Fighting Turbulence 2

When my children learned to climb trees, I always insisted that they needed to be able to climb down as well as up.

Gordon Brown is now being hailed as the only person capable of leading the British economy through an economic downturn.

"We would be mad to get rid of Gordon," said a minister, a Brown loyalist who wants him to lead the party into the next election. "There is no one else with his experience to get the country through the global financial crisis." [The Independent, 20 September 2008]

But experience going upwards doesn't imply expertise going downwards. We understand that the September 11th terrorists had learned to fly planes but not land them safely. Lots of financial wizards made money during the prolonged bull market, and then proved their incompetence and/or negligence as soon as the market faltered.

At the Labour Party Conference in September 2000, Brown promised the end of boom-and-bust. [Power to the People, 18 September 2008] And more recently, in March 2008, he promised to fight global financial turbulence. As Willem Buiter said in the Financial Times, welcome to a world of diminished expectations [FT August 2008 via Procrastinating Politicians]

Pearl Cornioley

How good are we at judging leadership qualities in advance?

When Pearl Witherinton (she later married her wartime fiance and associate Henri Cornioley) was being trained for her wartime role in the Special Operations Executive, her trainers had mixed feelings about her.

• "not having the personality to act as a leader ... subordinate"
• "probably the best shot - male or female - we have yet had ... this student, though a woman, has definitely got leaders' qualities ... cool and resourceful and extremely determined".

She was so successful running operations in France that the Nazis offered a reward of one million francs for her capture.

This raises an important question. How many people (lots of women obviously, but many men too) have been denied opportunities because of poor assessment of their leadership potential?

Sources

• War heroine 'not classed leader' [BBC News 1 April 2008]
• Wikipedia

Fighting Turbulence

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised that the UK and other EU countries will "lead the way" in fighting "global financial turbulence". [BBC News 17 March 2008]

I just did a search on a well-known Internet search engine for the terms "fight" and "turbulence" and found that all the hits on the first page are to this news story. Paging down, I find lots of references to the airline industry (a journalistic cliche), and a fictional character called Turbulence who (you may not be surprised to learn) gets into a lot of fights with other characters with names like Thundercracker and Firebat. Nobody else is talking about fighting turbulence.

If you are flying, fighting turbulence simply means getting to your destination despite the turbulence. But that doesn't seem to be what Brown means. It sounds like he imagines that he and Sunstreaker and a few others will overcome Turbulence with their bare hands, wrestle it to the floor and stamp on its face.

Good luck with that. But I am minded of a previous ruler of these islands, one King Canute, who tried and failed to fight the tides.

Rowan Williams

Rowan Williams (official website, BBC profile) is archbishop of Canterbury and "leader" of the worldwide Anglican communion.

There are currently strong issues pulling this communion apart, including homosexuality and the appointment of female bishops. In an interview for BBC's Heaven and Earth programme today, Dr Williams said that the church faces a fundamental rupture.

Voices on both sides have called for Dr Williams to make a strong statement to resolve these issues - preferably supporting their own position. Making such a statement would be regarded (by them) as "strong leadership".

Dr Williams clearly takes a different view of what counts as leadership. He has often spoken of the role of the shepherd, and apparently sees unity as equivalent to truth. So far he has succeeded in holding the Anglican church together. But if schism is inevitable, then the role of the leadership perhaps shifts from maintaining unity towards creating some looser structure that will continue to serve the same purpose. Leadership AND change.

Ted Cullinen

The architect Edward Cullinen lives in a house in Camden, North London, which he built in the early 1960s, over two years of weekends, with a little help from his friends. He was interviewed in the Independent Magazine, 3rd December 2005.

I particularly liked this quote, which seems to have a much broader relevance to leadership and change.

The trick of getting people to help you is to save the bits that give the most spectacular results for others and to do the boring bits yourself.

For the sake of gender balance, I should also include his wife's interjection

And put on plenty of big barbecues.

Homeric Leadership

Last summer vacation, I read the Odyssey, in Robert Fagles' excellent translation. This summer I read his translation of the Iliad.

In both books, there are parallel struggles between men and gods to master the course of events. We can see examples of both positional leadership strategies (taking a fixed position on some issue, and devoting one's energies to maintaining this position) and relational leadership strategies (trying to achieve desired outcomes by flexible interaction and manoeuvre).

	Iliad	Odyssey
Positional	Achilles - angry with Agammemnon - seeks to prevent the Greeks from winning the war against Troy without Achilles	Poseidon - angry with Odysseus - seeks to prevent Odysseus from reaching home safely	Achilles and Poseidon assume structural symmetry between challenge and response - an environment in which simple strength always prevails.
Relational	Zeus - manoeuvres between the conflicting interests of various gods to achieve the right balance	Odysseus - establishes friendly relationships with assorted people who help him reach home safely	Zeus and Odysseus exploit structural asymmetries in the environment, to produce favourable outcomes in more complex situations.

Updated: I have inserted the word "structural" to clarify what I mean by symmetry here.

Technorati Tags: asymmetry Homer leadership

Scoble attacks IBM

Two of the most powerful leaders in the modern world are faced with an interesting challenge to their leadership. Can/should Microsoft take a leading role in progressive social policy?

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer want (wanted) to support some anti-discrimination bill. But they've been warned off by the religious right. Or changed their minds. Or maybe that's what they were planning all along. Or something.

Steve Ballmer's email. Comments from some Microsoft employees: Robert Scoble, Steve Maine, Adam Barr.

Scoble implies his bosses are chicken - afraid of standing up for their beliefs. And of course at one level he is quite right - we must always stand for our beliefs - whatever they may be. This is endorsed by many non-Microsoft bloggers, including Tim Bray (Sun) and James Governor (Redmonk).

And of course the fact that Microsoft can accommodate this debate is itself a good sign. Scoble asks: "What if we were a company in Germany in the 1930s?" Now which computer company could he possibly be talking about here? Has he been reading Edwin Black's book, by any chance?

But besides the sideways attack on IBM, this example raises some serious ethical questions about individual leadership, corporate leadership and social change. Who is the "we"? Shall Microsoft collectively stand up for the opinions (however well-justified) of Bill and Steve? What are the principles of leadership and change that Ballmer and his supporters are using to justify his actions in this particular case. and are these principles applied consistently in other situations? Meanwhile Scoble is presenting an alternative moral leadership, whose force depends largely on the support he gets for his position.

Is it appropriate for a large corporation such as Microsoft to put forward its own policies and practices as a suitable baseline for legislation? Is this a reasonable way for a corporation to pursue its corporate social responsibilities.

Is it appropriate for a large corporation such as Microsoft to take sides on any controversial issue - given that there is no consensus among Microsoft's stakeholders (shareholders, employees, customers)? Is there a difference between lobbying for something that directly affects Microsoft's commercial position, and lobbying for something that Microsoft executives happen to believe in? Under what circumstances (if any) is it appropriate for the executives of a large corporation to make political donations?

By what process does a large organization determine its position on something controversial? Should all the members somehow have a say in the matter, or does the boss decide?

Alternatively, is it possible for corporate leaders such as Gates and Ballmer to hold and express personal positions on controversial issues, without these positions being automatically associated with their organizations? Or do we think they are so rich and powerful that their normal democratic rights should be restricted?

I should be inclined to criticize Ballmer, not for betraying the progressive cause of antidiscrimination, nor for being a wimp who has collapsed under pressure from religious groups, but for inconsistency. If Microsoft is going to avoid taking a position on anti-discrimination, where it has the opportunity to provide a good example of progressive policies, then how can it possibly justify taking a position on other controversial issues; and how can it justify diverting shareholder's money into the pockets of partisan interests such as political parties.

Companies often wish to present themselves as socially engaged and responsible, but this potentially brings them into conflict with some key stakeholders. Meanwhile, activists can often exploit the corporate desire to please everybody. What of Microsoft employees (such as Scoble) who regret Microsoft's failure to act on this occasion - are they always happy when Ballmer and Gates take a political position about something? Who is leading here, and who is led?

Update May 2005: Steve Ballmer clarifies the Microsoft position on public policy engagement. This is a different order of leadership. Congratulations to Microsoft, and congratulations to Ballmer, Scoble and the other participants in the debate.

Technorati Tags: Ballmer IBM leadership Microsoft Scoble

Presidential Strategy

Tim Bray heard the presidential debates in terms of marketing strategy.

Bush adopted a positional strategy. Stick to the message (a message he inherited from his father, along with a number of messengers). Consistency is everything. Repetition is better than hesitation; hesitation better than deviation.

In contrast, Kerry apparently follows a relational strategy.

Dialog on Leadership

This is a great website.

Claus Otto Scharmer of Generon Consulting and MIT has done a series of interviews with some extraordinarily inspired leaders. Joe Jaworski, Peter Senge, Lucy Suchman, Francisco Varela, and many more.

The interviews are illustrated by a series of paintings by Andrew Campbell FRA.

Brutality and Public Service

Will Hutton, Is Gordon ready to be brutal? Plans to slim down the civil service demand a management revolution The Guardian, July 14, 2004 [update: URL corrected]

Hutton uses this article to give a plug for a report from his own organization, the Work Foundation.

David Coats, Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency The Gershon Review: Public Service Efficiency and the Management of Change (pdf 150kb)

The Work Foundation paper seeks to downplay Choice, and replace it with some notion of Public Value. Does this mean that old-fashioned civil servants (Sir Humphrey, Lord Butler) know best? From the supply side, Efficiency appears to be in conflict with Choice.

But when we look at the situation from the demand side, there is no conflict at all - indeed, you can only achieve true efficiency by personalization and choice. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor both seem to understand this, but they are surrounded by people with a vested interest in the status quo.

Technorati Tags: choice efficiency

Jimmy Carter

In my post on Ronald Reagan, I referred to Jimmy Carter as bright. Donella Meadows praises his grasp of systems thinking.

President Jimmy Carter had an unusual ability to think in feedback terms and to make feedback policies. Unfortunately he had a hard time explaining them to a press and public that didn't understand feedback.

What to do when systems resist change; an excerpt from Donella Meadows's unfinished last book.

But it's a real problem for a leader if he can't explain his ideas, and can't get them implemented.

Transference and Counter-Transference

Transference

Within psychoanalytic theory, there has been a great deal written about the phenomenon of transference, where the client uses the relationship with the therapist to replace something else, and becomes as it were addicted to the therapy/therapist.

A related phenomenon also occurs with management consultancy.

Counter-Transference

Counter-Transference refers to the phenomenon where the analyst or consultant picks up feelings that are relevant to the interaction with the client.

An inexperienced analyst or consultant may allow these feelings to interfere with the consultation.

An experienced analyst or consultant may be able to use these feelings as useful pointers towards What Is Going On.

Transitional Objects

"Interestingly, consultants and other change agents often become transitional objects for their client firms: The client refuses to ‘let go’, and becomes crucially dependent on the change agent’s advice in relation to every move." [Morgan]

"In helping to facilitate any kind of social change it may thus be necessary for the change agent to create transitional phenomena when they do not exist naturally. Just as father or mother may have to help their child find a substitute for Teddy, a change agent - whether a social revolutionary or a paid consultant - must usually help his or her target group to relinquish what is held dear before they can move on. Significantly, this can rarely be done effectively by ‘selling’ or imposing a ‘change package’, an ideology or a set of techniques. The theory of transitional phenomena suggests that in situations of voluntary change, the person doing the changing must be in control of the process. … If the change agent tries to bypass or suppress what is valued, it is almost sure to resurface at a later date." [Morgan]

Links

• Psychoanalytic Definition
• Trust and Transference
• Transference Among People Online
• Metaphor as Transference

Leadership and Renunciation

Web searching for Leadership and Renunciation, I got lots of spiritual stuff. Plus commentary on Sonia Gandhi renouncing leadership.

Buddhist Leadership

Renunciation/Affirmation - A Vaisnava-Christian Dialogue

Price of Leadership: Emulation and Envy
S Leelavathi, India Times

Web searching for Burning Ones Bridges, I find lots of material advising against it. Web consensus (thanks to Google) is to leave your options open But then Google merely leads us into thinking with the majority.

The emphasis here is on what the leader renounces for himself or herself - including leadership itself. But my interest is on what the leader renounces on behalf of the group - deliberately closing down options in order to increase the focus and commitment of the group.

Ronald Reagan

Today America has been celebrating the life and works of its 40th president.

Some recent presidents and would-be presidents have been remarkable intelligent. Richard Nixon was bright, effective in many areas, but brought down by flaws in his character. Jimmy Carter was if anything even brighter, with a strong and visible moral code which his predecessors apparently lacked, and yet was completely ineffective as president. In contrast, Ford was often scorned for his lack of intellect.

Reagan changed the equation. He is widely seen as having achieved more in foreign policy than Nixon. His evident lack of intellect, although causing some derision in European circles, only seemed to enhance his standing in America.

Following Reagan, the intelligent thing seems to be to hide your intelligence. Bill Clinton was intelligent but didn't show it. In contrast, George Bush senior and Al Gore presented themselves as intelligent - which was perhaps evidence that they weren't intelligent enough - and were rejected at the polls. George Bush junior is clearly not as unintelligent as many people think he is, but he has learned the Reagan lesson well.

In American history, the preference for Character over Intelligence goes back to Washington.

Choice and action

Aidan rightly indicates that leadership often involves generating new choices for the people and organizations under this leadership.

However, we can sometimes be paralysed by too many choices. And in the consumer society we may have the illusion of choice.

Leadership also involves the renunciation of certain choices. Making commitments, burning your bridges. Perhaps this is what Aidan means by discipline, but I think that word sounds too static.

Leadership and Holes

We sometimes talk as if there is a leader-shaped hole at the top of each organization. Not all organizations have the same leadership requirements of course, but for each organization, there is a search for a leader who perfectly fits the leader-shaped hole.

Sometimes existing managers swell in importance to fill the hole, like balloons inflated in a small box. Sometimes a manager is recruited from elsewhere, and must be partially deflated before being stuffed into the box and pumped up again.

But such a leader is too tightly stuffed into the job to make any real changes. Surely this is not genuine leadership.

Awareness and Prediction

Aidan asks - do we want self-aware organisations or would we rather they stayed in a more predictable place?

Who then are the stakeholders for awareness and self-awareness? Who are the stakeholders for prediction and predictability?

There are clearly worlds in which these goals conflict to some extent. Meanwhile, there are worlds in which they are complementary.

When we inhabit a world with conflicting goals, should we expect our leaders to show us the way to a world where these goals can be reconciled?

Leadership and Simplicity

Leaders (both in business and politics) often insist on a simple view of the world. They adopt patterns of thought (such as either/or thinking) that more complex thinkers regard with suspicion or even contempt. Strong foreground issues are sketched against the vaguest possible background. For their part, leaders often impatiently dismiss more complex or precise reasoning, perhaps seeing it as a symptom of resistance to action and change.

There are two possible explanations for this phenomenon. The first is that leaders actually do have a strong and simple picture of the world. This may even be one of the characteristics that qualifies a person for leadership.

The second explanation is that part of the leadership task is the construction and propagation of a sufficiently strong and simple picture of the world to carry people and organizations forward. Perhaps some leaders privately cherish more complex and nuanced pictures of the world, but they believe it to be tactically unwise to share these complexities with the public, and discourage their immediate followers from discussing them. They may even practise the kind of mental self-discipline that suppresses their own doubts – thus edging us back into Explanation One.

In his last post, Aidan talks about leaders speaking only of measures and numbers. This may be part of the same phenomenon – the leaders only talk about what they are confident their followers and public can both understand and enact. Meanwhile, leadership is often only granted to those who are trusted to operate in predictable (low-level?) ways.

Fortunate indeed are the leaders whose followers and public can understand and enact more challenging material, such as purposes and values. Of course some wise and brave leaders may have a private intention to raise the level at which their followers and public can understand and act.

However, there are obvious difficulties to communicating such intentions in advance, except in the vaguest terms. A trusted leader may be given some licence to take an organization into unknown territory, but what if the trust is used up before the objectives are reached?

If we want to appreciate leadership, then, we need to pay attention not just to what leaders say, but also to what they do – inferring as much as possible from the behaviour of the systems these leaders inhabit.

Leadership of Change

Leadership is commonly divided into two types – transactional (maintaining the status quo) and transformational (changing it).

In today’s business world, Transformational Leadership is sometimes accorded higher status than Transactional Leadership. Change is valued for its own sake, and therefore managers who can stimulate, provoke and ride change are going to be the top dogs.

But do we want all our leaders to be Transformational?