight atrophy?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Thu, 31 May 2007 06:03:00 +0000

If organic atrophy is something to do with a weakening and loss of function due to lack of effective utilization or lack of nourishment, the metaphor suggest we do whatever it is that healthily exercises and nourishes an enterprise. Over the last few years and triggered by the popularity of outsourcing there has been a renewed focus on change management and innovation as defensive measures. They do provide exercise and nourishment but I'm concerned that the manner of adoption is unlikely to prevent atrophy.

Change management has become an analgesic, reducing the pain by working on the symptoms rather than causes. The problem is that while we are able to manage whatever is predictable about the pain of change, the process doesn't help us be more accepting of and adaptable to the randomness and chaos of change. Change management assumes that change is the exception rather than the rule and is a band-aid for leadership by persistence and control to the exclusion of acceptance and experimentation.

Much of the conversation about innovation gravitated to product design which, while important, in itself provides limited barriers to competition and neglects all the other activities in the corporation that can be nourished by innovation.

Change management and management generally is about implementation. When the managers of an enterprise feel pressured, the fear-driven response is usually to implement better and this generally means doing more of the same only quicker or cheaper. While this is great for doing more of the same it is still the same and meanwhile everything else is changing - customers needs, technology, society, macroeconomics and geopolitics are all changing. There may be a lot of exercise but no nourishment. So atrophy begins.

The trick, if there is one, is to accept change as ongoing and therefore that innovation is ongoing and inseparable from implementation. It is clearly atrophy-enabling to have one group of people responsible for implementation and another, usually less integrated and/or less resourced, group of people responsible for innovation as was so visibly the case at Xerox Rochester and PARC Palo Alto in the 80's. It was the quality movement, also a product of the 80's, that taught us differently but the issue now goes way beyond the production floor. Innovation and implementation are everyone's jobs and, if that is the case, it is up to corporate leaders to model this and develop cultures and structures that value both in a way that nourishment is guaranteed.

A couple of years ago I developed the ideas expressed here into an interactive model, "A Vision of Leadership for Collaboration and Innovation" and an interpretive blog, "The Leader-Follower."

Technorati Tags: leadership, atrophy, change, change management, innovation, implementation, quality

How do culture, motivation and leadership contribute to the success of an organization?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Tue, 29 May 2007 16:49:00 +0000

Q (cont.) What is human behavior in organization?

A. Human behavior in organizations is the product of what you identify: culture, motivation and leadership.

- Our motivations are the hidden, emotional sources of energy that drive our behavior.

- Leadership is the act of making our motivations explicit in our behavior so others can decide whether or not they want to follow.

- The culture is that hidden aspect of the organization comprising the values, traditions and beliefs that members share.

- The organization itself is a collection of people behaving in such a way that they can live out these shared values.

There is at least one other ingredient, imperative for sustained organizational success. These values must also be important to its customers, its investors, and society in general.

Technorati Tags: leadership, culture, motivation, organization, success, values

How big an impact do you think that structural and organization changes have on working relationships and the dynamic of an office?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Fri, 25 May 2007 15:00:00 +0000

Q (cont.) In my working career, I have been through my share of process redesigns, departmental shuffles and realignments. Sometimes the changes influence the direction of people's careers, the importance of their positions and the level of people who are their customers and/or vendors. I have seen new working relationships created, old one's slowly fade away, I have seen people everyone thought of as friends become rivals. I have seen people who were highly trusted by their department heads relegated down two or three levels on the managmental run in terms of who they dealt with. These changes often influenced the outlook of people, confirmed their own confidence in themselves or stripped them of their sense of strength and ownership. The biggest of these events occurred early in my working career and at large scale companies that had been entrenched in their industries for significant time. As the late eighties and nineties have washed away into history, I wonder if maybe these events are less monumental now.

A. Your description of the impact of structural changes resonates strongly with my own experience which has led to a transition in my perspective on the workplace including my own role in change. Although the success of the TV show, The Office, suggest our experiences are widespread and that comic relief from them is welcome, I believe more is possible.

Changes to organizational structure reflect the changes in values propagated by the organization's leaders. Members of the organization relate to the organization according to their own values, self-selecting to a large extent their roles and relationships for a best fit. If the organization's values shift the foundation or framework for almost any personal behavior changes and, as we have seen, some of us thrive on change, others ride the waves and yet others can be terrified.

I've drawn a couple of lessons from this. The first is that life is about constant change. What we have come to call "change management" is a dangerous idea. It assumes that stability is the desirable condition, that change is not chaotic and that change can be managed as if it were predictable. I now find it more useful to accept change as normal, inevitable and how organizations and I myself grow.

The other lesson is that the pervasive effects of change you describe can be accommodated only if everyone who is impacted is allowed to contribute. For example, the complexities of social networks can only "managed" by the participants who must be brought into the process if their value added is to be retained or even enhanced. (This suggests how important it is that change be seen as an opportunity.)

Good leaders show up as people who shape an organization's culture in ways that not only support its mission but simultaneously support the intentions of its members. Members become leaders when their intentions become embedded in the values of the culture.

I suppose change will always bring collateral damage. The lesson's of Iraq apply everywhere - change impacts all stakeholders. If stakeholders are to be accountable to themselves and others, they must also be permitted to be responsible.

Technorati Tags: leadership, career, confidence, office dynamics, organization, organization structure, ownership, role, working relationship, change, organizational change

What do you find is effective to promote reflective thinking in the workplace?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Thu, 24 May 2007 19:49:00 +0000

Q. For this purpose, reflection is taking the time to examine past or current situations and applying the learning to a particular action in the present time or future. Some examples of methods of promoting reflection are journaling, coaching, discussion groups, after action reports, and retreats.

A. In many workplaces, for much of the time, quick, knowledgeable responses are encouraged in a convergent process that tends to quickly exclude possibilities in an intense search for quick answers. All this is in the name of 'saving time' which, because of the poor quality inherent in this form of communication rarely occurs. This kind of conversation is most useful in a directive environment where the goal is implementation of something that is routine.

On those occasions where learning and creative solutions are desirable, suspending judgment permits a divergent conversation, a dialog that embraces all elements that emerge. The process of doing something other than judging exposes an idea to the more intuitive mental processes. We start to reflect.

This kind of dialog becomes possible when people are ready to learn about themselves, have no expectations for their own or for other's performance and replace a sense of urgency with relaxed confidence that a useful outcome will arise. When they are at their most effective, coaching, discussion groups, after action reports, and retreats each support these same qualities.

Technorati Tags: leadership, reflection, reflective thinking

How do organizational goals affect ethical behavior? How do these goals interfere with ethical leadership?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Wed, 23 May 2007 15:30:00 +0000

One of the challenges for a business organization is that it is obligated by law to provide the best returns it can to its investors. In a competitive market in which the end can often be used to justify the means, it requires significant moral strength on behalf of its officers to maintain high ethical standards.

Some ethical failures are illegal behaviors as in the case of Enron where officers acted to obscure the true financial health of the company from its investors, including its own employees a large number of whom lost their savings and/or pensions. The pressure for ever growing profit has other effects that are only recently receiving mainstream attention and have given rise to the position of CRO or Chief Responsibility Officer to bring a focus to dealing with them. These are the effects of externalizing costs, that is passing on costs to people who are not involved in the business. Examples would include power and auto companies whose services and products generate pollutants or businesses that treat employees unfairly for short term gain.

Organizational goals, in the absence of clear ethical consideration are accidents waiting to happen. While CROs represent a positive investment in responsibility, corporate responsibility is exercised by individuals so it show up as individual decisions and behavior. Thus it is important that everyone in the organization takes personal responsibility for their behavior and resists behaving unethically even if pressured to do so. I am optimistic because the new media are raising public awareness, many human resource organizations understand the problem, and there are a growing number of public interest groups who will support those who want to take an ethical but organizationally unpopular position.

Technorati Tags: leadership, ethics, goals, CRO

How Can Spirituality Help in Management?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Tue, 22 May 2007 22:50:00 +0000

We know that spirituality helps in any human enterprise and that management is a necessary activity in any human enterprise but they are not the same.

As others have said, management is about doing and spirituality is about being. What has not been said, however, is that leadership is about being. It is about being in such a way that others make a decision to follow.

This way of being has been very closely observed with the publication of many lists of important leadership attributes and many models describing their interaction and even more readers wondering which attributes to adopt and which models to apply.

Personally, the more I evaluate these and reflect on my own experiences the more I am convinced that leadership is about the expression of one's authentic self. (I exclude manipulation disguised as leadership from this consideration.) Because that is about letting go of control, leadership is about being and is therefore a spiritual act.

So, spirituality certainly helps leadership, has nothing to do with management and both are essential in any enterprise.

Technorati Tags: leadership, spirituality, management, being, doing, leadership attributes, authentic self

New Manager - How do I train another person?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Mon, 21 May 2007 16:30:00 +0000

Q. I have been the sole person in my department for over two years. I was doing the work of at least two people, but with time was able to streamline the process to make the workload manageable. I was promoted and got an assistant that I am supposed to turn into a clone of myself. I have no training experience and realize that I am very territorial over the workload. In my review I was told to pass on more and more of the responsibility to the assistant to free myself up to take on more special projects. I have asked for management training, but the response has been very slow and I need guidance now. I definitely don't want to hinder my assistant's progression, but I am stuck in the "I could just do this myself" mentality. I need advice on how to work so that both of us move the next level. I feel responsible for molding her at this beginning stage of her career and would hate for her to move on not knowing as much as she should because I just didn’t know how to convey it to her.

A. I used to have that "I could just do this myself" mentality. The way I got out of it was to ask myself, as I considered each item of work, "Must I do this myself or can I delegate it?"

Delegate everything you can. Start with the simplest, where no or minimal training is required. Let your assistant know what you are trying to do and when something comes up, ask her if it is something she is comfortable doing. Let her know she is taking responsibility for the results and if she is in any doubt she must ask for your help. If this person is self-motivated, in a short while you and she will be making these decisions easily, she will be learning and together you will be getting more done.

Most people are "territorial over the workload" when they believe it is their personal output that counts, that they must be seen to personally deliver the goods or they might not receive the credit for results. Your promotion means that someone believes you can see beyond this and that what counts is that the work is done, whoever does it.

Mostly, the best thing you can do is, rather than clinging to a job, work yourself out of it. That demonstrates to you and your present or future employers that you can lead the work as well as manage it.

Technorati Tags: leadership, delegation, manager, responsibility, training

What are the different types of leadership?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Sat, 19 May 2007 04:34:00 +0000

The different types of leadership are an illusion accidentally created by people who specialize in trying to understand this important phenomenon.

The only kind of leadership is that in which a person exhibits their true self in a way that it resonates with other people. This behavior is highly individual and situational for both the leader and follower and therefore there are a huge variety of ways in which effective leadership occurs.

The only important leadership type or style, therefore, is the one in which we unconditionally express our whole selves. It is easy for others to follow such truth and integrity. Anything else is manipulation and often seen as such.

Technorati Tags: leadership style, type of leadership, self, true self

How do you make decisions?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Thu, 17 May 2007 17:41:00 +0000

Q. This question is for decision-makers at any level of an organization. I'm not asking about making choices, where the alternatives have already been determined. Nor am I talking about judgments, where rules can be applied to the facts of your situation. I'm asking about the process you use to determine a course of action when the future is unknown.

A. I once coached a CEO who was obsessed about how decisions should be made. I remembered this when just yesterday I saw a video of Bush explaining how he is "the decider."

I use Bush as a visible example and not for political advocacy.

Bush's concept of leading appears to be that one is out there ahead of others on some course, uncertain of what comes next and making decisions that will provide direction to those following. When the future is unknown, it's challenging enough to make decisions for oneself, let alone others. What an onerous responsibility!

Actually it's a recipe for disaster because a) there's no ownership on the part of those who will implement the results of the decision, they can only act as automatons and b) the alternatives perceived from a single perspective are disadvantageously narrow.

There is a self-perpetuating conventional wisdom that collective decision making ("by committee") takes too long. To the contrary, for those who practice it, collective decision-making can be rather fast.

The first thing to do it resist the urge to find a decision and trust the possibility that a decision will emerge when it is ready to be made! An exploratory conversation is divergent, admitting diverse viewpoints while a decision making conversation tends to be convergent, exclusive and dismissive. If each participant positively explores each alternative that arises, negating nothing, eventually an extraordinary thing can happen. There can be an instantaneous convergence of the conversation on a solution that satisfies all. The logic or rationale that would have earlier been impossible to explicate becomes self evident. All perspectives are considered, all stake-holders are satisfied and the decision is made!

This reliably works only when those who believe they lead by deciding admit it is not a good strategy and when those who lead by knowing admit that they don't.

Technorati Tags: leadership, course of action, obsession, provide direction, ownership, perspective, trust, conversation, inclusion, exclusion, admit not knowing, decision, choice, judgment

Why do so many "leaders" show such bad judgement?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:40:00 +0000

Q. Leaders today are being questioned on their judgment more than ever before. Top government officials are being called on the carpet, The President's judgment over Iraq, the Democrat's calls for withdrawal. Industry leaders are being questioned on their decisions a lot more since Enron, MCI, WorldCom, and more have been exposed.

A. Here are a few reasons why "so many 'leaders' show bad judgment:"
1. Very, very few of us walk on water.
2. We enjoy reading and hearing about how the strong have fallen.
3. Judgment is a matter of opinion and there are always plenty of bad opinions.
4. Not all leaders are good managers
5. Getting elected or promoted or hired is not the primary qualification for leadership.

An important question for any of us may be, "How can I learn to make better judgments?" Here are a few ways, in correspondence to those reasons:
1. Humbly accept my limitations.
2. Spend more time learning from my own stories.
3. Seek diverse opinions.
4. Get help, not from ideologues but from good implementers.
5. Ensure my leadership is a sincere expression of my motivations and not others'.

Technorati Tags: leadership, judgment, management, qualification, limitation, learning, implementation, motivation

How would you define Authentic Leadership? How can it be developed?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Tue, 15 May 2007 22:19:00 +0000

Can you imagine inauthentic leadership? That is manipulation, deception or play-acting. I think we've seen enough of that in high visibility business figures over the last few years to know how catastrophic such shams and scams can be. Unfortunately, we only have ourselves to blame, it is really we who pull the wool over our eyes.

Yes, we decide to follow, therefore it is we who make leaders. We respond to something in another person and make a decision to support what they stand for. They can make a conscious appeal to our base instincts like anxiety and fear or our higher instincts like justice and joy and in either case that is a manipulation. Any such conscious action is an act of the ego and designed to get what they want from us - to strengthen that ego!

Authenticity is free of ego. This is our true self shining through, however that shows up. Our true self resonates with other true selves. There is no intention to influence others, they simply find something appealing in our behavior, can relate to us at a profound level, and decide to follow.

We cannot develop authentic leadership, it is already there. What we can do is remember it, uncover it and give it free reign. This can be a significant challenge for people whose conditioning has made that authentic self a source of shame. Recovering our authentic self requires acceptance of who we are and that we cannot control others for them to be as we would wish, only respond to them as they are.

It is no accident that the answer to a question about authentic leadership leads to the authentic self.

Technorati Tags: leadership, authenticity, manipulation, deception, anxiety, fear, instinct, justice, joy, ego, behavior, follow, shame, control, self

What is vision statement of a company?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Fri, 11 May 2007 16:52:00 +0000

Q. . . . . and how it is different from mission statement?

A. For a company, a vision is a description of its possible future(s) based upon the primary values of its business and the values believed to be important for its stakeholders in the future. A vision can take the form of statements, illustrations and stories, whatever stimulates the imagination and appeals to those involved. Through communication and feedback it is constantly tested and clarified. A powerful, well communicated vision attracts people to contribute in its realization when the expressed values resonate with their own.

A company's mission statement describes what the company must accomplish in order to realize its vision. It tends to be more objective and factual. The vision and mission are tools of leadership, to attract people and to focus their energy.

Here's a non-business example chosen because it is so very visible.

The Bush administration expressed many quite different, changing visions for Iraq: WMD-free, US style democracy, model democracy for the Middle East, terror-free zone, and so on. These visions were all bankrupt because they did not represent the values of the key stakeholders like Iraq and its neighbors and now, the American people. Without a robust vision, the mission has constantly changed. The Iraqi people, the US military, US allies have all been confused with each refocus. After all this, the emerging and rarely stated vision is a United States unencumbered by responsibility for resolving internal Iraqi conflicts. This vision is manifested in the emerging mission of withdrawal.

Here is another non-business example, chosen because of its simplicity.

Nicholas Negraponte of MIT Media Lab and his colleagues had the vision of "a computer for every child." The governments of several developing countries are considering supporting this vision and Negraponte is now close to accomplishing his mission to develop a computer that can be delivered for around $100.

Technorati Tags: leadership, vision, mission, values, stakeholders

Define leadership. Is it the same as managing?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Thu, 10 May 2007 16:24:00 +0000

Leadership is about exhibiting personal qualities that attract other people to follow. Followers decide what they find attractive, depending upon their needs and the situation. The leader's challenge is to express him/herself in a way that is appealing to the people s/he wants to engage with.

Managing is exercising control over things including people. The possibility for control arises because, often in an employment agreement, a person has agreed to let someone else control their activities, within some framework, in return for payment.

Managers control their subordinates. Leaders attract their followers.

Managing and leading are similar in that:
1. Managers and Leaders influence others and
2. Subordinates and followers agree to be influenced in return for something they want.

Managing and leading are dissimilar in that:
1. Managing occurs in a relationship framework of objective, cause and effect, negotiated agreements for the implementation or execution of specific objectives. Managers tend to focus subordinates' energies on specific tasks by restricting their subordinate's freedom of choice and this is why being managed can feel like an imposition.
2. Leading occurs in the realm of subjective motivations and values. Good leaders tend to inspire people to find the motivation to do things they might not have believed they could accomplish and in this way increase their followers freedom.

Technorati Tags: leadership, management, personal qualities, follower, self-expression, control, subordinate, influence, cause and effect, implementation, executive, freedom of choice, subjectivity, inspiration, motivation

How do you espouse honesty in the workplace?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:48:00 +0000

Any workplace in which position power is exercised has a door open to dishonest behavior. Position power leads to privilege, secrets and manipulation. If you think that is cynical look at, of all places, the US Justice Department and listen to a President who demands that hearings are in private, with no oaths or transcript.

Yes, leadership's greatest responsibility is for the culture of the workplace and it exercises that by modeling key values . . . so I suppose everything depends on what you understand to be valuable. The problem is, and we know this, that unfettered power corrupts. So in addition to ethical leaders in all our workplaces we also need the checks and balances that can be provided by boards of directors, ethics committees, regulators and, especially, the marketplace.

Technorati Tags: honesty, exercise power, manipulation, values, ethics

Editorial Note

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Wed, 09 May 2007 16:38:00 +0000

I've been distracted from posting in the last week or so by the start up of another creative project. Now I'm ready to resume regular postings here, Monday through Friday.

What are the factors that make responsibility feel like a burden to some, while like an opportunity to others?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Tue, 01 May 2007 16:56:00 +0000

How we understand the subject/object of our responsibility will dictate the extent to which it is a burden or opportunity.

If we believe we are responsible primarily for what goes on around us we have chosen a burdensome task. We may also see it to be one full of opportunity but the opportunities are in other people and we are doomed to discover at some point in time we can exercise no responsibilities over others.

Alternatively if we believe we are responsible individually, for ourselves, that reduces the scope to something manageable. Of course our first responsibility is to let others (assuming they are able) look after themselves so we can retain that focus on ourselves. This is not selfish. To the contrary, when we take responsibility for ourselves we do the world a favor. The challenge is to learn who we really are, as opposed to whomever we have been conditioned to believe we are. When we know ourselves then we have the opportunity to freely respond to others without agenda or prejudice. The effect is to be able to contribute with empathy, justice and love.

Unfortunately, despite the burden that goes with taking responsibility for others, this can be our preference because it allows us to continue the pretense of having taken responsibility for ourselves and having time and energy to spare for others. When responsibility is a burden it is one we have chosen to carry. When we notice responsibility feels like a burden, that's when the opportunity arises to take greater responsibility for ourselves.

Technorati Tags: responsibility

Correlation between gender and leadership qualities?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:13:00 +0000

OK, by gender we understand male and female. What do we understand about leadership qualities that allows us to look for correlations with gender? Are leadership qualities and gender the only variables? How about situation? Culture?

As a man, in general:
- If I had a tear in my shirt, discovered newborn on my doorstep, or was sick and needed care, given the choice, I would tend to ask women first.
- If I wanted protection from an enemy, advice on how to repair my car or file my taxes, given the choice I would tend to ask another man first.
(Is help the same as leadership? Yes of course. Anyone who provides direction and I follow, is leading me.)

The most significant thing about these observations is that in those areas I tend to look for help from the gender representing which of my parents might have helped me similarly. I totally admit to looking for leadership in this conditioned and prejudiced way, not always, but enough to recognize how subjectively I respond.

So we can see that leadership is at least situational, subjective and, because our responses are conditioned, variable over time. I was thinking about who I would go to if I wanted something to eat. As a child it would have been my mother but now that distinction is less clear. My expectations of myself as a leader and of others as potential leaders I might follow have changed over time as I have learned and our culture has changed (e.g. fifty years ago the possibilities for a black or a female presidential candidate were considered very limited).

Back to the question. If there are correlations between gender and leadership qualities, from my own experience and observations I am inclined to believe that they only exist at a personal level and are by no means absolute.

Technorati Tags: gender, leadership qualities, conditioning, subjectivity, change over time, culture, prejudice

What type of leadership style do you use and how effective is it?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:09:00 +0000

The question assumes there are styles of leadership. We may think there are because "leadership styles" has been a part of our vocabulary as pundits have sought to explain how some people appear more effective leaders than others. This gets a lot of attention because we have a deep rooted survival concern about the exercise of power.

If you find these "styles" obscure, hard to relate to and/or not relevant to how you experience yourself with others take heart, you are among friends! The styles are caricatures or even cartoons, representations of the perceptions of observers who have seen and described patterns of behavior according to some framework they have chosen. These style are not real! Leadership is about something else.

Here are the facts. Let's define leadership as influencing others in a way that they change their behavior to better accomplish some goal. There are only a couple of ways to do this. The first is by manipulation, which is not leadership because it attempts to remove choice, it dis-empowers. The second is by behaving in a way that others resonate with the action and its apparent purpose, they become empowered - e.g. Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus.

That's leadership in action but what did she really do? She changed her own behavior to better accomplish a goal of her own. Others followed (the bus boycott) because they admired her example and supported the issue she raised. She led by doing what she needed to do and others discovered they could do the same. Everyone has led something at some time. Check your own behavior for when people follow you. I bet you were simply doing something you're passionate or enthusiastic about. You were really leading yourself.

Technorati Tags: leadership style, effective leaders, power, patterns of behavior, manipulation, dis-empower, empower, influence, passion, enthusiasm

How does collective responsibility work in practice?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:20:00 +0000

It doesn't. Really there's no such thing.

Today, it is fashionable to talk about "corporate responsibility." The business world is waking up at last to understand that pleasing stockholders only and at the cost of other stakeholders is an unsustainable position.

But corporate responsibility, like any so-called "collective responsibility" is only meaningful if it is first an accepted personal responsibility. Action is individual. If people do the same thing and do it simultaneously, yes you can call it collective action but there is nothing without the contribution from each individual.

The danger of "collective responsibility" is that you or anyone in the collective can abdicate responsibility by assuming " someone else will take care of it."

Ultimately all responsibility and all accountability is individual.

Technorati Tags: responsibility, accountability, collective responsibility, corporate responsibility, personal responsibility

Why do you think diversity is important? Does that take a major role in an organization?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:10:00 +0000

Diverse is the way we can describe a culture that is multifaceted. We talk of multicultural organizations.

We are deeply rooted in beliefs and traditions about diversity. For example, almost without exception worldwide, native cultures prohibit intermarriage. In some primitive cultures you were only permitted to marry outside of your tribe and in a few cases it was required you marry someone who spoke an incomprehensible language!

It is ancient agricultural wisdom that one strengthens plants by cross breeding, something Mendel and Darwin showed to take place naturally. When in geological time the creatures on the Galapagos Islands were isolated, finches, in the face of competition from each other, evolved into different kinds with their own innovative behaviors and niches in the ecosystem.

Attempts to achieve mono-cultures tend to fail, e.g. Hitler's Germany and Stalin's USSR. Unfortunately the industrial age's mass production appeared to justify mono-cultures. You were either a manager or a worker, a boiler maker or an accountant. Industrial culture demanded similarity, uniformity and predictability and in this post-industrial era we still struggle to shed such old traditions.

Market economies and democracies may be imperfect but they comprehend that the primary evolutionary force is personal choice.

In short any organization that fails to encourage diversity is protecting something it doesn't want to talk about and is itself doomed to fail. Some organizations boast their diversity as a competitive asset and they're right!

Technorati Tags: diversity, culture, multicultural organization, industrial culture, personal choice, post-industrial culture

Why do you believe mutual respect is important to developing high performing work teams?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris Newham) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:44:00 +0000

Mutual respect means that team members accept each other so, unquestionably, this is important but it might not be the most important for a high performing team. It is unlikely that respect for another is genuine unless one first has respect for oneself. Because respect appears in a team as respect for shared values and conventions of behavior it can be faked quite easily until a person or the team is tested

Self-respect means accepting oneself. Under pressure, self-rejection shows up as anger with others, blame of others and mistrust of others. There can only be limited acceptance of others without self-acceptance. So a high performing team must comprise self-respecting team members. It's possible that not everyone will start that way but a characteristic of excellent teams is that, because of their accepting culture, members can learn self-acceptance and self-respect.

Technorati Tags: respect, mutual respect, self-respect, team member, team building, high performance team, culture, acceptance, team culture, self-acceptance, self-rejection, blame