Change without Transparency leads to Rebellion

People spend a majority of time adjusting to circumstances in pursuit of comfort. And once there, our natural inclination is to resist change until a new opportunity justifies it. Yet, even in the process of change, there are comfort levels, be it pace or degree, and forcing people beyond those limits regardless of intention will be met with resistance. In times of radical change, the onset of rebellion can be thwarted by transparent leadership.

Good leadership articulates an inspiring vision and guides the formulation of a strategy for its pursuit. Transparent leadership then at minimum shares that vision and the strategy to get there with constituents.

This is what encourages the athlete through the struggle of training, the patient through the pain of rehabilitation, even the student through school. This is how Winston Churchill was able to bring the English through WWII.

The lack of which has lead to the coup’s in Africa, the potential revolt in France and the tea parties recently in the United States.

Why?

In terms of understanding, the world is divided into two groups, How and Why. “How” people are focused on the here and now, they take information as is, they are more satisfied being told what to do and where to do it, then the reasons behind it. They can easily focus on their tasks. They are people of the present.
“Why” people are focused on the big picture. They interpret information and seek meaning, they don’t break information into its parts, but seek relationships between the information, and focus less on the what is and instead try to project on the what-will-be, they are focused on the future.

How people are satisfied with what is happening and their role in it, why people simply can not move unless they know where they are going.

I once worked with a development group that was quite successful. I had a good relationship with the leader and the staff and enjoyed growing with the group. One day the leader returned from a convention and started to change everything. Which startled the staff, but we followed. However, the changes being implemented didn’t make sense, and in many cases were not only against what we had done in the past, but were simply wrong. I started to ask questions and wasn’t getting answers. Our relationships started to split and my resistance was seen as a threat. I wanted to follow him, but I for some reason just couldn’t and didn’t understand why. Eventually, I quit.

Years later, I came to realize that it wasn’t some adolescent rebellion against authority or sophmoric resistance submission. But very simply, I needed, information and was paralyzed without it. I am a “why” person, and have a natural need to understand the big picture, to see the vision, the strategy to get there and how I fit in to it. Radical change was happening and I couldn’t find the rhyme or reason for it. Therefore I could not find my place, so I could not support it, could not be a part of it. And since the direction seemed to be off, I could not just blindly follow.

Radical changes are happening the US, and many people are demanding information, not because they are from another party, not because they are not the same color, but because, it is mentally impossible to move without that information. People are seeing steps that are inconsistent with their former path. There are things being done that are against what they had been living for, in some cases it just looks wrong, and in interpreting the decisions to where they are heading, the direction seems off.

No one seems to know the vision (Change is not a destination). So it’s no wonder no one knows the strategy to get there. The transparency that was promised is partial, which is actually propaganda. And unfortunately platitudes and diplomacy also don’t work because people NEED that information, regardless of which party is holding that office.

In history, radical change without transparency has ALWAYS led to either rebellion or oppression. Either the people will react out of need, or the authorities will subdue with force.

Let's hope the Transparency promised the US comes soon.

Building Championship Teams: Turn Talent into a Competitive Advantage

“Players don’t win championships. Organizations win championships,” announced General Manager Jerry Krause in 1998 after Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls won their 6th NBA championship in 8 seasons. In proving his point, Mr. Krause never returned to a championship game.

True, talent alone rarely wins championships; rarer still is an organization that can win without it.

History has shown that success results from a combination of both organization and talent, the primary role of successful organizations being traditionally the administration of teamwork.

However in today’s knowledge-based society, Ford’s assembly-line style of teamwork has begun to take a back seat to what probably gave Jordan’s and coach Phil Jackson’s team that unique competitive advantage, team learning.

Team Learning is the ability to pool resources in order to raise individual contributions producing results far greater than the sum of the original parts. Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson were great at getting the most of their lesser players. Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson were not.

Establishing team learning was brought to light while working with a group of managers in an Italian Corporation.

During a consulting session I posed a complex question to one of the managers. She looked at me wide-eyed and uttered a non-verbal, “boh!”

Not being fluent in Italian gestures, I assumed the gaseous noise was an unintentional result of a lunch-time Lambrusco so I ignored it and asked again. And again this professional shrugged her shoulders, looked blankly and blurted “boh!”

It was explained to me that “boh!” was an Italian gesture meaning, “I don’t know.” Since then I recognized it often and each time with the same expression.

So, according to the culture, it was not enough to admit to not know. It needed to be accompanied with a bodily noise that exaggerated ignorance, and an expression which exuded humility.

But it was much more than simple cultural humor. There was freedom in the “boh!” that actually set the tone for better cooperation.

A strong gesticular “boh!” frees one of hindering pride, allows the admittance of a lack of knowledge and therefore puts one in an incredible position to learn.

The half-second gesture establishes the catalyst which is key to all forms of personal and group development, humility. Contrary to popular belief, humbleness shows itself in strength of character not in weakness

There are many successful people who are so because they have accepted their own limits to be empowered from the strength of others.

My high school coach, recently inducted into the hall of fame, would always admit that the strength of his teams rested in the ability to surround himself with people much better than himself.

Creating the dynamics that fosters team learning begins when members individually aspire to learn, share what they've learned with other members, and recognize and respect the value of others.

Regardless if involved in business, education, politics, sports, or even personal relationships, whether working within a team or alone, competitiveness and opportunities rise when destructive pride, jealousy, and cynicism are replaced not by being only willing to cooperate, but by opening ourselves up to what each other has to offer.

What wins championships? Teams win championships. It can begin with a simple humbling yet empowering “boh!”

Next Generation Leaders

Changing times mean Changing Approaches

World leadership is changing. Throughout history, the leaders were those who were the most effective in utilizing advancements of progress: the philosophical Greek societies, the might of Rome or the dominance of the British fleet. The leaders of this past century, the industrial age, were those who dominated through productivity. However, today, the production centers of the world have shifted to cost-shaving developing countries, without a corresponding shift in leadership. This means, once again, we are entering a new age and those who lead will be those who choose to embrace it.

The industrial age was sparked by the advent of the Assembly line. In the early 1900’s, a movement was started focused on the application of efficiency. Among the members was a young man by the name of Henry Ford, who eventually implemented principles of the movement into his automobile business. The result was the modern day assembly line, which was so successful it gave his company Ford Motors almost 50% of the market within a few years.

The efficiency of the assembly line led to greater productivity in less time at lower costs. By dividing production into simple tasks, it allowed the company to hire, train, and replace an unskilled workforce with very little effort. Management became an issue of control thus leaving the need for only a few hard-to-find and expensive talent in selected positions at the top.

The model was so successful that it was adapted to many other industries including clothing, restaurants, hospitals, even schools.

Today, the production centers of the world have moved to more developing regions, leaving leadership in the hands of those who embrace what is now the Information Age, and understanding the principles of the Knowledge-Based Society (KBS). Dominance by productivity has been replaced with innovation.

Today, information which was once held by scholars, experts and books, is readily available anywhere, at anytime, by anybody. So, although finding information is important, it is what is done with it that makes the difference.

The competitive edge from the division of responsibility in Assembly line production is giving way to a pooling of resources that comes from team-learning innovation. Whereas before employers poured through workers with focused limited skills managed through control, competitive companies now struggle to retain creative holistic experience managed through facilitation. Conservative companies with top-down authoritative structures are losing market share to living organizations generating bottom-up ideas.

Whether a country, company or an individual; being competitive comes down to being creative. The leaders are those businesses, hospitals and especially schools which embrace this new age by taking advantage of the advancements which support it. The times are changing, will you?