Good leadership is a channel of water

I just got back from breakfast with a good friend. I was excited to tell him about my first lecture on leadership, which I delivered yesterday. When I got home I sat down to read a chapter from The Message of Leadership, by Daniel Southern (2007). The very first Proverb grabbed my attention:

"Good leadership is a channel of water controlled by God, he directs it to whatever ends he chooses." (Peterson, 2003, p.1129)

This Proverb ignited my imagination. At one of my previous jobs I was often criticized by my superiors for not getting worked up over 'crisis' situations. They thought that I remained too calm in the face of calamity. When they thought I wasn't doing enough they would whip up a frenzy of activity to show that something was being done to confront the crises at hand. In the end, none of this activity every really proved fruitful. All it really accomplished was to increase anxiety and stress levels among the staff. I have always tried to act calm in the face of crisis. Leaders who are able to keep their heads in times of crisis usually prevail and are able to make sound decisions while everyone else panics. It's kind of like Mr. Potter in It's a Wonderful Life. He makes out like a bandit during the depression while everyone else panics. In the flurry of activity, people end up further behind then when they first began. Funnily enough this echoes another Proverb I read today:

Careful planning puts you ahead in the long run; hurry and scurry puts you further behind." (Proverbs 21:5, The Message)

My supervisor's worried because they couldn't see 'the plan'. But from my own experience in that particular context, I knew that plans were often abandoned in favour of spur of the moments ideas from the top. I adjusted my behavior accordingly, and threw out written plans so that I could focus on making sure that the team was prepared to go in whatever direction we were pointed. When senior management doesn't have a good plan for their organization to follow you often find 'hurry and scurry' behavior taking place. If you know, however, where you're headed, then the path to getting there may not be clearly defined, but you'll still have a good chance of reaching your final destination. Think about an airplane. They know their final destination and they lodge a flight plan before they take off. But their course is often diverted when they run into turbulence (or ash clouds). They end up where they intended, but not necessarily via the plotted course. 

Having a written plan is a good thing. But in the absence of a written plan it is vital that you know where you are going. In the context I've describe I believe our department had a firm grasp on where it was that we were expected to go. Because we believed personally that God would ultimately direct us to 'whatever ends' he chose, we were happy focus on doing the best work we could with the resources we were given.

If you don't believe in God don't dismiss this point outright. Consider this. As managers, business owners, and CEOs of whatever company you run, have you ever had your plans changed by shifts in the wind? Global recessions, budget announcements, and other unforeseen circumstance or event that impact on the plans you've made have caused you to recalculate your modes and methods? You may believe that God has nothing to do with what happens or where you end up but you would be hard pressed to deny that circumstances (or fate) have certainly played a role. My point is simply this, we can make all the plans we want to get to wherever it is we decide to go, but in the end where we end up isn't always up to us. Other people, businesses and organizations, and even 'acts of God' intervene. We are left to respond to what has happened. When faced with a crises sometimes you have to act right away, but in my opinion, action is only required in these circumstance when the crisis is real, and not manufactured for the sake stirring up activity.

I'm fascinated by complexity theory. I am not an expert on complexity, but I am constantly reading any material I can find on the subject. The reason the theory resonates with me is because I don't have to worry so much about predicting the future. Rather, I need to focus on doing the best that I can do in my current role, while at the same time continuing to learn, adapt, collaborate, and shift my skills to the changing environment in which I find myself. If all my work is done with the knowledge that it is done so in relation to others I'll be more open to partnership and collaboration with them. Therefore, I never operate independently from them, nor am I threatened by their experience or expertise, because our combined knowledge and effort is required in order for the organization to operate sustainably. I should expect that there will be harmony within the team as we collectively adjust our work patterns to accommodate the constantly changing environment in which we work.

How does this play out practically? In experience described above, the roles within my department were constantly changing and evolving as the team trained and up skilled in the areas that would prepare us for the changes we anticipated through the relationships and connections we had with other members of the organization. If a staff member came to me and asked to do training in an area outside their current job description, I would often let them do so as long as they could make a connection to where this training might lead us as a department in the future. This was not often understood by senior management, who would have preferred that we just up skill in our current area of responsibility.

In the end, senior management was not ready to play a different game. They wanted a detailed plan for everything to ensure that what we were doing was going to guarantee success. Management's obsession with reliability is discussed in Roger Martin's book, The Design of Business (2009). Martin states that:

The goal of reliability is to produce consistent, predictable outcomes." (Martin, 2009, p.37)

Martin contrasts the goal of reliability with that of validity, which is to have a result that meets a "desired objective" (p.37). Martin argues that a company must have a balance between reliability and validity. In order to find this balance Martin suggests that the organization be:

Open up new definitions of proof, embrace some degree of subjectivity as not just inevitable but valuable, and acknowledge that getting the right answer is worth taking a little more time." (Martin, 2009, p.54)

Good leadership is a channel of water that makes way for this balance to be found. In the end, we don't really control the outcome of our planning and decisions as much as we poke and prod them in the direction we want to go.

Work Cited

Martin, R. (2009). The Design of Business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business Press. 

 Peterson, E. H. (2003). The Message Remix: The Bible in Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs: Navpress.

Southern, D. (2007). The Message of Leadership: 31 essential insights from Proverbs. Colorado Springs: Navpress. 

Make that change

I grew up in a rich country. My family wasn't rich by any stretch of the imagination but we had everything we needed. As a result I learned from an early age that there was a clear difference between what I needed and what I wanted. There was a reason why my parents didn't buy me everything I wanted. For starters, I was one of four boys, so there were multiple needs that they were required to meet. I knew in one sense that I had everything I needed and for that I was grateful. When I got my first job and started earning I began to buy some of the things I wanted - a new bike, a CD player, CDs and more. Because I was still living at home under the gracious care of my parents most of my basic needs were still being looked after. This spending freedom meant that I denied myself nothing. Trouble began for me when I moved out on my own and had to start looking after my needs as well as my wants. I had grown accustomed to getting the things that I wanted. When my needs cut into my discretionary spending I did what most college students do - I took advantage of one of the two dozen credit card offers that targeted students living on little income. By this point my college tuition and books ate up most of my money. So to eat and buy the CDs I 'needed' I had to use a credit card. I could have changed my behavior; I should have changed my behavior. Whenever I thought about making a change I would take a look around. Everyone else was doing exactly the same thing. Why should I change? No one else seems to be worried about the debt they were piling up. "I'll be okay," I told myself.

Lost opportunities

When I left College I was given an opportunity to go to Graduate School. My grades were good enough to get into the programme but the tuition bill frightened me. I had just completed four years of study with what I thought to be a sizable student loan. The tuition bill for the Masters degree was going to be ten times what I already owed. So I put it off. I decided to continue to work in the hope that I would be able to save enough to pay off my student loan and one day be able to go back and study. But this was a lot harder than I thought. I did what I thought I could to get by, but this included the continued use of a credit card to help out.

Chen and the 'benefits' of Affluence

Why am I telling you all this? I read two articles this week that sparked some reflection on the current state of the world. The first article was about how young Chinese workers are beginning to say no to dead end jobs (Foreman, 2010). Foremen spoke with Chen Qinghai, a 19-year old factory worker who was looking for a more fulfilling job. Speaking about the difference between his and his parent's generations, Chen told Foreman that, "It's true that we're less willing to eat bitterness" (Foreman, 2010). Chen also informs Foreman that his generation is better educated and know their rights. This morning when I woke up, I woke up with over a two billion other people who want a better life then they have now. What's the difference between me and Chen? I want a better life, but I don't necessarily need one. I'm already living better than the majority of the world's population. What will happen when my generation discovers that the privileges we grew up with aren't necessarily our rights? When I realize that all that I have is not a right, but a privilege, how will that change my thinking about my current way of life? A 'generational war' has commenced according to Bernard Hickey of interest.co.nz. In Hickey's terms, the war is between Baby Boomers and Generation X. He is right in one sense, but I don't think the war will be that simple. Battles will also take place among Generations X, Y, and Millennials who will be up against the billions in Asia and other parts of the developing world. We won't be able to fight a war on two fronts. We'll either squabble over the inheritance that will be whittled away by parents and grandparents by ballooning health care costs while paying higher taxes to help support the greater strain on public funds, or we'll come to the realization that times have changed. An affluent lifestyle isn't my right. My focus needs to be on what I can do or create to help my family and others as opposed to waiting for what I believe I deserve. But we haven't learned much from the GFC (Global Financial Crisis). It feels like we're just waiting for things to come right so we can resume our way of living. But things have fundamentally changed.

This leads me into the second article. Jaime Doward (2010) reported on research conducted by two Canadian economists, Curtis Eaton and Mukesh Eswaran (2009). In brief, Eaton and Eswaran found that once a reasonable standard of living was reach by a country's population, there is little benefit, in fact, a negative benefit to gaining greater wealth. In other words, buying 'toys' will make me feel good but will potentially make others feel worse, especially if they can't afford the same objects. Status symbols with no intrinsic value will drive those without to want these symbols so that they fit in. This will drive them to use debt to achieve a lifestyle that really can't be sustained. This was me during my university years. I wanted the status symbols (CD players, iPods, cell phone, etc.) so that I would fit in. These were all things that I couldn't afford, but they made me feel better (at least until I got the credit card statement). 

Making a change

It's been ten years since I graduate from university. Much in my life has changed, but I still get aggravated by the fact that I was not able to change my spending behaviors when I was younger. I see now the difficult financial position I put myself in and often wish I could have a few words with the university 'me' that applied for that credit card. It was my fault that I got into the financial position I was in. But I was helped along by a culture that held up 'things' as a sign of importance. I was alright if I had things. I was just like everyone else. I fit in. But I can recall few peers or superiors who demonstrated a different kind of lifestyle and who chose to behave differently with their money. I'm in a much better position now thanks to my wife. Living in relationship has taught me a lot about reorganizing my priorities. I still get things mixed up from time to time, but I'm getting better (I hope). So on the back of reading about Chen and the empirical study that shows that I'm worse off when I have more than I need, what am I to do now to change my behaviors, particularly with regards to spending?

Firstly, I need to rethink my attitudes and behaviors toward money. I think one of the hardest things to do is to fast. A fast is when you give something up for a specified period of time. If you want to try something hard, give up spending for a day, week, or month. Spend money only on necessities like food, your mortgage/rent, and bills. For those of you who are religious, don't give up on tithing. See how you go with this. Budget agencies will often get you to ask the question: "Do I need it?" A need is defined as something you can't live without. I can't live without food so this is obviously a need. But do I need to eat fish and chips from the take-away shop or will I save money by making fish and chips at home? I don't need the latest Lady Gaga CD, although I may want it. It's pretty simple to determine the difference between a need and a want. But it's something entirely different to ask and answer the question when you're holding a shiny new Blu-ray of your favorite film.

If you have trouble determining whether or not the object you're holding will satisfy a need or a want, the second question you can ask is: "how will this investment help my family or others?" If you have trouble saying no to something you want it can often help to think of someone else while making your decision to buy. This one can be just as tricky as the first, but it moves the decision from self to others, which may help you paint a more realistic picture of reality. If I'm thinking about buying a house, for example, I might be able to justify the purchase if I think that my family will benefit from having a home of their own. If I have a suitable deposit and can afford the mortgage payments without having to use my credit card on a regular basis to pay for my basic needs, then a house purchase is probably a good idea. If I don't have the deposit and know that the monthly payments aren't sustainable, but do it anyway just because others are doing it and I don't want to miss out, then it's probably not a good idea.

Finally, I need to think about others more often than I do, even when I'm not being faced with a decision to purchase something. When I read about Chen this week I realized that there are a lot of people in the world striving for a 'reasonable standard of living'. Eaton and Eswaran (2009) found that greater affluence leads to a breakdown of trust and community because we spend more time pursuing status symbols and less time focused on people. I need to think of my family first but I can't stop there. I must consider my neighbors, community, country, and the rest of the world. This is a pretty big task which is probably why most of us don't bother. It's so much easier to just think about ourselves.

With these things in mind, we might just find happiness in the middle of a recession. If enough of us try living this way, we might even find ourselves coming out of the recession as the result of dealing with the fundamental behaviors that got us into the mess in the first place.   

References

Doward, J. (2010, March 15). Life & Style: Too much wealth can make us worse off: study. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10632032

Eaton, B.C., & Eswaran, M. (2009). Well-being and affluence in the presence of a Veblen good. The Economic Journal, 119 (539), pp. 1088-1104.

Foreman, W. (2010, March 15). Economy: Younger generation of Chinese reject dead-end jobs. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/economy/news/article.cfm?c_id=34&objectid=10632062

Hickey, B. (2010, March 15). Business: Show Me the Money: First shots in generational war. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10631831

Health Care Summit

Last week President Obama hosted a Health Care Summit at Blair House in Washington, DC. The president invited both parties to get together and discuss the health care issue while the whole thing was streamed on the Internet. This open approach was an effort to 'communicate' more clearly to the American people. A recent Harvard Business Review blog post by Morten Hansen highlighted five ways in which the president failed to demonstrated collaborative leadership during last year's health care debate. Last week's summit was a step in the right direction for Obama. It showed his willingness to act on his desire to see bipartisan collaboration on the health care issue. Can this same sense of collaboration be demonstrated on the issues of the economy and jobs as well?

The president's collaborative leadership style will need to extend beyond the political leadership in Washington. He must embrace the American people as well. Americans need to continue our role in the collaborative process by sending our elective representatives ideas and suggestions for solutions to these difficult issues. And the electorate must hold our officials to account for the way they (do or don't) handle these issues.

When faced with a crisis America has proven time and again that it can come together, set aside disagreements, and make a difference. The current challenges facing America are no different. In A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr's wrote about how Adlai Stevenson prepared the way for JFK by shifting the democratic party's motto from 'you never had it so good,' to 'stressing peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, purpose' (p.23). Obama has repeatedly stressed 'peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, and purpose.' I fear to many Americans have been distracted by current hardships to realize that the difficulties they face are part of the reshaping of America. Hansen points out in his commentary an uncertainty about the president's efforts to clearly establishing health care as his 'moon goal', to unite people and parties. If we realize that the world had fundamentally changed and that the hardships we currently face are part of restructuring society, we might find it a little easier to let go of political ideologies for the sake of making the fundamental change that the country needs—in the areas of health care, the economy, and jobs—to name a few.

References

Schlesinger, A. M. (2002). A thousand days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston: Mariner Books. (Amazon)