Tag Archives: authenticity

Like a Sturgeon – Trumped for the Very First Time

17 Thursday Mar 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11951929_10153603954729402_5401036763861155580_n

You guessed it; I was at the Madonna Concert last night that is quickly becoming legend for the late arrival of the pop diva. Notified by the event management we arrived ‘fashionably late’ at 8.45 all geared up for the announced 9pm start. As it was, that meant a 12pm finish and a late (or should I say early) repose. Madonna graced us with her presence at a few minutes before 11.30pm and my head hit the pillow at 2.30am, pretty much blowing my productivity the day after and making me somewhat of a hazard driving home from work on a pretty meagre zzzz diet.

So there were two and three quarter hours we had to while away. Thanks to American Express this wasn’t as onerous as it might have been. Indeed, had it not been for access to the American Express cardholders lounge at the Brisbane Entertainment Centre, we probably would have baled out before the concert started (like some people I know) throwing the $299 per ticket in the trash. So at a time when one person trashed their own brand – Madonna, another organisation – Amex once again stood out as a company that gets what it means to delight their customer.

Madonna on the other hand doesn’t seem to give a damn, or as she might more aptly call it ..a f*@k. It was a concert ridiculously punctuated with expletive ridden monologues which were Madonna’s forlorn endeavour to come across as some sort of freedom fighter, social evangelist and all round rebel with a cause. It didn’t work. The audience were treated to what amounted to no more than a cringe laden, school-girl giggly clichéd series of sexual innuendo (ooohh in your end Oh – you get the picture). The way she treated her two main protagonist dancers, both black, was heavy in racial stereo-typing and the production of a banana from the waist coat of one of them was to me offensive. Still it’s Madonna and she can get away with that, after all she is a freedom fighter right?

That made me ponder. Does anyone in her entourage vet this stuff and call it for what it is, or does she have a sycophantic coterie that tell her exactly what she wants to hear? Madonna, it appears to me, puts herself in the rarefied air of someone so special that she affords herself a license that few others would be given. She is the caviar of the music world – a multi-million selling recording artist who has successfully traversed the vagaries of musical trends across four decades. Amazing given she is actually a child of the 1950s. This seems to afford her certain rights not available to us mere mortals.

While spending time in the Amex lounge I went on Twitter and caught up with the day’s events which was pretty much dominated by the US Primaries. There were numerous news organisations reporting on the recent wins by Trump progressing him further and further towards winning the GOP nomination. What characterises Trump’s campaign is a kind of aggression that appears to appeal to a certain segment of the US population. This in turn is causing riotous behaviour at the various rallies associated with Trump. Trump has quite often suggested that someone should be punched in the face and on more than one occasion his ‘disciples’ have followed through on this. Why wouldn’t they? Here is a leader, possibly soon to be the most powerful person in the world, advocating a behaviour that they are only too willing to carry out if it is given sanction.

Leadership requires many things. We often describe it as the ability to take people with you, as well as persuade many to your particular point of view. Quite often successful leaders don’t make good leaders if success is defined by the size of the following you garner. Hitler after all had much of the German nation in his thrall but that did not make him a good leader. Madonna in her own way is a leader. She has influenced many generations of women, and has advocated a more direct approach on issues of sexuality and equality. That doesn’t make her a good leader. Other attributes are necessary to tick all the boxes in the leadership stakes.

To be honest I have never been a great fan of the leadership as a discipline in its own right brigade. Leadership to me is a subset of effective management. To take it away from management suggests that it is the preserve of a select few, an elite, and this propagates the view that leaders are born and not made. Leadership has a set of skills that can be learned and with practice true leadership results. Some of the hallmarks of good leadership are:

  • Humility – knowing when to take your foot off the pedal of self-promotion and narcissism;
  • Listening – to get advice and to shape this into the way you behave;
  • Followership – if you were never a good follower at some stage what insights do you have over your dominions?
  • Broad Shoulders – if you put yourself in front you need to be prepared to take on board the slings and arrows of criticism and to handle this with grace. People who do not agree with you aren’t necessarily stupid;
  • Being an example – knowing that people are watching means you have to do right and to be seen to do right; a plain fact so many in Office get wrong;
  • Sticking around – people want to see you there through thick and thin. If you bail out and move on then people do not get exposed to the true you;
  • Vulnerability – no-one is full proof and no-one is the complete person so showing the areas where you are not strong but get the necessary assistance to cover for this deficit provides comfort to those who follow you. This is not a prophet we follow after all; it is a human being;
  • Insight – you need to understand the power of your words and actions over those who have vested in you their hopes and aspirations;
  • Authenticity – if you cannot show the true you the audience for your ideas or leadership will spot it pretty easily and your following may well be based on fear and not a genuine desire to be led.

Neither Trump nor Madonna appear to display many of these characteristics. When Trump talks about people who decry his campaign he labels them, especially female reporters, as idiots and advocates they get beaten up. His rival Marco Rubio was ‘Little Marco’ in some strange reference to his genitalia. Last night Madonna made reference to genitalia on a number of occasions and also suggested that the audience should fight for the bouquet she was about to throw into the audience and that the person who got it should be punched in the nose.

Like and respect are the two emotions that followers afford their leaders. Neither I would give to either. Surely they know the impact of what they say? If not it is the responsibility of those around them to provide wise counsel. Blind adoration is not what we do when we anoint a leader. I suspect that Trump and Madonna wouldn’t be happy knowing this. When the Primaries get to the later stages where it really matters I don’t think the chorus in Cleveland are going to be singing to Donald ‘We’re Crazy for You!’ If upbraided for being late at concerts Madonna may well regale us with ‘Papa don’t preach.’ Here’s my response from a one-time admirer. ‘I’ve been losing sleep!”

 

 

Killing Me Softly and Absolutely

24 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

Orange County News - Aug 29, 2005

Scalia: ‘Absolutely! What’s the question?’

My mind is still preoccupied with all things Stateside (as per my last blog about the US Primaries). Adding texture (as if it was needed) to the Primaries is the looming constitutional crisis of the replacement of recently deceased Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court. To those who are only occasional followers of the US Federal government system a quick rundown may be of value. There are basically four components, each designed specifically by the Founders to place a check on government to avoid abuse of power. The President is the Executive. While wielding a lot of power this is held in check by the other branches of Government e.g. Congress and the Supreme Court. Congress has two chambers being the House of Representatives and the Senate. To give an example of how the checks and balances work let’s consider the US going to war. Only the President, as Commander in Chief, can declare war but he needs Congress to vote the appropriations to fund it. The Supreme Court can rule on whether such action was unconstitutional and if so their decision becomes binding.

Why then am I focussing on this minutia of the US Supreme Court? Well for one the numbers are really important. There are nine judges in total so depending on the current set up you can have a liberal (by the numbers) court or a conservative one. This may be in accord or out of step with the political leanings of the executive. The death of Scalia, an arch conservative, means Obama has the opportunity to select his own (presumably liberal/progressive). This would mean for the first time in a long time that majority liberal decisions can be assumed more often than not. Nominations are fine but the candidate still needs Congress approval and that is where Obama may run out of time. The filibuster is very much part of the US political zeitgeist. This may well be a high risk strategy for the filibusters however because those seen obstructing a US President in the proper execution of his duties may well run foul of the voters in an election that also sees a number of Senators standing for re-election.

screen%20shot%202016-01-19%20at%201_17_04%20pm

Dolores Avery – Quite often on the other end when Steven was ‘phoning home’

I’m also into all things American at the moment because I am in the thrall of Making a Murderer currently playing on Netflix. For me this is the most compelling television since Breaking Bad and it’s a documentary to boot. If you haven’t seen it, it is worth the price of Netflix alone. Without giving too much away, the chief protagonist, Steven Avery, is twice convicted for two different crimes which he quite clearly did not commit. The Avery’s are ‘trailer trash’ and yet the manner in which they have conducted themselves throughout 10 or so hours of documentary footage is astounding. Their quiet dignity, especially that of the inimitable Dolores, is something that you just settle into and admire for it shows that class is no determinant of …errr…class.

[Look away now if you don’t want a spoiler].

Steven Avery – a redneck with a right to be hot under the collar

One particular aspect of the Steven Avery story has struck me. I’ll call it absolutism. At his second trial, when he is tried for a brutal murder and disposal of a corpse, one of the jurors had to be relieved of their duties for family illness. He later advised that on immediately retiring to the Jury room an initial straw poll of the jurors was taken. The results were seven not guilty and three guilty; with one undecided. The verdict brought down at the end was Avery guilty of murder. What this said to me was that the absolutists on the jury had prevailed. Those of a more flexible mindset were drawn across to the clearly nonsensical decision to pronounce a guilty verdict by the three unwilling to yield. This had me in reflection mode. What is it about the absolutists that make the pragmatists want to compromise? I also reflected on the absolutism underpinning the verdict which is the presumption that the State is both more credible and important than the individual. Surely this flies in the face of the structure of Government put in place by the Founding Fathers? This is something Justice Scalia would find deeply upsetting.

Yet there is probably no greater exponent of absolutism in modern times than Supreme Court Judge Scalia himself. Often the ‘swing voter’ on the Supreme Court he wrote many judgements and he is known for his very conservative and strict adherence to the principles laid out in the Constitution. He used as his guiding principles the Founding Fathers’ absolute intent. Seldom did he take into account we live in a different age; a different time. Consequently America has been held back in some areas e.g. stem cell research as a result. Not surprising he was pretty robust on the defence of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) costing how many lives we can never know.

This strict adherence to principles without the pragmatism to know when to be firm and when to be flexible strikes me as an individual who does not understand, or refuses to accept the beauty of compromise. Not compromise when you are not being authentic. Not compromise when it makes it feel like you are not living your truth. Not compromise where you feel you have given a little of your soul away in the process, or betraying yourself ( a la Caroline Myss). Rather, compromise where your mindfulness and emotional intelligence has recognised the face issues of the other party and acknowledged that victory at all costs is ultimately a shallow exercise. It’s called the ‘art of compromise’ for a reason. It needs real artistry to achieve i.e. creativity, nuance, style and sensitivity.

I’ve been a long time believer that there are many false truisms in life and management. One of the biggest I think is that acting without compromise is hard and compromising is easy. I call this ‘hard is soft; soft is hard’. Being unyielding is as easy as pie. You pull the shutters down and just dig in. It’s not about tenacity it’s more about tuning out. Compromise on the other hand is much more difficult. There is an intense vulnerability at play here. Knowing what to hold firm to and what to compromise on is really hard. Knowing that your colleagues might ridicule you for bending or folding is hard to do. It’s about strength of character. That might sound counter-intuitive but sometimes to display our vulnerability is the hardest thing of all. To do so is to be authentic. Authenticity is seldom detectable in the un-yielding. The absolutists don’t give us enough of an insight into their inner workings to allow us to properly ‘feel’ them. The unyielding wall that is their lack of compromise is a barrier behind which they hide and makes an emotionally intelligent exchange with them well-nigh impossible. It’s a black and white approach to life and work when in fact the continuum of black and white has all shades of grey in between. That’s why I believe it’s beholden on those professions that come from an absolutist tradition e.g. accountants, engineers etc. to learn the complexity of management and unlearn much of what their underpinning knowledge has taught them. It’s doubtful that they will come to this heuristically.

And so to the jurors in the Steven Avery case. The three -probably biased before the case- jurors who held out for the guilty verdict must have just stood their ground so firmly that the others found they inappropriately compromised their own beliefs for the sake of expediency. In such cases this is not an authentic compromise position. The lesson that Steven Avery lives to this very day in a Wisconsin prison is that absolutism cannot be applied absolutely. The problem is the absolutists have no idea about how to shift their paradigm.

Two things I hope we can look forward to in the not too distant future. Firstly a new Supreme Court judge who has the wisdom to guide the US in the decades that follow bringing down well-reasoned and compassionate rulings and secondly the exoneration and compensation of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey for crimes they clearly did not commit. Of that I’m absolutely certain.

Channelling Oprah By Accident

15 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

oprah_northwestern

I went to the Oprah Tour of Australia in Brisbane recently . There I’ve said it! Fair play to Oprah she did, mid-show, acknowledge the 9 or so of us blokes in attendance, whereupon we were asked to stand and received the ‘love in the room’. It was just a momentary and miniscule glimpse of what it must be like to get adulation like Oprah does. She then went on to regale the audience with her ‘recipe’ for happiness, peppered with anecdotes from her life to illustrate junctures at which important things happened. All events that have helped her form her view on happiness and success. She touched on authenticity, having clarity of purpose, intention, dedication of service and surrender amongst other things. This gave me pause for thought. While her recipe for life seemed fairly common sense I reflected it wasn’t a bad recipe for achieving success in the business world either.

Just a couple of weeks ago now Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull released the much awaited policy on innovation. In his own words this is the best time to be alive in Australia. That point may be moot but you could prosecute a strong case to say it is perhaps the most interesting (and not in a Chinese proverb sort of way). In short the main issue confronting us is the re-calibration of the Australian economy from one of pulling resources from the ground (Coal, Iron Ore and Gas) to one of innovation. We were once the ‘lucky country’ and now we are striving to be the ‘creative’ one.

Out of the earth we once extracted wealth and now we must extract from our minds and spirits (the well of creative ideas) the new wealth. Once we extracted resources and sent them overseas without much in the way of a value-add, only to buy those goods back as steel and other value-added products. Now we must do the value-add bit here. When the commodity is ideas and we don’t value add in our own backyard it’s called a brain drain. We must have ideas and then shape and polish them if we are to maintain our enviable OECD position in terms of absolute wealth and also in terms of stature and national self-esteem. This is a nice segue to Oprah  who talked a lot about self-worth. Little it appears can be achieved if this is not at its optimal level. The real challenge now will be how we manage creativity and ideas within the workplace. Just the word ‘workplace’ sounds like a misnomer  because creativity, long associated with play, may seem a slightly awkward bedfellow to work (grind) which is what we get up each day for.

The Executive corridor (or C Suite – a term I really don’t like) is populated with managers whose qualifications fall into one of three distinct groups:

  • technical experts with a management qualification tacked on;
  • professional managers whose expertise lies solely in the art and science of the practice of management; and
  • technical experts with no management qualifications to speak of.

In the past knowing more than the other ‘bloke’, and yes it has generally been a male, has been the prerequisite for promotion or advancement in the workplace. This has had two impacts:

  • the most knowledgeable person in the chain has been taken out of the position immediately lowering the knowledge quotient at the pointy-end;
  • a position requiring an altogether different skill set has then been occupied by someone ill-equipped to handle it. Arise the accidental manager.

There is nothing wrong, per se, in promoting a technically proficient worker. This can act as an encouragement to others to strive to do better (or as Oprah might phrase it, to be the best you that you can be). However before doing so there are four precursor activities that need to be set in motion first:

  • working with the soon to be promoted team member getting them to realise there is a whole body of knowledge that they don’t know but will need to;
  • helping them realise that falling back on their default technical knowledge to define their sense of self-esteem in the new role is not appropriate;
  • providing some baseline management training before the promotion; and
  • instilling in them the notion that they are now on a path of lifelong learning.

In short it is necessary to do succession planning, or as Oprah might say, find your thread, follow and nurture it.

Regrettably the world is littered with accidental managers. It has become so acute that the Chartered Management Institute in the UK, the peak body for management professionals, has identified this as a key risk to the UK’s success in the digital age. The impact of accidental managers in the workplace is varied. It ranges from small business failures to meltdowns of global enterprises; the shockwaves of which ripple across the globe. Seldom do such impacts happen without individuals and families being affected. Compare an accidental manager to a not yet fully qualified pilot. At least s/he has auto pilot to rely upon. The promotion of managers without the requisite insight, training and commitment to lifelong learning is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Those who have put in the hard yards of learning and study over the years are often left to pick up the pieces and in ‘repairing’ those mishandled by accidental managers oftentimes find themselves reaching into their wider families to help salve their wounds.

With the need for Australia to generate ideas and turn these ideas into commercial successes, there is a greater need now than ever to have managers in place who are anything but there accidentally. There are four generations in the workplace – boomers (me), Gen X, Gen Y and Gen Z. As managers we will need to add this additional complexity to the existing skills necessary to run a successful business. Add to this the requirement to be able to create a culture where ideas can be encouraged, shaped and presented to market and we can begin to see that not only is the accidental manager well out of their depth but the assured manager may well be coming up short up themselves.

The ability to generate ideas is not enough in its own right anymore. The testing, hot housing, incubating and prototyping will require courage as it involves risk and risk taking. If we are to survive in the digital age and this new era of innovation, our approach to risk must change. Our default position of being risk averse can no longer protect nor sustain  us. This begs the question as to whether the existing breed of assured managers are up to the task (me included). Oprah may well prompt us to ask the question as to whether were are getting our team members to embrace their failures and allowing them to learn from them. We cannot innovate unless we fail some of the time. We cannot grow as individuals without some elements of failure in our lives. Failing in front of our subordinates is a huge display of vulnerability but without leadership by example how can we expect our team members to learn from us?

Failure starts to take us into areas where very few assured managers are comfortable to travel. Many of us may not even recognise that such terrain exists. Failure and success, creativity and innovation start to go to the spirit or soul of a person. To become successful managers we are going to have to embrace the soul and recognise the way it affects those about us. We will need to know about energy and flow. Required reading should now include Csikszentmihalyi, Myss, Chopra and Sheehy while still including Hamel, Prahalad, Porter, Pfeffer et al.

Oprah has a head-start here because she was able to build a successful media empire based on self-belief, focus, intention and surrender. She knows intrinsically that the spirit requires nurturing and in doing so, flow – the well from which we draw ideas – can bring happiness. As assured managers we are going to have to continue to learn and do so in new areas; some of which may not sit that comfortably with our scientist selves.

Highly developed intuition will be required (future blog topic on the way). I suspect business school learning will not be of great help here. Sure we can learn about digital marketing and the importance of cash flow at B School, but to learn about soul and spirit as Oprah would reflect will require us to attend ourselves. Perhaps the way of the future for managers is retreats built along the lines of ashrams? The drive that made us devote our own time to improving our management skills must be re-kindled to encourage us to learn new skills and acquire new knowledge that awakens new dimensions; those that will lead to innovation, business success and above all true happiness in the workplace and beyond.