The Sense Makers

I have been struggling with a series of articles on leadership, what makes good leaders and how they behave. The more I leaned into my definitions, the more stuffy the prose became to the tipping point of academic mumbo-jumbo.

In frustration, I sat back and thought about lousy leadership examples – we have lot’s of those!

Currently topical is the debate in British Columbia, Canada, about HST vs. the inefficient and costly PST.  Both are sales taxes on consumption and I happen to like the concept of taxing consumption rather than income and capital – more of this in later musings.

One of the keys to good leadership is intent and integrity (Henry Cloud).  We all make mistakes because we act as we see our relative reality.  And we find our reality is not the reality as others see it so our decision does not bring the result we expected. Part of integrity is to admit the mistake, acknowledge the impact and set about recovering from mistake.  A final piece is reflecting on our choices and learning from the experience. It will be painful but what learning is not uncomfortable?

Bill vander Zalm, an ex-premier in British Columbia, is vehemently opposed to the HST and has campaigned loudly against its adoption.  Intent seems fine until you scratch the surface at which point both intent and integrity become suspect.

Have a look at Chris Thompson’s HST rebuttal video. Two sections are particularly obnoxious: the section where a well-known economist does a little arithmetic calculation to compare the real impact of PST to the HST – PST is 16% more expensive than HST (after tax PST cost at $123.06 per $100 base cost vs. HST at $107 per $100 base cost; a difference of 16%).  Vander Zalm deflect this fact and points to an argument that “poor people” now have HST levied on goods that previously were exempt from PST.  In other words, vander Zalm ‘bends’ the reality to fit his argument.  The second section refers to a report where parts of sentences are taken out of context and ‘massaged’ to fit his argument.

His intent is, at best, to overtly manipulate and at worst, to deceive.  Hardly an example of great leadership!

Now, let’s look at integrity.  As a guest of a talk-show, vander Zalm states that he has not watched the Chris Thompson video and launches into mocking students and suggesting that we, the taxpayers, are funding Thompson’s time and, further, that Thompson is an aspirant lawyer and you know what lawyers are like – snide innuendo.

No acknowledgement of any faulty intent and, for me, no integrity.  In fact vander Zalm shows up as a bully.

Well, I now have a baseline to measure leadership against.

Some years ago, I put a slide deck together expressing who I was and what I wanted to do.  In the end, I created a matrix that read, diagonally, from top left to bottom right:

• Engages organisational creative capacity 
  • Brings true structural, process and leadership challenges to the surface 
    • Develops clear direction choices and highlights restrictive constraints 
      • Quick, predictable  and profitable response to changing customer needs.

People I exposed this matrix to had one of two robust reactions: they really liked it and thought CEO’s would instantly relate to the possibilities; the majority felt it was too ‘ambitious’ with some feeing it bordered on ‘arrogant’.

Here is the first and hardest lesson in life: choose what you want to do and go at it with your whole mind, spirit and body. As Steve Jobs said in his Stanford commencement address- stay hungry, stay foolish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc.  I chose the easy way and tried to conform to dogma so I would ‘fit in’ – exactly what Jobs counselled against!

I continued to be uncomfortable in my skin.  A business partner challenged me to do an executive coaching course at Royal Roads University.  As part of my personal preparation for the journey (I was very apprehensive of what I might find out about me during the process), I listed all the work I had done over 30 years and asked my wife where I had been least of a bear to live.  Fully expecting a serious reflection of carefully weighing up the good years versus the bad, I figured I had a few days to before an answer came back.  Surprise!  In three nano-seconds the answer shot back – here, here, here and here.  Four spots in thirty years…..

A cursory analysis gave the game away; a detailed analysis confirmed the fact: I was at my best helping people help themselves in a business context.

How was I to achieve this? How would I market myself?  What would the message be? Being a member of CAPS (Canadian Association of Prfessional Speakers) I thought I would set up as a speaker.

Casting about for a niche market brought me into contact with TEC (The Executive Committee) and one thing led to another – I became a Chair of a group of CEO’s in non-competing industries: a privileged position where we get to uncoer all those dreams that never see the light of day either through work pressure (busy  work) or though lack of self-confidence.

As I listen to quality speakers challenge us to be better than we think we are; as we process business issues and find the original ‘problem’ to be symptom, we are able to make a real difference in the life of every CEO.  We come up with sugestions that are genius in simplicity; that are generated by a different lens from different industries; that harness the wits, skill and energy of very, very intelligent people.

We generate strategies to engage the creative capital of fellow CEO’s who take the learning to their organisations; we bring leadership challenges to the surface; break down constraints and focus on aligning the organisation to the customer needs

We hold each other accountable for the changes and results.  We kick against accountibility but it makes the difference between doing the ’same old, same old’ and doing something new and different. We create a ’safe-fail’ environment where a strategy that does not work becomes a learning event for all of us.

What satisfaction we all experience when a strategy works and what an incredible sense of satisfaction when a failed strategy is analysed, tweaked and works better than dreamed. What a sense of accomplishment!

Preparing a trip to London, England, this December presented unusual uncertainties.  There was snow, about 5 inches; communications from the Heathrow executive that made a desert look lush; press that reported extraordinary profits by the managing company, generous executive remuneration and pitiful preparation to clear runways and access roads.

We saw press photo’s of people sleeping at Heathrow for days; and photo’s of people at other airports milling about trying to get cancelled flights rescheduled.

Communications were sparse; the Heathrow executive were aggressive – its not our responsibility that we did not have the materials at hand and the weather was unexpected.

Airlines had planes at the wrong locations, crews that exceeded their flying hour limits and no way to ferry replacement crews into the airports. Red dollar signs hung over each airline.  There was clearly a high level of frustration.

Still, the remoteness of unresponsibiity (lack of responsibility) meant ‘others’ were involved.  And then we began to get a feel for the oceans of ‘its not my responsibility’.

We were met with icy, frozen sidewalks.  Unswept, lumpy and so slick that you slid down the camber of the surface.

As we cleaned off our section of sidewalk, the neighour across the street came out and suggested we stop as cleaning was not our responsibility but that of the local council.  Apparently, we could have liability for damage passed to us in the event of people falling on our cleared section!

Pedestrians walking in the roads for a reasonable sense of footing slowed traffic to a crawl – London is not famous for its wide roads. The pace of the city slowed measurably.

The neighbour conversation turned to the status of the public service especially the public schools.  Others are responsible for the poor quality.  Because the neighbour strongly believes in socialist policies, I was really surprised when she said; ‘we want the best, others can take second-best – our lids are at private schools.

She freely acknowledged her hypocrisy but didn’t care – its someone else’s responsibility.  A classic case of “do what I say not do as I do”.

No more ‘be a man, own up and take your punishment’.

A graphic reminder of the vital need for wide boundaries of personal expression to create a framework for well-formed community identity and pride.

Pride in belonging, in personal outlook, in the integral role of building community spirit; of taking full and clear personal responsibility for maintenance and improvement of surroundings.

The framework that supports setting examples of high integrity and low hypocrisy. The unifying culture of community – the integrity of leadership!

If we cannot set supportive behavioural boundaries at the individual and community level, how on earth can we hold executives in organisations like Heathrow responsible for their actions or inactions?

Can each of us make that little extra effort in our communities and in our working lives to lead by conspicuous example, to show up with integrity and call examples of hypocrisy for what they are – selfish single-minded pursuit of me, me, me.

I am not nor will I be an inanimate piece of “human capital”.  Nor am I a resource (favoured by project management) and neither am I an asset to be leveraged.  I am, however, very cynical at the intentions of management (and I have been the CEO of a reasonable size organisation) and how the ‘management’ manipulate people to achieve the results – read Milton Friedman – which are profits.

I am a person with a head and heart which has accumulated many skills and developed those skills into competencies by trying out and applying those skills.  Some worked and others didn’t.  I learned from those that didn’t as I had to come up with a recovery plan that needed me to be humble, identify the weakness in my thinking, the gaps in my skills or the poor application techniques.

What you get when you work with me is a person who is prepared to deliver competencies for an amount of money.  You get the head and the thinking to get the job done.  But, if you want the job done in the context of a team, you have to involve me with my heart so that I can interact with others at an emotional level to really deliver more than the sum of the parts.

As you engage my heart and I trust you enough to remove the mask and show the emotional me and I am no longer an ‘asset’ or any other inanimate object.  I am a person with feelings, drive, enthusiasm and a person with some measure of total intelligence.  Without me and the other persons making up the team, you have nothing as a manager.  You can hold the status quo, perhaps.

To get ahead, you had better go sufficiently out of your way to get to know what wakes me up in the morning and brings creativity and initiative into the work place along with head and the competencies.

Until you have my heart, you have nothing creative, nothing that will move you forward or nothing that will help you grow. My value is the value you ascribe to the work you ask me to do.  What you want is the multiplier effect of adding the heart and creativity in thinking and working with team mates: this gets you far more than your ascribed value.  And, this is not an asset.  What you are asking for is the guts of your growth – of your sustainable success and the success of the rest of the people in the organisation.

Valued as an asset, you get no value.  Then I am just another ‘piece’ to move about in the grandeur of your plan.

Valued as a person, you get natural drive and creative approaches to difficulties.  I am one of the pieces that move and move others.  This group is a team of people who take you farther than you can imagine.  We are people – individuals with skills and competencies who, for the context that wakes us up and urges us to contribute imagination and testing probes, will give you value far greater than expect.

How do you see yourselves as individuals and an integral part of a team?

Explaining how human resources see individuals.

We are at a perfect time to redefine the words we use as we work with clients. To help our organizational leaders understand how important words are as we use them to define work and the employees/people who do the work that contributes to an organization’s success.

I am a former personnel/human resources person so how we treat people within organizations is near and dear to my heart – hence my passion for being appreciative at all levels of an organization.

One term that has become popular in organizations is to refer to employees as human capital(personnel, human resources, talent, human capital).

Human capital can mean that the organization values people as much as they do their buildings, equipment etc and that excited me at first. But, as with leverage and assets we know how capital is used.

I am fearful that the term capital lends itself so that organizations may view employees/people as objects rather than the valued resources as you mention.

The difficulty that we have is to use words that corporate leaders understand and value and I know I struggle with this. Perhaps we can use leverage AI so when we demonstrate that the principles and actions are an asset? Organizational leaders are looking at the bottom line – what we do does not produce income (sales) or necessarily immediate results but contributes to their ability to do so. Anyone have suggestions for words that we can use with clients that speaks to them but speaks to us in terms of valuing people?

Clearly a person who is trying and struggling to translate valuing people for their skills, humanity and competencies into the vocabulary of the Executive Suite.

Would you translate or would you agitate for change in executive viewpoint and consequently behaviour?

How would you feel if you were describes as ‘human capital’ – appreciated as a human being or coldly viewed as a commodity?

Here is a question that triggered a look into a personal value on how People are viewed.

I’m looking for case study stories of sales, marketing & product management teams leveraging AI to create an environment of stronger team collaboration, and ultimately tighter alignment to the customer and growth paths.

The question sounds very natural until you look at the word “leveraging”.  Here is a reply:

This is not a case examples but an unsolicited response to the language ”leveraging AI.”  As an engineer I understand levers and think they are brilliant. As a priest and psychologist I know the term leverage and find it unhelpful and often offensive when used in human systems as it implies “using force against somebody.” Leverage doesn’t not lead to collaboration.

Wouldn’t it be simpler and more humane to say “management teams using Appreciative Inquiry to create an environment of stronger team collaboration.”

Here is a similar use of language that causes me concern in today’s business world. In an attempt to humanize the work place, many business leaders talk of their employees as their greatest asset. That may sound very affirming until you think of what businesses do with their assets, they mortgage, leverage, broker sell, stretch, and strip mine their assets. Employees need to be way more than an asset in today’s world if they are to be valued and resourced to be their best.

What do you think? How would you have replied?

Rob Waldman, a retired F-16 pilot was showcased in the Globe and Mail on September 2, 2010 and drew parallels between business and air survival.  A comment struck me: “knowing with certainty that there will be someone there for you unconditionally to give you the guidance you need and give instant warning of a threat helps build an enormous sense of confidence…”.

This is the essence of TEC – having a group around you, who are not competitors, customers or suppliers, who are totally honest by placing their relationship on the line to do what is right in your context.  They watch out for you especially where you are drowning in the firehose of data and at your breaking point.  They check in regularly – they are good communicators – they build the relationship and they show you how to manage by walking about your organisation just as each of your TEC team will want to know what’s going on in your life.

Its about integrity and intent; being willing to admit a fault and having your team call you on bad behaviour as they want you to be the best you can be.

The result is accountability and reciprocal communication – give feedback on actions and behaviours and be prepared to accept feedback even when you are blind to the risks.

Build a quiet, competent and trusted team who are committed to your success as they expect you to be for them. Go the extra mile for them and the old adage ‘what goes round, comes round’ will work for you.

Think seriously about TEC and the benefits of reducing your loneliness of leading.

The Economist, July 29, 2010, had a leader highlighting the rising power of Chinese workers in demanding greater reward for skilled work.  The article suggested that this was good for the world and good for China.  After digesting the article, I “sort of” agreed but could not put my finger right on the reason.

Well, a reason arrived last week when a potential client of mine canceled a meeting.  I asked what the real issue was.  He had received a message from his Chinese supplier that the orders placed could not be delivered as there were “difficulties” with the workers.

A few questions turned the light on the difficulties:

• Skilled workers are now very difficult to attract and retain.  Once you train a person, their value to the local market rises sharply and they are poached by suppliers, new entrants, competitors and substitue manufacturers;
• To retain the skills, benefits are rising.  Wages have risen from $190 a month to over $400; housing for the worker and family is required along with multiple other finge benefits.

My initial reaction was ’so what’.  This is just what made Silcon Valley such a rich cradle of new ideas – creative ideas that tumbled out as skills moved between organisations and good ideas were made better with the addition of thinking from all sorts of organisations clustered in a small arena.  Not wonderful for organisations but good for us, the consumer.  We benefited from:

• Greater choices
• Lower prices
• Tweaked imaginations that fed back into our own thinking and products.

But, I think the Chinese pressure will bring higher prices as dextrous fingers don’t bring the multiplier effect of knowledge and applied knowledge, in particular.

Our supply chains will get more expensive and supplies erratic; we will stock more, increasing inventory and finance charges; with increased inventory comes greater write-offs where product lines become obsolete before the market has time to absorb the inventory items.

Hang onto your hats – the economic roller coaster will get bumpier before settling down.

In a recent Bnet article at http://blogs.bnet.com/management/?p=1664&tag=nl.e713 Margaret Heffernan argues that CEO’s need a “third opinion”. CEO’s have advice from their teams (first opinion) and their advisors (second opinion), each of whom look at the question from their specific perspective.  The CEO then has a job to reconcile the multiple opinions which, in this turbulent world, puts even greater pressure on leaders to make sense of events around them.

Heffernan suggests that CEO’s benefit from a ‘peer review’ of fellow CEO’s who bring their thought processes to bear on the opportunity.  What is really important is the unemotional dissection of the opportunity by the peer group.  They neither own the opportunity nor the outcome.

However, to contuinue as a peer group member, trust is a critical factor.  Even though the peer group does not own the outcome, to earn trust means bringing the full weight of thought, skills and experience to bear on the issue raised by the group member.  Individual sugestions may be well off the mark but this is irrelevant if the suggestion is made with intent to contribute with integrity by bringing your full measure of wits, skill and energy  to the conversation.

Groups like TEC -The Executive Committee (Vistage in the USA) and YPO – Young Presidents Organisation are built on this trust.  TEC is facilitated by experienced business people and is more formal in its approach to executive learning and business issue processing.  YPO provides a more unstructured environment and open network at your option.

Whichever your choice, make a choice and benefit from your peers: build trust by open commmunication, direct feedback and constructive ideas.  Remember that you will be expected to turn your mind to issues you feel are not relevant to you and your organisation.  Two important outcomes are likely:

1. You realise that issues are creeping up on you, waiting to ambush your plans at really awkward moments or
2. You find you can use approaches in one industry which, when modified and transplanted into yours, gains you a short-term competitive advantage.

Take the decision; join a formal multi-industry groups like TEC and YPO and participate fully.

I was struck by the definition of Employee Branding, below. This created a thought process on whether we are getting just too cute for our own good.

Start with the question – “why would anyone want to work here and why would they stay?”.

Think of yourself and answer those two questions by thinking along the lines of: how am I engaged; can I use my creativity; can I make mistakes; will people guide me on behaviour; do they listen, really listen; can I think laterally and provocatively; do people respect me for what results I can bring or is the focus on form and compliance?

Take these questions and apply a cognitive lens – a lens that recognises organisations to be created by people to concentrate skills and quantities to ‘do things the customer realises he or she need and in sufficient volume’.

If customers are your dominant business driver and their tastes change, surely you want processes to morph into procurement and delivery mechanisms that meet that need?

You want hearts to be in the business, creativity celebrated, strengths celebrated, aspirations developed across the cross-section of the organisation, innovative approaches brought to operations, communication and inter-personal behaviour.  In short, you want people to listen, really listen; up, down and across the organisation and you want people to ask questions as a result of listening so that a common understanding emerges and spreads throughout the organisation.

Make your culture one of five I’s

• Inquire into your strengths and celebrate these
• Imagine the opportunities open to you
• Innovate to open the way to use the opportunities practically
• Inspire the teams to deliver against the opportunities
• Implement a continuous improvement cycle

We all want to be seen, heard and understood – align your behaviour to this belief and you will have an excellent place to work.  Call it what you will – employee brand is a bit of mouthful in comparision to common sense dealing with people as people – perhaps Team Charter fits.

Quote:

“While a lot of attention is paid to ‘employment branding,’ it is rarely understood as the heart of the Talent Management process. An employment brand is a clear and repeatable set of attributes for the company culture. The employment brand includes mission, work environment, values, and expectations. All of on boarding, succession management, performance management and even competency management and development must center on the employment brand.

When the company is clear about what it expects, what it intends, where it is going and why it is here, all of the other aspects of motivation fall into place. Mission, the centerpiece of the Employment Brand, turbo charges all of the other systems.

The study specifies ‘clear mission.’ That’s one part operations, one part vision and one part communications. A clear mission, expressed as the employment brand is a productivity boost and a competitive differentiator.

John Sumser is a member of the Salary.com Board of Directors as well as the founder and president of Two Color Hat, Inc. Contributions to Salary.com HR Voice and this Website reflect the opinions of the authors and are not an official opinion of Salary.com, Inc., or any of its subsidiary or affiliated entities.”