Our world is full of deficit thinking. We are obsessed with problems large and small and how to fix them. Countless meetings and projects are dedicated to problem-solving, often with little to show for our efforts except frustration. Leaders are not immune to this phenomenon and we regularly champion this way of thinking in our organizations. But what if there was another approach to addressing the challenging issues we face? Suppose we began the process, not with an analysis of what is wrong, but with a focus on what is right?
Employee morale is a real problem for many organizations these days, even ones with a history of past success. The typical approach to such an issue is to study all the possible causes of low morale—a process that is sure to unleash plenty of negative energy and a resulting sense of hopelessness. But what if those same conversations focused on what a positive workplace might look like and how your employees could collaborate to create just such an environment? Would the energy be different and the outcomes more uplifting?
Studies have shown that in every human situation, every institution, something is working. These positive core elements may be dormant because of neglect or complacency. Perhaps the constant barrage of negative thinking and news has simply driven these values and competencies underground. But with some careful planning and purposeful processes a new way of thinking can be taught and learned. The positive core can reemerge as a force for change.
Leaders would do well to harness the untapped potential of this positive core and to empower employees and other stakeholders to rediscover what is already working within their team and the broader organization. Instead of problems, consider the possibilities. When faced with obstacles, imagine opportunities. You can lead your team beyond deficit thinking to a powerful way of reframing the future. By focusing on what you wish to become you can, in fact, create your new reality.
Last week’s post invited leaders “to become the change you want to see.” Now it’s time to engage your stakeholders in this same process by focusing on what’s working within the organization. Albert Einstein expressed this concept well when he said, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. We must learn to see the world anew.” Now here’s the good news...no special eyewear is required.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Be the Change
Leaders are fond of change imagery. In politics, change is packaged as a clever, easy to remember slogan. Business leaders frequently tout change as a necessary element of today’s volatile and competitive marketplace. The faith community stakes its credibility on changes that occur as persons submit their lives to God and his will. Yet many leaders struggle to deliver the changes promised so enthusiastically just weeks or months earlier.
In my leadership consulting and training practice I have discovered that personal and organizational transformation isn’t rooted only in the promise of some future hope or dream. The ultimate destiny we seek begins with our willingness to live that future right now. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi expressed this idea well when he said, “Be the change you want to see.” Gandhi’s vision of a non-violent world wasn’t some distant concept or theory. He lived his life in a non-violent way to give voice and meaning to his dream.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is another example of a leader who lived his dream of greater justice, equality, and respect for all. His willingness to “be the change” inspired millions to think and act differently but also ultimately cost him his life. When leaders commit themselves to authentically enacting the deeply held principles they cherish it is understandably difficult, and perhaps even dangerous.
Organizations that initiate change agendas would do well to consider how their culture and leadership styles either serve or impede the vision they aspire to achieve. How employees are treated, how customers are served, how decisions are made, how processes are implemented all contribute to the ultimate future the organization hopes to reach. If leaders aren’t willing to model the new reality they seek, then all who are called to follow will naturally be skeptical and suspicious.
When I am facilitating a client event my behavior must model the outcomes I hope to attain. While teaching or coaching my words and actions must be congruent with the concepts I am introducing or the advice I am offering. As a leader who espouses the virtues of being inspirational, I must be inspiring!
What might happen if leaders took seriously the challenge of Gandhi’s simple, yet challenging idea? Might empty pledges to fix pressing problems be replaced with practical, common sense solutions? Could slick ad campaigns give way to promises kept? Shouldn’t leaders be known for their integrity rather than their perceived intelligence? Transformation doesn’t begin with some grand plan or budget, it starts in our hearts and minds. Leaders would do well to simply “be the change they want us to see.” Now, who is willing to start?
In my leadership consulting and training practice I have discovered that personal and organizational transformation isn’t rooted only in the promise of some future hope or dream. The ultimate destiny we seek begins with our willingness to live that future right now. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi expressed this idea well when he said, “Be the change you want to see.” Gandhi’s vision of a non-violent world wasn’t some distant concept or theory. He lived his life in a non-violent way to give voice and meaning to his dream.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is another example of a leader who lived his dream of greater justice, equality, and respect for all. His willingness to “be the change” inspired millions to think and act differently but also ultimately cost him his life. When leaders commit themselves to authentically enacting the deeply held principles they cherish it is understandably difficult, and perhaps even dangerous.
Organizations that initiate change agendas would do well to consider how their culture and leadership styles either serve or impede the vision they aspire to achieve. How employees are treated, how customers are served, how decisions are made, how processes are implemented all contribute to the ultimate future the organization hopes to reach. If leaders aren’t willing to model the new reality they seek, then all who are called to follow will naturally be skeptical and suspicious.
When I am facilitating a client event my behavior must model the outcomes I hope to attain. While teaching or coaching my words and actions must be congruent with the concepts I am introducing or the advice I am offering. As a leader who espouses the virtues of being inspirational, I must be inspiring!
What might happen if leaders took seriously the challenge of Gandhi’s simple, yet challenging idea? Might empty pledges to fix pressing problems be replaced with practical, common sense solutions? Could slick ad campaigns give way to promises kept? Shouldn’t leaders be known for their integrity rather than their perceived intelligence? Transformation doesn’t begin with some grand plan or budget, it starts in our hearts and minds. Leaders would do well to simply “be the change they want us to see.” Now, who is willing to start?
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Unintended Consequences
In their 2009 New York Times bestselling book “Super Freakonomics”, authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner introduce data that verifies the potency of what they call the “law of unintended consequences.” Many of their examples involve government intrusion into the socio-economic system.
They cite the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which was intended to protect disabled Americans from discrimination but instead resulted in fewer jobs because employers worried they wouldn’t be able to discipline or fire bad workers with a disability so they avoided hiring them at all. Or the garbage tax that was expected to deter people from producing so much waste but instead prompted consumers to dump trash in the woods or down their toilets creating even more environmental issues. You could probably offer numerous other examples of well-intentioned policies run amok in the public and private sectors.
These days I am more intrigued by the possibility that “low-cost or no-cost” solutions might hold the key to addressing some of our society’s most pressing problems. Much of this thinking is also detailed in the book, like the impact of cheap but effective ammonium nitrate as a crop fertilizer or the inexpensive seat belt as a lifesaving device in automobiles. But there is more to be done.
Recently I have been learning about a unique method of addressing vexing community issues called Results-Based Accountability™. Developed by Mark Friedman this approach offers a simple, common sense process that effectively delivers better outcomes when applied to problems. It relies heavily on the notion that many of the solutions we seek can be inexpensive.
As I immerse myself in this new way of thinking, I am also wondering why businesses and organizations are so reluctant to pursue non-traditional models in their efforts to improve productivity or provide better customer service. Are leaders threatened by the level of collaboration that might be necessary for some of these initiatives to bear fruit? Do we still favor logic-driven research that often ignores the intuitive nature of breakthrough thinking?
Regardless of the rationale, leaders must be willing to consider new approaches to traditional problems. We can’t afford to throw more money at community issues like poverty, homelessness, and hunger. Now more than ever, we need to harness the collaborative energy of government, nonprofit agencies, business leaders, educators, healthcare workers, and the faith community. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the unintended consequence of this approach was lasting change?
They cite the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which was intended to protect disabled Americans from discrimination but instead resulted in fewer jobs because employers worried they wouldn’t be able to discipline or fire bad workers with a disability so they avoided hiring them at all. Or the garbage tax that was expected to deter people from producing so much waste but instead prompted consumers to dump trash in the woods or down their toilets creating even more environmental issues. You could probably offer numerous other examples of well-intentioned policies run amok in the public and private sectors.
These days I am more intrigued by the possibility that “low-cost or no-cost” solutions might hold the key to addressing some of our society’s most pressing problems. Much of this thinking is also detailed in the book, like the impact of cheap but effective ammonium nitrate as a crop fertilizer or the inexpensive seat belt as a lifesaving device in automobiles. But there is more to be done.
Recently I have been learning about a unique method of addressing vexing community issues called Results-Based Accountability™. Developed by Mark Friedman this approach offers a simple, common sense process that effectively delivers better outcomes when applied to problems. It relies heavily on the notion that many of the solutions we seek can be inexpensive.
As I immerse myself in this new way of thinking, I am also wondering why businesses and organizations are so reluctant to pursue non-traditional models in their efforts to improve productivity or provide better customer service. Are leaders threatened by the level of collaboration that might be necessary for some of these initiatives to bear fruit? Do we still favor logic-driven research that often ignores the intuitive nature of breakthrough thinking?
Regardless of the rationale, leaders must be willing to consider new approaches to traditional problems. We can’t afford to throw more money at community issues like poverty, homelessness, and hunger. Now more than ever, we need to harness the collaborative energy of government, nonprofit agencies, business leaders, educators, healthcare workers, and the faith community. Wouldn’t it be amazing if the unintended consequence of this approach was lasting change?
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Microscope or Telescope
Last week’s post offered a leadership lesson about the importance of perspective—seeing the world from 10,000 feet or at ground-level. Today’s musing will put a slightly different spin on the same general theme of perspective. It is inspired by some of the work I did this week with a nonprofit board.
Over the years I have encountered many different leaders and worked with a variety of clients. I have found that the nonprofit community and the boards that lead these institutions rarely assess their own performance. Perhaps the need to maintain funding streams and retain competent staff simply distract these organizational leaders from the important work of board development. Complacency could be another factor as many nonprofits expect little of their board members except to show up for meetings and write checks.
As competition for money intensifies and the number of persons needing services grows there will be more pressure on nonprofits to produce measurable outcomes. In other words, how is the community or your clients better off as a result of your work? That question can’t be answered effectively unless the board knows how to view its own work and the needs of the broader population it serves. Thus my reference to microscopes and telescopes.
A microscope is used to identify what can’t be seen with the naked eye. In a board context this metaphor applies to the important work of assessing performance at an agency and board level. Programs can’t be effective without regularly reviewing who is being served, how efficiently the services are being delivered, and how well those receiving the services are able to improve their lives as a result of your intervention. Boards can’t be effective if they ignore the poor performance of individual members, if they don’t hold each other accountable, or if they spend all their time trying to fix problems.
A telescope serves a much different purpose. It uses focused light to find remote objects that may be millions of miles away. A nonprofit also needs to regularly examine the larger world in which it functions. Unknown competitors, unseen funding streams, and hidden opportunities for collaboration are everywhere in the universe but may go unnoticed without a telescopic perspective. Likewise, boards should spend more time making sense of the trends, issues, and challenges facing their organization. If they never pause to look outside the boardroom their view of reality will be short-sided at best.
No capital investment is required to apply these concepts in your nonprofit or in the work of for-profit business leaders. Without self-assessment and sense-making every organization and leader risks losing sight of new realities as they develop. What you see when these techniques are employed is only the beginning. How you respond will determine if the view has really be understood.
Over the years I have encountered many different leaders and worked with a variety of clients. I have found that the nonprofit community and the boards that lead these institutions rarely assess their own performance. Perhaps the need to maintain funding streams and retain competent staff simply distract these organizational leaders from the important work of board development. Complacency could be another factor as many nonprofits expect little of their board members except to show up for meetings and write checks.
As competition for money intensifies and the number of persons needing services grows there will be more pressure on nonprofits to produce measurable outcomes. In other words, how is the community or your clients better off as a result of your work? That question can’t be answered effectively unless the board knows how to view its own work and the needs of the broader population it serves. Thus my reference to microscopes and telescopes.
A microscope is used to identify what can’t be seen with the naked eye. In a board context this metaphor applies to the important work of assessing performance at an agency and board level. Programs can’t be effective without regularly reviewing who is being served, how efficiently the services are being delivered, and how well those receiving the services are able to improve their lives as a result of your intervention. Boards can’t be effective if they ignore the poor performance of individual members, if they don’t hold each other accountable, or if they spend all their time trying to fix problems.
A telescope serves a much different purpose. It uses focused light to find remote objects that may be millions of miles away. A nonprofit also needs to regularly examine the larger world in which it functions. Unknown competitors, unseen funding streams, and hidden opportunities for collaboration are everywhere in the universe but may go unnoticed without a telescopic perspective. Likewise, boards should spend more time making sense of the trends, issues, and challenges facing their organization. If they never pause to look outside the boardroom their view of reality will be short-sided at best.
No capital investment is required to apply these concepts in your nonprofit or in the work of for-profit business leaders. Without self-assessment and sense-making every organization and leader risks losing sight of new realities as they develop. What you see when these techniques are employed is only the beginning. How you respond will determine if the view has really be understood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)