"Lost" Opportunity

It is interesting to have the historic vote on health care in the background as I muse about this. Many opponents of the model being proposed by the Administration talk about the trillion dollars it will cost to fund the program. As a counterpoint I look at the following situation:

My readings and research tell me that we "lose" $5 trillion annually to the direct costs of employee turnover. Additional research indicates that we lose another $200 billion annually to "presenteeism"; the spending on health benefits related to stress, lost productivity due to employees dealing with personal issues at work, and the difference between contributions from employees operating at full versus marginal productivity. I saw research recently that said in addition to those costs we send over $100 billion annually on training and development in corporate America and yet less than 10% of those dollars result in meaningful and sustained change.

My math has never been my strength, but it would seem that the "lost" opportunity that these costs represent approaches five and a half trillion dollars in the U.S. economy annually. So if we addressed some of these we could pay for health care five times over and have money left over to address other critical issues like maybe education, homeless folks, and other similar societal issues. So what am I missing?

Our current economic system has retreated in a way to a kind of capitalistic feudalism. The industrial revolution was largely based on "dumbing down" tasks and activities to make them simpler and therefore more "efficient". The skills required to perform these tasks decreased and correspondingly so did the wages. Technology provide even further assistance, machines and "systems" can do what people used to do cheaper, faster, and many times more efficiently. In exchange for "compliance" we offered employees a certain degree of economic security. Then a world economy happened. Other economies began using "our" systems combined with their own enhancements and lower wages and we lost our competitive advantage. Our solution in many cases was outsourcing to these economies. At the root we forgot to include people in our "solutions", and now we are paying for it.

Research about engagement demonstrates that the U.S. economy is operating at about 30% of its potential efficiency. Before other economies gloat too much I would point out that this puts us in the top quartile.

Organizations that have a well developed engagement strategy enjoy significant advantages in productivity, profitability, and sustainability. Those terms sound pretty capitalistic to me.

Engagement is not measured exclusively by employee "satisfaction" or tenure. It is not a short term strategy or for the faint hearted. It also requires to examine and rebuild our relationships between: employer and employed, "vendor" and customer, and organization and community. We need to examine how we hire, how we train, how we reward, how we communicate, and most importantly how we relate to and value one another. The upside is that properly executed we can recapture some of those trillions and address compelling issues and not spend anymore money.

Is is just me or does that "value proposition" sound interesting? So I would ask again:

• If not now when?
• If not us then who?

Looking forward to your thoughts......

A Real Paradigm Shift

Every once in a while you get to experience a real paradigm shift.

A number of years ago I had an opportunity to attend a presentation/demonstration by Monty Roberts the "Horse Whisperer". If you are familiar with horse training vernacular you know that for the last couple of hundred years the technique of training horses has been referred to as "breaking" the horse. In short to teach the horse to "comply" with our will and instruction. Roberts discussed some things that were pretty intriguing to me. The fact that horses are both a herd and a "prey animal". Their primary reaction to threats is to flee. The herd part of their instinct is that they are essentially programmed to "join up" with others rather than attempt to go it alone. With that in mind he proposed a different methodology- rather than "breaking" the horse why not extend an invitation to the horse to "join up" with you and become part of your herd? In the space of a little over an hour I saw a horse that had never been ridden accept a saddle, bridle, and rider. That is a paradigm shift!

Because of what I do my mind immediately went to my own experiences with people and organizations. What if we were to offer an opportunity to employees to "join up" with us rather than try to impose our organizational values or even our personal values for those of us that lead and manage teams? That became part of the fabric of my model of moving from compliance to commitment.

This week I had the opportunity to be exposed to another profound paradigm shift by a brilliant colleague. This model identifies behavioral "channels" in the subconscious mind and allows you to "retrain" the channel to create opportunities for profound and sustained changes in the behavior of individuals and teams. By creating the new "channel" you are allowing them to join up rather than imposing your model or view.

I am not confident or competent enough to discuss this model in detail at this stage, but I assure you you will be hearing more from me on this topic as I understand it and its application.

Thank you Reut for sharing your brilliance and your vision with me and the others. I am very excited about seeing where this new paradigm takes us... What new "paradigms" are you open to exploring?

Opportunity from Chaos

The Conference Board announced that employee satisfaction is at an all time low and several other studies say that based on "dis-engagement" the U.S. economy is operating at about 30% efficiency. Yet another study says that the supply of "experienced" talent is going to decrease while demand increases. So where is the opportunity? Well call me Pollyanna, but I see several areas.

In a recent article Daniel Pink, author of Drive as well as several other great management books, states that loyalty isn't dead it has been redefined. He even provides a whole bunch of ways to build this redefined loyalty into your organization and redefined loyalty can translate to engagement which directly contributes to sustainability, profitability, and productivity.

Although 25% of the workforce will be over 50 by 2020 in North America and Europe and the over 45 customer demographic will be 40% larger than the 20-45 group by 2012 these folks have more money to spend and incidentally research shows that the over 50s have as good or better skills as their younger counterparts. By matching up the customer facing workforce with the demographic shift it represents opportunity rather than loss.

Building engagement requires a strategy, but it is not necessarily cost prohibitive or limited to large, complex organizations. In fact many of the elements of an engagement strategy are pretty simple in their foundations:

• Hire the right people. Think about your organization and your values and the values of your customer base and build it into your hiring and selection processes.
• Create great jobs. Great jobs are not necessarily about compensation. They give people an opportunity to contribute and work in an environment that fits them.
• Participate in helping people build great careers. Loyalty should be based on contribution not tenure. Employees who give you 110% while they work for you are loyal. Employees who speak highly about you to customers and other potential employees are loyal.
• Re-recruit constantly. Smart employers spend a lot of time ensuring that employees understand their personal contribution to the business and where they fit in. Do you really think this is easier in organizations with thousands of employees than it is in smaller organizations?
• Take advantage of local resources. Most of the foundational element of successful engagement come down to relationship skills not technology. I am talking about things like setting expectations properly, giving feedback constructively, recognizing positive results and similar skills. Most of those skills are taught by your local Chamber of Commerce or community college. You don't need an expensive "top tier" consulting firm. Best practices and templates work great for the company who developed them and consulting firms who install them.
• Think local, act local. To a great extent most of us operate in our local community. By engaging and investing in our community we build and reinforce relationships and it relationships that drive organizations not technology or systems by themselves.

In my mind we must decide whether or not we will use the "lessons" from this latest recession as a learning opportunity or concede defeat. I am hoping it will cause us to examine root causes and to redefine how we work with our employees, customers, and communities and they we will capitalize on the benefits of commitment rather than compliance. We have to decide.

Looking Forward ..and Back

This New Year's Eve will be a bit different than many we have celebrated. It is the end of the first decade of the new millennium among other distinctions.

It seems somehow alomost surreal to think that 10 years ago we were in a panic about what Y2K would bring. Kind of turned out to be a non event. 2001 distinguished itself largely because of 9/11 and has changed our lives and shaped foreign policy and the role of government intervention in our lives. 2008 elected the first African American president and 2009 brought the worst financial recession in generations and the effective demise of several major institutions.

It has been an interesting decade for me as well. My children entered "adulthood". I spent the bulk of the decade in a "new" career as an executive in the financial services industry, specifically in credit unions trying to help re-shape our approach and go back to our roots. I can honestly say that some of my greatest career achievements occurred with some of the work I did in those organizations. I feel that in several cases we made things not only better for our employees and "members", but actually contributed to positive social change and bettering the communities we served.

I wrote and published my first book, which was a significant personal milestone and learned to embrace social media. I also began hearing about and writing about a phenomenon called engagement that I had described as moving from compliance to commitment which still represents a personal passion for me. I have to admit that I have been frustrated with my ability to articulate this model in a way that causes more organizations to embrace it. I truly believe it is a far superior model for organizations and their members to interact whether those organizations are businesses, communities, educational institutions or any other entity that brings people together.

It has been a decade of revelation and introspection for me. I have enjoyed some of that much more than other parts. In truth I didn't care much for 2009, I am not sorry to see it go.

Starting on Friday we begin a new decade. I will be curious to see what we do with it and whether or not it provides opportunity and promise or more disappointment.

So I will be curious to hear from you as to what stood out for you in the first decade of the millenium and what you hope to see as we move into 2010.

Change Is In the Air- I Think....

It has been an interesting couple of weeks. I have heard from several people I am close to that they have found important new roles that they are pleased about. I have decided to make a change and sharpen my focus in my own endeavors. The stock market is up- at least temporarily. Many economists are declaring the recession over.

The first thing that is interesting to me is the issue of the economy. I have heard "experts" begin to refer to this as a "jobless" recovery. I don't get that. Is that like Jumbo Shrimp? How to we pronounce the recession over if we have large numbers of people who are still unemployed or underemployed? Because the stock market is up? How is that affecting your personal financial well being?

I read some information recently about a change that concerned me, but didn't shock me. The "change" was that the large financial players have been using the bailout money to fund investments in the market rather than reinvesting in programs and things that really benefit the average American. Coming from financial services recently that doesn't surprise me that much. Most financial service organizations stopped making their profits in the traditional sense; the "margin" between what they paid for deposits and what they make loans for some time ago. They borrowed some "creativity" from other industries and found that there are much better opportunities to generate fee income for "services" such as overdraft protection, ATM access, and other transaction fees.

The interesting thing to me is that they are missing huge opportunities to increase their income and benefit their stakeholders by utilizing things like supply chain management and TQM techniques, but they have been relatively slow adopters.

This weekend the House passed the most sweeping legislation since Medicare on health care reform. Depending on which side of the equation you represent this is either a huge step forward or the continuing "socialization" of our economy. I am suspending judgement. I think our current health care system has significant flaws in a number of areas, notably our ability to deliver high quality health care in an efficient and cost effective manner.

I had hoped that the recession might cause more employers to examine their relationships with stakeholders, especially employees and to address flaws in our models that have existed for years. In many cases I feel like we lost traction. We went back to the "be grateful you have a job model".

We need a new leadership model. Much of our leadership modeling is based on financial and economic metrics- i.e. a "jobless" recovery. When I read about the stresses and reactions from those stresses I am concerned that we are kidding ourselves.

I have decided to focus my "change" efforts at a very basic level, by hopefully effecting the way organizations select and orient their senior leadership teams in their hiring and selection process. My colleague, Joseph Skursky refers to this as "hire hard-manage easy".

I see things on the web asking whether it is OK to probe employee's values alignment with your organizational values before you hire them. My answer is "duh", of course. You can't and shouldn't get into protected areas, but do you really want people in your lifeboat who don't support or understand your core values? I have to tell you after thirty years of experience, changing somebody's values is really hard. It is much easier to align them upfront.

As an employer you also have the freedom within reason to set the values of your organization and require compliance if not commitment to those values. You aren't saying to those who don't share your values they are bad people, you are saying they would be better suited in an environment where they share the organization's values. Trust me, people who are technically competent , but don't represent a good "fit" will never really be outstanding performers.

So I think that we are at a stage where we accept the status quo or we become our own personal change agent. I know which choice I have made, what about you?

Mandate or Mistake?

Why do I suspect that I was not the only person to be surprised by President Obama's selection as the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace prize? I have to admit I am still processing my reaction.

The reaction from the "right" is pretty typical, the award indicates how shallow the world is, recognizes Obama's "star" power, but little else etc. Are we in the U.S missing something that the rest of the world sees? Did we miss and continue to miss how polarizing the actions of the last administration were in how the world saw us?

From my own personal context I do see this award as a bit "proactive" if not premature, but at the same time I have often heard that "good" managers use recognition reactively, while great managers use it proactively to create an environment for even greater performance.

What a change to see the U.S seen as a beacon again. We can ask ourselves whether or not given some of our domestic issues that this is where we should concentrate, but is there room on the agenda for both? To those that are critical have we given this President a reasonable time to create meaningful change, he has been in office nine months. In that nine months he has definitely created a profound effect in how the world sees the United States. Maybe not a bad start.

Barrack Obama may be the most polarizing President since Lincoln. When I read some of the diatribes about him I wonder how it is that he has created such fear and agitation in such a short time. We still have leadership of the other party claiming or a least condoning claims that he isn't an American citizen and is a secret Muslim. Are they that afraid of the potential change he represents? I don't have any issue with disagreeing with a candidate or even voting for the other "guy", but do we have to demonize?

Perhaps this award represents the "audacity of hope", not only for the United States, but for the world. To me it speaks of the yearning of a lot of people for a different way of interacting together in a collaborative fashion.

There are a lot of scary things going on right now. The situation in the Middle East is far from resolved and we still have miles to go before we have repaired the fundamental infrastructure of own society on issues including health care and employment. In our President's defense, he didn't create any of those issues he inherited them.

I am an optimist by nature. I am going to interpret the award as a mandate and a sign of hope that the President will continue to grow into his role as both a domestic and world leader and will contribute to leaving the country and the world a better place when he leaves office then when he found it. I do not and will not always agree with everything he does, but as is my nature and my imperative I will withhold judgment and try to evaluate the "whole person" that he represents.

To those that want to reject the award I caution that is what has characterized us in the world for a long time, incapable of recognizing and accepting others right to see things from a different perspective. We don't have to agree, but do we need to impose our viewpoint or ridicule that of others we disagree with?

I would be curious to hear your reactions, especially those from the international community.

Social Networking, Engagement, and Change; Are They All Related?

The last few weeks have been very interesting. I continue to marvel at the stories I hear about communications, information, engagement, management practices and a host of related issues.
As you all know I think engagement is the most compelling productivity and profitability strategy since the industrial revolution. I just got what I believe to be some validation from an article I read on BNET summarizing and interview with Daniel Pink.

In the interview Pink talked about why "right brain" thinkers who are skilled at communications, empathy and related skills will "rule the world" and that how "left brain" thinkers especially in English speaking countries could find themselves "commoditized".
His thinking is that many of the highly linear "systematized" left brain skills like accounting, engineering, mathematics, and related activities are relatively easy to transfer cross culturally especially if the "language" barrier is not a factor. He went on to point out that in the very near future the largest population of highly educated, linear thinkers may be in India, not the U.S. or other "English speaking" countries.

He argues that the skill sets that are and will be in high demand are those with creating alignment with ideas, seeing the big picture and being able to articulate in a powerful way to others, and the skills of empathy and engagement. He points out in his research that this may be why many business leaders educational backgrounds are in liberal arts rather than "technical" disciplines.

As you know I strongly believe that the most critical factor in successful organizations is relationships, so you can see why Pink's thinking resonates with me.

I have had the opportunity of late to talk with two different executive groups about what I perceive as the critical link between engagement and social networks. As I mentioned in a previous blog - Tell Me a Story; I see social networking in some ways as returning to our old oral traditions, passing along information person to person.

In some ways just as the Industrial Revolution damaged the social contract and concept of personal competency it largely shifted control over the flow of information to "management". Mainstream media contributed to that phenomena, to quote my friend John Mayer again " when they control the information...". Social networking has returned control in some ways to the individual.

In the "new" engagement model discussed by Rhoads and Whitlark, BlessingWhite, and others they describe the highest level of engagement as being pride of association. You have moved past a transactional relationship with your employees, customers, and other stakeholders to sharing a set of ideals. Is it just me or can others see why using social media appropriately and effectively contributes to this?

As a corollary I continue to be dumbfounded by organizations that do dumb things and some how assume that their actions aren't going to show up on a blog site, and in a big damn hurry! Do we think that our customers, employees, and future employees live on Mars where they can't access that information?

I hear stories about organizations that are perceived as using the recession to practice some pretty Draconian human resource practices; Do they really think this isn't going to show up on Twitter, FaceBook, LinkedIn, etc? Do they really not believe that when the economy recovers that those memories will evaporate? That is the corporate equivalent of the kid not believing his naked beer bong pictures on MySpace affected his interview possibilities!

It is interesting to see what social media is doing in a fundamentalist country like Iran. Do we really believe the Ayatollah is just trying to play well with others?

So I guess my perspective is that indeed there is a relationship between these phenomena. They all come down to the need to build and sustain trust based relationships.

We have already discussed the link between engagement and productivity, sustainability, and profitability. We have seen the power of social media to distribute information (sometimes even accurately) in almost blinding speed. We have also heard that one of the single biggest reason change initiatives and strategies fail is because they aren't properly communicated.

Sounds to me like Pink is right, math and science aren't the answer this time. It's going back to systemic big picture thinking, creating a bridge for people, and trust. Daunting, but not un-doable.

Enlightenment in the Vineyard

My wife and I had an opportunity to spend this last holiday weekend in one of our favorite locations, the foothills of the Sierras. The Calaveras County of Mark Twain fame also makes some awesome wines!

The region is quite small with limited production and focuses more on Spanish style wines like Temparnillo, Syrah, Grenache and "warmer" climate wines. It is reminiscent of our Rogue Valley located near the California border. Just as the Sierra appellation is overshadowed by Napa, most people associate Oregon with Pinot's. I can tell you some of the "warm weather" wines from the Umpqua region are fantastic.

In addition to getting to drink some great wine and enjoy some great company I had the chance to read an excellent book , Do You Matter and actually see some of the concepts in action.

Although the premise of the book is the criticality of design I saw significant parallels to my own perspectives on successful engagement strategy. The parallels for me included the systemic nature (both need to be included in all decisions) and the criticality of the internal in the process. We call internal customers employees.

The author said that the design is really creating a "portal" to the customer's experience with your product or service. I would submit that engagement is the same. If you think about the five levels of engagement I have discussed before, the highest level is that of pride of association. You have gone beyond a commodity to a shared experience. You have connected.

They point out that if your employees do not share this "connection" it will be reflected in their interactions with your customers. BlessingWhite and others share this perspective about engagement.
To put it in context; General Motors sells transportation, BMW or Porsche sell a lifestyle or experience. They are aspirational.

The reason I use the analogy of this wine experience is I saw several key elements represented in this particular community. The "tasting" experience is likely representative of Napa in the old days. You may have an opportunity to discuss the wine directly with the wine maker and/or owner. I recognize you can do that in Napa as well, but not for free or a tasting fee typically under $5!

One of the other things that is quite interesting is that several of the vineyards have tasting rooms located in close enough proximity to be entirely walkable. This allows you to enjoy the experience without worrying about driving or chartering transportation. There is excellent lodging and dining all in a contained area.

In the "better" wineries (MHO), the personalities of the people in the tasting room is also part of the experience. A kind of enthusiasm and ambiance is created. You are sharing an experience with others beyond just having wine.

When I developed my system of Compliance to Commitment I talked about the Human Resources Pyramid created by Roger Deprey-

• What is my job?
• How am I doing?
• Does anyone care?
• What do we do?
• How are we doing?
• How can I help?

The authors of Do You Matter ask:

• Who are you?
• What do you do?
• Why does it matter?

Is is just me or do you see some parallels there?

So the "enlightenment" part comes in the concept that whether you approach it from the "people" perspective or the design perspective the conclusion is the same. Successful organizations build relationships, they don't engage in transactions. It is built into their processes rather than "engineered" over.

I was somewhat saddened to hear that one of the likely first casualties of the GM debacle will be Saturn. I remember when Saturn was cult like on the level of Harley. It was a culture designed from the ground up with the internal and external customer in mind. Their human resources systems were studied and copied and their customer satisfaction was on a par with Lexus. As they became more successful GM "fixed" them and demonstrated that culture eats strategy every time. In this case the GM engineering/finance culture crushed what was once Saturn.

A friend who left a large oil company told me that engagement isn't new, they have "done it" at her old company. Well, I hate to be a buzz kill, but it must have been "engineered" rather than designed in because the employees in the "stores" didn't get the message. If they have been immersed in that model they must have missed a few of the classes. To them I am definitely a transaction.

So perhaps it was the wine, but I think this culture by design and engagement thing has potential. It goes to stakeholders not shareholders and relationships not transactions. I like it.

As a consultant, teacher, and leader I would like to share the idea of organizations who seek commitment rather than compliance. I don't aspire to own it, but I think the idea of being kind of a "portal" to take organizations to a new place intrigues me. What do you think?

Shifting Paradigms- An Interesting Endeavor

So here I am again talking about shifting paradigms and why that is so critically important at this juncture. Based on my experiences of the last few years, but especially the last few weeks I thought I would share and discuss "the road less traveled".

As my partner brilliantly explained several months ago, a paradigm is how we see things. It represents our "filter" or belief system. As you might suspect it plays a huge impact on how we do our jobs, live our lives, and view change as either a threat or an opportunity.

One of my clients is engaged in paradigms shifts in two fundamental areas that are both very different, yet intertwined. They are involved in the "business" of philanthropy. Actively seeking donations and dollars from people to invest in the infrastructure of health care delivery. I talk about at least two major paradigm shifts because at minimum that is what we are dealing with.

The cost and delivery of health care in the U.S. has reached critical mass. You can debate where the "fault" lies, but at this stage does it really matter? We have millions of under-insured and uninsured in the system. As the economy continues to falter those numbers will increase, not decrease. In addition to the cost dimensions of the crisis we are reaching critical mass in yet another dimension of delivery- the availability of trained health care professionals at every level, from primary care physicians to nurses and other related skills.

We have relied historically on employer and government based systems to provide much of the care. As employers "get out of that role" we will see increased pressure on the government side. Health care organizations are also seeing more patients "present" or access care through the emergency room, the least efficient way for that to occur. It is also the most expensive and providers are being forced to "write off" more and more care. As the economy declines I fear that trend will increase rather than lessen.

The philanthropy model in many cases has the "grateful donor" as its core. The grateful donor is based on care being provided to a loved one or the person themselves and their willingness to give something back. There is also the approach of providing for the less fortunate as a sense of "noblesse oblige". My concern is that neither of these models addresses the root causes of the problem.

Another client, also in the health care "business" is engaged in an effort to address issues like cost management, efficiency, reduced reimbursements, and other issues as well. Like many businesses engaged in such a culture change the tools of benchmarking, cost reduction, lean delivery, and others are being evaluated and implemented.

Next week, I am going to have the opportunity to talk about Web 2.0 or "social networking" with a group of business people and why it is relevant to them.

What ties all of these things together is that each requires a paradigm change, a new way of looking at things. That change is behavioral and emotional, not just systemic.

I have written a great deal about the concept and criticality of engagement over the last few months. Engagement is the art and science of successfully executing a paradigm shift. Done successfully the organization enjoys significant competitive advantages in productivity, profitability, and sustainability. Done unsuccessfully or attempting to execute change without considering engagement and you have a melt down. Can you say Detroit or the financial services debacle?

I had the opportunity to read an interview with Roberto Sebutal, CEO of Itau Unibanco in the McKinsey Quarterly. I am attaching the link for you here: http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Change_Management/Transforming_a_high-performing_company_An_interview_with_Roberto_Setubal_2312

I would suspect that most of you like me, have never heard of him before. He is the CEO of a financial institution that by market capitalization represents one of the top 20 banks in the world.

He may be my new hero. The interview describes his decision to boldly embrace a new paradigm and embrace a change strategy in an organization that was performing well and considered highly successful both internally and externally. Mr. Sebutal was a visionary who saw the need for change and embraced it before his institution was in crisis. His strategy also embraced some things that would bring terror to the average Boardroom, among them:

• Decentralization of decision making to the lowest appropriate level.
• Creating forums for people involved in the decisions to have input and challenge "conventional wisdom" without fear of retaliation.
• Changing the human resource management systems to include; hiring "right", performance management, compensation delivery, and other key behaviors and metrics.
• Making commitment to the new culture mandatory for continued employment and either allowing or encouraging individuals who couldn't or wouldn't make the change pursue other options.
• Building transparency into the decision making processes for both employees and customers.
• Holding himself and his executive team personally accountable for role modeling the appropriate behavior.
• Recognizing it is a journey rather than an event.

When asked where the bank was in the transformation process he responded " we have been at the process for about three years, I see us as being about halfway there."

Mr. Sebutal didn't just execute a change program, he is leading a paradigm shift. The other interesting thing is almost all of the key initiatives he discussed are about people and relationships rather than about systems and numbers. He is creating commitment rather than compliance and building upon a foundation of trust rather than systems.

So my point is that the paradigms we are currently using are going to have to change. The old ones simply aren't relevant and they aren't working.

If you take a look at Sebutal's approach and my Compliance to Commitment model(TM) you might just see some parallels.......

Failure, Loss, and Other Character Builders

Steve Tobak, Jeffrey Pfeffer, and Stanley Bing are three of my favorite author/bloggers these days. All three are well respected authors with multiple books under the belt and the reputation and credibility to be very comfortable not being politically correct. As you might suspect the state of the current economy has given all three plenty of material to work with as they both proactively share their views on how we got here and respond to the questions of others.

All three have spent some time lately talking about leadership and character and what it takes to achieve and maintain true leadership stature. The topic of failure is especially an interesting one.
I spend a bit of time on the social networking site LinkedIn (have you seen what’s on TV these days) both asking and responding to questions. For those of you unfamiliar with it, LinkedIn is kind of FaceBook for those of us with 40 in our rear view mirror.

I have always been intrigued with what constitutes failure for different people so on Sunday evening I posted a three part question:
· What is your most significant “failure” to date?
· What did you learn from it?
· What if anything would you do differently?
Well, I got to tell you folks, did I apparently hit a hot button. Within 24 hours of my posting my question I had over 25 responses from all over the world! So far as of right now with less than 48 hours into it I am up to 46 answers and counting!
The answers themselves are very interesting. They range from philosophical to analytical with everything in between. About one in three actually answered all three of the sub-questions. Some of the responses were deeply sincere and intimate, they really gave me a brief window into the people behind the answer and I have added several new “connections” as a result.
Although I tried not to pre-bias the responses I received; I agree with Tobak, without “failure” you never really appreciate success and take the risks necessary to make meaningful progress. I also believe failure is when you stop trying and just embrace the status quo.

There was also a question about character on LinkedIn; are you born with it, or is it shaped over time. Once again I have a bias. You may have the attributes, but until they have been tested you really don’t know about your character.

One of the people I got to “meet” as a result of my question was an awesome young woman from Canada (I can say she is awesome because I checked out her profile on LinkedIn and got to read some of her questions and answers)
As part of our exchange she shared with me some of her own personal experiences about failure, loss, and the building of character.

A few years ago she had a beloved pet that had aged and developed health issues to the point where she and her mother thought it might be in the animal’s best interest to put it down. Among other issues the dog had gone completely blind. They chose not to and the great part of the story was the pet’s ability to adapt to its infirmity and persevere for two more years without too much deterioration in its quality of life. The story became even more compelling when a series of other events occurred in her life including:
· Her Mother’s diagnosis with cancer
· Major surgeries for both her father and father in law
· A diagnosis of infertility
She said she draws some of her inspiration from her conversation with her Mother about her (her Mothers’s) terminal diagnosis. Her mother told her “just as Baby (their pet) adapted, I will adapt and persevere”.
Currently her mother has continued to fight her disease and she has soldiered on through the other “speed bumps” that life has put in her path.
So where am I going with this. I believe in this time and in this place it is character and the willingness to learn from “failure” that will define true leaders, not MBA’s and technical skills. It is engagement and trust and relationships, not capital and technology. We have relied on those for too long and look where we are as a result.
True leadership and character and formed and tested through adversity. Show me someone who has never failed and I see either a leader; who recognizes that failure is when you quit, or a score keeper who plays not lose rather than to win.

I also think leadership comes as a gift from others; when you have lost and persevered you have started to build not only the “skills” to lead, but the empathy and compassion that true leadership requires. You don’t get that in graduate school, you get that in life.

As to my young friend I see real leadership in her future. She has suffered adversity and persevered, she has the courage to soldier on, and she has a wonderful articulate way of sharing her experiences as a way not to evoke sympathy, but rather to create empathy. That my friends is what true leadership is based on….

Looking Back- and Forward

I don't know about the rest of you, but I have found 2008 to be a very interesting year. The year started with my decision to return to consulting after a multi year hiatus. Even more interesting I decided to spend part of it recapturing my "roots" in the Southwest.
I decided in returning to consulting I also wanted to look at a different model- focus on creating engaged organizations and what it takes to build them and sustain them rather than just the usual projects.
I wrote and published my first book- people tell me that is a significant accomplishment. I tell them it took me thirty years to write the book, it took me several months to write it down.

The year also caused me to seek out and create connections with people all over the world through the use of social/business networking sites like LinkedIn and others. I have to tell you I have "met" some amazing people and created relationships that I will value for years to come. The value to me isn't necessarily commercial, it is the opportunity to engage with and exchange ideas with people from all over the world. I know I am much richer for it, I hope they are as well.
The current economic situation has definitely given us pause and hopefully motivation for introspection. We have seen this "coming" for some time and chosen to participate in collective cognitive dissonance, just pretend it wasn't there.

Maybe I had just been buried, but it also seems to me that 2008 has brought a profound resurgence of interest in employee engagement. Everybody seems to be talking about it and how to get it and keep it. I guess that is one of the ironies. In this time of crisis we are willing to do almost anything to re-stimulate the economy, even communicate with and engage our employees as partners rather than as just a cost of doing business. Technology and systems don't build and sustain long term success, relationships and people do.

We elected an African American president and saw a woman on the ticket for the Republican party, both historical firsts. We saw a female presidential candidate achieve another historical milestone with her candidacy.

2009 brings its challenges. The economic situation is one of the worst in the last 100 years. Being the optimist that I am I hope that it will also create a catalyst for doing things differently. Perhaps we will be willing to examine a new social contract between employer and employed with more appropriate balance in the rights and responsibilities of both parties. Maybe we will recognize that we live in a global economy and be more willing to appreciate and take into consideration what is going on in a global context rather than just our world.
Maybe we will even recognize that issues like health care, financial literacy, education, and other matters will require a collaborative effort between business, government, and individuals to fix.

For some reason I approach 2009 with the audacity of hope. I hope you do as well. Thank you for all of your support in 2008 and best wishes for 2009. It is up to each of us to decide how we apply the lessons of 2008. I hope we do so wisely.

Managing Whole Relationships

The last week has been interesting. The holidays always cause me to pause and reflect about the year that has passed and the year that lays ahead.
This week has been especially interesting because some things I have been working on for a while are approaching completion.

I have believed for sometime that we need to redefine our employment relationship in the U.S.
In many ways I think it resembles the ancient system of serfdom and royalty.
Organizations have replaced the royalty, but we expect "fealty" and "loyalty" in return for taking care of our employees. The concept of taking care of employees really bugs me. You don't take care of adults. You partner with them. You reach covenants and understandings about mutual expectations and mutual benefits. You exchange ideas and value. You hold each other accountable and you invest in relationships.
There may be leaders, but leadership comes from creating a meaningful vision and clarity and giving people a reason to follow you. It is not a hereditary right that comes with a title or position.

This week my first book went to the printer. People ask me how long I took to write it and I answer somewhat whimsically that it took my thirty years to write it, and about six months to write it down.

Over the last 30 years I have been a consultant, manager, executive, and I hope a leader.
My book is about those experiences and the things that I learned and the mistakes that I made. It is also about a new model that I believe in- a partnership model. We take care of each other.

I hope it is a good book. I have worked hard on it and I have been blessed with the patience and investment of a number of people who have helped me shape it and edit it and make it better. It is a reflection of our collective effort, not just mine.

We are faced with some challenging issues right now and for the foreseeable future. The world economy, health care delivery and costs, famine and terrorism, and a bunch of others.
I think we need to deal with these issues collaboratively.
We need to partner with our employees and communities and look for solutions that are different.
People are complicated and messy. Organizations take on all those issues and add their own. Societies just increase the scale.
2008 has been hard, but I have learned a lot and done things and met people that I probably wouldn't have without that catalyst.

I think I would like to spend 2009 working on knowing and appreciating "whole people" better and working with others to create new better models together.
I don't want to take care of people I want to share relationships and experiences with them. I don't want to complain about what is, I want to participate in what could be instead.
What do you want to do as you "wrap up 2008 and move into 2009?

Thoughts for Thanksgiving

For those of us in the U.S. today is Thanksgiving. Originally a day to recognize the first significant harvest of the "Pilgrims" landing in New England in many ways it has become lost as a commercial holiday- the day before "black Friday", the largest single retail day in U.S. marketing.
I would like to think of it more traditionally, as a day of reflection, of what we all have to be thankful for in our lives.
In our family every other year my wife's family gathers at our home. Although my parents have both passed away I get some vicarious pleasure from seeing the joy that comes from my Father in law as he gets to see his children and grandchildren assembled in one place.
My children will be joining us as well. At 18 and 22 they aren't children any more. Soon they will have their own families and their own traditions.
2008 has been an interesting year so far. I have returned to consulting after almost a seven year hiatus. I took the time to write the book I have always threatened to write. With the support of family and friends and the kind editing and gracious endorsement of my work I am preparing to formally publish it soon.
We saw a historic event in 2008. A woman and an African American competed for the nomination of a major party. The African American prevailed not only in winning the nomination of his party, but being elected as the President of the United States.
I like to think that pioneers like Abraham Lincoln, the Kennedy brothers, Dr. Martin Luther King and others who fought so hard for so long can look now and see that meaningful change is possible and that their sacrifices were not in vain.
We face on the deepest recessions that this country and perhaps the world has seen in generations, but there also seems to be a dawning recognition that we live in a world economy, not a local economy anymore. Perhaps we can use this as a catalyst moving forward to truly make meaningful changes on multiple levels.
This year has been challenging for me, but I see it as a new beginning and a platform for the future. We will each make a choice as to whether we move forward or backward.
I have much to be thankful for today. I hope you do too!

Leading In Times Of Change

It is always interesting to see what resonates with people. My last blog was loosely based on a comment from former President Bill Clinton about the power of example rather than the example of power. It wasn't about the election, it was about leadership.

Any of you that have read my various articles and information about the difference between compliance and commitment are familiar with my bias towards creating organizations that people embrace rather than organizations where they purely comply. I think creating those kinds of organizations is the key role of leadership.

Marcus Buckingham author of First Break All the Rules among other new age management "bibles" calls it creating clarity. Richard Rumelt, professor of management at UCLA's Anderson School of Management refers to it as removing the ambiguity, and cites it as the most important role in management. Roger Deprey, in his Human Resources Pyramid, describes the six questions every employee seeks to have answered.

This week I got to read something from another distinguished leader who I respect and admire- former Secretary of State and military commander General Colin Powell. He talked about us being in a place where people want to see leaders with passion, a clear direction, and a moral compass. He goes on with a great quote that I think bears repeating-"Every soldier or employee needs to know why their job is important, not why yours is. It's the leader's job to communicate this clearly; give them the tools to get the job done and to inspire them to want to do the things they must to accomplish the goals or the mission."

He goes on to share some other key insights," If a leader doesn't have the insight into the team to do something about the lesser performers, the team loses respect. It is always painful, but almost immediately after you have taken action a cloud lifts off the organization."

My friend and colleague, Joseph Skursky of Market Leader Solutions, captures this in his philosophy of Hire Hard, Manage Easy, and talks about the hidden costs of not removing non-performers from your organization because " recruiting a new person is so painful." To Powell's point, that is simply not true.
In these particularly turbulent times General Powell also leaves us with these key thoughts-
"...as a leader your job is to always believe things can get better. You are the leader, you set the example. You will know you are a good leader when your troops will follow you if only out of curiosity."
You have heard me describe this phenomena more than once- power is something you take or achieve with your office or position, leadership is something your earn.

And once again we see trust as the critical factor- as General Powell suggests" ... the leader's job is to keep the organization together with the Super Glue of trust."

Sound familiar? Not charisma, not systems, not technology, but trust.
Commitment is better than compliance. Engaged employees are a competitive advantage. Trust is the essential element in both.

Now more than ever our employees and our communities need us to step up and lead. We must set the example. We must make the hard decisions. We must look forward.

An Interesting Time

What ever happens tomorrow this has been a very interesting time for us in American politics and history. We nominated a mixed race African American for the presidency on one ticket, and placed a woman on the ticket of the other party.
We have seen registrations and voter turnout at unprecedented levels. We have also seen some disappointing behavior and some parochialism. This is the first election my son will be able to participate in. It has been an interesting experience talking with him and his friends about what the issues are that resonate with them and why they support one candidate or the other.
The "passion" or vehemence I have seen in this election has been something to behold as well. I am not a big fan of personal attacks from either party. I am not a fan of labeling either. Labeling to me is when you ascribe pretty negative motives to someone for a view point that is different than your own- whether that is sexism or racism or whatever.

If we take a look at other dynamics going on in the world we know that whoever is elected they come in to the role with a lot of issues facing them. The volatility of the U.S economic picture and in reality the world economy, the fear and anxiety that people have about leadership in general, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a bunch of others.
I hope they recognize that neither candidate or party has a clear "mandate". The polarity of the election means a lot of bridge building and attempting to reach out to your soon to be former opponent.

I think that the style of the candidates from how they ran their campaigns, to how they made the selections of their running mate was also an interesting exercise in leadership and communications.

I don't know about you, but personally I am ready for the campaigns to be over and for us to begin to move forward. I hope that we have learned something over the past few years and we are willing to move forward with creating a new model for this time and age, regardless of the outcome tomorrow.

Why We Need Nemawashi Now!

I just had an opportunity to read a study commissioned by a division of Global Knowledge on the implementation of change management strategies and I have to tell you that it reinforced many of my earlier beliefs. Another study conducted by the International Society for Performance Improvement which tracked "success" for change efforts ranging from strategy deployment to mergers and acquisitions in 49 different applications showed a success rate of 33%- at the risk of being overly dramatic that means that two thirds of those initiatives failed!

Now you are probably asking yourself- What caused these initiatives to fail and hat can we do to improve our chances of success? The majority of studies found two primary causes of failure:

• Employee resistance
• Lack of proper training

The employee resistance factors have been boiled down to three key areas; fear of job loss, fear of increased responsibility, and frustration with the process. As you might suspect, this employee resistance is by far the biggest impediment to successful implementation. The good news is that there are a number of things that can be done to improve your success rate, specifically they include:

• Recognize and account for the "people" side of change management.
• Invest in developing effective interpersonal and communication skills for front line management.
• Recognize that change management is a systemic element of every day reality and build it into your plans and tactics. It is not an initiative it is a fact of today's reality!
• Anticipate what and where your resistance points will be and plan for them.

We are dealing with people! Using buzz words like restructuring, reallocation, re-engineering, etc. may sound sexy, but at the end of the day you are dealing with people. This is our whole foundation of Compliance to Commitment(TM), you give people a chance to "join up" with you rather than attempt to impose a change. At the very foundation is relationships and trust.

I would venture to say that the events of the last few weeks have done little to create trust on the part of employees and the public. Two thirds of the initiatives fail because they don't address these issues. Which group do you want to be in, the third that implements successful change or the two thirds that fail?

You will never implement sustained change without this foundation.

Which Method Would You Choose?

A colleague of mine shared a great story with me that I thought would be worthwhile to share with others about the difference between compliance and commitment. The root of the word "manage" is apparently from an Italian word meaning to train a horse. Traditionally we have heard this refered to as "breaking" the horse or teaching it to submit to its master's will. You use a number of techniques to accomplish this:

• - saddling the horse and riding it until you wear it out and break its will
• -tying the saddled horse to a tree or post until it tires itself out
• -drowning the horse or similar techniques

A new process has emerged called gentling or "starting" the horse. This technique uses very different methodologies:

• - observing the horse carefully
• - familiarizing the horse gradually to the weight, smells,etc of the new experience
• -gaining the horses trust and willing agreement

Sometimes in a turbulent atmosphere we act like the first trainer. We see chaos and reluctance as rebellion and we seek to "break" the behavior. It may appear to be effective in the short term, but underneath is an attitude of fear and resentment.

I think that the first method is outdated and will not get you the results that you are looking for on a sustained basis. That's why Darby and I created New Paradigms. If you are interested in the "new" process, check out our case study at Compliance to Commitment.

MH

Managing a Succesful Culture Change

Is commitment really optional? If you are going to execute a meaningful culture change that sustains itself can you allow people to comply rather than commit over the long term? I don't think so.
In this era of individual freedom and "expression" I think we get carried away with our discomfort in saying these are our core values or how we do things and they are simply not optional, period. If you are a long term employee we will provide you with the resources you need to make a transition; such as our reasoning, training, coaching, and a reasonable transition period. I see a reasonable transition period assuming the other resources are in place as 3 to 6 months.
If you are a new employee I expect our recruitment and selection process to be clear enough that you understand and are prepared to embrace the culture day one.
I want to give employees a place where they can "join up" rather than just come to work, but in return I want and expect their commitment and engagement.
MH