Our Thinking

The big shift - technical expert to people manager

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:32:00 GMT

Over the last month, I have had the pleasure of coaching a very experienced professional move into a management role. It has highlighted for me all over again, just how big a shift this is and the challenges it poses.

Fundamentally the challenge is to see the world through a new lens. The lens of unpredictability, no real right and wrong, and no control. Of course its every new manager's belief that he/she should be in control and nearly everything they read and hear reinforces this belief. But reality is, managers manage their people better when they let go of control - and they let go of 'right' and 'wrong'.

Why? Because controlling people builds resentment and decreases trust. Ask yourself - do you like that sense of being controlled by someone else? Of course it can be really subtle - not overt - control can show up as 'carrots' and 'sticks' to do things to. Control reduces choice... and when we have less choice we have less sense of reponsibility. Managing people well therefore is about opening up choices for people and letting them choose. This means a good manager accepts that sometimes their staff may choose poorly - and they will learn as a result. Excellent managers allow this whilst ensuring that their staff do not suffer huge 'failures' and experience a severe drop in confidence as a result.

This means the manager has to let go of being 'right'. Technical matters may be said to have a 'right' answer. But in the matter of people, there is no 'right', there is just what works - which means that a relationship of trust in each other develops. You trusting that your people have the resources (ability) to meet the challenge and them trusting that you have their best interests at heart.

Top ten tips to achieve this:
1. Stop telling and start asking - your solution is not the only one.
2. Believe in your people more than they believe in themselves.
3. Meet regularly to 'feed forward' rather than 'feed back' - help your team work out what they are going to, when, and how by asking questions.
4. Genuinely take an interest in the people you work with. Get to know them and let them get to know you as a real live person.
5. Don't let niggling issues of performance fester. Have the courage to get them into the open quickly and early. Start with a 'whisper' and escalate from there.
6. Create opportunities for your people to use and develop their strengths - more and more everyday.
7. Ensure your team members take responsibility for their work- don't look after them like a child - treat your people as the adults they are.
8. Take time talking with people and resist the urge to 'put your stamp on things' too early if at all.
9. It's no longer about you - its about your team - supply your team with the resoources they need to do their work well adn get out of the way.
10. It's your job to set your people up for success - their failure is really your failure.

Managing is an art - not a science.

Authenticity

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 03:21:00 GMT

The current Federal Election here in Oz is a great time to watch 'leaders' in action.

I use 'leaders' in inverted commas because I like to remind us that we often use the term 'leader' to denote someone in a senior position of authority. Our political leaders hold positions of authority - how well they 'lead' is another matter entirely!

But that said, the past week which has seen Prime Minister Gillard declare that she is hence forth going to the person she really is, reminds us of the importance and power of being authentic as we exercise our leadership. People sense a 'phony' a mile off!

The strategy of minmising the risk of offending anyone, leads to a lack of authenticity. Those exercising leadership need to be clear, for themselves and others, about that for which they stand.... This means being clear about a vision for a better future that will be attracted to some folk (and not others) and it means being clear about values and priorities.

This past week has seen the recognition that politically, an inauthentic and stage managed campaign - while attractive and apparently minimising the risk - actually alienates people.

Lets all learn form the lesson.... Biege does not cut it! Be all of who you are.....

Change and sustainability

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 01:51:00 GMT

Its fun, its fresh, it helps us explore what 'sustainability' means to each of us.

I found this wonderful cartoon strip this morning. Its called "My Intentional Life".

Have a look!

Let me know what you think.

If leadership is not about being a 'hero', what is it about?

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:37:00 GMT

This blog follows on from the most recent bolg below, where I explored the virtues (or lack of) of using military anlaogies for leadership within the current context of organisational life.

Within the current context outlined in the last blog, which is increasingly the everyday environment within organisations - a different type of leadership is required. A leadership that is more facilitative than directive; more flexible in thinking and behavioural repertoire; more able to liberate the best from others in service to the whole; more able to inspire; more able to develop people; more able to envision a better future; and more able to lead genuine change to ensure long term viability.

The term we have developed to describe this newer type of leadership is ‘emergent leadership’. We use this to capture two facets of this type of leadership. Firstly, it works in the world of the ‘unknown’ in facilitating answers to challenges we haven’t faced before. And so plans are difficult to formulate because experimentation is required to see what will work – this type of leadership works with what is emerging. Secondly, this type of leadership also facilitates the emergence of new ideas and solutions from within people – and so emergent leaders also work in an emergent manner with people. Not ‘selling’ an answer, or even asking questions to prompt people in certain direction towards the leaders’ answers – but genuinely curious and seeking to learn with people.

In developing leadership therefore, there is a paradigm shift from the ‘hero’ leader and ‘emergent leadership’. The ‘hero’ leader is not ‘dead’ – strong decisive, clear action orientated leadership is necessary in a crisis for example. And when we have an existing process or understanding of a challenge, that means there is little new learning to be done in order to solve it, most managers can rely upon their authority and more of a ‘telling’ style to get the job done. But, the ‘hero leader’ style is generally over used and many in management roles feel the pressure of expectation (including their own) that they ‘should’ have the answers.

Emergent leadership requires a new understanding of how things work (founded upon what sciences is now telling us about a new lens to view the world through); advanced interpersonal and communication skills; and personal development to assist them thrive in highly ambiguous environments where they require patience, diplomacy, wisdom and humility.

What can we learn from Kevin's experience of political assination?

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:13:00 GMT

The media recently described the fall from grace of Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, as one of the most savage political assinations of the modern era.

The Adaptive Leadership framework, which I share with all my clients in one form or another, explains that leadership is always 'dangerous' and as people exercising our leadership, we should expect it to be so and prepare ourselves accordingly.

Why is it dangerous? Because leadership is about change and requires people to reprioritise their values in order to make an adaptive change. PM Rudd, had made two significant changes in quick succession. The first was stepping back from his election commitment (and mandate) on climate change. The second was a major change in corporate taxes on miners and the associated bungled negotiations (or lack of negotiations) with the mining industry. In both situations, existing prioritisation of values of different factions were challenged. No 'container' or process was apparent as being provided by the PM to assist the relevant people to make the necessary values re prioritisation to 'come along with him'. He just told us these changes would be good for us - many didnt believe it.

The lesson here is: If you are going to make a significant change, you need to provide places/processes for people to reassess what they 'hold dear' and decide to reprioritise because it seems the right course of action to them. This is a significant amount of leadership work, because the adaptive leadership framework also makes us aware that people will seek to avoid adaptive work. (Note it sometimes requires the leader to adapt too!)

People seek to avoid adaptive work in two significant ways - by avoiding personal responsibility or by distracting attention. I suspect that the PM felt the impact of both! He became the scapegoat for the government's failures, and so others also managed to avoid their responsibility. His 'assassination' also diverted attention from the real issues - making his personality and leadership style the issue of the moment, rather than any systemic flaws.

What can you learn from Kevin's experience?
Well there is much we outsiders will never know. But there are some principles you can take away:
1. Always expect your exercise of leadership to be 'dangerous'.
2. Keep close to those who oppose you, so you can understand their perspective and understand what they are 'holding dear'.
3. Create processes (meetings and conversations with representaives from the relevant system) for people to do the adaptive work of changing mindsets as a result of working through the pros and cons of the proposed change.
4. Work in a team, so you can not become a lone scapegoat. (There is safety in numbers, as long as the rest of the team does not decide to make you the scapegoat!)
5. Know the difference between an 'ally' and a 'confidant'.
6. Expect people to try to 'avoid the work' by distracting attention or denying responsibility. Be prepared.

The myth of the 'hero' leader (and fighter pilots)

Fri, 28 May 2010 08:43:00 GMT

I just received a flyer from an organization promoting a leadership course that aims to gain credibility by stating that you know it will work because the program is based upon principles taught to fighter pilots in the unforgiving context of a high altitude, no mistakes, kill or be killed environment!

Well its exciting and high pressured for sure - and having just arrived back home off a plane - I appreciate the skill, fine judgement and intelligence of the pilot who safely delivered me here...

BUT lets face it, most of us exercise our leadership in a context that is on the ground and where we need to encourage people to make mistakes in order to learn effectively.... principles founded upon fighter pilot training may just miss the mark!

This is an example of a leadership program founded upon the enduring myth of the hero' leader. I explore this in detail in an upcoming article on Exploding Seven Key Myths in Leadership Development, which will be available free online shortly. But here is a taste ….

In the ‘Hero’ myth, the leader is a person who has the answers, is able to sell the answers to others, accepts responsibility for others and protects followers (very consistent with fighter pilot). The ‘hero leader’ is a picture of consistency, clear and decisive action, and control. The myth of the hero leader is reinforced by our popular culture including film characters such as Indiana Jones, Batman, James Bond and Robin Hood (only recently joined by Lara Croft). The ‘hero leader’ is also most often someone in a position of authority – and in fact the term ‘leader’ is often used to denote a role or a senior position. So, when thinking about a ’leader’, there are often undercurrents of three different archetypes – the warrior, the king and the shepherd. The power and protection arrangements of these heroic command and control images retain their strong mythic pull …. because they are comforting to both hero leader and followers alike.

These images have also informed what we believe is “good management” within our organisations, with central values of dominance, efficiency, and material productivity. This has fuelled a confusion of the terms leadership and management. Many use these terms interchangeably.

The ‘hero leader’ style is seemingly successful in environments that are relatively simple and changing slowly. (Although the fighter pilot may be in a rapidly changing environment in terms of a series of rapid decisions being required - it is not a complexity requiring a multitude of stakeholders to be represented). When the environment is a complex one however, the ‘hero leader’ is not up to the task.

We are now post-industrial, internet connected, information rich, and increasingly ecologically concerned – it’s not simple – it’s complex. Our interconnectedness is becoming more and more apparent with each passing day. Globalisation in the truest sense is a reality. One person is unable to understand the multiple perspectives required to form a solution to highly complex and inter-related problems. And, because things are changing so quickly, tried and true solutions are hard to find – they are no longer applicable. Additionally, even if the ‘hero leader’ was able to formulate solutions to complex challenges, the propensity of people to be ‘told’ is reducing – its becoming harder to ‘sell’ the solution – people want involvement. Many changes require people to see and think about things differently and conversations are the source of the changes they need to make. That is, the involvement is a necessity for the change to take place.

In these increasingly interconnected, rapidly changing and complex times, the ‘hero leader’ myth may be yearned for – but it is proving increasingly ineffective.

Read on to the next blog to learn about how leadership may be exercised in our inter-connected times.

Are you really as independent and free as you think?

Tue, 11 May 2010 22:51:00 GMT

We often ignore what we can’t see, but there are powerful and invisible forces that have a huge influence upon your behaviour everyday and your ability to exercise your leadership. To explain what I mean, try this thought experiment (that you may like to try first hand when you are next in a public place, just to experience first hand the invisible social force fields that influence your behaviour).

Imagine yourself in a café or restaurant. And now imagine that I ask you to stand on the table …. and sing a song. (You are not allowed to be so overwhelmed with alcohol or any other substance that you don’t care.) If you are like most people there are several reasons you would hesitate, very strongly, to do this – even though it would really do no harm to anyone.

Social expectations are such that this is something people just ‘do not do’. To stand upon the table, you will contravene social convention.
Some people, seeing you contravene social conventions, will become upset and will probably make life uncomfortable for you. They may say things that are derogatory – you are likely to be ‘punished’ in some way.
You are going to have to be able to bear being in the spot light, like a ‘startled rabbit in car spots lights at night’. You will be ‘exposed’. This is very uncomfortable for some people.

So, moving the thought experiment back into your organisation and the context of leadership, you might ask yourself a few questions

How easy is it for people to speak up and say things that go against conventional wisdom?
What processes are in place to make it easier?
In what ways are people ‘punished’ when they do speak up?
How do you encourage people to develop the strength of character and willingness to ‘be exposed’ and sustain this for the period of time required in order to make a difference?

Consider.... are you really as independent of these invisible forces as you thought? We are continually both shaping and being shaped by the social context within which we live and work. It was a disappointment and shock to me when I realised, I was not the free and independent thinker and doer, that I thought I was. But being aware of this has now made me much more powerful as I consider how I can break the 'rules' and when I should break the 'rules'

"An abject failure of leadership"

Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:27:00 GMT

I am not a melancholic at heart - I am an idealistic optimist really - but this morning I feel the real change we all need as a country is further away that ever.

I just reviewed the papers after our Prime Minister's announcement that Australia will now be placed in the embarrassing and ineffectual position of attending post Copenhagen talks , urging other countries like US and CHina to take action on green house gasses: but without any plans to do so ourselves. This is an indefensible position. I am only an 'ordinary' person, not an international negotiator - but how on earth is that meant to be a position of strength and influence?

Its true that although Australians have almost the highest level of per capita emissions, as a country the sum of our emissions is low BUT that is no excuse for not taking our share of the moral burden.

I develop leaders..... its my job. And I know that all the research and all my experiences, indicate that what people look for in leadership is strength of character and integrity.

Strength of character to do what is right - even if its unpopular. If reneging on climate change is the 'right' thing to do, then I look forward to hearing the sensible and well thought out reasons. Otherwise it will be judged as politically expedient and weak. At present I sit in this latter camp.

Integrity is about doing what you say you will do. There are plenty of quotes where Kevin Rudd and his team have said climate change "is the moral issue of our times". If this is the case, they have just failed "Integrity 101".

In more recent times (say over the last 20 years) I believe Australia has developed some really good managers - and very few who excell at exercising leadership.

In industry and government - what we need in this rapidly changing context of a globalized world with increasing population, is leadership. The ability to mobilise people to do the adaptive work - to change the way they see and do things. This ability can be taught. Lets hope our political managers (managing their chances of re-election?) are willing to go back to school!

My hope is still there - but its taken a dent over the past few days....

Are we working ourselves to death?

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:45:00 GMT

Another topic of conversation emerged with clients this week. It is 'funny' how themes emerge from time to time.

These conversations with people in large and small businesses and then a large institution, all reflected the question " Why, and how is it, that we seem to be in the process of working ourselves to death?" The topic of work life balance has been around for a long time - but what is emerging from these conversations is more than this. (I don't even believe in 'work life balance' - I think its more about integrating you work into your life - they are not separate compartments that never overlap.)

Amongst my clients, I can count those with health histories including major heart surgery, stroke, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure...... and I believe, a universal sense of increasing background anxiety and stress. With all these folks there is a sense of needing to achieve more, do more and go faster and harder to do so. One client let it slip "I am going to try to have a holiday next week". As Yoda from Star Wars said, "Do or do not.... There is no try!". How do we get ourselves into a position of having to 'try' to have a holiday?

These questions become an inquiry into a much deeper systemic issue... "what is it that makes us think we can participate in an endless cycle of doing more with less?" There is pressure, most of it with a short-term focus upon profitability, on CEOs to deliver. This pressure reaches down into organizations like an octopus with exceedingly long tentacles - driving more projects; cutting head count to reduce costs; trying in vein sometimes to maintain the status quo despite the dramatic shifts that are occurring within society and the economy as the world starts to shift to a carbon free and more sustainable economy....

I suspect that no CEO intends this outcome and pressure upon their people... its an unintended consequence. What if we applied questions often reserved for the natural environment to our people? What if we asked, "How can we have a source of endlessly renewable and positive energy in our people without the toxic waste?"

Really, its time we started thinking less about efficiencies and more about effectiveness.

What is your experience of this? What do you think? What could you do differently?

The conversation is the change

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:05:00 GMT

Yesterday I was co-facilitating a leadership session as a part of our Leadership for Success program.

The participants are involved in developing an action learning project where they exercise their own leadership, with a view to extending their capacity in this area.

What is emerging is very exciting! (But I may write more about the content of what they are discovering later.)

Its been difficult for some to move from a 'technical' approach to solving problems (to their leadership project question of 'how can we, as an organisation, achieve more'?) into the leadership space, of working with people to catalyse or mobilise them, to see and do things differently. But yesterday - I think there was universal appreciation of this difference.

What we saw around the room was change happening right before our eyes as people shared perspectives and changed their minds about things. Different actions will flow from these conversations and people will say that the 'proof is in the pudding' - they will want to see the action before they say a change has occurred. But I know - and everyone in the room yesterday now knows - that the change happens long before the action.

The conversation is the change!

So, as you go about your work today, take some time in those conversations..... let go of the neat agenda.... and leave room for people to really explore an issue and discover what is at the heart of it. If you are chairperson, it really does not take a lot of skill, but it does take some courage and patience. Let people speak - let the change emerge....

It can be electrifying and joyful.

What can we hold people accountable for?

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:35:00 GMT

A coaching session today with one of my CEO clients, covered a familiar topic - accountability.

We discussed the need for clear commitments to desired outcomes and direct reports (the executive team) achieving what they commit to. At times, it can be embarrassing for a CEO to have to explain why certain outcomes have not been achieved.

This client was seeking a 'tool' to employ in order to improve accountability. If only there was such a simple solution! And I don't mean that condescendingly - if it was that simple, we would all be achieving all the things we committed to...

Firstly, we discussed the traditional approach to this issue. The need for clear communication - being clear about the expectations and crystal clear and specific. Also obtaining a reflection from the person concerned to ensure they received the same meaning as intended.

And then I started thinking more about what I have been learning recently.... so....

Secondly, it is likely that there will always be discrepancies between what is planned and what actually happens. You know that. I know that. John Lennon knew it too "Life is what happens while you are making other plans!" That is our common experience of life.

Somehow we lose sight of this experience when it comes to planning in organisations though. Look back a couple of blogs to "change is messy" and you will find reference to 'the managerial paradigm'. A way of seeing things (that we have been taught) and that reflects a belief in direct and linear cause and effect - even at a distance and over a considerable time period (like 12 months). Life doesn't actually happen like that. The real world of relationships, politics, other stakeholders, other people doing what they are doing - makes life in general and therefore organizational life, unpredictable, inconsistent, and interdependent.... uncontrollable!

But its not as if we don't have some influence over what happens... we do. And thinking about our organisations as living systems (rather than machines) and employing systems thinking, helps us understand that the greater the distance in time and geographical distance, between our action and the outcome we seek, the greater the levels of uncertainty. So, we need to consider: if we cant control specific outcomes.... how do we hold people accountable for progress?

Thirdly, we need to very carefully consider what we are measuring. Writers like Donella Meadows ( a systems dynamics expert) tell us that we should be looking very carefully at the indicators we use rather than solely measures - and that we need to develop information systems that reflect an understanding of the system as a whole. I am not an information systems expert - but as a brief example of this line of thinking, consider the following.

Another client wanted to improve customer service and decreed that all phones should be answered within 3 rings (I bet you have seen this in an organisation you have worked for at some stage) and felt convinced this would improve customer service levels. Nice try - but no cigar! People within the organisation do pick up within 3 rings but report they are often grumpier than they might have been if they could have taken just a little longer to finish their last thought.... However, the client involved has focussed people's attention on the issue of customer service -and this is a great start - but if its the 'end' as well - its not a good situation.

Using this example to think more about indicators, the desired end is improved customer satisfaction and to develop something people can be held accountable for we need to understand that system and the dynamics that contribute to 'satisfied customers'. One may be the speed with which the phone is answered. Another may be the degree of interest demonstrated by the person who answers the call and their ability to listen well - their ability to develop rapport. Another may be the time taken to respond to the issue raised - and the manner in which the results of the investigation are relayed. A leading indicator may be the rate at which calls are coming in compared to the rate at which they are being resolved. Many of these things are not necessarily easy to quantify. But we can get an indication of how they are progressing with 'happy faces' , follow up surveys and some measures.

What can we hold people accountable for with greatest equity and efficacy? The number of calls coming in? The number of calls handled? The number of 'successful resolutions"? The attitude employed in dealing with people?

What I have learned is that we need to take great care in choosing measures and indicators. What we measure reflects what we care about. And what we care about reflects what we measure.

Finding a useful array of measures and indicators is a process of inquiry and evolves over time. We need to recognise that agreeing to be held accountable for one specific measure is probably unwise as it will not reflect the health of system as a whole (evidence executive bonus schemes based upon financial measures for companies). We need to recognise that life is complex and it is highly unlikely that the specifics of what we intend will be manifested (especially at an executive level where the timeframes are longer).

So when thinking "what will I hold someone accountable for?" - have a long think and ensure you also treat it as a learning experience. Through this lens, you can learn a lot about how your business/organisation really works and interacts with the world within which it is embedded.

The big lesson? We often seek to hold people individually accountable for that which is really an outcome of the system within which people are working. By 'system' - I mean both the work process systems and the environment, the culture of the organisation within which they work.

So, my answer to the question posed: What can you hold your poeple accountable for? You can hold them accountable for their attitude and commitment to working with you to refine 'the system". And I mean that term, in the broadest, most holistic sense of the word.

Make sense?

Thinking outside the box!

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:49:00 GMT

I ran a workshop the other day, where people kept talking about the importance of 'thinking outside the square'. To be frank, if I hear this phrase again I think I may scream! Why? Because when ever people use this phrase they seem to the one's who are most stuck inside the box... and they dont even know it! And its such a cliche phrase now...

Creativity, improvisation and really thinking outside the box, requires some courage, time and energy and heaps of self awareness.

It requires some courage to be different (thats what it's all about!)

It requires time and energy to devote to having new insights, or playing wit new ideas and trying our new ways of thinking about things. Thomas Edison is attributed to have said

"Results? Why, man, I have gotten lots of results! If I find 10,000 ways something won't work, I haven't failed. I am not discouraged, because every wrong attempt discarded is often a step forward...."

It requires self awareness of your own thinking habits - Abraham Maslow said "For a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail." What are the deep unexamined assumptions that you are making? What if those assumptions are not true?

How long do you spend each week honing your 'thinking outside the box' technique - so that you can even identify the box you are currently in?

Change is messy - not neat!

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:49:00 GMT

As I have been studying what it would take for organisations to become sustainable and sustaining of the ecologies in which they are embedded, I have found myself drawn into the topic of organisational change. But not ‘traditional’ organisational change because we know from research that 70% - 90% of organisational change initiatives do not deliver the intended results.

So, I have been looking for new perspectives on change and explored systems thinking and complex adaptive systems in particular, in more depth. For some it’s a new lens through which to view the world and generate a better understanding of what is really going on.

Don’t let the names scare you off – it sounds worse than it is, and I know some of you are already familiar with these terms. At the heart of this new lens, or ‘complexity’ paradigm is the realisation that we are all connected and interdependent. Pretty simple really – and with big implications for just about everything.

But, interconnectedness is not what is at the heart of what some call the managerial paradigm which is a product of about 300 years of inculcation of scientific thinking from Isaac Newton, into social settings such as organisations. It is a science based upon observations about how the world worked that resulted in the laws of motion, gravity and thermodynamics. (All good 'stuff' in itself). Newton also saw the world as a giant clock and thought that if we just understood all the pieces of the clock and how they worked, we could control the clock. This is a paradigm that is founded on separateness or a belief that the sum of the parts being no greater than the whole. (This is not world breaking news - you can read more about this in Margaret Wheatley’s “Leadership and the New Sciences” which she published in the early 1990’s). The managerial paradigm then is founded upon the notion that we can solve problems by breaking them down into parts (reductionist thinking) and that we can ultimately control things – people, organisations, outcomes…. Including change itself. (There are other important assumptions underlying this paradigm but I will not explore them in depth here).

More recent research into organisational change initiatives now suggests a reason that many change initiatives fail is because they are founded upon incorrect assumptions. These are the assumptions that underpin the managerial paradigm and our aproach to change itself. In “Change Management 101” , we learned there is a process to be gone through (and John Kotter’s 8 steps are an example of this) and if you follow the process, you will get the desired outcome. Failure to do so was reasoned as ‘most mangers do not have the expertise or insight to lead change successfully’.

The complexity paradigm offers another reason why change initiatives that are of the ‘change management’ school fail. Viewing change through this lens provides a new appreciation of what change is and how it comes about.

Change is an ongoing product of life. As a living system adapts to the world around it – it changes – a condition of stability is not the norm, although we may have thought so at one time.

Change happens at the extremities of the system and is not predetermined by a central authority – change can rarely be planned by senior management and implemented elsewhere .

Change is an emergent property of the system as it strives to maintain its separate identify from its environment – change needs to be actively engaged with by everyone – it is a participative activity that can not be predetermined.

Change occurs as an experiment – we don’t know what the result will be before we try a solution.

The implications for change leaders are profound if they really want to learn how to effectively lead successful changes. These changes implicate not only the process you employ, but the underlying beliefs and assumptions held. The really big one is that to be effective, the leader will need to let go of the notion of being able to control and replace it with the notion of influencing the outcomes. Given so many of my senior coaching clients are always seeking "no surprises!” I know this may be a challenge. But the reward is "surprises!" - that one leadership program participant this week described as ‘a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow”. Surprises are not always unpleasant!

It also requires a very people centred approach to management and leadership which enables the best possible to emerge from each person in service to whole. This is likely to be subtly different to what you already what you strive for – because when we think in systems we know that just optimising or maximising on a part or a number of parts does not necessarily optimise the whole. ( I will write more about this latter).

So 'managing change' becomes 'leading change' (consistent with Kotter). But it is an emergent change (not consistent with Kotter). The role of the 'leader' changes from strategist to facilitator - and it is the people within the system (at the coal face if you like) who actually design and implement change. As the leader, you will not have ultimate control over this (in fact you never did - it was/is just an illusion) - but you can influence it. There are new skills and ways of seeing things to be learnt in order to be effective.

Another important aspect is the paradigm of complexity is also the paradigm within which we can best understand and work towards sustainability.

I’d love to hear what you think about this… please let me know.

Work life balance - or integration?

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:49:00 GMT

Well here I sit - at the end of one week's holiday by the beach and I am writing a blog...

Some accuse me of being a workaholic. Others say I have no work-life balance.

Well I am not sure what work-life balance would look like, but I know I don't have it. Nor do I want it.

Thomas Edison is attributed with saying, "I never did a day's work in my life. It was all fun. " Well there are days when its not always 100% fun... but I do love what I do for a living and I would love it if I could help many more people love what they do for a living.

Today has been great! I rose earlier than anyone else in the house, which included my brother-in-law and his wife, two of our now adult daughters and my husband. I quietly started my day with my exercise routine and morning meditation. By the time I finished, others were starting to rise and breakfast was slowly emerging from the kitchen. I checked some emails and made some phone calls - we sat and shared a leisurely breakfast together. I did a couple of hours of work before we headed down to the surf for the afternoon. The waves were average but good fun was had as we were the only ones on the beautiful beach. Back to the house - showers and relaxation. Some slept - some read - some played scrabble. I had one game of scrabble - lousy letters! I returned to another 2 hours work.

There are some things I really need to attend to during this time. If I don't do them, I will return to work more stressed than I was when I left to go on holidays.

So it could be the life of a lone consultant - but I like the way it fits together. Its not compartmentalized or segregated - its integrated! Even on holidays I can enjoy what I do ...and reflecting on what I have learned over the last week is one of those things...

How do you see the different aspects of your life fitting together?

Gen Y - Inspirational!

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:41:00 GMT

This morning my inbox contained a link to this video, A Dream Reborn, by a young American. Born into poverty, a father in jail - he almost went the same way. But now he is in college and using Hip Hop to connect and energise his generation and others.

Have a look and see if it doesn't raise your spirits.

And it also has me reflect on conversations recently within large organisations where the query is about how to change Gen Y's (big generalization to start with) to fit the work ethic and values of a mature organisation. Maybe we are asking the wrong question. Maybe a more productive question for everyone, is "how can we organise ourselves to make the most of this type of energy?"

Share what you think...