Monday, December 19, Maddie and I will be interviewed by Michelle Price on her “Breakthrough Business Strategies” radio program, talking about our Humanize book. You’ll be able to listen either online or on the phone, and I think you can submit questions via twitter, using the hashtag #BBSradio. And if you haven’t picked up your copy of Humanize yet, Michelle will be rewarding three of the listeners of the show with a free book.
The interview will air LIVE at noon eastern time on Monday the 19th. Please join us!
Duncan Watts has a great blog post on HBR that talks about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Specifically, he has noticed how perplexed many of us are by the fact that the movement itself has no single, identifiable leader. How can it continue without someone to set a direction and lead the people there?
Interestingly, Watts points out that we don’t make the same demand of a forest fire. It’s the systemic conditions that caused and sustain the forest fire, so that single spark that set it off really isn’t the issue. But it’s hard for us to see a human endeavor that way. Our culture has been so saturated with the myth of the heroic individual leader, that we demand to see what we are expecting, even if it doesn’t make sense. In fact, if we don’t see it, we may dismiss what we are seeing altogether:
With no one figure to credit or blame, with no face to put on a sprawling inchoate movement, and with no hierarchy of power, we simply don’t know how to process what “it” is, and therefore how to think about it. And because this absence of a familiar personality-centric narrative makes us uncomfortable, we are tempted to reject the whole thing as somehow not real. Or instead, we insist that in order to be taken seriously, the movement must first change to reflect what we expect from serious organizations — namely a charismatic leader to whom we can attribute everything.
It is time to wake up. It is time to start understanding what we are seeing in our world, rather than only looking at the parts that we already understand. This is particularly important for leadership. The individual-centric model is not cutting it. We need to stop demanding that our “leaders” be in control of everything and lead us in that hierarchical way. Watts predicts that if the OWS movement grows bigger, we will end up getting that leader or focal point that we want
Leaders, in other words, are necessary, but not because they are the source of social change. Rather their real function is to occupy the role that allows the rest of us to make sense of what is happening.
I think the top of the hierarchy is less about controlling/directing and much more about helping everyone else make sense of things. They are the keepers of the story. We make sense of the world through stories. That is the human way. We can’t help it. For our collective efforts to be successful, we need leaders who understand story and can use it to set a clear context for the rest of us to take action. We need really good people at the top of our hierarchies. We just need them to be doing different things than most of them are doing right now.
I suppose that sounds obvious, but when I talk to people about changing the way they lead and manage organizations, I’m not so sure it’s that obvious. Instead, there seems to be a default assumption that in the future, management will look roughly like it does today, except that somehow it will be better and people won’t be so unhappy in organizations. If I present an idea that is substantially different than today’s practice, it is almost always met with doubt and suspicion.
This is holding us back. I’m not sure how we got to this place, where it is literally difficult for us to imagine a management that is different from what we already know. But it’s a real problem.
I got excited reading Gary Hamel’s cover article in HBR this month. He has an awesome case study of an organization that literally operates without a centralized cadre of managers to run things. I strongly encourage you to read it. It might hurt your brain, but that’s a good thing.
I know that if you look at the history of management, you don’t see much innovation. We ARE doing things roughly the same way we were doing them back in the 1950s, it turns out. But we are not confined to that fate moving forward. In fact, I think we are at a critical juncture where we MUST choose to change management in a significant way.
But that requires that we accept, as a given, that things will never be the same. I think that’s the jumping off point.
I’ve been pleased with the reviews that have been coming in on Humanize so far. We’ve got 11 on Amazon to date (but feel free to add one!), and a host of blog reviews as well. Most of them are from folks who know Maddie or me pretty well, and it certainly makes me happy that they are enjoying the book and finding it insightful and think it would be valuable for others to read. But last week, Danny Brown wrote a review that really stopped me in my tracks. He listed it as one of the top 2 books on social media that has been released all year.
Wow. And if you don’t know him, Danny Brown is kind of a big deal in the social media world. He’s on a whole host of top 10 blog lists in the marketing and PR space, and is author of his own book, titled The Parables of Business.
But it’s not his fame that really impressed me here. It was the way in which he saw value in the book. He liked the book because you could actually USE it. His frustration with other business books is that they come at you with unrealistic dreams and goals, or “fluffy bunnies” that imply using social media to talk to each other will make everybody rich. This was my favorite quote from the review:
Additionally, Humanize treats you like an adult. This isn’t a book that you’ll put on a coffee table for a quick read. No – this is a business book that you’ll have sat in your office along with numerous notes you’ve made from it to integrate into your business.
Integrating the book into your business. Love.
Now that I have a book out, I am experiencing a universal truth, which is that when you put your work “out there” it is no longer fully yours. The readers are entitled to take what you’ve written and experience it and use it any way they like. But it sure does feel good when their use completely matches your intention. Maddie and I want this book to be underlined, highlighted, and dog-eared. We want it to be out, on the desk and not the coffee table, read frequently, and, as Danny says, “integrated” into the business.
So thank you, Danny Brown, for spreading the word about the book and sharing with me a passion for actually making businesses better. And thanks to all of you who are not only reading the book, but using it to spark conversations and experiment with some new ways of doing things. Please keep me in the loop about how you are using it.
A few weeks ago, Maddie and I were interviewed about Humanize by Les McKeown. Les is a best-selling author of a book titled Predictable Success, and we were interviewed for his blog. I was really impressed with him during the interview. His questions were intelligent and showed how deeply he understood what we were talking about. I actually think he was more articulate about the book than I was!
So it prompted me to read his book, and I flat-out loved it. It’s called Predictable Success: Getting Your Organization on the Growth Track–And Keeping It There. I will admit, it sounds a bit too good to be true–achieving predictable success and then staying there. Really? Isn’t the world more complex than that? Aren’t half of the Good to Great companies now out of business? it seems like we’re almost destined to fail here.
I think Les would be the first to agree with me that predictable success is by no means an easy thing to do. But his arguments around predictable success are compelling. They revolve around an understanding of the different stages organizations go through in their growth. Predictable success is basically the apex of the curve. It’s hard to get to (you have to change and adapt as you move “up” through the previous stages), and it’s easy to fall out of (what got you there will naturally start to push you “down” into the stages of decline unless you work hard at it). That’s one of my favorite parts of the book. It recognizes the complexity and fluid nature of the growth pattern. There’s no one right answer–what you need will depend on your context. What worked before may be the opposite of what you need now. But he really zeroes in on some points that I also think are critical, like ownership, risk-taking, and innovation. I see why Les was interested in talking to us about Humanize.
The book is well written, engaging, and very clear. It’s the kind of book that makes me want to go out and talk to people in real situations about implementing the ideas. I highly recommend it.
That is the topic of a session I will be delivering at ASAE’s Technology Conference next week. As you may have guessed, I will be drawing heavily on the Humanize book for this one. In fact, this will be the first in-person presentation on the book for the association crowd. We’re told they will also have copies of the book for sale at the ASAE bookstore, so feel free to pick one up and have Maddie and me sign it while we’re there.
The session will go over the major points in the book, starting very briefly with a conversation about the real power of social media (hint, it’s not just about followers or friends) and a challenging conversation about some very deep problems we have in our organizations (hint, yes strategic planning is really dead). Then I’ll talk about the framework we came up with for changing your organization from the inside out so that it can be more compatible with the true power of social media. I’ll go over the four human elements of open, trustworthy, generative, and courageous and what they really look like in organizations. Then we’ll talk a little about the kind of change that is required to make that happen in your organization.
I’m really looking forward to the session. Mark your calendar: Thursday, December 8, 8:30 to 9:45am. Room 145AB. Yes, I got the early morning slot following the YAP party, so drink lots of water so you can stay focused on Thursday morning!
Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In
by Roger Fisher and William Ury
Penguin, 1981
This might be the oldest book that I’ve reviewed here on the blog–the original edition published in 1981. Yes. Thirty years ago. But this one truly is a classic. Remember that I come from the conflict resolution field. I got my master’s degree nearly twenty years ago, so I have done a LOT of reading and thinking in the conflict resolution field. And sometimes I forget that not everyone else has done the same.
So I am usually surprised by how “new” some of the ideas in Getting to Yes seem to a lot of people. Like the idea that it is revolutionary to stop arguing about “positions” in a conflict (I want the window open…no I want it closed) and instead focus the conversation more on the underlying interests (I want some fresh air…okay, but I don’t want a draft), because that leads to the classic win-win solution (open a window in another room). This stuff is second nature to me, but I get that a lot of people need to be reminded.
So pick up this book and read it. It’s short and an easy read and it will give you some real basic foundations for having better conflict conversations.
Check out this awesome presentation about integrating learning and work. This is precisely along the same lines as what Maddie and I talk about in Humanize. The fourth human element we talk about is Courageous. In creating a more courageous organization, the cultural aspect is “learning.” Learning needs to be baked in at the cultural level, and not just lip service to learning, where we send our people to a two-day training every one to five years. We mean learning all the time. We mean valuing failure and committing to experimentation. This image from the presentation really stuck out to me:
Work is learning and learning is the work. They are integrated.
Here’s the problem with committees:
They exist.
I’m only partially joking here. This comes from a comment I left on a post on Eric Lanke’s blog (which, by the way, has shifted from the Hourglass blog to simply “Eric Lanke,” so be sure to switch your subscription). He had written about an experience he had on a committee that wasn’t pleasant and was reflecting on how the Chair might have “lead” the committee differently.
But as I read what he was writing, I was coming to the conclusion that the very existence of committees was the problem, and debating how best to lead them was futile. This is not a new idea, of course. Jeff De Cagna wrote “No More Committees” in our “We have Always Done it That Way” book five years ago (yes, FIVE years ago!). I agreed with his point then, and I agree with it now.
But as I was thinking that, I also thought, wait a minute. Aren’t I a big fan of de-centralization? Shouldn’t I like the fact that we allow the system at large to have committees to get work done? Isn’t the alternative simply leaving everything up to the Board or the staff–making it all centralized?
No. This is one of the biggest problems facing the association world today. We are confused about decentralization. We argue that the members “own” the association, and our governance structure, including our standing committees, is part of that. It’s how we “engage” our volunteers in the work of the association. It’s how we “develop” our “leaders” by giving them the opportunity to show us they have what it takes to lead.
That is misguided. Committees, in that way, are miniature Boards. They just have a more limited domain (like membership, or education, or government relations, etc.). That is not decentralized. That is fractured. That makes things even worse because it gives the committees (and particularly the committee chairs) the notion that they are in charge of their domain (in a very centralized way). It takes “centralized” and reproduces it in multiple places. That is VERY different from decentralized. And I don’t think it’s a good venue for developing true, systemic leadership.
Decentralized means shifting power from the center to the periphery, but in a way that understands and honors the nature of the whole system to begin with. When we create islands of control in the form of committees, we are not honoring the integrity of the system. We are not shifting power to the periphery. We are praying that a blind delegation of very limited decision making authority will not come back to haunt us later as we implement our centralized plan. I think that’s what Jeff was talking about five years ago when he recommended getting rid of committees, and instead enabling small groups to form to solve specific problems for the association, and then dissolve. Or, as Eric said in a reply to one of my comments, they are called task forces and a lot of associations are moving in that direction.
Really being decentralized is going to look and feel a lot different. Committees (or task forces, or whatever you want to call them) are more likely going to emerge, rather than be assigned by a nominating committee. Leadership of those committees will not be based on the control and authority of a “chair” (since when is a chair a powerful thing? It’s an inanimate object!). Leadership will be more facilitative, because the goal is having a positive impact on the system, not ensuring that my committee gets an increased budget next year. We’re going to reduce the value we give to reports, minutes, and task lists, and we’re going to increase the value on communication, problem solving, and collaboration.
If this interests you, then start working on it today. Don’t abolish your committees (because they will fight you tooth and nail). Just start creating these new groups in parallel. May the best model win.
Whenever I get some time to think deeply about things related to the workplace, like how do we make work better, or what is leadership, or what is management, then I end up inescapably coming to the conclusion that is the title of this post:
We have no idea what we’re doing.
Sorry to be a downer, and I know I have a tendency to speak in hyperbole, but so much of what we do inside organizations, from the way we manage performance, to the way we set salaries, to the way we develop our strategy, to the way we organize our structure…all of this stuff seems so often to be made up. And what’s worse, we are all working together in a collective cover-up to our lack of knowledge. We create a very impressive facade that shows us all operating under “best practices” and tried and tested management techniques. But it feels like smoke and mirrors to me. It’s not all bad and wrong, by any means, but I still think we’re making it up.
I wish we could collectively admit that we don’t know what we’re doing. In Humanize, in the chapter on How to Be Courageous, Maddie and I point out that courage STARTS with admitting you don’t know.
You don’t know how it’s going to end. You don’t know if it is truly a best practice. You don’t know if she will say yes. You don’t know if the relationship will benefit their group more than yours. You don’t know if the strategy will be successful. You don’t know because you can’t know. The future is not knowable in that sense. Yes, you can do your homework and you can make informed choices (moving forward randomly isn’t particularly courageous), but you cannot know the future, and because of that, there is going to be fear. So to be courageous, you have to actually embrace the not knowing part. You start by being comfortable that you don’t know exactly where you are going to end up. And then you take action anyway.
Not knowing, but taking action. That is courage. But it starts with admitting you don’t know.
Jamie is a Vice President at MSP where he leads the consulting division. 
