I have taken part in two annual meetings for boards I belong to in the past week.  It has given me a sharper sense of what counts in terms of leadership in organizations. 

First, a lot of what goes into “leadership” arises from a person simply being willing to take action, to be used for a specific purpose.  Leaders are NOT born for greatness; most are simply willing to step forward when many others are not.  As I look at those who assume leadership roles in groups, a large part of leadership is simply being willing to lead and following that up with action.

Second, good leadership makes a lot of difference in setting a particular tone for a group that they lead.  Whether people are energized, depressed, confused, enthusiastic–a lot of it has to do with the quality of leadership that is being exercised in the group.  

Third, from what I’ve observed a board’s effectiveness is directly related to two things:  how much time they spend reacting to what has already happened or is imminent, and planning what they want to happen or anticipating changes that are yet to come.   The most effective boards focus their energies on proactively planning for the future.

One of those board meetings I was part of required preparatory work and we met three long hours, but we focused on strategic planning and everyone afterwards acknowledged this was one of our best meetings in recent memory.  The other meeting was fairly short, reactive in focus and unfocused.  What a difference leadership makes in helping people focus strategically!

If you want to create change, one of the better strategies you can adopt is to get an accurate instrument and place it (along with some training on how to use it) in a prominent location where you (and other people) can’t miss it.  Real-time feedback allows you to make small changes and fine-tune your results.

MPG Instrument

I recently bought a new car and it has a sensitive gauge that tells you how many miles-per-gallon you are getting at the present time.  I’m already paying more attention to this gauge and it has helped me in changing my driving habits for the better (to be more fuel-efficient).

Apply this to people in an organization–even a small one–and it becomes obvious that equipping people with a new tool is much more likely to yield change than talking about change, management lectures or internal communication initiatiaves.  These other activities are useful too, but I’ve seen too many leaders and companies rely on them and end up with very little meaningful change.

Like any new tool, you have to learn to use it properly.  When I took training to be a pilot, I initially spent too much time looking at the instruments-I assumed that’s how you fly the plane.  My instructor had to emphasize to get my head up and look outside the airplane.  The great majority of pilots of small planes fly visually by looking out the window 90% of the time.  Only instrument-rated pilots and airline captains fly solely by reference to the instruments, which is a much more mentally taxing activity that requires extra training, practice and licensing.  So here’s my caveat: when you get an instrument for measuring real-time performance, beware the tendency to stare at it and miss the other information and contextual clues about what is going on around you.  If you can learn to do that (and it is possible), you will be much better positioned to build a high-performing organization and drive results and accountability further down to the individuals that actually do the work.

I’m writing this from Mexico City.  It’s been 21 years since my last trip here when I was a university student. 

mexico_mural

 It seems that a lot has changed (and some things have), but I also know that I have changed.  The pollution is not bad today–I can actually see the mountains surrounding the Valley of Mexico from downtown.  The city doesn’t seem so dirty (I’ve seen worse in Bangkok and Jakarta).

When I came as a student, I was leading a group of friends to do some community service and also some sightseeing on our spring break.  This time, I’m sharing the experience with my wife and two young boys, and I’m enjoying seeing the city through their fresh young eyes.

mexico-city-october2008

It helps to get out of my familiar place and routine; I notice more and see things with a new perspective.  I notice talent around me and I’m more appreciative of people who try extra hard.  Just today I’ve had three experiences of top notch service.  I attribute this to two elements:  there has been good training on how to deliver great service, and there is a supporting culture that reinforces this standard.  I’m not talking about the Mexican national culture, but the specific sub-cultures that the individuals I’ve encountered are a part of.  I can see the contrast, because today I also experienced some horrendous service by someone of the same national culture.  In fact, the individual himself tried hard and did a fairly good job, but the environment he works in is definitely not a culture that trains and delivers top talent service, and I was one of many unhappy customers.

I recommend you get away from the familiar if you haven’t seen many examples of top talent lately.  You don’t have to travel out of the country or go on vacation.  Just go someplace that is different or out of the ordinary for you, and take time to notice the talent of the people you are interacting with.  What do you see?  What can you learn from this?

The 2008 Summer Olympic games opened yesterday.  I was able to see a good part of the opening ceremony and the spirit of the Olympics came through to me: the youth and energy of the athletes, the meeting of nations and laying aside of differences, and the courage to strive and endeavor against the top athletic talent in the world.

Do you have Olympic-caliber talent in your organization?  What values or aspirational goals are found in your company?  The talent we see on display in the Olympics is a product of both individual aspiration and the broader culture of world athletics.  How could you build your culture to attract more top talent?  It is a possible goal to attain.

I’m not going to talk about the humorous (or horrifying) ways that human error is displayed at work.  Instead, I’m interested in the tension between organizations (with their impersonal tendencies) and the  human spirit (with its assertions of personality, commonality and innovation).

I like fresh and innovative thinkers, especially in the field of management.  Steve Byrum is one of those guys, and his book From the Neck Up:  The Recovery and Sustaining of the Human Element in Organizations (2006) is a refreshing read.  In it he looks at the work of Frederick Taylor (the father of Scientific Management) and Robert Hartman (the father of Formal Axiology) and draws some very interesting comparisons and contrasts.

Taylor was concerned about finding the one right way to do things, and the focus was on efficiency.  Under Taylorism the human element too often has gotten reduced to just a “cog in the wheel” of the system.  Human beings were best replaced by automation and robots wherever possible.  That may be oversimplifying, but it captures the essence.

Hartman was a philosopher concerned with defining what exactly “goodness” is.  His discoveries led to the founding of a new field called value science.  Hartman placed great importance on the human element in organizations.  He affirmed this through promoting the practice of profit sharing and through his consulting with several large corporations in the 1950′s and 60′s.  Hartman was interested in organizing goodness; the modern term of “adding value” (in all dimensions) has many deep resonances with Hartman’s ideas.   He saw it as possible and desirable to align people, processes and materials in a way that was effective, efficient and ultimately affirming of the people involved in the enterprise.

There are many insights in this 150 page book that would reward a few hours of reading.  The only drawback is that the book is not readily available (either in bookstores or online).  You can reach Steve Byrum directly and order a copy from the Byrum Consulting Group at (423) 886-5587.

Every day at work there are opportunities to make things happen, and also ways to avoid the action.   I think the basic difference comes down to this:  If you want to make things happen, take responsibility.  If you want to stay out of the action, avoid accountability at all costs.

Too simple?  Think about it for a minute.  Regardless of whether a person has been given “authority”, if you just look at those who are consistently effective you’ll notice that they demonstrate initiative, a can-do attitude, and they step up in a responsible way when something needs to be done.  You’ll also notice that people who shy away from the work or who usually have a ready explanation for why something wasn’t done or can’t be done usually point somewhere else for the cause.  It has nothing to do with them.  

Now amplify that into a company or a whole organization.  If the overall attitude is “We’ll find a way to make it happen!” or “I’ll get right on it” (and you see the follow-through) there’s usually a strong culture of accountability in place.  We’ve all seen the opposite as well:  lots of excuses, finger-pointing, justification and rationalizing. 

Here’s the point of it all:  a strong leader takes responsibility for bulding a culture of accountability and modeling it personally through their words and actions.  They are a living example of what a difference a single committed person can make, and they aren’t content to stay alone for long.  They inspire confidence, a can-do spirit and taking responsibility in others.

I was reminded yesterday of someone who took such a position and inspired many people through his life:  Buckminster Fuller.  What inspires me about Bucky’s life is the turnaround he experienced at age 32.  Earlier in life he had been expelled from Harvard for “irresponsibility and lack of interest”.  Bankrupt and jobless at the age of 32, he lost his young daughter to polio and meningitis.  He felt responsible and wanted to commit suicide.  However, on the bridge he was going to jump from he decided to begin an “experiment to find what a single individual can contribute to changing the world and benefiting all humanity.”  He became accountable to a higher purpose and that changed everything.  Over the next 50+ years this independent visionary designed and invented things like the geodesic dome, wrote 30 books, received 28 patents, and dedicated himself to working on behalf of all humanity.  There’s an institute dedicated to disseminating his ideas where you can learn more about this original thinker.  

“Who invented money?”  The question caught me off-guard.  My six year old son asked me this yesterday and I took time to explain we don’t know the individual who invented money, but money has its roots in barter and exchange transactions that must go back a long ways.

My six year old knows who invented the airplane (the Wright brothers, of course).  He is learning this week about Gregor Mendel, the man who discovered genetics.  So I can see why he assumed someone must have invented money.  His question led me to think about another question:  Who invented culture?

This is not just a philosophical question.  I’m also not asking the same question anthropologists might help us with in looking at specific ethnic or national cultures.  I’m curious about who invents the culture that every company or organization seems to develop over time.  Have you ever thought about it?

My observations have led me to one conclusion:  company cultures are usually originated by the founder(s) and always seem to be shaped by leaders.  Leaders are not just the people at the head or top of a company; they are the ones who have significant influence on the basic direction of a company.  Look at how the leaders think and act, listen to what they say or write, examine how they use their influence and you’ll get some clear ideas about where culture comes from and how it is shaped.