The Green Flash

The "green flash" is the way that they refer to the last second as the sunset fades into the Caribbean. As I happen to find myself in Grenada, and the bar at my accomodations is aptly nameed the Green Flash Lounge I thought this would be a good title for my post on a couple of points.

I got the opportunity to present two management and leadership programs down here for a group representing a cross section of leadership staff ranging from front line leaders to senior managers. It has been a very interesting experience on a number of levels including both cultural from an ethnocentric standpoint and from the challenges and issues facing their business.

The client is in some ways a monopoly- they have essentially no competition on the island. What speaks to their receptiveness and their vision is even under those circumstances they are very passionate about improving their level of performance both internally and externally. They are engaged.

It has been a personal growth opportunity for me- to explore and try to understand the nuances of both their corporate and personal cultures and convey concepts that are important to them without presenting our North American practices as "truths", but rather concepts to explore.

I have not found them to be at all naive nor awestruck. They challenge, but do so politely and constructively. They participate with a real desire to gain understanding and appreciation, but retain pride in what they have accomplished to date and what their plans are for the future.

Wherever this assignment takes me I have to tell you that I will leave here with much more than I brought with me. I hope I get invited back, I still have much to learn.....

The Ethics of "Poaching"

I read an interesting article this morning about the ethics of poaching; not hunting animals out of season, but rather the idea of specifically recruiting or targeting key talent that works for another organization typically a competitor.

I have to tell you that my initial reaction was "what"? As the article went on it did differentiate between specifically targeting an organization with the intention of undermining them through recruitment of their key talent or recruiting with the intent of obtaining trade secrets or proprietary information, but short of that indicated it was ok. Thanks for permission.

It kind of takes to thinking that our lexicon has gotten to the place where we really have started to believe phrases like human capital. One small problem, our employees don't "belong" to us. We "rent" their knowledge, skills, and behaviors and for a period of time if we are skilled and lucky we create a bond of mutual loyalty because of respect and commitment, period.

I think the timing is especially interesting now that it looks like the economy may be picking up. I see a lot of questions out there from organizations about what they should be doing about retention in the face of a more robust economy. I advise prayer. I am only being semi sarcastic. I am stunned by organizations who do not make investments in engaging and retaining employees on an ongoing basis and then want to install a program to fix it when there are issues.

Employment at will is a concept that most employers will defend with the ferocity of Charlton Heston over the right to keep and bear arms- as long as it is balanced in their favor. They don't like it when employees see themselves as free agents.

I hear a lot about loyalty as well. I define loyalty pretty simply. We interact with trust and respect. We meet our commitments to each other and we take into consideration our actions on the impact of the others in the organization when making decisions, period. Out in the Wild West where I grew up we called it "riding for the brand". While I was sleeping in your bunkhouse and eating your food I was present, you got my honest effort. There were no life contracts or pledges of fealty.

I guess I am a career poacher. When I see people who are really good at their jobs and whose skills might be transferable to an organization I work with or for I feel comfortable bringing to their attention that if they are interested in exploring options I would like to talk with them.

As you know I am a huge believer in the concept of engagement. I guess my model is the best way to keep your employees from being "poached" is to create an environment where they don't actively seek or entertain other options because of the relationship of mutual respect and trust you have created. If my employees find another opportunity that they feel meets their needs or provides them with a chance to expand a skill base I wish them well if it is the right opportunity. You see I have found ex employees to be one of my best sources of future employees, if I treated them well they remember it and share it with their friends and associates.

So I guess with the exceptions of targeting or attempting to take trade secrets we need to acknowledge there is no such thing as poaching. Mr. Lincoln freed the slaves well over 100 years ago, people can't "steal" something from us we never owned in the first place.....

The "First" Engagement Initiative

Those of you who know me know that engagement, true engagement is an area or opportunity that I feel pretty strongly about (sorry Laurie). I think the emphasis is on true engagement. Engagement in my mind is defined as voluntary or discretionary effort that employees bring to their job everyday. True engagement is when that phenomenon spreads to your suppliers, your customers, and your community.

True engagement is accomplished using a number of tactics and strategies, but it is not a "program", it is a culture that lives everywhere not in HR. You don't accomplish it with pep rallies and reward and recognition programs by themselves. You build the culture and then you live it.

Another area that has intrigued me for a while and is taking on new dimensions in light of the health care debate is the relationship between personal competency and engagement. Personal competency is the stepchild key principle that was embedded into the original constitution, kind of a neglected cousin to personal property. Personal competency was the idea that each of us had the right and responsibility to manage our own futures, that we were not bound by our heritage or lineage. The key is the balance between right and responsibility. In a way doesn't that sound more like a partnership than a hierarchy? Doesn't that kind of sound like engagement in a way?

I have talked about personal competency at length and how to great extent with the coming of the Industrial Revolution a variety of forces combined so that we exchanged our personal competency for a kind of "corporate feudalism", we gave up our "equality" for security like corporate or organizational pension plans, health care benefits, etc. The industrialists were all about this model. Dumbing down skill sets and creating structures based on "compliance" is easier, in the short term. Our Founding Fathers were not real big on the concept of corporations, but that is another story.

When I look at our current situation as it relates to health care I see similar potential issues related to personal competency. I want to go on record as saying that I believe access to basic health care is a right that everyone should have access to, and I do mean everyone. The fact that we have one of the most advanced and expensive health care systems in the world and our morbidity and mortality rates put as at like number 30 is embarrassing to me (think countries like Cuba and Costa Rica). I also believe that access to basic care is good business and good for the overall economy. We are spending upwards of 10% of our GNP on health care on our "stellar" results and the number is getting bigger, not smaller. A big part of that is that people without access to preventative care get their care in ERs, the least efficient and most expensive way to provide it. Since they can't pay for it the costs get passed along to those who can pay, kind of like shrinkage in retail.

Here is another data point for you to consider. According to the American Medical Association sixty percent of health issues (and therefore costs) are related to lifestyle rather than hereditary. In plain terms that means we cause it! The issue is also that if I have not;

• Participated meaningfully in paying for the costs of care for me and my dependents
• Been provided with any meaningful information about what I or my dependents can do to improve my health or reduce expenses
• Been incentivized to change my behavior
• Been educated on the impact of escalating health care expenditures on other parts of the business

then the chances I am "invested" in making changes to my behavior are pretty minimal. No personal competence or engagement here folks!

As a former HR executive I can also tell you that most organizations strategy to deal with the rising costs of benefits is to;

1. Cost shift to employees through higher deductibles, co pays, etc
2. Reduce benefit offerings
3. Eliminate categories of employees from coverage

Is it just me or do these methods seem to miss the root causes as well?

I am not going to belabor that point and make this about health care.

I guess my point is that maybe just maybe the Founding Fathers intended personal competency to be the first real engagement initiative. My personal engagement model is based on five elements:

• Respect
• Responsibility
• Information
• Equitable rewards
• Mutual loyalty

Is it just me, or do there seem to be some parallels between that and personal competency? Maybe personal competency and true engagement are both about doing things with rather than to people ?

Were the Founding Fathers really that visionary, I wonder......?

Why Do We Call It "Good" Friday?

I realize this post may offend some, so I will ask in advance for you to recognize my intent is not to challenge or ridicule any one's beliefs. I would ask that to borrow a phrase from my colleague and teacher John Scherer, http://www.scherercenter.com/ that you give me the benefit of MRI , or most respectful interpretation.

What instigates my post is a post I read from another colleague at http://www.punkrockhr.com/ about the day and what it represents and my own thought processes over the years.

This is the day that we Christians "celebrate" or acknowledge the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Let's be clear it wasn't just an execution it is a particularly brutal ritual meant to inflict the most pain and humiliation on the victim as possible. Biblical accounts describe it in vivid detail; the trial, the scourging, the crucifixion itself and his agony on the cross as his mother watched her only son suffer and perish.

There are many who blame the Jews for the crucifixion even though the sentence was imposed and carried out by the Roman governor. Much violence has been committed against the Jewish people based on this event.

Even if you are not a Christian I would ask you how the ritual torture and execution of a man who was by all accounts a kind and gentle spirit who spoke about concepts like empathy and inclusiveness and withholding judgement of others represents anything "good"? I don't get it.

The life and death of Jesus is one of our great mysteries and great controversies. Some accounts even say that there was no Barabbas, the "zealot" who was released in Jesus's place. That this account was created as to not portray Jesus as a political activist who was executed because of the threat he represented to the established hierarchy of both the Jews and the Romans.

Jesus said some scary things; like the idea that there is a higher spiritual authority, that we have a duty and responsibility to our fellow man, and that we should be hesitant to judge others until we examine our own motives and behaviors. I also see the gospel Jesus preached as one of commitment rather than compliance. He didn't demand you accept him or his teachings, he invited you to "join up". While he did say that those who didn't eventually accept his teachings would not enjoy the benefits he didn't threaten or condemn. He invited and forgave.

One of my other brilliant colleagues, Reut Schwartz Hebron http://www.kindexcellence.com/ has a model which includes other things the ability to "see reality", to appreciate a worldview and perspective other than our own without feeling threatened. It would appear that Jesus was an early practitioner.

I will admit to not being religious, but I like to think I am spiritual. I observe how much of the controversy and strife with religion is associated with this unwillingness to "see reality". Many of the various denominations of the Christian faiths are based on things like his birth, his divinity, and even his relationship with his followers.

The Catholic Church and many of its followers were abhorred by the DaVinci Code and its inference that perhaps Mary Magdalene was not only not a prostitute, but Jesus's wife and partner. I remember reading a book by Irving Wallace, The Word, much earlier that described a similar Jesus as a man who was very human and beautiful in spirit and empathy rather than countenance. The Church condemned that one too.

I will admit to being troubled a bit by the current Pope, who seems more interested in compliance than commitment, especially when I see some of what is being uncovered. Again don't mistake this as a condemnation of the Catholic Church. I don't know that the issues we are seeing don't exist in every large diverse body of people from corporations to political institutions.

I am not trying to change any one's beliefs, but I am reminded of a quote by John Lennon when asked about a Beatles reunion replied, " the Beatles are a little bit like Jesus, people should spend more time thinking about what he said than who he was."

Over 2000 years ago he talked about tolerance, inclusiveness, empathy, compassion, and giving people the opportunity to choose to join rather than comply. That still resonates with me, but I have to be honest referring to the day they tortured and ritually executed the person who shared those ideas "Good" Friday still troubles me. What do you think.......?

I Hope You Dance

Sometimes when I need to clear my head I like to get in my car and go for a drive. Somewhere off the beaten track in the country or along the coast. When I do that I like to listen to music. I have absolutely no talent in that arena. I can't write music, play an instrument, or sing a note; but boy I appreciate good music. It tells a story.

As I was driving yesterday I had a chance to listen again to one of my favorite tunes I Hope You Dance by country star Leanne Womack. The setting of the song is a mother singing to her very young children about the things they will face and the choices they will encounter and her wish that "if you get the chance to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance." In the song she explores things like falling in love, staying true to your principles, and recognizing your relative place in the universe.

I think this is some of what people like Daniel Pink are referring to when they talk about flow, or when Seth Godin talks about each of pursuing our art. Flow as I have discussed previously is that spectacular place where our destination is clear, the balance between effort and result is in harmony and we have the autonomy to pursue of our own volition. I wonder if it was also this goal that the Founding Fathers meant when they talked about "the pursuit of happiness" and the concept of personal competency; that balance of the right and responsibility to be competent and self reliant.

As Ms. Rimes sings there is no guarantee built into this pursuit, it is the right and the decision to pursue the journey that is important.

I have to say when I read statistics that say that 55% of Americans are dissatisfied in their jobs, only 30% describe themselves as engaged, and we are spending $5 trillion on turnover and another $200 billion on "presenteeism" it doesn't sound like too many people are "dancing".

I wonder if creating engaged environments is a way to let people "dance"? I keep reading that clear expectations, respect, fairness and equity, and shared values are the keys to engagement and productivity. Is it just me or does this kind of sound like the "dancing" that both Leanne and the Founding Fathers had in mind?

What if those of us who build organizations or lead them built the opportunity to "dance" into our models? You know things like clear expectations, balanced feedback, autonomy, respect, and connection to something larger.

It seems to me that the Industrial Revolution, Frederick Taylor, and the Calvinist work ethic don't leave much room for "dancing". I think it is also okay for "dancing" to include work. Although I have seen dancers of all kinds demonstrate sprezzatura I recognize the practice and hard work that went into achieving that level of performance. It isn't for the faint hearted.

Maybe I have stretched my metaphors too broadly, but I have decided to heed Leanne's advice and look for my opportunities to "dance" and to encourage others to "dance" as well.

So I guess my wish for all of you is that "if you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance"........

Finding "Flow"

Lately as you have probably noticed I have been talking and blogging a lot about things like sprezzatura and congruency. I think perhaps as the title of this piece implies I am pining to find my "flow".

Seth Godin, Daniel Pink and others talk about flow, that place where everything is clicking and hours just seem to disappear. It may happen at work, when you are enjoying an athletic activity, or the company of others. We have all experienced it and it is what "brings us back".

I kind of like to think of engagement as flow on an organizational level. Groups of people who become immersed in what we are doing and enjoying it to the point that the processes and the results blur. We see the value and the values alignment and so we provide our discretionary effort, that last bit that puts us over the top.

I don't think that organizations or individuals can maintain a state of flow constantly, but I think we can provide environments where we see it and experience it frequently. As I allude to I think it is much more about providing an environment than "direction".

Godin describes that each of us has our "art" embedded" in us somewhere. It doesn't mean we were born to paint or make music or even be a crafts person of some kind, but there is something we were born to do.

I think I like like Godin because of two primary reasons above others:

• Like me he feels like Frederick W. Taylor, the "father" of scientific management, contributed to a model that has repressed the human spirit for multiple generations
• He is one of the only other authors I have read of late that actually draws upon and and mentions Monty Roberts, the original "horse whisperer", and his concept of "joining up" rather than compliance as a model for interpersonal and organizational relationships.

As you know I feel like concepts like lean manufacturing, six sigma, and others are inherently self limiting because they do not take into account the "human" dimension. You don't see anywhere in those models where they talk about art or flow or sprezzatura. It is about consistency and numbers and process. Probably makes my friend Frederick Taylor orgasmic in his grave!

I am pleased when I see that the younger generations are demanding more of the opportunity to find "flow". They call it different things like work life balance, and autonomy, or others; but at the root they are seeking if not demanding environments that provide them with at least that opportunity.

So I guess at the end of the day whether you want to call it "flow", or sprezzatura, or congruency, or engagement why are we so afraid of it? The "numbers" show that how ever you label it the results in key performance areas are vastly superior to the "old" ways of doing things.

Isn't it time to embrace a new model- especially when we can see the "proof in the pudding"?

Achieving Spezzatura

I enjoy Seth Godin. He challenges you and conventional wisdom and pushes you to examine your life and expectations.

As I have mentioned previously I recently finished his new book - Linchpins, about the people who are really the most critical in our organizations. Godin argues and I agree that the most important skills in any organization are the skills it takes to bind people together and convert them from a group into a team with a shared vision and goals. He also points out that linchpins don't value compliance very much. They value their "art" and the work. Unfortunately our current system has managed to institutionalize compliance in almost every aspect of our society from education to the world of work. He goes so far as to say the educational system was built to provide an army of compliant serfs to staff our "factories"; factories not just in terms of manufacturing, but computer programming and administrative functions. Anything where standardization and "process" are king.

He also argues that this standardization hurts rather than helps in the long term. When I look at the level of engagement world wide coupled with turnover and job dissatisfaction I am inclined to agree.

Sprezzatura is an Italian word that translates into being able to do your craft without a lot of visible effort- with grace and elan rather than sweating and grunting. It probably causes people with a strong Calvinist ethic to writhe uncomfortably in their chair.

When I watched the women's figure skating competition for the gold medal I think sprezzatura was what I saw exhibited by the young woman from Korea, it was not just that she performed a brilliant routine it was that she was so graceful and elegant you almost forgot how difficult those moves were to accomplish.

My personal goal is to achieve sprezzatura in my work. It has caused me issues in my "corporate life". I have actually had more than one supervisor criticize me because it didn't look like I was working "hard" enough. I asked them if there was an issue with my work or output and they indicated there wasn't, but one actually commented, "I never see you sweat".

I like the idea of organizations and people I work with experiencing sprezzatura, the work is performed and expectations are met , but in such a way that it seems effortless and elegant. It creates an opportunity for engagement not only for those doing the "work", but those enjoying the benefit.

Commitment or engagement is where employees "join up" rather than comply. They come into their organizations and their lives with a connection to both the work and the vision of the organization. They are in congruence. The studies say that this engagement can be correlated to higher results and benefit all key performance indicators. Maybe in some ways these organizations are allowing their employees to enjoy a level of Sprezzatura.

So I would leave you with a couple of thoughts:

• What would sprezzatura look like for you personally?
• Would you rather have your employees work hard, or achieve sprezzatura?

I know what my answers are......

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?

What "Type" Are You?

Greetings from San Diego. I have the opportunity to be out here and meet with a group of colleagues that I deeply respect to talk about new ways to motivate and work with people.

During my trip I have had a chance to catch up on a little reading and explore some of the work of two of my favorite social and business "system" commentators, Daniel Pink and Seth Godin.

My question comes from a model/theory that Pink explores in his book Drive -the surprising truth about what motivates us. Perhaps the reason I enjoyed the book so much is because what Pink describes and what I believe are in such close sync.

He also tees off on one of my favorite targets- Frederick W. Taylor, the "father" of scientific management. This is the theory that non management people are not terribly intrinsically motivated so productivity is best optimized by routinizing their tasks.

Pink's type "I" argues that at least some part of us is driven by needs for autonomy, learning, and purpose. He doesn't take the position that all work and all people fit this model, but that many do. He even goes further and uses the "P" word, Purpose and suggests that most of us seek this with varying degrees of energy. Kind of resonates with the concept of focusing on what "matters" doesn't it.

If you haven't yet read the book I commend it to you. In addition to stimulating your thinking he also provides some "templates" for both organizations and individuals.

Seth Godin's latest work - Linchpin is another fascinating read. He explores that a new category of critical "player" is emerging in organizations. Traditionally we had labor and management and the lines were pretty clear. Linchpins are those people who can connect groups and individuals.
Their skills are in communication, building trust, and relationships; not sciences or technology. Kind of sounds like they are building engagement doesn't it? He even uses words like obedience aka compliance and how we built it into our work and social systems and the costs we are experiencing because of it. I especially see this represented in the U.S. labor law infrastructure; most of it was written in the 40's and 50's with little meaningful change since. If you are familiar with it you know that it is highly structured and based on an adversarial model.

Any of you that know me or my orientation know that concepts like working with people, creating engagement, and related models speak to my heart; but I think anyone in any organization would benefit by exploring the concepts these two discuss.

One of my favorite quotes talks about "employees being physically, emotionally, and psychologically impelled. They gladly give up other choices."

Maybe it is just me, but that sounds pretty exciting. What do you think.....?

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.

What Defines Us?

A little over 90 days ago the recruitment and selection process for the University of Oregon football team didn't look very good. The brand new coach started his season with a loss and one of his top players punched out a member of the opposing team on national television.
The press of course made sure that the "punch" got plenty of airtime.

Many begin denouncing the selection of the new coach. Over the next two weeks he lost two more starters to injuries. The season looked pretty grim. Then something interesting began to happen. The coach talked to the players about the incident and whether or not they wanted to let it define them. He made a decision to suspend the player from participating in the game, but not from being on the team. The player was told he would remain on scholarship and be allowed to practice, but not allowed to play. Several weeks later the coach indicated that if the player met certain academic and behavioral conditions he could be reinstated; which he was later in the season. The critics of course labeled this as the plan all along and denounced the coach and the program. Of course they have chosen to overlook the fact that the reinstated player saw his first playing time last night in the final regular game of his season. Some claim it was what the team needed to win so the coach sacrificed his integrity for the sake of the win.

I say really? The young man who stepped up and took his place set a national record for rushing yards as a freshman. There were two games; one we lost and one we won in overtime where the reinstated player didn't play. I think perhaps instead a coach made a decision to give a young man an opportunity to play for the last time in front of his home crowd.

The team is headed for the Rose Bowl for the first time in fifteen years. They are the undisputed champions of the PAC 10. The coach makes no apologies for his decisions.

A number of players stepped up to make this season happen. When I see how the team reacted to the opening loss, the loss of starters, the ability to play through the distractions, and the joy and appreciation from a young man whose coach decided to invest in him rather than throw him away I think that says much more about this team and this coach. Detractors will say we needed him to win- a record of 9-2 going into the game says otherwise.

The press will relish this opportunity to play the "punch" video over and over, just as they will torture Tiger Woods for the next few weeks. I think what defines you is not whether or not you make mistakes or errors in judgement, but where you go from there.

So I guess I would leave you with this question- what defines you? Is it your successes, your failures, or your "whole person"?

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?

The Power Of Relationships

As you all know I agree with Margaret Wheatley that the most important influence in organizations is relationships; not systems, not technology, but relationships.

I had the occasion to join a friend last evening with a friend and colleague of his I hadn't previously met. I found his friend to be charming, personable and very articulate. As our discussion turned to the inevitable " so what business are you in", he said that he worked for an organization that distributes a pharmaceutical type of product that is manufactured in Europe. What was especially interesting was that he shared their "distribution" network was almost exclusively based on relationship selling; no large sales force , no "cold calling". It is based on trust and referral.

A week or so ago I mentioned an article by Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford. He opined that much of the issue with health care in the United States is in many ways relationship based; most Americans rely on their employer for health care and for economic security. Compared to other countries our "safety net" is pretty small. He talked about the effects of stress about their employment and the accompanying systems like health care tied to employment and the direct correlation to health care issues. I agree with him.

I read some articles and listened to a couple of "idea casts" on BNET this week that illustrated the same thing from a different angle- the relationship between employees and leaders and how in these times especially employees watch their leaders for any sign of positive or negative events or signs. They do that normally, but in these times it is exacerbated to the nth degree. Marcus Buckingham says the most important attribute of leadership is clarity- people want to believe their leaders have a vision.

My own personal research validates information published by Peppers and Rogers, BlessingWhite, Gallup, and others about the power of engagement. I am talking about true engagement which includes customer, employee, shareholder, and stakeholder. Organization's with high engagement outperform their competitors consistently and by an order of magnitude. Engagement is about relationships.

I have written and spoken a lot lately about social networks and their increasing importance in communications strategy. I believe that social networking is about relationships.

I have also written and spoken about the "social contract". In historical times the poor were tied to the wealthy. They literally "belonged" to the property or estate for hundreds of years. The American "experiment" was all about eliminating that. You could come here and reinvent yourself.
You could homestead a piece of property of start a business. Then we ran out of frontier. Consistent with the rest of the world the Industrial revolution occurred. We exchanged the value of personal competence for the promise of "security" in return for "obedience" The power of the great capitalist was tempered only by the labor movement. That was about relationships,
however dysfunctional.

The "world" economy changed that social contract. American industry was not always dominant, our quality suffered and correspondingly so did our market share. Interestingly much of the "new" management models like lean manufacturing and TQM have very strong relationship components to them. U.S. companies retreated from economic security in return for "loyalty". Traditional pension plans are almost obsolete. The parental relationship between employers and employed relative to health care is in crisis mode. Our health care model is parental. We don't address root causes of costs, we shift them around. People don't want to share responsibility for their health or the costs of treating them. That is a relationship, although another dysfunctional one.

I am not suggesting that a "parental" model is appropriate. Anybody that has ever heard me speak, worked with me, or read any of my writing knows better. I rather like the concept of "personal competence" and relationships founded on mutual respect and honesty between employer and employed, taxpayer and government, supplier and customer, and individuals. A relationship based on respect, information, and mutual responsibility and built on a foundation of trust. Maybe I am just nostalgic or misguided, but I think that is what the Founding Fathers meant so many years ago when they formed this country.

Tomorrow is Independence Day, maybe a good day to reflect on what they meant and the critical relationships in each of our lives. I think that is what I'll do, how about you?

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?

Tell Me A Story......

For those of you that are on LinkedIn you know that I was working on a presentation for a group of executives on the topic of Web 2.0 or "social networking".

I had the opportunity to share my thoughts with the group yesterday, so now I am taking the opportunity to share my perspective with you and seek your perspective.

In short, social networking is about relationships and trust, not about technology!

I want to state for the record that I am certainly no tech whiz (I type with two fingers). I am no "hipster" as I am a 52 year old white guy.

The reason I say tell me a story is because I believe that social networking is going back to the future. Once upon a time there was no media, no newspapers, and very few books. In fact the vast part of the population was illiterate, and the controlling powers liked it that way.

We relied on an "oral" tradition. We passed along stories and legends from one person to another. We relied on relationships. I would submit that social networking is a return to that model, passing along information to each other.

As I have talked, written and blogged about the need for a new social contract I have consistently talked about three foundational concepts:

• Engagement is a far superior environment to any other in a business or organizational setting.
• The foundation of all meaningful organizational systems is relationships between people.
• Trust is the essential element of functional relationships and engagement.

The bottom line is you will never have engaged relationships with your employees, your customers, or your community without trust. Much of the "new" generations have lost trust in our current relationship infrastructure and models.

Management expert Gary Hamel indicates that among other things the "Facebook" generations embrace a number of new "principles" that you need to be aware of:

• Contribution counts for more than "credentials"
• Hierarchies are natural not prescribed.
• Power comes from sharing information not hoarding it.
• Opinions compound and are "peer" reviewed.
• Users can veto most policy decisions.

If you take a look at these things they represent pretty profound differences from how management and leadership is taught and practiced. To quote popular songwriter John Mayer (for those of you unfamiliar with his music he was the guy that "dumped" both Jennifer Anniston and Jessica Simpson, if neither of them is familiar to you then you live in a cave so it doesn't matter) "when they own the information they can twist it all they want".

And we do; the biggest concern about social networking I hear from members of the "greatest generation" and "boomers" is "how do I control what they say about me on blogs, etc?" the answer is you don't! You participate and contribute you don't control.

When I created my compliance to commitment model the third "pillar" is information. It is critical and the emerging generations have unprecedented access to it. Social networking is also based on the most powerful force in the universe (in my opinion), the power of relationships.

When you have heard me talk about the "new" engagement model you have seen the five levels described by BlessingWhite:

• Satisfaction
• Loyalty
• Recommendation
• Best Product/Practices
• Excitement and Pride

At the risk of being overly simplistic, I don't think you can create the higher levels without creating a relationship.

When you see how social networks describe those relationships they use words like "friend" and "connection". There is an implication of trust and shared experience.

For me when I write, blog, and speak it is always with that intent; to build and sustain relationships and trust. To inform, to share, and to solicit other viewpoints and perspectives.

So I will leave you with a couple of thoughts;

• Engagement is the most powerful tool that organizations have to increase productivity, profitability, and sustainability.
• Engagement is built on relationships and relationships are built on trust. Don't try to "sell" your idea, share a story and invite others to share theirs.
  

I am going to keep building "lighthouses" and telling "stories". I hope as I share them we will understand and join the "new" generations and build on trust and shared values. Commitment is better than compliance, period.

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.......

Yes, Virginia We Still Need Leaders!

I saw question on LinkedIn this week that really kind of caught me off guard. It was asking why we can't outsource management like other "non-core" functions.
That explains a lot to me about where we are in our current relationships between stakeholders and the financial crisis. One response to that question was that we already had outsourced management- their role is to represent the "owners" interest in interacting with customers.
Hmm, not much of a stakeholder viewpoint there.

I read a couple of excellent articles on BNET this week. The first was by Jeffrey Pfeffer, the professor and author from Stanford. He was talking about the real lessons we should be learning from the Detroit meltdown. He points out that indirectly the leadership of the auto industry has inferred that much of the issue can be laid at the feet of the UAW- that paying for health care and retirement benefits represents $1500 to $2000 per vehicle. He examined it a little deeper and said he believes the bigger issue is the $6000 per vehicle difference in revenue per vehicle between Detroit and Japan! He said he got those numbers from an industry report that is no longer published, because of resistance from the Big three.

Pfeffer says the real problem is one of desirability; American production vehicles are not as desirable so the big three has relied on incentives to create sales rather than design innovation, quality and other differentiators. He also talks about the the billions that GM and Chrysler paid out to appease shareholders. The Japanese reinvested in better equipment, better technology, and financial reserves. His indictment is that the people running Detroit (and Wall Street) have been obsessed with the numbers to the detriment of listening to customers and employees.

Steve Tobak talks about similar leadership failures in high technology and other industries- can you say AIG or the financial services sector? One of the things I have noticed over the last few months is a resounding silence around personal accountability from industry "leadership". He goes on to say we need to get it- we are not a global monopoly anymore. Customers have choices and will act on them.

We blame it on the economy, we blame it on the unions, and now we are itching to blame it on the Chinese for buying up our debt!

I have talked before about true engagement, your customers and your employees, and the resulting benefits. I have also discussed the issue Pfeffer focuses on ; we need real leadership, not management by the numbers. I am not suggesting that numbers aren't an important consideration, but I would submit if you focus on the core activities you need to create true engagement the numbers will follow.

The role of the leader is to create clarity for the entire organization, the role of management is to remove the ambiguity between the larger vision and the individual employee's job. If we have gotten to the stage where we truly believe that we can outsource those things we truly are in deep trouble.

Creating the Perfect "Brew"

I had a chance this week to spend some time with my very creative and talented sister in law. She works in the internal communications area in the adult beverages industry; they make beer, very good beer.

Her role is to assist in crafting the messages for their internal employees to understand the values and mission of the organization and how their individual and collective roles fit into it.
We were talking about the parallels between making beer and crafting a great message- it isn't just simply a recipe. All the right ingredients without that something "else" and you just have beer, not great beer. All the slogans and mission statements and team building without that something else and you have a good organization, but not a great one.

Her charter is to help her organization create extraordinary brands and she and her colleagues identified six elements that they feel are essential to accomplishing that objective. I would go further and say that like congruency and other concepts I have shared on this blog and other places these elements speak not just to beer, but have a dimension of universal application to them. These are the elements:

• A defining brand truth. Think about the concept of a defining brand truth. It articulates value statement not only to your customers, but also to your employees. It allows them to commit rather than merely comply.
• A set of in transient principles. Great brands refuse to compromise on their principles. They may change a process or a look, but they retain their essence.What they represent is foundational and consistent.
• Great brands are iconic. Think about great brands. Brands like Porsche, Mercedes, Xerox, Kleenex, McDonald's, Starbucks and others. They are a benchmark. Their "brand" is instantly recognizable.
• They create and reinforce an experience. Think about that. Great brands literally create an expectancy. You don't just go there or dine there, you experience them in a variety of ways.
• They are inspirational and aspirational. As we have talked about with the new definition of engagement a great brand creates a pride of affiliation. Employees and customers take pride in their association with the organization, they champion the product or brand. They become benchmarks.
• Great brands are enduring. They continue to deliver value to their stakeholders; shareholder, employee and community.

I am struck by the parallels between their elements and those described by BlessingWhite and others in achieving engagement. To operate consistently within the framework created by her and her colleagues is not for the faint hearted. The elements are systemic, you can't do one or two of these things you must do them all and you must do them consistently.

These elements are also built upon a foundation of relationships. They are based on interactions of people. Technology and systems will not create this alignment, they can only reinforce or erode the elements.

She is a passionate advocate for her "brand". She believes in it and works very hard to articulate the principle behind it to others. She "gets" engagement in a very visceral as well as intellectual way. She is committed rather than compliant. She also recognizes that as skilled as she is in communications that the real engagement will occur not in articulating, but rather living the brand promise. Every employee will look to their boss for consistency with these values. She is an explorer rather than a mapper!

I like their elements, I think like the five elements of moving from compliance to commitment (respect, responsibility, information, rewards and loyalty) they are clear and simple without being simplistic. They focus on relationships rather than abstracts. I especially admire their organizations commitment to crafting and communicating this message of who and how to all of their employees giving them a chance to "join up" rather than simply comply.

So I would be curious, what are the "ingredients" in your particular brew? Are you committed to creating and sustaining an extraordinary brand or content to be one of the "pack"?

Thanks for sharing with me Mel. You gave me some great insights and I am excited to see people and organizations recognizing that only through engagement will be be able to build the iconic organizations that so many of us claim to aspire to. Your "brand" is lucky to have such a passionate advocate!

A Convergence of Thought

So another interesting week. I enjoyed the desert, but I didn't go to Las Vegas. The stock market has been mostly up the last few days. Is this a trend or are we grasping at straws?
I really like the website BNET.com. It typically has great articles on it. Sometimes it is practical advice, sometimes it is just interesting insights. I enjoy the McKinsey Quarterly as well.

This week I had a chance to read two different pieces that caused me to pause and muse. The first was a piece by Jeffrey Pfeffer, the professor of management and author from Stanford University. Professor Pfeffer was lamenting and commenting on the loss of personal accountability in our culture. His point was how everyone from politicians to business leaders don't seem to accept any personal responsibility for either their actions or the impact of their action or inaction on their companies, their employees, and their shareholders. I don't think this is limited to politicians and business leaders. This may be impolitic, but right now it isn't very popular to assign any of the responsibility for the housing crisis to the consumers who purchased real estate far beyond their ability to pay for it in the hopes that "appreciation" would create enough value to protect them. I am not excusing the bankers who made the loans, I am just sharing some of the responsibility.

I kind of see the situation with AIG in a similar light. We have the CEO saying I know that we drove our business off the cliff and the taxpayers have bailed us out for billions of dollars, but we promised these executives millions of dollars in bonuses for "performance" that has nothing to do with reality or share holder value. I have to pay it out.

I hear employees,students, and regular "folks" taking the same approach. It isn't my fault.

I got to read another interesting piece with a woman who runs a philanthropic venture fund. Jacqueline Novogratz, CEO of the Acumen Fund, has a perspective I find both intriguing and inspiring. Her position is that traditional philanthropic giving can rob people of their self respect and create a kind of codependency. She actually invests philanthropic contributions in for profit businesses to create a return. She even goes further and suggests giving away services, even basic services is enabling rather than empowering. She uses the example of the slums as an experiment in capitalism. She describes the bartering and trading that goes on among even the most destitute.

Any of you that have had a chance to read my ideas on moving from compliance to commitment know that one of the key principles embedded there is the principle of respect. Respect for your self and respect for others. You need to respect yourself enough to engage and to perform the tasks of your job and your life to the best of your ability. We need to respect others enough not to make excuses for their shortfalls. We all have limitations, but there is a profound difference in recognizing that I will never play in the NBA and my expecting society to take care of me.

My friend and colleague Reut Schwartz-Hebron takes a similar approach with her model of KindExcellence. She feels and I agree that you need to create a balance of the two. They are inextricably linked.

I had a chance to work with my son on a paper discussing Aristotle's concept of moral virtues. Aristotle describes the difference between three different dimensions; faculties which he would describe as innate, emotions, which we endeavor to control, and moral states. His position is that a virtue must be a cognitive choice and it must be on a continuum. We must find the "golden mean". It must be learned and practiced.

All of these things converged for me with the concept of personal competence. They all embed rational, thoughtful behavior and personal responsibility. Aristotle went so far as to say that the pursuit of virtue is really the only thing that distinguishes us from other plants and animals. We are conscious. We make choices and we accept accountability for those choices.

Maybe I am reaching, but we seem to have entered a space where we debate whether leaders are "born" or taught. We seem to want to absolve ourselves individually and collectively for responsibility for outcomes.

Our economy is in turmoil, but maybe Pfeffer, Novogratz, and Aristotle are right. If we look to the government and/or philanthropy in its traditional form to "fix" things have we stripped ourselves of personal competence and dignity. I wonder.

Tipping Your Sacred Cows

I had a chance to do some reading from three different sources this week and all three in their own way examined some "sacred cows". Sacred Cows are those written or unwritten things that we just won't consider changing or even discuss changing.

One of my colleagues and mentors, Ty Warren of Savium, wrote a great book he titled White Hat Leadership. While it is a great book and I recommend you read it all, I especially liked Ty's discussion of two different personality and leadership styles: Explorers and Mappers. The concept of the explorer is pretty self explanatory. These are the idea people, the people who defy convention with charisma and the "big" ideas.

People like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates would probably be described as explorers.

Mappers on the other hand are those individuals who follow the map or implement the direction. They are the stabilizers.

In my experience few people want to be a mapper. We have almost defined leadership and explorer to be the same. Ty and I disagree with that premise. Both of us, he in his book White Hat Leadership and I in mine Managing Whole People, talk about the concept of transition. By that we believe that particular leadership styles and competencies are not only valuable, but critical depending on where the organization is in its life cycle and operating environment. We also talk about how while we adore the concept of explorers most of our succession models are based on Mapping. Look at how many of our CEOs are drawn from finance or engineering. Those are mapping disciplines! I was a practicing HR executive for years. HR practitioners worship concepts like consistency like a sacred trust. Sounds like mapping to me!

I want to make two points here; first, I am not advocating that only explorers should lead. In fact to the contrary explorers become restless and impatient. In many cases their role should be transitional.

My second point may seem contrary. We are in one of the worst economic declines we have ever experienced. Doing what we have always done contributed to getting us here. Do we want to count on that to get us out? This may be the season for explorers.


My second reading came from some articles on BNET. The first one dealt with re engineering management. The authors suggested five ideas to consider:

• Management's work should serve a higher purpose. Oh my, management should actually look beyond the bottom line and market share! They go so far as to say it should concern itself with achieving socially significant goals. Could they be talking about health care, education, homelessness, and other related things?


• Reconstruct the philosophical foundation. These gentlemen suggest that executives broaden their parameters to include theories and models as diverse as theology, philosophy, anthropology and others- not just business concepts. My son shared with me some of the writings of John O'Neil, who works with executives and suggests that many of our corporate leaders have lost their balance and sense of fulfillment because they don't allow time for family, social responsibility, and related activities. They have lost their essence.


• Redefine leadership and its product. They suggest that rather than being heroic decision makers exclusively (can you say explorers), that leaders should be societal architects who foster and model collaboration, innovation, and participation.


• De structure the organization. In this context they talk about small, malleable units. Large centralized structures inhibit shared, efficient decision making.


• Empower the renegades. We need to empower the employees who are passionately committed to our values and mission. They describe it as emotional equity, I refer to it as commitment or engagement. Recent studies that I have talked about in my articles The Business Case for Compliance to Commitment and The Spillover Effect describe the economic and productivity benefits of instituting these practices far beyond their philosophical or intrinsic value.

My last reading debates the merits of yet another management "sacred cow", Best Practices. The author cautions us not to leap to the conclusion that practices and models used by large, big names firms are applicable for us "regular" guys. He even takes a poke at my profession; consulting, and how many big name firms make their living schlepping these models from client to client. His point is to be sure that model or practice works for you! He suggests you examine some basic concepts and constructs:

• Timing and market conditions. Is the environment the same as it was when the "best practice" was created? He uses the example of mass media advertising to create brand. With cable, the Internet, and social networking has mass advertising become spam?


• Different Rules. If you are a well established "brand" major deviation from that brand position can cause you to alienate your core market and not capture new share.


• Differentiation is key. Unless you are ubiquitous why would people choose you over a competitor? If all your "best practices" were invented by them unless you offer a significant cost or location advantage why should people buy from you.

His point and mine is not to learn from the best, it is don't just plug it in. It needs to be tuned to your culture. I tell clients a lot; I have a model, but the implementation of that model is different for each client. It is tailored to their culture and norms. I go so far as to reject clients because they are looking for a "plug in"!

I have focused my career on creating engaged environments. The good news is that organizations that develop, implement, and maintain engaged cultures outperform their peers in every segment across a broad variety of metrics. The bad news is that engagement is a culture and a system. It takes time and energy to create and commitment to maintain!

We are in a time and place where I think we may want must recognize that many of the conventional wisdoms, (sacred cows), are going to have to be re-examined. Maybe it is time for a big ole Texas style barbecue? I heard once that sacred cows make the best hamburgers! What do you think?