Conversations for Possibility

Change Staircases' Designs to Fight Obesity

2009-06-15T14:55:00.005-04:00

I am a student of architecture. I love great building design and am frequently in awe of the creativity and imagination that architects drawn on in designing great spaces.

So, not surprisingly I was excited to see Renzo Piano's new wing for the Art Institute of Chicago. It is extraordinary, and part of how come Piano is considered to be one of the finest architects in the world.

In my professional life, on the other hand, I work with leader's of organizations, or I could just as easily say the architects of organizations, helping them express their own creativity in furthering their vision and commitments for their organization. In the process I encourage leaders to expand the arena in which they look to solve problems - go outside your industry, look at what is happening in other fields you can co-opt. I even encourage them to formulate new problems, as a context or catalyst for their creativity. Problems that will forward their businesses when the problem is solved.

So not surprisingly I was fascinated to see the possibility of architects having a hand in contributing to a breakthrough in one of the most troubling conditions of our time - obesity. I could see a fruitful collaboration between architecture and healthcare in this headline on Twine, "Change staircases' designs to fight obesity", from the Times of India. Like all insights, obvious after the fact.

If staircases were more accessible, and more attractive, we would be more likely to use them. And, if we used them more, as just one of the things we do in this culture, we may well be less obese.

I wonder how many ideation sessions on reducing obesity, or promoting healthier lifestyles, included asking architects to make stairs more enticing, more easy to find, more part of the fun experience of moving from one level of their buildings to another?

Now that would be a breakthrough.

Change staircases' designs to fight obesity - Health - Health & Science - The Times of India

On Our Buggy Moral Code

2009-06-11T16:37:00.004-04:00

In a captivating TED talk which he called our buggy moral code behavioral economist Dan Ariely tells us about the studies he has conducted to discover some of the bugs in our moral code: the hidden reasons we think it's OK to cheat or steal (sometimes). His clever studies help make his point that we're predictably irrational -- and can be influenced in ways we can't grasp.

For example, he conducted some simple experiments. In one he would pass out a sheet of paper with 20 simple math problems that everyone could solve, but would not give them enough time, yet he promised to pay a dollar for every solved problem. He also set up the experiment tempting some to cheat. In his talk he explains, captivatingly, what happened.

Ariely tells us that in economic theory, cheating becomes a very simple cost-benefit analysis - what's the probability of being caught? How much to I stand to gain by cheating?And how much punishment would i get if caught? And then we weigh the options and decide whether it is worthwhile to cheat or not.

What he learned is that:

A lot of people can cheat
When reminded of their morality we cheat less
When we get a bigger distance from cheating, from the object of money, for example, people cheat more
And when we see cheating going on around us, particularly if it is part of our in-group, cheating goes up

This last point goes a long way to explain the greed, cheating and corruption that has been so rampant in recent years from Enron, to Worldcom, Global Crossing and the numerous examples that are part of the recent financial and banking meltdown and part of the decision making and policies that has led to the current financial crisis.

Ariely also discovered that when people thought what they were doing fell inside an honor code they did not cheat. Which makes the recent initiative of MBA students to sign honor codes so significant and offers the possibility that these future executives will not cheat. Now that would be a transformation.

Check out the honor codes:

Columbia Business School's Honor Code
Harvard Business School The MBA Oath
Thunderbird School of Global Management Oath of Honor

We Should Bring Back the Draft

2009-05-25T15:32:00.000-04:00

Today is Memorial Day.

I has occurred to me several times over this holiday weekend that we should bring back the draft. It should be part of the requirement of citizenship that everyone spend some time in the military services. New immigrants should, anyone who aspires to run for public office should, corporate execs should, media execs should - everyone should.

Furthermore, everyone should spend time, even a week, in a combat zone, in a military hospital, in a rehabilitation center and a psych ward, then maybe, just maybe, Memorial Day would mean more than a day at the beach, a trip to the sales at the mall or an occasion for the first BBQ of the summer.

And, if we had all done our tour of duty, we would be less casual about sending our fellow citizens into war in the first place.

It is fine to put the bring our troops home bumper stickers on our cars as a gesture of consumer support for the sticker manufacturer, just don't confuse it with support for troops any more that a day at the beach is a way to remember those who died in wars - especially wars that should never have been started in the first place.

Our lack of consciousness is even more alarming than our lack of respect for those the day is designed to remember.

An Ordinary Person, Or A Hero?

2009-04-15T14:10:00.000-04:00

A hero is an ordinary person who dares to respond to a possibility bigger than themselves.

Over time we have seen many ordinary people respond to possibilities that have changed their lives and, in some instances, the lives of their community and nation.

We have all heard the stories of: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks - the list of ordinary people who dared is long and impressive.

However, reading their stories can be both inspiring and intimidating. It is easy to discount the possibility of us being heroes with: I am not them; I don't have that courage; or I don't have those kinds of opportunities where I live or in what I do. Being a hero is not my thing, I'm just a ... fill in the blank.

Yet as we look back on the events that led up to our current financial and economic crisis how many of us saw things that were clearly wrong, or at least suspect, and did not respond to the possibility of intervening? I know, with hindsight, I did not respond in instances where I could have.

The opportunities to be a hero are all around us. We may not make national TV or the history books, but we can be heroic nonetheless. For example, we see a friend or family member taking on financial commitments that they cannot sustain and we say nothing. We watch a TV ad that offers 3 months free that we know is a dishonest bait to switch to high monthly payments once a prospect is ensnared and we don't warn someone who wants to bite the bait, and we don't protest these dishonest practices.

How come? Well mostly because of what I call resignation. We have resigned ourselves to the fact that our intervention will not make any difference, "so what's the point?" The only answer that I think is worth while is that the point is that to be able to live with ourselves and stay healthy, we must act with integrity. Which simply means we must act consistently with our own principles and values - regardless of the outcome. It is that simple.

The price of doing otherwise is expensive in more ways that we see at first. For example, we as a nation, and in millions of cases individually, are now paying, and will be paying for some time to come, for all the instances we passed on being heroic and passed on acting with integrity.

For example, Rosa Parks may have ended up in jail, and certainly not in the history books, for refusing to go to the back of the bus. History books or not, her actions were heroic, not because of the outcome, but because she acted with integrity.

So a way to think of being a hero is to dare to respond, consistently with our principles and values, to a possibility bigger than ourselves. To respond even when the risk of failure, or resistance, or ridicule, is high. To respond even knowing that success is uncertain, even unlikely. To respond simply because we know it is the right thing to do.

Charter for Compassion

2009-03-14T11:41:00.000-04:00

A conversation for possibility as I distinguish it is a conversation that speaks for a new future. This new future is not a future that is predictable, like a default future - one we will get by extending our past. Nor is it just one of some available scenarios, like an optional future - we could do this, or we could choose that, kind of future.

Some people live their lives from a future they are committed to - and one that is unlikely to be realized except without a transformation. These people live their lives from the future first - they take their actions in the present informed, not by the circumstances of the moment, but by the future they see as a possibility.

One such remarkable person is Karen Armstrong. She was on Bill Moyer's Journal last night (3/13/09). If her conversation, her intentions for the Charter, gather any momentum we will live in a different world. Watch the video.

Leading With Kindness

2009-02-06T10:36:00.000-05:00

It is too easy to become jaundiced about the possibility of organizations as places to thrive, to be appreciated, to grow and make a contribution. The media jumps on every example of wrong-doing, greed and irresponsibility. It would be easy to be left with the impression that working in organizations is a soul destroying experience of being taken advantage of by greedy and exploiting leaders.

As a student of organizations and consulting in them for over twenty-five years, after having worked as an executive in them that reality is very unlike the one I know. So it is particularly refreshing to see PBS's special on Leading With Kindness.

Congratulations to Bill Baker, Michael O’Malley and the inspiring group of executives and employees the gathered to tell this story.

On The Subject of Kindness

2009-02-06T10:27:00.000-05:00

It not too late to make a New Year resolution. I want to pass this possibility on from Dr Mardy and his inspiring Quotes of the Week. It is simple yet effective:

"If you're in need of a New Year's Resolution, you might want to try an idea that has worked well for me over the years. Every morning, put five pennies in a coat or pants pocket. As the day progresses, each time you pay someone a compliment or engage in a deliberate act of kindness, take one penny and move it to another pocket. Don't consider your day done until you've transferred all of the coins (for extra credit--and extra respect from me--try it with ten pennies)."

The Possibility of Generosity in Difficult Times

2009-02-05T09:58:00.000-05:00

We are hearing and reading a lot nowadays about corporate greed and the irresponsibility of senior executives. Everything from huge bonuses to executives who have run up huge losses and are going cap in hand to the government for bail-outs to profligate spending by these same failed executives on jets, office renovations and expensive junkets.

So it is especially encouraging to know that not all corporate leaders are greedy and irresponsible. Take the leaders of Waukegan-based Peer Bearing Co as an example and the generosity when the sold their business to the SKF Group of Sweden. Not only did employees get unexpected bonuses, it looks like they get to keep their jobs too.

So it IS possible to find executives who are responsible, compassionate and generous to their employees and responsible to the customers and communities. Unfortunately, they just don't make the headlines sufficiently often. Unfortunately the media does not thing good news sells.

What Do You Know That Others Don't?

2008-09-18T10:22:00.000-04:00

Many of us have been brought up in the belief that knowledge is power. The more we have that others don't the more advantage we have over them. That belief is now as out of date as our first PC's and just as useful.

Here is a way to think that is the exact opposite: What do I know, that I suspect someone else (identify a specific person) does not know, that if they did know it would be useful to them? When you have answered that question, then share it with them? In other words generously give your knowledge away to others who could use it. Don't be scared of this idea. First, with knowledge, unlike money, you still have it after you have given it away. And, knowledge is not scarce - we are swimming in it.

Conversely, here is a useful question to ask of friends and colleagues: What do you know, that you suspect I don't know, that would be useful to me? And, if need be, gently remind them that they will not be knowledge poorer afterwards.

The advent of the websites like, Google, Wikipedia, Citizendium, ChaCha , and so on, means that our access to information and knowledge is literally at our finger tips. So much so that we can easily be overwhelmed with unfiltered information - information overload on steroids.

In our private lives, and especially at work, we need to create some practices for information filtering. Some context for ourselves, and for our friends and colleagues, to know what information we want to know about, and what information we want to actively exclude?

Which brings us back to some fundamental questions that most of us are noodling on most of the time:

What am I committed to, interested in, trying to move forward - the larger meaning and purpose of my life questions?
What am I accountable for and responsible for?
What specific projects do I have on the go - with clear outcomes to produce by a specific when?
What problems am I trying to solve where I could do with some help?
What stops, blocks and thwarts me?
What are my values, my fundamental organizing principles?

The clearer we are about our answers to each of these questions, the easier it will be to be selective, a) in dealing with unsolicited incoming information, and b) in seeking out the people with information that will help us.

One potential use of networking sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace and so on, is that they create an opportunity for us to say what we are up to, what interests us, what we are at work on and so on. The more we know about other people the easier it is to help them - assuming we recognize the value in helping. And, it is easier to ask for help from others to. An opportunity that most of us underutilize.

That said, one networking site has this as a condition of membership, "TO BE A MEMBER, you must believe that YOU CAN"T SUCEED ALONE - and why would you want to? We are all expected to share freely and often. We agree to make this a place where we extend a hand to each other - our stories, words of encouragement, or advice that will make a difference."

Wow! "share freely and often", and "you can't succeed alone", really? Doesn't that thinking fly in the face of the independent pioneering spirit that is supposed to have made America strong? Yes, yes, and yes!

Sharing, being generous, helping and being open to be helped, is part of the Web 2.0, Succeeding in Life 2.0, world that is radically changing our view about what works, really works - it is a key element of what it takes to build a network, a community, an organization, ... of supportive relationships in the service of some shared purpose.

Can you imagine what work life would be like if one of the conditions for promotion was you had to give away everything you knew to people who could use it for their growth and development, and you had to reach out and help people to be successful, and you had to demonstrate you were open to being helped by others in your own pursuits. That actually could be an environment in which people would grow and thrive - and, love coming to work.

I was trying to put myself in a bottle...

2008-08-01T14:54:00.000-04:00

On June 13 I wrote about Randy Pausch and his last lecture. Unlike many colleagues who gave lectures "as if" it were their last, for Randy his last lecture was his last for real. He was expected to die with pancreatic cancer within a couple of weeks. Though you would never have guessed it judging by his humor and vitality.

Well, weeks have passed and the inevitable has happened. Randy died on July 25. He was 47. He is survived by his wife and three children.

He wrote in his book, "I was trying to put myself in a bottle that would one day wash up on the beach for my children", as a way of helping us understand and appreciate his extraordinary courage, vitality, and passion for life.

One person can and does make a difference. He was an inspiring example of being a conversation for possibility.

What are you scared about?

2008-07-25T12:38:00.000-04:00

Every now and again an “out of context question”, when asked of us, can reveal some interesting insights into the way we think and the way we behave – if we feel safe enough to answer honestly, at least to ourselves.

For example, you are in a safe environment, with friends, people you respect and trust, and one of them asks, out of context, “what are you most scared about?” You just know that this is not the time, or the place, or the group to attempt a superficial answer. And so you speak about what it is that scares you.

Every one of us at some point in our lives, with some set of people, has realized it is possible to be completely open, vulnerable and truthful – and survive. The outcome in invariably a deeper sense of intimacy and relationship with the group we are open with, and a greater sense of personal freedom – telling the truth about our hopes and fears really is freeing.

Counter-Factual Thinking

2008-06-17T17:41:00.000-04:00

I was very strongly indoctrinated in the value and importance of fact-based management. That thinking was so part of the culture of the early years of my career. Even explanations or proposals that wandered into speculations or conjecture were pulled back on track with interjections like, "just the facts please" or "just stick to the facts".

Later in my career as I became the-man-in-charge with the accountability to profitably grow the business I began to see relying solely on the facts for decision-making pretty much meant we were consigned to stay inside the current thinking or paradigm. If facts didn't support a particular course then it was speculative. We were unwittingly operating in an incremental improvement model, and extension of the past model, more of what we knew to do - but better. That's all that facts could justify.

So we decided to augment fact-based management with counter-factual thinking and decision-making. Thinking and decision-making that was driven by vision, intention, the future, our aspiration - all expressed as a desired future that could not be validated by any supporting facts, or forecasts.

As we made out decisions and engaged in the actions that were needed to realize the outcomes the decisions were intended to bring about, we were clear that one of two possibilities would emerge:
We would fail. We would realize that what we intended was not going to happen. If we did not forget the possibility of failing we would catch ourselves early on and either change course or abandon this particular line of explorations. If we forgot that failure was a high probability we missed early warning signals and the cost of eventual failure was much higher - and usually more embarrassing.
The second possibility - the one we intended, wanted even - was a breakthrough, a new discovery, a new and exciting set of outcomes that we could not have achieved by sticking to what was predictable.
So a possibility I encourage managers to work inside of is the possibility of failing. Flirt with that possibility. Know all the signs and signals and what the emotional experience of failing is.
Some failure is inevitable unless you live so cautiously as to be of no value as a leader or manager. Much as a rock climber would know the signs and signals of missteps - not to be deterred but to be more aware.

What would it be like if...?

2008-06-14T09:50:00.000-04:00

What would it be like if you lived each day, each breath, as a work of art in progress? Imagine that you are a Masterpiece unfolding every second of every day, a work of art taking form with every breath.

Turning conflict into powerful relationships
And stress into health and vitality
Turning pressure into peak performance
As you develop the art of centered leadership

Thomas Crum

What Wisdom Would We Impart to the World if This Was Our Last Chance?

2008-06-13T14:31:00.000-04:00

Several Universities have established a practice of asking some of their professors to give a lecture - as if it were their last. "What would you want to say to your students?" is the context for the lecture. For Carnegie Mellon computer science professor Randy Pausch this was no academic, hypothetical exercise. Randy is 47 years old and expects to die with pancreatic cancer in a couple of weeks.

In this video clip he delivers a hopeful and inspiring lecture, watch Randy Pausch's last lecture

Loyalty or Commitment?

2008-06-12T14:25:00.000-04:00

The way we think about the possibility of work, employment, being part of an organization... has changed over the years. Employees over 50, for example, will remember the relationship that existed between most companies and their employees and most employees and their companies.

If you were fortunate enough to work for IBM, HP, GE, J&J, P&G,... a few things were taken for granted:

You had a job for life
You would get trained - you were working in a business academy after all
The organization would take care of you and would be managing your career, readying you for your next move and the one after that
You would be expected to be loyal to the organization, do a good job
You would be expected to embrace the culture, fit in, and follow the rules.

Things started to change when "employment for life" was no longer a realistic expectation. When companies started laying employees off the implicit contract between employee and employer changed. Attempts to soften or obscure the reality by calling sackings, right-sizing, downsizing, workforce adjustments,... were temporary. People quickly got the message, "you are expendable", "you are a variable cost", "you can be let go when we choose".

Little by little the question was asked by employees, "why should I be loyal to the organization when they are not loyal to me?" At the same time it was becoming clear for everyone that career progression was not something you could rely on - even by doing a good job. Companies were even training their employees to be responsible for their own careers, to keep developing skills, to keep themselves marketable... One could argue that one of the intended outcomes of this, "your career is in your own hands" strategy was not just a reduction in the cost of investing in people, it was a way to lessen the conscience at layoff time about putting people out of work.

Notwithstanding the changes to the implicit and explicit employment contracts employers still expected loyalty to the organization, and even loyalty to the boss.

Employees on the other hand, especially younger employees who have no experience of the "employee for life" era, don't buy into the "loyalty to the organization" expectation. Their loyalties, for the most part, are to their careers, their personal values, their friends, their social networks, and so on.

Does this mean they are less reliable, or less engaged employees? No, on the contrary. How come? Because instead of loyalty as their primary operating principle they have commitment. Commitment to their job, to their project, to their results, to developing their skills and to staying marketable.

While some may regret that loyalty is not longer a primary organizing principle, its replacement - a commitment to doing a good job, to delivering on accountabilities and living the organization's values is a better business model - for everyone.

Conversation for No Possibility Abound

2008-06-12T13:06:00.000-04:00

Anyone who starts to speak a new possibility needs to be aware that they are, most likely, threatening the status quo. In all likelihood they will set in motion an interesting response among many of their listeners - usually prefaced with yeabut:

Yeabut we tried that before - won't work
Yeabut you'll never get "them" to go for it
Yeabut...

When all else fails for the yeabutters, it is time to bring in the "experts" whose conversation for no possibility is listened to by virtue of their position, status, reputation, or simply the aura of authority they have created for themselves.

My recommendation, be informed by "experts" listen to their perspective respectfully, thoughtfully, and then be shaped by your vision, commitments and intentions, not their opinions.

Why? Because "experts" opinions are often just plain wrong. Here are some famous (among my favorite) examples:

Grover Cleveland, 1905. "Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote."
Robert Millikan, 1923, Nobel prize winner in physics. "Man will never tap the power of the atom."
Harry M. Warner, 1924, President of Warner Brothers. "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk."
Charles H. Duell, 1899, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents. "Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Lord Kelvin, 1895, President of The Royal Society, London. "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
Tris Speeker, 1924, Baseball Hall of Fame. "Babe Ruth made a big mistake when he gave up pitching."
In 1878 Western Union rejected the rights to the telephone with the statement, "What use could the company make of an electrical toy?"
Rutherford B. Hayes, U.S. President 1877-1881. About the telephone ... "An amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one?"
In Columbus's time, the advisory committee to Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain wrote, "So many centuries after the Creation, it is unlikely that anyone could find hitherto unknown lands of any value."
In a 1902 article in Harper's Weekly proclaimed, "The actual building of roads devoted to motor cars is not for the near future in spite of many rumors to that effect."
A letter to Paul Klee dated November 21, 1910, gently complained, "Your works have been on show at our gallery since November 15. We are obliged to note, however, that the great majority of visitors expressed very unfavorable opinions about your works, and several well-known, respected personalities asked us to stop displaying them."
In 1945 Vannevar Bush, a presidential advisor, warned, "The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
In 1958 British astronomer Royal Dr. R. Wooley pronounced, "Space travel is utter bilge."
"The phonograph ... is not of any commercial value." Thomas Edison remarking on his own invention to his assistant Sam Insull, 1880.
"Flight by machines heavier than air is impractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible." Simon Newcomb, an astronomer of some note, 1902.
"It is an idle dream to imagine that ... automobiles will take the place of railways in the long distance movement of ... passengers." American Road Congress, 1913.
"I think there is a world market for about five computers." Thomas J. Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943.
"The odds are that the United States will not be able to honor the 1970 manned-lunar-landing date set by Mr. Kennedy." New Scientist, April 30, 1964.
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, President of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977.
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." Popular Mechanics, forecasting advance of science, 1949.
"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.
"But what...is it good for?" Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, commenting on the microchip, 1968.
“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.” Western Union memo, 1876.
“The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?” David Sarnoff’s associates, in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920’s.
“A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say that America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make.” Responses to Debbie Field’s idea of starting the Mrs Fields Cookies business.
“We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.” Decca Recording Company rejecting the Beatles, 1962.
“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesive for 3M “Post-it” Notepads.
“So we went to Atari and said, ‘we’ve got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts and what do you think about funding us?’ Or we’ll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we’ll come and work for you.’ They said, ‘No.’ Then we went to Hewlett Packard; they said, ‘we don’t need you. You haven’t got through college yet’.” Apple Computer founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak’s personal computer.
“Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You’re crazy.” Drillers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil, 1859.
“Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau.” Irving Fisher, Economics professor, Yale University, 1929.
“Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.” Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs is ridiculous fiction.” Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872.
“The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon.” Sir John Eric Ericksen, British Surgeon, appointed Surgeon Extraordinary to Queen Victoria, 1873.
“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” Bill Gates of Microsoft, 1981.
“The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a “C” the idea must be feasible.” A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith’s paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. (Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.)
“You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all muscles? It can’t be done. It’s just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training.” Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the “unsolvable” problem by inventing Nautilus.
"Cable & Wireless (a UK telecoms company) was founded over 125 years ago to link London with its colonies, laying the first submarine cable to Honk Kong; this it did despite warnings from some scientists that water pressure at oceanic depths would squeeze the electrons out of the wire." Fortune August 5, 1995. P.18.

For even more “expert” opinions read The Expert Speaks: The Definitive Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation, Christopher Cerf.

Collected by The London Perret Roche Group LLC

Complaints and Upsets - a possibility for breakthrough

2008-06-12T09:40:00.000-04:00

In our work with clients, we make the assertion that stakeholder complaints, upsets, disappointments, frustrations, and so on, are a function of unmet or thwarted expectations. And, expectations that they relate to as if an implicit promise had been made to them, and broken.

When working with executives we coach them to get to know what the explicit expectations are of their employees, customers, shareholders and so on are, and meet them - that's a non-negotiable. If you say you will deliver X in Y time - less than that outcome will result in a disappointed stakeholder.

However, that is not enough. It is as important to discern, "what are the "implicit" expectations?" and minimally meet, preferably exceed, those too.

Given we are all consumers on the one hand, and have a particular world-view and operating model on the other hand, implicit expectations can be a minefield.

I have been "spoiled" by amazon, which means every time I order anything on line I "expect" I will get it the next day. When I don't get that service my experience of the new supplier is diminished - even though they broke no promise, and they may even have exceeded their own performance standards.

In the face of snafus - What?

2008-06-11T12:58:00.000-04:00

I am sometimes asked by senior execs, “how is it possible for you and your colleagues to produce breakthroughs in organizations? Especially organizations like ours – after all we are a blue chip company, been around for years, respected by our peers, often praised by analysts and experts, copied by competitors...?”.

With a little looking is not hard to see how come. Especially when the looking is at waste - and waste being defined as any effort that does not produce specific measurable desired results and/or uses more time, effort and resources to do so.

Only this morning I had an illustration of just such an example of waste. A project with a client was completed and invoiced in January; requests for duplicate invoices later, email exchanges later, duplicate payments later, canceled checks later, and maybe in May the transaction will be completed. So much wasted and unproductive effort! What's more, it is all over the place, in even the so called, best in class organizations. By-the-way, I am clear in the example I have just used, we are not being picked out for special treatment. This was not a one off isolated instance of wasted effort/resources.

Which highlights the challenges for an insider committed to transforming his/her organization. Getting upset doesn’t work. Making people wrong doesn’t work. Complaining doesn’t work. Even fixing individual snafus doesn’t work because the system design is what gives rise to the snafus in the first place.

So what then? Resignation – either in the form of outright leaving, or the path most often chosen a “staying in place withdrawal” - withdrawing ones commitment, withholding oneself, settling for, putting up with, withdrawing effort, enthusiasm, caring, personal initiative...

Is there another possibility for a committed insider? I think so. The possibility though is not in simply reacting to snafus and being good at clean up, though that is a useful and often necessary skill. No, the committed insider needs to become skillful at generating new possibilities for themselves and for their colleagues.

With Margaret Mead's (the anthropologist) quote in mind, "Never doubt the power of a small group of committed people to change the world, in fact, nothing else ever has." how does a committed insider change/transform his or her organization?

Here are a few tips:

Your organization has some organizing principles and values; know them by heart, use them as a reference , like a compass: "Is this consistent with our principles?", "How is this consistent with...(some aspect of your organizing principles)?
Your organizations has practices that are designed to support the principles; live them, encourage others to live them, notice and acknowledge others who do...
If you see that a practice is missing institute it in your own working, share it with colleagues, disseminate it until it is part of "the way we do things around here".
Notice and praise behaviors that are consistent with principles, practices and values. Encourage others to notice.
Reallocate the things you spend your time talking about; more on what's working versus what's not working. More on what is consistent with principles, practices, values and desired behavior and less on complaining about what is not.
And when you do complain, complain so as to cause change - include a request, make a promise, so that future actions and outcomes are altered.

Never doubt the power of a small group of committed people...

Possibilities to Ponder

2008-06-10T23:53:00.000-04:00

I opened an old notebook over the weekend, one of my "seed-books" - full of ideas for articles, quotes, and a miscellany I can't quite label. One page I liked, and left open on my desk. They were notes I wrote as a leader I admired was enthralling his team while speaking about some of his organizing principles. Given I could not capture everything as he spoke, and he was not speaking from a script, we later wrote up what we each thought was said - adding and amplifying at the same time.

Later that evening I was reading segments from America's Constitution: A Biography which had me think of my seed-book page and how appropriate they would be for a personal bill of responsibilities - it has puzzled me that the US Founding Fathers did add one to the Bill of Rights - now I thought, that's a possibility. Here it is:

Don’t waste time worrying about things you can’t do anything about - include and accept them, and move on

Don’t let moods and emotions cloud your decisions – chose the harder right over the easy wrong

Listen to both sides of every story - the best decision will come from appreciating others' perspectives

Know your job and the people you depend on to fulfill and your accountabilities

Praise in public coach or reprimand in private - always build people up don't tear them down

Set priorities – then do the hard jobs first

Don’t ask someone to do something you would not do yourself - unless of course they are more competent

Set high standards - and live them - be your word

Identify problems and solve them

Do it now – don’t procrastinate

Take care of details - perfection is in the details

Be in communication - no withholding complaints, upsets, problems, or praise

Be visible - let people know who you are and what you stand for

Surface and deal with conflict - conflict is not bad or wrong; just evidence of lots of commitments and finite resources

Never punish the entire group for the acts of an unknown few. Find the culprits and punish them

It is more important to be respected than liked

Praise, acknowledge, appreciate and reward good performance

Commitment to a Possibility or Hesitancy and Equivocation

2008-06-10T13:50:00.000-04:00

This morning I was reminded, yet again, of the wrestling that many executives engage in, in trying to decide between multiple options, each with their own set of costs and benefits. Some executives make what I call the actuary's decision - basically calculate the risk, and choose the least risky.

The first email I opened today was from one of our client's senior executives, "I am have trouble deciding..." followed by reasons, explanations, concerns, and so on, followed by a request for help, "what should I do?".

I understand the wrestling and the hesitancy. And I am, like most humans, not a stranger to either one. Yet when I stop and reflect I notice that this hesitancy is no more than us hovering at what I call, the threshold between the rational mind doing its chattering, and our taking a stand or declaring a commitment.

The rational minds conversations is like this – all variants of hesitancy, equivocation and risk-aversion:

It’s a lot of money, we can't afford to make a mistake
What if we decide to go for it and it doesn't work out?
What's the reaction going to be...? From the Board, investors, share-owners, customers, the media...
We can't afford a failure
...

The taking a stand or declaring a commitment conversations is very different. Stand-taking doesn’t ignore the rational mind's conversations, it is just not shaped by them.

The taking a stand or declaring a commitment conversations is like this – all variants of choosing a future with the no-kidding intention of working to make the future real:
This is what I am committed to..., less than that I am not willing to settle for. Not bluff or bravado – just a statement of what’s so.

We will produce X result by Y time, no kidding. (our version of JFK's declaration, "we will put man on the moon and bring him back safely by the end of the decade" - watch his declarative speech).

My encouragement to executives is this, in all that you do, notice your operating model, so that more often you are able to operate from stand and commitment vs. hesitancy, equivocation and risk-aversion.

One model is not good and the other bad, they just have different outcomes. Which model to operate from is a choice. A choice that is best made so as to forward the outcomes we want rather than to avoid a risk you fear.

Which reminds us of Helen Keller, "Life is either a daring adventure or it is nothing".

Conversation for Possibility Killers

2008-06-09T12:22:00.000-04:00

Here's the scene:
Someone is talking about a new idea, a possibility that they are excited about... in mid stream someone steps in...
Yea but...
What about...?
That'll never fly because...
Have you thought about...?
Pretty soon others join in with their questions, concerns and considerations .
And, little by little, what started out as an exciting idea, a new possibility, at least for the one who thought it up, becomes fraught with obstacles and problems - if not flat out unrealistic, infeasible and unworkable.
If asked, most people would say their questions and concerns are designed to help, to expose weaknesses in the idea, or to contribute things that the idea generator had not taken into account. What actually happens though, more often than not, is that little by little excitement and enthusiasm is tempered and possibility is killed off . Especially if the new idea is a significant change from the way things are usually thought about, or the way things are usually done.
Pretty soon the conversation is about: getting back to reality, to what is known, familiar, tried and tested.
Yet paradoxically we are most alive, most turned on, when we are generating new ideas, when we are engaged in conversations for possibility.
So my next question is how do we keep possibility alive? And how do we raise questions and concerns about a new idea - without killing it?

Being Committed to a Possibility

2008-06-07T12:43:00.000-04:00

What keeps possibility alive and energizing is being committed to it, and having all actions forwarding the possibility.

Here is my favorite perspective on commitment:

Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness.

Concerning all acts of initiative (and creation), there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans - that the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too.

All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision raising in one’s favor all manner of unforseen incidents and meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way.

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.
Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.
Begin it now.
Goethe

From the quotes file of The London Perret Roche Group LLC, New Jersey,
see more at http://wiki.lprgroup.com/

Possibility Vs. Prediction

2008-06-07T12:29:00.000-04:00

The sense in which I am speaking about possibility is a speaking about a future that is way beyond a prediction. We have all had the experience of speaking a future we want, and one we are willing to go to work for, but it is by no means a given. It is not a future we relate to like wishful thinking, even though some unpredictable actions and outcomes are needed to make it real.

A possibility energizes us, it excites us, it calls us to be in action. A possibility has us in invention mode, exploring, discovering, running experiments, testing ideas - but all shaping actions trying to make the possibility real.

A possibility gives us excitement and energy in the present. It is the source of meaning.