We’re at a place in the South Pacific where any sizeable land mass is thousands of miles away and as such, you experience the night, the darkness, & therefore the stars unlike any place on earth. Grab a blanket & lounge chair up on the observation deck and stare into the brilliance of the universe – it underlines the reality of our miniature existence in this vast universe. Planet earth is so small…so fragile…so beautiful from the outer reaches of space – you wouldn’t think our ‘blue dot’ could possibly be so hostile, so aggressive, so sour, so bad-tempered…so foul. Given the immeasurable size of our universe, the odds of us being the only sphere with ‘intelligent’ life are minimal. Are other civilizations on other planets as hostile as we are toward each other? Are they all as dysfunctional? Think about all in the news today. I don’t care where you begin or where you end…every locality on our globe is experiencing socio-crisis in some measure. If it’s not actual war, it’s the constant threat of war. People fighting over territories, both on land & sea. People fighting over religious beliefs…and actually killing their neighbors if they don’t worship the same god. People fighting over immigration, health care, & race relations. I’ve seen it firsthand in many parts of the world, and even on this particular voyage with North & South Korea still battling over turf – the Chinese now trying to restrict access to the China Sea...the violent protests in Hong Kong over the election process…and the list goes on. It was once comforting to return to the USA after being exposed to adversative disorders in other uncivilized, unrefined, & crude societies. I can’t say that anymore. It’s not simply about the mess in Ferguson earlier this week and subsequent demonstrations in other major cities. Over the past couple of weeks, Obama & Republicans in Congress have taken their conflicts to yet another level. Shouldn’t we be improving over time? Why is it we say…”I sure wouldn’t want to be raising kids today”. What’s happened to common sense? What’s happened to reason? Why can’t people get along with shared communal values, morals, ethics and parity for all?
I’m not necessarily apportioning blame, but in all my years in business, everything good AND bad started and stopped with leadership. So maybe we should think about evaluating presidential candidates and other key leadership positions on the basis of whether they are skilled in the art of collaboration? I know…sounds simple doesn’t it – in fact, it may sound like I’m over-simplifying it…but I don’t think so. When you look at other sectors of society, you see leaders who are geniuses at this…and you see great results. You can spot the collaborative leader because he/she has rejected the heroic, solitary model of leadership. He doesn’t try to dominate his organization as its all-seeing visionary, leading idea generator and controlling intelligence. Instead, he sees himself as a person who makes it possible for the creativity in his organization to play itself out. The collaborative leader lessens the distance between himself and everybody else. He believes that problems are far too complex for one brain, but if he can create the right context and nudge a group along, the team will come up with the solutions. Such political leaders would look very different from the ones we’re used to. In the first place, they would do what they could to create a culture of cooperation, NOT competition. They’d evoke our shared national consciousness more than our partisan consciousness; they’d also take the political people completely out of the policy meetings. I recall in many business situations over the years, I always tried to hire folks who were much smarter than me in their area of expertise – I certainly didn’t have all the answers and really, no one individual does. I had a vision of where I wanted to take the organization, but without the input & seasoned wisdom from many others could all the right pieces fall together to achieve our objective or goals.
When working on new policy or critical corporate initiatives in my former environment, I often included at least one representative from each business unit across the country. So, second, I think a collaborative president would draw up what I’ll call Key Influencer Maps. This leader would gather influencers into informal policy-making teams as each initiative was executed.
Third, a collaborative president would offer specific goals to each team, but he would not tell them how to get there.
Fourth, a collaborative president would see himself or herself as an honest broker above the policy-making process, NOT as a gladiator in it.
Fifth, a collaborative president would tolerate a temporary mess. If you adopt a highly prescriptive set of rules, then nobody can do anything bold or innovative.
Sixth, a collaborative leader embraces an oppositional mindset. Successful collaborative groups resist halfhearted compromises – instead, they combine things that were once seen as mutually exclusive.
Seventh, a collaborative president would create a culture in which relationships are more important than one person’s pride. The collaborative leader understands you have to take off the armor to build strong bonds for the long-haul.
Finally, the collaborative leader would exile those who consistently refuse to play by the rules. Cooperation exists when people internalize small cooperative habits as their default response to situations. It only takes a few selfish grandstanders to undermine a culture of trust. We can all think of technocractic reforms to make Washington work better…to make the world work better…but ultimately, it takes a different leadership model and a renewed appreciation for the art of collaboration.
Just my opinion...and to my five kids & six grandkids, you may be reading this several years after I’m gone and say, “maybe the ‘ol fart was on to something”.
I’m not necessarily apportioning blame, but in all my years in business, everything good AND bad started and stopped with leadership. So maybe we should think about evaluating presidential candidates and other key leadership positions on the basis of whether they are skilled in the art of collaboration? I know…sounds simple doesn’t it – in fact, it may sound like I’m over-simplifying it…but I don’t think so. When you look at other sectors of society, you see leaders who are geniuses at this…and you see great results. You can spot the collaborative leader because he/she has rejected the heroic, solitary model of leadership. He doesn’t try to dominate his organization as its all-seeing visionary, leading idea generator and controlling intelligence. Instead, he sees himself as a person who makes it possible for the creativity in his organization to play itself out. The collaborative leader lessens the distance between himself and everybody else. He believes that problems are far too complex for one brain, but if he can create the right context and nudge a group along, the team will come up with the solutions. Such political leaders would look very different from the ones we’re used to. In the first place, they would do what they could to create a culture of cooperation, NOT competition. They’d evoke our shared national consciousness more than our partisan consciousness; they’d also take the political people completely out of the policy meetings. I recall in many business situations over the years, I always tried to hire folks who were much smarter than me in their area of expertise – I certainly didn’t have all the answers and really, no one individual does. I had a vision of where I wanted to take the organization, but without the input & seasoned wisdom from many others could all the right pieces fall together to achieve our objective or goals.
When working on new policy or critical corporate initiatives in my former environment, I often included at least one representative from each business unit across the country. So, second, I think a collaborative president would draw up what I’ll call Key Influencer Maps. This leader would gather influencers into informal policy-making teams as each initiative was executed.
Third, a collaborative president would offer specific goals to each team, but he would not tell them how to get there.
Fourth, a collaborative president would see himself or herself as an honest broker above the policy-making process, NOT as a gladiator in it.
Fifth, a collaborative president would tolerate a temporary mess. If you adopt a highly prescriptive set of rules, then nobody can do anything bold or innovative.
Sixth, a collaborative leader embraces an oppositional mindset. Successful collaborative groups resist halfhearted compromises – instead, they combine things that were once seen as mutually exclusive.
Seventh, a collaborative president would create a culture in which relationships are more important than one person’s pride. The collaborative leader understands you have to take off the armor to build strong bonds for the long-haul.
Finally, the collaborative leader would exile those who consistently refuse to play by the rules. Cooperation exists when people internalize small cooperative habits as their default response to situations. It only takes a few selfish grandstanders to undermine a culture of trust. We can all think of technocractic reforms to make Washington work better…to make the world work better…but ultimately, it takes a different leadership model and a renewed appreciation for the art of collaboration.
Just my opinion...and to my five kids & six grandkids, you may be reading this several years after I’m gone and say, “maybe the ‘ol fart was on to something”.
No comments:
Post a Comment