Cultivating the Art of Leadership

Quick. Think of someone who you think is flat out "wrong" about something. How does that make you feel?

It's funny how we torment ourselves with instant replays of all the ways others "don't get it" or are "causing problems."

I had a client last week complaining bitterly about "the boss," who was clearly "wrong" and my client was clearly "right." Making the case for being right, however, wasn't making anything feel any better and conflict in the workgroup continued unabated.

Ever been in that situation?! I have--way too many times. Perhaps that's why I'm endlessly fascinated by the nature of "difficult conversations."

I often work with clients to trace their own "path to action" (this is a great model from Crucial Conversations that helps people detangle facts from stories and identify feelings that unconsciously drive actions). Here's what the model looks like:

See/Hear (the Facts) --> Tell a Story --> Feel --> Act

When we're tracing another's path to action, it's helpful to assume the other person is a reasonable, caring person whose actions make perfect sense--at least from their unique perspective.

The client with the boss who was "wrong" just couldn't see his boss's recent actions as reasonable or even worthy of respect, so we had a rough start. With some effort, my client realized that he could empathize readily with a perfectionistic (and highly efficient) colleague who was causing a lot of interpersonal conflict. But he could not empathize with his boss, who was taking a stand for a more collaborative culture, until he understood the logic of his boss's different perspective, feelings, and actions.

I asked this quite liberal client to take a novel assignment, namely to trace the path to action by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran's disputed election of 2009--while holding him as a reasonable, caring person taking logical steps, all based on Ahmadinejad's unique perspectives and feelings.

My client was silent for a minute and then said, "This will be hard, but a really good exercise."

Later, when we returned to the situation with the boss, I playfully remarked that as his kids become teenagers, this "path to action" exercise might become a favorite of his. He laughed.

Some have called the "path to action" exercise the "empathy game," finding it far more interesting to discover (and appreciate) the missing link that makes another's path to action "reasonable" and even "caring"--even if that caring is not expansive enough to include you or the action is hurtful or downright destructive.

Our own work on this ultimately helps us become more expansive, more empathetic, and thus more able to find common ground. Try it and let me know how it goes.

Broader cultural currents always affect patterns in coaching.

Flush times tend to bring more work around career progression, with questions around how to get to the next level, how to lead more effectively, and how to have work/life balance amidst a flood of opportunities. Moods tend toward those of optimism and ambition, and there's a huge focus on how to manage all the things "happening out there."

Attention is on external events and interactions, as in a fast-moving game, where you must understand the rules, react to surprises, and work on doing things faster and better in order to win.

Economic downturns change everything. Moods become more serious and contemplative, and there's a new focus on what is personally meaningful. Questions turn to things like purpose and calling and how to live and work in more wholehearted ways. Attention shifts from the external to the internal.

The reason? When possibilities abound and we focus on external things, we can mobilize ourselves into action based on reacting to countless, often entertaining and sometimes maddeningly complex, stimuli. When possibilities narrow and there is less to react to, we have to find a new source of energy, which comes from being moved by what is meaningful internally.

I have coached many leaders who have been looking for meaning in all the wrong places, namely from good ideas (head) and have found themselves immobilized. The reality is that meaning comes from feelings (heart). In business and in academic institutions alike, though, we are encouraged to keep things "rational" and pay little attention to emotions.

Alas, only emotions have the power to touch us, to move us, to propel us in a new direction and to take new actions. And, when in doubt about how an opportunity really moves us, we can assess alignment through the body (gut), which acts like a veritable polygraph for feelings as well as facts.

We have a saying in coaching that "the body never lies." Turning to the body not only yields breakthroughs in stalled searches for meaning but also vastly shortens the process, a benefit that makes somatic elements of coaching enormously powerful for clients.

A downturn like this one offers the opportunity (forced or seized upon) to slow down, reconnect with what's important, and be moved into action from a more wholehearted and thus energized place.

And, if you're having trouble, contact me for a complimentary session to explore and align your own three centers of wisdom (head, heart, and gut).

A good problem to have. Two big career opportunities, one unexpected. That's the conundrum an executive client faced yesterday. The stakes are high, as going in one direction will most likely permanently cut off a whole line of possibilities on the other side. How to decide?

Often when we're indecisive, we're ignoring signals from one of the centers (head, heart, gut). It's common to hear clients lament "not knowing" when facing decisions that have substantial upside and downside.

More impulsive (reactive) personalities struggle with containing the energy that builds rapidly and feels like an imperative to "do something" now.

More contemplative (withdrawn) personalities struggle with feeling enough energy to act with confidence and can risk staying stuck in the wrong situations.

Whatever the style, whenever we feel "of two minds," we're ignoring information from one of the three centers of wisdom.

Yesterday, my client reported being "jump out of my own skin" excited by an unpublished opportunity that had emerged from contacting one of his former employers about being a reference for a position for which he was being heavily recruited. The idea of being wanted and the possibility of working in his former organization, where he has an existing and quite strong network, got his adrenaline going.

We just completed private leadership intensive, focusing on his signature strengths (things he does well most effortlessly), values (what makes him feel good about the way he lives and works), and authenticity (showing what's inside to the outside). We discussed how seductive prestigious offers can be and how, without alignment with what he cares about and what he does most naturally, he can end up restless and not completely fulfilled. We practiced re-centering under stress or pressure to go against his values.

Yesterday, when we reviewed his thinking about the different career opportunities, it was clear that the old status and prestige melody was animating his feelings of excitment. However, his body was extremely tense. When asked to describe the sensations in his body, he mentioned having a headache, tense legs and abdomen, clenched fists and teeth, high and shallow breathing, and a knit brow. Classic fight or flight responses (fight for prestige/flight from one opportunity or another).

We explored what was missing and he concluded that he was still rigged to say "yes" (fight) for the wrong reasons, and that while his thoughts were all positive, his body (gut instinct) was holding the tension, signalling conflict with important values. Thinking, feeling, and instinct were not aligned.

I guided him through a re-centering exercise that involves relaxation through mindfulness, tuning into sensations systematically and allowing deeper, slower breathing to relax the body's fight/flight response. It only took about 5 minutes, but the shift was profound. My client felt more spacious, more able to think strategically and more inclusively, and more prepared for his next conversations.

His comment: "I no longer feel at war with myself over this decision. This was really big. Re-centering is something I need to practice a lot more."

Yes, indeed, the case for practicing -- tuning into the center we each least use yields huge benefits. Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing about his more centered decision.

Story is an ongoing interest of mine: how people use stories (or not) to enroll others, to get funding, to build support for new initiatives, etc. The latest book I've been reading is The Secret Language of Leadership by Stephen Denning, who is the former program director for knowledge management at the World Bank.

Denning's opening story is how, when a new World Bank president came onboard, his and many other directors' jobs were being reassigned to others. Denning reports that "There were no specific positions available" and that he was told to "look into information," a low-prestige backwater of the bank back in the mid-90s. Despite much discouragement from directors above him, Denning investigated the world of information and information sharing.

Ever optimistic, Denning pulled off a surprising move -- transformation of how knowledge was shared across the bank and with clients in third-world countries. To do so, he had to persuade skeptical, change-resistant senior managers of the value of knowledge management.

As I was reading, I remembered being in the middle of the knowledge management challenge at Lotus/IBM, in the Consulting division, at precisely the same time in 1996. Denning's story was incredibly similar to the stories our consultants told of knowledge management champions they were working with at client organizations. Anyway, I digress.

I found the "Ten Mistakes Transformational Leaders Make" quite interesting as the story behind the list is of Al Gore's candidacy for president in 2000 (Denning contrasts Gore's mistakes in 2000 with how he got it all right in 2006 with An Inconvenient Truth) :

1. An Unclear, Uninspiring Goal (Gore talked about 11 programs in 90 seconds of his first debate -- ahem, about ten too many - so if you're thinking about sharing all the important initiatives you've been strategizing on, think again and stick to one!).
2. Lack of Total Commitment for Change (Gore was guarded about sharing his sense of humor and the things he was passionate about and ended up coming across as wooden and less than fully behind himself much less his change platform -- so if you habitually reign yourself in and try to keep the conversation rational, your audience won't see a full sense of commitment).
3. Incongruent Body Language (Gore had a lot of experience but didn't come across as the poised, seasoned politician that he was, but instead sounded hurried, used excessively combative language, and used condescending body language-- as I so often mention to clients, it's not cheating to do a dry run of an important conversation or presentation and get feedback on how others receive the messages you're sending).
4. Misreading the Audience (Gore was proposing to "fight" for a lot of things at a time when people didn't feel so dissatisfied and on topics that weren't at the top of their agendas and thus lost his audience -- so, do as Lincoln used to do, spend 1/3 of your time on your content and 2/3 of your time on understanding how your audience is listening).
5. Lack of Narrative Intelligence (Gore told stories with confusing or discordant details that made listeners consider the stories implausible -- Denning goes on to illustrate that there is a pattern to good narrative)
6. Not Telling the Truth (Gore was pinned with a reputation for exaggerating and it lost him credibility points that he genuinely deserved -- so, when the stakes are high and your audience is not yet convinced, any exaggeration can be magnified in their minds as being untruthful).
7. Attention Misdirected (Gore told stories that did not make the case for his proposals and often inadvertently made the case for his opponent's points -- so, while stories are powerful attention grabbers, their inherent logic must support your case).
8. Inability to Elicit Desire for Change (Gore failed to get people's attention in positive ways -- ah, the problem-solving mentality is the culprit here, when all the research shows possibilities are far more inspiring and compelling than problems).
9. Reasons Backfired (Gore led with a rational approach and failed to make emotional connections first, the more reasons he offered for his proposals without an emotional connection, the more he started an argument with his audience -- hmm, I've been there, and so have most of my clients, attempting to persuade through reason and clueless to the need for more emotional connection!).
10. The Conversation Died (Denning states that "leadership communications begin as a monologue. If they are successful they turn into dialogue and then into conversation" and noted that Gore failed to get much past monologue -- alas, this is another common problem in intellectual circles, too much telling and not enough conversing to create ownership).

While Gore lost in 2000, he went on to become a rock star success story, no longer making the mistakes above, with his green revolution theme in An Inconvenient Truth.

We're in the middle of an historic presidential election that is all about change, between candidates from very different generations and with very different styles (McCain from the Silent Generation and Obama from the 13th Generation -- see my childhood friend's, Jamie Stiehm's, essay on this generational topic in US News & World Report).

See if you can detect which mistakes each of these candidates have made/are making and drop a line with your comments here or to me directly!

It seems like a lot of folks in my practice are dealing with major life changes of late. Happiness is the big topic (or longing) that often comes under cover of "figuring out what's next."

Relationship questions. Job questions. Fulfillment questions. Underneath them all is how to be happier in this lifetime, given these (many, many) options, and given uncertainty about "what it will be like" with a different scenario.

With all of these questions, the answers are to be found not so much in what feels good immediately as in what is meaningful and even challenging.

In Authentic Happiness, by Martin Selignman, there's a great story about a lizard dying of hunger no matter the number of flies, insects, mango pieces, or other food offered. Then, the owner dropped a New York Times over a ham sandwich in the lizard's cage and the most surprising thing happened:

"The lizard took one look at this configuration, crept stealthily across the floor, leapt onto the newspaper, shredded it, and then gobbled up the ham sandwich. The lizard needed to stalk and shred before it would eat...Hunting, it seems is a lizardly virtue. So essential was the exercise of this strength to the life of the lizard that its appetite could not be awakened until the strength had been engaged."

Follow your bliss. Follow your strengths. Same thing. We're most alive and happiest when we're engaging our signature strengths. We feel deadened (depressed) when our most favorite strengths are not in play.

If you're wrestling with a "happiness" question, think about your strengths, what you love doing or experiencing, and where you find flow. Consider how your strengths play into your various options, how your options will allow you to build on your strengths even. And choose accordingly.

You may just find that time dissolves, that work seems like play, and that relationships seem like gifts. Sounds like happiness, don't you think? :-)

I moved a lot as I was growing up, but California was always home base (Santa Monica primarily, but also Huntington Beach and Santa Barbara). After I went in the Navy, my family moved to Florida, which never felt like home. So, I've had an endless interest in (longing for) community.

While in San Francisco recently, Peter Block's new book title, naturally, caugh my attention: Community: The Structure of Belonging. Here's how Block opens his new book:

"Whenever I am in a neighborhood or small town and see empty storefronts, watch people floating aimlessly on sidewalks during school or working hours, pass by housing projects, or read about crime, poverty, or a poor environment n the places where our children and our brothers and sisters live, I am distressed and anguished. It has become impossible for me to ignore the fact that the world we are creating does not come close to fulfilling its promise.

Along with this distress comes the knowledge that each of us, myself included, is participating in creating this world. If it is true that we are creating this world,then each of us has the power to heal its woundedness. This is not about guilt, it is about accountability. Citizens, in their capacity to come together and choose to be accountable, are our best shot at making a difference."

The opening page had me. Block went on to say "Belonging does not have to be left to chance."

Block talks about how leaders of communities are essentially social architects, creators of public experiences and interactions, and managing the social space within which transformation occurs organically, where the focus is on possibility and not problems, and where people not only belong, they also feel a sense of ownership (with the challenges ahead belonging to them).

Block posits that Questions Are More Transforming Than Answers and distinguishes between questions with little power (e.g., how do we get people to show up and be committed, etc.) and those with great power (how valuable do you plan for this effort to be, etc.).

Block argues that "Powerful questions are the ones that cause you to become an actor as soon as you answer them." He writes: "Community will be created the moment we decide to act as creators of what it can become."

Block makes the case for the MORF process I frequently use with my clients (what do I want more of for Myself, the Other person, the Relationship, and the Future?). By moving from complaints, by bringing longings into language, we can shift our own physiology and the hearts of others in the direction of a vision for what is possible.

Block's book is compelling and practical (check out the Book at a Glance section with its terrific sample questions for generating genuine community conversations -- around ownership, commitment, dissent, and gifts).

Highly recommended for anyone working on change initiatives!

On a separate note, I was delighted to see my friend, Allan Cohen acknowledged by Block as "the best business strategist I know."

Labels: Community: The Structure of Belonging

Many people come to coaching for help in defining and going after what they want. The tricky part is in wanting many things, having some of those things in conflict, and getting stuck without a lot of progress on what we want.

My teacher, Daniel Silberberg, has our group working on being clear about what we want, with the following four questions the core of our reflection and writing assignment for the week:

1. What do you really want?
2. Are you doing your best at what you want?
3. Are you doing it now? (versus putting it off)
4. Are you being yourself?

I've always been able to go after things in life, whether building a business or becoming a coach or designing a physical space. Knowing what I wanted didn't seem so hard when it came to doing something.

Now, what I really want is to cultivate a deeper ground of being, a presence that both I and my clients can always relax into, a clarity that comes from a quiet mind, a creativity that comes from being truly open.

If that's it, then on to the next question. Am I doing my best? I have been traveling a lot and not making my group's sitting on Thursday nights, even when I am in town. On the other hand, I am sitting more regularly and looking forward to a silent retreat the first week of July at the Insight Meditation Center.

My practice is deepening, but am I doing my best? It's a provocative question, one which Daniel frames in terms of excellence a la the martial arts or training to compete in anything (chess, rock-climbing, etc.).

Part of what kept getting in the way of doing my best was how I addressed family health issues over the past two years (my dad first and then my mom). How I kept throwing myself at their health, happiness, and well-being, with lots of pushing and prodding and a burning desire to alter their defeating behaviors and plenty of suffering on my part when they didn't change.

While I grew closer to both of my parents, I grew more distant from myself. Time to undo that distance.

Daniel's questions this week are grounding: What do I want? Am I doing my best? Am I doing it now? Am I being myself? Good questions to reconnect with both our longing (what we want) as well as our commitment (for the sake of what would we do our best and do it now?).

Reflect on them yourself for a week and let me know what you learn.