Attitude may matter more than talent

Music composer Elliot Carter celebrated his 100th birthday last week with a concert at Carnegie Hall. It featured a 17-minute piece for piano and orchestra that Carter wrote when he was 98. Carter has already lived three times as long as Schubert and 65 years more than Mozart. Yet his first opera premiered in 1999 and he produced seven works in 2007 and six more this year.

Since he turned 90, the composer who many critics rank among the greatest ever, has churned out more than 40 pieces and he shows no signs of slowing down. Aficionados say he’s still writing at the top of his form and every piece has new ideas that he’s trying out along with subtle refinements of those presented earlier.

At an individual level, Carter’s life offers a heroic example of unwavering faith married to unstinting effort. This can be particularly inspiring to younger contenders who fear loss of heart and burn-out. If he can be that productive at 100, just imagine how much you could do even if you make a fresh start at half or quarter of his age. Their effort, however, needs to be backed by what creativity wonks like Colin Martindale called ‘cognitive disinhibition’, which refers to the ability to focus or defocus attention as per task demands. So one “first learns the rules and then breaks ‘em!”

It also shows that for genius to thrive, at any age, attitude may be even more important than talent. This entails what the investment guru Warren Buffet called “the art of not getting in your own way”. “It’s not about your potential horse power,” says Buffet. “Whatever you have, learn to utilise it fully”; till the very end.

Call me anything except Junior - Parenting Tips

Randel S Carlock, the first Berghmans Lhoist chaired professor in entrepreneurial leadership and director of the Wendel International Centre for Family Enterprise, has reviewed Oliver Stone's latest film W in INSEAD KNOWLEDGE. The review has useful tips for parents. And as Carlock observes, had George W Bush been groomed differently by his parents, the world would have been a different place altogether.

The new Oliver Stone film W explores an important concern for business and wealthy families – how parent-child relationships shape a child's personality development and, specifically, individual drives and motivations. The coming of age drama could be many family businesses where a feckless son struggles to redeem himself by overtaking his preferred younger sibling to succeed his father as head of the family dynasty. The Oedipal conflict between father and son, an ever present mother-father-son triangle, an oldest son's birth order expectations and a dose of sibling rivalry allows the film to explore a full range of family dynamics and their influence on W's behaviour.

There is a powerful scene in the film that captures the emotional challenges that next generation family members, especially eldest sons, face under the shadow of their powerful and successful parents. When the young George W Bush is introduced by a friend to his future spouse Laura as George Bush Junior he replies, "call me anything except junior." The future president's response is simple and telling about his relationship with a powerful father who dominates his emotional life and his need to demonstrate his autonomy.

We also see his father's frustrations in another scene when the elder Bush confronts W about his son's alcohol-driven lifestyle by characterising him as "acting like a Kennedy," probably the most powerful put-down a patrician conservative could offer. As the plot develops, it is clear that much of George W's behaviour is motivated by his lack of self esteem and the need to prove that he is the rightful successor in his "family's business". The film even suggests that George W's motivation for pursuing the war in Iraq was to prove himself as a stronger and more capable leader than his forbidding father.

W teaches business families about the powerful influence of parenting practices on a child's personality development. Being from a successful family can create psychological problems because as Mathew Freud, great-grandson of the famous psychologist, stated so aptly: "You grow up feeling slightly special, but at the same time it was all reflected glory. I am a firm believer that everyone's parents damage their personality, but if you have famous parents, they have more ammunition." There are no magic bullets for effective parenting but there are behaviours that support positive parent-child relationships; that support a child's development, first, as a responsible and satisfied adult, and second, as potential stewards of the family's legacy.

Understanding and accepting the child as an individual and celebrating his or her uniqueness is the foundation for the child's building of self-esteem. This is a challenge for successful parents who often have a clear view of how the world works based on their success and want to imprint their experiences on their children. To some degree we all live vicariously through our offspring but we need to ensure our expectations and actions are based on their needs and not ours.

Other parenting behaviours to consider include:

- Demonstrating your love and concern. Children measure love by face time. Don't skip you child's school performance or event for a business meeting and then tell him or her that they are your highest priority.

- Encouraging your child's personal development based on his or her talents and interests. Any activity that creates a new experience for a child is a benefit.

- Teaching your children the value of service to others. Working with your child in a homeless shelter or an environmental clean up programme builds their sense of self-worth and practising stewardship strengthens service to others as a value.

- Coaching not caretaking. As your child grows up your parenting role must evolve from a caregiver to coach. Use your life experiences, both good and bad, to help them experience failure and struggle so they grow up with a more realistic picture of themselves.

- Practising 'fair process' in your decision-making and relationship with your children and the larger family. Your children's first experience in communication, conflict, planning and decision-making is with their siblings and parents.

Young people in successful families often experience a sense of powerlessness and unworthiness that comes from being valued for their family's success. Reflected success is a powerful force that makes it difficult for young people to see themselves as autonomous adults, able to function away from their family. This forces them to compensate for feelings of inadequacy with behaviours that are not healthy or effective. Engaging with your children to help them learn who they are and who they are not is an important step in supporting their psychological development.

Parenting matters – if the first President Bush had better understand George W's uniqueness and helped his son differentiate from his famous family, perhaps the world would be a very different place today.

© Campden Publishing Limited 2008

THE ART OF CAPTAINCY

Mike Brearley is a qualified psychoanalyst. He is also among the game’s legendary captains.

Brearley’s strategic skills and leadership qualities transformed England into a formidable force from the mid to late 70s. Captaincy was always his strongest attribute whether leading Cambridge, Middlesex or England.

The 66-year-old Brearley retains his passion for the game. A part of the English media covering the India-England series, he shared his thoughts with 'The Hindu' in an interview.

Q. What is captaincy? How would you define it?

A. You cannot really define captaincy. Can you define female beauty? I think captaincy is a lot about having a passion for tactics…getting the best out of people. Each cricketer is different and you first need to understand a player, his strengths and his weaknesses.

I don’t like the word man-management, which is more about sitting in a chair and sending out instructions. Captaining a cricket team has several more dimensions to it. A captain has to reach out to his men, anticipate, create and react to situations on the field. For every match you have a different plan. And for every plan you have alternate plans. This could change between every session, hour, and over.

Q. You were admired for the manner in which you motivated the players…

A. It’s a lot about human engagement. There are certain basics. You must not try to humiliate a player in front of others. You got to be honest with a player without putting him down too much. You should try and encourage him whenever you have a chance. You must remember and recognise his contribution in a team meeting.

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu, December 14, 2008

The chimp way to the top

In chimpanzee groups, there is a strict pecking order, with apes lower down the order striving to move further up and eventually reach the top. Political assassinations, where two juniors form an alliance and kill the chimp at the top are not uncommon. We see human parallels to this in assassinations, wars and the jockeying for positions within organisations.

Source: The Inner Ape by Frans de Waal

Condensed from: Our place in creation, SPiritual Link magazine, November 2008, Science of the Soul Research Centre, Vol. 4, Issue 11

A Sense of Urgency

Book Excerpt

A Sense of Urgency

By John P. Kotter, Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership, Emeritus, at Harvard Business School.

The problem with using crises to reduce complacency and create urgency is that the tactic is a potential diamond sitting on a rock surrounded by quicksand and very nasty beasts. Any naiveté about the downside risks can cause disaster.

Big Mistake Number 1: Assuming that crises inevitably will create the sense of urgency needed to perform better.

At a major European retailer, margins were shrinking year after year because fashionable boutiques were taking its top-of-the-line business, and discounters were taking away its low-end business. Then the European edition of the Wall Street Journal published an explosive article spelling out many of the firm's problems. The CEO had two weeks' warning, but instead of alerting others or working to kill the story, he deliberately chose to do nothing. Not only did he not warn others, except one close confidant, but he also did little to analyze in advance exactly what would happen the day the article came out and what precisely he should do to channel fear, anger, and confusion into a determination to act fast and succeed.

The day came. A full-blown crisis was created. The CEO waited for the organization to shrug off its complacent platform and into a good direction. But it didn't happen. Instead of mobilizing people into action, the crisis led many managers into making fewer decisions because they didn't want to be accused of mistakes with the press and public watching. Many other managers were genuinely afraid that if they rushed into actions their decisions might accidentally create harm. So they held back just at a time when the CEO most needed their help to get the organization moving swiftly into a better future. Without needed planning and action to leverage the crisis, the situation grew worse, not better.

Big Mistake Number 2: Going over the line with a strategy that creates an angry backlash because people feel manipulated.

No one wants to feel manipulated. If people sense that someone has created a crisis that deliberately puts them in harm's way, especially if it is not strongly connected to real business problems, they may suspect sabotage or lunacy, both of which can create anger and not a steely determination to act fast and win. The crisis-creating strategy not only fails but makes matters worse.

Because his managers and employees would not change to meet new market demands, the head of the largest division of a Midwestern manufacturing company reluctantly drew the conclusion that his only alternative was to engineer a crisis.

But energy within his organization did not emerge as a strong sense of urgency to act. New energy formed more as anger looking for someone to blame for the crisis. Suddenly, a rumor started that the plant manager had purposefully taken steps in the prior year in order to create the severe problems the company faced. Any energy to confront the facts and deal with the real business problems was redirected at the plant manager.

Big Mistake Number 3: Passively sitting and waiting for a crisis (which many never come).

A passive, hopeful, wait-and-see strategy fails.

The CEO at an electric utility was actually looking forward to deregulation as a means of unfreezing a tradition-bound monopoly that was not adequately preparing for a more competitive future. But deregulation came slower than he anticipated and with fewer new freedoms. No crisis was thrust upon the firm. The enterprise continued to make money even as it turned slowly to lose market share in a post-monopoly world. The positive net income helped greatly in supporting complacency. In frustration, his change agents waited and waited for a powerful legislation that they knew must happen in the current year. But it never did, and the crisis never came.

Big Mistake Number 4: Underestimating what the people who would avoid crises at all costs correctly appreciate: that crisis can bring disaster.

Using a technology recently made available because of ever-shrinking microchips, a new competitor took away dozens of a firm's key customers. The crisis could have been anticipated. But the management believed that only an unexpected burning platform could help push a complacent organization out of its comfort zone, it didn't pay attention to the danger signs. Revenues collapsed, losses mounted, the stock tanked, people were laid off, and some good employees jumped ship. The platform burned for all but the most complacent. Yet the economic collapse meant there was little or no funding left for new plant equipment, a new IT system, and a new R&D effort, all of which were required if the firm was to leap into the future. Even the few employees who were mobilized into action found that the firm's needs were overwhelming. Morale sank. Losses continued to grow. Then the firm was bought by someone at a bargain price, someone who sliced and diced the company out of existence. In summary, a burning platform, yes; a changed organization equipped to meet the needs of the future, not even close.

Of all the risks associated with crises, this last one is obviously the biggest. Instead of creating a sense of urgency, you end up out of business. You don't find this happening often, because people sense the danger and work very hard to avoid it. But crises sometimes do cripple or destroy organizations. Here is the strongest demonstration yet that crises, though they can be highly useful, are not necessarily your friend when urgency is needed.

The bottom line

Don't be naïve. Management control systems and damage control experts serve a critical purpose. But don't let that blind you to an increasingly important reality. Controls can support complacency in an era when complacency can be deadly. Handled properly—and we know the rules for proper handling-a crisis can offer an opportunity to increase needed urgency, an opportunity that cannot be disregarded.

Best evidence available today tells us that crises can be used to create true urgency if these principles are followed:

• Always think of crises as potential opportunities, and not only dreadful problems that automatically must be delegated to the damage control specialists. A crisis can be your friend.
• Never forget that crises do not automatically reduce complacency. If not monitored and handled well, burning platforms can be disastrous, leading to fear, anger, blame, and the energetic yet dysfunctional behavior associated with false urgency.
• To use a crisis to reduce complacency, make sure it is visible, unambiguous, related to real business problems, and significant enough that it cannot be solved with small, simple actions. Fight the impulse to minimize or hide bad news.
• To use a crisis to reduce complacency, be exceptionally proactive in assessing how people will react, in developing specific plans for action, and in implementing the plans swiftly.
• Plans and actions should always focus on others' hearts as much or more than their minds. Behaving with passion, conviction, optimism, urgency, and a steely determination will trump an analytically brilliant memo every time.
• If urgency is low, never patiently wait for a crisis (which may never come) to solve your problems. Bring the outside in. Act with urgency every day.
• If you are considering creating an urgency-raising crisis, take great care both because of the danger of losing control and because if people see you as manipulative and putting them at risk, they will (quite reasonably) react very badly.
• If you are at a middle or low level in an organization and see how a crisis can be used as an opportunity, identify and then work with an open-minded and approachable person in a more powerful position who can take the lead.

Certainly we need to be prudent. But in a more rapidly changing world, finding opportunities in crises probably reduces your overall risk.

Reference: Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, October 8, 2008

Journaling

This article was written by Laura Villacrusis-Weaver, a leadership consultant with The Refinery Leadership

Partners, an international consulting company, in co-operation with Refinery co-principal Rosie Steeves

(rosie@refineryleadership.com). For more ideas about leadership development, visit

www.refineryleadership.com. This article was previously published in Business in Vancouver in July 2008.

A leader I used to work with amazed me once when he showed me his personal

leadership journal. His journaling wasn’t what amazed me--many leaders try this simple,

yet powerful development activity--but that the journal itself was so thick and well-worn.

He’d been writing in it at least once a week, he told me, for six years.

Many leaders start journaling with the best of intentions. They get into it for a while, at

least until “real work” gets in the way and their journal is relegated to a desk drawer,

mostly blank and completely forgotten. But my old co-worker would never dream of

burying his notebook, which he considers one of his leadership treasures. In fact, he

even takes it with him when he travels, for work and pleasure. I asked him recently how

he explains his commitment. “The act of writing helps,” he says simply. “It allows me to

act upon things swiftly and appropriately when I take the time to really sit down and think

about a situation. I’ve surprised myself many times with the different perspective I take

when writing my journal compared to just thinking through something.”

Indeed, journaling helps leaders become more self-aware, and self-aware leaders are

better able to adapt their behaviour to changes in the organizational environment, which

ultimately makes them more effective. All that from a little writing. Why then do so many

leaders give up on journaling? Why does one notebook collect insights while another

collects dust?

Journaling is a habit. Forming a habit requires repetition, and repetition is motivated by

positive reinforcement. In other words, leaders who don’t quickly see the benefits of

journaling aren’t likely to stick with it when time and energy becomes scarce. But

journaling is also a skill, and the benefits of a skill come quicker when we do it right.

Learn how to journal effectively, and the habit-forming benefits will soon follow.

So dust off that old notebook and see if a new approach can help you kick-start a good

habit. The more you do it, the more you’ll want to. Before you know it, that old journal will

have become one of your own leadership treasures.

The author has also suggested a three-part structure for effective journaling. If you are interested in going through it please send an e-mail to manedge@gmail.com or put in your request by clicking the Comments link below.

Crowd Surfing

The way people buy has gone through a massive revolution in recent years: thanks to blogs, review sites and chat rooms, we no longer have to rely on what a company says about its products and services — we can read what our fellow consumers think about what they’ve bought, and make our own decisions bearing those views in minds. The result? Empowered customers who know exactly what they want and who can now explore many ways to get it.

Many companies, however, just won’t accept that things have changed and haven’t adjusted their marketing efforts to match. In Crowd Surfing, David Brain and Martin Thomas explain what marketers, advertisers and brand specialists need to do to communicate with today’s savvier consumers. They include case studies of successes and failures from the business world and beyond, and interview leaders such as Michael Dell and Sebastian Coe to help illustrate their points.

About the book -

Crowd Surfing
Surviving and thriving in the age of consumer empowerment
by David Brain, Martin Thomas

£16.99
Available 1 Sep 2008 (subject to change).

ISBN 9781408105955
Format Paperback, 208 pages. Size 234x153 mm.

Are Followers About to Get Their Due?

Abraham Zaleznik wrote about "The Dynamics of Subordinacy" more than four decades ago. Fifteen years ago, Jack Gabarro and John Kotter published a piece called "Managing Your Boss," in which they advocated: (1) understanding your boss and his or her "goals and objectives, pressures, strengths, weaknesses, blind spots, and preferred work styles"; (2) understanding yourself and your needs, including "strengths and weaknesses, personal style, and predisposition toward dependence on authority figures"; and (3) developing and maintaining a relationship that is centered around such things as frequent communication, an understanding of mutual expectations, dependability and honesty, and selective use of "your boss's time and resources."

Now Barbara Kellerman in her new book, Followership, asks where leaders would be without good followers. This question may be particularly significant in an age when followers find it easier to organize, in Kellerman's opinion, "cultural constraints against taking on people in positions of power, authority, and influence have been weakened." Kellerman goes on to say: "The fact is that followers are gaining power and influence while leaders are losing power and influence." In fact, in recent years we have seen management experiments with teams in which it is difficult to identify a leader.

Kellerman describes five types of followers: isolates (completely detached), bystanders (observers only), participants (engaged), activists (who feel strongly and act accordingly, both with and against leaders), and diehards (deeply devoted). Dismissing the first two groups as antithethical to good followership, and by extension, potentially supportive of bad leadership (as in Nazi Germany), she focuses on behaviors of the other three types. Of these three, "participants" seem to me to offer the most potential for long-term, productive relationships between subordinates and their bosses, particularly in large organizations. Participants work hard either in support of or against the policies and practices of their leaders. As Kellerman puts it, "they care enough … to try to have an impact."

Clearly it's in the best interests of successful leaders to understand and capitalize on the needs of such subordinates. Leaders need to be constantly aware of something that several of us have discovered in our research: Every decision made by a leader is judged by 10 or 15 subordinates, who regard the "fairness" of those decisions as one of the most important factors in the quality of their work life.

References:

1. John J. Gabarro and John P. Kotter, "Managing Your Boss," Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1993

2. Barbara Kellerman, Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008)

3. Abraham Zaleznick, "The Dynamics of Subordinacy," Harvard Business Review, May-June, 1965

4. Jim Heskett, Are Followers about to get their due Harvard Business School Working
Knowledge, July 3, 2008

What do you think on this subject?

Are You a ‘Vigilant Leader’?

Writing in the Spring 2008 issue of MIT - Sloan Management Review, George S. Day and Paul J. H. Schoemaker talk of vigilant leaders. Vigilant leaders are those who make a practice of being abundantly alert and deeply curious so that they can detect, and act on, the earliest signs of threat or opportunity. They seek to nurture equally vigilant employees by modeling such behavior and by providing incentives for managers to look for — and interpret — weak signals.

While such icons as Andy Grove and Jack Welch exemplify vigilant CEOs, the trait remains in short supply. That is a conclusion the coauthors reached after surveying 119 global companies about their overall capacity for diligence. Among their findings: Just 23% of the businesses were run by CEOs who tried to pick up weak signals from the periphery. Most leaders, they theorize, rise to the top by demonstrating superior operational skills.

To help leaders recognize and develop the habit of vigilance, the researchers examine in detail the three traits that characterize vigilant executives: focusing externally, applying strategic foresight and encouraging exploration by others. They also capture such leaders in action and provide examples in which a distinct lack of vigilance has led companies such as The Coca-Cola Co. to “miss the boat” by overlooking big opportunities. Companies like General Electric Co. and Johnson & Johnson have instituted systematic programs to instill employees with the qualities of vigilant leaders. The CEO of Denmark-based Novozymes A/S is curious, fast and enterprising, an attitude he nurtures in his workers. Organizations may encourage vigilant leadership by hiring specifically for it or by openly rewarding displays of it.

Whatever strategy CEOs choose, the authors find that it is critical for them to set an example. After all, it is only through vigilance that companies can avoid hidden dangers — and discover opportunities ripe for innovation.

Impatient people are terrible procrastinators

If you’ve found yourself putting off important tasks over and over again, it’s time you consult a psychologist.

Going by a new study, you may be suffering from a condition that can require therapy. A team of international researchers has found that procrastinators are impatient people.

In fact, they have traced a clear link between the two opposite traits which are “actually different aspects of the same condition.”

“Procrastination seriously affects our productivity at work and can cost people considerable amounts of money as they postpone work indefinitely.

“People don’t want to procrastinate — it is just that their impatience gets in the way, researcher Ernesto Reuben of the Kellogg School of Management told The Daily Telegraph. — PTI

Ref: http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/11/stories/2008021156502000.htm

For the full paper, send a mail to manedge@gmail.com

Information Dissemination

It’s critical to distribute information quickly and reliably throughout an organization. Today, e-mail is the primary means of information dispersal, but is it the most efficient? In their paper titled Productivity Effects of Information Diffusion in Networks, the authors – Sinan Aral, Erik Brynjolfsson and Marshall W Van Alstyne – analyzed 10 months’ worth of e-mail (more than 125,000 messages in total), as well as five years of revenue data and employee interactions at a mid-sized executive recruiting firm. They identified two types of information that employees shared with one another. The first was “event news”: simple, declarative messages, about such news as forthcoming layoffs or a significant change in top management, that were spread both vertically and laterally throughout the organization in a rapid and pervasive manner. The information moved quickly among employees with little regard to reporting relationships. The second type was labeled “discussion topics”: more specific and procedural communications, with the information tending to be more complex and relevant to accomplishing specific tasks. Discussions were influenced by functional relationships and the strength of ties between people. This type of information was shared by colleagues who worked closely together and moved vertically up and down the organization.

The report concludes that email was valuable in the organization in two areas. First, fast access to information via e-mail increased the number of projects completed by each individual, and second, the receipt of new information communicated via e-mail contributed to additional revenue generation.

Bottom Line: The relationships among co-workers and the way they communicate and spread information is a highly significant predictor of worker productivity. +

This is a summary of an article published in the Recent Research section of Strategy+Business, Winter 2007 issue.

The full paper is available online at http://ssrn.com/abstract=987499