Get Me Jamie Notter

Leadership and Change

Thanks to Kristin Clarke on Acronym for pointing to a good ChangeThis manifesto: People Don't Hate Change, They Hate How You Are Trying to Change Them. This is a free download, by the way (if you don't know about ChangeThis, go check them out). I read the whole thing--the title reminded me of the piece that I wrote for We Have Always Done It That Way that suggested change management programs should more aptly be called "change enforcement." There are several concepts worth repeating.

More on Less
Kanazawa hates the phrase "doing more with less" because he feels it unfairly punishes workers for the leaders' inability to prioritize. He suggests doing more ON less. That is, put more money, time, and attention on fewer strategic initiatives. This is a big one, particularly in associations. In general, I think associations try to do to much, and they are afraid to make bold strategic moves. Pithy quote: "is your goal to get the most out of your people or the best out of your people? You typically can't get both."

Leadership--It's Not About You
I also liked the systems approach to Kanazawa's view of leadership and change. He mocked the phrase "buy in." You don't need buy in when you actually engage the employees in creating the change. But most leaders don't like to do that because it means giving up control (a favorite theme of mine!). It connects with the definition of leadership that I like the most: leadership is effectively a capacity within the entire system. People with authority (those we typically call leaders) certainly have a unique role and responsibility, but leadership is not really "about" them. From the manifesto:

Leadership development often focuses on what we can do individually to be better leaders, such as being authentic, serving as a visionary, practicing good judgment, and holding others accountable. Those are all important skills and qualities, but not the best measure of leader- ship or how to unleash power in an organization for transformation or strategic change. ...

Leadership impact is not about how aggressive, decisive, and visionary you are, it is about 
how you bring that out in others.... If the leaders focus  on their own power only, the organization becomes underpowered. If leaders focus on growing leadership capabilities of those  around them, the organizational power grows and the leader’s power scales. The higher you move in your leadership levels, the more important it becomes to understand the  sharing of power.

Conflict Is Inevitable and Good

As I mentioned in the last post, Jim Stroup did a series of posts last week about conflict and leadership. It was based on his review of the work of Mary Parker Follett. I love to see the topic covered, of course, and I think Jim did a good job. Most of his (and Parker's) focus is on what I call the "agreement context" of conflict resolution. That is, conflict as viewed as two parties in disagreement about something. The traditional approach to resolving this conflict is hard bargaining where either one side wins over the other, or they end up compromising. Jim points to Parker's "integrative" approach, which is akin to Fisher and Ury's  classic "win/win" in what they called Principled Negotiation. From Jim's last post:

It’s worth emphasizing again that Follett promoted integration as a means of dealing with, or (better) of using, a conflict – not of avoiding it. Conflict, properly perceived and exploited, is a potentially positive contributor to the vitality and progress of the organization.

Amen, although I'd take out the word "potentially." The problem is not conflict. The problem is conflict avoidance. Conflict, it turns out, is both inevitable and good. Think about it: there is not a living system that doesn't have conflict in it. Why? Because you NEED conflict to grow and develop. What if you went to work tomorrow and everyone agreed with everyone else all the time. About everything. No conflict. Some think this would be great, but most come to realize that it would be very boring, because nothing would ever change. You need conflicting ideas in order to do the thinking you need to to move forward. The "next level" in an organization is not achieved by reiterating what you already know as truth. You need the real world to conflict with your existing view of the world in order to learn and grow. You need conflict with another person (or group) in order to deepen your relationship. A world without conflict is stagnant and boring.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we always handle conflict well. It's the history we all have of people yelling, fighting, undermining, etc. in conflict situations that leaves us with a bad taste in our mouths when we think of conflict. But it is important to separate out our ineffective management of conflict and the important value of conflict itself. Because when we don't (and think conflict is bad), we end up quite "rationally" choosing to avoid conflict, and that's what actually makes things bad. In avoiding, we miss the early opportunities to "perceive and exploit" the conflict appropriately. After things start to really fall apart we end up reinforcing our original view that conflict is "bad."

Breaking out of this cycle means moving towards conflict when you see it. It means bringing it up in that meeting right after everyone becomes awkwardly silent because the boss and the VP are in conflict but not talking about it. Move towards the conflict. If you're in a position of authority in an organization, you should work to make it clear that moving toward conflict is a good thing. Reward the people who do it.

I remember learning in the martial art of Aikido that many of the moves (which are all defensive; there is no attack in Aikido) involve moving closer to the oncoming attack. It feels counter-intuitive to move toward the fist that is aimed at your head (you move towards, but not directly at it, of course), but retreating from an attack (dodging while backing up) simply gives the attacker more time to change their attack. The safest place, it turns out, is right next to the attacker. Your gut says getting as far away from this attacker is the right thing to do, but in some instances, the best move is to get right next to them.

The same is true with conflict. In Aikido, of course, you need some skills to end up safely right next to that attacker, and the same is true with conflict. Learn conflict resolution skills. Learn to communicate more effectively in "charged" situations. And then go towards the conflict and move through it to the next level.

How Important Is Being Right?

Patti Digh said this today on Twitter: "What would happen if we could give up our attachment to being right?"

A powerful question, I think. And it reminded me that I had wanted to post about this topic. Before I went on vacation, I read a great post from Jim Stroup (whose blog is a giant VAT of great post about leadership by the way) where he was assessing the state of the dialogue about the meaning/definition of leadership. Here's his conclusion:

Here's where we are: No one knows.

Really. There is no consensus about what leadership even is, much less about who is a leader or what one does. Moreover, there is no commonly held vocabulary that facilitates productive discussion of the topic. And still, every voice emerging from this cacophony is imbued with unshakable certainty that it is the one with the answer.

That is a major problem: the assertion of certainty in an effort to distract attention from its absence.

Being right and having the (singular) answer is so important to us, that sometimes it can be distracting. Coming up with right answers is important, of course. If we didn't have the discipline to find right answers, our bridges would collapse. But there are times when it doesn't serve us. Where we need to simultaneously entertain multiple right answers. It may feel messy, but it can generate powerful insight and learning.

(P.S. I just discovered that Jim did a whole SERIES of posts about leadership and conflict--while I was on vacation! Reactions coming soon)

Vacation Post

I am on vacation at the beach in South Carolina. I haven't even been able to look at my work email. It's been great! So I don't have much substance in me for this post, so instead I'll just send you over to Lisa Junker's quick clicks post. It should keep you busy with good blog reading for a while (and thanks for the link, Lisa).

All I can provide today is a vacation haiku:

The waves ignore me
As I revel in their force
Wash ashore happy.

Language Can be Tricky

I stumbled across a few things this week that illuminate the importance of language.

The first was a funny website put up by Kivi Leroux Miller on "Nonprofit Buzzword Bingo." Buzzword Bingo has been around for a while--it was even featured in an IBM TV commercial. You hand out bingo cards with trite, over-used words or phrases on it and then mark them off as you listen to the CEO's speech. Miller just put in terms that nonprofits like, such as partnerships, core values, and owning a decision.

Of course, I commented to Kivi on twitter that I have written some articles that probably would have instantly won her bingo game. And Jeffery Cuffaude commented on Ann Oliveri's post about the subject that he can get cranky about conversations like this because "buzzwords to one person are often meaningful language to another."

That's an important point. It's a both and. If we spend time trying to convince each other that "component" is a good or a bad word to describe a chapter or otherwise affiliated organization, I think we end up missing the point. Sometimes "component" is going to annoy people as jargaon, and sometimes it will please people with its precision and clarity.

One trick is knowing your audience. Part of where we get into trouble is hanging around people who think and talk like us (like among staff at your association), and then trying to write for an audience who is different (like the members). I think corporate buzzword bingo emerged from the reality that the executives spent their entire world in meetings with other exectuives discussing big picture strategies, where those words meant something, but when the rank and file hear them, they laugh. Those words just don't have the same meaning in their world.

Language is important, so choose your words carefully and with intention. But make sure you have vehicles for feedback from your target audience, because choosing the perfect words matters less when your audience doesn't understand them. It's not about being right. It's about making a difference. It's not about answers. It's about the conversation.

Announcements

There's a lot going on, so let me run some of it down for you.

1. The ASAE & The Center Annual Meeting in San Diego is rapidly approaching. I'm not doing any sessions on conflict this year, but I am co-facilitating the annual "BloggerCon" (we achieved session status this year; no more begging for space) with Ben Martin. Yes, prizes will be available for men based on facial hair and women based on painted nails.

2. Once again, I am donating prizes for the Annual Meeting Silent Auction (I would put a link, but ASAE doesn't actually have one on their conference site. Sigh. Update: thanks for the link, Greg). They created a new prize this year: "consultants corner" where consultants can give their time away on specific topics in two hour increments. No bidding, just "buy now" for $250. I gave four of those--two to talk about generational issues, and two to talk about conflict. Check it out (and give me the link via comment, if you find it). I know Jeff and Mickie have donated as well.

3. One more annual meeting note: Young Association Professionals (YAP) will be getting together on Monday night of the Annual Meeting. More info at the YAP site: www.yapstar.org

4. Despite being behind in blog reading, I've been adding blogs to my reader, including a new blog from YAP superstar Elizabeth Weaver Engel. Check it out.

5. One blogger I can't keep up with these days is Maddie Grant. Feeling like she needs more to do, she's running for a Board seat at the Social Media Club, and the polls are open! So go vote for her.

It's Okay for Organizations To Die

Blogger Matt Baehr has been posting some interesting comments on Clay Shirky's book, Here Comes Everybody, particularly on the notion of self-forming groups as threats to associations. B-Mart has chimed in as well. When you read these posts, though, you have to read the comments (I really don't do that enough!) because there are great insights there as well.

For example, Greg Fine added this comment to Matt's post:

My question...why shouldn't some associations go out of business? The National Tie Association just folded. It was time, it wasn't becuase thier members could self form, it was becuase they were no longer relevant.

What social media is doing, in my very humble opion, is hastening the death of some organizations that need to die.

Of course, "going out of business" is never seen as a good thing. It is a failure, right? I guess, but I'm not sure why. It's like Jeff's quote about governing: the purpose of a Board of Directors is not to govern; the purpose is to create value for members. An organization's purpose is not simply to exist. If it's not creating value or it's not relevant, then it should stop. With Web 2.0, the costs of going in and out of business are being reduced dramatically, and that's a good thing. Maybe more organizations will "die" and go out of business, but in the end it feels like more lifeblood is being pumped into the system.

Focus on Others (You'll Get More for You)

Thanks to generations guy Andrew Krzmarzick for pointing to a nice article in Tech News World about using social networks (like Facebook) in a business context. It's a nice article to have on hand to those of you out there who get the push back when you talk to executives about social media initiatives. Granted, the author is a CEO of a technology company, but I think he makes some compelling arguments about why it's a good idea for just about any organization. One of my favorite quotes was this:

Often companies...spend a fortune on programs to try and force their people into a contrived "corporate culture" that looks nothing like what the organization's employees want.

My experience has shown that social networks deliver in several ways. First, they keep the most clever and creative staff members happy in their work, because they can multi-task, manage their lives, consult their peers, and feel somewhat free while spending long hours at their desks. Secondly, social networks facilitate the "informal learning" that is so crucial in any business environment, particularly in the world of high tech. The added bonus is that the subject matter experts are not limited to the people immediately at hand; they can be anywhere in the world, and they often are.

Happier people. More learning. Access to more resources. These are good things.

The theme that I want to pull out, though, is creating an organization that your employees want. I know there are bosses out there who would bristle at that paragraph. "You mean I need to create an organization that allows for my 20-something employees to 'manage their lives!?' Um...Don't they work for ME? Manage your life on your own time!"

Look, it's your organization and you can run it however you want. You can demand that all your employees work the way you would want to work, and a bunch of them will be fine with that. You'll survive. I would argue that your turnover rates are going to increase steadily, but honestly there are plenty of organizations that can handle those increased costs.

But why wouldn't you create an organization that gives employees what they want? In conflict resolution, I have to make this point all the time. When you are negotiating with someone, it is in YOUR interests to make sure THEY get their interests met. People don't like this advice. They don't want to spend their energy helping their adversary get what they want. They want to focus on their own needs.

That is the lesson: you are more likely to get what you want when your opponent is getting what they want. This doesn't mean you give in to all their demands (no, you don't necessarily have to order a foosball table for your employees), but you do have to be aware of what they want and why they want it.

Do you know what your employees want and why? If you did, you'd probably be able to give them much of what they ask for while still protecting your interests in running a successful organization. Facebook and social networks is just one example.

I think we spend too much time designing things and doing things overly focused on what we want. We make web sites that work for us (not the user), we create organizations that work for the organizers (not the employees), we create evaluation forms that work for the meeting planners (not the attendees). Of course we need to be clear on what we want and need, but that shouldn't be our focus. I think if you focus on others, you'll end up getting more for you.

Video: Not just Funny Stuff on YouTube

The Web is certainly known for things that get very popular and then disappear into obscurity. I've certainly heard people argue that much of Web 2.0 is just a "fad." I highly doubt it, of course. But I understand the skepticism. As I've said before, I used to think blogs were a waste of time, as I did Twitter, but now my own learning has grown significantly through my use of both tools.

And I'll admit I've been at least hesitant about the use of video as a communication/learning tool. For a while now, my biggest use of video has been watching funny clips on YouTube. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but will we really be able to harness video for more important learning?

Initially I saw many attempts that used video just because they could. They were videos of people saying things to me. Okay, but I could have been reading it. In fact, in most cases, THEY were reading it to me from a script. It's like those early podcasts where people were reading their blog posts. If it's just words, then a blog will do. The video actually has to enhance the words somehow.

The CommonCraft videos have gone a long way in demonstrating the power. Their "in plain English" series (blogs in plain english, rss in plain english, etc.) are great because they explain tough topics using video. The animations are incredibly simple, but they are critical to making the points. Writing it out or even just recording a podcast would not have been enough.

The best recent example of a really good video comes from Lindy Dreyer. She helped Jeff De Cagna re-establish the Association Social Media Wiki. Jeff started it as a place where one could keep track of all the different associations who were using blogs, podcasts, wikis, etc. in their work. I remember looking at it when there was only a very small list of associations who were doing anything.

I also remember being nervous that no one would enter anything on it, because it was a wiki. A number of  us used to joke, a few years ago, that the association community was so afraid of social media that if you said the word wiki too many times in a session, an association exec's head would explode (wiki...boom!). Even if an association wrote a blog, would they have the nerve to enter something in on Jeff's wiki?

I will admit that I was nervous about using wikis at first. I hadn't done it before, and I didn't want to make a mistake and look foolish, so it's easier just not to do anything.

So when he re-launched the Association Social Media wiki, Jeff enlisted the help of new blogging (and video) superstar Lindy Dreyer. As part of the re-launch, they put on the page a five-minute video of Lindy showing you how to do the basic pieces. Editing a wiki is obviously a visual thing. I am sure they could have had a nice FAQ page that instructed people how to search for their association and how to use the style templates, but I know if I were a newbie, I would have read the FAQ pages and still chickened out. But the short video made it crystal clear. The first time I saw that wiki I thought "Oh, cool." This time, after viewing the video, I was actually disappointed that I couldn't contribute, since my association has no social media initiatives. Talk about engagement! When was the last time someone went to YOUR website and was disappointed that they couldn't participate more on it!?

Lessons?

1. The video should be shot with the viewer in mind. Where will the viewer find value? What does the viewer need? Do it that way.

1a. The video shoud NOT be shot with the producer or content leader in mind. I've seen way too many of these. I don't care if you think it's cool to get your message out using video. If it's about you, I turn it off.

2. Learning is better than just information. Can they DO something after watching the video?

3. Real is better than staged. The authenticity of social media applies to video too. Even if it is rehearsed and scripted, it can be real. Make sure it is.

Open Conflict Among Senior Staff

Lisa Junker wrote a nice case study in the July issue of Associations Now about a CEO who is faced with two senior staff who engage in open conflict in the office. She kindly asked me to do commentary for the case study.

The article is, of course, in the magazine, but honestly I think it works better in the online format. In the magazine, the commentary (both mine and Cedric Calhoun's) is in green text to the side of the article. But you can't clearly see where my comments are meant to go.

Online, however, they add little cartoon bubbles at the end of some sentences, and when you put your mouse over them, the comment (from either me or Cedric) shows up. How cool is that!? (Note: it doesn't work in Safari, so Mac users should view it in Firefox).

View the online version here.

And please add comments (Lisa did a blog post on Acronym here) and rate and review the case study online.