Listening to one's own heart

In many circumstances, I've found listening to be more important than speaking. For many reasons - you learn more, it's tremendously respectful and generally speaking others are more important than oneself. Listening to others is a rare gift, one that I try to practice (with different levels of success) everyday.

Let's put that sort of listening aside for now.

There's a different kind of listening that I've never really thought about before last week - listening to one's own heart. Just as important as listening to others, listening to one's own hear is just as imporant and it's harder I think. It requires a complete absence of mental noise and a quiet confidence to hear the "song that's being sung from within", so to speak. The only type of listening that seems to be harder, is listening for god.

But, why is this so important? I think it's something that's contrary to our nature as social beings. We try to contextualize and create meaning out of ideas, and we have desires. There are things that we want. And in our own hearts, our mind is easy to draw us into selfishness. I don't know exactly what I'm saying, but what I'm trying to get at is there are so many things in the world that stop us from listening to our hearts and so many people that want us to "hear" something else. And that's what makes it crucially important.

We have to listen to our hearts to know what we really feel and believe. I thought for a long time about the power of "thinking" and how anything can be figured out if you think about it hard enough. But, I think that's erring. Some things require a stronger beacon to guide decisions - something that accounts for feeling, spirituality and morality.

In all its nakedness, listening to ones own heart is irreplaceable, and, I think that it's probably the only way to make decisions that matter most.

But, how to hear it clearly? And, it's miserable to hear the song of one's own heart and not know how to or have the courage to follow it - that's an entirely different matter.

And also, I think it's so hard - I can hardly express feeling to anyone outside of writing it and reflecting on it in a blog, how can I possibly be in touch with my own heart to listen to it?

I'm kind of curious what folks think about this idea I've been brooding on for the past few weeks - a chart which maps the mission of an organization (think: webbing it into smaller pieces) and overlays each node with people, teams, roles and operational data.

Do you think this idea is worth building a prototype or concept deck around?

I figured it'd make sense to float this around a bit because of the firm's recent, curious, penchant for "focusing investment". Here's some of the buildup/context and the idea itself:

---

Introduction

Working on our Skills-based volunteer pilot program, I got to thinking about what an Org Chart actually is - it has some assumptions to it. Here are some observations:

• Implies hierarchy - makes leadership the focus of the document
• Goes from "top to bottom" with who is responsible for decision making
• People are organized by function and department (from what I've seen)
• Depends on individual owners occupying roles and managing tasks/responsibilities
• Information spreads via clearly defined channels and reporting structures
• Suggests that roles / responsibilities and one's position in the organization is static (you are in one box and only one box until you change jobs or roles in the organization)

There are probably more observations, but, this is already good fodder for discussion so let's run with these.

Now, we know organizations are changing and so is the organizational world. Agility and engagement is probably viewed as a higher priority than stability and risk, at least to some degree more than in previous decades. We have a need for delieberate disruption with organizations to encourage innovation, growth and learning. The purpose of organizations in society is also changing...the lines between public, private and social organizations is blurring. Read The Big Shift and the Power of Pull or any book about complex systems to get a taste for why.

In a previous draft of this post, I wanted to discuss the assumptions (above), but I'll take a different tack - I'll set some context and present a new idea for how we think about organizations.

Context
More and more, it seems to me that organizations need to focus on mission. This is for several reasons:

• An organization needs to be particular about what it's trying to accomplish, or it wastes time and resources doing things that don't really impact their value/bottom-line
• Reaching for a mission motivates employees, a lot.
• Focusing on a goal helps teams actually get things done, instead of "spinning their wheels".

(I'll leave this point for now - I don't want to try to do this now, because there's another point I want to make and this is pretty well discussed in contemporary management literature).

Let's no go back to the organization chart, it's a hallmark of corporate forms of organization. Why don't corporate organization charts make any direct reference to mission? After all, how can an employee, let alone an organization, focus on mission if they don't know how their individual role connects to the mission of the organization?

So here's my proposition - a "mission map". Here's how it would work...it's kind of like a mind map:

On the center of a page, put the mission of the organization. From there, map out the big elements of the organization's strategy - like spokes coming out of the center of the wheel. From there, further articulate subcomponents of the strategy and activities in the same webbing/mindmapping fashion.

If this mission map were able to be created in a web-based tool, each note in the mission map could be filled with information about the people involved in supporting each sub component of the mission, specific operational details, performance metrics and key milestones. Any leader in the organization (or any employee for that matter) could open up the mission map, click on a subcomponent and see the link between people, mission and performance.

What I think the value is

There are few reasons I think this would be valuable:

• Line of sight - a mission map breaks down a mission into small pieces, that way every person in the organization knows how their work impacts the organization's mission
• Flexibilities / Teaming - People are overlayed onto the mission, so you can put down different people onto different aspects of the mission. One person could be assigned to more than one subcomponent of mission, which is true to life. A chart of this sort reflects the teaming required in an organization, which is also more true to life than a run of the mill organization chart.
• Scoping - by breaking down mission into pieces it can be compared to what is actually occurring in the organization today. If an activity cannot be weaved into a mission map, it raises the question - should it actually be done by the organization?

Anyway, does anyone have an advice on whether this is a "winning" idea? Has something like this ever been attempted?

-Neil

Home

With every day that passes, and every city I visit I only remember one place - home. Home of the past and the future. My heart aches for it more and more and more and more again. All I want to do is go there and stay there for the rest of my days.

Social Change and its nomenclature

I caught something on facebook the other day - someone being congratulatory about some friend's work which was exemplary "positive social change". Which is fine, social change is not something that's a bad thing, certainly.



But this whole enterprise of "social change" has to be better. The deployment of it, probably has a lot of room for improvement, I think. In fact, peering into the language of social change and how it's described is pretty indicative about some of its attributes I take issue with.



Here are two examples:

Let's first deconstruct the whole idea of "social change". When people talk about it, it's a pretty unfocused term. When people talk about wanting to be a part of social change they describe it as such. What the heck does this mean? What's the goal here? As it's concieved now, social change is this amorphous, non-descript idea where do-gooders seem to do what feels good or sounds good. Where's the specific mission statement or objective?

That being said, it doesn't have to be some very narrow mission and could be a very ambitious goal. But setting a goal in the first place of how social value will be delivered is prudent. There aren't enough resources to be fluffy about social change.

I also get it that "social change" people probably have goals and good intentions of hitting specific goals and targets with their work. That's great. But, kindly get serious enough about it to not be careless about communicating the change you hope to inflect.

Here's the second example

What's this focus on "change" as the operating word in the phrase. Why is "change" implied as a good thing? Admittedly, if we're not satisfied with the current-state of social affairs it stands to reason that some sort of change is necessary.



But, that's so reckless to talk about change. Change has no focus as a term. Change is something that you have to control. Change is a directionless word. To think about doing change seems like it would suggest that doing stuff, for the sake of doing stuff is advantageous, and conceptually sound.



But in my experience, change is really, really hard. It takes a ton of preparation and lots of investment. It takes a LOT of leadership / engagement and never happens for the sake of happening. So, don't focus on change - focus on a goal or outcome. Focus on a behavior. Not just change itself...focusing on change itself makes me think the social agent attempting to "change" things probably doesn't really know what they are talking about.



So to summarize - and this message goes to social change agents - get some plans together and set some goals. Kindly articulate the value you intend to create in the community. Don't hide behind the idea of "social change" and pretend like everyone should support the activities you're attempting because it sounds sweet. Think it through a little more.

A little harsh, I know. But really...we don't have community resources to waste that are not focused on something that really improves our communities.

Teachings from Buddhist Monks in Thailand

One of the most interesting things we did in Thailand was to attend a monk chat. During this chat we learned about what it is like to be a monk and about some of the fundamental tenants of Buddhism. That's a topic that I'll have to explore more, but one of the things I've been really riveting and reflecting on is some of the transformations I've undergone since I've graduated college - and lost some of my youthfulness.

It hasn't even been a transformation, it's been a bit of a transgression and I think it has spurned from wealth, my job and untamed ambition (and probably having drinks on the rooftops of skyscrapers in Asia). Let me explain.

I reached a point a few years ago where I was fully content with just doing good things and doing interesting things. I was less selfish, less entitled and I held pretty closely to principle. Now, though, I recognize that I've started to slip for the "righteous path", so to speak. I've become accustomed to creature comforts and I've started to devalue common things. I've begun to act - albeit slightly - that I'm entitled to something...which is a big leap something I believe in theory, that I'm not entitled to anything. I've begun to value the "nosebleeds" and have high aspirations for success.

Though, this is all fine. I'm missing the real, and graver, problem. Here's a summary - which links to some of the Buddhist teachings I've picked up (one takeaway is that Buddhism is all about choices and actions.

Lately, I've been thinking and acting like this:

Desire -> Motivation -> Choice -> Action -> Outcome: "I want W and I am motivated to do something about it, I will choose to do Y with result Z"

I'm missing something important here:

What's right -> Motivation -> Choice -> Action -> Outcome: "I know what's right is X, so I am motivated to do it. I will choose to do it, recognizing what the outcomes will be"

I've been developing the incorrect though process and have been deviating because of temptation. I recognize this now. Unfortunately, this is the easy part. The hard part is, actually doing it (and as a Buddhist might add, detaching myself from desire).

All in all, a good trip.

Patriots will weep

As a young boy, I was filled with hope for American republican democracy. I traveled to foreign countries and saw the gentleness of our people compared with the weight of king-like corruption and the contrast between citizens who littered shamelessly and those who swept the streets their friends and family walked on. Even the air smelled different.

All this was indicative, at least to my 6 year old self, that there was something special about our country and our system of government. Reasonable men with reasonable requests were able to literally make their neighborhoods a better place. Discussions were had intensely, but at the end of it all we were all on the same team. America and her interests were affixed permanently to our intent.

Somewhere along the way, though, we forgot about the roots of our republic. It seems like it became about greed and utility maximization, instead of principle. And, there was nobody left to contain the tyranny of the tyrants or of the citizenry. Our democracy was defenseless from our ugliest urges.

This debt crisis reveals the aforementioned ugly side. How have we forgotten what we are fighting for. For a long time, I think, people prioritized family, duty, God and community before themselves. Now, it seems the opposite and it's tearing away the strength we have from hanging together.

I don't pray about many things, but I'll probably pray that our leaders lay aside malice and guile to figure this out. Not only because a Federal default could have immediate and devastating consequences, but also because it would cast a modicum of doubt on the reputation of freedom and self-governance. It would question that our way of life is the right way of life. Policy wise, the debt crisis is probably much less consequential than other matters throughout history and future debates on gravely important issues.

But this issue is a small but poignant verdict on the stability of our republican democracy, which is affective of our governments foundation even if it is not consequential. In my opinion, because the solution is clear - the deals are just about the mix of policy solutions - this is not only a "debt crisis" but a "democracy crisis", of sorts (naturally this is sensationalized...that's what the situation has been called, though).

If a deal doesn't get done, patriots will weep. And I will be one of them. And as we clear our eyes, we'll see the path ahead from the light of the sun rising over our country's eastern shore. And those that wept will pick up the pieces anyhow.

Choices

I just can't do it.

Looking back at choices I've made, I go back and wonder whether I'm foolish or whether my hope and optimism in others will lead to being eaten up by the sharks in the world. There are many instances, I think, which shake out into the following decision framework:

Choice 1: Hold steadfastly to principle

Choice 2: Be aggressive and take what you want

And those are often in conflict - and it's hard. It's incredibly hard to say no to power and pleasure. It takes an incredibly high amount of

Eff this. I'm not beating around the bush with this.

I'm so torn between adhering to the values and princples that I was taught about how a gentleman treats a woman and what it sort of takes to "make progress" so to speak. If you're aggressive you win. If you do what you think is right, i.e. show respect, you end up sleeping on the couch. It's effing terrible.

I don't want to live in a world where one has to out-aggress others to win. I don't want to be the type of person which uses tactics and strategies to get someone to like you. I want to live in a world where people are honest, genuine and can be themselves in social situations and be accepted for it.

I'm out of air in my lungs for game. I'm so disillusioned by meeting opportunistic people in public. I can't be like this forever - what does it say for our species' future if we live out a scenario where the more you take, the more you get. Why doesn't sacrifice happen?

And as pissed as I am for not being taller, for being "old school", for being disgusted with the twenty-something "scene". I just want to understand why. Why is selfishness a pre-requisite for getting what you want?

It takes someone special to change the rules of the game or play by the spirit of the rules and "win" whatever the game is, I think.

At the same time, i'll never acquiesce to compromised principle. I'll never be a jack-ass. It's not the world that I would want to live in and change starts at home. I need to stop pretending I'm something that I'm not. It's time to really choose the man I want to be.

It's time to get back to basics, suck it up for the consequences and live the life I've dreamed of anyway. I'm gonna find my wife. I'm gonna do everything else I talked about doing. I'm gonna do it the right way, even if it takes more work and I'm freaking dog-tired every day for the rest of my life. That's how my family and friends raised me. But, this is going to be so hard.

The evolution of human interaction

Pretentious title aside, I was working on some cool brainstorming the other day. Basically, I'm on this quest to understand what it takes to form effective teams. And by that I mean real teams not collections of individuals in a group setting.

So, I tried to chart out the evolution of how humans have socialized in the history of the world...in hopes that it sheds light on how we might continue to evolve and what holds us back from really "teaming".

Here are the steps:

Conquering the state of nature - first, we had to establish ourselves as a species...this is like the pre-evolution

Then, the sanctity of the individual was solidified - think Magna Carta, etc. Individual rights were born.

Then there was a flourishing of individual rights on grounds of race, religion, etc. At the same time we began to form partnerships and really cement the institution of marriage. Which brings us to today.

There's going to be a Big Shift in how we interact, it's already started, really. We have to form teams to figure out the difficult problems we are faced with. We're fooling ourselves if we think we can do it without teams of everyone pulling together. We can't.

But, it's also not good enough if the team-mentality doesn't captivate our species. We have too many problems to play in small arenas. We have to scale our teams. But how will we do it?

Will we create networks? Will we create really, really big teams? Will we create an army of small teams and get the individual teams to form teams? I haven't quite gotten to a good level of analysis yet. But, I'm thinking about it.

We have to crack the code on teams. We have to figure it out. Otherwise, I fear our most pressing problems will become irreversibly complex and damning. That would be awful.

Hubris / Speedometers

One of the most difficult decisions I make on a daily basis is a simple one.

I'm in my car, a Red 2001 Chevrolet Cavalier (with 162k miles, no less). I'm driving...somewhere...it doesn't matter where. The weather doesn't matter, nor does the freeway I am driving on. I am not late.

Do I speed? If so, do I travel 4 over? 5 over? 15 over? Does the degree of the law-breaking even matter?

Now, I could probably think about the morality of the speeding itself (which raises interesting legal and moral questions - there was an Org Studies student this year who actually wrote a thesis about the spirit and letter of the law...pretty cool).

But whether speeding is "right" or "wrong" is not what I find to be gripping about this particular instance. I care about what it means, and what the decision is emblematic of. It's a subtle, but telling meter of hubris.

Hubris is pretty destructive, in teams, organizations institutions and societies, I think. It leads to crazy behavior with devastating results. (Jim Collins gives an apt description of this in his book: How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In. It's a good read).

If I'm speeding, it suggests that I think I'm above the law, because I know speeding is illegal, I know I'm doing it, but I do it anyway. It's like...eff you traffic laws, Ima do what I want because I don't answer to you, Elmo. If you believe that hubris is fungible to other aspects of life - i.e. if you have hubris when driving you'll have hubris when making other, more consequential decisions - that's really scary. It means you're greedy, arrogant and probably selfish. Maybe it means you're addicted to power.

It's terrifying because as power corrupts it means your hubris condemns you to moral insufficiency. In turn, that moral insufficiency causes you to harm others...potentially in terrible ways.

Because of all this, I've been paying closer attention to my speedometer lately. And I'm still speeding, albeit less. I hope I can control it. If I can't, it might mean hubris will consume me one day. I don't want that. I don't want that at all.

It's like in Spiderman: with great power comes great responsibility.

-nt

PS: this probably applies to texting, too.

First born.

You will be my greatest project,
Our lives' seminal work.

From tears into uncertainty, continuing to apprehension and exploration.  Next courage, honesty then humility until you have a project of your own.

The toybox is empty.  No bottles are at the ready.  But a lifetime of protection, love and wonderment are already in plentiful supply.

All potential energy, though.

When your birthday comes, you'll be ready, and so will I.

I think I'm ready to be a man, now. I don't know if others men have these coalescing moments where they realize that they have to grow up, or that they want to. I don't even know what these moments have been or what they can be.

I was coming to terms with my own mortality. I was thinking about the mark that I want to leave on the world and what I want to accomplish professionally. I was thinking about how much I love the wife and kids I haven't met yet.

There are all these things which brew in a guy's head and all of a sudden you realize your mindset has changed. Mine did mindset finished it's turn around, this week. I gotta get after it.

Memories

The way a memory feels is miraculous. All it takes is remembering something which reminds you of what makes you whole. Family, places or experiences before...triggered by something big (like...an anniversary, or an elephant) or something small (like a smell, a letter or a song) is sufficient.

It is freeing; the epitome of hope, one might say.

Struggle

I spoke with a colleague today about my father - he's as tough as nails...my father that is. (Though my colleague may very well be too.

Am I?

But that's not the point, can I be without struggling like hell? And I don't mean with bobo problems.

I wonder.

Apollo

Naming our dog was a very deliberate exercise. It was very much a product of my parents and me and my upbringing. We generated a list of 30 or 40 names and we methodically narrowed the list down over the course of a few rounds. Finally, we decided to choose one of two names, Rocket or Apollo.

If you know my family, you know we decided on Apollo – named after NASA’s Apollo program, which was named after the Greek sun god. Probably because my father liked it more than Rocket.

There are many days from my youth I don’t remember, but I certainly remember the day I met Apollo. He was only a few weeks old at the time and was just too big to fit into my open palms. He was supposed to be a “trial” dog that we were “babysitting” for a short time. But we kept him, much to my father’s chagrin (at the time, now he loves Apollo dearly).

I was laying, partially upright, on our family room floor with outstretched legs. He climbed up on my belly and put his head on my chest. In that moment, we became friends instantly. It’s my fondest memory of Apollo and it probably will be for the rest of my life.

In some ways, I suppose Apollo owes my family a lot. We did house him, feed him, take him to the bathroom and other typical doggy-dog things. In addition to that, my pup eats better than most dogs I know and is given a spot to sleep under the covers, in my parents’ bed, every night. All in all, he lives a pretty good life.

Truth be told, though, I owe Apollo much more. He was a rock which kept my family intact, in some ways. He kept my mother company while I was away at school and when my father was away working. He took my dad on walks and gave him things to do when he was unemployed and noticeably frustrated. By letting my parents care for him, Apollo was really giving my parents unconditional love and was providing happiness in their lives when I couldn’t take care of them. For that I am eternally grateful.

Apollo also raised me in some ways. I used to become really frustrated when I would have to take him to the bathroom, stealing precious minutes from doing my homework, hanging out, or watching TV. How rude of him!

I realized later that I was so very wrong. Apollo depended on me for his well being and I was really the one being selfish. I had to put his needs above mine. I had to be less selfish. This humbled me and taught me a dangerously important lesson: a successful life is not “making it” or being powerful, but rather a life in which you fulfill your duty and serve others. It’s not about lifting yourself up, but about lifting others up. Apollo is the unlikeliest of mentors.

At the same time, he taught me to stick up for myself…if he hadn’t, I’d still be waiting on Apollo hand and foot, err…paw and paw, and letting him walk all over me. I’ve had this thought hundreds of times, “No Apollo. We are not going outside, because you don’t have to go to the bathroom, you just want to play. Stop being a baby.”

We share little in common, except for our family, and an affinity for laying in the grass on sunny, breezy days. I suppose for Apollo and me, though, that’s all we really need. The bond between a man and his dog really is a special one.

Why worry?

There are some days, more than others, that I think about how unlikely it is for anyone to live very long, or even to live at all. Everyday we wake up in the morning, it's like a miracle all over again. So few things in the universe ever live. An even smaller subset on Earth. A microscopic subset of that are humans. Of humans, our clock is ticking from the time we're born...every second we have is borrowed.

All that makes me think at how nonsensical it is to worry about things like work, or the little instances where people annoy you. It even doesn't make sense sometimes to worry about politics or money or whatever. It's all so petty.

Then there's stuff like family or poverty - and other really compelling, human issues - and it starts to make sense why people worry about those things...they're life and death sorts of things. But even then, we are not entitled to living, it's all a gift anyway. So why worry?

It's like a small act of selfishness when we place importance on such small things. By putting so much attention on those things - that only matter in my immediate vicinity - I almost feel like it diminishes the sanctity of life itself...like it ignores the contract with our creator and the beautiful things in life - family, friends, freedom, the ability to learn, our senses, our health. All these are things we aren't entitled to. We're so lucky.

It's a freeing feeling to realize that in the schema of the universe, no individual matters. Not even the greatest human that does the most good in history for the world matters. I feel like I'm starting to get there. I'm starting to feel like once I do realize that it's not about me, it frees up so much energy to be spent towards those beautiful things - I'd even venture to say that those things are touched by God.

And those other things (career, money, self-indulgence) can and will happen to if you place priority on things that are virtuous, but they're not the endgame, they're incidental and on top of that, they're ephemeral.

I don't know where this is coming from. I feel like the yogi in me has finally been set free. It's weird.

Above Average

I had a good conversation with the roomzies at dinner on Saturday night. (We were at Grange's upstairs bar...that itself is something to note).

Above Average

I had a good conversation with the roomzies at dinner on Saturday night. (We were at Grange's upstairs bar...that itself is something to note).

Anyway, we were talking about whether we've met a lot of extraordinary people at Michigan, or just a few. W and I think we haven't. J didn't exactly say she has, but she certainly had a differing opinion.

I've never really appreciate just being "above average" before Saturday night, now I really do.

I can't do anything but admit that I'm only an above average person, at best. There really are some extraordinary people in the world that do extraordinary things. I'm probably not one of them. If I do something extraordinary, it will be because I'm in the right place at the right time and I've put in enough to hang with the big dogs.

And, I'm okay with that. Because, just as it's important to be a super star (like Michael Jordan, for example, or even Scottie Pippen), being a role player on an extraordinary team isn't something to shake a stick at. It's pretty impressive (think: Tony Kukoc was a really important part of the Bulls' championships).

But, not being a superstar doesn't let me or anyone else off the hook. The fact is, any of us can be called upon for extraordinary duties at any time. We have to be ready for that.

I'm certainly not fishing for compliments, simply acknowledging the way of the world. But who knows what the future holds. Teams may be the next big thing. All I know, is that it's okay to only be "above average", not everyone can be superstars and not everyone should be. We should probably "stay hungry" and assume that we're only above average. But above average in a world like ours, ain't bad.

No stamina to edit, falling asleep.

Timeless Friends

Some friends are truer than others. They come into your lives and they stick around, while others are the ones who are great to have around for awhile but fade because of circumstance.

The friends that are permanently affixed to you are special. They are friends with you and you are friends with them. They are not friends with your intellect or your kindness or your success. And you are not friends with them because of their car, ability to listen or good-looking sister. They speak and listen and are honest. They may not be a part of your daily life, but they are part of your life, period.

Friends like that are special. They are timeless. Not everyone is a timeless friend, but those that are never go out of style.

Leadership and Solitude: A response

Joey kindly sent me this link from the American Scholar and I've thought about it a bit in the past few days after circulating it with some friends. Some dissected it argumentatively (nicely done, Eden) or offered practical wisdom of uninterrupted time (thanks Bouchard, I think that's actually something I'd like to incorporate into my daily life - see this also: Why Work Doesn't Happen at Work.)

I can't disagree with Eden that the author does put up strawmen and mow them down because it's popular to undermine bureaucracy and social media. And I don't disagree with those who find it to be a refreshing call to reflection which is hardly ever voiced with a full-throated bellow. I will however, explore a bit the most insightful part of the talk to me: the dissection of leadership and achievement.

Let's look for a moment at the progression of leadership in organizations and the incentives surrounding leadership.

By and large, leaders are brought up through organizations. Let's create a basic hypothetical situation. Imagine Pete. Pete joins the sales organization of Standard Widgets Corp. (SW). He does well and gets promoted. He increases his capability to sell and recieves a larger sales territory. Eventually, he manages other sales people. Along the way, he hones his "leadership" skills on-the-job and through some sort of corporate program. This is a pretty standard model for advancement - you do well and you move up. But, does this really mean Pete is good at leading? Not necessarily. Of course, it's very likely, even probable that Pete is a good leader. But that's precisely the point, Pete doesn't rise through the organization because of his ability to lead. He rises because he's a high achiever.

Incentive structures match this notion of high achievement = skill -> leadership = excellence. The pay difference between "leadership" or "executive" positions compared to senior technical people is large and in some cases exorbitant. The top of the pyramid is a CEO position or other leadership/management type position. We hold "leaders" in esteem, publicly.

This is all fine, I guess I just take issue with the process. With the exception of end-to-end leadership development programs which start from early career levels we're using achievement as a proxy for leadership selection. Which is fine, it just seems like a whiff because we ought to be selecting leaders based on their potential, desire or aptitude for leadership. Or, if leadership is a universally needed quality, we should be making leadership at the core of an organization's DNA and not separating people based on their leadership potential.

In any case, I'm circling the point. This is what I want to suggest. In the US (perhaps elsewhere, I haven't really thought about international implications) we use achievement as a pre-requisite and sometimes as a proxy for leadership. This is incorrect and dangerous.

First the obvious, it's incorrect. I suppose it's not supremely obvious but I don't really want to spend time defending this assumption. I'll leave it at this, posing it as a question. How can leadership and achievement be synonymous unless achievement in leadership is what one is looking at? Why would achievement in something like sales or research (basically anything other than leadership) translate to leadership success?

[As I've attempted to show above, we select leaders from the pool of high achievers, not directly from the pool of capable leaders...achievement is a proxy it seems].

It's dangerous, in my opinion, because there are two axioms which doesn't necessarily vibe with eachother:

1. Leadership is for doing the right thing (i.e. we value leaders because they are necessary to guide groups to do the right thing)
2. Incentives for achievement don't always align with incentives for doing the right thing.
Therefore - incentives for achievement don't always align with leadership.

Simple, yes. But, can you imagine if leaders don't understand the distinction between leadership and achievement. We're risking that ethics, morality and principle be superceded by achievement. Achievement need not be benign (e.g. credit default swaps and increased profits at the cost of emissions. The social sector isn't immune...it's not impossible for not-for-profits to go after grant money even though it doesn't make the most impact in the community, etc.).

In any case, I have to run to hang out with friends (woot, slows bbq!). But the two sentence summary is:

The distinction between leadership and achievement is an important one because if we, and leaders, don't understand the difference we're setting ourselves us to risk sacrificing doing the right thing for doing what's "highest achieving". This isn't always a bad thing but when doing the right thing contradicts with achievement and we don't do the right thing, we have messy, costly situations.

ME first vs. me FIRST

Even though I have a notable distaste for elections, I watch election night coverage enthusiastically. What of it? It's fun.

Anyway, I remember watching John Boehner on MSNBC the next morning and something he said stuck with me. I paraphrase:

The American People have spoken and they reject Washington. They don't want to pay more taxes...

And that's where I stopped listening. I'm actually not frustrated by what Mr. Boehner said (as some of my small-government critics, might've guessed. I actually agree with Mr. Boehner that 1) The people reject Washington, 2) They don't want to pay more taxes.

What I find troublesome is that Mr. Boehener, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Obama, Mr. Reid, etc. all let the American people get away with believe that they're the bosses. [I deliberately exclude Mr. Bush from this list because I think he actually acted very much on principle, which I deeply respect, even though I still disagreed with him a lot of the time]. And, of course, the American people are in fact, "the bosses", but that doesn't mean that they're right.

The problem is, as I see it, is that Americans have a "me first" mentality, in the bad sense of the word. In fact, I'd say in the phrase "me first" Americans emphasize the ME first.

What do I mean by this? That we (collectively) are selfish - individually too. We burn the candle at both ends, in a way. We want government to do all this stuff and cry wolf when it doesn't do what we expect it to do. We don't want to pay for it, either. We don't vote in high amounts (again, collectively) and still expect legislators to be responsive. We want to shop without saving (at least we did in the past 5 years, not sure about now) and keep oil prices down. We WANT all this stuff without giving. It's an arrogance to think that we as individuals and our nation can get away with being selfish and narcissistic because we're American. That's what I mean by ME first.

I'd counter that with the idea of me FIRST, this time emphasizing "first". This to me, is the inverse of selfishness: sacrifice. This idea is that "me" should be the first to sacrifice. The first to want to help. The first to roll up my sleeves, the first to pay taxes. It's personified in the NYPD and NYFD who ran into the center of a hell storm to sacrifice themselves for others and because it was their duty - because it was the right thing to do. And not only did they do it, they did it FIRST. They're incredibly deserving of the honors that they've recieved, in my humble opinion. Those men and women are some of the best people we've got in this country, not only because of their heroism on a tragic day, because they put YOU first.

Anyway, in whatever way I can, I'm going to remind people that YOU come first and I go FIRST. I think we all could live by that mentality a bit more...before we tear ourselves apart. It's a long road ahead, we've gotta make sacrifice.

And, why do I write about this stuff so much? Because I see my youthfulness and ability to take risks challenged by the institutions which I operate in. I see the "ME first" mentality creeping into my life. I want to fight it back at every opportunity I can. Not because I want to inflate my ego by being positioning myself as some civic martyr or charitable kingmaker, but because I know it's the only way out of our problems. Something's gotta give, if we don't give of ourselves the balance in the universe will do it for us.

I wrote this in a cab, haha.

Let's go Rick Snyder, I'm your corner sir. Help us make sacrifices so that our state can be more vibrant.