Jim Taggart's Open Salon Blog

The Black, White and Grey of Leadership

Sun, 27 May 2012 14:05:24 -0400

When it comes to trying to understand a turbulent world, with its interdependencies and illogical decisions, it’s easy to become ambivalent. What is right, what is wrong–the proverbial black versus white. As experts like to state, we live in a world of grey.

Okay, I can buy into that concept. However, there comes a time when leaders have to step up to the plate to assert themselves, to affirm what they TRULY believe in. If you pause for a moment and reflect on the current state of politics, not just in the U.S. but Canada, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Australia, etc., you’d be hard-pressed to really understand the intrinsic value sets of national leaders.

Canadians are struggling with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who with a new majority government is riding roughshod over the electorate, practicing an opaque-style of government, increasingly reminiscent of a Putinesque style of ruling autocracy. Republican leadership candidate Mitt Romney is all over the political map, a master flip-flopper. President Barack Obama is a born-again same-sex marriage convert. Did his view on this topic evolve, as he stated recently, or revolve from past statements?

In addition to being a 20-year student of leadership, I have become a student of history (I detested history in high school and university). It’s amazing what you can learn about leadership from reading about the past. Yes, folks, history does repeat itself–so much for the naïve belief that people learn from experience.

I’ve spoken in previous posts about two great American presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Teddy Roosevelt, the former a Democrat and the latter (FDR’s uncle) a Republican. I’ve wanted for some time to understand better for what Abraham Lincoln stood, especially since he faced the greatest crisis any of America’s 44 presidents have ever confronted. So I hit the history books. I came away with the same respect for Lincoln I had previously, except that I now better understand his politics when it came to slavery.

Abraham Lincoln, the tall gangly, flat-footed walker who in the 1850s was perceived as the unlikely leader of what became the new Republican party. Yet he persevered, enthralling people with his powerful oratories and compelling stories. Lincoln strongly opposed slavery yet was smart enough to understand that to end this vile practice, timing was of the essence.

As Doris Kearns Goodwin explains in her book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln:

The pinnacle of his success at Cooper Union in New York on the evening of February 27, 1860, before a zealous crowd of more than fifteen hundred people, Lincoln delivered what the New York Tribune called “one of the happiest and most convincing political arguments ever made in this city” in defense of Republican principles and the need to confine slavery to the places where it already existed.”

Note the last part of the sentence. Lincoln was less about actually abolishing slavery as he was about preventing its spread. He knew that outside his home state of Illinois that he wasn’t the number one choice among voters. Indeed, he had already failed in two attempted Senate races. His political experience consisted of only one term in Congress a dozen years earlier. His three contenders for leadership of the Republican Party had vastly more political experience.

Of side interest, Great Britain banned the trading of slaves in 1807 through the Slave Trade Act. This encompassed the entire British Empire. However, slavery itself was not banned. It wasn’t until 1833 that slavery was finally decreed as illegal through the Slavery Abolition Act.

In my home country, as much as Canadians decried slavery we need to look in the mirror when it comes to how blacks have been treated in Canada since the 1800s. A case in point is the small province of Nova Scotia (population one million), located on the Atlantic coast. The Underground Railroad brought former slaves to Nova Scotia, where they continue to be treated as inferior citizens, relegating them to slums. Racial tensions prevail.

I continue to have difficulty understanding how the supposedly greatest nation on the planet was so attached to slavery, and which still seems to be unable to let go of black versus white; there’s no grey in this story. I vividly recall the 2008 presidential campaign, during which racial commentary, while thinly veiled on some U.S. networks, exploded into the open when journalists interviewed Americans on the street.

Now before you get pissed off and send me hate mail, chill out for a minute. I fully realize that there are 310 million Americans, that the United States is a vibrant, diverse society. I’ve done enough traveling through the U.S., probably more than most Americans. And I’m a Canadian citizen.

My point is that 150-plus years have elapsed since President Lincoln saved the Union and abolished slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which finally became law in December 1865. Henry Garnet, fugitive slave turned abolitionist, was the first black to speak at the Capital Dome in Washington on February 12, 1865. Here’s an example of Garnet’s oratorical skill:

Brethren, arise, arise! Strike for your lives and liberties. Now is the day and the hour. Let every slave throughout the land do this, and the days of slavery are numbered. You cannot be more oppressed than you have been- you cannot suffer greater cruelties than you have already. Rather die freemen than live to be slaves. Remember that you are four million! … Awake, awake! Let your motto be resistance, resistance, resistance!

Abraham Lincoln was a human being. Just like you and me. He certainly wasn’t perfect. One problem with American society is the propensity to eulogize once-great leaders to the point of saint-dom. Lincoln, however, knew right from wrong, black from white, and that the way forward for the United States was to stop its spread. Like any politician, centuries ago or in 2012, Lincoln walked a tightrope on the issue of slavery and its relationship to the secessionist desires of Southerners.

With that said, Bryan Prince notes in his excellent book A Shadow on the Household that Lincoln shared the philosophy that blacks could never be part of American society, that their future lay in resettling in their own colony. This was the so-called Liberia plan. The idea of transporting blacks, born on American soil, to a northern African country half a world away distressed many. This policy literally tore families apart, and left blacks, despite existing in horrendous conditions in the U.S., feeling that even Abolitionists didn’t want them to be part of American society.

This is a dimension of President Abraham Lincoln, and the United States as a collective, that is not well understood.

I wonder sometimes if all the hate and political animosity that’s generated in America were bottled up and directed towards the economy what the result would be. Pretty awesome, I’d think. The same applies to Canada, but on a much smaller scale.

What do you see, black, white or grey when it comes to interacting with the world, whether at work or in your community?

When you’re dealing with people, are you truly able to see beyond physical color, or beyond disabilities, or beyond one’s religious or sexual beliefs?

If our planet is to evolve positively, we have some thinking to do.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
– Abraham Lincoln

Click here to download my complimentary e-white paper Leading in a Multipolar World: Four Forces Shaping Society.

Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.

Take a moment to meet Jim.

Is Your Innovation Strategy Aligned with Your Culture?

Mon, 21 May 2012 11:05:32 -0400

Step back for a moment and take an objective look at your company. Then answer these three questions:

1) Is it performing at a high level when it comes to creating innovative products or services for its customers?

2) Are customers not just satisfied but wowed by your company’s offerings?

3) Is your company’s approach to innovation embedded in its corporate culture?

Raise your hand if you answered yes to all three questions. Be honest now.

Hmmm. Just what I thought–most of you didn’t raise your hands. Don’t feel bad, as I’ll be sharing some interesting results with you in a moment.

It’s human nature for those in senior leadership positions to espouse how innovative their organizations are. As I’ve talked about in other posts it seems that every organization is an employer of choice, especially being in the top 100 employers. I’ve yet to figure out the math on that claim.

When it comes to innovation and corporate culture, what CEO doesn’t want to lay claim to being among the best? Unfortunately, there’s reality and there’s fantasy. The latter seems to be winning with most companies.

Fortunately, there’s recent research that examines the link between innovation and culture.

My favorite e-newsletter, from Booz & Company’s Strategy+Business, featured an excellent article The 2011 Global Innovation 1000: Why Culture is Key. The authors note at the outset that there are many parts to what makes up an innovative company: strong customer orientation, talented employees, focused innovation strategy, solid business strategy and execution capabilities.

The larger lesson for companies that struggle to convert their R&D expenditures into successful products, solid financial returns, and unassailable market positions is that it may not just be traditional factors like the innovation pipeline that need rethinking. Instead, companies should follow the lead of the most successful innovators in ensuring that the company’s culture not only supports innovation, but actually accelerates its execution.
– Booz and Company, Why Culture is Key

The 2011 Global Innovation 1000 survey (7th edition) produced some startling results. (The survey was conducted of 1,000 public companies around the world that spent the most on R&D.) Only about half (47%) of the respondents stated that their companies “robustly supports” their innovation strategy. And 36% admitted that their innovation strategy was not adequately aligned with their firm’s business strategy.

Of interest is that the executives who responded to the survey tended to acknowledge that a corporate culture that does not support innovation produces poor performance relative to competitors. And of special note is that respondents identified two particular cultural characteristics:
a) strong identification with customer experience
b) pride in product

I confess that despite my experience in researching issues on organizational culture and leadership that I’m still blown away by the attitudes possessed by those leading companies. The literature is long and littered with countless examples of CEOs who carpet bombed their firms through inept leadership. Fortunately, there are the success stories that inspire hope for the future.

The Booz & Company survey found that companies that had both highly aligned innovation strategies and highly aligned cultures had 30% greater enterprise value and 17% higher profit growth, in comparison to firms with weak alignment. 3M is one company that’s cited as one with tightly correlated strategic goals and corporate culture. Its innovation strategy is about “customer-inspired innovation.”

I get it when it comes to listening to your customers and building a strong trusting relationship. I learned this lesson 35 years ago while working in consumer lending, and later on while managing a service branch. However, I’ve never forgotten words of wisdom from management consultant guru Tom Peters. Many years ago I watched Peters in action on a video where he talked about customer service and the importance of ignoring your customers. Read this post I wrote last year where I reference Peters. Are You Practicing Leadership’s Five Is?

And for a perspective on leadership behaviors and fostering innovation through corporate culture, check out this post.

The Strategy+Business article refers to 3M’s chief technology officer who talks about the need to connect with the customer to learn their “articulated and unarticulated needs.” Once this is established, the next step is to create the capacity across 3M to solve the customer’s problem.

Peters’ view is that customers often do not know they even have a need. That’s why experimentation and creativity are such important activities for companies to engage in in a competitive marketplace. I’d call this situation the Known-Unknowns, where customers understand that something is missing in their firm’s product or service offerings, but they are unable to define or articulate it.

However, at a deeper level there’s what’s called Unknown-Unknowns. Think back to the early internet days. Contrast that scene to today, some two decades later, with the massive recent growth of social media and the role it’s playing in democratizing countries traditionally ruled by dictators. Look at how work has been rapidly virtualized around the world and the distribution of wealth to emerging economies.

And how about the ubiquitous 3M Sticky Note, and its clones, created by a 3M employee who was trying to create something that was kind of sticky but overly so. There was no market for it at the time.

Leadership is at the heart of creating a corporate culture that embraces customer focus and continuous innovation. If you haven’t already, take a moment to read the two posts included above. The journey is tough and never-ending, but it’s one that fosters energy and excitement. The primary role of those in formal leadership positions is to create the conditions for innovation and to focus employees’ collective energy towards a shared vision.

It’s a journey well worth taking.

We found that the most exciting environments, that treated people very well, are also tough as nails. There is no bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo… excellent companies provide two things simultaneously: tough environments and very supportive environments.strong>
– Tom Peters

Photos by J. Taggart (“The Bean,” Millennium Park, Chicago)

Click here to download my complimentary e-white paper Leading in a Multipolar World: Four Forces Shaping Society.

Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.

Take a moment to meet Jim.

The Humble Leader: Giving Without Strings Attached

Sun, 13 May 2012 14:05:46 -0400

Open a book on leadership or management, read an article on the subject or listen to an interview and you’re bound to bump into coaching or mentoring. This inter-related field has exploded in the past decade, with certified coaching programs and mentoring initiatives becoming as ubiquitous as cubicles.

As with any new management development or fad there’s a saturation point, and perhaps to be provocative a case of diminishing returns. And as a longtime friend and leadership consultant said to me a while ago, “Jim, there are a lot of hungry coaches out there.” Indeed.

Certification as a coach doesn’t come cheap, at least not with the reputable programs. Expect to fork out major bucks. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of formal coaching programs, assuming one can afford to become a client, especially in a brutal labor market with a prolonged economic recovery. And just when getting that competitive edge is so important.

What has interested me for some time is the ongoing fuzziness over what is coaching and what is mentoring. I’ve listened to enough disagreements from experts on their distinctions. Perhaps one helpful explanation is from Hilarie Owen, author, consultant and head of leadership services for the police in Wales , England and Northern Ireland. In a recent interview with the International Leadership Association (of which I’m a member), Owen explained the difference between coaching and mentoring this way:

We often confuse mentoring with coaching. A coach asks questions and doesn’t have to have the same background or have experienced the same. A mentor has been where the mentee is, has empathy and hopefully, has learned and developed wisdom. Coaching tends to focus on performance; mentoring tends to develop the whole person which is why enabling a person to reflect is an important part of mentoring. In developing the person, you need to question the beliefs and assumptions that a mentee has, especially if they are limiting their capability.

I’m pretty aligned with Owen’s explanation of the difference between the two. It’s what I’ve personally come to understand after 20 years of studying and practicing leadership. However, professional coaches I’ve known would nick-pick on the above description.

At the heart of this issue is people–warm-blooded human beings, complete with their gifts, warts and idiosyncrasies. We shouldn’t be making coaching or mentoring a complicated rocket science process, feeding what is now a self-serving industry that “certifies” people to become coaches.

Of all the material I’ve read on coaching and mentoring over two decades, one piece stands out for both its simplicity and elegance. Meet Chip Bell, author of the 1996 book Managers as Mentors: Building Partnerships for Learning.

The premise of Bell’s approach to mentoring is that the mentor is part teacher, guide, sage and, especially, someone who strives to the best of his or her ability to act in a “whole and compassionate way” with the mentee. As he states: “No greater helping or healing can occur than that induced by a model of compassion and authenticity.”

Bell uses the acronym SAGE for his approach to mentoring:

S – Surrendering:
In contrast to the mentor driving the learning process she surrenders it. It’s not about losing power or authority but rather yielding to a flow that transcends both mentor and mentee. A mentor who attempts to control the learning process will in the end hinder discovery and personal reflection.

A – Accepting:
This is the act of inclusion. It’s about embracing uncertainty, change and possibilities, as opposed to judging or evaluating.

G – Gifting:
The act of generosity underlies gifting. However, don’t confuse it with giving, which is the process of bestowing something of value with the expectation of receiving something in return. Mentors have gifts to share, accumulated from their life experiences.

E – Extending:
This involves the challenge of pushing the mentor-mentee relationship beyond the assumed boundaries. It may eventually mean the end of the relationship if the mentee is to continue growing and exploring new opportunities.

Bell explains that Surrendering and Accepting are essential to the learning process because it “levels the playing field.” They enable Gifting to occur in its full form, with Extending reducing the mentee’s dependence on the mentor.

What I’ve always liked about Chip Bell’s mentoring model is that it’s really a philosophy on how to approach one’s learning and how to become involved in helping others in their learning journeys. Indeed, it’s not even about managers as mentors, as the book’s title states; instead, it’s about people helping people. SAGE, in my view, serves as the four cornerstones to mentoring, or coaching if you prefer that word. Eventually, it becomes a case of semantics.

I encourage you to check out Bell’s book and his website (see the above links) and open yourself to a different way of thinking about mentoring and coaching.

There is a magical quality about the spirit of the mentoring process when it takes on a life of its own and leads mentor and protégé through an experience of shared discovery.
– Chip Bell (Managers as Mentors)

Click here to download my complimentary e-white paper Leading in a Multipolar World: Four Forces Shaping Society.

Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.

Take a moment to meet Jim.

Have You Lost Your Voice? Stand Up and be Counted

Sun, 6 May 2012 15:05:47 -0400

Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose….Be shunned, be hated, or be ridiculed, be scared be in doubt, but don’t be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.
– John Jay Chapman (commencement address to Hobart College graduating class, 1900)

Do you like being suppressed when you want to express your views at work?

Do you enjoy feeling like a pea in a pod?

And do you prefer working in a setting where you’re in a compliance mode?

If you answered no, you’re a warm-blooded human being. Sorry reptiles, you’re out.

I’d like to share with you something I recently re-read. Two years ago I stumbled across on the internet a fascinating essay. Well, maybe not an essay, but it was very cool. And then while travelling through New England last summer (I’m a neighboring Canadian) I picked up a copy of the softcover in North Conway, New Hampshire.

If you haven’t read the The Cluetrain Manifesto, first published in 2000, then this is essential reading. Written by four respected social media commentators, the Manifesto provides an enlightening look at our rapidly changing world and the democratizing role that the internet is playing. What’s fascinating is that it’s even more relevant now since when it was written–before Facebook, Google+, and a host of social media platforms. The manifesto is a free download.

Put in context that the above quotation is from 12 years ago. Yet how many companies, including non-profits and government, really get it when it comes to the democratizing and empowering effects of the Internet?

A lot has happened since the release of The Cluetrain Manifesto: 911, the endless war in Afghanistan, the 2008 financial meltdown and the ensuing Great Recession, a limp economic recovery, the European Union’s possible imminent demise, the emergence of Facebook, the collapse of Nortel, the junk bond status of former powerhouse Nokia, the 2011 Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street. The list goes on.

And through all of these changes the Manifesto has remained relevant, a document each of needs to read and reflect upon.

The fundamental premise of the Cluetrain Manifesto is that companies have been blind to the sea change the Internet represents, desperately clinging to methods that worked wonders in the broadcast era but that are radically counterproductive online.

What really struck me while re-reading the Manifesto was chapter two, The Longing, written by David Weinberger. The essence of Weinberger’s message has to do with retaining our individual voice. Yet working in bureaucratic organizations, whether in business or the public sector, has the pernicious effect of robbing each of us of our voice.

As Weinberger says:
Just about all the concessions we make to work in a well-run, non-disturbing, secure, predictably successful, managed environment have to do with giving up our voice….Our voice is our strongest, most direct expression of who we are. Our voice is expressed in our words, our tone, our body language, our visible enthusiasms.

Weinberger talks about the sniping that goes on in organizations as a result of “management” taking our voices. People push back. Why? Because we’re human beings. However, management is a “powerful force” that reflects a bigger picture of promising employees peace, happiness and wealth.

It turns out (just look at what’s happened in the past decade to the economy) that we’re all victims when it comes to the loss of our collective voice. It is only the force of our regret at having lived in this bargain that explains the power of our longing for the web.

I love reading books like the Cluetrain Manifesto because they stimulate my thinking and remind me that we’re all on this beautiful planet for just a nano-second of time. When it came to reflecting on David Weinberger’s words of wisdom, I got to thinking about Harrison Owen, respected author, consultant and creator of Open Space Technology, a highly empowering method of engaging people and inviting their voices to solve complex problems, whether in organizations or at the community level. Take a moment to check out Owen’s work and OST.

Now that you’ve read this post and given some thought to the ideas shared, and hopefully checked out the links, what does all this mean for you personally?

Are you expressing your true voice daily in whatever capacity you’re working or volunteering?

When it comes to working in a crappy labor market, and especially if you’re seeking work, then ideals go out the window. Everyone bunkers down, allowing themselves to be kicked in the butt by the boss, nodding their heads in agreement during meetings or job interviews.

But is that a good strategy?

There are companies out there that want people to express themselves honestly and openly. However, remember that with being open comes common sense and responsibility. In the vernacular if you want to stand up and be counted, don’t be an asshole. Be a leader. Add value, contribute to your co-workers’ ideas and be open to outcome, not attached to it.

Are you ready to take the plunge?

Conversation is a profound act of humanity. So once were markets.
– Doc Searls (The Cluetrain Manifesto)

Photo by J. Taggart (San Francisco)

Click here to download my complimentary e-white paper Leading in a Multipolar World: Four Forces Shaping Society.

Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.

Take a moment to meet Jim.

Are You a Quick Change Artist?

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:04:21 -0400

Do you like the status quo? Where you can maintain your routine at work, keep the co-workers you like, as well as a boss? If you answered yes then I have a surprise for you: you’re living on some distant planet.

Stability in the workplace was more a feature of when my late dad worked for Canadian National Railways and later the Government of Canada, from the late 1930s to late 1980s. I entered the job market in 1978 after college, and for the next two decades things were pretty stable. I’m not talking about recessions, stagflation, oil embargoes and other more global events, but about how people worked for the same employer for many years, and had benefits and pensions.

The past decade has seen the final nail in the coffin of the employment contract: the reciprocal relationship between employers and workers. Simply stated, this was where employers provided lifelong employment with benefits, while employees were loyal to the organization, putting in a hard day’s work. That was the world of my dad and his peers. And, being an ageing Baby Boomer, that has been my world along with my cohorts. However, the winds are changing.

This artificial world began to change in the nineties, picking up steam into the 2000s. Baby Boomers at the top end (currently from about age 60 to 66) still had it pretty good. As you move down the age ladder, more of us faced forced early retirement or the boots from employers who were downsizing and outsourcing. I was fortunate, having built a career in government and bailing a year before the cuts started.

Gen X (early thirties to late forties), despite living in the Boomers’ shadow for far too long is now moving into management positions, though they are having to adapt to numerous issues, including rapid technology change, virtual teams and brutal global competition.

Gen Y is the generation that’s getting hammered. Society has undergone an abrupt paradigm shift in the past few years: from the view that young people would be pampered by employers who would be climbing over one another to hire replacements for retiring Boomers, to today’s reality of highly indebted, well-educated college grads who work for minimum wage, living in mom and dad’s basement.

This scenario was certainly not part of the movie trailer scene that was being played out in the early 2000s by “experts.” Employers would have to bend over backwards to recruit and retain Gen Y. Someone please rewind that bad movie.

Now we increasingly see young people battling it out with older workers, who now seem to extend to their late seventies. There’s nothing like a lengthening life expectancy to broaden the labor force, while simultaneously economically hungry emerging economies are asserting themselves, giving companies more opportunities where to set up operations.

Work is outsourced, offshored and of temporary nature, paying lower wages with no benefits.

Rest in Peace, employment contract.

So where does that leave all of us as citizens who want to lead productive lives and to contribute to our countries’ economic outputs?

Learn to control what you are able to within your sphere of influence. And perhaps the most important skill you can develop in an age of whitewater turbulence is becoming a quick change artist.

Now, I’m not suggesting that you suddenly decide to peel off your clothes in the middle of downtown; that could bring you problems. I’m talking about learning how to watch emerging trends, synthesizing the information you’re collecting, and then reacting quickly to stay ahead of the pack.

For example, the past few years have seen the masses flock to social media, whether it’s Twitter, Facebook, Google+, or a myriad of websites where people are expressing themselves. Many are also trying to make a buck from social media.

Keep in mind that social media is in its infancy, likened to when the telephone or radio were first introduced. Excitement, confusion, resistance are some of the reactions people had to these “new” technologies–the same with social media. There are many other examples one can use in today’s changing world.

Embracing change is critical. However, it’s equally important to do so in a focused way.

Take time regularly to think and reflect on what it is you want to accomplish in the short and longer term. Soak in what you experience around you, read up on global trends and try to learn something new every day. Yes, each and every day.

You’ll find over time that you’ll be among the first to recognize and act on new opportunities. Break off that rearview mirror; it’s not helping you position yourself for the future.

Don’t delay!

A desk is a dangerous place from which to view the world.
– John Le Caré

Click here to download my complimentary e-white paper Leading in a Multipolar World: Four Forces Shaping Society.

Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.

Take a moment to meet Jim.