Cultivating the Art of Leadership

In my last entry, I talked about the "structure of attention" being biological.

While walking downtown for a break, Tess and I were talking about attention and the "rocking chair syndrome," which speaks to structural tension that leads to unresolvable conflict.

Here's how it goes. Pressure builds up in a problem area. We "rock forward" to take action to relieve the pressure and prevent outcomes we don't want. Think of dieting or putting a budget together or investing in business development.

Our action is successful in relieving some pressure and we unconsciously "rock backward" and relax a bit. Think of indulging in favorite foods or buying high tech gadgets not in our budget or enjoying current customers instead of building new business.

Alas, pressure builds yet again, and the cycle of rocking forward and backward repeats itself. Our challenge is to build structures that don't create the rocking chair syndrome -- and to do so takes clarity on where we're going and why.

I can tell my own rocking chair syndrome stories.

When I started running my own businesses, I used to put off my bookkeeping endlessly (always something "more important" to do). I was committed to a beautiful office environment. I frequently raked piles of paperwork into a box and tucked it away for what seemed like archaelogical digs when I returned my attention many months later.

The pressure would build until I could stand it no more. I would do a marathon session to catch up (rock forward) and would feel much better. Then, I would do the same thing over again (rock backward).

Finally, I clarified my strategic goals for my businesses -- and knowing I couldn't scale with my old system, with its tedious detective work during tax season, I went to work on new structures.

The vicious cycle of "rake and regret" made a graceful exit at last. Even with business growth and the entrance of yet a third entity to track this year (my father's rather messy estate), I never reach the frantic places I used to reach.

One of my medical school clients complained about a repeating rut his management team found itself in. The department had more than tripled in patient visits over a decade, yet the management team had not grown commensurately. They "rocked forward" to solve HR issues that became urgent and "rocked back" with relief when crises were resolved.

Addressing the structural tension led to recruiting a skillful HR manager, whose charter is to be a chief people developer, with an eye on the organization's strategy of a new paradigm of practicing medicine, and not just a policy whip.

If you're in the midst of the rocking horse syndrome, it's useful to ask "what" before "how" questions:

• What outcome am I committed to creating?
• Given the outcome I seek, how will I get there?

It's simple but worth repeating. When things feel untenable, it's helpful to ensure our process is in service of our desired outcomes -- and not a rocking chair syndrome that simply relieves a little pressure (over and over, but with no forward momentum!).

Labels: Robert Fritz, rocking chair syndrome, structural tension

I subscribe to Brain Work: The Neuroscience Newsletter published by The Dana Foundation and the current edition has an article called "Cultural Experience Affects Perception" by Kelli Whitlock Burton.

Researchers in Illinois and Singapore showed young and old people pictures of objects on various backgrounds. Participant brain activity was monitored and researchers found:

1. Young people of both cultures demonstrated quite similar brain activity and areas of focus.
2. Older people, however, showed much greater variation in the parts of their brains that lit up for MRIs as they viewed the pictures.
3. Americans focused more on the objects in the pictures. East Asians focused more on the backgrounds of the pictures.

This is not a huge surprise (i.e., a Western focus on the "parts" and an Eastern focus on the "whole"). Still, Denise Park, senior researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, underscored that more than preferences are involved:

"These are the first studies to show that culture is sculpting the brain" and "that culture impacts individuals on a biological level."

The researchers concluded that different attention stems from different cultural biases, with Westerners being more individualistic and East Asians being more socially interdependent and contextual. No matter how we're rigged, we're missing a part of the picture.

Integral coaching has always made these assumptions, that culture affects perception, that perception is always selective, and that perception is wired into us biologically.

The pillars of leadership model that I use distinguishes three core leadership development streams (self mastery, social competence, and leadership presence), each requiring a different attentional lens (perception) and body of practices (biology).

For example, clients who are incredibly visionary and strategic or simply very ambitious and self-serving (who never lose sight of their goals) often need help developing more attunement to context within relationships and organizational culture.

Conversely, clients with exceptional emotional intelligence (who read subtle background currents and cues) often need help clarifying their commitments and eliminating distractions.

In integral coaching, we recognize that how we pay attention is actually structural, it's in us at a neurobiological level. Different parts of our brains fire up involuntarily, depending on stimuli, based on repeated habits of attention.

That's why lasting change takes time and practice (and patience with ourselves).

It seems like topics come in waves. Several clients of late, after successfully working on their professional relationships (with peers, with direct reports, with bosses) have found themselves out of gas, somewhat burned out, and wondering "is this it?!"

I came across a quote from "Leadership in the Balance" by Joan Gurvis (of the Center for Creative Leadership) that is germane:

"Balance is not a matter of managing your time or giving equal effort to two opposing sides; it is about aligning your behavior with what you believe is really important to you."

Many people feel that they need to somehow balance the heavy weight they are carrying with alternative and rejuvenating activities, but the very thought of adding more to their already full days is daunting.

Instead, the challenge is to our align behavior with our greatest longings. In so doing, we can stop fighting against ourselves, stop resisting doing what we're ostensibly committed to doing.

Aligning ourselves starts with a powerful declaration, one that we feel from the inside out and that orients us toward a future that is far from inevitable. Because of this, declarations are acts of invention versus description, where we invent a future we want to create and that others can support us in creating.

I often talk about the "man on the moon" declaration when describing the process for clients.

When John F. Kennedy declared that the U.S. would put a man on the moon, his declaration opened up possibilities for others to contribute to this dream. Engineering enrollments skyrocketed. Requests and commitments for NASA funding increased. Media coverage was ever-present. Public support ran high.

When I first started coaching in Utah, I had a lot of aspiring coaches seek out my services (I was known for entrepreneurship, branding, and marketing and had a thriving practice). A lot of people I worked with in the early days also had major personal relationship problems. I wondered if I was being called to coach coaches and/or specialize in relationship issues.

When I did my own declaration work, I ended up with a focus on leadership development. I've always worked for and with top leaders. I've studied leaders. My bookshelves are filled with leadership books. I enjoy strategy, whether in chess, tennis or business.

Gaining clarity on what I wanted to create also helped me be clear about what I wanted to say "no" to, freeing up energy from trying to "balance" so much.

While I still work with clients in the midst of marital problems and I still work with coaches, all of my clients are leaders who want to be better leaders. I refer out a lot of other opportunities (such as general training, consulting, and lifecoaching) and experience more joy by focusing on what I am genuinely committed to creating.

Such is the power of a powerful declaration.

My friend from childhood, Jamie Stiehm, stayed with me recently. She spent a decade at the Baltimore Sun as a reporter and earlier years covering Washington politics. Jamie has published more than 80 opinion pieces and has even written a play.

Never shy about dramatic touches, Jamie shares as much through her hands as through her stories. And, her stories center on people.

Whether reporting in 2007 on Jonathan Hamm's death in Iraq (Soldier steers out of trouble here, into deadly enemy fire in Baghdad) or on major political figures from her time covering Capitol Hill, Jamie has always oriented her writing toward the human element.

Often confessional (Capitol punishment: how the Hill's religion of the revolving door cost me my job in a Senate office) and at times controversial (Jamie is a "liberal's liberal"), Jamie has never been unclear that writing is her passion, her calling, her way to contribute.

I'll never forget sitting in Jamie's San Francisco apartment in 1989, after she had returned from a stint with CBS News in London. Jamie was working on an opinion piece about Virginia Woolf for the Christian Science Monitor.

Her piece had been rejected (again) by the editor, who nevertheless had seen something he liked in Jamie's work. This man, 3000 miles away on the other coast, repeatedly took time to pencil in his thoughts in the margins, giving Jamie valuable feedback, not once, but three times.

Jamie's piece was rejected three times before she finally got it published in a 2-page spread, complete with illustrations, in the Christian Science Monitor.

I remember being a little stunned by Jamie's tenacity.

Rejection is hard for most of us. Each rejection could have been the proverbial straw that broke Jamie's spirit. Instead, Jamie persevered toward mastery in her writing -- and in the art of getting published (she probably has close to 2000 bylines by now).

Jamie's story came to mind as I talked to her about my piece on "apprenticeship" and mastery and the distinction between "finding" a calling and "cultivating" one. Jamie nodded and shared the famous Quaker saying about how "way opens," which refers to finding ones path in life, when one truly engages.

My teacher, Daniel Silberberg, likes to ask people, "What is the difference between people who are successful and those who are not?" No Zen koan of a question, Daniel's answer is quite simple. Those who succeed persevere. They keep doing what they most care about and don't give up.

Indeed, the intersection of intention and repeated action (persevering) is where "way opens."

One of my colleagues, Tess Beasley, and I were talking about apprenticeship the other day over lunch. Tess remarked how much she's learned from working together so closely-- about marketing and branding, customer management, and business itself.

It's interesting how learning happens -- over time, through repetition, through experiences that challenge us, and through debriefs on how things work (or don't).

Often, we think of apprenticeships as something almost pre-modern, when young people studied alongside masters for years at a time to cultivate their own sense of mastery -- whether as painters, cathedral builders, carpenters or other artisans.

An apprentice is fundamentally a beginner, focused on learning a trade or occupation and accepting of instruction from the person teaching "the way" -- think: Jedi and Samurai as warrior examples.

In business, it's common to hear leaders talk about the dearth of "good talent" and the "lack of experience" when they try to fill open positions. And, it's not uncommon to hear twenty- and thirty-somethings say, "I'm not sure what I really want to do."

It seems that too few leaders are cultivating "the way" for the next generation, while too few young people are cultivating their own mastery.

Impatience comes in on both sides. I think it's our cultural penchant for discovery -- whether it's the newest superstar to recruit or the coolest new job to score, we often want to find rather than cultivate.

Alas, mastery in a "way" takes time. It takes deep soaking in a milieu of effort to understand hidden sources of cause and effect. It takes cultivation of real competencies as well as discernment.

In Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions by Gary Klein, there is a section that talks about the power to see the invisible, including:

• Novices are confused by much that happens to them because...they keep encountering events they did not anticipate.
• Experts can detect differences that novices cannot see, cannot even force themselves to see.

One of the strengths of an apprenticeship is the opportunity to learn how to see (and how to practice) in the ways that come not from theory or intellectual knowledge but from a deeper sense of cause and effect and how things work.

Funny. The topic of apprenticing seems to be in the air. In a client call today, I learned about an intriguing apprenticeship program -- for preparing candidates for CEO positions in hospital administration. Given the complexty of healthcare today, it's an encouraging story.

Given the dissolution of informal mentoring networks (through families and closely-knit communities), I wish for more of the same in other industries, and also for less senior levels too.

Condoleeza Rice is often defined by star status -- for her rock star quality, for being a rising star, for her star waning, for her star shining again. Rice's six years in Washington, have been marked by star power, for sure, but also by leadership troubles as well.

As national security adviser, Rice was criticized for not managing the conflict between secretary of state, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense. As secretary of state herself, Rice has been better at personal contributions than in building a strong team. And, Rice seems to embrace execution more than leadership, having stated, "I frankly prefer being coordinated than coordinating."

Commentators on both sides of politics have noted Rice's "weak bench," her loss of trusted advisers like Philip Zelikow before having replacements, and her inability to recruit and develop top talent to her staff. A World Business review noted:

"A stronger bench team might help. Having a weak one certainly is dangerous as any leader knows...(I)f she was a board director on US PLC, the CEO or chairman might at this point appoint a coach to soften some of her hard edges."

Such a coach would support Rice in becoming more reflective, more able to observe her effects on others, more attuned to the needs of others, and more able to cultivate a sense of esprit d'corps as well as excellence on her team.

However, in a New York Times article by Helene Cooper, "As Her Star Wanes, Rice Tries to Reshape Her Legacy," the author states: "Ms. Rice is rarely, if ever, self-reflective."
The author goes on to recount grumbling from Condoleeza Rice about requests for personal reflection and then cites friends of Rice who say that Condi "rarely questions whether she is right or wrong."

Leaders who are not self-reflective miss out on recognizing patterns that could reshape their actions and thus their legacy. They miss out on understanding their own mistakes.

Condoleeza's strengths are legendary - brilliant mind, determination, poise under pressure, enviable energy and enthusiasm, and even charm in some international circles.

The challenge for her is to understand where she's overplaying her strengths and turning them into weaknesses as a leader, but that would take a bit of honest personal reflection and a commitment to practicing a little "softer."

I wouldn't bet on that one unless, of course, she decides to run for office someday.

In my coaching tradition, we give equal emphasis to intuition (gut instincts, inner knowing) as intellect. Sometimes, when working with medical school leaders, steeped in empiricism, the case has to be made for "why care about that stuff."

I came across this fairly provocative statement in a New York Times article on Gird Gigerenzer's research on the nature of intuitive thinking when it comes to investing:

"(T)he intuitive wisdom of the semi-ignorant outperformed the calculations of the experts."

Apparently, the "go with what you know" rule of thumb leads to success in stock market picks. Researchers used stock picks from 360 random pedestrians in Chicago and Munich, none of whom were savvy about investing, and used the most frequently recognized companies to make a stock portfolio.

The result? This portfolio influenced by amateurs outperformed the stock markets in the U.S. and Germany as well as well-known mutual funds.

Having seen a lot of strategic projects unfold with and without the help of "experts" (often known as consultants or advisors), the best outcomes I've seen involved the influence of those who honored gut instincts about what was most important.

Whatever their roles or titles, these people were leaders who positively influenced success using intuition, leaders who trusted themselves and did not try to get to a decision through pure analysis.

For example, in branding initiatives in the high tech industry in the mid-1990s, I saw outside experts practically boil the ocean analyzing possibilities and meanings of surveys and focus group outcomes. Executives labored over many choices, spent a lot of money, and ended up with an over-analyzed set of decisions. Ultimately (and not too long after these branding initiatives), one company lost its autonomy in a hostile takeover and the other folded.

Meanwhile, another company with so-called schlockier branding was intuitively paying attention to all the right things with both customers and suitors and sold for many millions.

When it comes to decision-making, intellect counts, but so also does intuition, that ineffable combination of emotion and gut instinct that helps us know and "go with what we know."

If you're facing a major decision and it's gnawing on you in the wee hours of the night or waking you up early, chances are you're trying to make your decision with your head and would do well to learn to interpret versus dismiss the whisperings of your heart and the wrenching in your gut.