Purpose is permission
In the many arenas I play in - work, community, family, civic society, etc. - I always seem to reach consensus with peers that defining purpose in an organization is important. In some organizations, like not-for-profits, defining purpose is even expected.
There are many reasons to define a purpose, such as:
Let me explain.
In organizations, lots of people don't ever bring all their skills and talents to their work...not because they don't want to, because they can't. They're subdued by their organization's culture or by fear of reprimand. Given the choice, people often opt for lesser-risk activities and behaviors. They believe they have to "follow protocol" to get something done. They have to please their bosses and don't want to "step on their colleagues toes". Because they've been taught to value perceptions in the workplace, employees don't give it their all - they can't because they're suppressed by organizational norms.
So, here's the cool thing about aspirational purpose, it gives employees orders from a higher authority, if you will, that supersedes oppressive organizational norms. By conveying a loftier, aspirational purpose, it provides political cover to employees who want to do something different to achieve that purpose (assuming they are sincere in their efforts). If someone questions employees' unorthodox behavior (which bucks the convention of the organization) those employees can point to the purpose of the organization as justification for their behavior. If the organization's leadership truly values the organization's aspirational purpose, achieving that purpose is tremendously important and they are probably more likely to let unorthodox behavior slide. In effect, to employees who are truly motivated by the organization's aspirational purpose that purpose is freeing - the higher purpose gives them implicit permission to break cultural norms to achieve it.
How an organization defines and truly embraces aspirational purpose is the topic of another post, I think. That's a huge question that has intense impacts on life in that organization.
There are many reasons to define a purpose, such as:
- It provides focus - by clearly defining purpose organizations can focus their efforts on what really matters to them
- It is empowering - employees feel more engaged when they feel like they are working for a purpose
- It aids recruiting - by championing a specific purpose, employees (and probably customers too) can self-select more easily into your organization's ecosystem. Recruits show up to you and are more likely to stay if they are pre-disposed to support your purpose
- It builds brand - I'll defer to my marketing friends on this one...but if you have a clear purpose it probably helps you be distinctive in the marketplace?
Moreover, based on my observations of the organizational world, organizations with bold exclamations of purpose which appeal to loftier aspirations than shareholder value and operations excellence usually have better results on all the levers I've listed above. I'd also posit, however, that aspirational gives employees implicit permission to unleash their potential - which is awesome.
Let me explain.
In organizations, lots of people don't ever bring all their skills and talents to their work...not because they don't want to, because they can't. They're subdued by their organization's culture or by fear of reprimand. Given the choice, people often opt for lesser-risk activities and behaviors. They believe they have to "follow protocol" to get something done. They have to please their bosses and don't want to "step on their colleagues toes". Because they've been taught to value perceptions in the workplace, employees don't give it their all - they can't because they're suppressed by organizational norms.
So, here's the cool thing about aspirational purpose, it gives employees orders from a higher authority, if you will, that supersedes oppressive organizational norms. By conveying a loftier, aspirational purpose, it provides political cover to employees who want to do something different to achieve that purpose (assuming they are sincere in their efforts). If someone questions employees' unorthodox behavior (which bucks the convention of the organization) those employees can point to the purpose of the organization as justification for their behavior. If the organization's leadership truly values the organization's aspirational purpose, achieving that purpose is tremendously important and they are probably more likely to let unorthodox behavior slide. In effect, to employees who are truly motivated by the organization's aspirational purpose that purpose is freeing - the higher purpose gives them implicit permission to break cultural norms to achieve it.
How an organization defines and truly embraces aspirational purpose is the topic of another post, I think. That's a huge question that has intense impacts on life in that organization.
Ambition vs. Actualization in the Social Sector
A few weeks ago John Hagel tweeted a link to a Huff Post Blog Post titled: Is Your Ambition Making You Stressed?
The post is a good one, you should read it. The takeaway is that there is a difference between ambition and actualization. Here's an excerpt:
The post is a good one, you should read it. The takeaway is that there is a difference between ambition and actualization. Here's an excerpt:
My colleague, coach Lianne Raymond, has something brilliant to say about this.
She differentiates between actualization and ambition.
Actualization or Ambition?Lianne writes that characteristics of ambition include:
- the need to impress
- status-seeking
- pursuit of acclaim
Ambition is rooted in insecurity. What we do from a place of ambition tends to feel heavy and stressful, and leads to very short-lived satisfaction.
By contrast, characteristics of actualization include:
- authenticity
- vitality
- playfulness
- meaning
I think this is especially important to be self-aware of if doing community work, because the stakes are high and the pain one can cause is real. In the social sector people who are "ambitious" translate into power seekers who seek to influence over serving others, in my opinion. This is problematic when the opportunity to influence or serve becomes a tradeoff. If you are ambitious you might do something that's not in the interests of those you're serving so you can gain influence. This sort of act is hurtful...some might even say it's exploitative.
For that reason, I think that it's our responsibility - if you're looking to influence, serve, or both - to determine whether your goals are ambitious or actualized. If they're solely ambitious, get out of the game. Don't put yourself in a position to be a community steward. It's not fair to be surreptitiously ambitious and pretend to be actualized - it insults people's trust and puts them in a position where they think they are protected from harm when they're really vulnerable to it.
It's hard, I admit, to be self-aware enough to determine if one's motivations are ambitious or actualized. But we have to try to figure it out so that we can minimize the hurt we cause to our neighbors who need the most help.
Service to others is about precisely that: others. I worry that people who have ambitious intentions care more about themselves and their influence than they do about others. That tragically flaws their judgement, regardless how talented they are, because when push comes to shove, they may choose aggrandizement over helping others.
I suppose this may be an impetuous cry, but I really do think it matters. Community stewards need to be able to make sacrifices for others, not the converse. Commitment to helping others must run deep and be able to persist through any circumstance or level of pressure.
So, my community-oriented friends, ask yourself why you do community work. Is it for you (ambitious) or the community (actualization)? Ask yourself this often.
Preventing Volunteer Classism
Over the past year, I've come to think a lot about skills-based volunteerism as the result of the pilot program we've started to scope and plan projects. For that reason, I've come to strongly value skills-based volunteering and the potential impact (it's really big) the movement can have on transforming communities. For skills-based volunteers, however, I think it's incomplete to simply volunteer skills - hands-on volunteering should not be forgotten.
Now, there are a lot of reasons to take this tack - hands-on volunteering's inherent value, the practicality of diversifying the types of volunteer experiences, the speed at which hands-on volunteering can be executed, etc. - but i'll pick one. Hands-on volunteering prevents skills-based volunteering from becoming uninformed of reality and helps skills-based volunteers stay grounded.
Simply put, understanding what really influences a social problem - at the ground level - is a really important perspective to have when addressing a social problem. Understanding the inner-mechanics of a community hones your instincts, if you will. Because hands-on volunteering can help volunteers understand community needs (when done right) in an authentic, and even visceral way, skills-based volunteers should do it - it helps you use your skills more effectively.
The more important reason, as I see it, for hands-on volunteering is humility...for skills-based volunteers I mean. I've seen (and felt personally) the creation of classes between types of volunteers as skills-based volunteering becomes more high-profile. Surely, skilled-based volunteering is super valuable and perhaps more valuable, in dollar terms, than hands-on volunteering. But that does not mean that skills-based volunteers are more valuable human beings. Unfortunately, I think skills-based volunteers are starting to think exactly that. I worry that this sort of attitude is the undercurrent of a "volunteer classism".
In my time swimming around skills-based volunteering, I get the feeling that no small amount of folks (whether they be from not-for-profit organizations, companies, or among the citizenry) think that skills-based volunteers are better people, and that hands-on volunteers are lower sorts of people. I think that's false. I think there's a clear distinction between someone's inherent worth as a person and their value as economic and social actor. Which is to say that the type of volunteer you are has no bearing on your worth as a person.
Hands-on volunteering, in it's propensity for doing simple and usually manual labor, puts every sort of person side-by-side with each other. It brings people of different social identities into a team working toward a common goal. To me that's anti-thesis of volunteer classism, if you will, and it puts the issue in the right frame - volunteering is not about being a better human being than another, it's about achieving common community goals.
Putting moral reservations about classism aside, if doing volunteer work is intended to abate the distance and conflict between classes, we ought to do our volunteer work in a way that's not classist. For that reason I think hands-on volunteering is important (even, and almost especially) for skills-based volunteers. Hands-on volunteering can prevent classes from forming by helping skills-based volunteers that your value isn't tied to your vocation and that every type of volunteer is an equally valuable human being
Now, there are a lot of reasons to take this tack - hands-on volunteering's inherent value, the practicality of diversifying the types of volunteer experiences, the speed at which hands-on volunteering can be executed, etc. - but i'll pick one. Hands-on volunteering prevents skills-based volunteering from becoming uninformed of reality and helps skills-based volunteers stay grounded.
Simply put, understanding what really influences a social problem - at the ground level - is a really important perspective to have when addressing a social problem. Understanding the inner-mechanics of a community hones your instincts, if you will. Because hands-on volunteering can help volunteers understand community needs (when done right) in an authentic, and even visceral way, skills-based volunteers should do it - it helps you use your skills more effectively.
The more important reason, as I see it, for hands-on volunteering is humility...for skills-based volunteers I mean. I've seen (and felt personally) the creation of classes between types of volunteers as skills-based volunteering becomes more high-profile. Surely, skilled-based volunteering is super valuable and perhaps more valuable, in dollar terms, than hands-on volunteering. But that does not mean that skills-based volunteers are more valuable human beings. Unfortunately, I think skills-based volunteers are starting to think exactly that. I worry that this sort of attitude is the undercurrent of a "volunteer classism".
In my time swimming around skills-based volunteering, I get the feeling that no small amount of folks (whether they be from not-for-profit organizations, companies, or among the citizenry) think that skills-based volunteers are better people, and that hands-on volunteers are lower sorts of people. I think that's false. I think there's a clear distinction between someone's inherent worth as a person and their value as economic and social actor. Which is to say that the type of volunteer you are has no bearing on your worth as a person.
Hands-on volunteering, in it's propensity for doing simple and usually manual labor, puts every sort of person side-by-side with each other. It brings people of different social identities into a team working toward a common goal. To me that's anti-thesis of volunteer classism, if you will, and it puts the issue in the right frame - volunteering is not about being a better human being than another, it's about achieving common community goals.
Putting moral reservations about classism aside, if doing volunteer work is intended to abate the distance and conflict between classes, we ought to do our volunteer work in a way that's not classist. For that reason I think hands-on volunteering is important (even, and almost especially) for skills-based volunteers. Hands-on volunteering can prevent classes from forming by helping skills-based volunteers that your value isn't tied to your vocation and that every type of volunteer is an equally valuable human being
Making friends, building community
My friend JBC sent a few of us an interesting article from the New York Times yesterday about the difficulty about making friends after 30.
Overall, the basic rationale for why it's difficult to make friends later in life, makes sense. Here's a clip from the article:
Overall, the basic rationale for why it's difficult to make friends later in life, makes sense. Here's a clip from the article:
In studies of peer groups, Laura L. Carstensen, a psychology professor who is the director of the Stanford Center on Longevity in California, observed that people tended to interact with fewer people as they moved toward midlife, but that they grew closer to the friends they already had.
Basically, she suggests, this is because people have an internal alarm clock that goes off at big life events, like turning 30. It reminds them that time horizons are shrinking, so it is a point to pull back on exploration and concentrate on the here and now. “You tend to focus on what is most emotionally important to you,” she said, “so you’re not interested in going to that cocktail party, you’re interested in spending time with your kids.”
As external conditions change, it becomes tougher to meet the three conditions that sociologists since the 1950s have considered crucial to making close friends: proximity; repeated, unplanned interactions; and a setting that encourages people to let their guard down and confide in each other, said Rebecca G. Adams, a professor of sociology and gerontology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. This is why so many people meet their lifelong friends in college, she added.
I don't think focusing on relationships that matter most is scornful, either. What does seem like a miss on the part of the journalist, however, is the way the issue is framed. It presents friendship as something someone should pursue for only their own benefit and neglects the importance of building new relationships as a community imperative.
Let me explain.
The way the interviewees/author of the article present the construct friendship is that you do what makes sense for you. You mix in people that fill gaps in your life. You put forward the effort to make friends as long as its what you want and what feels good to you.
Which is sensible. Like I said before, I don't think it's unreasonable to put forth effort in certain types of relationships or relationships with certain people.
I think we should push ourselves harder, though. If we extend the idea of being friends with people because it's what we want or benefits us, it probably takes us to a place where there are people who are in a "friends deficit". It probably leads to have fragmented communities and less-than-vibrant neighborhoods.
I think it takes a little extra effort on everyone's part to make sure people aren't left out. A little investment into the community bank, if you will. If we don't make an effort to create new relationships, people who aren't already plugged-in will be left out. This could be people from all the scenarios the author mentioned - someone who moved to a new place, a recent divorcee, or many other life transitions which cause friendships to reset.
Being a person that's constantly alone - I travel for work all the time - I'd be miserable if other people didn't make the effort to try to make a new, random, friend. My parents also have to live separately for work (My dad lives in California because of a job) so I've also seen first hand the devastating effects of going to a place and not having friends - maybe not even friends, just other people that you can lean on for support - later in life. I'm really thankful for people who are okay with meeting someone new, even if it's just in passing.
I also think we'll all be in a place at some point in our lives where we have a deficit of friends. For that reason, I think it's important to think of friendships as more than just an individual concern, but as a community investment that we should all make - we'll probably all be beneficiaries of someone who doesn't have to be friends with us but does, someday.
It also just seems like the right thing to do. If we're healthy and happy, why not take a little extra energy to affirm someone else new who may not be totally healthy and happy?
For the record, I'm not suggesting we all spread ourselves so thin to the point of not having deep relationships with a small group of people. What I am suggesting is that we always try to make an effort (with time, or letting our guard down, etc.) to invest in new relationships that help keep communities connected and vibrant...even if it's not always easy.
Political debate and global citizenship
Most of the time, I agree almost decidedly with John Linkner (he's really smart and pretty divergent in his thinking). Today, he had a post titled Why I Don't Care About Obamacare (or Abortion or Gun Control) on Forbes and I disagree pretty strongly with some parts of his remarks. Given that his post is somewhat about dialogue and disagreement I thought it'd be worth remarking / responding. Before that though, let me outline what I do agree with.
In my respects, I don't disagree with Josh's conclusion - why bother worrying about controversial topics like abortion or gun control (note, I've excluded healthcare from this list - I also think it's curious that Linkner uses "Obamacare", a politically charged term, in an article where he criticizes pointless, inflammatory political debate). My rationale is different however - I don't think the dialogue is wasteful or causes a diversion of focus, I just think there are other issues that take priority. Moreover, I suspect a lot of the issues that are hotly debated are predominately raised to mobilize latent constituent groups instead of to actually debate them, which is disheartening and divisive.
I also agree with Josh's statement a few paragraphs in:
"Our country’s decisions are determined by a majority; the people making these determinations were put into place by the ultimate majority: public opinion. Once our officials are put into place, it is their job to make decisions for the greater good on our behalf – your anger or support after the fact won’t adjust their choice"
Indeed. Legislators are agents who vote on our behalf (a la "little r" republicanism) and I think it's good that way. It makes it easier to make tough choices. Also, I agree, anger or support after the fact will not adjust a previously made choice. That's a matter of fact.
Anyway, allow me to disagree with two sentiments Linkner presents:
1 - "Wasteful: Think about how much time, energy and emotion people spend heatedly discussing these issues. What does it accomplish? Not much. If the same logic went into a company’s decision-making, nothing would ever get done."
2 - "Refocus: If you take all that emotional capital and re-invest it into something more relevant to you personally, think about the dividends that could result. Simply ignore the debates in the larger political climate that affect your success a lot less than the time you spend on them. Instead, repurpose that energy into your true passion, no matter what that may be. Think about what riches would flow from this type of attitude"
We live in a world with global problems that need (in the words of Gordon Brown's TED Talk) a global ethic to solve. Plainly said, there are many different opinions on how to solve these global problems - many of which which conflict with each other. More than that, there are different outcomes that different people desire from different situation (e.g., authoritarian dictators desire something a lot different for their nations than the people within them desire).
All in all, there's a lot of potential for conflict. Conflict, rather, is truly inevitable. And we have a choice, we resolve it or we don't. I think we have to, because to get anything done without resolving conflict requires coercion, deception, or both. I happen to think that "getting things done" and avoiding coercion/deception are both worthy aspirations.
So, I've presented an undefended claim above: that things don't get done if there's unresolved conflict (unless actors are coerced or deceived). I think this is true, think about every argument you've been in - can you move forward with a plan unless the conflict is resolved? For example, can you plan a trip with your friend if you both want to go to different places? Can you raise your kids in a single faith if you're in an inter-faith marriage and you don't reconcile your views with your wife? Can Europe even begin to prevent financial meltdown if they don't agree on a plan of attack?
So, I'd disagree with Josh's contention that heatedly discussing issues accomplishes nothing. On the contrary, I'd suggest that nothing is accomplished unless we hotly discuss issues. Without hotly discussing issues we don't resolve conflict, unless we coerce or deceive. And if we don't resolve conflict, we don't get things done. Consequently, we'd better hotly discuss issues. The discussion doesn't necessarily yield immediate results, but I don't think results would happen at any point in time without the discussion happening to lay the path for action.
I also don't think that the answer is to take the energy we would spend and channel it into something more relevant to us personally. I think doing so leads people to be aloof to broader concerns and circumstances beyond their own backyard. Maintaining a global perspective (i.e., a perspective where we empathize with people across the globe) is essential, I think, to solve global problems. I think channeling all our energy into our own interests probably cultivates an attitude which does the opposite and degrades our global perspective. Linkner doesn't advocate for all people avoiding political debate (in fact he encourages people with a such a passion to pursue it) but I suggest a more extreme position. I think it's important for all people to engage in political debate which elevates a global consciousness.
Now, this argument falls apart with the claim that only a limited subset of people need to really address broader problems and have a broad perspective. I disagree. We are incredibly connected by our actions and our ideas. We won't solve climate change unless we all change our behavior. We won't have safer neighborhoods unless we all watch over our streets. There may be many policies which only need to be decided by a few people, but we all have influence (whether we like it or not, and think so or not) on the outcomes. Call me naive or optimistic, but I think a global perspective makes it more likely and easier to follow-through on our responsibilities as global citizens.
Bear in mind, I think focusing on passion is important (and agree with Josh in this respect). But, I think there's also a place and importance for spending time refining our collective global consciousness - there's a need to discuss conflict.
Toward the end of his post, I start to agree with Josh again:
"The point I’m making isn’t to avoid proactive involvement. If you are passionate about a political, social, or community effort, by all means you should dive in and make a difference. Individual citizens ranging from Rosa Parks to James Brady have played a key role in shaping our nation. However, if you plan to do nothing but complain, it is a total waste of your time. The bitch-and-moan club has millions of members, yet creates nothing but anger and frustration. If you chose to delegate policy making to the politicians, stop your indignant rants and start repurposing that energy into something productive for both you and society."
Obviously, narrow-minded ranting with no intention of listening to other people isn't really helpful in developing a global consciousness. But the answer to stopping ranting isn't to shut up, it's to push harder and harder to listen to each other and have enlightened dialogue.
Don't agree with me? Let's chat.
In my respects, I don't disagree with Josh's conclusion - why bother worrying about controversial topics like abortion or gun control (note, I've excluded healthcare from this list - I also think it's curious that Linkner uses "Obamacare", a politically charged term, in an article where he criticizes pointless, inflammatory political debate). My rationale is different however - I don't think the dialogue is wasteful or causes a diversion of focus, I just think there are other issues that take priority. Moreover, I suspect a lot of the issues that are hotly debated are predominately raised to mobilize latent constituent groups instead of to actually debate them, which is disheartening and divisive.
I also agree with Josh's statement a few paragraphs in:
"Our country’s decisions are determined by a majority; the people making these determinations were put into place by the ultimate majority: public opinion. Once our officials are put into place, it is their job to make decisions for the greater good on our behalf – your anger or support after the fact won’t adjust their choice"
Indeed. Legislators are agents who vote on our behalf (a la "little r" republicanism) and I think it's good that way. It makes it easier to make tough choices. Also, I agree, anger or support after the fact will not adjust a previously made choice. That's a matter of fact.
Anyway, allow me to disagree with two sentiments Linkner presents:
1 - "Wasteful: Think about how much time, energy and emotion people spend heatedly discussing these issues. What does it accomplish? Not much. If the same logic went into a company’s decision-making, nothing would ever get done."
2 - "Refocus: If you take all that emotional capital and re-invest it into something more relevant to you personally, think about the dividends that could result. Simply ignore the debates in the larger political climate that affect your success a lot less than the time you spend on them. Instead, repurpose that energy into your true passion, no matter what that may be. Think about what riches would flow from this type of attitude"
We live in a world with global problems that need (in the words of Gordon Brown's TED Talk) a global ethic to solve. Plainly said, there are many different opinions on how to solve these global problems - many of which which conflict with each other. More than that, there are different outcomes that different people desire from different situation (e.g., authoritarian dictators desire something a lot different for their nations than the people within them desire).
All in all, there's a lot of potential for conflict. Conflict, rather, is truly inevitable. And we have a choice, we resolve it or we don't. I think we have to, because to get anything done without resolving conflict requires coercion, deception, or both. I happen to think that "getting things done" and avoiding coercion/deception are both worthy aspirations.
So, I've presented an undefended claim above: that things don't get done if there's unresolved conflict (unless actors are coerced or deceived). I think this is true, think about every argument you've been in - can you move forward with a plan unless the conflict is resolved? For example, can you plan a trip with your friend if you both want to go to different places? Can you raise your kids in a single faith if you're in an inter-faith marriage and you don't reconcile your views with your wife? Can Europe even begin to prevent financial meltdown if they don't agree on a plan of attack?
So, I'd disagree with Josh's contention that heatedly discussing issues accomplishes nothing. On the contrary, I'd suggest that nothing is accomplished unless we hotly discuss issues. Without hotly discussing issues we don't resolve conflict, unless we coerce or deceive. And if we don't resolve conflict, we don't get things done. Consequently, we'd better hotly discuss issues. The discussion doesn't necessarily yield immediate results, but I don't think results would happen at any point in time without the discussion happening to lay the path for action.
I also don't think that the answer is to take the energy we would spend and channel it into something more relevant to us personally. I think doing so leads people to be aloof to broader concerns and circumstances beyond their own backyard. Maintaining a global perspective (i.e., a perspective where we empathize with people across the globe) is essential, I think, to solve global problems. I think channeling all our energy into our own interests probably cultivates an attitude which does the opposite and degrades our global perspective. Linkner doesn't advocate for all people avoiding political debate (in fact he encourages people with a such a passion to pursue it) but I suggest a more extreme position. I think it's important for all people to engage in political debate which elevates a global consciousness.
Now, this argument falls apart with the claim that only a limited subset of people need to really address broader problems and have a broad perspective. I disagree. We are incredibly connected by our actions and our ideas. We won't solve climate change unless we all change our behavior. We won't have safer neighborhoods unless we all watch over our streets. There may be many policies which only need to be decided by a few people, but we all have influence (whether we like it or not, and think so or not) on the outcomes. Call me naive or optimistic, but I think a global perspective makes it more likely and easier to follow-through on our responsibilities as global citizens.
Bear in mind, I think focusing on passion is important (and agree with Josh in this respect). But, I think there's also a place and importance for spending time refining our collective global consciousness - there's a need to discuss conflict.
Toward the end of his post, I start to agree with Josh again:
"The point I’m making isn’t to avoid proactive involvement. If you are passionate about a political, social, or community effort, by all means you should dive in and make a difference. Individual citizens ranging from Rosa Parks to James Brady have played a key role in shaping our nation. However, if you plan to do nothing but complain, it is a total waste of your time. The bitch-and-moan club has millions of members, yet creates nothing but anger and frustration. If you chose to delegate policy making to the politicians, stop your indignant rants and start repurposing that energy into something productive for both you and society."
Obviously, narrow-minded ranting with no intention of listening to other people isn't really helpful in developing a global consciousness. But the answer to stopping ranting isn't to shut up, it's to push harder and harder to listen to each other and have enlightened dialogue.
Don't agree with me? Let's chat.
Engaging John and Jane Doe - applying strategic change to citizen engagement
Engaging citizens in government seems like it'd be a funny venture because it's unlike engagement anywhere in the private sector (on the face, at least). You have to connect with people who are outside the walls of your organizations because citizens don't work for the government...making them sort of like customers. At the same time, citizens elect many leaders (or elect people who are appointed / confirmed by elected leaders) which kind of makes them like shareholders. Beyond that, when examining the values of our constitutional, democratic, republic, we are a country "by the people and for the people" implying that we are indeed a part of government to some degree, akin to employees.
Which makes engagement interesting: how do you (you meaning any type of political actor, which is confusing in itself) engage a constituent, who is a quasi-customer|employee|shareholder?
Well, let's apply some tricks from the strategic change playbook: let's understand the audiences, the message and topics to engage people in, and engagement vehicles. For now, let's assume government is one entity and simply look at this situation as a one to many relationship, instead of a many to many relationship (i.e., there's one "government actor" and many different flavors of constituents).
As we go, I'll call out the action steps that would be required in truly developing a well thought out constituent engagement strategy.
The Audiences
Basically, this part is simple but really difficult to do. Understand who needs to be communicated with and what influences each of these groups. The short answer is that everybody needs to be communicated with about everything. That's obviously not good enough because there's not enough time or money in the history of the world to do that, so let's break it down.
So, who needs to be communicated with? Well, pretty much everybody needs to be to some degree, but to get started how to make meaningful distinctions between constituent groups. In companies this is easy, one usually breaks down an employee populace into a few categories: role/function, location, and level. When speaking about constituents though, it's not so easy.
Action Item #1 - first, figure out how to make meaningful distinctions between constituents
I'm not some sort of political operative, but it's pretty plain to see how constituent groups are broken down today: race, geography, income-level, gender, and maybe some interest groups (conservationists, evangelicals, trial lawyers, etc.).
The trouble with this is there are a lot of different hats people wear and it's not always easy to see how folks' different identities intersect. This is absolutely important to do, however, because it's really important to target messages based on who you're talking to.
Something that may be interesting to do is to create "personality profiles" which combine some of these identities / affinities into some clusters. I'm guessing there's probably data to do this, or ways to have people choose which of their identities mean more to them than others (in fact, I know there are, for reasons I can't discuss on this blog).
Maybe there's a "soccer mom" profile, or a "suburban small business owner" profile that can be clustered. Maybe there are about 50 other clusters that could be made. Obviously, there would be a lot of clusters but that's okay...we're talking about segmenting a nation of 330 million people. And, having fifty clusters is much simpler than having combinations of characteristics across several different dimensions.
There are probably lots of ways to group constituents, I won't really get into the best ways to do that.
Action Item #2 - next, determine what makes each group tick
This is one of the easy ones, really listen to and learn about each constituent group. What makes them tick? What influences them? How does their day run? What do they like and dislike? What's their culture. Once the audiences are identified you really have to understand them. This takes research and interaction.
The Message
Another important consideration to think about is what constituents need to be engaged in...meaning what do you have to communicate with them? This consideration slices two ways. First, what is the message/topic that constituents need to be engaged in. Second, how engaged does each group have to be at the end of it?
Action Item #3 - Determine what each constituent needs to know about | be engaged in.
This is a really important step, because it's never the case (I've never seen this circumstance, at least) that everyone needs to know a lot about everything. Providing information that's not relevant fatigues audiences and also causes confusion. Moreover, once you determine what each constituent group needs to know it's a lot easier to craft a clear message because you're suddenly aware of who your audience is and how they might conceptualize things in their mind*.
Now, in public affairs, this is very complicated because there are many different different topics and actions required of constituents. Moreover, to even index constituents with particular messages, you need to determine all the messages that are out there and which ones are really important to communicate. In other words, one has to figure out the entirety of what they want to say and what's really important and what isn't.
Action Item #4 - next, determine to what degree each constituent needs to be engaged
Constituents are not all created equally when it comes to communication. Obviously all constituents are important, but they all have different abilities to influence the outcome of a specific policy or program. And quite frankly, each constituent probably doesn't want to be completely engaged in everything. So, another step to take is determine the degree to which each constituent group needs to be communicated with.
Some constituents may need to be really engaged and supportive of something, whereas others may just need to be aware. Some may need to have operational knowledge of something where as some need to be so well versed that they becomes spokespeople about the issue. Maps this out.
The vehicles
The last step (yes this really is and should be the last step) is to determine the vehicles with which you can communicate with constituents. Once you've done that, use all your knowledge to determine which vehicles should be used to communicate certain messages to which constituent group.
This is really important to be the last step, because without good data and thought behind it it's probably going to be very difficult to prioritize and sequence communications vehicles effectively. Doing all this analysis on the front-end makes it a lot easier to target messages.
Action Item #5 - List out all the vehicles you could possible use to communicate with people
Here, start with existing vehicles. There are probably lots of them: emails, mail, advertisements, twitter, facebook, townhalls, door knocking campaigns, church events, phone calls, text messages, a street team, etc. There are lots. Then, imagine new vehicles - maybe it's a bake sale, maybe it's a talent show...who knows. Your imagination is the limit to this.
One thing to note about communications vehicles is that it's super important to have vehicles which work in two directions - speaking and listening.
Action Item #6 - Match vehicles to each constituent groups and messages
Laying out your plan is the last step before execution. Match up each constituent and message to the best communication vehicle to communicate that message. When possible bundle messages and groups together (when they need the same message from the same vehicle). That will minimize work for the communicator and the constituent.
Conclusion
When I started writing this post, I thought that it would be wildly different to think about communicating with constituents than it is with employees. It's not. The same planning and execution process exists. But it is different in that it's much, much more complicated. Which makes it all the more important to think through an engagement strategy for your constituency.
---
*- Also, this sort of goes without saying (and is the post for another message), but it's really important to craft a clear message.
Which makes engagement interesting: how do you (you meaning any type of political actor, which is confusing in itself) engage a constituent, who is a quasi-customer|employee|shareholder?
Well, let's apply some tricks from the strategic change playbook: let's understand the audiences, the message and topics to engage people in, and engagement vehicles. For now, let's assume government is one entity and simply look at this situation as a one to many relationship, instead of a many to many relationship (i.e., there's one "government actor" and many different flavors of constituents).
As we go, I'll call out the action steps that would be required in truly developing a well thought out constituent engagement strategy.
The Audiences
Basically, this part is simple but really difficult to do. Understand who needs to be communicated with and what influences each of these groups. The short answer is that everybody needs to be communicated with about everything. That's obviously not good enough because there's not enough time or money in the history of the world to do that, so let's break it down.
So, who needs to be communicated with? Well, pretty much everybody needs to be to some degree, but to get started how to make meaningful distinctions between constituent groups. In companies this is easy, one usually breaks down an employee populace into a few categories: role/function, location, and level. When speaking about constituents though, it's not so easy.
Action Item #1 - first, figure out how to make meaningful distinctions between constituents
I'm not some sort of political operative, but it's pretty plain to see how constituent groups are broken down today: race, geography, income-level, gender, and maybe some interest groups (conservationists, evangelicals, trial lawyers, etc.).
The trouble with this is there are a lot of different hats people wear and it's not always easy to see how folks' different identities intersect. This is absolutely important to do, however, because it's really important to target messages based on who you're talking to.
Something that may be interesting to do is to create "personality profiles" which combine some of these identities / affinities into some clusters. I'm guessing there's probably data to do this, or ways to have people choose which of their identities mean more to them than others (in fact, I know there are, for reasons I can't discuss on this blog).
Maybe there's a "soccer mom" profile, or a "suburban small business owner" profile that can be clustered. Maybe there are about 50 other clusters that could be made. Obviously, there would be a lot of clusters but that's okay...we're talking about segmenting a nation of 330 million people. And, having fifty clusters is much simpler than having combinations of characteristics across several different dimensions.
There are probably lots of ways to group constituents, I won't really get into the best ways to do that.
Action Item #2 - next, determine what makes each group tick
This is one of the easy ones, really listen to and learn about each constituent group. What makes them tick? What influences them? How does their day run? What do they like and dislike? What's their culture. Once the audiences are identified you really have to understand them. This takes research and interaction.
The Message
Another important consideration to think about is what constituents need to be engaged in...meaning what do you have to communicate with them? This consideration slices two ways. First, what is the message/topic that constituents need to be engaged in. Second, how engaged does each group have to be at the end of it?
Action Item #3 - Determine what each constituent needs to know about | be engaged in.
This is a really important step, because it's never the case (I've never seen this circumstance, at least) that everyone needs to know a lot about everything. Providing information that's not relevant fatigues audiences and also causes confusion. Moreover, once you determine what each constituent group needs to know it's a lot easier to craft a clear message because you're suddenly aware of who your audience is and how they might conceptualize things in their mind*.
Now, in public affairs, this is very complicated because there are many different different topics and actions required of constituents. Moreover, to even index constituents with particular messages, you need to determine all the messages that are out there and which ones are really important to communicate. In other words, one has to figure out the entirety of what they want to say and what's really important and what isn't.
Action Item #4 - next, determine to what degree each constituent needs to be engaged
Constituents are not all created equally when it comes to communication. Obviously all constituents are important, but they all have different abilities to influence the outcome of a specific policy or program. And quite frankly, each constituent probably doesn't want to be completely engaged in everything. So, another step to take is determine the degree to which each constituent group needs to be communicated with.
Some constituents may need to be really engaged and supportive of something, whereas others may just need to be aware. Some may need to have operational knowledge of something where as some need to be so well versed that they becomes spokespeople about the issue. Maps this out.
The vehicles
The last step (yes this really is and should be the last step) is to determine the vehicles with which you can communicate with constituents. Once you've done that, use all your knowledge to determine which vehicles should be used to communicate certain messages to which constituent group.
This is really important to be the last step, because without good data and thought behind it it's probably going to be very difficult to prioritize and sequence communications vehicles effectively. Doing all this analysis on the front-end makes it a lot easier to target messages.
Action Item #5 - List out all the vehicles you could possible use to communicate with people
Here, start with existing vehicles. There are probably lots of them: emails, mail, advertisements, twitter, facebook, townhalls, door knocking campaigns, church events, phone calls, text messages, a street team, etc. There are lots. Then, imagine new vehicles - maybe it's a bake sale, maybe it's a talent show...who knows. Your imagination is the limit to this.
One thing to note about communications vehicles is that it's super important to have vehicles which work in two directions - speaking and listening.
Action Item #6 - Match vehicles to each constituent groups and messages
Laying out your plan is the last step before execution. Match up each constituent and message to the best communication vehicle to communicate that message. When possible bundle messages and groups together (when they need the same message from the same vehicle). That will minimize work for the communicator and the constituent.
Conclusion
When I started writing this post, I thought that it would be wildly different to think about communicating with constituents than it is with employees. It's not. The same planning and execution process exists. But it is different in that it's much, much more complicated. Which makes it all the more important to think through an engagement strategy for your constituency.
---
*- Also, this sort of goes without saying (and is the post for another message), but it's really important to craft a clear message.
Rules for Politicians to follow
I originally posted this on Big Think, but realized that I never posted it into this blog. It's an idea circa May 2009. Here's the link and text.
Link: http://bigthink.com/ideas/rules-for-politicians-to-follow
Text:
I had an interesting conversation, as I often do with the friends I was with, about politics. The question was prompted by discussion about student-group politics at the University of Michigan. The opinion of my other two conversation partners was that politics is a not so great thing (their opinions were stronger, but I'll just leave it at that).
I disagree, I think politics can be done well and I would embrace politics, if a political actor adhered to the following three rules. Politics should be considered an honorable profession, instead of a opportunitic one.
The three rules that political actors should follow. If they did, maybe "politician" wouldn't be as dirty a word:
1) The ethics rule
Figure out what is right and what is wrong. Spend most of your time doing this, not campaigning. Obviously, on some issues it's really hard to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately for politicians, they cannot hide behind this because they have to vote on whether they agree or disagree. Use the people around you: constituents, staff members, the party, whatever...and use your own values. Do the best you can, don't fake it. We'll know. Then proceed to rule number 2.
2) The no-bullshit rule
Articulate your viewpoint to your constituents, honestly. You must do this, and not just give a "bullshit reason" about actions or a vote. It is your responsibility to communicate and if you make an action then you must be honest about it. There is NO way around this rule. People need this information to evaluate you as a representative. If you don't do this, you are cheating your constituients.
3)The vulnerability rule
You must be willing to lose--elections, support, etc. This, I think is the most fundamental of the three rules, if a politician is not willing to lose, they will be incapable of implementing rules number 1 and 2. This is because they will be too focused on figuring out the difference between a winning move and a losing move rather than right and wrong just as they will focus on telling people what they want to hear instead of telling the truth.
If all politicians followed these rules, I think people would be a lot less skeptical of them.
Some say that the whole point is winning the game, because things don't get done without playing the game. I disagree, people want honest leaders who do what is right. If you follow these rules, you will be elected time and time again...truth wins over falsity. At the very least, your honor will be presevered in the long term. If you follow these rules and you do lose, it just means you're not the right person for the job at that place and time.
Link: http://bigthink.com/ideas/rules-for-politicians-to-follow
Text:
I had an interesting conversation, as I often do with the friends I was with, about politics. The question was prompted by discussion about student-group politics at the University of Michigan. The opinion of my other two conversation partners was that politics is a not so great thing (their opinions were stronger, but I'll just leave it at that).
I disagree, I think politics can be done well and I would embrace politics, if a political actor adhered to the following three rules. Politics should be considered an honorable profession, instead of a opportunitic one.
The three rules that political actors should follow. If they did, maybe "politician" wouldn't be as dirty a word:
1) The ethics rule
Figure out what is right and what is wrong. Spend most of your time doing this, not campaigning. Obviously, on some issues it's really hard to figure out what is right and what is wrong. Unfortunately for politicians, they cannot hide behind this because they have to vote on whether they agree or disagree. Use the people around you: constituents, staff members, the party, whatever...and use your own values. Do the best you can, don't fake it. We'll know. Then proceed to rule number 2.
2) The no-bullshit rule
Articulate your viewpoint to your constituents, honestly. You must do this, and not just give a "bullshit reason" about actions or a vote. It is your responsibility to communicate and if you make an action then you must be honest about it. There is NO way around this rule. People need this information to evaluate you as a representative. If you don't do this, you are cheating your constituients.
3)The vulnerability rule
You must be willing to lose--elections, support, etc. This, I think is the most fundamental of the three rules, if a politician is not willing to lose, they will be incapable of implementing rules number 1 and 2. This is because they will be too focused on figuring out the difference between a winning move and a losing move rather than right and wrong just as they will focus on telling people what they want to hear instead of telling the truth.
If all politicians followed these rules, I think people would be a lot less skeptical of them.
Some say that the whole point is winning the game, because things don't get done without playing the game. I disagree, people want honest leaders who do what is right. If you follow these rules, you will be elected time and time again...truth wins over falsity. At the very least, your honor will be presevered in the long term. If you follow these rules and you do lose, it just means you're not the right person for the job at that place and time.
Relaunch
I've decided to separate my blogs into something more personal: Scraps - http://ntambe.blogspot.com, and this blog, Civic Yuppie. In Civic Yuppie I'll try to cover the more nerdy, intellectual topics. Generally speaking, I write and play around with ideas on some of the following topics:
Public Service, Civil Society, Institutions, Innovation, Talent, Detroit, Organizations, the Liberal Arts...to name a few. I've copied over some of the relevant posts from the Scraps blog.
-Neil
Public Service, Civil Society, Institutions, Innovation, Talent, Detroit, Organizations, the Liberal Arts...to name a few. I've copied over some of the relevant posts from the Scraps blog.
-Neil
The Avengers: A fun case study of high-performing teams
The Avengers, sure to be one of the biggest blockbuster films this summer, was a move with a lot to like. It was exciting, funny, stunning, and inspiring. The basic plot is this: faced with the potential subjugation of earth by powerful galactic gods, Nick Fury – director of S.H.I.E.L.D…basically an agency 10x more awesome than the CIA – brings together 6 of history’s most remarkable heroes to save the planet. The implementation of “The Avengers Initiative”, once abandoned by S.H.I.E.L.D. because it would’ve brought together “forces which cannot be controlled”, is the focal point of this super sweet movie. It’s also a surprisingly good case study about high-performing teams.
These heroes – Captain American (Cap), Iron Man, The Hulk, Black Widow, Thor and Hawkeye – must put aside their differences to literally save the world. Here are some examples of why The Avengers are a high performing team and some observations about their fellowship. Do you have any more to add, or criticisms of their teaming?:
(Spoiler Alert - If you haven’t seen the movie, stop reading now!)
They had a crystal clear purpose
The Avengers come together to save the world by preventing the tesseract (a source of limitless energy) from being used to open a portal to another galaxy. Very little is clearer than that (saving the world is a pretty clear and simple purpose), I think.
They had diverse strengths
The team has very different strengths, capabilities and styles. Iron Man is a brilliant inventor and The Hulk is very good at smashing things. Cap is a super human with deep convictions. Black Widow and Hawkeye are elite S.H.I.E.L.D. spies. Thor is a demi-god who controls thunder. I’d say this is a very well rounded crew.
They articulated their roles clearly, together
The Avengers all knew what their role in the plan was, even if it took them a bit of time to get there. Bruce Banner (Hulk’s human form) had to find the tesseract. Thor had to control Loki. Cap was playing the role of military field general (he is a Captain, after all). Also, all these players adapted their roles, together, on the fly, to deal with whatever situation emerged.
They were onboarded well
Each Avenger was onboarded well. By the time they arrived they were well versed in the mission and ready to rock. This helped them start working together very quickly.
They had the freedom to operate outside the bounds of a chain of command
To do something nobody has ever attempted seems difficult to do within existing organizational boundaries. Nick Fury seemed to recognize this. He resisted the S.H.I.E.L.D. Council’s requests to abort the Avenger Initiative and behave as they directed. He knew this was bound to fail so he provided political cover to the Avengers to operate outside of protocol and a chain of command. This allowed them to move fast and fiercely, as the situation required.
I think this is pretty applicable to organizations, generally. Most organizations that I am a part of succumb to this as well. Nothing that pushes edges gets done within traditional organizational hierarchy. Maybe our organizations should allow for some Avengers every once in awhile!
Trust was hard to come by
Trust was hard earned in this team. It basically took the murder of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Phil Coulson to bring the team together to put aside their differences. It also took honesty on the part of Nick Fury to reveal S.H.I.E.L.D.’s true intentions for the tesseract. This goes to show that even remarkable people need time to develop trust and that trust is really important for teams to be effective.
Individual collective agendas were aligned / incentives
The Avengers each had a personal agenda as well a collective one...and all of these agendas were (luckily) aligned. For example, Black Widow wanted to settle a debt with Hawkeye and Hawkeye wanted to get even with Loki for controlling him. Cap was searching for meaning after being frozen for several decades. The Hulk wanted freedom (I think) and Iron Man probably wanted some ego-boost. All of their individual desires, in any case, were aligned with the rewards of collective success(the reward of collective success was saving the world).
This alignment of agendas (and in turn rewards and incentives) obviously helped the Avengers prevent their individual differences from being an obstacle to collective success. Having aligned agendas probably wasn’t a deliberate observation by Nick Fury when putting the Avengers together, but it was convenient.
They had the tools / equipment / resources they needed
The Avengers couldn’t battle without weapons and armor. Same with teams – they need the right equipment and resources to succeed. The Avengers had all this.
A formal leader is noticeably absent
Something interesting, I thought, was that there wasn’t really a designated “leader” among the Avengers. It’s like they led themselves without a coordinating authority. They all had the right roles and they executed effectively because they were committed to the mission. That’s pretty cool.
---
Right as the action started to intensify in the film, Nick Fury said something about why the Avengers were brought together: “There was an idea to bring together a group of remarkable people, so when we needed them, they could fight the battles that we never could…”
This quote is the one element of the movie that I vehemently disagree with. We don’t need remarkable people in teams. In fact, I don’t think we can rely on remarkable people to make up high performing teams. Rather, we should create organizations that take ordinary people and make them into remarkable teams. I have faith that we can make this sort of institutional transformation happen, and we must.
Much of the time, I don't understand why people let themselves be caged. Confined to thinking and waiting for the next sunrise...one day at a time. Disincented, to put it nicely, from challenging the truth and pushing "the cage" forward.lll
Public and Private Voices
One of the first lessons I learned as an Organizational Studies student, in fact not one of the first...THE first, was that the influence of organizations are all around us. Our teacher, Jason Owen-Smith, put us into small groups and asked us to brainstorm all the organizations we interact with on a day to day basis. After listing the basics - the University, the Government, our student-group affiliations, etc. the list became much longer - the FDA (did you take Tylenol this morning?), British Petroleum (oh yea, I guess I had to put gas in my car today), your house (I guess my roommates and I all function as an organization)...and so on.
The list of organizations that we are an active player and representative of is much smaller. There are maybe a handful of these but we are swimming in them. We are totally immersed in them, which makes it hard to separate the organization from our identity.
We also have voices for our identities. We have our private voice - the voice we use that's in our day-to-day when we feel like we aren't being watched or monitored. We also have our public voice - the voice we use when we feel like we're addressing people publicly or perceive ourselves to be monitored.
These "voices" also roll-up into the organizational world. In some organizations (say our crew of best friends and family) we feel private - we aren't scrutinized for our words or actions because they're, well, private. In some organiztions we feel public (say the company we work for) - an as a result we project an image ourselves that we want people to see. There are also variations of these - e.g., in a social organization which is private but we feel like we have a public reputation to project within the confines of that organization or in a community forum where all actors are in a public sphere but form sub-committees where they have private voice.
What I think is interesting is that the organizations themselves dictate a lot - in addition to the people contained - of the norms of using public and private voices. After all, organizations with similar types of people or objectives produce very different cultures. And organization types produce very different cultures and behaviors even though people may be the same too.
In addition to this, many things have suddenly become interesting hybrids of hyper-public and hyper-private, because of telecommunications technology. There's a lot of ambiguity in how one projects themselves publicly or privately and when has to do one or the other.
Managing these public and private voices, I think, is very stressful. We manage our identities more than we tell the truth. I would argue that this causes our organizations to do funny things and have lackluster outcomes. We spend tons of time managing our voices rather than focusing on our work, purpose and intended outcomes.
I think the ideal is to be able to have one voice - an "authentic voice", if you will - instead of a public and private one.
I don't have time to elaborate on this now (I'm about to land) but I think a nice goal for groups of people and the organizations they make up is to produce an environment where people can speak in an "authentic voice". I think the same goes for individuals, we should try to merge our public and private voices into one. It'll yield more trust and probably much more happiness and much less internal conflict for ourselves.
Everyone is suffering enough, we should rid ourselves of suffering that is self-imposed.
What makes a good team member?
As many readers (not to imply that I have a readership, but please roll with me) probably know or could guess - I have a fairly romantic but peculiar obsession with the idea of teams. In my experience, as is with most things, some people buy into teams and others don't really see them as teams but rather as a sum of individuals. Some see the synergy and some see the parts which may create synergy. Some see the forest and some see the trees.
I'm interested in what makes people see the forest - what makes people buy into the concept of teams and be successful in them. Here's a frame: what makes some people trust things (and in some cases put almost blind faith) into things that are "larger than themselves"? Here are some thoughts, not necessarily woven together:
Practice / Commitment
If you're around teams long enough, you see the magic that they create and it's inspiring...especially if you're on a good team. Moreover, if you're on a team that sticks together for awhile you start to flow really well together, which is good because you get past the growing pains of being on a team and you get to the good stuff.
Confidence / Comfort
I feel like it would be very easy to be alienated in a team if you're constantly fearful of your own standing or of your material well-being. So, it's probably important to be confident and feel affirmed. Without being affirmed, you'd probably be too worried about self-preservation to care about the team.
Purpose
It's a big turn-off, at least for me, to be on a team which doesn't align with one's own purpose. It's really taxing on your personal energy. Adding to that, if it's not a noble purpose (of the person or the team) one of the two - the team or the person - will fall to selfish aims, and in turn destroy the team. To have purpose you have to find something that matters gravely to you - so I suppose discovering your passion is an utterly necessary component of being a good team member.
Humility
To submit yourself to something larger than yourself, you have to acknowledge that something other than you can be greater than yourself. That's jumbled, I know, but the point still stands - you can think anything is greater than you if you think nothing is greater than you.
Selflessness / Listening
Teams don't function when any one members' needs are consistently higher than others'. So, once has to have some level of selflessness (so they don't monopolize mindshare) and ability to listen. Without these, there's not a team because someone has elevated themselves above others.
Authenticity
People in teams have to be real with eachother, or, nobody trusts them. No trust = no team. 'Nuff said.
All of these, though, raise a larger question of - Neil, you've listed all these virtuous qualities...how do you cultivate those? Ya know, I'll have to think about that - my ideas aren't quite there yet.
-nt
I'm interested in what makes people see the forest - what makes people buy into the concept of teams and be successful in them. Here's a frame: what makes some people trust things (and in some cases put almost blind faith) into things that are "larger than themselves"? Here are some thoughts, not necessarily woven together:
Practice / Commitment
If you're around teams long enough, you see the magic that they create and it's inspiring...especially if you're on a good team. Moreover, if you're on a team that sticks together for awhile you start to flow really well together, which is good because you get past the growing pains of being on a team and you get to the good stuff.
Confidence / Comfort
I feel like it would be very easy to be alienated in a team if you're constantly fearful of your own standing or of your material well-being. So, it's probably important to be confident and feel affirmed. Without being affirmed, you'd probably be too worried about self-preservation to care about the team.
Purpose
It's a big turn-off, at least for me, to be on a team which doesn't align with one's own purpose. It's really taxing on your personal energy. Adding to that, if it's not a noble purpose (of the person or the team) one of the two - the team or the person - will fall to selfish aims, and in turn destroy the team. To have purpose you have to find something that matters gravely to you - so I suppose discovering your passion is an utterly necessary component of being a good team member.
Humility
To submit yourself to something larger than yourself, you have to acknowledge that something other than you can be greater than yourself. That's jumbled, I know, but the point still stands - you can think anything is greater than you if you think nothing is greater than you.
Selflessness / Listening
Teams don't function when any one members' needs are consistently higher than others'. So, once has to have some level of selflessness (so they don't monopolize mindshare) and ability to listen. Without these, there's not a team because someone has elevated themselves above others.
Authenticity
People in teams have to be real with eachother, or, nobody trusts them. No trust = no team. 'Nuff said.
All of these, though, raise a larger question of - Neil, you've listed all these virtuous qualities...how do you cultivate those? Ya know, I'll have to think about that - my ideas aren't quite there yet.
-nt
What we deserve
In the past few months, I've been thinking about the impact of choices and the meaning of them.
This goes back to the concept of "timshel" from East of Eden...that we have the choice to conquer sin.
I've also been really struggling with understanding and thinking and feeling through the idea of entitlement - what we as humans deserve. For a long time, I didn't think that there was anything that we were entitled to, that we deserved nothing. Afterall, we have been blessed to wake up in the morning...what's more important than that? Do we really need to ask God for anything other than the gift of life?
Anyway, I've been trying to push myself on that though. And thank to Jeff and Laura and Jenny and others. I'm starting to think that there is indeed one thing that we all deserve.
To be loved.
(Why we deserve to be loved is the topic of another post.)
But, getting back to choices by combining these two ideas.
One of the most important choices we have, in conquering sin especially, I think, is the choice we make to love others. To love animals, to love the earth, to love God, to love beauty...all of these things. But the choice we make to love others is especially hard, I think.
We have so many reasons not to love others - whether it's a colleague, a family member, a stranger...even a girl that has rejected or wronged you. It's so easy to think that we don't have love to give to people who do not love us. To people who can't, even.
But, I think we must. Loving others, despite their flaws or wrongdoings (to us or others) is conquering sin. It's something filled with grace. It's beautiful. It's impossibly hard.
And, it's painful sometimes. But how and who we love and the love we show to other people is soemthing we shouldn't discriminate - it must be permamment. It must be full and genuine.
I'm having a hard time writing about this - partly because of fatigue and partly because it's hard. But I guess I can put it this way.
I know in my heart of hearts that what's right is to love others, no matter what. Because, it's the one that everyone deserves. Not being loved is a terrible way to suffer and I can't participate in that. We should try to be loving. Everyone deserves to be loved. Nobody deserves to suffer.
-nt
The Leadership Quandry - initial thoughts for a future talk
The more and more I think about it, the more skeptical I get of leadership as a construct. I think as a civilization we're missing something, really really big. I know, audacious for relative nobody on the matter to say. But, I'll probably convince anyone who is reading this blog (if not totally, at least an uncomfortably large amount) over the course of time - that we should stop focusing on leadership as a core emphasis of organization or at least radically rethink what leadership is and what its value is. (Teaser: leadership is not nearly as interesting or useful as we thought it was - rather, it's a distraction).
I'm due to write about this on yammer for some colleagues, but I also want to play around with the idea here. I imagine I'll pitch this to TEDxDetroit in the next year or some other venue, just to see if I'm not crazy. And, to see what some actual smart people think about this.
Anyway, here's some messing around on what the structure of those remarks might look like:
We need a lot from organizations, that different than what exists today - [describe some fundamental assumptions about what organizations need to be and compare them with how they actually operate].
So, why does this happen? I'd argue that making Leadership the holy grail has a lot to do with it. - [explain the leadership quandry]. [Also, concede that there could be other reasons, but give reason as to why to focus on this one].
So, you've outlined a big problem, but how do you suggest we run organization if not for leadership structures? -[ Ask the audience, to suspend reality for just a second. Then, explain the paradim shift to "gardening teams"].
Why not just improve the craft of leadership? - [Explain why that's silly and why a paradigm shift is necessary]
[Then, revisit the fundamental needs of organization and show the path that leadership goes down - it's a bad one].
[Admit you don't know have the technology of teaming at your disposal, but give the "all we need to do is scale it, and why can't we?" bit to the audience to give them hope that they won't have to fully suspend disbelief forever].
[explain the difference in the place for leadership and the place for gardening teams in the future - it's probably a shared world].
---
Shoot, a lot of gaps here. It'll be fun to fill in. I've gotta make time for this, maybe this summer, after the GMAT.
PS - Unedited, it's late.
I'm due to write about this on yammer for some colleagues, but I also want to play around with the idea here. I imagine I'll pitch this to TEDxDetroit in the next year or some other venue, just to see if I'm not crazy. And, to see what some actual smart people think about this.
Anyway, here's some messing around on what the structure of those remarks might look like:
We need a lot from organizations, that different than what exists today - [describe some fundamental assumptions about what organizations need to be and compare them with how they actually operate].
So, why does this happen? I'd argue that making Leadership the holy grail has a lot to do with it. - [explain the leadership quandry]. [Also, concede that there could be other reasons, but give reason as to why to focus on this one].
So, you've outlined a big problem, but how do you suggest we run organization if not for leadership structures? -[ Ask the audience, to suspend reality for just a second. Then, explain the paradim shift to "gardening teams"].
Why not just improve the craft of leadership? - [Explain why that's silly and why a paradigm shift is necessary]
[Then, revisit the fundamental needs of organization and show the path that leadership goes down - it's a bad one].
[Admit you don't know have the technology of teaming at your disposal, but give the "all we need to do is scale it, and why can't we?" bit to the audience to give them hope that they won't have to fully suspend disbelief forever].
[explain the difference in the place for leadership and the place for gardening teams in the future - it's probably a shared world].
---
Shoot, a lot of gaps here. It'll be fun to fill in. I've gotta make time for this, maybe this summer, after the GMAT.
PS - Unedited, it's late.
Ideas about how ideas get big
I'm starting to have insomnia from time to time, which is probably a bad thing. Fortunately though, some of my better thinking comes at the edge of sleeping and awake life (if I can remember it the next day).
Yesterday, I was also lucky to have been inspired by Josh Linker (read more about him here) as he was speaking at our office's quarterly all-hands meeting. Sadly, I had to miss the first 60 minutes of his remarks due to a client call. He spoke about creativity. I can't really go into more detail because I really only caught the tail end of his talk (which I'm super bummed about).
Earlier in the day we also had a "Detroit Community Involvement" Panel Discussion. One of the themes of the discussion was that community involvements begin with just a small moment or conversation that blossoms into something larger (and usually really awesome).
Thinking about ideas and how they get big
Both of these combined got me to thinking about ideas and how they go from "start to awesome"...let's break this down into a process map of sorts:
Pre-idea observations, listening and reflecting -> Idea forms -> Idea has increasing returns and blows up
- Pre-idea observations - this is the step where something brews in your mind, it's a product of what you see, know, hear, do and feel
- Idea forms - this is the really hard step where all those stewing things form into an articulated thought that can be expressed to other people
- Idea blows up - this is the fun part when people build upon your idea and it gets momentum - it "catches legs", if you will
Josh, from what I could gather, was really going deep on the "Idea forms" step - which is really, really important. It's so hard to get some stuff in your head out onto paper or into a group of people. He had some awesome tips and stories about it. Again, he may have discussed other things while I wasn't there, but this is the essence of what I heard while I was.
In our Detroit Community Involvement Panel we kind of had the perspective of "ideas blowing up". We got a flavor for the awesome things which can happen when people come together around a common cause.
Now, let me get back to the big picture for a second. It seems to me like there's a BIG jump from an idea forming to it blowing up. It's almost as if there's a step in the process flow we've forgotten:
Pre-idea observations, listening and reflecting -> Idea forms -> ? -> Idea has increasing returns and blows up
I think there's this often unnoticed step that is really, really crucial in the creative process - I'll call it "launch". And by this I mean, someone has to get the idea off the ground before it fades away.
The way I figure it, after a great idea or brainstorm there are probably lots of ideas. And, there are probably many millions of great ideas floating around people's heads across the world. A non-trivial percentage of those ideas are probably already expressed out loud or even in some document, somewhere - whether it's on a napkin, a whiteboard, or a PowerPoint presentation.
Those ideas never "get legs", I think, because someone has to follow through on them. Someone has to document them and share them after they are concieved. Someone has to marshal people, expertise and legitimacy to the idea to get it off the ground.
I liken it to a NASA analogy. When launching a spacecraft there are two mission controls - one in Florida and one in Houston. The one in Florida has control of the mission for about 7 seconds and Houston gets it for the rest of the time. Why? Because the first 7 seconds (the launch) of a flight are so different and incredibly difficult. So, so many crazy things can happen. So, NASA splits the mission into two components (let's set aside all the time and energy required to even put a spacecraft on the launchpad for this discussion) the launch and the flight.
I think the same is true for ideas. Some ideas (which may be great or not so great) seem to launch themselves without much intervention. But many ideas seem like they're left on the launch pad - even though they are great, great ideas.
So my learning here is, don't forget about the very deliberate step of "launching" ideas after they are conceived and even loosely articulated. The only way to send an idea to the moon is to get it off the ground first. Sometimes that's easy and sometimes that's hard, I think. Either way, it has to be done. Sometimes it has to be a very deliberate step in the process.
How to launch an idea
This raises an obvious question - what falls into the discipline of "launching" an idea...how do you do it? Well, I think there are a couple things to think about:
- Prototype it, fast - I think getting the idea into a share-able format is really important. More importantly, though, get it share-able as fast as you possibly can. Don't invest 100 hours, invest 2. Then share it as fast as you can and improve it as you go. It's hard to stick to something for 100 hours when you have no momentum to begin with. Stop at two hours and get some fresh insight, people to help you and some excitement. Also, once you start sharing it you may realize that you don't really like the idea or could use your time better on something else. So sharing it quickly can save you 98 hours worth of work on something that you don't even want to pursue.
- Share, but listen more than you speak - So, share the idea. Obviously. But, don't forget to listen either. If you could launch the idea yourself, then why are you talking to other people? Don't only share or only listen - do both simultaneously.
- Focus - big ideas can get wayyy too big really quickly. Don't let them buckle under their own weight. This isn't to say narrow ideas into small boxes which suddenly become irrelevant. Rather, I mean set boundaries so you can focus your time and resources going deep in a new and interesting way. Don't irreverently add scope. Add the right scope and cut the things that don't matter. Then, grow the idea into something bigger. Go big, but not foolishly. Be disciplined.
Anyway, these are just some random thoughts on a Saturday morning. Thanks for entertaining some of my insomniac musings. Now it's time for some Raisin Bran and some GMAT-ing.
Also - I can't wait to talk about progress to our skills-based volunteerism pilot program (which we're starting to call Grassroots Pro-bono, actually) this idea is starting to catch legs as we speak. Phase II is going to be legit (thankfully, I think we're clever enough to make it work).
For the city,
Neil
Neil
B Series - Conflicting Identities
- Beware, this isn't proofread -
I suspect that this topic will bubble up on many occasions while trying to do this deep introspection. Again, it's pretty important context setting.
For whatever reason, my identities - physical, emotional, spiritual, social, moral, intellectual, experiences etc. - conflict with each other. Or, at least they do on the surface. One of the more difficult things I feel like I do on a daily basis is finding some calm between those warring identities and weaving together a cohesive internal narrative. Let me try listing some examples:
I suspect that this topic will bubble up on many occasions while trying to do this deep introspection. Again, it's pretty important context setting.
For whatever reason, my identities - physical, emotional, spiritual, social, moral, intellectual, experiences etc. - conflict with each other. Or, at least they do on the surface. One of the more difficult things I feel like I do on a daily basis is finding some calm between those warring identities and weaving together a cohesive internal narrative. Let me try listing some examples:
- Indian and brought up in America, and "white" by upbringing to an extend - but still rooted with relatively traditional values.
- Theistic, but not subscribing to the framework of an organized religion
- I've been bullied and have been in positions where I could bully other if I wanted to.
- Dance, Football, Backcountry Camping, Tennis, Soccer, Weightlifting - all these are favorite athletic pass times
- Fraternity Man (with associated antics) and subscriber to Aristotelian virtue ethics
- Deeply ponderous and reflective but intensely extroverted but also active listener
- Arrogant, but feel uncomfortable taking praise
And many others. These are pretty surface level, I'd say, but the hint at things which are more deeply rooted, I think.
But, what's the implication of having conflicting identities?
Well, there are real, front-line costs. It's hard for others to figure you out, and therefore have trust in you. If you're not predictable, then, how does one have intimate relationships? It's not impossible just more fleeting. The other side of this is that it's harder to feel a sense of belonging anywhere. Everything is shaky, because you never feel comfortable exactly where you are. You feel like an outsider and an insider at the same time. "Home" is difficult to discern.
Well, there are real, front-line costs. It's hard for others to figure you out, and therefore have trust in you. If you're not predictable, then, how does one have intimate relationships? It's not impossible just more fleeting. The other side of this is that it's harder to feel a sense of belonging anywhere. Everything is shaky, because you never feel comfortable exactly where you are. You feel like an outsider and an insider at the same time. "Home" is difficult to discern.
More tactically, if one is all over the map with identities (and identities are heuristics for day-to-day decision making) how does one make decisions with conflicting identities? First, you do make decisions. It's just really taxing, it becomes extremely deliberative in one's own head. There are no shortcuts to making decisions. There's nothing that feels quite right. But I suppose that's the case for everyone.
I suppose there are upsides, though. It becomes easier to move between communities of different people when identities don't lock you into a single paradigm. It also leaves lots of life as your oyster to be opened. Among other things.
But, what's the big takeaway here? I have many conflicting identities (maybe more, or maybe less than I think they are), but so does everyone, probably. Takeaway number one is that it's okay. (Wow, I've never said that or thought that - it's okay to be you, snap. That's probably the first of many realizations over the course of the next year).
Takeaway number two is that you must be you. With conflicting identities, its possible to try to copy the way others are or do what other people think you should be doing. That's maybe the worst thing you can do. That errs you even farther than your true self. And if you do that, you no longer have any trust in who you are and what you think because you've introduce foreign identities into an already weird mix of thoughts and feelings. The identities of others is something that you can never measure up to.
This is the third and probably most difficult conclusion - all your identities have to be woven together some way, or some how. May that's what integrity is - all of you woven into one story that you can explore, deepen and stick to. That's like, inner peace, if I've ever heard it.
So then the question becomes, how does one find inner peace with his or her identities? I obviously don't know the answer to that question. But, that's a good goal. That's kind of what my equilibrium project is all about - making my conflicting identities, thoughts and feelings play nice together in my brain.
Even though I don't know the answer to the question, I think it's a start to figure out who you are by learning about where you came from - i.e. unpacking your baggage. And, the long road ahead begins.
B Series - Context
Before I start this "B Series" (B for baggage, naturally) of posts - the aim being deep introspection to understand the emotional and spiritual barriers that exist in my life and expressing it - I feel like I have to do a bit of context setting.
I'm really lucky. I have parents who love me deeply and family which does the same. I'm lucky enough to have many friends who aren't like family, they are family. I have been blessed in many ways by God. I've been lucky enough to be educated. I have good health and am fully abled.
Of course, I've had my fair share of difficult and most of my character has been forged from intense pain, sorrow, empathy and struggle. There are "wounds" that still haven't "healed". I sometimes don't feel deserving or needing the love and care of others, or whatever. I'm not entitled to anything - breathing is an enthralling gift and that's enough.
But, I'm lucky. And with great luck comes ability. Response-ability, if you will. And that's where the story begins.
But the fact is, I must always remember that I'm not ever truly alone. Or that I have everything I need to be happy. Someday, I'll come to feel that I'm more than just "good enough" - in whatever context that is. I
I'm really lucky. I have parents who love me deeply and family which does the same. I'm lucky enough to have many friends who aren't like family, they are family. I have been blessed in many ways by God. I've been lucky enough to be educated. I have good health and am fully abled.
Of course, I've had my fair share of difficult and most of my character has been forged from intense pain, sorrow, empathy and struggle. There are "wounds" that still haven't "healed". I sometimes don't feel deserving or needing the love and care of others, or whatever. I'm not entitled to anything - breathing is an enthralling gift and that's enough.
But, I'm lucky. And with great luck comes ability. Response-ability, if you will. And that's where the story begins.
But the fact is, I must always remember that I'm not ever truly alone. Or that I have everything I need to be happy. Someday, I'll come to feel that I'm more than just "good enough" - in whatever context that is. I
B Series - Intro
Jeff recently purchased me a book from Amazon - which was written by their Pastor in New York. It's called Emotionally Healthy Spiritually. I've only begun to read it, but something is very clear (Jeff and Laura also mention this a lot) - that folks have to unpack their baggage to be emotionally healthy.
And, on this quest to find equilibrium I have to do the same. And, I suppose this is where the blog comes in. Unpacking all these things in my own head isn't the hard part (even though, it is hard to be real with oneself about stuff like this). The hard part is sharing it with other people. I can't do it. Or, not yet.
So, here goes the B Series of posts.
And, on this quest to find equilibrium I have to do the same. And, I suppose this is where the blog comes in. Unpacking all these things in my own head isn't the hard part (even though, it is hard to be real with oneself about stuff like this). The hard part is sharing it with other people. I can't do it. Or, not yet.
So, here goes the B Series of posts.