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?

People in Your Foxhole

Over the past few months I have had an opportunity to meet some fascinating people who have taught me a great deal. We have formed kind of a coalition to change the world and how we do things.

We call it Nemawashi- or building a new foundation. We have decided to take on some pretty interesting "truths"- like what defines leadership, loyalty, commitment, and a few other terms that seem to inspire a lot of discussion.

One of our group shares some great military metaphors- one of the best is the concept of "who has your six". At it's most basic the concept means covering each others back, especially your blind spot. The deeper meaning is a commitment to each other and something more than you. I think based on the information I see about engagement people want and need that. He also had a great metaphor about "Pete" the painter. As a leader your job is provide context and direction and to remember that each "canvas" requires a different brush.

Another colleague is trying to help organizations understand the importance of congruency and shared values in inviting people to join your organization. Why are we so cavalier about this and then so surprised when we don't get the results we are after.

Yet another colleague and I are trying to help people recognize that there is a natural symmetry to certain concepts that we tend to overlook- kindness and excellence. Respect and performance that meets our expectations. Clear expectations and feedback and trust. These things all go together.

We are also doing some work with definitions. It is interesting how social norms determine "truths". I saw two different editorials this weekend that were interesting to me regarding President Obama's speech. One said that President Obama was not being appropriately inclusive when he said "God bless America". I wonder if he meant to exclude the Buddha, Allah, or others? Is it important what we call our God, or just that we are willing to acknowledge the presence of a higher power?

The other person took umbrage that President Obama has been overly apologetic to the Islamic community and didn't include consideration for the actions taken in Serbia and other places during past administrations or the fact that we don't see public demonstrations against Muslims on the anniversary of September 11. I am probably too simplistic, I don't see what happened on September 11 as the actions of Muslims, but rather of terrorists. I think Timothy McVeigh considered himself a "Christian" didn't he? I thought the President was reaching out to rebuild trust.

What I share with these folks and others is a sense of engagement. These are some of the people I have in my "foxhole", those who have my "six" as I have theirs. Who have you invited to your foxhole?

The Importance of Reflection

I read a lot. I guess I also think a lot and write a lot. I have found that time to be important to me and to the both the businesses I have worked for and those I supported as a consultant.

I am surprised sometimes when I talk with colleagues who spend almost no time in reflection, reading books or articles, and scoff at the idea of social networking sites like LinkedIn , FaceBook, or others and God forbid they would either write a blog or contribute to one. They bustle about "running the business". In many cases these are the same people who can't find time to coach and mentor their staff.

I read a couple of interesting articles this morning. One was on three leaders- Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, and Joe Paterno and how each made a commitment to reflection. Lincoln read Shakespeare and other classics, Gates scheduled a bi-annual trip to a cabin to read and think, and Paterno often coaches from the press box in order to get above the field and see things from a different perspective.

I read another article on leadership failures. It talked about some of the main reasons that leaders, especially new leaders fail. Some of the most consistent reasons were micro-management, and wanting to be the key decision maker in the majority if not all cases. They didn't trust their staff to make the "right" decision, they end up training staff not to make decisions at all.

My friend and colleague, Boom Daniel talked about the concept of a "bucket" as a fighter pilot and managing all the competing elements in your bucket. I think one way is to manage what you put in it.

How many of us spend thirty hours a week running from one meeting to another? In many of those meetings we don't even contribute directly. We are there as a function of CYA or "supporting the team". Is that always a good use of our time? I wonder sometimes.

I also feel that our society has come to really prize activity and the "hero" syndrome. The person who dashes about "solving" problems is the person we value and idolize. What about the person who thinks through the issue and doesn't let it become a crisis? Or the person who develops a team capable of making good decisions so they don't need to constantly step in with the "right" answer.

The first question I like to ask is "Why"? Why are we doing this? Why are we doing it this way? Do we have the right people involved? Does this decision need to be made at this level?

I don't know. Maybe I have too much time to "reflect", but I think that if we looked at the how and what of situations and the motivation we created maybe we would be more inclined to make better decisions.

What do you think?