Proceed Until Apprehended

Invitations are exciting things. We’re so pleased when we get them. Someone thought of us, someone cares.

Not all invitations are good for you. For some, we need to be wary. These invitations ask you to solve problems, provide answers, make decisions and define the course. It actually presents itself like any other invitation. People are deferring to your wisdom. They value your input. They want you to join the party.

That feels nice, and it feels nice to accept the invite, swoop in and make stuff happen… except this invitation has strings. Accepting this invitation establishes that the inviter doesn’t do the heavy lifting, the invitee does. The inviter doesn’t need to think through the issue, make a plan or take responsibility for the breakdown. They just have to flag you down and point to the flat tire.

Accepting this invitation creates a relationship where you take on responsibility for the outcome. That’s all well and good if it’s your role, but if you’re trying to get others to engage in the work, this invitation creates a sustainability problem. The responsibility you’ve just taken with such mastery and confidence was taken from someone who was gingerly holding it, hoping they wouldn’t have to do it themselves. You just took them off the hook. They learned they don’t have to take the risk. You will.

Here’s the counter-intuitive punch line: Establishing yourself as a person that eats problems for breakfast is exactly why you got promoted in the first place, and now it’s exactly what you do not want to do when you’re coaching others.

Spotting and skillfully redirecting unhealthy invitations is one of the key distinctions between good workers and good leaders.

A recent post of mine was about the library, of which I’m a huge fan and user. I’m passionate about the museum, too, but it’s a different kind of love. I don’t particularly like going there, I just like what it represents and what it could be.

I work directly across from our Provincial museum, the Royal Saskatchewan Museum (RSM), and right next door to their annex. They house three collections, a biological collection, a paleontological collection and an Aboriginal artifacts collection. I’ve had the opportunity to tour through the annex, which is not open to the public. It’s more interesting than the museum itself by a factor of ten.

I think this goes for many museums, but I’m picking on the RSM. The museum is, unfortunately, much too static. This is because of money, of course, but it also seems to be because they’re presenting a history of Saskatchewan through mostly physical artifacts, and those don’t change over time. Once you’ve tweaked your presentation, you’re largely into preservation, right?

As you might guess, I don’t agree. I think the RSM should be all about the interpretation. This shouldn’t be too much of a stretch. The tour guides are called interpreters, after all.

Right now, the museum presents the facts, and just the facts. By “interpretation,” I mean that the museum should be in the business of helping me understand what all the history and the worldview they present means for me right now.

The museum offers a picture of reality that is not warped or diluted by other noise. It’s a view of our world that hasn’t been overly polished, manufactured or “defined” by someone else. It’s contact with a reality you can really trust, and that’s exceeding rare in our lives… check that… the lives of people like me, living in the city and going to work each day.

The museum says: These are the environmental regions of our province. This is the bedrock beneath our feet. These creatures once roamed our land. These creatures now roam our land. These people and these cultures defined this province. This vegetation naturally covers our landscape… When I spend all my time outside on paved roads and my indoor time in the air-conditioned comfort in front of a screen, these things can be forgotten.

Somewhere along the way, museums defined their role as protectors of history. They are preservationists to the point that most of the collections are hidden away from public view. The mandate of a museum ends up being, “We protect things that are irreplaceable.”

I think there’s a relevance problem here. Museums need to be challenged to make these collections and this ”real” look at our world relevant to the public. The museum I dream of would be dedicated to helping others understand the world, past and present, so they can make better choices for their future.

Leadership is often understood to be “principle-centred.” You figure out what’s important to you and then you stick to that path. You establish the path that’s integral to you, and even when distractions try and pull you from it, you know what’s important. I see the museum offering a reality-centre. It can be trusted. It can help you buildi an understanding of yourself and your world, offering a solid foundation from which you can develop principles that govern your behaviour. The museum offers an excellent foundation for leadership.

The museum offers bedrock in more ways than one, but we need help using it. It’s not enough just to be there.

Museum, thank you for helping me understand the past, and thank you for helping me understand the present. Please help me plot a path for the future that is grounded in reality.

At the moment, there’s limited transition between “What we know to be true,” and “What we should do now.” I’m inspired by the Human Factors exhibit at the RSM, which connects our human influence to the world’s current state, but it only implicitly invites a tough self-examination. For most, the principles at the centre of their behaviour are  left untouched after a museum visit.

I’d like to see the museum:

• provide examples of leaders who stuck to reality, even when it made them appear unreasonable
• ask me to make a personal commitment to respond to something I learned today
• organize our community to take action on important issues that are largely ignored
• reach out and engage the community in interpreting current events through a scientific and historical lense
• offer orientation for public servants and any organization that’s committed to Saskatchewan
• lead a movement of choice and change based on a trusted understanding of the world
• when I’m physically in the building, engage me in a dialogue. Pull scientists from the back room and focus on engaging with the public.

I’m sure this is easier said than done. There’s undoubtedly a laundry list of items and infrastructure that just need maintenance. Here’s my tradeoff: I’m OK with seeing historical artifacts suffer damage if it means people’s future decisions are more thoughtful, deliberate and grounded in reality. I say that, but I don’t think it would get that far. In truth, becoming more relevant is the first and most important step in getting more funding.

In these days of economic turmoil, there is a growing gap between successful organizations and those that are on the slow path to failure.

There seems to be a huge difference in the kinds of employment experiences these organizations offer, as well. It’s a virtuous circle, or “runaway” as Seth Godin calls it, as successful companies engage their employees, get better results, recruit better employees, engage them even more, get even better results, etc. The troubled companies? It’s a circle too (or spiral), but not quite so virtuous.

When we’re considering employment opportunities, it’s important that we ask how we can recognize the good companies. There’s a bit of “greener grass” when you look at any potential employer, but what really makes the difference? Here’s my list.

Real leadership

Topping the list of desired traits in an engaging employer is a leader… a real leader. Leadership can take many forms, and at first glance, many business heads look the part and they certainly have the title. Figuring out if they can actually drive engagement and excitement is something altogether different than appearance or title, though. Jim Collins defines a leader really well in Good to Great. He calls it ”Level 5 Leadership,” and these leaders distinguish themselves through a combination of Humility and Will. I can’t do his full description justice, but my takeaway is that Leaders often put their ego in check as they make choices that are for the good of the company. I’d suggest there’s a simple test: Does your potential leader work on things that create results today and tomorrow or do they work for some distant future? The former makes them look good and feel good. The latter serves the organization more than themselves.

A healthy relationship with ideas

A healthy relationship would mean a conversation takes place… ideas would not be met with a response based on how it’s different than the conclusions that exist already. Are ideas examined or are they disputed? Are external ideas a distraction from the agenda or an opportunity to get better? Ideas need a meritocracy, not a pass-fail response. An engaging environment gives ideas a fair chance.

A reliance on their employees

Speaking of meritocracy, what’s the relationship with employees? I’ve yet to see a business that doesn’t say some version of “Our people are our greatest asset.” It’s come to the point that it’s now meaningless to say it. As with so many concepts, there is often a gulf between word and deed. I think this is most easily seen in the nature of the delegation. Are employees simply researchers for the boss’s agenda or are they asked to help find the direction? The creation of an engaging environment is one where the employees are empowered to pursue and develop the direction even when the boss isn’t around. In the unhealthy ones, the work happens when the spotlight is on, but it dies away when the boss’s attention is elsewhere.

As an off-shoot of this kind of orientation, I find I’ve got a hyper-sensitve response to job ads. When I read a description of an opportunity, I almost immediately classify it as an employer looking for labour or an employer looking for thoughtfulness. I’m sure I shouldn’t be so quick to judge so as to keep options open, but I suspect I’m saving a lot of wasted time, too.

A progressive business model

Another book with some fantastic concepts about successful, engaging businesses is Jeff Jarvis’ What Would Google Do? In it, he presents this gem: “There’s an inverse relationship between control and trust.” This is the foundation of some really exciting businesses. Google, of course, and Zappos, the online shoe-seller, are a couple examples of organizations where the leadership of the organization has ceded significant discretion and decision-making power to the individuals that are doing the work… in some cases suppliers and partners. If the organization is designed in an elegant, thoughtful way, letting go of control puts you in the centre of something infinitely more valuable. A business model that thrives on openness and transparency is also a lot more sustainable and, of course, engaging for employees. This one’s perhaps a bit more subjective to read, but in a conversation with people at the top of the hierarchy, are the gripping the steering wheel or looking for ways to hand over the keys?

I’m sure there’s many other essential elements important to a healthy employer. This is just the list that comes to mind for me. I invite you to share what makes a good employer for you in the comments.

Have you ever been intensely frustrated with a work team that doesn’t seem to get it? It may be that the roles are ill-defined, the processes are haphazard and inefficient or there is simply no purpose to align efforts. Forget about “systems thinking,” these teams are organized for knee-jerk reactions. When an issue comes up, watch the thrashing that ensues. Ultimately, the team isn’t getting to any results.

If you’re seeing this, what’s the right response? If we look around us, it’s clear that one of the most common responses is to wait it out for a bit and see if things get better.

Seriously, have any of these things ever gotten better on their own?

More likely – actually, always – this results in a continued ineffective organization. The problems remain undefined, the potential solutions go unexamined and those that are propagating the problems continue their path unabated.

Wishfully thinking the mess will resolve itself is not a realistic strategy. It’s a defense mechanism that keeps you from taking emotional risk. It keeps you safe on the sidelines, smug in your knowledge that it sucks.

But that’s OK. Fair enough. If you don’t want to get in the fray, I think that’s your right. However, this strategy should not be accompanied with your continued frustration with the situation. You don’t get that right. If you are choosing to quietly wait for someone else to lead the way out, you’re making a decision to also endure it until it gets better. You’ve gotta pay that price. By the way, it’s your burden, and yours alone. You don’t need to unload it on an unsuspecting confidant so you can temporarily feel better. Sit with it. Stew on it. Maybe, if it becomes uncomfortable enough, you’ll realize you shouldn’t just wait it out.

If only the wishful thinker would propose a solution, the benefits are tremendous.

• You focus a conversation on a problem that others haven’t seen, or at least have been afraid to acknowledge. Groupthink can drive a wedge between a committee and reality. Diverse perspectives can bring a committee back.
• You introduce an alternative path. This often defines the parameters of future conversations. Everybody gets busy supporting or fighting your plan… others aren’t even considered.
• You make a statement about what kind of participant you are. You are one that bring solutions, not problems. That puts you in a special, rare category.

The cost for all this? Well, as Ghandi said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” On the first attempt, in all likelihood, they ignore you. Perhaps you’ll be so fortunate as to get some eye-rolls or scoffs. They at least heard your point. If you keep it up, you’ll have the success of your audience sitting up ramrod straight and telling you all the reasons it can’t be done. That’s when you’ve got them right where you want them. With persistence, I believe you can make a difference.

More plainly, the cost is how it makes you feel. It’s not particularly comfortable in the moment. It’s just right. That’s integrity, and it has the ability to make you feel unsettled and at peace in the same moment.

I’m in a pretty timid organization, a bureaucracy where having eye-to-eye conversations about real issues is to be avoided at all costs. I would LOVE to have more ridicule and more fighting of my ideas. As it stands, I’m pretty sure I could propose the purchase of a beaver to sharpen our pencils and I wouldn’t get a response. You know what, though? I feel a lot better pushing for what’s right and getting nowhere than remaining silent and by default becoming a supporter of what’s wrong.

Thinking strategically vs. being strategic. There’s a difference. In fact, the more you delve into it, the more they look like they might be opposites.

As a strategic thinker, you’re pretty good at nuances, reading the tea leaves and coming up with solutions that negotiate all the pitfalls. You can see what needs to happen to get things done and dispatch problems with efficiency. Strategic thinkers are intelligent, perhaps even crafty. They can think a move ahead of their opposition. I like strategic thinkers. They see issues with clarity and get closer to root causes. They think up solutions that are more sustainable and more effective. Not every strategic thinker, however, uses their knowledge for the best possible results.

Strategic thinkers don’t necessarily take the steps required to move the intiative towards the best solution. That’s not the assignment. Strategic thinkers can guarantee you efficiency and smart maneuvering within the prescribed rules of the game. It seems that sometimes strategic thinkers see what doesn’t work, but they determine that the cost of change is too great compared to the benefit of the improvement. If it’s the wrong game or if the process doesn’t create the results it used to, a strategic thinker that doesn’t want to bear the possible pain that comes with change might be the one thing holding a flawed structure together. That is short-sighted and unhelpful. 

There’s a different level to strategy, the level where you know the rules of the game are wrong and profound results will only be achieved only if the rules are broken. If you see those deeper problems, congratulations. You’ve done an exceptional job of thinking strategically. As a next step, if you act on your knowledge to improve the game, the rules or the system, in my books you’ve moved from thinking strategically to being strategic.

If you want action outside the prescribed rules, you should seek out someone who is willing to be strategic. More important than knowing some crafty next steps, you need the person who will combine altruism with a sense of the long-term to deliver action that serves best interests, not assignments.

Are they opposites? Maybe the strategic thinker and the strategic doer, but a strategic thinker that doesn’t want to take pursue change is a dangerous enemy. They can be a formidable opponent of your efforts to change. If it weren’t for change-averse smart people, I think we’d move a lot more quickly.

With brilliant simplicity, Seth Godin has offered an opportunity for his readers to connect with others in their area.

Here’s his post, but don’t click away just yet. I want to impress upon you how smart I think this is.

Presumably, Seth Godin’s readers are everywhere.  One of the problems, however, is that the ideas and concepts he’s sharing create short-term discomfort when you practice them. Being a Linchpin or leading a Tribe (his two most recent books) require you to buck convention, speak truth to power and stand up for change. In my experience, the large majority of people in your off-line world are going to react negatively to this behaviour. The ones that agree with you are hard to find and you can’t identify them. If only we had special hats or t-shirts. 

I humbly suggest that Regina, Saskatchewan, my location, is worse off than most. We’re a government town in a resource-based province. A new reality hasn’t really hit here yet.

Seth Godin just put his hand out to me. He said, “I know it’s hard. You’re not alone.” For one glorious evening, I’ll be able to see the people in Regina that are having a similar experience. If you’re in Regina and buy this stuff, I hope to see you there.

The Internet is such a firehose. The information comes fast. The marketing comes fast. The new ideas, the new products, the next thing… fast, fast, fast.

I find myself getting pretty frustrated with the skimming it induces. A full night of superficial snippets can leave me with a lot of trivia and nothing of substance. I find it more important than ever to make sure I pull away from the bells and whistles every once in a while and actually go deep, immersing myself in something that engages my brain.  Deliberately exploring a topic to a new level of understanding makes a lot more meaning for me than the skim.

In fact, if we were to collect all the things we hear and see each day and somehow conduct an audit to figure out what actually made it into our brain, we’d realize we can do without a lot of the barrage that occupies us.

So, why do we often choose to consume so much at a superficial level? I think it’s because choosing to actively ignore information that’s coming at you is like the problem with not buying a  lottery ticket. How can you possibly not buy a ticket? This may be THE ONE.  What if this ticket is the one that makes you rich? What if that next phone call is the President? What if the next big Internet sensation needs my investment immediately? What if a once in a lifetime announcement is just around the corner? All that hope, all those what-ifs… they cause a lot of attention to be directed to areas that rarely, if ever, have a payoff.

Here’s why some can do without lottery tickets: They get the math. They understand that one in 14,000,000 means you’ll typically spend $14,000,000 on tickets before you hit THE ONE. There’s an equivalent logic for understanding the information barrage, too. It may be less tangible, but intuitively, we know it’s there. If you step away from the constant flow and deliberately pursue and immerse yourself in what you want to see, you get more, you learn more. It’s more relevant. It’s more applicable to your life because you have selected, not received.

We’re now in a world where it’s easier for each of us to be our own program director. There’s unlimited information. It’s accessible at the click of a button. It comes on our time and on our terms.

It’s time to break an old habit – technology now allows you near complete control of the firehose. Don’t let others choose the messages for you.

In the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Dr. Stephen Covey illustrates the role of a leader with the Jungle Analogy.  He talks about a group, an organization, committed to swathing a path through the jungle.  In this organization, he identifies three roles – the machete-wielding worker, the manager and the leader.

While the worker is cutting down the undergrowth, the manager is behind the action making sure the worker is well supported – sharpening machetes, providing training, nutrition, strength building, you could even imagine this manager providing supportive words of encouragement… “Great slash! A couple more like that and you’ll be up for hacker of the year!”

The leader is perched atop a tall tree ensuring direction, and if necessary, yelling “Wrong jungle!”

The lesson Dr. Covey is conveying is about the importance of having someone that is at the highest of high levels thinking about purpose and direction. Another great example he uses is talking about climbing a ladder and the importance of having the ladder up against the correct wall. I’m in wholehearted agreement with the sentiment.

I really like this jungle analogy. When I talk about it, I always attribute more lessons to it than Dr. Covey did. I think this analogy is fantastic for helping us understand our organizations. It simplifies the playing field and allows for a very direct examination and discussion about roles in the workplace.

Here’s my addition to the analogy. I think the Manager feels tremendously inadequate in their role. They’re on the field. They’re in a position to assess and actually provide criticism on the actions of others, however they don’t cut. They don’t participate in the direct purpose of the organization. Seen from the perspective of a hotshot machete worker, they’re a gofer. A waterboy.

For managers, that can weigh heavy, especially since most of them used to be hotshot machete workers. I think these managers have a tremendous internal pressure to pick up a machete and impressively lead the way. Especially consider when one of their machete workers pleadingly looks back at them. “This is a very difficult patch,” they say. What manager could resist the opportunity to show their skill at getting the job done? It’s a moment that allows them to be a hero, is it not?

The moment a manager puts down their clipboard and starts hacking, the organization is gravely injured. When a manager takes on that role on the front lines, all other machete workers are without support. It’s so simple to see in the analogy, so seemingly difficult to see in the office. In the manager’s (selfish) effort to show their ability and see immediate progress, they reduce the capability of everyone else. I’m not sure that’s even the worse part, though. They also teach one machete wielder a very unhelpful lesson – if you find yourself in a challenging spot, look backwards. Rather than taking the time to figure it out, you can count on someone else to do the really hard stuff.

If a manager does their very difficult, emotionally demanding job of not jumping in, they build capability of staff.  They build a more sustainable and healthy organization.

Here’s the assignment. Don’t look for validation through the social mirror, look for it in your own principles. The majority of your colleagues likely won’t be with you, but that’s not the objective. You’re looking for personal satisfaction for a job effectively done. For what it’s worth, I will also be celebrating your courageous choice.

Look around. Are you on a conveyor belt?

I’ve been in a number of meetings where each plan and action coming out of the mouths of my colleagues is faultless. Despite this fact, I’m left with a feeling that we’re going backwards. What is it?

I think it’s that they’re on a conveyor belt. It’s going south, we’re trying to go north. We can agree on the direction, we can even agree on the destination, but in that very moment, the discussion about footsteps (the tactical), not the route (strategic choices we’re making). For most people, most days, the essential component is to put in the right directional effort. The results are secondary. As a result, there’s plenty of faultless effort, but minimal ground is gained. We need to do a better job of acknowledging that we’re on a shifting foundation.

Step one: Stop. Look around you. Are you on solid ground? Are you doing the right things or are you just doing things right?

Step two: Communicate your (new) reality to others. It’s your obligation. I say ”obligation” because it may not be pleasant. You will likely get chastised because your comments will be counter-productive to the immediate conveyor belt march. Your colleagues are trying to keep up and you’re a distraction. That’s to be expected. Just be ready.

Step three: Be very observant and engage with those that give you sidelong glances and pleading looks. They want to get off, too. They just need some help in the courage department.