TeamOfRivals

I recently read Team of Rivals:  The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodwin (2005).  

While very familiar with the history and biography of Lincoln, this book provided for me a much deeper understanding of his mindset.  Most of us have heard the tales of Lincoln's poverty-to-presidency pathway, but DKG gave me a glimpse of the man's heart and mind that no previous work I've encountered has.

In particular, DKG details how Lincoln recruited, invited, and embraced a cabinet that was made up of a broad diversity of thinkers and skill sets.  Even more remarkable is the fact that several of those Lincoln invited to serve in his cabinet were previous political rivals, quite bitter ones at that.  Lincoln masterfully navigated their differences, winning their loyalty and affection. 

I am completely awed by Lincoln's capacity for forgiveness, his unwavering ability to show compassion, and his disciplined refusal to engage in vindictiveness or recrimination.  What remarkable attributes for a leader!  

Perhaps General William Tecumseh Sherman summed it best:  “Of all the men I ever met, he seemed to possess more of the elements of greatness, combined with goodness, than any other.” (p. 713)

SelfShackled

I'm guilty, but I finally learned better (a bit slower than I want to admit).  I've seen many other leaders commit the same error.

Here's the all too familiar downward progression:

1. The leader insists that things get done "my way," which means they want to define the outcomes AND to control the processes of getting to those outcomes. 
2. The leader gets frustrated when others can't or won't abide by the processes prescribed, either because they don't have the skills, or haven't been given the authority, or actually know a better way to achieve the outcomes. 
3. The leader gradually takes on more and more of the responsibility for all that doing.
4. Followers get disenchanted and/or disgruntled, with many talented ones "walking" and the remainder hanging around, but slipping into neutral.
5. Toxic relationships between leader and follower ensue.
6. The leader crashes and burns, worn to a frazzle.
7. The organization and all its members suffer under the weight of bitter dysfunction and lack of performance.

Accomplishing big and worthy things requires many hands, many minds, and many hearts.  The outcomes are what is important.  

A better way.  Be clear about the outcomes.  Be diligent in supporting folks as they make their way to those outcomes.  Avoid undermining, under-resourcing, under-developing, and under-appreciating those who have joined in the endeavor.

To do otherwise is to find ourselves shackled to certain and painful demise.

SoDifferent?

We (i.e., us humans) are about 90% genetically identical to our cats.

Humans are about 98% genetically similar to other primates.

We humans are 99.5% exactly alike, genetically speaking.  

Yet we seem so different.  What makes us so different, if it's not the genetic code?

Our world views, our behaviors, our habits are not the function of our genes.  They are the function of the social environments in which we were raised (or have chosen for ourselves) and the cultures which reared us (or those we have aligned ourselves with).  These effect producers are known as our phenome (as opposed to our genome).  

Seligman (2002) asserts that virtually every society on the planet holds dear these fundamental tenets:  Wisdom/Knowledge, Courage, Love/Humanity, Justice, Temperance, and Spirituality/Transcendence.  All are effects of phenotype, rather than genotype.  Stated differently, Seligman's list of commonly held "virtues" are all the result of conscious decision making on our part, collectively and individually.  

The bottom line is that we (humans, that is) are FAR more alike than we are different, both in genotype AND in phenotype.  

So why all the discord?

WordMatters

Or rather, words matter.  Sometimes, but not always.  

Words CAN matter.  They can matter quite a lot.  

We are constantly bombarded by words - in text, in person, in audio, and through video.  Words, words, words.  How do we know which ones to heed and which ones to disregard?

Typically, one of two conditions predicate a degree of mattering to words:

1.  When we are able to assign some degree of credibility, honesty, and integrity to the producer of the words.  In effect, we have some respect for the wordsmith.  
2.  We have a meaningful relationship with the producer of the words.

With that in mind a few questions follow:

What words are we saying/writing?

Who might be listening?

Do our words matter?

Potholes

Potholes in the road are common.  The thing about potholes is that they grow in insidious fashion - ever wider, longer, and deeper.  Potholes begin as superficial blemishes on the surface of the roadway, yet they quickly "metastasize," spreading into the very foundation of the roadbed.  

Organizations can develop potholes, too.  Little things that seem like inconsequential annoyances - glitches in supply chains, paperwork bottlenecks, customer service fails, unhealthy symptoms in the culture - turn into full-blown barriers to organizational progress and improvement.  In effect, a superficial blemish turns into an open wound.

What to do about potholes?  On the roadway, maintenance crews must be diligent in quickly identifying the early signs of potholes and addressing issues before they begin to do deeper damage to the roadway, and to the vehicles that travel thereon.

In organizations, the same kind of constant attention is required.  In the healthiest organizations, every team member is both charged and empowered to address emerging "potholes."  Noticing the earliest signs of "potholes" and addressing them quickly is the surest way to prevent significant dysfunction and frustration for those within the organization, and for those the organization serves. 

One way or the other, potholes are going to get our attention, our time, and our resources.  The sooner the better.   

NextToLearn

Learning is fundamental to our personal and professional growth.  Most folks understand this.  But, what is it that we need to learn next in order to grow ourselves personally or professionally?  That question is far too often unanswered, AND unasked.  

So, what drives the purposeful pursuit of what we need to learn next?  Two things, I think:  1) a perceived deficiency that we believe might be impairing our performance, or 2) a perceived gap in our learning, the closing of which can potentially push us to new heights of performance.  

For those who are very purposeful in their pursuit of learning (thus, growth), the recipe looks like this:

1. Identify the deficiency or gap for which the next learning needs to occur.  This is done by self-reflection, self-assessment, and/or by gaining critical and honest feedback from others whose opinions and insights really count.
2. Craft a plan (yes, a written plan) by which we intend to make that next learning happen. 
3. Follow the plan.  Diligently pursue the knowledge or hone the skills we have chosen to acquire.
4. Monitor the plan.  Flag our calendar regularly to "check up" on our own progress.  As one of my valued colleagues is fond of saying, "That which is not monitored, is optional."

Ready.  Set.  LEARN! 

Observant

Benjamin Franklin is famously quoted, "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see."  I suspect old Ben, in this age of edited text/audio/video, might even modify that "half" admonition toward zero.  

The essence of Franklin's point, however still stands:  We err greatly in relying solely on the anecdotal reporting of others when making consequential decisions.  While it has always been the case that pervasively collecting data (in written form, in spoken form, in observed form) helps inform good decision making, it has never been truer that we should approach "reported" data with a highly skeptical ear/eye/brain.

Reporting is ALWAYS biased, sometimes unknowingly, sometimes with malice of forethought.  That is true historically, and perhaps, never truer than today. 

So, how do we make substantive decisions, for ourselves, for our families, for our organizations?  Of course we should research.  Of course we should listen.  Of course we should analyze data.  Yet, nothing can substitute for real, in-the-now, fully present observation.  Not just passing observation, but intense, critical, and skeptical observation of the evidence/conditions/circumstances.  It matters not whether we're talking about our personal health, the stock market, our planet, customer satisfaction, or political machinations.  

Rarely does such intentional observation paint for us a clear and irrefutable picture, quite often the contrary.  Yet, to rely solely on the reporting of the others (in its myriad forms) is to abdicate a fundamental (and perhaps moral) responsibility to "see for ourselves."