Leading Questions

Bringing the Future into the Present

2011-05-03T23:03:55-04:00

A generation ago the saying "The Future is Now!" celebrated the presentness of a hope in the future. It foresaw the acceleration of change that compresses our experience of time.

I used to see this frequently in planning projects. The five year plans we'd create, often would take only 18 to 24 months to complete. The sense of time that people had was off kilter. Much more could be done than they imagined. The limiting factor? Seeing beyond the present. Or, to put it another way, being able to identify a future that was truly tangible, beyond the aspirations of today, in which they could root their present actions.

Through these experiences, I often saw its contrasting attitude, not the inability to truly grasp the future, but rather resistance to it. I would hear,"What's wrong with the way we've always done things?"

The traditions and cultural forms, as I wrote about in Bringing the Past into Future, replaced the values that were their inspiration. Instead of a vision of the future, a nostalgia for the golden days of the past provided motivation of resistance to the future rather than engagement.

Whether it is a nostalgia for the past, or a shallow adherence to current organizational fads, the lack of a tangible vision of the future makes it difficult for people and their organizations to develop the adaptive skills needed in a environment of accelerating change.

Resistance to the Future

A resistance to the future is based in part on the lack of personal confidence to venture into the unknown of the future. It is easier to stay with what is comfortable and known of past ways of doing things. It is also in part how we approach the future, or how we bring our past experience to the task of envisioning the future. It is worth restating what I wrote in The End and the Beginning.

What if our past experience instead of illuminating the future, obscures it? What if the way we have always approached a problem, or the conduct of a single day, or the organization of our work makes it more likely that we end up not accomplishing what we envision?

If resistance to the future is part confidence, part approach, its also part, the lack of skills in managing change or in knowing how to adapt.

Adapting to the Future already in the Present

To adapt is to change on the fly. It isn't a linear process. It is an emergent process. Each adaptive moment moves into a new context of change. It isn't staying in one place and defending the palace against the barbarian hords of change. It is rather like being in conversation with different aspects of the future, very quickly and progressively.

For example, you walk into a room and within two minutes have a twenty second conversation with a 90 year German World War II veteran, a 10 year old girl from St. Louis in a soccer uniform, a thrity five year old couple from Miami with twin 6 year old boys, the 65 year old Japanese CEO of a global communications business, a 16 year old social entrepreneur from Sri Lanka and your great grandmother. Each encounter requires you to shift your attention from one person to the next. And if each relationship was intended to go somewhere, then within those twenty seconds, you'd have to quickly be engaged in who they were, find common ground and define a shared responsibility for the relationship in the future.

Sounds daunting. But that is what adapting means. The needed skills are a quiet personal confidence that enables you to be the same person with each of those listed in the example, and a tangible vision of the future that provides a conceptual context for the relationship.

This sort of adaptation goes hand in hand with innovation. It is a learned skill, not a personality trait.

See Social Creatives' Six Habits of Highly Effective Social Entrepreneurs as a model for creating a tangible future in the present.

Those who are involve in technological innovation work in an arena where adaptation is central to their experience of bringing the future into the present. See my post about 3D printing and watch Tony Atala's TED video on regenerative medicine.

These examples may suggest that these are for extraordinary people in unique places. Yes and No. In one sense this is true. They are extraordinary people, but only because the learned to become extraordinary. They developed the confidence and the capacity to adapt. In another sense, they are no different than you or I. They are just further down the path toward the future than most of us. This is one of the core values behind the children and youth social entrepreneur site, RandomKid: The Power of ANYone, (Disclaimer: I chair the board of RandomKid).

Creating a Vision of a Tangible Future

Ask this question of yourself and your organization.

Are you best days / years ahead of you or behind you?

How you answer that question will determine how you relate to the future.

A tangible future can be difficult to imagine because the past is actually not very tangible either. It is an amalgam of memories and impressions attached to random situations, people and objects that represent to us what we selectively remember our past to be. One person remembers a conversation one way, and another a different way.

Our remembrance of the past changes day to day. It is constantly shifting. We can remember a traumatic situation that leads us to view the future with bitterness and cynicism. Then, encounter someone who's perspective sheds light on our experience so that we see it differently. In the space of a few moments, our feelings that our best years are behind us shift to hope and optimism about the future. All of sudden a tangible future begins to form in our minds.

What has taken place within us? What is the source of this change? It isn't simply the influence of someone's different perspective.

What we've experience is the Future being brought into the Present. All of a sudden, with a flash insight, we see something in the future which is real. It is tangible. We feel we can reach out and grasp it. We want it. Our sense of purpose and self-confidence in a moment has changed. We are different. We have adapted to a new context, a context where the future is here now.

The Future Begins with an Idea

This question about the relation of time to our lives is one that I've reflected upon for a long time. The relation of the past to the future and of the future to the present exists in time. It also exists outside of time. What we remember about the past that we wish to be a part of our future are conceptions of the way we want our life and work to be.

At the most fundamental level, we are talking about ideas.

Several years ago, I conducted a project with a mid-size corporation to develop a values statement for the company. The planning team was a mixture of mid-level managers, Union leadership and a senior vice president. One of the refrains we heard from the group was, "We want to get back to a time when the company was more like a family." Over the years, things had changed. The company had gone through a scandal with some top executives. Perception by some was that the company's best years were in the past.

Here's a situation where a rememberance of the past influences people's expectations of the future. For this team, being a family meant something. The question was what does this mean. For not every employee has a positive experience of being a family. As we went through our process, four ideas came to the front that provided a way to understand the past in order to create the future that they desired.

Those ideas were Respect, Trust, Integrity and Pride.

It would have been easy to take those words and turn them into slogans for an internal marketing campaign. The result would not have been a tangible future of respect, trust, integrity and pride in practice, but continued cyncism about the role of leadership in the company.

But that is not what happened. The company instituted a program of culture building around these ideas.

The first step was to introduce the values to the whole company through small gatherings of employees where they would participate in a discussion of the values and their historic place in the company.

Next, leadership training was instituted for middle managers so that they could implement or "operationalize" the values within their work areas. The purpose was to make the values of respect, trust, integrity and pride live in the functioning of each department. In effect, the process was equipping new leaders to solve problems and resolve issues before that became to big.

Today, the company is recognized as one of the nation's most trustworthy companies.

I share this story to emphasis a point about what it means to bring the future into the present.

For many organizations the past is represented by traditions and cultural forms. A cultural form could be any practice that is regularly done in which the original rationale has been lost. The future for those companies consists, in many respects, as an attempt to preserve those traditions and cultural forms into the future.

The alternative is to recognize that behind every tradition or cultural practice is a value that matters or at one time used to matter to people and their organization.

Another key to understanding for how to bring the future into the present is to understand where our values fit in.

Let me be clear about this. I'm not talking about those values that are divisively used to distinguish one organization or association from another. Those values of the negative other have no place in creating a positive, tangible, sustainable future. They are representative of past traditions and cultural forms that have lost their meaning. I say this primarily in anticipation of the distastful unpleasantness that is about to descend upon our country called a Presdential election.

A tangible future is one where values matter in practice, not just in theory. So, if respect, trust, integrity and pride matter, then they matter in practice. If customers matter, then they matter in practice, not just in advertising copy. If innovation and impact matter, then the organization will adapt to make it possible for those values to make a difference in the future.

In order to understand how a value matters, ask this question.

If this value was functioning at its highest capacity, if it was reaching and sustaining its potential, then what would, 1) it look like if we were to shoot a video of its performance, and, 2) be the change we would see as a result?

Impact or difference is change. If something changes, it can be measured in some way. What is it that is changing when this value is a living practice in your organization? Can you identify at what level it is operating today? Can you see things to change so that it can grow a little bit more today, tomorrow, next week? If you can, then you are seeing a tangible future being brought into the present.

If you can answer this, then you can envision the future. If you can envision the future in a tangible way, then you can identify what must change to make it happen. This is how the future is brought into the present.

This is true not just about values, but especially of each of the Connecting Ideas - Mission or Purpose, Values, Vision and Impact. Make them tangible for today, then you can see how they will be in the future.

When you do, what happens is that old traditions and cultural forms that no longer are empowered by their original values can be discarded, and new ones formed.

This means that you have a reached a definitive transition point in your life and work. A clear point of change that either leads towards decline or advancement. When you do, it is important that you discard dead traditions and cultural forms in a way that becomes a tangible moment of remembrance in the future. As you do, the values that guide you forward will find new traditions and cultural forms to serve as their vehicle for their practice.

Remember, those traditions and culture forms are nothing more than tools for making our values tangible in our daily life and work. Develop new tools, hold true to your values.

Three Things We Want Now and in the Future

I've written before about my observation that people want three things in their life. They want it to be Personally Meaningful, Socially Fulfilling and Make a Difference that Matters. Ask yourself today the following questions.

1. Where do I find meaning in my life and work? What are the values that matter to me most in what I seek to do each day? What activities do I regularly do that support what is meaningful to me?

2. Who are the people that matter most to me? How am I fulfilled by being with them? What are the values that matter to us? How do we practice them together? What are the traditions and cultural forms that we use to celebrate the values we share with one another?

3. What do I do that I feel makes the greatest difference to people? Where do I see my actions creating change? If I was to continue to develop the confidence and skills to make this difference, what do I see myself doing in the future that is different from today? Am I at a transition point in my life and work as it relates to the impact that I am having?

What then is the tangible future that you can begin to create today?

The Future is Now. The future is an idea, a tangible idea that provides for us a point on the horizon to lead us forward. Our idea is a value or values that defines for us meaning, fulfillment and the difference we can make. When our idea becomes clear then we know what we must do. And a tangible future becomes a reality that we can reach.

Picture: Some rights reserved by H.L.I.T.

Bringing the Past Into the Future

2011-04-25T20:12:20-04:00

You know what peripheral vision is. It is what you see out of the sides of your eyes. You see things that if you look straight at it, you wouldn't see it. You wouldn't because the details obscurce a larger vision.

The same idea can be applied to our hearing and our thinking.

Peripheral hearing is paying attention to what we hear, not listening for something specific. It is listening with wisdom and openness. It means laying aside our filters to hear what we miss by only looking for what we expect.

Peripheral thinking is what we miss when our thought process follows the same path every time. For many people, they might call this innovative thinking. For me, I see it as broadening or opening ourselves to areas of thought that are outside of our normal field of interest. My post, The Picture of the Future in a Box, is an example of learning about something that is totally outside my normal experience, and seeing in it connections to my understanding of the world that make sense.

Peripheral vision, hearing and thought expands our perception of the world. When we only focus on what we know, we lose that peripheral perspective. It is easy then to think that the past is a good indicator of the future.

In the post The End and the Beginning, I began with ...

What if our past experience instead of illuminating the future, obscures it? What if the way we have always approached a problem, or the conduct of a single day, or the organization of our work makes it more likely that we end up not accomplishing what we envision?

Let me over simplify what it means to bring the past into the future. I do so, not because it is simple, only to make a point.

Two Ways the Past Enters the Future

What I observe in people is that the past provides an experience of validation, or affirmation, or a sense of stability and continuity. It seems comfortable and secure because it has already been experienced.

This attitude and behavior is often viewed as traditionalism. Meaning, the traditions of the past are the basis of how we interpret what the future should be.

We can hear this in the criticism by some people I know of social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter which seem to trivialize human relationships. I am sure that many relationships formed through social media means are superficial. But, so are many that are in our normal day-to-day interactions. The technology isn't trivial or superficial. People are.

There is also a tendency in this type of traditionalism toward homogenity, where like joins with like, and a community is formed around common ideas and experiences to the exclusion of those which are different. This is how a community can become narrow, closed and parochial.

When the past is all we know, and we expect tomorrow to be like yesterday, then we begin to look only for those ideas and experiences which validate our perception of the past. Those that don't are resisted, or worse attacked as a threat to what is true or right. This closed mindedness is part of the source of the divisiveness that we see in society today.

Traditionalism works within the limited parameters of a closed system or community. It may work until change threatens to disrupt its equilibrium. This traditionalism is not limited by philosophic outlook. It is a product of human attitude and behavior. It happens when a group or community become protective of their tradtions rather than adaptive with them.

This is the second way that the past can be brought into the future. We do so through might be called living traditions, which are experienced through open awareness and adaptation.

The past has value for the future, but only in context.

For example, many of the towns around where I live were developed around a manufacturing business. Over the years, more and more of these plants have closed as textile and furniture manufacturing moved overseas. These towns diminished in size and economic vitality as a result. The traditions of these towns made it hard for many to realize that there are opportunities that may exist if they were to open themselves to a new way of understanding the assets of their local community. To do so meant that they would have to change.

Two decades ago, while serving in a small college in Appalachia, a summer on-campus enrichment program was started that was designed for eighth grade children from the coal fields. It had a great response because parents of these children understood that the well-paying jobs in the mines would not be there for their children in the future. They understood, were aware, that their children needed a better education than what they received if they were going to make it in the world.

What their children learned at home was the value of family and hard work. And they brought that into their experience at the college.

This is also true for many of those who served in the Armed Forces in World War II, who returned home and took advantage of the G.I. Bill to earn a college degree in order to provide a more financially stable lifestyle for their families.

What they brought into the future from the past were values that gave them the ability to shift and change and adapt to changing circumstances. Values of openness, inquiry, situational awareness and a willingness to try new things.

The future just doesn't happen. It is the product of decisions that are in reaction and in response to changes in society.

Traditionism holds to a form of the past that is embedded in institutions and social forms that are not allowed to change. They are symbolic of the past, but often have lost the vitality that the values underlying those traditions once had.

This was true of the textile mill for whom I once did a project. The company had not changed how it was organized and functioned in 60 years. There was a form of tradition that was predictable and comfortable, and was not suited to the marketplace. Finally, a member of the family brought some awarness to the rest of the family, and change began to happen. Unfortunately, it was too little too late. The company closed and opportunity with it.

Traditional values can seek ways to adapt to changing circumstances. Living values bring a vitality to any situation. They are ones that provide strength and direction for how to manage change. These values are what unite people together to make the hard decisions, and take committed action. It isn't just passion or commitment that matters. It isn't just tradition. It is the importance of values whose clarity is realized in an open awareness that enables leaders, their organizations and communities to adapt to the constant changing circumstances of their life and work situation.

The past that is brought into the future is not a relic of a by-gone era, but the motivation and heart that inspired others in the past to create the traditions that today still matter. If your organization is floundering, drifting, or has no clear sense of its future. Begin by reflecting on the values of the past, and ask how can we live this values out today in the work that we do.

See the past as a set of living traditions, is to see with your peripheral vision of the mind that enables us to project the best of the past into the future.

The Picture of the Future in a Box

2011-04-18T09:44:42-04:00

This post is a continuation of the ideas presented in The End and The Beginning. In this one, I want to focus on three culture shifts that impact what leadership means in the 21st century.

A picture of the future in a box

Let me begin with this picture.

Here is a student using a three-dimensional printer. The blue object in the middle of the picture is being printed. This is a kit that individuals can buy for around $1,300.

All you need is a basic CAD program to begin to create prototypes of your ideas.

I recently saw this model, RapMan 3.1, and the BFB-300 3D printer demonstrated at Hatchfest in Asheville. Rajeev Kulkarni, Vice President of Global Engineering for 3D Systems spoke on the uses of 3D printing. His presentation described a extremely wide spectrum of application for this technology. The most impressive use of 3D printing is to create human organs from the cells of the recipient. See Antony Atala's TED2011 presentation to grasp the magnitude of this innovation in medicine.

This picture of innovative technology points to the social change that is occurring because of the advance of technology. Besides lowering the cost of protyping and manufacturing new products, people can now take their ideas from conception to market in a shorter period of time. Kulkarni spoke about what used to take months to produce that now can be done in a matter hours or days.

Three Shifts

As I listened to Rajeev Kulkarni's Hatch presentation, I realized that in these printers I saw three significant social shifts. When the cost of manufacturing and production time are reduced, and the technology becomes affordable for individual use, then we are moving through a transition period from one era to the next. The shifts that I see taking place are:

1. From consumers to creators / producers

2. From mass market to mass customization

3. From a mass culture to a local culture

Let me describe each.

1. From consumers to creators / producers

With the use of basic design software and the RapMan 3d printer, any individual can become a producer of products for sale. The materials that can be used in the printing process are extensive. So, no longer will people have to depend on the marketplace to provide the products that he or she needs. With some ingenuity and business sense, they can make a shift from being a consumer of products to being the creator and producer of them.

Of course, six billion people will not automatically shift from being consumes to creators / producers. And every producer needs consumers to buy her product. Yet, it does not take many people embracing this shift in culture to dramatically impact it. The picture above is of an school girl in England using the RapMan printer.

Imagine every school in your school district having a 3d printer to complete a learning process of idea creation to product completion. Imagine the change of mind that comes to the students in that school when they can create, and not just consume. Imagine a generation of men and women who think of themselves as creators and producers, as leaders, rather than just consumers of other peoples' creative output.

One of the first realizations I had about 21st century leadership was that it was about personal initiative, not about roles. Leadership begins with personal initiative. Tools like these 3D printers place into the hands of people the opportunity to initiate, to create, and to produce products and solutions that can make a difference.

2. From mass market to mass customization

The nature of product development cycles used to be months, even years, necessary to bring a product to market. As a result, it required that product to have as wide an appeal and as long a shelf life as possible. With the advent of technologies, like 3D printers, this is changing. Now in a matter of a few hours, a specialize part can be designed and produced for a customer.

There are a couple implications for this shift.

First, it changes how a company relates to the marketplace. In a one-size fits all world, the marketplace is the lowest common denominator. In a mass customized world, the individual is the market. Marketing to individuals is different than to a mass culture. This is the insight that Chris Anderson wrote about in his book The Long Tail.

Second, it makes the relationship between manufacturer and consumer more important. I've learned this as a consultant. I cannot approach any project as if there is a formula that applies to every other organization in their industry. I have to build a relationship of interest, inquiry and adaptive response to meet not only their expectations, but their needs. I enter into their organizational setting with a set of tools, not unlike a 3D printer, though I don't have one, and use my tools to address the needs that they have.

In a mass customized world, relationships matter, and that is a key to managing the shifts that I'm identifying here.

3. From mass culture to local culture

Prior to the 20th century, life for most people from the beginning of time was experienced in small towns. I remember my grandfather telling me near the end of his long life that the most significant invention in his life time was the radio. When asked why, he said, "Because it showed us what life was like in other places."

The 20th century was a century lived on a global scale, with World Wars and multi-national corporations, and, with institutions that were designed for a mass culture. It was a perspective where one size fits all, and that all people are to be treated a like. Individuality was rebellious and conventionality was the norm.

Those days are slipping away as innovations, like 3D Systems printers, make it possible to create a business that serves customers globally from an office in a small town with an internet connection. It is the twin developments of innovation for individual productivity and the failure of large organizations to function in a one-size fits all world.

As a result, the meaning of global and local is changing. It is less about a mass market culture of sameness, and more about a culture of relationship where I can serve you, regardless of where you or I live. We can be connected. We can communicate, collaborate and coordinate our projects from wherever we sit today.

It isn't just that we live in a time of the long tail, or that technological innovation provides a basis for mass customization or a better foundation for individual initiative. Each is true. At a deeper level, it means that any individual with a minimum investment can pursue their own sense of calling as a person, and do it in a social context of others who share their vision and commitment. This is an emerging reality that will seriously impact the nature of leadership and organizational design in the future.

One way of understanding this development is to see this as the ascendency of the local. I've written about it here, here and here.

The key to making a local orientation work is openness. For many people, local is just another word for provincial, or closed. However, if local is less physical place, and more a relational space, then we can begin to see that my local can include colleagues in Japan, Pakistan, England, Canada, and my neighbors nearby in Asheville.

In a local community, you share a concern for people, for families, for education systems, the business community and for those less fortunate. It is a concern for the whole person, not just for the transaction.

For example, I can share a concern that my friends in California have for the economic and social conditions of their small coastal town, and feel that as their community grows, that I contribute to their growth.

A local community orientation can function in any social or organizational structure. It is the heart of team work. It brings personal initiative, shared responsibility, and common goals and values together.

Leading Through These Shifts

The implications of these shifts for organizational leaders is fairly simple. It means that instead of being organizational process managers, we must become culture creators. The culture that forms from our leadership provides an open environment for individaul initiative, relationship building, and shared responsibility.

The local in this sense is like the ancient Greek polis as described by Victor Davis Hanson in his fascinating book, The Other Greeks: The Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization. He writes in the introduction,

The early Greek polis has often been called a nexus for exchange, consumption, or acquisition, but it is better to define it as an "agro-service center." Surplus food was brought in from the countryside to be consumed or traded in a forum that concurrently advanced the material, political, social, and cultural agenda of its agrarian members. The buildings and circult walls of a city-state were a testament to the accumulated bounty of generations, its democratic membership a formal acknowledgment of the unique triad of small landowner, infantry soldier, and voting citizen. The "other" Greeks, therefore, were not the dispossessed but the possessors of power and influence. Nor is their story a popular account of slaves, the poor, foreigners, and the numerous other "outsiders" of the ancient Greek city-state. The real Greeks are the farmers and infantrymen, the men and women outside the city, who were the insiders of Greek life and culture.

The rise of independent farmers who owned and worked without encumbrance their small plots at the end of the Greek Dark Ages was an entirely new phenomenon in history. This rougly homogeneous agrarian class was previously unseen in Greece, or anywhere else in Europe and the surrounding Mediterranean area. Their efforts to create a great community of agrarian equals resulted, I believe, in the system of independent but interconnected Greek city-states (poleis) which characterized Western cutlure.

The shifts indentified in this post, to me, point to a similar opportunity that the early Greek farmers had. Through their collaborative relationship of shared responsibility, together they created the Greek polis that remains as the model for what cities and communities are in the West.

The ascendency of the local will come as a result of these shifts. And with it a new conception of leadership as more personal, more collaborative, more focused on impact, will emerge to provide it descriptive power that inspires innovation.

The Relationship-focused Organization

2011-04-14T23:28:55-04:00

I began my post, The End and the Beginning, with this thought.

What if our past experience instead of illuminating the future, obscures it? What if the way we have always approached a problem, or the conduct of a single day, or the organization of our work makes it more likely that we end up not accomplishing what we envision?

I'd like to take this as a starting point for a question that has provoked me for some time.

What if the way we organize businesses, and the work done within them, obscures our ability to see ways to change them? What if the way we are organizationally structured means that we must wait until we reach a crisis point before we are willing to change?

Broom Structure

Think of the image of a broom. A long handle for control, and lots of long pieces of straw to do the work. Lose a few straws, no problem. Break the handle, leverage is gone, and the broom quickly becomes useless.

The problem with this metaphor of organization is that it provides no alternative for seeing how the work of the straw end of the broom can be accomplished without the long lever of a handle.

This is the problem that we have with our images of organizational structure. We see hierarchy because that is all we have ever seen. We see a boss on top, a bunch of middle managers, and the straw end of the broom, the workers down below.

We can even see a broken broom handle, a la Enron, and think, not that the system was broken, but that a few bad apples spoiled the rest in the barrel. (Sorry for mixing my metaphors.)

We are like fish who don't know what it means to be wet. The experience of water is so all encompassing, that it can not be objectified. Remove the fish from water, and they cannot survive. In a similar way, we think if the organizational structure we have now was to go away, even if inadequate, the business counld not survive. That is how close we are to our structures.

The Relationship Initiative

I was with a group of people the other day, and they were talking about how their latest improvement efforts were focused on improving relationships and communication. I celebrate their efforts. They are on the right track. However, there are questions that come to mind.

What if how we are organized dictates how we are in our relationships?

How does one reorganize a hierarchically structured business to put relationships at a more central, integral place?

Is openness required for organizational relationships to work?

Is openness a product of the character and personality of the CEO or how the organization is structured to operate?

What if a company was organized with a focus on relationships? How could openness as a core value be operationalized throughout the company?

How would the business look different a year from now?

A Circle of Impact Assessment

When I identified the Circle of Impact model a number of years ago, my bias, frankly, was toward the relationship side of the diagram, and still is. I still see the relational dimension where the action is. Ideas don't do things. And structure is simply the context for the action that people in relationship take to achieve the impact of their mission or purpose as an organization.

As I applied this diagram in both personal and organizational contexts, it became apparent that organizational structrure was the inhibiting factor. It not only inhibited better relationships, but also virtually every improvement initiative that was developed.

In talking with a wide spectrum of people over the years, I saw a host of problems. Here are some.

1. Such a lack of clarity about mission, that their organization had virtually no purpose other than the continued functioning of the organizational system.

2. A lack of accountability by the board for the executive.

3. A tendency to keep doing what they've always done because it is the only thing they knew how to do.

4. Really poor communication blamed on others because they didn't read the boring, overly vague information distributed as communication.

5. A lack of openness that gave employees permission to resolve problems as they occurred.

6. Leaders who were ill-prepare to lead, took criticism personally, and lacked the capacity to see how to change.

7. Leaders who lacked credibility with their staff because they were seen as incompetent, unethical and closed to personal accountability.

8. A lack of alignment between program and mission, between values and relationships, and between results and value to the customer.

9. A culture of fear that ran off the best employees.

10. A lack of understanding for measuring success. Success was measured by activity level and energy expended, not by the beneficial change that came to clients and customers.

I could go on.

Creating a Structure for Healthy Relationships

Healthy relationships are the long term key to creating a successful 21st century organization. But addressing the structural needs of the company is essential if relationships have a chance to grow.

As I have used the The Five Actions of Gratitude with clients, I am coming to understand that these five actions are not a way for creating healthy relationships, but also a strategic tool for addressing the strucutural needs of an organization.

1. Say Thanks in gratitude is an action of collaboration because it recognizes the contributions of others in open, tangible ways.

2.Give Back in service shifts the relationship center from being about me to those who have contributed to my life and work. To create a culture of service changes the dynamics of how communication and collaboration are conducted. The result is a higher level of coordination between programs and departments as people recognize that "lending a hand" makes the system run smoother.

3. Make Welcome in open hospitality provides the essential foundation needed to develop the capacities and potential of employees as leaders. This is a very important point. Openness and hospitality create a culture of trust and invitation to give, and to give as leaders. The more I reflect on this one action, the more convinced I become that this is the key structural change that must happen. If the structure is broken, then start by openning up to people to seek ideas for improvement. There is no better source of insight and inspiration for this approach than Hostmanship by Swedish authors Jan Gunnarsson and Olle Blohm.

4. Honor Others in appreciation of people is the foundation of healthy, collaborative relationships in organizations. To honor is more than recognition, though important. It is a way to see the potential and talent in a person, and through a relationship of mutual support and encouragement create an culture of personal and professional growth.

5. Create Goodness as a calling to make a difference that matters is the foundation of a high performance organization centered in relationships. When an individual can see how their work is creates goodness, then the other four actions of gratitude taken on greater importance.

It isn't enough to want better relationships. There must be tangible changes in organizational structure and process to create a relationship focused organization. More than anything, it starts with a commitment to openness as a guide to releasing the latent potential that exists in the people and their connections to one another within an organization. The Five Actions of Gratitude provide a simple, practical way to establish the relational rapport that is needed to redesign and adapt the organization's structure to the new, more complex demands and opportunities of the 21st century.

Photo: Some rights reserved by Schnittke

Lessons In Leadership Winning Workshop - Full Engagement: Take Yourself, Team, and Customers to OH YEAH!!

2011-04-12T07:00:46-04:00

Register at: WNCLeaders.com

What is Good?

2011-04-08T15:41:41-04:00

Moran-Sunrise by Kathryn Mapes Turner

This is the question that was the basis for the only philosophy course I took in college. The course, Philosophy of Art, I had hoped would explore the artist impulse that people have to create. And to be able to define what distinguishes a good piece of art from one that isn't.

Unfortunately, the course was neither about art nor how to distinguish what is good. Instead, it was a course in semantics, of how one talks about art, and why art can't be defined.

It wasn't that the professor spent portion of every class denigrating people who had religious faith. It was rather that we talked around subjects, never about them, and therefore never reaching a point of understanding or resolution.

He would take a seemingly innocent or benign idea, like goodness, and through a process of analytical reductive reasoning show us how there is no true idea of goodness. This simple and effective tactic left most of us in the class scratching our heads about what the class was about rather than questioning what we believed about anything.

For probably ten years, I would occasionally dream about this professor. Dream about us debating in class, and me changing his mind. I don't think the professor was so clever to think that he'd make philsophers of us all by tearing down our belief systems. Rather, I think he was convinced that truth could be understood in the analysis of language. And yet, that truth was not true in a values or universal sense, but true to the use of the words in that context.

I think he was an intellectual nihilist, yet did not live that way. He believed in something, and for him it was his art and athletic endeavors. It was what he truly valued. And I'm convinced they gave him a social context of friendship through which universal values were evident in their interaction.

What I understand today is that my professor's approach to understanding could not produce a kind of understanding that is whole, but rather small and fragmented.

As a kid, did you ever take a part a toy, and then try to put it back together, only to have some parts remaining? The toy is something whole. Something more than the sum of its parts. Language is something whole, more than grammar and patterns of word usage.

Say the word tide, and it conjures up a range of images. But you don't know what I mean. If I add high or roll to it, two very different images come to mind. The words are parts. Sentences, paragraphs, essays, chapters, and books are wholes. Not necessarily complete wholes, but some whole none-the less.

To describe the whole of something, or to describe an object as good, is not to describe its parts, but something else.

For example, this image is of a portion of a map of the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina. For many of you, it is just lines, shading, markers and names. You can tell it is a map, but it doesn't go much further than that.

The map can serve as a guide, an introduction, to what a person can find here on a visit. Come this summer, you can visit the Fish Hatchery or swim in the cold waters at Sliding Rock or hike up to John's Rock. Each place is represented on the map. Each a place that has meaning for people who visit here.

For those of us who have spent time here, the map is much more. It is a visual connection point to memories and images of places, people, situations and experiences that we've had in locations noted on the map.

For example, just off the map image there is a place call Mt. Hardy. Seen at the center of this picture. On the map, it is just a name of one of hundreds of peaks to climb. Yet, on a June night in 2003, it was a place of fascination and horror, as we watched lightning flash and strikes all around as a group of us camped.

The place on the map represents more than a name. It is something whole and complete, because we experienced it as more than a name on a map. It is a place that will forever stay with those of us who camped there that night.

When we say something is good, we are not trying to analyze its component parts to identify what makes it good. We are saying something about the whole of the object.

I'm convinced that human thought is rationalized emotion. We feel something, and our words provide us a way to connect with those deeper parts of our lives that we know exist, but have a hard to time expressing. We use things like maps and art to provide a connection between those parts of us that are only understandable as something whole and complete.

When we talk about what is good, we are talking about values that capture for us something whole and often times something that is greater than us. These connections, to me, represent the emergent reality that I wrote about here. We are not just our thoughts or just our emotions. We are not just a bank of talent or a fulfiller of tasks along an assembly line. We are whole beings who cannot be understood in any complete way by analytical reduction. Our wholeness rather is understood as unrealized potential within a particular setting. When we look at a work of art, like this painting of Wyomng, that I found online many years ago, we can get really close and look at the technique of the artist, the picture fades and the brush strokes emerge. Then step back, and the picture takes on its wholeness again.

What is good about this painting can be described on many levels. There is the technique. The thematic material. The use of color and perspective. But all those are only parts of the picture. When they are all combined together, do they create a painting that we can say is good? Possibly, but it has a lot to do with the values that we bring to the experience. And our values are products of our interaction with people in society.

I believe that our lives can be like this painting. Excellent in the execution of the brush strokes and use of color, but even more significant because of the picture itself. When we find wholeness in our life and work, we are more than the sum of activities that we do each day. We become a work of art whose life and work is good.

When the Five Actions of Gratitude appeared in my mind one morning driving through northern Mississippi, this is the sort of thing I saw in the fifth action, Create Goodness. A couple quotes from my Weekly Leader column.

The ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle taught his students that “every action and pursuit is considered to aim at some good….what is the highest of all practical goods? … It is happiness, say both ordinary and cultured people; and they identify happiness with living well or doing well.” By this he means that the actions born from our individual initiative, through our relationships, in our work and the daily course of our lives aim at goodness, defined as happiness or living or doing well in life and work. ...

Contemporary philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre in describing Aristotle’s thought on this point wrote, “ What then does the good for… (humanity) … turn out to be? … It is the state of being well and doing well in being well … . “ The word that Aristotle uses is eudaimonia (eu-day-mo-knee-a), traditionally translated as goodness. Its meaning is much more complex that simply as an adjective for describing a piece of pie or last Sunday’s football game. It touches on ideas related to fulfillment, human flourishing, happiness and completeness. The good person is one whose whole life is an integrated combination of thought, feeling, initiative, interaction, and action, resulting a good life or good work, or a better product, community or world.

What is Good?

It is a life that is complete and whole, fulfilled, meaningful and makes a difference that matters. The good life is a complete and happy life. It is a life connected to others just as their lives are connected to ours. And when we find that completeness, our lives are like a painting that evokes values that create goodness and elevate the lives of others. We also become like a map which is a reference point, an example, of what is possible, and for those who know that we have become a reminder of what the experience of a complete life is like.

Something Larger than Oneself

2011-04-03T17:43:49-04:00

Embedded in what I hear from people that they want their lives and work to be Personally Meaningful, Socially Fulfilling and Make a Difference that Matters is the idea that they want to be a part of something larger than themselves.

Here in this TED video composer and conductor Eric Whitacre provides a deeply moving picture of what this is like. Over 2000 people, scattered across the globe, join their voices together to create a virtual choir. This is a picture of the emergent realtiy that recapturing the best of who we are through shared endeavors in community. Watch and enjoy and look forward to the full release of the virtual choir's video later this week.

Circle of Impact Leadership Guides

2011-04-02T08:53:13-04:00

Several years ago, I began to create diagrams of the conversations that I was having with people about their life and work in organizations. The result were these conversation guides. They are the product of hundreds of conversations.

I developed them to provide a way to see complex ideas and whole situations in organizations in as simple a way as possible. They serve to provide a way to reflect on the big picture of what is happening at a particular point in time. The following are brief descriptions of each of the guides that I primarily use in my consulting / coaching work.

1. Creating Impact In Life & Work During Times of Transition

The purpose of this guide is to shift people’s perception from change to transition in their experience. A transition perspective provides a way to see how the past, present and future are logically connected in a process of change. As a result, being able to recognize transition points makes it possible to gain an awarenes s of what one must do to move to the next level in either their personal or organization’s life.

From this perspective, we pass through transition points where we make decisions that, in part, determine how we manage change. We know we enter a transition point when our performance begins to plateau or declines, or the work that we have been doing becomes harder. The awareness that we need to gain is an understanding of those strategies, actions, behaviors, or philosophies that have brought us to this transition point, and whether they are the ones to take us to the next level. In effect, we have to decide what we need to stop doing, and what we need to start doing.

2. How Leaders Manage Change To Create Impact

Leaders must manage the change or transition experience in their organizations. To do so, they must understand how people experience or view change. This guide provides a simple way of seeing a range of feeling and action. Above the dotted line, people either adapt or initiative change as a part of the on-going experience of life and work. Below the line, a person’s attitude toward change becomes more problematic. To resist too much is to fail to recognize that change is a normal and necessary part of life and work. To embrace change too passionately creates an unstable and unsustainable life or work situation.

The ideal situation is a mixture of adaptation and initiative. For the leader, this requires situational awareness of the conditions that are impacting the organization. For example, economic changes, technological developments or competitive pressures are environmental conditions that require constant adaptation and agility. To initiative change comes from clarity about the strategic direction of the organization, and the steps required to accomplish those goals.

3. What We Want From Our Life & Work

These core motivators of our life and work are ways we practically measure our involvement in the social and organizations that we are a part of every day. To be Personally Meaningful means that our beliefs and values are a central part of our experience. To be Socially Fulfilling means that our relationships are whole, healthy, and the social environment is respectful, supportive, caring, as well as open and hospitable. For our lives and work to be described as Making a Difference that Matters means that we see the impact of who we are and what we do. In effect, we are identifying the change we create by who we are, how we think, and what we do. The difference that matters is a product of our acting upon the values and beliefs that are personally meaningful, socially and relationally healthy ways, to accomplish a purpose or mission that defines who we are.

4. Circle of Impact

This is a picture of my understanding of the nature and function of leadership. It is a complex picture because leadership is not one thing, but many things operating at the same time. I’ve reached the conclusion that leadership begins with personal initiative, and that it is not primarily an organizational role, but a way of functioning as persons. As a result I see organizations as communities of leaders, each following their own personal call to make a difference that matters in collaborative, coordinated way.

In this perspective, there are three dimensions to leading – Ideas, Relationships and Structure (of both a social and an organizational type), that correspond to the organizational functions of Communication, Collaboration and Coordination. Once a person focuses on becoming a person of impact, the value of this perspective grows. Take any issue, and one of the three dimensions can be identified as the key problem area, if not each one. The solution comes from working with all three dimensions together. For example, if communication is a problem, then it isn’t just being clear about what to communicate (ideas), but also understanding what people are looking to hear from you (relationships), and how that message is to be communicated in a manner that is most likely to make a difference (structure).

This alignment of the three dimensions is achieved through the Connecting Ideas of Purpose or Mission, Values, Vision and Impact. A Purpose or Mission is an identity perspective that says who we are and what we do. Our Values are those ideas that unite us as a congregation, and provide us the emotional commitment and resilience to do the hard work of change. A Vision is a picture of what it looks like for the people of this community working within their social and organizational structures to create the impact that is the difference that matters. It is a visionary perspective of the future fulfillment of one’s mission. As a result, it is important that a church or organization can identify what the impact of their life and work is, so that they can build upon it. Impact, therefore, is a picture of change or the difference that matters.

This is a complex picture of leadership as it functions in any setting. This guide is a tool for reflection and conversation that once learned can quickly become a way we see things happen in real time.

5. The Five Questions that Every Person Must Ask

This is a practical tool for applying the Circle of Impact. Each question is intended to create clarity of perspective and understanding of what is happening. The first question is best asked as change happening within a specific time frame, like 18 months or five years. The second question asks “What is the impact of our ideas, relationships, and structures.” Once we have a basic understanding of our impact, then reflection upon the future will be much easier. We’ll be able to see progress or decline much more easily. The third question identifies those people and groups who are impacted by our life and work. This perspective enables us to know with whom we need to strengthen relationships or a group that may have been hidden from our view, with whom we need to give our attention. The fourth question provides us direction on where our future efforts should be. Our opportunities are based on the impact that we have, and are typically ones that we should be acting on right away. The fifth question looks at the barriers, constraints or problems that keep us from making a difference that matters. We want to resolve those issues so that we can get on with fulfilling our opportunities.

6. The Leadership of Shared Responsibility

The Circle of Impact is an emergent picture of leadership. By that, I mean, it is not a picture of just the different activities and tasks that leaders do. It is a whole, complete picture of leadership which is greater than the sum of its parts. This page is an emergent or whole picture of the community that is the organization, and its shared responsibility for leadership. As a result, the senior leader of the organization, from this perspective, cannot lead from a control orientation, but rather from engagement with people to facilitate their own leadership within their role in the organization.

This vision of engagement is of each person taking initiative out of their own sense of personal responsibility as a member of a community that shares responsibility for communicating, collaborating and coordinating the organization’s work. To share responsibility doesn’t mean that everyone does the same thing, but, rather, that everyone shares responsibility for their part.

7. Leadership in Organizational Structures

This is a simple guide to help people see how an emergent, collaborative approach can be incorporated into a traditional, hierarchical organizational structure. The purpose is to show that collaboration is not just a tactic or a behavior that groups can employ, but a structural component of an organization, just like hierarchy is. The key to blending these two structures is openness to the leadership initiative of individuals working within groups. For example, if the structure requires issues to rise to higher levels of management, then those responsibility for implementing solutions not only have less say in how to resolve those issues, but also less motivation to resolve them at the source. A more collaborative approach allows for those who are closest to the implementation of a decision to have greater influence over how to implement a choice of direction. A hierarchical structure that has high functioning collaboration throughout its system provide senior management a greater opportunity to focus on strategic decision-making rather than tactical problem solving. This is not a new or particularly innovative idea. It is however, an idea that should be seen as a strategic asset rather than simple a way to apply “soft skills” in the workplace.

8. Say Thanks Every Day: The Power of Gratitude in Life & Work

The previous pages are all about leadership. This page is about relationships and community as the core life of the organization. This perspective has developed out of recognition that one of the inhibitors to a higher level of relationship interaction in organization is a lack of an understanding of what constitutes a whole, healthy relationship. The core idea is that in society at large and in organizations specifically, that we are at a transition point. This transition point concerns how people live and work together. I’ve defined this shift as moving towards an approach to life and work from a place of gratitude, rather than from a position of entitlement.

Much has been written in popular psychology about the beneficial effects of being grateful. Gratitude, in my perspective, is not just a way for us to find happiness, but how to live in relationship to others in any social or organizational setting.

The five actions here can be reduced to five simple concepts. We say thanks. We give back in service. We make welcome people as guests in our lives through the practice of openness and hospitality. We honor others as the fundamental basis of all interpersonal relationships. We treat people with honor and respect, for without it community is difficult to achieve. Finally, we create goodness through our personal commitment to take initiative to make a difference that matters.

How To Use These Conversation Guides

The purpose of these guides is for reflection in conversation to achieve awareness leading to action. Print off the pages, and carry them with you. Begin use the Circle of Impact guide to identify the ideas, relationships and structures that are involved in the situation that is the current issue. Seek to understand how the Connecting Ideas are linking or aligning how you think, relate or organize the work that is needed. The key to using these guides is to ask questions, and let the conversation take you to a point of clarity.

If you need assistance, just ask. These guides are the basis of my consulting and coaching work. I welcome the opportunity to help you and your organization grow to make a difference that truly matters.

The End and the Beginning

2011-03-14T10:32:22-04:00

Seeing what's coming

What if our past experience instead of illuminating the future, obscures it? What if the way we have always approached a problem, or the conduct of a single day, or the organization of our work makes it more likely that we end up not accomplishing what we envision?

Working in planning processes over the years, I've concluded that people can see what they want, but fail to reach it because of how they go about it. We can imagine the future, but not see the path that will take us there. This gap in our abilities is becoming more acute as the ways we have worked are becoming less effective.

From another perspective, we rarely see the end of something coming, or the beginning of the next thing. We tend to see in retrospect. Our aversion to change, I believe, is largely because we don't like surprises. We defend the past hoping that it is sustainable into the future, even if we see a better, different one.The past, even less than ideal, at least seems known and more certain, more secure, more stable, more predictable, more confortable, at one level. It does not mean that it is satisfying or fulfilling, but it seems safer.

As a result, instead of providing us a sound basis for change, the past can inhibit us from achieving the vision that we see. Instead, we live by a set of cultural forms that must be defended against change. In other words, the form of the way we live and work remains the same even after its vitality has gone.

Change that has come

What impresses me about our time is how fast change is happening, and how quickly things we thought were normative seems less relevant.

Ten years ago, websites were the rage. You weren't on the cutting edge of business without one. Today, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and a host of other social media platforms are the norm for a business. Twenty years ago, CDs were the norm. Now, digital I-Tunes downloads. Thirty years ago, the Soviet Union was the West's nemesis, now militant Islam. Forty years ago, Vietnam and racial equality were the dominant issues of our time. Now we have an African-American President, and Howard Schultz wants Starbucks in Vietnam. Fifty years ago, President Kennedy was challenging the nation to go to the Moon within the decade. Today, the government is putting space exploration on the back burner as space travel is becoming privatized.

Could we have imagined these changes? Possibly. We'd probably not be able to see how they'd happen. That is the curious thing about visions and visioning. We can imagine the end, but not the means. The pathway to the future goes through today and tomorrow. Yet, we are captives of our past thinking and experiences. They are the measure of what is possible and what can be done.

The End and the Beginning

I have been reflecting, in particular, on these thoughts over the past several months. I've tried to step back without prejudice and identify what I see without reducing it down to a few simple categories. What I do see are the markers of change in three broad areas.

For one it is the The Beginning of the End, for another The End of the Beginning, and for another, surprisingly, The Beginning of a long delayed Beginning.

Some of this reflection was prompted by a conversation about a project event to take place later this year. It was a discussion about how businesses function. The contrast was between a focus of work as a set of tasks to be done and the importance of human interaction in meeting organizational goals. I realized coming out of that conversation that this project, for me, represented a turning point in human and organizational development. It provided a picture of the past and the future. The past as the Industrial model of business organization and the future of organizations as communities of leaders. That last phrase was what I envisioned a decade and a half ago when I began my consulting business. Only now, after all these years, do I see that simple idea beginning to have relevance for the way we live, work, organize and lead organizations.

What I see is:

The Beginning of the End of the Progressive ideal.

The End of the Beginning of the Capitalist model.

The Emergence of freedom and democracy on a global scale.

The first two, Progressivism and Capitalism, along with modern Science, are the principal products of the age of Enlightenment.

The Progressive ideal believed, and still does by many of its advocates, that through government control of science and industry a free, equitable and peaceful world could be achieved. Conceived during the 19th century as a belief that society could be perfected, and as a counter-balance to the industrialization taking place in Europe and the United States, it was an utopian belief in a well-order, controlled, uniform world.

The Capitalist model was born in a belief that each individual should be free to pursue their own economic welfare, and not be forced by government rules or economic servitude to do that which they choose not to do. It was the ideology that provided the basis of the industrialization out which has come prosperity for more people in history and the rise of the modern middle class.

Both the Progressive ideal and the Capitalist model have brought great benefits and liabilities to society. They form the two sides of virtually every divisive issue confronting the world today. They are quite similar, yet in very different ways. Both are organized around the control of power and wealth. Both have been institutionalized in the large, hierarchical organizations in Washington and on Wall Street, and in similar institutions throughout the world.

Over the past decade, the Progressive ideal and the Capitalist model have begun to show their age. The assumptions that underlie these ideologies are being challenged by forces of change that are beyond their control. Because the control of global forces of change is problematic and less realistic.

A principal assumption of the Enlightenment is that we can know what we need to know by analytical decision making. In other words, by identifying the parts of a situation, we understand it, and therefore can design a strategic mechanism for controling the outcome. This analytical process works very well in the realm of the natural sciences, less so in the realm of the social sciences. To paraphrase novelist Walker Percy, "Science can tell us how the brain functions, but not about the functioning of the mind."

At the beginning of this essay, I wrote of what I was seeing The Beginning of The End of the Progressive ideal and The End of the Beginning of the Capitalist model. Neither of these observations are political statements. I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican. I am not a Progressive nor a Libertarian. I find none of the current choices of political affiliation representative of my own perspective and values. I speak as an outlier, not an antagonist.

I see these ideological movements as products of a different time in history. The assumptions and the way of thinking that brought these ideologies into prominence are now receding in appropriateness. The conditions that gave rise to these ideas over the past three hundred years are now giving way to new conditions. If progressivism and capitalism are to survive, then their proponents must change.

Emergent connection

These ideologies born in the age of Enlightenment share a reductive approach to knowledge. In other words, we gain knowledge and understanding by breaking things into parts. The assumption is that things are collections of discrete parts. Yet, we know that in the natural sciences, the mixing of different chemical elements creates something new and different that cannot exist in any other way. Water being the most obvious example.

However, in the social realm, there is a shift toward emergent knowledge as the basis for understanding what is. The emergent perspective sees connections and wholes rather than just parts. In a network of relationships, the value isn't one person, but rather the connections that one person has to other persons.

Think of it as the difference between those radio ads selling lists of sales leads, and knowing the person who has a relationship with 100 of those buyers. The former is a list of contacts, of names and addresses. It is a parts list. The other is a picture of a network of connections that one person has. This second picture is the picture of the future, for it is a picture of relationships.

We see emerging forces all around us. Again, this is not a political statement, but an observation. One difference between the Tea Party demonstrations and the Union demonstrations of the past year is the difference between an emergent organization and a traditional hierarchical one. The Tea Party organization is intentionally decentralized in local communities. Unions are designed as centralized concentrations of power. One body speaking for a host of organizations.

The difference here is between a centralized and decentralized organizational structure, like that described in Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom's book, The Starfish and The Spider. The centralized structure (the spider) is vulnerable at the top. Take down the leader, and the organization suffers significant loss of prestige and power. The decentralized system (the starfish) is not vulnerable at the top, because there is none. In a decentralized system, no one expression controls the fortunes of the whole. The centralized is the industrialized model, and the decentralized, an emergent one. The system that the Progressive ideal and the Capitalist model share is one of centralization. Operating separate from both are independents and small business entrepreneurs. The difference is between a hierarchy of control and a network of collaborative relationships.

The recent rebellions in the Middle East are also examples of this emergent model. The use of cell phone and internet technology to connect people in agile, less structured ways make these rebellions possible, not necessarily successful, but possible.Their desire is for a freedom that they see provided and secured by democracy. When thousands of demonstrators fill the streets of Cairo seeking the end of a repressive regime, their impact is far greater than their numbers. We see a visual counterpoint of the difference between being a nation of free people and one living under an authoritarian government.

Even as the Progressive ideal and the Capitalist model decline, the impetus towards freedom and democracy grows. I heard recently that there are now more nations with democratic governments than at any time in history. Democracy that grows from a grassroots base is an emergent model. The impact is greater than the sum of its individual parts. In an emergent context, one person's actions can serve as a catalyst for thousands more. For example, the recent uprising in Tunisia was started when a street merchant Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire to protest the abusive treatment by police of his vegetable cart business.

The Network is Emergent

In business, the emergent model has relevance. When a business perceives itself to be a structure of parts, processes and outcomes, following upon the centralized industrial model, then it has a much more difficult time seeing the value that exists in the relational connections that exist both between people and within the structure itself. It is why so many businesses become siloed and turf battles insue.

However, when a business sees itself as a network of interactive individuals, then the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The result is higher levels of communication, collaboration and coordination.

While the Progressive ideal and the Capitalist model are products of the age of Enlightenment, emergence, freedom and democracy are even older ideas finding new ground and relevance. In the traditional business organization, their relevance can be seen in two ways.

First, in the freedom of the individual to take responsibility through their own initiative. This perspective harkens back to the ancient Greek democracies where Greek farmers and small business owners participated in the governance and protection of their city-state. For businesses to replicate such an ethos requires a shift in perspective from employees as functionaries of the tasks of the company to a recognition of the potential contribution that each person offers. It is in this sense that each person leads out of their own personal initiative to give their best to the company.

Second, in the emergence of businesses as human communities of shared responsibility. The traditional approach has been to break down the organizational structures into discrete parts of tasks and responsibilities, and to staff to that conception of the organization. This traditional hierarchical approach worked in simpler times when businesses were less global, more homogeneous, and employees less well trained, and had the technology to advance their contributions beyond their individual position in the company.

Today, the environment of business has changed, as the context becomes more complex and change accelerates. Agility and responsiveness are not embedded in structure, but in human choice and in relationships that amplify those shared choices to make a difference. It is the freedom to take initiative to act in concert with others that creates the conditions of successfully managing the challenging environment of business today. The result of a greater emphasis on relationship, interaction and personal initiative is a shift in culture. One only has to select any page in the Zappos.com Culture Book to see the influence of genuine community upon the attitudes and behaviors of the company's workforce.

The Keys to Change

I began this post by saying that we rarely see the end of something coming or the beginning of something new. What I offer here has been germinating in my mind for the past three years. It is still not yet fully formed, and may never be. Yet, I am convinced that the changes that I see happening mean that there is no going back to the halcyon days of the 1990's or even the 1950's. Business organizations will not long succeed as mechanistic structures of human parts. Rather they must emerge into being communities of leaders, where individual initiative, community and freedom are fundamental aspects of the company's culture

The keys to the future, in my mind, are fairly simple.

1. Leadership starts with individual employees' own personal initiative to make a difference. Create space and grant permission for individual employees to take initiative to create new ways of working, new collaborative partnerships and solve problems before that reach a crisis level.

2. Relationships are central to every organizational endeavor. Create space for relationships to grow, and the fruit will be better communication, more collaboration between people and groups, and a more efficient coordination of the work of the organization.

3. Open the organization to new ideas about its mission. Identify the values that give purpose and meaning to the company's mission. Organize around those values that unite people around a common purpose, that give them the motivation to want to communicate better, collaborate more, and coordinate their work with others. Openness is a form of freedom that releases the hidden and constrained potential that exists within every company.

We are now at the End of an era that is unprecedented in human history. The next era is Beginning, and each of us has the privilege and the opportunity to share in its development. It requires adapting to new ideas, new ways of thinking, living and working. I welcome the change that is emerging, because I find hope that a better world can be gained through its development.

Travel

2011-02-28T09:29:45-05:00

I know it has been over a month since I last posted. It isn't for lack of thought, but rather from a heavy travel schedule. One ten day road trip in January, a twelve day one in February, and I'm leaving in a bit for another.

I am working on a long post called The End and The Beginning. I hope to finish it this week.

See you down the road.

Making Room for the Unexpected

2011-01-21T10:48:31-05:00

This is my friend Talia Leman, CEO of RandomKid, speaking at TEDxYSE.

This is the picture of 21st century leadership.

Trend Lines Going Forward

2011-01-03T22:42:26-05:00

It is hard to believe that the first decade of the 21st century is now history. It has not been the decade that most of us expected. It has been filled with terror, war, economic disruption, political disappointment, natural disasters that showcased governmental inadequacies, and the emergence of social media as a force. In many respects, it was a decade where society did not move forward, and little prospects for broad scale improvement in the near future.

Andy Crouch, an insightful cultural interpreter, has posted his assessment of the 10 tends that marked the first decade of the 2000's.

Connection

Place

Cities

The End of the Marjority

Polarity

The Self Shot

Pornography

Informality

Liquidity

Complexity

I'm in basic agreement with most of what Crouch offers here. However, it raises questions for me.

If these are trends, then where are they leading us?

What is the line that extends from the past through the present to the future?

What should we do in response to these trends?

These trends are markers or sign-posts of changes that have been long in development. I see these trends leading forward in the following ways.

Connection / Place / Cities / Pornography / The Self Shot - The trend line is complex because it is a mixture of several converging ones. The need for relationship, for rootedness in a place, for a place of openness, discovery and genuine diversity, for intimacy, and for a real understanding of one's own identity. All these are converging.

Each of these trends have their problematic dimension though: Of the shallowness of online connection; of the disconnection of people from the physical places where they live and work; of the economic viability of both rural and urban environments that fail to create an environment for human creativity; of the failure of the institution of marriage to be a viable form of human intimacy for large numbers of people; and, of a religious and political culture that offers narcissism rather than human community as a basis for human purpose.

The End of the Majority / Polarity / Informality / Liquidity / Complexity - The trend line is moving fast away from the social conventions and institutions of previous generations. The status of elite groups and institutions once secured by a culture of common perceptions and simple approaches is under going dramatic change. One-size-fits-all, works-for-all, and is available-to-all is no longer reflective of the way the world works, if it ever truly did. Instead, complexity is the structure of society. As a result, no single or generic approach works. Instead many different approaches can be effective. The key here then is to understand how complexity impacts us on a daily basis.

Donald Norman writes in Living with Complexity,

"The keys to coping with complexity are to be found in two aspects of understanding. First is the design of the thing itself that determines its understanding. Does it have an underlying logic, a foundation that, once mastered, makes everything fall into place? Second is our own set of abilities and skills. Have we taken the time and effort to understanding and master the structure? Understandability and understanding: two critical keys to mastery."

Questions that I have.

What is the underlying logic that explains the meaning of these trends?

What is the "design (of the thing itself)" of the time we live?

What is the historical movement that helps us to gain understanding of the past decade, the past generation, and what we may expect of the next decade and generation.

My conclusion is that we are in the midst of dramatic period of unprecedented change. In order to understand these trends, we need to understand the assumptions that have guided human history for the past several centuries.

For example, beginnng in the 18th century a shift began that impacted virtually every country. It was the shift from aristocracy to democracy. What may not be readily evident in this shift is the continuity that was maintained throughout these great historic changes.

I wrote about this shift in my review of Lucino Visconti's masterpiece, The Leopard. It is a picture of the change from the old aristocratic order to new world order of democratic progressivism. In that post, I include a long dialogue that the Prince of Sicily and the representative of the new modern, progressive government of Italy have. Here's a portion.

The Prince: I am a member of the old ruling class hopelessly linked to the past regime and tied to it by chains of decency, if not affection. I belong to an unfortunate generation straddling two worlds and ill at ease in both. And what is more, I am utterly without illusions.

What would the Senate do with an inexperienced legislator who lacks the faculty of self-deception, essential requisite for those who guide others? No, I cannot lift a finger in politics. It would get bitten off.

Chevalley: Would you seriously refuse to do all you can to alleviate the state of physical squalor and blind moral misery in which your own people lie?

The Prince: We are old, Chevalley. Very old. For more that 25 centuries, we have borne the weight of superb civilizations that have come from outside, never of our own creation, none we could call our own. For 2,500 years, we've been nothing but a colony. I'm not complaining. It's our fault. But we are worn out and exhausted.

Chevalley: But all that's over now. Sicily is no longer a conquered land, but a free member of a free state.

The Prince: Your intention is good, but it comes too late.

Sleep, my dear Chevalley, a long sleep - that is what Sicilians want. They will always hate anyone who tries to wake them, even to bring them the most wonderful gifts. And between ourselves, I doubt whether the new kingdom will have many gifts for us in its luggage. Here, all expression, even the most violent, is a desire for oblivion. Our sensuality is a longing for oblivion. Our knifings and shootings are a longing for death. Our laziness, the penetrating sweetness of our sherbets, a longing for voluptuous immobility, that is ... death once again.

Chevalley: Prince, are you exaggerating? I myself have met Sicilians in Turin who seemed anything but asleep.

The Prince: I haven't explained myself well. I'm sorry. I said Sicilians. I should have said Sicily. This atmosphere, the violence of the landscape, the cruelty of the climate, the constant tension in everything -

Chevalley: Climate can be overcome, landscape improved, the memory of evil governments canceled. Surely the Sicilians want to improved.

The Prince: I don't deny that a few, once off the island, may wake up, but they must leave very young. By 20, it's too late. The crust has already formed. What you need, Chevalley, is a man who is good at blending his personal interests with vague public ideals.

The picture here is of the clash between the ideals of progressivism and the exhaustion of the old order. With the former there was a belief that the world's problems could be solved, and with the latter, a realization that even in the midst of change, there is not much that changes.

What we can see here is not the replacement of the aristocracy with a populist government, but rather the transfer of power from one kind of elitism to another. It is the elitism of modern democratic progressivism that is reaching the same point that the old order aristocrats reached two centuries ago. That exhaustion is the inadequacy of the ideas and values that inspired revolution to create a sustainable society in a highly complex context. Ultimately, what happens is the loss of the ideals themselves and the adoption of a formula that is designed to resist change and perpetuate the system.

This trend suggests other trends.

The end of institutions as a unifiying force in society. Whether those institutions are political, religious, social or educational, they no longer command the loyalty or respect by people as they once did. Instead, communities of causes have replaced them and is seen in Crouch's Polarity trend.

This emerging trend is really the mixture of several changes.

A shift from a global to a local perspective as locus of solution making. The impracticality of one-size-fits-all approaches to solving social and econonic problems is reflected in the persistance of the recession in its many forms. This a product of the growing complexity of society that responds better to small, local initiatives than those applied from a single source.

A shift from a national orientation to a relational one. As I've written previously, online technology enables us to work with colleagues globally as if we are locally connected. National origin means less, and personal values mean more in this context of local collaboration on a global scale.

The emergence of belief as the common bond that unites people organizationally. One doesn't have to look farther than the passionate advocacy of the environmental movement or the Tea Party movement to see how traditional institutions are being replaced my groups of people who form temporary communities to advocate for a cause. This puts institutional elites at a disadvantage as institutional integrity has been less about causes or beliefs and more about process and operational integrity.

These are some trends that I see, and see them as positive developments. However, there are aspects of these changes that I don't think are quite yet apparent, yet will bring a new level of disruptive change as they emerge.

Many of the governing assumptions of our time are based on social, political and economic philosophies that were born in the era of The Leopard. I'm convinced that the ideologies of capitalism, liberal progressivism and its socialist varient, and individualism will come to be replaced by new ideas that provide a way forward. It is my impression that we think these are given, guiding assumptions of contemporary society. I'm not convinced that these philosophies represent the future, but the past. It is why I see the two political parties as regressive, rather than visionary. As these ideologies lose their vitality and relevance, their advocates have become more divisive and defensive. In my opinion, this divisiveness is a sign of the fading viability of these social philosophies.

If I was a betting man, which I'm not, I'd wager that the future trends that we'll see emerging over the next few years are:

New organizational structures that are designed for shared responsibility and collaboration.

Values as the unifying force, not only in organizations, but in society.

New confederations of cities and organizations that circumvent the artifical constraints of state and national boundaries.

Lastly, what should leaders do to be prepared to adapt to these changes?

1. Develop the leadership capacity of everyone in your organization.

2. Build organizational community through an emphasis on and the operationalization of the Connecting Ideas of the Circle of Impact - Purpose, Mission, Values, Vision and Impact.

3. Take time to develop an understanding of the logic of what is happening locally and globally. Test assumptions, and be positively self-critical. In other words, think for yourself by constanting seeking to develop your capacity to observe, think, assess and make judgments.

My wish for each of us in 2011 is that we find new strength of purpose, greater capacity for leadership, and an ability to make a difference that matters that changes our world for the better. All the best to you in your leadership endeavors.

Organizational Obsolescence

2010-12-28T15:37:38-05:00

Walk into most book stores, and look at the books on leadership that line the shelves, and you'll see very few that address the actual organizational structure of a business. If there are, the focus is primarily one measuring performance. And as valuable as these quality programs are, as change mechanisms, they are incremental at best.

The chief problem affecting organizational performance today is not the ability of people to perform, but the structure within which they do so.

This video is a snap shot of a conversation between two military officers. We have two cultures clashing in this conversation. One is the culture of the careerist who is a slave to the structure of the system. The other culture is of the leader who understands the organization's mission (which is not the perpetuation of the structure) and the leadership of the people who serve to achieve that mission.

If you are familiar with the HBO mini-series Generation Kill ( I highly recommend it.) you'll see these same two cultures colliding. You see the officer corps who are concerned about the unit's mission (which is in effect is reduced to their concerns about their own career advancement and longevity) and the NCO culture, where the concern is for the men who are charged with the dangerous mission that combat soldiers have.

The bureaucratic structure that constrains many large, complex organizations requires dramatic levels of change in order to function well in the future.

This image is one I've used before as a way to visualize a collaborative team working within a traditional hierarchical structure. Hierarchy does not necessarily exclude collaboration. Rather, when the system has turned in on itself to the point that the organization's mission is now the perpetuation the its structure, then you end up having the clash of cultures that is seen in the video.

The longer I work with issues affecting leaders the more convinced I am that structure is the last frontier of organizational development. There are three things to say about this.

1. The structure of an organization exists to serve the mission and the people who are employed to bring to fulfillment. It is a tool. Nothing more. To make it more brings it into conflict with the organization's mission. Yet, what I see is structure dictating what the mission should be, and how people are to function with in it. The structure of a business exists to facilitate the leadership of each individual member of the organization. By leadership, I mean the personal initiative that each person takes in collaboration with others to fulfill the mission of the organization.

2. Structure is ultimately determined by leadership. If a structure functions as it does in the animation above, then it is because the leadership of the system has allowed it to degenerate to that point. The relation between executive leadership and structure is a moral one. As a tool, structure serves a purpose. Just as a hammer can drive a nail into a board to build a house, it can also break a window to steal a briefcase from a car. The hammer remains what it is. It is the human use of that tool that determines its moral value.

3. Structures, not aligned with the organization's mission, and not open to the individual leadership of its members, will ultimately fail. There is no such reality that a structure is too big to fail. They are failing all around us. Evidenced by the disparities in compensation, high unemployment rates, and the inability of many organizations to adapt to a changing economic environment.

The Leadership Question for 2011.

As we begin a new year, I want to raise some questions that we all reflect upon during the coming year.

Is your business structure obsolete?

Are your employees reflecting enthusiams, independent initiative, collaborative decision-making and a passion for mission?

As the senior leader of your business, are you a liberating force for change or a careerist seeking to maximize your own personal benefit from a broken, declining system?

If any of these are true, then you need to take some time to consider what your alternatives are.

If every structure is just a tool, then resolve to determine what is the best tool to serve your business.

The challenge is before us all. The time to address these issues is now.

How to be a Local Leader

2010-12-17T08:47:42-05:00

My previous post - The Ascendency of the Local - was a big picture look at the difference between local interaction and global approaches. It is a view of the trends impacting our lives and work as we move toward the future. I want to take this down to a more practical level.

Here's where I want to start.

Every individual has the capacity to lead. We lead when we act from our point of view, values and commitments. We do this within the context of our life and work. We do this when we look at our local community and see needs.

Where I live in Western North Carolina, a group of people at the church our family attends became concerned about homeless people in our downtown community not having a place to get in out of the cold on Saturday afternoons during the winter. For some reason all the shelters and ministries that serve them during the week close that one afternoon a week. These individuals made an appeal to the leadership of our church, and within two weeks, had a program started that is now in its third winter season.

This is an example of leadership because a few people took initiative to address a local need. Through their interaction a proposal was presented that resulted in action to address the need.

This picture of leadership through local interaction can be understood through these four steps:

Idea, Initiative, Interaction, Impact.

Remember those four words. Everything happens through them. Let's explore them.

Ideas come from our engagement with the world around us.

It may be a situation where people are are in need or an emotional desire we have, or some notion we pick up for a book or the newspaper. The ideas that connect with us are related to other ideas, like our purpose in life or the mission of our business or values that give our life and work meaning, or a vision for a better world. These are all ideas that are ways we try to make sense of the world we are apart of it. At some point, it all comes together in a singular idea that empassions us for action.

Initiative is the beginning of all leadership.

Without it nothing happens. Lots of people have ideas, but many are never acted on them. When an idea is compelling enough, we take action. The action may be to research it further, or have a conversation or to ask for permission or clarification, or go do it. Intiative is some action that starts the process of leadership. The most significant, sustainable and impactful initiatives are those that are connected to the values that we have in life.

Interaction is where action and progress take place.

There are very, very few instances in human history where human interaction was not involved. I've yet to identify one. This means that our individualism never functions in isolation from our relationships. The life and work we create is always within a context of interaction. It may be verbal. Or it could be a response to some incident or person in the past. When we begin to interact, we open ourselves up to new ideas, and new paths towards seeing our idea take root and find its impact.

Impact is a way we can talk about the results of our ideas, initiative and interactions.

What we seek through those aspects of our life and work is change. Not random, discontinuous, purposeless change, but meaningful change that makes a difference that matters.

Let me return to my earlier example to flesh this out a bit.

Through an idea, individual initiative, and collaborative interaction, a Saturday afternoon program called Saturday Sanctuary began in the winter of 2009. What began as a program for our church's members to serve, now has people from across our community serving our downtown neighbors. New people are joining every month.

Today, ideas for how to serve our guests still emerge from the interaction that we have with them. At one point, someone to the initiative to show up with a hot meal for the 50-70 people who regular come. I know I was glad to be there the day Andy showed up with Buffalo wings he had grilled at home. Christmas day, which falls on a Saturday this year, will be a time of feasting as all sorts of food will be served to the 300 people we expect to come.

In your local community, there are people today who are taking initiative to make a difference. They may be helping the poor and homeless, or working to alleviate poverty, or trying to provide affordable housing, mentor in middle school kids in math or improving the downtown environment for residents, businesses and guests.

Take initiative to interact with them. Work beside them. Learn how to start and lead a project. Make a difference that matters where it is already happening. As you do, a discovery will begin to happen.

First is that you have ideas that matter.

Your perspective has value and is worth sharing.

Second is that there are many ways for you to take initiative to make a difference that matters.

You don't have to take on a leadership role to be a leader. All it requires is for you to act upon the ideas and desires that you have for people and your community.

Third, you'll also discover that your circle of interaction grows.

If you really let yourself go, you'll find that your local community is global. You'll meet people, and find ways to engage with people so that together you'll make a difference that matters. You'll discover that someone in France or Omaha has dealt with the same issue, and your interaction provides you a way to understand what you need to do.

Fourth, you'll discover that you are a person of impact.

I've learned that people measure their life experience in three ways. They want it to be Personally Meaningful because it is connected to the ideas and value that matter to them. They want it to be Socially Fulfilling because relationships matter. And, they want to Make a Difference that Matters. When we take initiative to act upon the ideas that we have through our interactions with others, we discover that our life and work makes a difference in ways we could never imagine.

This picture is what "local interaction" implies. It isn't just talk, but action. This is what genuine leadership looks like.

The Ascendency of the Local

2010-12-15T15:14:06-05:00

Last week I sent birthday greetings to a woman in Israel, whom I've not meet face to face, yet with whom I have talked on Skype and emailed over the past year.

A year and a half ago, I initiated and then coordinated an online conversation about morale in the workplace that included 36 different people from 12 different countries on four continents. The result was the ebook - Managing morale in a time of change - that was edited by a woman in England.

Weekly, I engage in online conversations with people from around the world whom I have also never seen face-to-face, yet with whom I feel a close friendship as colleagues.

These few illustrations, along with many more, could lead someone to the conclusion that we live in a global community. In one sense that would be correct in the sense that it is possible to have relationships with people across the globe. In another, often missed or ignored sense, these globally connected relationships are not global. Instead, I see these relationship as not unlike those where there is a close physical proximity.

The Rise of the Local?

What we are experiencing is the rise of the local, that can be characterized in both a geographic and a relational sense.

Roberto Verganti, Professor of Management of Innovation at Politecnico di Milano, in his fascinating book, Design Driven Innovation, makes the following observation.

The design discourse is both local and global. On the one hand, the local density of the network is essential, because interactions based on tacit knowledge benefit from geographic proximity. On the other hand, interactions among interpreters worldwide allow them to enlarge the quanity and variety of their insights and provide a global perspective on the evolution of meanings.

Verganti is speaking about how product design processes are conducted.The key word in the paragraph is "interactions." It is what distinguishes the local from the global.

All "interactions" are potentially local, especially when there is a clear purpose. Local, therefore, is more than "close proximity" and is about about "shared values and outcomes."

If we define local in this way, then what does global mean?

It appears to me that global is often a code word for "centralized" or "one size fits all."

Years ago, one of the American car companies marketed what they called their "world car." It was a phrase euphemisically used to describe a car that they could market everywhere, in any country, on any continent. In reality it was a car that they saw as "one size fits all."

This was a "global" approach that was not based on interaction or the recognition of local distinctives, but rather a singular strategy that was intended to work everywhere.

A "global" approach is a mindset that can even function in what we'd consider a "local" context.

For example, a family has three children. A "global" approach to their development is to see that all of them learning Spanish and attending either their father's or their mother's college or university, and returning home to work in the same career's as their parents.

A global approach, therefore, is more formulaic, describing a general or generic path that is intended to fit most every circumstance. In this sense, it is a lowest common denominator approach to interaction. One message for everyone regardless of who they are.

A "local" approach would see each child as a unique human being with specific needs and potential, and making their own choices about their education and their career in consult with their parents. As a result, one child may need to learn Swahili in route to becoming a teacher or aid worker in Kenya. Another may earn a two year degree in mechanics in order to work in a motorcycle shop. And the third child learns Mandarin on her way to earning a Ph.D. in economics in for a career as business consultant with a international investment banking firm.

There is a tension between "local interaction" and a "global one-size-fits-all" approach. It is partly an issue of personal responsibility and individual freedom, and partly an issue of how does a global society make decisions that impact billions of people?

A local approach is based upon individuals making decisions that take into consideration their family members and neighbors, even if their neighbors are people on another continent. It is based on relationships, shared values, responsibility and outcomes.

A global approach assumes that this is not feasible, and that a central decision making body should make these decisions. In effect, it distrusts interaction and collaborative solution making. This has been the course of most societies for the past two centuries regardless of whether they are politically democratic, socialist or developing.

The ascendency of the local challenges an elitist global approach to decision making.

This distinction between local and global leadership is most significantly being played out in local communities.

Over the past year or so, I've been following developments in a city far from where I live, as its city adminstration sought to apply a "globalzed" solution to the problem of city revenue. The solution would have had an adverse impact upon local business, and led to more "centralized" control by city government over businesses and private property. Based on my observations as an interested outsider, these "global" solutions were really a way for a small group of citizens and city administrators to gain power and control over the economic assets of the community.

A contingent of local citizens organized and through their "localized interactions" working within the system of local government, exerted influence upon the city to change some of these decisions that were having an adverse impact upon local businesses.

As an outside observer in conversation with some of the citizens involved, I saw the power that "local interactions" have in a "globalized context." They have a capacity to transcend the artificial barriers that traditional social and organizational structures provide. Those boundries represent the effect of past decisions upon a community. As new pockets of local influence grow and gain importance, the community's ablity to adapt to the changing social and economic realities grow as well.

Legacy structures like these tend to be hierarchical and ordered for control of the system, rather than for interaction and initiative by members. We don't tend to think of global approaches as representative of the old industrial model, but that is precisely what they are. It is an organizational design that assumes that a few persons closely linked together, who hold power on behalf of the larger comunity will make decisions that are beneficial to the whole community.

The Local is the Future because the Future is the Interactive.

The future of organizations and communities is in the interaction that takes place in relationships. This is already happening, and has been for some time. And where there are legacy hierarchical structures, localized interactions are happening. In many cases these interactions transcend the boundaries of the organization as they created collaborative groups whose focus is on the shared values and outcomes that have drawn them together.

One example of how "local interactions" are not limited to "social or organizational proximity" is found in the impact of author and entrepreneur Seth Godin.

Several years agom, Seth started the online social network Triiibes as a vehicle for his book Tribes to find an audience that would be engaged not only with the ideas in the book, but also as way for people learn how to develop and lead their own tribes. This successful social network, with close to 15,000 members, is a platform for a wide range of activities that are bringing people from across the globe together to create value in their local arenas.

The Morale ebook, mentioned above, is the product of this interaction in the Triiibes network. There are, now, ebooks being produced on a regular basis through the "localized interaction of the Triiibes global community"   that are available to the general public at Shippity.

In addition, a global gathering of local meetings are regularly taking place that bring people together who have been inspired by Seth Godin's book, Linchpin. As of the time of this writing, over the past nine months, there have been 1,575 Linchpin gatherings, involving 8,269 people in 102 countries.

As one of the organizers of these local gatherings, this globally dispersed gathering for local interaction has a thematic continuity of shared values and outcomes that is a guide to the future of localize interaction in organizations and communities.

Local Interaction on a Global Scale Makes The Difference That Matters

Local interaction makes a difference because it where collaborative work takes place. The Local is based on individual initiative rather than quiescent compliance. It is a more agile, adaptive, responsible approach because it is a way those who are most impacted by circumstances are able to address issues under which they have control.

The challenge for global structures is to establish the credibility that provides a basis for their interaction with locally interactive collaboratives. Both need one another. One as its reach goes beyond the local into a collaborative environment with other local groups, and the other as it shifts from a compliance / control orientation to a facilator, sustainer role.

Wherever you are in relationship with people, you are a local group whose potential is far greater than the sum total of members in your group. The question for local groups is whether they can see beyond their own self interest to embrace a set of values and outcomes on a global scale.

Start the Year with Inspiration, Humor and Wisdom for Leading

2010-12-03T19:40:37-05:00

Register at http://www.wncleaders.com/

A Good Day To Say Thanks

2010-11-25T07:29:39-05:00



Our thanksgiving tradition is older than the nation itself. For many it is a time for family, for others a day of work, and for some a time of service to those less fortunate.

As my contribution to a more intentionally thankful Thanksgiving, I offer a guide for giving thanks. It is based on a simple little tool that I've created called the Circle of Thanks.This is the first tool that is specifically designed for one of the Five Actions of Gratitude. More are to come. I'll be posting them initially each week in my Weekly Leader column.

It is a simple idea.

List the people in four categories who have had an impact upon our life, or whom deserve our thanks. We list family, friends, work relationships and then those people who have influenced us over the years, whether we have a relationship with them or not.

Then list the gifts and contributions that we have received from them. This isn't like the gift of a tie or a box of choclates. It is something deeper, more personal. It is a difference that matters that we've received that provides that context for giving thanks.

I suspect that the first listing of these people could be quite larger. My suggestion is work you way through the list until you reach a point where you can do this on a weekly basis.

Creating these lists is the first step.

The second is to prepare a list of whom you are going to thank this week, and what your response should be. Sometimes an email is enough. Other times, a gift, like flowers or tickets to a concert, can be a token of your appreciation that speaks more specifically than a simple note.

Last word:

To all those who have been reading my blog over the years, I thank you.

May this day, and each day, bring you thanks and peace.

New Lessons on Life and Leadership from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

2010-11-21T00:34:45-05:00

The first installment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is out. It is a sober journey toward the inevitible ending confrontation with Lord Voldemort. I've written about Harry and friends in the past. I think my perception of Harry as heroic sufferer holds up. But now, the team of Ron, Hermione and Harry share it in equal measure.

Spoilers alert!

I knew that this Harry Potter film was different when at the beginnng of the film, Hermione cut her ties to her parents. It was sad and shocking in a way that the Dursley's departure from their home, and the sober atmosphere at Ron's house did not quite match. As a result, for me, she became the emotional center of this film. In the past, her intellect guided the boys through various challenges. Now her emotional connection to them both, to Harry as peer in the role of heroic sufferer, and to Ron as one another's deepest, closest friend, brings a gravitas that strengthens the story.

Hermione's heroism in the face of sadness at the abandonment of her parents as a way to save them, reminds me of two other film heroines for whom sadness sees to be at the heart of their character.

Lisbeth Salander,(played by Noomi Rapace) the Swedish punk-adorned hacker/researcher who in the Millennium series (The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo, The Girl who Played with Fire, The Girl who Kicked the Hornets Nest)finds herself in three movies at the center of a super secret government conspiracy of a group of men, who apart from their criminality are mysogynistic, sadistic, rapists, and pedofilic . Here's a woman whose strength in the face of violent suffering provides the emotional core to sustain the men and women who seek to bring to justice the men who had violated her so.

In the film, Winter's Bone, 17th year old Ree Dolly (played by Jennifer Lawrence), becomes the default mother and provider of her family as her backwoods meth dealing father disappears, and whose mother has lost all ability to face realty. Her resolution to care for her much younger brother and sister and save the family farm leads to a violent assault on her by the women of the family that killed her family. Sadness penetrates the tone of this movie about a young women is survives to care for you siblings and addled mother another day.

These women's sadness and their toughness and resilience in the face of violence and threat is why these films are worth watching. Their performances transcend the stories that surround their performances.

What does this latest Harry Potter film tell us about leadership?

First, that character is based in emotional resilience learned in practice. Not the caracuture of the British "stiff upper lip." Instead a realism that vanquishes false hope and fantasy to embrace the real. For Herminone, Ron and Harry, the real is larger than their own realities. Ron tells Harry that this battle is larger than his personal confrontation with Voldemort. Is not this true of all leadership? We are players who for a time may have center-stage but it is not ours alone.

Second insight we can garner from Deathly Hallows part 1 is that we don't always know where the answers are. We don't see enough to know. Something maybe in our hand, like a horcrux, and yet we don't know what to do with it. It maybe something we've sought for, and once we have it, we don't know what to do with it, even then. The answer is patience and persistence in looking for clues for the answer.

A third lesson is that with teams, you don't always know who will step forward to make the difference that matters. For this reason, openness and appreciation for the talent that each person brings is essential. Dobby, the house elf that had been freed from servitude by Harry Potter in Chamber of Secrets, returns to save the day, and to give his life.

I wish no one suffering. That said, suffering can serve to bring perspective to our lives. The Harry Potter series shows us this. We all owe a debt of gratitude to J.K. Rowling and the film makers for giving us a story we can all share. My earlier comment dating back to the summer of 2007 appears in the extended entry.

Harry Potter and 21st century Leadership
Last week, I had a conversation with young woman about what the Harry Potter stories mean to us. It brought me back to what was so compelling about a tale of an orphaned boy alone in an alien world of wizards.

I find Harry one of the most important literary characters of our time. In a post from September 2007, I wrote,

Professional people experience the suffering of failure and its consequences. Yet, we are not suppose to either acknowledge it or let it affect us.

Suffering in life takes on many forms. It can come at our own hands when we’ve done something regrettable or through the agency of other people. The question    for us who are in the professional world is whether the suffering we experience has any value. Is there something to affirm in suffering, or is it simply an experience to avoid at all costs.

It was this question that came to me as I came to be introduced to Harry Potter.

When I wrote those words, I had only viewed the five films in the series. I had not read the books. Through the visual imagery of film, I came to see the credibility of Harry's leadership coming through the agency of him as the heroic sufferer . After I read the series over a two month span of time, my assessment of Harry remained.

I'm reposting both the remainder of the original post and my follow up post on Harry because I believe that the lessons of strength through suffering embodied in the Harry Potter myth is one that during a time of financial hardship we need to hear. By watching Harry, we can learn how to lead people and organizations during times as difficult as they are now.

HARRY POTTER, THE HEROIC SUFFERER (July 2007)

- continued -

Harry Potter’s Real Story
I came late to the Harry Potter stories. All the reviews of the films and books had misled me to think that it is a story about heroism and courage of a young boy at a school for wizards. For ten years, I could not muster the emotional energy to become involved in a story that is a children’s fantasy. Increasing, my practical and intellectual interest is reality, the real world where people live and experience life. I’ve lived far too long diverted by spin and pseudo-reality. The world we live in, I find, is filled with fantasy, or rather it is an artificial world of escapist dreams. The diversion of fantasy can have the salutary effect of buffeting us against the suffering we may experience in real life. Yet, it is when we face reality that we discover aspects about our lives and ourselves that living in a dream world doesn’t afford. Ultimately, living in a fantasy world makes it more difficult to face the realities that beg for us to pay attention.

Recently, an XM radio interview with David Yates, director and David Heyman, producer of the latest Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, compelled me to enter Harry’s world. The way they described the movie helped me to see that there was more than a children’s fantasy tale in J.K. Rowling’s story. So, over the course of one week, I watched the five HP films in order. I came away from viewing the series with a deep desire to read the stories, and will soon, and to reflect on their meaning for our time.

Harry Potter, the heroic sufferer
Harry Potter was born into suffering with the death of parents, and that experience of suffering continues through his mistreatment by the Dursleys, the peer abuse of the Sliveran punks, and then to the long series of attacks by Lord Voldemort. Of the reviews that I’ve read over the years, what stands out to people is Harry’s courage in the face of danger. It is certainly there, but what makes Harry the most unique hero of our time, in league with Frodo Baggins of The Lord of the Rings, is the effect that suffering has upon how he lives his life. His strength in facing danger and tragedy has been born in suffering. During one of the movies, Harry comments that what he is facing is no worse that the loss of his parents and the abuse of the Dursley’s. Suffering is the core of his life experience, and has made him the heroic figure that he is. As the child who lived, he lives not because of some magic ability, but because of the strength of character that comes through suffering.

This dialog with Sirius Black from the Order of the Phoenix film captures some of this perspective.

Harry Potter: This connection between me and Voldemort, what if the reason for it is that I'm becoming more like him. I just feel so angry, all the time. And what if after everything I've been through, something's gone wrong inside me. What if I'm becoming bad?

Sirius Black: I want you to listen to me very carefully Harry. You're not a bad person. You're a very good person, who bad things have happened to. You understand?

[Harry nods his head]

Sirius Black: Besides, the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters. We have all got both light and dark inside us. What matters is the power we choose to act on. That's who we really are.

I find this a very biblical perspective that goodness and darkness inhabit us all, and that we choose to cater to one or the other. The suffering Harry experiences is because of the darkness in the world. The suffering has a chastening effect on him. It wipes away the illusions about there being some magical resolution to all problems. He understands that he must act. And so he does.

This perspective on Harry’s character reminds me of the ancient Stoics who had a similar reality based view of life. They carried no fantastical optimism into life. They recognized that goodness rises out of suffering. C.S. Lewis, the Christian apologist and Oxbridge don had the idea that suffering produces a reservoir that increases our capacity for love. That is what I am seeing in Harry.

Harry reminds me of Homer’s Achilles whose heroic endeavors are for honor within the community. For Harry, it isn’t some abstract notion of community that he serves. His courage comes from a core of goodness that is released through his friendship with Ron and Hermione and through the teachers who see in him something special. His suffering inoculates him from a fantastical idealism. He lacks the innocent optimism of youth that would certainly have been completely crushed by the Dursley’s. In this sense he is like the ancient Stoic who knows his duty and does it regardless of the consequences. He can never fully feel joy because the suffering of loss is with him all the time. Yet, he knows love from his friends, and their love for him inspires in him acts of sacrifice that completes the bond of their little community.

For me this is what makes Harry the most compelling character I’ve come across in a long, long time. I can’t wait to read the books because I want to see what Rowling sees in this. I don’t think his suffering is merely a literary device. There is a moral purpose to it, and through its power, transforms the community that surrounds him. Hear me correctly, that shared suffering transforms a community, giving it strength to face the most challenging difficulties.

In the Order of the Phoenix film, at the point where the Hogwart’s wizards and witches leave to go to the Ministry in London, Harry tells them that he wants to go by himself. He says this to protect them from danger, death and the experience of his own suffering. Yet, they know because they have been with him so long that their lives are cast together, and they now will share in his sufferings. It is a powerful statement about friendship and community. That it isn’t simply the bond of shared values, but the bond of shared suffering that gives their fellowship real depth and life.

It is this very experience that so many professional people lack. They experience suffering through failure, loss or the cruelty of others. And for the most part they suffer alone. Several years ago, during a series of encounters with men in various professions, I asked them, “If you were to become an abject failure today, who would stand by you?” Virtually all of them could only answer, “My mother.” Tragic that professional people who are endowed with great talent and opportunity are also alone in their personal pursuits. And it is at the point of failure that most experience the suffering of isolation. We lose a child or a parent, and people come to our side to offer comfort. It may not be the precise wording, but I heard once, something like, “Success has a thousand friends, and failure none.”

It is also what so many churches, synagogues and religious institutions miss as well. Communities that avoid identification with the suffering of others, live in an unreal world of ideas abstracted from the real world. Listen to people who speak of the power of their religious experience, it often has to do with the experience of others reaching out and sharing in their suffering just when they need it. It is this shared suffering that makes the message of redemption so powerful for so many.

In The Order of the Phoenix film, near the end of the concluding battle at the Ministry, Lord Voldemort tells Harry that he is a fool and will lose everything. Harry looks at him and tells him that he has what Voldemort lacks, and that is friends and love. And that he feels sorry for him. How many professional people in hearing this exchange will look at Harry with longing for the same type of camaraderie and togetherness?

Frodo’s suffering with Sam
The closest literary example to Harry Potter’s suffering is the story of Frodo’s journey to Mount Doom in the Lord of the Rings. Frodo steps forward and accepts the role of sufferer as ringbearer. He is able to do so because a fellowship of men, hobbits, elves and trolls join him in the journey. Ultimately his journey to cast the ring into the fire that will consume it is a lonely one, shared only with his friend Samwise Gamgee. Through out Peter Jackson’s treatment of Tolkien’s mythic story, we see Frodo change as he absorbs the suffering that comes with being the ringbearer. Frodo’s greatness comes from his determination to see his quest through to the end no matter what the consequences. Through suffering and the acceptance of his own mortality, Frodo does his duty and accomplishes what no other character in this story could do. Through the faithful long-suffering friendship of Sam, Frodo is able to bear the suffering through to the end of his quest. For Frodo, this suffering remains a mark forever on his life, a living presence that eventually leads him away from the Shire.

It is not unusual for contemporary films to feature suffering as a human experience. Often this suffering is viewed as a victimization of a person, rather than an experience that leads to strength, courage and friendship.

As we see in Harry Potter, the core of his suffering is from the loss of parents. Death in our society is treated as inconvenience. It is the most inexplicable experience. Our culture hates to acknowledge our mortality. We retreat into unreality as a way of not dealing with it. Yet as we see in Harry Potter, a story that takes place in a fantastic world of wizards and witches, reality is filled with death and suffering, and out of that experience comes personal greatness and the salvation of community.

In Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, Yoda says, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.” This is the conventional wisdom of our time. So, we run away from the emotions of fear, anger, and hate because we do not want suffering. But what Yoda does not say, and what we see in Harry, is that these feelings are real, and that most of us suffer in silence because we are afraid to let the reality of what we feel out. Yet, when we face suffering as reality, we find the opportunity to discover virtues that bring strength. So, in Harry, we see not a person who has given in to his anger, but rather see his anger in the context of the love and fellowship of his friends. They are the counterbalance that transforms the sufferer from victim to hero.

Finding Strength in Suffering
I can’t tell you that you will find strength in the suffering you experience. That is for you to discover on your own with people who care about you. Regardless whether your suffering is self-imposed or an affliction from some other source, recognize that your struggle to find strength will make you a person who is able to befriend others who suffer in the same way. Ron and Hermione’s friendship with Harry was deepened by their sharing in his experience of suffering. Frodo and Sam were transformed through the suffering they shared. I don’t believe we can go looking for people to share our suffering. Rather, the key to finding strength is our recognition and empathetic response to other’s suffering. In effect, we must give strength to find the strength that we need.

The embarrassment of failure, the humiliation of a lost job, the emptiness that comes with the loss of a loved one, or the anger that accompanies being the victim of another person’s cruelty can become a source strength for greatness, if we let it. We see this in Harry. Can we see it in ourselves? I hope so.

HARRY POTTER - 21ST CENTURY LEADER (February 2008)

Since Christmas (2007), I have read the entire Harry Potter series. I just finished Deathly Hallows, and must say that it is delightful to read a series of books that ends well. i don't mean a happy ending, though it is, but rather, a well concluded ending.

I found the series a great exploration in the nature of leadership. My friend Tom Morris has written an excellent book on Harry Potter and its application to business and professional life. Pick up If Harry Potter Ran General Electric and enjoy learning how J.K. Rowling celebrates the best of ancient wisdom in her story. I read Tom's book before I read the series, and I'm getting ready to reread it now that I'm done. There is much richness to be mined from both authors.

Here are a few of my reflections on Harry as a 21st century leader.

1. Harry works as a team. Ron and Hermione are his partners in leadership. Their communication is a fine example of how a group of people need to interact and care for one another. The caring is important because it is the basis of trust and honesty. It isn't always easy. However, at the core of their friendship are values of love and belief in one another. This is how they are able to weather the ups-and-downs that all relationships confront.

2. Harry's character is more important than his skills. The whole series is about the development of Harry's character. I won't give away any of the story. But there is a point near the end of the seventh novel where the choice he makes is emblematic of his character. It frees him to face his arch-nemesis, Lord Voldemort, without fear. It doesn't mean he isn't afraid of the danger. It means that he is prepared for whatever outcome results. He is at peace with himself and the world. The character emphasis is important to J.K. Rowling the author because throughout the series she shows Harry to be a rather indifferent student. Yet, in the heat of battle, he is the one above all the rest who is capable leading.

One of the subthemes running through the series is the interplay between good and evil, and their connection to human community and human institutions. The triangular relationship between the Ministry of Magic, Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters, and the Hogwarts headmaster Dumbledore and his Dumbledore Army is a commentary on modern Western society. There are those who treat people, communities and institutions as subjects of their own will to power. There are those within those institutions who believe that the institutions represent an end in themselves, and all those outside the boundaries of the institutions are threats to its continued existence. And there are those for whom friendship and personal endeavor are what make a community worth investing in.

What Rowling shows in her seven part story is that evil and institutionalism fail because of a lack of love. At the heart of character is self-sacrifical love. Harry's leadership is authenticated by his willingness to die for those whom he cares about. For Voldemort and the administrators of the Ministry, manipulation and control are the heart of leadership. These inadequate, destructive human motivations are shown in the story to be weaker than the power of the love of friends.

3. Harry's leadership greatness is born in suffering. We live in an era where all pain and suffering are viewed as bad and without value. Pleasure and self-aggrandizement rule. However, the picture we have of Harry is of a young man who turns suffering, pain and loss into the motivations to create goodness and friendship. The loss of his parents, the loss of his godfather, the loss of friends, the suffering at the hands of the Ministry and ultimately the loss of his mentor are not experiences that have broken him as a person. They have strengthened him to be the kind of leader that communities and organizations in crisis need. His hard life instills in him a drive for a depth in human friendship that is the very strength that overcomes the power of evil.

4. Harry is a learner, not a student. In every instance, Harry looks deeply into his experience to understand it. He has no impulse toward academic abstract reflection. Instead, he is the Aristotlean everyman whose greatness comes in action, not in ideas. His courage, his insightfulness, his decisiveness in battle are all characteristics of a man of action. Harry doesn't turn to books to find his answers. He depends on Herminone to do that. Harry rather turns to contemplation in action to learn what he must do. He absorbs the learning and it becomes the basis for his ability to lead successfully.

5. Harry understands that leaders develop leaders. This over worked idea operates in the series as Harry's preparation of Hogwarts students for battle against the forces of Voldemort. Their preparation does not disappoint as they take the lead when he is separated from them in every respect. They have taken his courage and embedded it in their own hearts. How did this happen? It happen as Harry trained and mentored them. He did not do this as their superior, but rather as their able peer and friend whose care for them extended to their preparation for battle.

The world that J.K. Rowling has created is not parallel to ours. It is perpendicular. There is really very little one-to-one correspondence between the world of wizards and our world. What connection does exist is different enough so that we can see our world in new ways. This is true of the picture of leadership that she gives us in the person of Harry Potter. I recommend reading the entire series in as short a period time as possible. You'll gain a picture of what is possible in our world if we only choose to put character instead of power and position at the heart of organizational leadership.

Fragmented, Compartmentalized or Connected, Aligned for Impact?

2010-11-19T18:20:08-05:00

The Circle of Impact is designed to show how the Three Dimensions of Leadership work together. It is a picture of connection and alignment that leads to impact.

Unfortunately, most of us don't think this way.

Our thinking is often fragmented, compartmentalize, lacking in meaningful connection and alignment.

It was only through conversations with people where we were trying to sort through this fragmented, compartmentalized picture that the Circle of Impact came into being.

It could have been a long or brief conversation about a specific problem or something quite general and obscure, regardless, the issue had one of three origins.

Either it was an Idea problem, which could either be characterized as a thinking problem or a communication one.

Or, it was a Relationship problem, due to either a personality conflict, a difference in values or the lack of personal engagement.

Or it was an Organizational Structure problem, related to issues of governance, program, operations or resources. Later, it became clear that the Social Structure of an organization also can be setting for these kinds of problems.

In this week's Weekly Leader column - The Subversiveness of Gratitude, I write about the importance of connection.

What we are discovering, and the practice of gratitude is showing, is that truth is not in the discrete, isolated parts, but in their connection to one another. On a human scale, this means that our identity is not our position, title or place in a system, but rather the function that we have in connection. Collaboration and shared responsibility is the ground for understanding who I am within any social and organizational setting. The connection between the parts is where the action is, and the organization lives.

What is the connection between the Three Dimensions?

Ideas are the tools for connection.

Social and Organizational Structures are the settings.

Relationships are where connections are made, and the action is.

The Ideas that matter in helping people make connections are Purpose or Mission, Values, Vision and Impact. If there is a hierarchy of importance, it is found with Values. Our conception (Idea) of our Purpose or Mission, our Vision and definition of Impact are formed by our Values.

For example, my Mission is to help individuals discover and act upon a purpose for their life and work. The ideas that give meaning to my purpose are values centered in human purpose, potential and impact.

It is also true that social and organization structures are tangible expressions of the values that are either intentionally determined or become the default values through inattention. Those values maybe about order, productivity, respect, trust or integrity. Or they may focused on wealth creation or personal freedom. Whatever the values are, they are the ideological foundation for these structures. They are seen in the effect or impact of the structure on the people who work wihtin the organization.

The three dimensions are not equal, but complementary. Look again at the Circle of Impact picture.

Purpose is an idea that is connected to Structure. The key focus here is to align the structure with the purpose of the organization. Without that alignment, the organization works a cross-purposes with itself.

Vision is an idea that is connected to both Relationships and Structure. The focus here is a picture of activity showing what it is like for people working within the structure of the organization to achieve the desire impact.

Ultimately, what this means is that leaders are not interested in ideas just for the sake of the ideas themselves. They aren't interested in having healthy relationships just because their values say they should. And, they aren't interested in structure just because it is needed for a business to function.

Instead, leaders are looking for ways to utilize Ideas to strengthen Relationships and inform how the Structure of the organization can be aligned with the company's Mission or Purpose.

The Impact of the Three Dimensions of Leadership should be better communication, collaboration and coordination.

Leading Questions - a Best of Leadership Blogs 2010 nominee

2010-11-15T06:13:40-05:00

Leading Questions has been nominated as a Best of Leadership Blogs of 2010.
You may vote once per email address. I'd be most grateful if you'd would vote for Leading Questions.

There are some excellent leadership blogs in the contest. After you vote for Leading Questions - remember to vote all the email addresses that you have - go check out the other leadership blogs. You'll find some great ones like last year's winner Steve Roesler and my Weekly Leader colleague Wally Bock. Also share with your friends and colleagues. Thank you for you vote.

Thanks and Honor - Veterans Day 2010

2010-11-11T09:53:26-05:00

The crew of my father's B-29 stationed on Guam during World War II. My father is standing farthest left. Yes, this is after they crash landed. Just another day at the office.

His office, just behind the wings in the bubble turret.

A month before my father was to participate in the Flight of Honor from his home community, he passed away. Guy Maffett, one of the organizers, in memory of my father, escorted him on the trip with his picture and this flag. Thank you Guy for the honorable citizen that you are. Our family appreciates very much your kindness in honoring our father's memory during our time of loss.

Triad (NC) Flight of Honor May 2010

19th Bomber Group, USAF, Reunion, October 2009

My father is in the maroon sweater and white cap on the left side of the picture.

World War II Memorial, Washington D.C.

The notion that we as citizens have a solemn obligation to the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces should not be a controversial subject. Yet it is. We who are the beneficiaries of their sacrfices owe them our respect and honor. We do so because the freedoms and prosperty that enjoy as Americans are not an entitlement, but rather a privilege that requires our dedication and stewardship.

On this Veterans Day, remember not the politics of war and peace, but rather benefits that are ours through the sacrifices of others.

For all who serve and have served, thank you.

The Common Ground of Shared Responsibility

2010-11-05T12:08:21-04:00

Creating an effective business structure is a very difficult proposition. I am not talking about a business or marketing plan. I referring to how a business is structured so that it functions well.

As you know, I look at this challenge through the lens of the Circle of Impact. My sense is that we need to foster alignment between the three dimensions of leadership - Ideas, Relationships and Structure. We do this by focusing on the conditions that create effective Communication, Collaboration and Coordination.

For me this is a baseline from which all organizations need to begin. What happens beyond that is a change in the function of each of the dimensions.

Communication ceases to be a major problem; your message gets out; and work related issues seemed to be less intractable.

Collaboration grows, new ideas emerge from the improvement of relationships, and the organization needs to change to accomodate a higher level of engagement and initiative by people.

Coordination, though, lags in improvement across departments, remote sites, and programs. The reason is that the system of organizaiton is always the last to change. It has the highest resistance to adapting to changing circumstances. As a result, the optimism that initially rose as communication and collaboration grew also begins to lag.

After a few months or years, a growing impression of either being at a plateau or in decline begins to be discussed openly. Whether rightly or wrongly, the perception that the organization has reached a Transition Point begins to take hold.

In reflection, we can see that the easiest things to change, did. New, fresh, inspiring ideas infused new confidence and motivation in people, impacting how they communicated and collaborated together. This is what is happening in many organizations.

The jump from one inspiring idea to the next ends up artificially propping up the emotional commitment of people to the company and their relationships together.This is not sustainable.

The resistance of the organization's structure to change remains the primary obstacle to a well functioning, fully aligned organization.

The distance and disconnect that employees have from the mission and outcome of the business is the most basic identifying mark of a structure out of alignment. Indifference that people have to their workplace grows. The desire to be left alone to do their job so they can get on to what really matters in their life becomes the defacto attitude of the workforce. In effect, there is no emotional access point for them to invest their whole selves in the work they do.

When this scenario is widely experienced in a company, inspiring ideas and motivational team building programs don't have a lasting impact. The problem is a structural or systems one. Issues of communication and collaboration are symptoms of the problem.

Assumptions about the Product of an Effective Organizational Structure

As I analyze organizations during various projects, I'm looking for various intangilbes that matter. Let's call them assumptions about what an organizational system should produce.

1. Initiative by employees measured by higher rates of engagement and contribution.

2. Interaction by employees that is open and collaborative and that transcends organizational barriers to achieve higher levels of efficiency and impact.

3. Impact awareness by employees who can express their own contribution to the organization's impact as a change that is a difference that matters.

These assumptions are difficult to measure, yet relatively easy to see.

Their performance is more evident when they are missing. People not taking initiative. When there is little interaction between people from different parts of the organization. When employees show little appreciation for the organization's mission and impact.

The question that many of us then have is how to do we redesign our organizational structures so that we realize a higher level of initiative, interaction and impact.

One way to address this issue is through strategic organizational redesign to creates an environment of Shared Responsibility.

Shared Responsibility

Every organization has a responsibility or accountability structure. In older, traditional hierarchical systems, Responsibility resides in varying degrees throughout the organization, but not accountability, which is top down.
A shared responsibility structure creates a shared space of mutual, collaborative, coordinated accountability. This illustration shows an organization where management, staff and the board of directors have a common ground of shared responsibility. The shared space is common ground because the expectation is that each person engaged in this space has an opportunity to contribute out of their own talent, knowledge and expertise within the strictures of their position and role in the organization.

For example, while some members of the management team would not ordinarily work along side of members of the Board of Directors, in this scheme they would because the structure is is organized to provide a shared space of contribution for impact. This approach lowers the organizational barriers that typically make it hard to create a common ground for work.

The purpose of this structure is not order or standardization, but alignment of the functions of communication, collaboration and coordination for the purpose of impact. It is the mission of the organization, not the structure, which drives the change in structure.

This approach is currently being developed for an international non-profit organization whose constituents are in all 50 states and 20 countries globally. The board is small in number; is highly active in collaboration with the staff; and works with a large number of advisors and supporters from around the world who contribute according to their ability.

This organization's aim to create an environment where participation is not boring or disconnected from its mission, but is marked by personal initiative, collaborative interaction, and an organization environment each person has the opportunity to make a difference.

The way an organizational design of this sort works is when the Connecting Ideas of purpose, mission, values, vision and impact are well defined and aligned within the structure, and the leadership of the organization serves as a faciliator of interaction and contribution. Because the organizational structure is a shared space for collaboration, the barriers for constituents to lead through their talent and abilities are low, producing a more highly engagement staff and board.

This kind of structure and leadership must be intentionally designed and developed. This is not a radical departure from the past, but at the same time, it is also not a logical step forward for most of the legacy structures that exist today.

This approach fosters a shared leadership of responsibility. Leadership from this perspetive is the impact or influence that is the result of the personal initiative take to create impact. When the senior leadership of an organization understands that this is where the future of organizations lays, it requires a change in their own leadership approach.

The Ultimate Question

Can legacy organizational structures change to this model of shared responsibility?

I believe it can. The pathway to this approach is in appreciating the importance of the relationship dimension for the creation of the strength and impact of an organization. From that perspective barriers to interaction and collaboration lower or are removed, enabling people to become more engaged with the purpose and mission of the organization, and to do so in relationship with other members of their organizational community.

42 Rules toTurn Prospects into Customers - Meridith Powell

2010-10-31T07:19:13-04:00

I've been doing fewer, if any, book reviews this year. More a product of time availability than anything else. However, my friend and colleage, Meridith Elliott Powell has just published an excellent guide for helping people like me, and I suspect like you, do a better job at the sales function of your business.

Meridith's book, 42 Rules to Turn Your Prospects into Customers: How to build Profitable Relationships to Close More Sales and Drive More Business gets it right. Meridith understands that sales today is about the relationship.

If you are like me, sales is not a high item for learning. We think we know how to sell, but in reality, we don't really know what we need to know. There are a lot of books on selling. There is usually something in it that is worth reading, but not worth the investment of time and discipline to apply the lessons. This book is different. It is simple, direct, and strategic.

The book is literally 42 rules, plus a few bonus ones. Each chapter is short. It is an ideal tool for a sales team to read together and to discuss. Much of it you will have heard or read before, because it is common sense. But common sense never stopped people from treating clients and customers like they don't matter, and that it is all about them.

There are a lot of people who do understand the value and importance of the relational side of business. What Meridith gives us is a strategy for making the relational work at the sales end of the business.

I was privileged to write the forward to Meridith's book. It really sums up the value that I see in her book.

You are about to devour a book written by a wise, passionate, generous expert.

Meridith Powell is the gold standard of sales trainers, coaches and consultants. The reason … she understands, better than most, that the relationship between you and your client or customer is central to success. In addition, she has a methodology for helping you learn to master it. It isn’t just a good idea, but an approach that works.

There are lots of people who can teach you to trick people into buying stuff they don’t want. Meridith, in this wonderful little book, gives you a way to build a sustainable business through sustainable business relationships. It is a book that you read once, and then again and again and again. You will turn back to Meriidth’s insights time and time again because she provides answer to questions that we all have.

I love this little book because now all the bits and pieces of wisdom that I’ve been receiving from Meriidth for as long as I’ve known her is in one place. And you are the beneficiary.

Take your time. Think about what she says. Take notes. Do the tasks that she suggests. Talk about what you are learning with colleagues. Read the book together. You’ll find your life and work transformed. I wish you every success as you do.

I know Meridith well. I remember the first time I met her, and being impressed with her passion and perspective. What I've seen in her over the years is consistency in approach and integrity in her relationships with clients. She isn't an expert because she wrote a book. She's an expert because everything she writes about in the book is the way she operates.

Are leaders born?

2010-10-15T23:25:06-04:00

My friend, FC, asked me the other day in response to my Weekly Leader column, Luis Urzua: Exception or Standard? whether I thought he was a born leader. I responded with,

"Not really. I'd say he is an intentional leader. It is a moral question of choosing to lead, and lead in a particular way, and not one of personality or talent."

In respect to FC, let me offer more explanation.

For a long time the nature / nurture question of human development has been a standard by which questions, like the one FC raised is discussed. The longer I deal with issues of leadership, the more I see the nature/nurture, born or made question as a secondary, less relevant issue. Because I see too many people who would not be characterized as being born a leader, who are leaders whose life and work make a genuine difference.

Talent is a major topic in organizational circles today. The conversation revolves around how to recruit, train and retain top-flight talent. There is definitely an aspect of this discussion that relates to the question of whether some is born to be a leader. I am not saying that talent doesn't matter, only that it isn't what makes a leader.

Leadership is only realized in action, by what one does with the talent they are born with.

The personality-centric view of leadership commonly called the "great man"(sic) or heroic theory of leadership, promotes a limited, idealize view of what a leader does. It has suggested, wrongly in my opinion, that leadership is a product of the projection of a leader's personality upon a group or organization. It is condescending to followers, colleagues, employees or other leaders.

Luis Urzua's leadership is seen in the choices that he made. They are moral choices, not simply tactical or strategic ones.

To lead in the circmustances that he and the other 32 miners faced, required him to step beyond managing. His leadership created an environment that elevated a collection of men, who had a death sentence upon their heads as soon as the cave-in began, to be a team that survived in a remarkably healthy state.

Luis Urzua chose to lead by unifying his men through confidence, discipline, structure and a mutuality of equality. His leadership did not allow individual concerns that each man had to eclipse the needs of the whole group. Only as a whole and intact team would they have survived, and done so as well as they did.

Luis Urzua's leadership reminds me of the leadership of Admiral James Stockdale, the highest ranking POW during the Vietnam War. I wrote about him here, here, and here. Their stories are similiar in that both were leaders of a group of men were living in a life and death situation. And both chose to lead in a manner that unified a group of men who easily could have lost hope, composure and began to think of their own survival as of utmost importance.

Leadership is a choice, and not a natural one. The natural choice is to put one's own welfare first, instead of the team's. I don't believe people are born to sacrifice their own benefit for the sake of others. It is something that is learned through mentorship, example, training and experience. For those for whom this kind of leadership seems so natural, my sense is that as a child they were influenced by leaders of this sort, and their home experience provided a learning environment to gain these values.

For Luis Urzua, it may well have been playing soccer. For James Stockdale, the lessons learned in studying the philosophy of the ancient Stoics. In both we see leadership that made the difference under the most extreme circumstances. As I point out in my Weekly Leader column, Luis Urzua's leadership is not the exception. It is the standard.

The Unnameable Problem

2010-10-12T05:54:58-04:00

Leaders of every organization face an unnameable problem. This problem is hidden in plain sight. Yet not recognized.

This problem is also an opportunity, even an asset, yet it is shied away from because it requires a different approach that what is typically practiced.

I learned of this unnamed problem two decades ago as I began to form a student leadership program at the small college where I worked. For three years, I tried to identify the top leadership talent on campus, and attract them into a program that would development their leadership potential. I failed in virtually every way.

What I learned was something that has driven my insights about organizations ever since. Yes, people want to be treated as individuals, but the pull of the social can be equally motivating.

Within every organization there is a social context. It functions on many different layers depending upon the intricacy of the organization's operating structure. It is close and so immediately alive in our experience that we don't truly see it. Except when serious conflicts arise.

The unnamed problem/ opportunity/ asset is the social bond that unites people together in a setting.

This social bond has many sources. In every case, it is formed by a shared experience or set of ideas that creates a common bond. It could be the shared experience of being the administrative staff on the senior executive floor. It could be a shared experience as franchise holders in a region whose challenges are different than other owners. It could be a shared value that inspires a high level of performance by a team. It could be any number of things. And what that common bond is may or may not have anything to do with the business or organization.

When I finally saw this in my work with students, I realized that people are not just individuals, but social beings. Their identity as individuals is not entirely personal, but also social.

When a kid wears his favorite team's jersey, he is signalling to us a part of his social identification. When you see a bumper stick advocating a social cause, or telling a joke, or celebrating their hometown's initials, they are signalling to us a social connection that matters to them.

In business, this is an unnamed problem because leaders, typically, don't want to deal with the social element. They want to deal with quantitative issues that lead to decisions, actions, results. Many don't even want to deal with people as individuals. They are human resources, or workers, or employees, not people, and certainly not individuals.

The reality is that our identity as individuals is not wholly self-determined. In fact, I'd say very little of our identity is self-determined. Read this excerpt from Shoshanna Zuboff and James Maxmin's The Support Economy.

In the second half of the twentieth century a new society of individuals emerged - a breed of people unlike any the world has ever seen. Educated, informed, traveled, they work with their brains, not their bodies. They do not assume that their lives can be patterned after their parents' or grandparents'. Throughout human history the problem of identity was settled in one way - I am my mother's daughter; I am my father's son. But in a discontinuous and irreversible break with the past, today's individuals seek the experiences and insights that enable them to find the elusive pattern in the stone, the singular pattern that is "me." Their sense of self is more intricate, acute, detailed, vast, and rich than at any other time in human history. they have learned to make sense of their lives in unique and private ways, to forge the delicate tissue of meaning that marks their lives as their own.

In all other times and all other places, psychological individuation was unimaginable. It was, at best, the emotional precinct of an elite group of artists and spiritual seekers - rare, elusive and precious. But today that unique human capacity for individuation has been put within the reach of millions of people. Their individualism, long regarded as the basis for political self-determination, has also become the foundation for the one sure thing they have in common: a deep and abiding yearning for psychological self-determination.

I think they over simplify this change. It isn't as clear or as positive a step forward as they suggest. The impetus for self-determination is partly a reflection of the failure of organizations and institutions to accomodate change.

We are not a world of atomistic individualists who each stake out our private turf to celebrate and defend. We are also social beings whose need for connection outside of the interior space of our own minds and emotions is exhibited in the social networking that takes place on line.

The 500 million people on Facebook are not all just projecting their own individual profiles. They are engaged in real interaction that makes a difference. As I write this post early this morning, one friend has responded twice to two posts of my Facebook posts from yesterday.

The challenge for organizational leaders is not just to begin to treat people as individuals, but to recognize and elevate the importance of the social dimension in their businesses. This is partly addressed by a greater emphasis on collaboration. However, if collaborating is simply a tactical exercise in getting a task done, then its value is not being fully realized.

The unnamed problem is the reality that our individual identities are products of the environments that we are in. To embrace my parents' values or to reject them is a reflection of the influence with which that particular social setting has upon me. The work place is no different.

The hidden asset in the workplace social environment is our inherent need for a social bond with those whom we work. To be treated only as individuals is to miss what is also true. We thrive on social interaction because it helps us to center our own sense of who we are in the larger world of other people and places.

How then should leaders begin to address both the individual and the social nature of the human environment of their organizations?

The first step to do is recognize that the social bond exists, lies hidden in the relationship of the people in your business, and is an asset that awaits development.

The second step is to realize that a shift in strategic direction is called for.

The third step is to begin to see that the decisions and actions function within a social context, and therefor how communication of information, collaboration between people and groups, and coordination of plans and programs matters in developing the social assets of the company.

The fourth step is to identify and operationalize the values that is the social bond that unites your company.

The fift step is to recognize that as a leader you are not just managing business processes, but the leader of a social culture that either advances the business or detracts from it. A vibrant social culture builds upon the company's values to strength the social bond that unites people together to achieve the goals of the company. This means, therefore, that the goals or purpose of the company must be aligned with the values that unite people for their work together.

Most leaders are not trained or equipped for this kind of work. The future viability of their business is dependent upon their gaining those insights and skills.

Implementing a social context strategy

When I came to see the social bond that existed at the college where I worked, I changed my approach to working with students.

I looked for where students were self-identifying themselves as belonging to an identifiable group: academic clubs, fraternities/ sororities, resident halls, sports teams, and other campus organizations.

I started two programs that provide groups of people the opportunity to serve: one a program working with the elementary age kids of adolescent mothers, and the other, a Habitat for Humanity International campus chapter.

The rationale behind this step was the realization that if a group participated in one of the projects, someone within their group would need to take the lead to organization their involvement. Those leaders became the focus of my efforts. A second set of leaders also emerged who committed to working with the program because it matched their interest and values. The residual effect was immediately noticable as out of our fledgling Habitat chapter, a local affliate was born.

There are two realities that we need to recognize if we are turn the unnamed problem into an asset for an organization.

First, that people are individuals. Second, their social context is a reflection of their own self-identity.

The social bond in an organization is between people who share similar values and expectations for the experiences that they have.

When leaders see this, and act on this strategically, the hardened resistance of organizations to change begins to soften. It can be trite to say that people are a company's greatest asset. It is only if we ignore the social context as a strategic asset that has hidden value waiting to be realized.

The Moral Component

2010-10-01T12:20:52-04:00

When we are young, the world is an open book.
There is nothing like being 11 years old with a vivid imagination and absolutely no sense of barriers in life. Then adolescence hits, and we realize that there are some limitations. Some people are more popular, cooler, smarter; some more troubled and broken. Others are destined for success, happiness or a life of hardship and toil.
Then the hard work of finding just how open and limitless one's opportunities are begins. It may start at 15 or at 21. It may not become important until we are 30 or even 45, and when we do, we realize that our life needs to count for something. When we discover, not just our interest or passion, but our purpose, our destiny, then life changes. Forever.
When we discover the difference our lives should make, our options are immediately reduced, narrowed, defined. We find out that life has limitations, all of a sudden, there is an end point, way out there, when we can say, "I'm done." At least, that is what we think.

At some point, we may also discover that the pursuit of our destiny is more than just achieving something, more than simply a destination. There is something embedded in the middle of that pursuit that when we were young we could not see, maybe only feel. It was always there, but it wasn't clear to us. Then at some moment, a line is crossed, and we discover that there is a moral component to this quest to fulfill our destiny. We realize that it is no longer about just about destiny, but the journey that leads there.

This moral component is not some abstract, philosophical concept that stands as a branded idea for your life. There are plenty of people who brand their morality, wearing it on their shirt sleeve, and capitalizing on it by capitalizing it. That is not the moral component that I see.

This moral component is something simple, deep, and intangible. It is the quality or rather the virtue that makes a difference in how we live out our purpose. It is something about who we are as individuals, about our life, work and impact.

Martin Luther King had that moral component. So did Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Abraham Lincoln. Each of them was their own person, standing strong as the world around them went a different direction. That is the strength that comes from the moral component. It isn't ego that made them strong, though they probably had strong egos.
The moral component is something else. It transcends our circumstances, our place in history and the singular importance of us as individuals. It is that indelible quality that links us with others through time, and gives our destiny and purpose its meaning, and the reason our commitment and resilience matters.

Even if I live another 40 years, given my family's genetics, I see that I have now passed some indecipherable midpoint in my career. My options are fewer now than they were just five years ago. I see it, and find peace in that. It makes things more simple, and to an extent clearer.
When you are young, there is anxiety about what your life will become, and the difference you'll make, and whether it will truly count in the end. There are thousands of options, choices, directions to go in. Everyone tells you that you can do anything you want. However, in the back of your mind, you know it isn't true. You just want to know what that one thing is that is your destiny.

I no longer worry about that. I find that as life proceeds, the moral component grows in importance because at the end of life, it is that which is our true legacy.
A friend said during a group conversation that he wanted his legacy to be that he was a good man, a good husband and father, and ran his business well. The moral component for him was becoming more clear, and knowing him well, I see it in the life choices that he has made over the years.
Philosophers and historians speak of the moral component in many ways. One of those is the difference between a naive and reflective view of history.
A naive perspective refers to a lack of self-consciousness about the values that inform our lives. There is a sense of not seeing it at all because it is so much a part of one's life, like breathing air or water to fish, we don't notice it. There is an innocence about this approach. This experience of the moral component in life is such that we see it as continuous through time, across the generations and the foundation upon which we understand the meaning of life. It is unself-conscious because we do not hold these moral values in any objective sense. They are highly subjective and personal, quite possibly never defined in any specific sense. Yet they exist, and we tend to begin to see them when they are under threat. They are who we are in a real sense, and this even more so as we consistently live them out in a purposeful, intentional way.
A reflective approach stands apart from the moral component, and attempts to view it objectively. Yet this is impossible in any pure, scientific sense because what brings us to this relationship with the moral component is awareness of the connection between the idea and our own lives. We become aware that we lacked objectivity in our formerly naive view of life. We may speak of this change of perspective as a loss of innocence or coming of age or quite possibly of becoming a cynic. We experience a disjunction or disconnection between our values and the social and organizational environments where we live and work, and stand apart viewing the moral component, trying to understand how it fits in the situation we are in.
The moral component viewed from these two perspectives is a very complex phenomenon in our lives. We may find that we want to be both naive and reflective at the same time. We want to believe in our values, seeing them as universal, transcending time, space and culture, the way life ought to be, bring purpose, peace and fulfillment. We may see that these values are rarely lived to their fullest, that some of the greatest proponents of these values were crooks and charlatans, and that there are other philosophies or perspectives that are compelling and valid in their own right.
Where this leads for some people is to confusion and for some to an abandonment of their hope for fulfillment of their destiny. For others, they embrace the moral component as a guide to create a life of goodness and difference that matters.
The people I mentioned earlier are these people. They held to their values in a changing world where their values were not normative. We remember them as much for their courage as for the values they believed in.
As I have reflected upon this picture over the past few months, I began to see that the moral component of life and leadership matters in ways that have been lost. For many people, their naive view of the way leaders should behave and function in their roles has experienced a loss of innocence. With that loss has come cynicism. And what must come next, is a recovery of a more sober, realistic understanding of the moral component in leadership being that which brings credibility and respect to them.
Making a difference that matters, making our lives count, creating a legacy of leadership and goodness comes from recognizing and developing the moral component in our life and work.
This means that we are aware of the values that matter to us, and that we must live according to them. To stand when everyone else is running away or in cynical denial of their own loss of innocence is to live by a moral code than is more than a brand or an inspiring-idea-of-the-month. In the end, this is what separates the moralists from those who truly lead. This is the legacy that is possible for us all if we choose.

Gratitude: Circle of Impact Conversation Guides

2010-09-22T16:12:22-04:00

This is the last in a series of post describing the message and use of my Circle of Impact Guides.

This guide developed out of a desire to identify how a person and an organization should act when gratitude is the motivation. Gratitude, I've discovered, is a response to another person's kindness.
Aristotle wrote,
Kindness is …
”helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped.”
I have written about this idea both here and here.

The purpose behind this guide is a belief that gratitude is not just a feeling, but a way we should live. Therefore, the Five Actions can be described in the following way.
We Say Thanks in Gratefulness.

We Give Back in Service.

We Make Welcome in Hospitality.

We Honor Others in Recognition

We Create Goodness through Personal Leadership that Makes a Difference That Matters

How To Use This Guide:

As a team, talk through each of the actions and identify specific steps that you can take to make each one a part of your team's experience. It is important to understand that at some level each one of these actions is a gracious response to some person or situation.
For example, to Say Thanks Every Day is to recognize the kindness and generosity of others who have made a difference in your life and work. This is true even of your team who may be the beneficiaries of other teams or individuals.
One of the simplest practices is to write a note of thanks. It is better than an email, a tweet or a text message. It is a sign of effort to write a note and send it by mail.
Another example is how we practice hospitality. (I wrote about this in my review of Jan Gunnarsson and Olle Bloehm's marvelous little book, Hostmanship.) Making people Welcome is not just for when they come by for a visit. It is how new people join, and become full participants and contributors. The fewer the barriers to leadership, the higher the level of hospitality that is practiced. Hospitality is concerned with creating an open and opportunity rich environment for people. This is an action of gratitude because we are creating an environment that anticipates reasons to say thanks and offer recognition for the contributions of people.
It is in this kind of environment that people find the opportunity to Create Goodness out of their own sense of purpose or call to take initiative to make a difference. When a person discovers and fulfills their purpose, that discover that without the assistance from others, some known and others unknown, that this fulfillment is possible. A result of this response in gratitude is that people find that their lives are Personally Meaningful, Socially Fulfilled, and the are Making a Difference that Matters.
When your team can identify how to develop your practices based on the Five Actions of Gratitude, you'll begin to see that many of the issues that formerly inhibited your work together begin to be resolved.
This is a conversation guide not a prescriptive formula. You and your team must decide what each of these actions mean in your context. The conversation will lead to a serious consideration of the importance of your relationships with one another, and how to make them work better.

Five Questions: Circle of Impact Conversation Guides

2010-09-22T00:11:12-04:00

This is one of a series of posts that describes the purpose and use of my Circle of Impact Guides.

This guide is the most practical of the set. It is because it doesn't try to explain a set of concepts, but rather asks questions to gain clarity and direction. The value of these questions is dependent upon the consistency of their use. By this I mean, you can use them once, and gain some value, or you can use them on a regular basis and begin to see the Circle of Impact in the midst of circumstances everyday.
Using the Five Questions provides a way to both focus and broaden one's perspective. It focuses your attention on Impact. It broadens awareness by bringing the Three Dimensions of Leadership - Ideas, Relationships and Social & Organizational Structures - together in a unified picture. In addition, it provides a way for teams to stay on track by asking the same questions on a regular basis.
The Five Questions cover five categories that are important for organizations.
Change or the pattern and pace of Transition.
Impact or the Difference that is made by your Ideas, Relationships and Structures.
Who is being Impacted.
The Opportunities that come your Organization's Impact.
The Problems that are your responsibility to resolve.
If your team can answer these questions on a regular basis, you'll find that you see problems before they reach a critical stage, and are able to act on opportunities more quickly.
The Five Questions That Everyone Must Ask guide is a tool. As a tool, it becomes more useful through use. The guide can be used in three different ways.
As a Planning tool:
What is the Impact that you want from your Ideas, Relationships and Social & Organizational Structures in 18 months?
What will be the Impact of the Opportunities that we now have 18 months from now?
As an Assessment tool:
Currently, what is the Impact of our Communication with our constituents?
What are the constraints that inhibit us from fulfilling the potential Impact that we identify in Opportunities?
As a Problem-solving tool:
Is our Communication problem an Idea problem, a Relationship one or a Social or Organizational Structure issue?
Who is our ideal market for the Impact that we wish to have?
How To Use This Guide:
Take a copy of the guide, and transpose the questions to a blank sheet of paper.
Answer each of the questions the best you can.
Answer them first in the Assessment mode, then from a Planning perspective, and when the Fifth Question identifies a problem, answer the question to solve the problem.
Act on what you learn each time you answer the questions.
The guide will work for you if you give it your attention on a regular basis. The late Galba Bright used to answer the question every Sunday evening in preparation for the week ahead. Over the course of a year, Galba's website - Tune up your EQ -became the most visited Emotional Intelligence website in the world. He attributed this success to the focus that he gained through the use of the questions.
The Five Questions have no magical properties. They are just questions. But they are questions that lead to awareness and perspective, and from that position decisions can be made and actions taken that can enhance the Impact creating abilities of an organization.

Culture: Circle of Impact Conversation Guides

2010-09-20T23:40:22-04:00

This guide - Creating a Culture of Impact through The Connecting Ideas - is one of a series of my Circle of Impact Guides.

Organizations are not just policies, processes and operating structures. They are places where people interact for the purpose of achieving the goals of the company.

The problem with most organizations is that they are not organized around people, but around the processes that constitute the organization's operating system. The effect of this problem is that it creates, not a culture of collaboration, but one of compliance to the processes that are designed into the system. This is why often people in these systems are referred to as cogs in a machine.

The solution to this problem is not dramatic or radical. It is, however, a shift of perspective from a process orientation to a people one. This change achieves a better alignment between the Three Dimensions of Leadership - Ideas, Relationships and the Social & Organizational Structures. The shift is accomplished by using the Connecting Ideas of Purpose or Mission, Values, Vision and Impact to create a culture of impact.
Too often, employees are disconnected from the ultimate purpose of the business. Their role is to do their job, which typically means following the prescribed operating procedures. Even when the company's leadership wants, in the name of transparency, to engage with employees honestly about the company's health, it may not produce a more informed, engaged employee. The problem is more than being transparent about ideas. It is a combination of many things, all which are connected by the Three Dimensions.
If the leadership of a company wants employees to take greater initiative and care for the company, then they need to look at how the Connecting Ideas facilitate a culture change that accomplishes the engagement that is needed.
The Connecting Ideas are the concepts that link the Three Dimensions together. These ideas are the core strength of the Ideas Dimension. Without a clear understanding of Purpose, Values, Vision and Impact, the company lacks a set of ideas that can, not only unify the whole organization, but also give it direction. This is especially true during times of transition, like the time we are in now.
The result of utilizing the Connecting Ideas is a change in the attitudes and behaviors of people. Over time, this change becomes a culture; a Culture of Impact that is built upon a clear and operational sense of the company's purpose and values.
Over the years, I've seen that people want their lives and work to be Personally Meaningful, Socially Fulfilling and Make a Difference That Matters. In other words, they want the Ideas Dimension, best expressed through the Connecting Ideas of Purpose, Values, Vision and Impact to be reflected in all that they do.
If there is little or no alignment, for example, between the company's Purpose and how it is organized through the Social & Organizational Structures, then people will end up either fighting the operating system, or giving up and treating their employment as a job to endure.
If there is no alignment between the people of the company and Values that are both Personally Meaningful and Operationally Strategic, then the culture will not be Socially Fulfilling.
If there is no Vision of Impact, meaning no conception that is shared between people, then employees will not see that their work Makes a Difference That Matters. A Vision of Impact is a living conception of the difference the company makes.
This is a picture of the change that the company, and each of its employees, should envision being fulfilled by their work together. It is not a visionary picture of one person, but all contributing their part to making the impact of the company something worth believing in, worth being committed to, and worth taking pride in at the end of the day. This is a major responsibility of 21st century leadership.
To create a culture is a large task that may take a decade or generation to accomplish. However, all along the way, progress bolsters employees' sense of participation in work that is Personally Meaningful, Socially Fulfilling and Make a Difference That Matters. Taking the long view is essential, even in times where strategic planning may only take you two years out from where you are today.
Creating a Culture of Impact is the legacy of leading as the Circle of Impact identifies.
How To Us This Guide.
Look at the guide. As you see, the middle box has a listing of different levels of leadership and management in a company. Each level needs to be engaged in this process.
Use the Circle of Impact Guides to facilitate the conversation that identifies and applies the Connecting Ideas.
1. Identify your Purpose, Values and a Vision for Impact.
2. Align the Three Dimensions with the Connecting Ideas to improve Communication, Collaboration and Coordination.
3. Operationalize the Values as Measurable Practices. Don't let your just be words that inspire and comfort. Build the Values into your work processes by asking, "How should we apply the Values to our work together?"
4. Create a Culture by Celebrating, Recognizing and Innovating your Purpose, Values and Vision for Impact.
Leading your company through this kind of Transition should not be done without thought, and with help of an able facilitator. It will take time, so be patient and persistent, and measure your progress.

Teams: Circle of Impact Conversation Guides

2010-09-19T00:01:00-04:00

This is one in a continuing series of posts on my Circle of Impact Guides.

Teams are a primary tool for organizations to get work done. Teams function in a wide variety of ways and for many purposes.
This guide describes my understanding of how a team functions in a more open, collaborative manner.
The guide is divided between a list describing the characteristics of a team member, and how to strategically develop a team.
The guide purpose is to facilitate conversation, not to act as a formula that every team be like. The conversation should be open and responsible. Your discussion advance your team toward greater clarity, alignment and ownership of your teams. The guide is a starting point for understanding what your team should be like. In other words, this guide is not the last word on teams. It is just a tool for establishing a basis for discussion within a team about how their work should be conducted .
In some contexts, I refer to these teams as Collaborative Network Groups. These teams can take many forms as way to support members, and creater a higher level of collaboration across organizational boundaries.
I am part of a few Collaborative Network Groups. One is the Lessons in Leadership corp group. Another is the Collaborative Solutions Group, a collection of individuals from a wide diversity of companies and disciplines within the financial services industry. Our principal focus is family-held businesses, though not exclusively. (If this interests you, get in touch.)
How To Use This Guide:
Take your team through a discussion of the Member Characteristics. Have each member evaluate the team based on these criteria. Do this anonymously. Talk about each characteristic and determine how to measure each. As you do so, use the Circle of Impact guide for your discussion. You can ask your questions this way.
Do team members practice personal initiative in sharing ideas, building stronger relationships and improving the functioning of the group?
Does the team have a giving-orientation? Do team members take initiative to help other team members in ways that build a more collaborative group?
Questions like these open up the awareness of members to see how their team is functioning. This takes time, and needs a willingness by members to be open and transparent. If you can overcome resistance to change, your team will become more effective.

Alignment: Circle of Impact Conversation Guides

2010-09-18T00:01:00-04:00

This is another post of a continuing series that describes the ideas in and use of my Circle of Impact Guides.

Alignment of the Three Dimensions of Leadership is the key to making any organizational system work.

The Structure of the Organization needs to be aligned with its Purpose or Mission. The result is a more highly Coordinated organizational structure. It would mean that there is more Communication and Collaboration between groups, units, departments and levels of the organization. It would mean a clearer basis for making decisions about structural change.

Here's the important question to ask.
What drives your business? Is it your Mission or is it how you are organized?

If it is your Mission or Purpose, then you should see the people in your organization constantly changing how they do things to better fulfill the purpose of the organization. However, if it is the structure, then you'll see a high level of resistance to breaking down barriers, and opening up lines for Communication and Collaboration.

Let me put it another way.

Every organization that I know has a Communication problem. However, that problem is not primarily the lack of clarity of the Connecting Ideas - Purpose, Mission, Values, Vision or Impact. The core problem is how they have allowed the organization to develop into an integrated, yet compartmentalized system that does not allow for a higher level of Communication and Collaboration between people and departments.

This is why one of the main tasks of leadership is a focused attention maintaining alignment within the system with the Purpose and Values of the company.
How To Use This Guide:
Use this guide to ask questions about issues of alignment. Ask them this way.

How does the structure of our organization tangibly reflect our Purpose and our Values?

In our team meetings, how are values not being lived out in our interaction and collaboration together? How can we change this?

Are we organized to achieve our Vision for Impact?
Do we have a system of measures that help us identify the change we are creating? If not, what do our measures tell us? What relation to our measures have to our Purpose and Values?

The Circle of Impact Guides are intended to facilitate thoughtful interaction in conversation. The guides can help an individual see areas to address, or why things are working well. But their strategic use is as a communication tool that facilitates Collaboration that provides for an effective way to create organizational change.

Tomorrow, we'll look at how Impact Leadership Teams function.

Circle of Impact Leadership: Circle of Impact Conversation Guides

2010-09-17T13:00:00-04:00

This is one of a series of posts describing the intent and use of the Circle of Impact Guides.
The Circle of Impact is a picture of the dynamic that every leader addresses. There are three dimensions to leading.
There is the Ideas dimension which incorporates the activities of visioning, planning, decision-making and communication.
There is the Relationship dimension that functions as a focal point of networking and collaboration.
There are the Social and Organizational Structure dimensions. They are similar in that they are the context for people to work together. I divide this dimension in two, recognizing that the social environment of an organization is different than the organizational structure. I'm also distinguishing between the relationships that people have with one another, and the social setting or culture of the organization. That social setting doesn't require everyone to be in relationship, though it is formed by people's ideas functioning in their relationship within the structure of the organization. To keep this picture simple, I define the components of the Organizational Structure as Governance, Program, Operations and Resources. Working with these four broad areas will provide more than enough opportunities for conversation.
There are four types of ideas that are important for the functioning of the organization. I called these concepts the Connecting Ideas.
The first is the Purpose or Mission that a person or organization has. The words are basically interchangeable. However, I distinguish them in the following way. Purpose is used more often to refer to the inner motivation that a person has toward their life. Mission is more focused on the outside world. That said, I find no difficulty is using either one in any circumstance to mean the same thing.
A second Connecting Idea is Values that guide the organization. These are ideas that speak to a certain quality of the work and relationship that exists in a group or organization. For example, values like respect, trust, integrity, openness, transparency, resilience, and creativity speak more to the quality of the individuals and their relationships to one another than it does to a product or service. From my perspective, Values serve the organization by providing an ideological platform for relationships to be unified in their shared effort to give their best to the organization.
The third Connecting Idea is Vision. This is a picture that illustrates what it looks like for the people of the organization to function within the Social and Organization setting to achieve their Purpose.
The last Connecting Idea is Impact. This a larger concept that results or measures. It intended to describe the difference that the company makes that matters. Difference is a way of speaking about the change that should result from the shared actions of the people. To measure change in this way is more than measuring numbers. It is a qualitative people of difference. This difference is defined the Purpose and Values of the organization. This is why it is a difference that matters, and not just a difference that can be measured.
How To Use This Guide:
The guide is a picture. Ask questions about how the organization corresponds to each part of the guide. Talk about what your purpose, mission, values and vision are. Ask about what are the guiding ideas that most people in your organization share. Identify the different types of relationships that exist within the environment of your organization.
You can use this picture as a problem solving tool. Identify an issue that seems difficult to resolve. Ask: Is this an Idea, a Relationship or a Structure problem? Ask each person to identify which dimension that they see as the focal point of the problem. The solution is not with that one dimension, but utilizing each dimension's strengths to resolve the problem.
For example, a communication problem may be a lack of clarity. But the lack of clarity may not be an idea, but rather a poor relationship issue made worse by a poor delivering system for communicating ideas.
Practice with the guide and fairly quickly, you will see all three dimensions in dynamic relationship with one another. You'll get it.
The next few posts will explore other aspects of this picture.

Creating Impact In Life & Work During Times of Transition: Circle of Impact Conversation Guides

2010-09-16T22:37:37-04:00

This one of a series of post describing updates to my Circle of Impact Conversation Guides.

This guide has remained virtually the same since I originally created it four years ago.

Here's what you need to know to use this guide effectively.

1. Make the shift from speaking about change to about transition. Change for many people seems random and disruptive. Transition is still change, but it can be also seen within a historical context. It is important to identify the continuity that is involved with change.

2. We identify the transition by describing the experience of change. What has changed, and how can that be identified. If your performance has flattened out or declined, then you know you are in transition. If your performance has suddenly risen, unexpectedly, then you also know that you are in transition. It is important to recognize this.

3. To recognize this transition is to identify what I call a transition point. This point in time means that we must make some decisions about how we are going to handle this transition. If we are at on a plateau performance-wise, then mostly likely we need to make some changes. There maybe things that we stop doing, and things that we start doing. What is needed is a plan, not necessarily a long-range plan, but a plan that determines how we are going to conduct ourselves in what I call the Transition Space.

4. In addition, by seeing change as a process of transition from one point to another, we also must recognize that this is normal. Change is normal. It is more disruptive and problematic when it is continuity and sameness is viewed as what is normal. Organizations are human institutions, and therefore living organisms. Either they are growing, in a proper, balance, healthy way, or they are in decline or disarray. Seeing change as a normal way of life is to be able to identify the big picture of development and decline that has been taking place.

5. It is essential that we try the best we can to anticipate the changes that might be coming. Taking this approach to change enable this mindset to develop.
How To Use This Guide:
Together, with your group or team, read through each paragraph, and discuss how this picture fits your organization. Answer the questions in section four, and begin to look the changes that you need to make to be able to transition to the next level.

This is one in a series of descriptive posts about the Circle of Impact conversation guides. Next is The Circle of Impact.

Circle of Impact Conversation Guides Updated

2010-09-16T14:16:09-04:00

Conversation is an essential skills for all leaders. Of course, a lot of conversation can simply be chat or disconnected grunting. This one of the reasons that I began to create conversation guides that provide me and others a way to dig deeper into the conversation that we generally need to have.
My Circle of Impact guides are in a constant state of redesign and rework because of the conversations that I have with people. I thought I'd post the latest versions here with some explanation of what is there, and how to use them. You can download all of them here and follow along as address one page per day.

9/11 - Learning from the past

2010-09-11T08:02:40-04:00

You may hear this said a lot today.
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana).

It would be also helpful to hear Paul Simon sing the words from his song The Boxer,
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

There are many lessons to be learned from the most costly terrorist attack ever on American soil. The question are we in a mindset to learn them?

In an excerpt from his new book, A Journey: My Political Life, former British Prime MinisterTony Blair states,

In short, we have become too apologetic, too feeble, too inhibited, too imbued with doubt and too lacking in mission. Our way of life, our values, the things that made us great, remain not simply as a testament to us as nations but as harbingers of human progress. They are not relics of a once powerful politics; they are the living spirit of the optimistic view of human history. All we need to do is to understand that they have to be reapplied to changing circumstances, not relinquished as redundant.

While we may find some comfort in his words, I'd say his perspective is not large enough.

The nations and culture of the West are products of long historical trends that are at a transition point.

One of those trends was the Enlightenment belief in rationalism, preeminently embedded in our belief in the progress that would come to humankind through Science. For many Science (large S) has become the replacement religion of intellectuals. It did not require a belief in any mystical being or in the aristocratic social and political structure of old Europe. As a philosophy, it was a ideology of revolution that turned upside down virtually every nation in the northern hemisphere. In a very real sense, this belief in progress was a belief in the morality of science and progress. For as a replacement religion, it inevitably had to have a moral core to its purpose.

This belief in the absolute and ultimate fulfillment of human progress began to erode with the outbreak of World War I. There was an innocence about this belief in progress prior to the war. However, with it, innocence was lost, and irony as Paul Fussell writes in The Great War and Modern Memory, was the result.
lrony is the attendant of hope, and the fuel of hope is innocence.One reason the Great War was more ironic than any other was that its beginning was more innocent. "Never such innocence again," observes Philip Larkin, ...
Furthermore, the Great War, was perhaps the last to be conceived as taking place within a seamless, purposeful "history" involving a coherent stream of time running from past through present to future. The shrewd recruiting poster depicting a worried father of the future being asked by his children, "Daddy, what did you do in the Great War?" assumes a future whose moral and social pressures are identical with those of the past. Today, when each day's experience seems notably ad hoc, no such appeal would shame the most stupid to the recruiting office. But the Great War took place in what was, compared with ours, a static world, where the values appeared stable and where the meanings of abstractions seemed permanent and reliable. Everyone knew what Glory was, and what Honor meant. It was not until eleven years after the war that Hemingway could declare in A Farewell to Arms that "abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates," In the summer of 1914 no one would have understood what on earth he was talking about.

I see that the past decade, in a different way, has brought us back to the place Europe was in 1914. There is a loss of innocence, a loss of purpose, a loss of confidence and loss of knowing what we must do. We live in a time of irony and cynicism, of suspicion and warring factions, where all motives are suspect. We live in a time where words as abstractions that transcend time, giving us perspective and direction for the future, are lost in meaningless of the sales pitch.

As we remember those who died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11/2001, let us not fall into a belief that hope and meaning are lost. That the course of human history is downward toward the apocalypse. Rather, let us see that we are at a crossroads in history, not just the history of our nation, but the history of all humankind. To see the long view is to see that there is a historical progression that leads to our time.

Let me end with a long quote from Peter Thiel's essay, The Optimistic Thought Experiment.Thiel is co-founder and former chairman and CEO of PayPal, Inc. In his essay addresses the same questions that have interested me over the past several months. He sees two ways forward.
In the long run, there are no good bets against globalization
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. - Luke 17:26–30
For the judeo-western inspiration, it is a mistake of the first magnitude to place too much value on the things of this world. Those who busy themselves with the meaningless ideologies of politics, or with the interminable drama of human soap operas, or with the limitless accumulation of wealth, are losing sight of the impending catastrophe that may unfold towards the end of history. The entire human order could unravel in a relentless escalation of violence — famine, disease, war, and death. The final book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, even gives a name and a place: The Battle of Armageddon in the Middle East is the great conflagration that would end the world. Against this future, it is far better to save one ’s immortal soul and accumulate treasures in heaven, in the eternal City of God, than it is to amass a fleeting fortune in the transient and passing City of Man.
For the rationalists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as well as for all those who consider themselves cosmopolitan today, this sort of hysterical talk about the end of the world was deemed to be the exclusive province of people who were either stupid or wicked or insane (although mostly just stupid). Scientific inculcation would replace religious indoctrination. Today, we no longer believe that Zeus will strike down errant humans with thunderbolts, and so we also can rest peacefully in the certain knowledge that there exists no god who will destroy the whole world.
And yet, if the truth were to be told, our slumber is not as peaceful as it once was. Beginning with the Great War in 1914, and accelerating after 1945, there has re-emerged an apocalyptic dimension to the modern world. In a strange way, however, this apocalyptic dimension has arisen from the very place that was meant to liberate us from antediluvian fears. This time around, in the year 2008, the end of the world is predicted by scientists and technologists. One can read about it every day in the New York Times, that voice of the rational and cosmopolitan Establishment. Will it be an environmental catastrophe like runaway global warming, or will it be murderous robots, Ebola viruses genetically recombined with smallpox, nanotech devices that dissolve the living world into a gray goo, or the spread of miniature nuclear bombs in terrorist briefcases?
Even if it is not yet possible for humans to destroy the whole world, on current trends it might just be a matter of time. The relentless proliferation of nuclear weapons remains the most obvious case in point. The United States became the first nuclear power in 1945; by the 1960s and through the 1980s, at the height of the Cold War, five declared nuclear states (the U.S., the uk, France, the ussr, and China) maintained a semi-stable equilibrium (at least as recounted by the historians who know ex post that the Cold War remained cold); as of today, there are two more known nuclear states (India, Pakistan) and perhaps even more (Israel, North Korea). And what if there are 20 nuclear powers in 2020, or 50 nuclear powers in 2050, armed with Jupiter missiles that can rain down destruction on enemies everywhere? We suspect the answer to this question, for we know that there exists some point beyond which there is no stable equilibrium and where there will be a nuclear Armageddon. A scientific or mathematical calculus of the apocalypse has replaced the mystic vision of religious prophets. ¹
On the surface, the world’s financial markets remain eerily complacent. For the most part, they remain firmly rooted in the nineteenth century, when the march of History and Progress were more optimistic and certain. Although it encounters perturbations and larger corrections, the climb of the Dow Jones continues on an inexorable north-easterly path.
The news and business sections seem to inhabit different worlds that coexist on the same planet but rarely intersect. ² Most financial actors are content to rule their separate kingdom, and to refrain from unprofitable questions about the integrity of the larger whole. Those who ask too many questions are not given a serious hearing. Like the deranged orators in London ’s Hyde Park, the prognosticators of a financial doomsday have been wrong for too long. Consequently, they have been relegated to a marginal role, if for no other reason than that they have lost most of their money and have no significant capital left to invest in anything.
More generally, apocalyptic thinking appears to have no place in the world of money. For if the doomsday predictions are fulfilled and the world does come to an end, then all the money in the world — even if it be in the form of gold coins or pieces of silver, stored in a locked chest in the most remote corner of the planet — would prove of no value, because there would be nothing left to buy or sell. Apocalyptic investors will miss great opportunities if there is no apocalypse, but ultimately they will end up with nothing when the apocalypse arrives. Heads or tails, they lose.
In a narrow sense, it seems rational for investors to remain encamped at the altar of the efficient market — and just tend their own small gardens without wondering about the health of the world. A mutual fund manager might not benefit from reflecting about the danger of thermonuclear war, since in that future world there would be no mutual funds and no mutual fund managers left. Because it is not profitable to think about one ’s death, it is more useful to act as though one will live forever. ³
Such a narrowing of one’s horizon cannot, however, be the last word. After all, there exists some connection between the real world of events, on the one hand, and the virtual world of finance, on the other. For macro investors, it would be an abdication not to wrestle with the central question of our age: How should the risk of a comprehensive collapse of the world economic and political system factor into one ’s decisions?
From the point of view of an investor, one may define such a “secular apocalypse” as a world where capitalism fails. Therefore, the secular apocalypse would encompass not only catastrophic futures in which humanity completely self-destructs (most likely through a runaway technological disaster), but also include a range of other scenarios in which free markets cease to function, such as a series of wars and crises so disruptive as to drive the developed world towards fascism, anarchy, or both.
Since the direct approach to our central question leads to paradoxes, absurdities, or at best money-losing investment schemes, it might prove more profitable to explore the inverse as a thought experiment: What must happen for there to be no secular apocalypse — for what one might call the “optimistic” version of the future to unfold? And furthermore, which sectors will do well — surprisingly well, in fact — if the world more or less stays intact, even if there are some major bumps and dislocations along the way? Any investor who ignores the apocalyptic dimension of the modern world also will underestimate the strangeness of a twenty-first century in which there is no secular apocalypse . If one does not think about forest fires, then one does not fully understand the teleology of each tree — and one badly will undervalue those trees that are immune to all but the greatest of fires. Even in our time of troubled confusion, there exists a chance that some things will work out immeasurably better than most believe possible.

(Read the whole essay.)

The task before us is large because we are venturing into an unknown world where the past is not our greatest asset, but a distraction. We need to see history in its proper context, and learn new ways of being a global society. This is the conversation that we should have today. And I hope that you'll take some time with loved ones to reflect back nine years, and then ask the optimistic question, without doubt or guilt or recrimination, how could we make this different a decade from now. Then our remembrance of those lost will honor their lives, and not simply feel sorry for them and angry at their murderers.

May God give us all peace and wisdom on this day of remembrance.

Is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Out of Date?

2010-09-09T17:24:29-04:00

Megan McArdle of The Atlantic posted Finding What You Are Looking For, a column about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. She writes,
One of the things I find most wearying about writing about economics is the extent to which people attempt to hijack economics to "scientifically prove" that their value judgments about things like the proper size and role of government are 100% factually correct--as if there were some way to empirically validate the correct marginal tax rate for people making over $100,000 a year.
But even when you're careful, it's distressingly easy to find what you expect. The result is a history of science developing models that used "scientific evidence" to bolster the social hierarchy of the day. We think that phrenology and 19th century racialism are obviously preposterous--but they clearly weren't, because some very smart people believed them, and were not conscious that they were simply confirming their own prejudices.

McArdle points to a post by Keith Humphries criticizing Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a way to validate the social hierarchy of his day. The Wikipedia entry on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs describes is research.
Maslow studied what he called exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy." Maslow also studied the healthiest 1% of the college student population.
Is it too far a stretch to imagine that Maslow counted himself within this social cohort, or at least desired to be seen as one with them? All this reminds me of reading a leading contemporary theologian's reconstruction of the life of Jesus. After reading it, I realized that what the author had done is projected his own personality and value system onto Jesus, so that they were virtually twins separated in time.
I am a product of a 20th social science / liberal arts education. I'm also fully aware that there is a world of difference between the laws of physics and the laws of economics or sociology. It was from this perspective that I posted to my Twitter feed that end up on my Facebook page the comment in reference to McArdle's post, "Partly why I'm a Maslow skeptic." and two friends who asked for my reasons.
Part of my response was,
It is the formulaic nature of it. I don't think it is a linear progression of steps. I don't think it is hierarchical. And even if it was, I don't believe the hierarchy is accurate. I don't think self-actualization is the peak of the pyramid. I see it as a mid-point, and that the social dimension should be higher. In essence, Maslow sets up a social philosophy that the individual is more important than society. It breeds a narcissistic view of life which is inherently unsustainable and socially divisive.
I agree with Humphries when he states,
Psychologists and social scientists generally still venture repeatedly today into the territory of human values and attempt to claim the ability to make objective judgments about which are the most healthy or scientifically validated. They don’t ever seem to learn that they are often just trying to rationalize cultural fashions: In the 1940s the “mentally healthy” person was one who respected tradition, but he morphed into the to-be-pitied “organization man” in the 1950s. Psychologists valorized divorce as the “mentally healthy choice” for those who were not “growing” in the 1970s, whereas today they tend to say that it’s better to stick it out and stop complaining so much. Maybe humility should go at the top of the pyramid of psychological development for psychologists. In a democracy, social scientists and health experts should not cast themselves as able to render objective judgments on how everyone else should live.
I have many friends and colleagues in the psychoanalytic profession who are far more humble and circumspect about what they tell their clients. They are responsible social scientists who are not trying to validate some social bias. They are genuinely caring individuals who, often out of their own healing experience, bring hope and healing to people who are in pain.
One of my real issues is the use of science - yes, I'm a believer in science - for ends that it is not designed to provide. It has become a tool for promoting all kinds of political and social ends that are not really based in science but in a pop philosophy of morality that needs scientific objectivity to prove its validity.
Does this mean that every scientific statement is subjective or merely relative? No. It means that science cannot objectively prove that Bill Gates is a superior individual to a child with Aspergers. Those measures, like Maslow's, are values based, and as a result are essentially moral codes for determining who is in and who is out in a society. Because they are values based, they are rooted in cultures that embed those values in norms and rituals. If you step back an listen you will hear those norms spoken by people. Just turn on the TV news, and what you find are intelligent people doing the same thing that Maslow did, and which McArdle laments.

We need to be humble about our ability to be truly objective. We need to let science be a process of skepticism and discovering, not promotion and social validation. And we need to realize that the challenges of the future were not in view when Maslow created his system.

Katrina, a remembrance

2010-08-30T06:45:11-04:00

Five years after Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama Gulf Coasts, the event remains a demarcation point in the contemporary history of the US. For many it show the inability of large, complex bureaucratic organization to effectively respond to the human needs of people impacted by the disaster. And for many it became a turning point in their lives as service to others became the purpose that got them up every morning. I share these images as a reminder that national and international events like these are really local ones. If we do not treat them as such, then we will forget that they are human ones.

A neighborhood street

A tent encampment behind a gas station, December 2005.

Kathleen of Katrina Relief, who left her home in Illinois, moved in her RV to Waveland, Mississippi, and started a non-profit to help in relief and recovery of the homes and lives of people impacted by the storm in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Houses built by volunteers from around the country through Habitat for Humanity International Mississippi Gulf Coast.

Randomkids from around the country who initiate their own projects to help people impacted by Katrina. Kids from around the country raised over $10,000,000 for Katrian relief.

The impact of Hurricane Katrina goes far beyond the loss of homes, jobs and property. It showed the power of volunteer initiative. It showed that individuals when they put their mind to it can do just about anything. This is especially true when politics and personal gain are left out of the equation.

In many ways, the hurricane event showed the hidden kindness that exists in our nation today. Aristotle wrote,

Kindness (is) helpfulness towards some one in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped. Kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need, or who needs what is important and hard to get, or who needs it at an important and difficult crisis; or if the helper is the only, the first, or the chief person to give the help.

This is the untold story of Hurricane Katrina. A story that is impacted all of us five years on.

Aligned for Impact

2010-08-26T06:27:46-04:00

Reading one of the economics blogs that I visit, Truth on the Market, I came across a post on The Economist's Schumpeter columnist, Adrian Wooldridge's piece, The Eclipse of the Public Company. Wooldridge is co-author, with John Micklethwaite,of The Company: a short history of a revolutionary idea.
Truth on the Market blogger, Larry Ribstein, is the author of The Rise of the Uncorporation. He points to the importance of organizational forms like professional partnerships and LLC's (limited liability corporation) in contrast to corporate form of the publicly-traded company. The history of these forms is quite interesting and enlightening if you are looking about how to create new opportunities and advantages in your company through the design of its organization.
Most writing about business doesn't actually address the structure of the organization. Their are ideas about marketing and sales, about human resources management, product innovation, and leadership. But not really that much about the structure of the organization itself.
This is unfortunate because the design of the organization determines whether your purpose has a possibility of being fulfilled or whether your people will have the opportunity to fulfill their potential service to the business. All this may seem academic, if the only reason to decide between a corporate or a uncorporate structure is legal and financial.

However, what if the organization of your company was focused on the optimum way to build an aligned system of communication, collaboration and coordination. What if your impact as a company, which is the change that you create, is not simply the numbers you measure, and is dependent upon the kind of organization that you form.
There are many ways to organize. The important consideration to remember is what is the driver. What is the impact you are trying to create? What form gives you the most leverage, the greatest flexibility, and the wide possible opportunity to build a system that aligns the three dimensions of ideas, relationships and social & organizational structure.
In addition, given the changes that we are seeing in the economy and society, which form, corporate or uncorporate, provides you the best, most stable and sustainable one for creating the impact that you want to achieve.
If this is a question that is important to you, then talk to a lawyer, a CPA and an organizational consultant. Invest in their time, and have them all at the same table discussing what is the best approach to creating a company that is marked by high functioning systems of communication, collaboration and coordination. From that conversation, I'm confident, the right approach, or the right changes to your current design will show themselves.
This is how you can create a structure that is aligned for impact.

A Fine Line

2010-08-18T06:34:03-04:00

A fine line marks our lives.
Its a fine line that separates us from who we are today and our better selves,

     between what we think and what we know,

          between what we desire and what we seek,

               between what we believe and what we do.

A fine line between what we are willing to try and what we will sacrifice.

A fine line between making a difference, and wasting our lives.

A fine line between fear and determination.

A fine line between failure and success.

A fine line between good and evil,

     between altruism and narcissism,

          between nobility and inhumanity.

A fine line between who we are and how people perceive us.
A fine line between who others are and how we perceive them.

A fine line between us and people who are different than us.

A fine line between what is normal and what is abnormal.

A fine line between what is acceptable and and what is not.

A fine line between comedy and tragedy,

     between humor and horror,

          between the fullness of life and the loss of it.

Yet, we live in a world where all these fine lines are portrayed as wide gulfs that we are unable to cross.

These gulfs represent the worst of ourselves. They are what divide us. They treat life as a dichotomy between one thing and another. As a result, they rid us of the beauty of ambiguity.
The fine line is a moving line that forces us to pay attention, to be aware, and to appreciate the subtle nuances that actually exist, so that we live as seekers, explorers and discoverers of what life offers.
To live with the fine line is to live with ambiguity. To do so means we break out of the ever narrowing boxes of perception that close us in, make us defensive, isolated, and out of touch with the world that exists on the other side.

The gulf of dichotomy is a fantasy world. It is not real. It is an illusion. It is a world of hermetically sealed categories that we embrace to avoid engagement what those people and arenas that we do not understand.

There is a fine line that most of us never cross. It is a line that breaks us out of the conformity of dichotomy, of the we-versus-them mindset that is a product of manipulation and control.
Are we afraid? It is okay to say so.
Do we think for ourselves? Or do we follow some conventional line of thought to fit in, to belong, to find some connection beyond ourselves.
Do we lack personal initiative? Do our actions defines us? Actions of purpose and impact, not just calendars full of activities.
Life's goodness and beauty doesn't come in a box from an online retailer. They aren't a commodity to acquire, to trade or to hedge against. It isn't one thing or another, it is embedded in the ambiguity that defines the fine line.

Recently, I wrote ...
Picture with me walking out to the edge of what you know and have experienced, and seeing a line.
That line is the horizon of your life. It is way out there.

Or, it is right here, in front of you, close at hand, always marking the line that confronts you. Day by day, that line is getting closer and closer. Avoid it and you'll be boxed in, cornered, paralyzed by the ambiguity of the fine line.

The fine line is the horizon of our life. We live up against it everyday. Face up to it and find a life and work filled with goodness and beauty, meaning and fulfillment, and a difference that truly matters.

We have a choice. Accept the fine line, step across it, and embrace a world of ambiguity, goodness and beauty. Or, shrink back from it, embracing the gulf of dichotomy, and imprisoning ourselves in our own world of irreconcilable difference.
It's a fine line. Will you embrace it?

The Weekly Leader Series on Organic Leadership

2010-08-17T05:48:33-04:00

Over the past several weeks, I've been writing a series of columns at Weekly Leader on what I call Organic Leadership. Here's what it's about.
We are in the midst of a dramatic change of approach to leadership and organization. We are shifting from an era of hierarchical institutions to ones organized around human interaction and initiative. I'm not the only one who is saying this. However, what I don't find is sufficient attention given to is the structure of Organically led businesses. Here are links to the columns in order of appearance.

Turn of the Tide
The Organic Imperative
The Organic Facilitator
The Organic System
The Organic Puzzle
An Organic Foundation

This shift in approach is not really about styles of leadership. Rather, it is about both the moral foundation of leadership and the structural systems of organizations.
Twentieth Century organizations were efforts in the systematization of processes, and highly successful at that. The modern consumer society would not be possible without a system of production that enabled high quality, inexpensive goods to be produced.
The 21st century is a different time. There is a moral and cultural shift taking place that is moving away from the predominant assumptions of the past two or three centuries. At the center of this shift is an emphasis on the importance and value of the person. We've heard this as an idea for a generation or more. We read books and hear speakers on the topic of personal excellence.
What is new is an understanding of how to organize businesses and organizations around individual purpose and initiative. This is what this series on Organic leadership is focused on.
I welcome your comments, critique, stories and interaction.

Leadership is Personal Initiative

2010-08-05T14:34:11-04:00

Misti Burmeister, at her Facebook page, asked a couple great questions about leadership. She first asked,
"Is self-knowledge essential to leading others effectively?"
She followed that question with,
"How can you lead others if you are not leading yourself ...a distinction that separates ok leaders from awesome ones..."
Go to her page to see what people say.
Here's an expanded version of my answer to the second question.
All leadership begins with personal initiative. Regardless of who you are, what you do, where you live, or the situation you are in, to lead requires initiative, the exercise of your own individual will to create movement toward some end.
For that reason, we must lead ourselves to have some purpose, some vision for what we want, and a set of values that inform us about what our leadership is about. If I lack perspective about my purpose in life, then I will find it hard to lead.
What on earth would I be leading people toward?
Without our ownership of a moral view of life, personal initiative is empty of meaning. Are our actions just the expenditure of energy to fill up time and move us through space? Our purpose is tied to the measure of our lives, which is the difference that we make, a difference that should matter.
When we have a sense of purpose, we gain the strength to lead others, to stand on principle when it is hard, to have courage to keep going in the face of hardship, and create a future where it seems to be absent.
This is what separates a leader from a manager. A leader is going somewhere, and calls people to join them. A manager organizes the organizational processes that achieve the efficiencies needed for the proper functioning of an organization.
Leadership is personal, regardless of the situation. Whether you are a corporate CEO, a stay-at-home dad, a middle school mentor or the manager of a local retail business, leadership is your expression of your purpose and values that function in a vision for making a difference that is the impact of who we are everyday.
Thanks for the great question, Misti.

Tradition and Change, part two

2010-08-03T07:08:55-04:00

In my previous post, Tradition and Change, I reflected on the change in society evident in the Luchino Visconti's film, The Leopard. The picture illustrates the change that took place when traditional European aristocratic society shifted to a modern middle class democratic one. Our experience in America is different because we were not an aristocratic society but a nation of immigrants who came to here as a part of the change we see in the movie, only a century before.
Over the past the century, a similar conflict between tradition and change has been occurring here, as it has in Europe.
Traditions are values that are shared by people and whose practices form a society.
Several years ago, when working on a values project for a company, the members of the committee that I worked with kept saying that their goal was to get back to a time twenty years in the past when the company was more like a family.
What did they mean when they said they wanted their company to be more like a family?
A family is a society with its own traditions. A company can have traditions or not. It depends on its leadership. In this case, the previous leadership had placed their own enrichment over that of the company. As a result, a wedge was driven between the senior executives and the rest of the company. This group of employees wanted a return to a more traditional social environment in the company.
During the past century or so, a mythology of the individual has grown up that places the welfare of the individual above that of society. When this happens, traditions are shredded as constraints upon the individual.
In psychological terms, we could say that when the individual places his or her wants above that of society, that we have something a kin to the adolescent child who is seeking independence from the constraints of the family.
In other words, traditional society that binds one person to another or one group to another is viewed as a liability, not an asset to the forward progress of society.
I'm convinced that it is the elevation of the individual above society, not the elevation of the individual's development as a member of society that has created the crisis, conflict and divisiveness in the public arena that we find in the world today.
However, if you look away from those who promote the dichotomization of society into me or us versus them, you'll see the lingering remnant of a traditional society as played out in individuals who willing place the betterment of society ahead of themselves.
This is what I see in young people who upon graduation from college, or even high school, go to places of need to teach and to work for the development of people and their local societies. It is what I saw in the people who moved to the gulf coast of Mississippi to help bring hope and recovery following Hurricane Katrina.
This same attitude of sacrifice is what makes a traditional society work. A traditional society that is focused on the greater good.
Recently, I came across a quote of Aristotle's on kindness
Kindness -- under the influence of which a man is said to "be kind" -- may be defined as helpfulness towards some one in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped. Kindness is great if shown to one who is in great need, or who needs what is important and hard to get, or who needs it at an important and difficult crisis; or if the helper is the only, the first, or the chief person to give the help. Natural cravings constitute such needs; and in particular cravings, accompanied by pain, for what is not being attained.
This expression of kindness is at the heart of how a society can sustain itself. Notice that the kindness shown is self-giving. It contributes to those in need, rather than as something beneficial to the giver.
Traditional societies are built upon individuals giving to one another. They require the individual to give up part of their prerogatives as an individual to gain what they cannot have alone.
The criticism of traditional societies is that they are not progressive or modern. If however, to be a progressive or modern society is to pit one person against another, one group against another, then that is not progressive, but regressive.
Traditions are values that join people together in a common purpose. As leaders, we must look to how we can create traditions that provide people an environment to grow, and a platform to lead, as members of a society of leaders.
At the heart of these traditions is the recognition that kindness is a way to understand how we are to function in society together. As I'm learning, the response to kindness by another is gratitude, to say thanks, and return that kindness is some manner.
The challenge before us is, not our understanding or valuing these ideas of traditional society, but rather the acceptance and willingness to give, contribute, and even make personal sacrifices to make a society work. These sacrifices cannot be coerced or prescribed, but freely made out of the kindness of one's own personal commitments. This is an individualism of personal responsibility and maturity that is the remnant that is holding modern societies together.
For five centuries, the value of the individual has grown to have prominence over a perception of society that is now anachronistic. Those ancient and medieval societies were not traditional societies of one person or one group, joining with others to create a society of opportunity. They were societies built around the power of a governing elite.
The American experiment in freedom, for the individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is not about the individual alone, but of a society of individuals who join together to create the conditions for their fulfillment.
Today, connection, collaboration and service are values that are uniting people together to create organizations and communities that are traditional in nature. In these places, openness and accountability are practices that build strength and sustainability.
For a very long time, the image of the individual standing alone in the crowd, isolated and alienated from the conditions that can bring genuine happiness has been present in my mind. Even as human connections expand through the use of social technologies, the individual remains alone until a relationship of mutual commitment and accountability is formed.
A traditional society is built upon values that unite people around a common purpose and a vision for the difference that they can make together.
The perception that a traditional society stands against change and progress is a false one. It is only by creating a traditional society that change can be progressive and beneficial to the whole of society. In fact, it is how all social change becomes sustainable.

Tradition and Change

2010-07-29T08:32:47-04:00

The resistance to change has always come from a desire to hold onto traditions that have value. Yet, in a time of dramatic, disruptive change, holding to traditions while adapting to changing circumstances provides a way to build continuity over time. The question is how to change without losing the traditions and the historical continuity that is the seedbed of sustainability? That is a question we must all be asking.

I was thinking of this as I watched, again, Luchino Visconti's Il Gattopardo, in English The Leopard. From the editorial notes at the Barnes & Noble page:

Arguably Luchino Visconti's best film and certainly the most personal of his historical epics, The Leopard chronicles the fortunes of Prince Fabrizio Salina and his family during the unification of Italy in the 1860s.

What I love about this film is its depiction of social change that comes with the passage of time. In Italy, as in many places in Europe during the 19th century, aristocratic rule is being eclipsed by the modern world. The following transcription of one scene from the English subtitles of the film offers a personal view of this change. Personal view of The Prince, Don Fabrizio Salina. The scene is a conversation in the Prince's study between him and Caviliere Chevalley, an emissary from the Italian government in Turin, asking him to become a Senator in the legislature.
The Prince: I am a member of the old ruling class hopelessly linked to the past regime and tied to it by chains of decency, if not affection. I belong to an unfortunate generation straddling two worlds and ill at ease in both. And what is more, I am utterly without illusions.
What would the Senate do with an inexperienced legislator who lacks the faculty of self-deception, essential requisite for those who guide others? No, I cannot lift a finger in politics. It would get bitten off.

Chevalley: Would you seriously refuse to do all you can to alleviate the state of physical squalor and blind moral misery in which your own people lie?

The Prince: We are old, Chevalley. Very old. For more that 25 centuries, we have borne the weight of superb civilizations that have come from outside, never of our own creation, none we could call our own. For 2,500 years, we've been nothing but a colony. I'm not complaining. It's our fault. But we are worn out and exhausted.

Chevalley: But all that's over now. Sicily is no longer a conquered land, but a free member of a free state.

The Prince: Your intention is good, but it comes too late.

Sleep, my dear Chevalley, a long sleep - that is what Sicilians want. They will always hate anyone who tries to wake them, even to bring them the most wonderful gifts. And between ourselves, I doubt whether the new kingdom will have many gifts for us in its luggage. Here, all expression, even the most violent, is a desire for oblivion. Our sensuality is a longing for oblivion. Our knifings and shootings are a longing for death. Our laziness, the penetrating sweetness of our sherbets, a longing for voluptuous immobility, that is ... death once again.

Chevalley: Prince, are you exaggerating? I myself have met Sicilians in Turin who seemed anything but asleep.

The Prince: I haven't explained myself well. I'm sorry. I said Sicilians. I should have said Sicily. This atmosphere, the violence of the landscape, the cruelty of the climate, the constant tension in everything -

Chevalley: Climate can be overcome, landscape improved, the memory of evil governments canceled. Surely the Sicilians want to improved.

The Prince: I don't deny that a few, once off the island, may wake up, but they must leave very young. By 20, it's too late. The crust has already formed. What you need, Chevalley, is a man who is good at blending his personal interests with vague public ideals.

May I offer some advice for your superiors?

Chevalley: With pleasure.

The Prince: There is a name I'd like to suggest for the Senate.That of ... Calogeno Sedara. He has far more qualities than I that merit election. His family, I am told is an old one, or soon will be. He has more power than what you call prestige. He has power. In lieu of scientific merits, he has practical ones, and quite outstanding too. His work was most useful during the May crisis. As for illusions, I don't think he has any more than I, but he's clever enough to create them when needed. He's the man for you.

Chevalley: Yes, I have heard talk of Sedara. But if honest men like you withdraw, the way will be open for those with no scruples and no vision, for Sedara and his like, and everything will be as before for centuries to come. Listen to your conscience and not to proud truths you've spoken. I beg you, try to collaborate.

The Prince: You are a gentleman, Chevalley. I consider it a privilege to have met you. You are right about everything ... except when you say, 'Surely the Sicilians want to improve.' They never want to improve. They think themselves perfect. Their vanity is greater than their misery.

Sit down. Let me tell you an anecdote.

Shortly before Garibaldi entered Palermo, some British officers from the warship in the harbor asked if they could go up onto the terrace of my house, from where one can see the hills around the city. They were ecstatic about the view, but they confessed they were shocked at the squalor and filth of the street. I didn't explain as I have tried with you, that the one derived from the other. One of the officers asked, 'What are those Garibaldini really coming to do in Sicily?' I replied, 'They are coming to teach us good manners, but they won't succeed, because we are gods.' They laughed, but I don't think they understood.

It's late. Almost time for dinner. We must go change.

Packed into this 15 minute scene are ideas and images of change that were relevant to the aristocracy and rising middle class elite of 19th century Italy. These ideas and images are relevant to us today.
Traditions are not the same as "the old ways."
Traditions are values that serve to defined the values and boundaries of a culture or society. They can be stories, myths, that illustrate why we believe in one idea or value or another.

The past two centuries has been an attack on the notion that tradition has value and relevance in the modern world. In the Chevalley, you hear the modern world, as this man expresses his confidence that the world's squalor and filth can be cleaned up. This is the perspective of the 19th century Progressive who saw the world as inherently changeable by their own hands.

If Don Fabrizio's Sicilians thought of themselves as gods unreachable and without need for Progressive contributions, the Progressives of that century equally failed to see what they could not see, that in their beneficent arrogance, that the 20th century would become an era of World Wars and leadership without scruples and no vision.

We are at another turning point in human history. Just as revolution swept through England to America, through France, Germany, Italy and then Russia, bringing with it radical, disruptive change, so too we are at another turning point. The historic trend of change that brought about the decline of the old aristocracy, replaced by the leadership of the bourgeoisie, now threatens a new aristotcracy, one born in the revolutions of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.

The old ways of the past hundred years are worn and exhausted. What is it that will replace it? Will it come by revolution or evolution?

As I look forward, the themes that emerge are ones related to values and tradition.

Every where I turn I find people interested, concerned, engaged in conversation about trust. It is something we all desire.

In trust, I see a type of innocence that has been missing from our world for a long time.

It was this sort of innocent belief in a person that catapulted Barack Obama into the Presidency. And yet, now, it appears that for many people that innocent trust is gone replaced by disappointment and doubt.

Remember what Don Fabrizio said about himself?

I am a member of the old ruling class hopelessly linked to the past regime and tied to it by chains of decency, if not affection. I belong to an unfortunate generation straddling two worlds and ill at ease in both. And what is more, I am utterly without illusions.

Can we not say for ourselves that we are a people raised in an era tied to the dreams and failures of the ruling class of the modern era, the era of Chevalley, and are tied to it by habit and comfort in those old ways?
Can we not also say that we are people who straddle two worlds, and are ill at ease in both? For the one is dying, and the other emerging, and comfort and security are lacking in both.
Can we not also say that we are people with illusions, and that this is a dilemma of our own creation?

What then to we do?
Begin by riding ourselves of our illusions, and thinking clearly about the time we are in. This means that we each are to take responsibility for ourselves, our families and our communities.

We, with great intention and discipline, become people who are trustworthy. We can't ask others to be trustworthy if we are not.
Restore traditions in your homes, businesses and communities. If you were to take the Five Actions of Gratitude, and treat them as traditions, you will find strength to deal with change. Consider for a moment adopting for yourself personally the following traditions of gratitude.
Say Thanks by writing notes to people who have done something worth your gratitude.

Give Bank in service as an organization to those in need in your community.

Make Welcome with a program of hospitality to those who are new comers to your community.

Honor Others by recognize their gifts of service and hospitality.

Create Goodness by being a person who is trustworthy in all your dealings with people.

To creatively practice these actions of gratitude is allow traditions to be born that build trust and the ability to find continuity from one era to the next.
As I watched The Leopard again, I could not help but think that it should be watched along with Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather series. Together they are a picture of the historical continuity that our modern world has experienced. In ten years, what film will we refer to as representative of this time? I don't know.

Without illusion, let us approach the future by creating trust and traditions that provide people an environment of support for adapting to the changes that are with us.
It's late. ... We must go change.

What is Good?

2010-07-29T00:33:25-04:00

The first and only philosophy class that I took in college was a course called The Philosophy of Art. In retrospect, I believe I took that class because I thought the class would be about something, not just ideas, but something tangible, like paintings or buildings.

I imagined looking at works of art to try to understand the artist's purpose. What I discovered was a class where we didn't so much discuss or debate, but were denounced for believing in values like the good or beauty. We were presented with as nihilistic and cynical view of art as you can imagine. I came away from the class angry for the wasted time spent, and of my own inadequacy to offer arguments that countered the professor's own self-confident positions.

For me, the question - What is good? - remains.

It is through works of art that I find ways to reflect on this question.

For example, last year on a retreat, we were invited to paint a picture that would be hung with other pictures on a high wall in our church. This is my painting.

Is it good? Technically no. Artistically, not really. It is realistic? No. Is it beautiful? No.

But does it have meaning for me? Yes. It does because it is representative of a place that means something to me.

The same subject in the hands of an accomplished professional artist looks like this. This is Moran Sunrise by Kathy Turner of Jackson, Wyoming. It is of Mt. Moran, one of the mountains in the Grand Teton chain of peaks.

Copyright © 2009, Kathryn Mapes Turner Fine Art
Kathy is good at what she does. Just as I can stare at that mountain for hours on end, I can do the same to her painting.
What is the difference between my philosophy prof who cynically tried to convince us that there is no way to determine what is good and a painting by my friend Kathy?
I believe it revolves about context. If your context is only the abstract world of ideas, then you can argue that good is non-existent, except for a good argument. However, if the world that exists outside our minds is the context, then we'll recognize that we are not the center of the universe, that we are part of something larger.
Recently, I came across a couple quotes, one by a 19th century German writer name Max Stirner who was popular at the end of the century. "For me nothing is higher than myself." During the 1905 revolution in Russia, Konstantin Somov wrote, "I am delighted at every new victory of the revolution ... knowing that it will lead us not into an abyss but into life. I hate our past too much ... I am an individualist; the whole world revolves around me, and essentially it is no concern of mine to go outside the confines of this 'I.'" I think my philosophy prof would approve.
When we talk about What is Good?, we are talking to one another. We are communicating a wide range of impressions and feelings that seek logic, coherence and understanding. When Kathy paints, she paints to communicate with people who may buy one of her paintings. They do so because some connection between the painter, the painter's purpose, and the world of awareness of the buyer has been reached.
To ask the question of What is Good? is to ask a moral question, a question about what we value. The answer to this question is a communal one, because for the good to be a real value is to see how it connects people together in a way that elevates their own awareness and their relation to the world outside their minds.

While I find a deep richness in Kathy's art, it is even more personal because it is a picture of this place that is special to me. It connects me to more than a physical place of beauty,which it is. It also connects to people I've met in this setting. Some who have become life long friends.
For something to be good, it needs to reach inside us and connect us to some reality or truth or value outside of us. This is what great art does. And remarkably so, it is something that we can all achieve. We do not have to have professional talent in order to create works of art that have the ability to make connections. It certainly helps.
My advice is find you a way to express yourself artistically, and share it with others. Shared not for the accolades that may come, but to create the deeper connection that is represented in the purpose of the art that you've create. And good it will be.