Ed Batista

David Bradford on Real Options

Theories about leadership are great, uh, in theory.  As a change management consultant, I can't argue with that--but as an actual leader, what are your real options?  In David Bradford's "High Performance Leadership" class at Stanford Business School today (I'm the teaching assistant), he drew the following graph on the board (here's a larger version):

(He actually wrote "Competencies" instead of "Key Skills."  So sue me.)  Today's discussion focused on a case involving a manager who had to decide whether to fire or counsel a key subordinate.  When surveyed, half the class thought she should fire the subordinate, and the other half thought she should counsel her.

David revealed that the subordinate was ultimately fired, but as he did so, he asked the class, What was the manager's conceptual model of leadership?  What was her personal style?  What were her key skills?  And it became apparent that although half of us wanted counseling to be a feasible option, firing was the only realistic outcome for this particular manager, given her leadership model, her personal style and her key skills.  (And deservedly so, trust me.)

The larger point David was making is that all theories aside, our real options as managers are bounded by our concepts and capabilities in these three areas.  I'd argue that our Potential Options have to conform to two out of three.

In any given situation, we can probably stretch beyond our current limits in one area at best--we can revise our conceptual framework, we can develop new skills, or we can modify our personal style.  (Here's another large version.)

More realistically, the Likely Option we choose in a given situation is going to be the one that conforms to our current concepts and capabilities in all three areas.  (Here's one more large version.)  This isn't just a matter of expediency, although that's a factor to consider--we're more likely to stay within our comfort zones when we have to make decisions in a hurry or under pressure.

But options that don't conform to our concepts and capabilities won't be sustainable over time.  Had the manager in today's case opted for counseling over firing, she probably would have made an earnest, good faith effort--at first.  But it's highly unlikely that she would have been able to stick with a plan that pushed her so far beyond her limits.

The take-aways for me are:

1. If we can push beyond our current limits in any of these areas--our model of leadership, our skills, our personal style--we expand the range of options available to us in a managerial situation, but also...
2. Any advice I provide to a manager as a coach or consultant must always be grounded in my client's unique blend of concepts and capabilities.  Theories are useful when we're trying to expand the range of options, but at the moment a decision has to be made, we have to work with the materials at hand.

(Here's a three-page PowerPoint of the graphs above, 29 KB.)

Pema Chodron and Mario Andretti on Control

I don't think we realize how much Buddhist nuns and champion auto racers have in common.  From Pema Chödrön's When Things Fall Apart:

From an awakened perspective, trying to tie up all the loose ends and get it together is death, because it involves rejecting a lot of your basic experience.  There is something aggressive about that approach to life, trying to flatten out all the rough spots and imperfections into a nice smooth ride.

To be fully alive, fully human, and completely awake is to be continually thrown out of the nest...

Death is wanting to hold on to what you have and to have every experience confirm you and congratulate you and make you feel completely together.

And from Mario Andretti:

If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough.

A little less spiritual, perhaps, but the underlying sentiment's the same: There's a zero-sum relationship between exerting control and living life to its fullest.  Whether we're searching for enlightenment or just trying to go faster, we have to let go a little (or a lot), accept loose ends and rough spots, and embrace it all.

Photo of eagle's nest by pfly, and photo of auto race by anonfx.  Yay Flickr and Creative Commons.

Louis Pasteur on Enthusiasm

"The Greeks bequeathed to us one of the most beautiful words in our language--the word 'enthusiasm'--en theos--a god within. The grandeur of human actions is measured by the inspiration from which they spring. Happy is he who bears a god within, and who obeys it."

...And who obeys it.  That's the essential point.  All too often we ignore our own "god within" and look for external validation to decide whether our passions are worth pursuing.  I'm not saying that reality checks are useless and we should just let our freak flags fly.  But I am saying that it's easy to come up with good (rational, pragmatic) reasons NOT to pursue our passions, and it's important to recognize what a precious gift enthusiasm truly is.

Louis Pasteur quoted in Kay Redfield Jamison's Exuberance: The Passion for Life, and found via Tom Peters (in the PowerPoint at the end of his post.)

Joel Peterson on What's Important

Important: Strongly affecting the course of events or the nature of things.

Urgent: Compelling immediate action or attention.

What's important isn't necessarily urgent...and what's urgent isn't necessarily important.  We all have plenty of urgent matters we're compelled to deal with, despite the fact that they don't really have much bearing on the course of events.  But what about those truly important matters that go neglected because they don't compel our immediate attention?

The distinction between importance and urgency seems obvious, but I didn't put it in such stark terms until I took a class in grad school with Joel Peterson, a business heavyweight who's been lecturing at Stanford since 1992.  The subject of the class was real estate, but Peterson's final lecture was sort of a free-floating life lesson--a summary of his accumulated wisdom.  I refer back to my notes from that lecture on a regular basis and one of the concepts that stands out is this distinction between what's important and what's urgent.  (Here's a larger version of the graph above, and here's a one-page PowerPoint, 70 KB.)

I find it a helpful reminder to spend less time and attention on all the urgent crap that isn't truly important, and to devote more to the truly important things that nevertheless lack urgency.  (Awareness may not be sufficient--but it's a start.)

Hit Parade: Top Posts from the Past Year

Here are a few posts from 2005-06 that continue to resonate with me.  Topics include coaching, motivation, professional development, leadership, organizational culture, and the process of change.  I'll update this list as time passes, but you can always find any post using the search boxes to the left. 

Peter Drucker on Managing Oneself (November 2005)
"Most people...do not really know where they belong until they are well past their mid-twenties.  By that time, however, they should know the answers to the three questions: What are my strengths?  How do I perform?  and, What are my values?"

Matt Doherty: Live and Learn? (February 2006)
"There's more to leadership than command authority, and Matt Doherty's experience during and since his time at UNC suggests three big take-aways for the rest of us..."

Pfeffer and Sutton on Leadership (May 2006)
"We tend to assign more credit and blame to leaders than...they actually deserve... But...leadership can make a difference, and Pfeffer and Sutton have a short checklist to help leaders be as effective as possible."

Organizational Development: Is Humanism Overrated? (June 2006)
"A better understanding of how our brains function will allow organizations to embrace change and tackle new initiatives much more effectively.  But I wouldn't throw the humanistic baby out with the bathwater just yet."

Johnny Cash on Doing it Your Way (June 2006)
"It doesn't matter to me that I only know three or four chords... I just believe that when it all comes together it's the right way for me to do it."

Finding Professional Fulfillment (July 2006)
"What makes a job satisfying?  What constitutes fulfillment?  What factors have to be balanced to achieve it?"

The Inner Game of Work: Who Are You Working For? (September 2006)
"We need to listen to our inner voice and work freely for ourselves without simply giving in to indulgent whims.  And we need to be of service and to create value for others without simply responding to external demands."

Zinedine Zidane and Authenticity

I was intrigued to read in Friday's Wall Street Journal that French soccer star Zinedine Zidane's popularity has increased dramatically since his infamous head-butt of Italian Marco Materazzi in the 2006 World Cup Final.  (If you were in a monastery over the summer and missed all media coverage, here's a 10-second clip.)

At the time most people thought that the incident would be perceived as a black mark on Zidane and diminish his ability to win commercial endorsements (which earned him $11 million in 2005.)  But as Marie Valla wrote in the WSJ...

[I]n the two months since [the World Cup...Zidane's] public appeal has soared.

"From an advertising point of view, Zidane's emotional charge is twice as big today as it was before the World Cup," says Frederic Raillard of Publicis' affiliate Marcel...

Through France ended up losing the match, Mr. Zidane was voted the country's favorite personality in a recent annual newspaper poll.

What's going on here?  Zidane's impulsive act was clearly remarkable by virtue of its setting (the largest sporting event in the world) and its mysteriousness (Materazzi's taunting seems even less provocative now that we know he was insulting Zidane's non-existent sister).  So it's logical that Zidane would be the focus of intense media scrutiny.  And the increased attention resulting from that scrutiny certainly explains some of Zidane's increased popularity.

But underlying that mechanical explanation is something more emotional: the obvious impulsivity (even stupidity) of Zidane's act has a visceral appeal in a world where most public actions are scripted and mediated with the greatest care.  Zidane was pissed--who really knows why, or cares?--and he expressed himself directly.  Not intelligently or articulately, but directly.  That's in stark contrast to 99% of other public figures, and it's made Zidane authentic and, frankly, more interesting.

We can and should decry Zidane's poor sportsmanship, disdain attention-getting stunts, and aspire to a world of ethical sport.  Even Zidane says "I hope that none of these kids [at a junior soccer tournament] will ever do something like I did."  But there's clearly value in authenticity and, at times, in wearing our emotions on our sleeves.

Photo courtesy of premasagar.  Yay Flickr.

Mark Danielewski on Being a Professional

Author Mark Danielewski, whose first book was 2000's House of Leaves, just finished his second, Only Revolutions, and he described his writing regimen to the S.F. Chronicle's Tony DuShane:

[I approach writing] the way an athlete would approach something.  I write professionally, and if you look at the professionals, they care about the way they sleep, what they read, what they eat.  And it's not just about being trim and strong; it's about achieving a certain amount of mental solidarity.  It's funny because in that sense it's the exact inverse of what was perceived as Beat ethics. You know, let's write this thing on Benzedrine, you know.  Let's just get whooped on jug wine and just go for it.

I needed to be as fit as possible all the time.  So it was just as important for me to write eight or nine hours a day as it was to stay in shape, to eat well, to rest, to even meditate.

I haven't written anything on Benzedrine since, um, ever, but this reminds how often I fail to take care of myself in ways that hurt my ability to be productive, creative and inspired.  My weakness is staying up too late while working on a project and running a sleep deficit that (hopefully) gets made up on the weekend.  I fool myself into thinking that my ability and willingness to go without sleep is a sign of my professionalism, when in fact it's the exact opposite; being truly professional means taking care of myself so that I can do my best work.

Photo courtesy of Lower Class Student.  Yay Flickr & Creative Commons.

The Inner Game of Work: Who Are You Working For?

I just finished Tim Gallwey's The Inner Game of Work, and although it included a number of useful concepts, what really hit me was its conclusion, particularly in light of my post earlier this week on who and what we're working for.  Gallwey ends the book with a chapter titled "The Inherent Ambition," in which he discusses the nature of our desire to work and conducts a dialogue between his inner voice and his conscious self on his own attitudes toward work:

I am not a slave to anything.  I do not work under pressure.  I am someone who has something to reveal and who wants to reveal it.  I am free and only work freely.

Brave and confident words from this voice that seems so faint and gentle.  It appears so much smaller than the voices demanding that I must get my work done.  It is distinctly different from the voice of obligation and duty that counsels me to meet my responsibilities to others.  That voice comes through loud and clear.  The one I am listening to now has another tone and another message...

I work for myself.  I love what I do.  I consider work one of the most wonderful opportunities of being alive.  Work is my play.  But it is play with a purpose.  The purpose is mine...

What is also surprising to me about this voice is that it is speaking in the present tense.  It is not saying, "I want to be free."  It is saying, "I am already free."  I continue to listen to what it has to say to me...

You have a choice about who you are working for, the outer demands or for me--the me that is you, the me that is already free.  There is one other choice--to ignore that you have a choice.  But then you will be the force of that other river of demands--or rebellion against them, which is just a tributary of that same muddy water.

As I noted in the comments on my earlier post, choosing to work for yourself "doesn't mean simply making yourself happy and telling everyone else to stuff it."  I wholly agree with Glen Sartain that "in meeting other's needs we find true happiness."  But there's a paradox here that we each must confront and resolve in our own way: We need to listen to our inner voice and work freely for ourselves without simply giving in to indulgent whims.  And we need to be of service and to create value for others without simply responding to external demands and obligations. 

Seth Godin on Success

From Seth Godin yesterday:

Too often, we let someone else define success...

A lot of organizational conflict comes from mismatched expecations of success...

How's this: success is largely about keeping your promises.

Photo courtesy of skunkpiks.  Yay Flickr.

High Performance Leadership at Stanford Business School

Starting next week I'll be serving as a teaching assistant in David Bradford's class on High Performance Leadership at Stanford's Graduate School of Business.  (Power Up: Transforming Organizations Through Shared Leadership, which David co-wrote with Allan Cohen, will be the course's primary text.)

I didn't study with David while I was at Stanford, but I had a profound discussion with him several years ago when I was thinking about a PhD in Organizational Behavior and a career in academia.  We talked about my goals and why I was interested in pursuing a PhD, and then David drew a list of activities on a whiteboard, including basic research, applied research, teaching and direct work with organizations, and he asked me to think about what percent of my time I wanted to spend on each activity and to write down a figure next to each item on the list.  Then he showed me how my time would actually be allocated if I followed the path I was considering and wrote those figures next to mine on the whiteboard.  The two sets of numbers didn't have much in common.

My passion is for working in a very hands-on way with individuals and organizations to initiate positive changes and negotiate them successfully.  It's essential for me to know that I'm having a direct impact on the lives of the people I'm working with.  David helped me to realize that I'd be more likely to fulfill those needs practicing "in the field" than in academia, and he probably saved me many years of frustration.  I still consider from time to time whether a PhD would be of value in my current practice as a coach and consultant, but now it's with a much clearer sense of purpose.

I remain impressed by how skillfully David tackled the difficult job of helping me see that my vision was a mirage and that my plan would likely end in failure without quashing my hopes or my ambitions.  It was an inspiring lesson in how to be compassionate while also being direct, and I'm looking forward to learning more from him over the next few months.