Instant Pudding Learning and Multitasking: A Leadership Challenge
If you ask me anything I don’t know, I’m not going to answer.
– Yogi Berra (former New York Yankees manager)
If you’re a young person (in your twenties), what’s your preferred way to learn?
How do you engage with older co-workers (mid forties-plus) in the workplace when it comes to learning or asking for advice? Or have you written off older people as has-beens?
If you’re an older Boomer (like me), what have you learned recently from a Gen Y or Gen X?
How do you interact with younger people at work?
The workplace continues to evolve rapidly, driven by an ageing population, technology and emerging competing countries through globalization. Unemployment in Canada and the United States remains stubbornly high, with little prospect of any meaningful declines for some time. Our two countries face serious long-term issues on competitiveness and standards of living.
One of the key distinguishing traits of organizations that are adaptive to change and where innovation flourishes is learning and knowledge creation. Lots has been written and spoken about on this topic, yet real progress has been stunted. One of the main barriers to progress has been a workforce that spans four, and soon five, generations, each of which has very different values and approaches to learning and work.
Corporate leaders need to understand both their (Baby Boomer) learning styles and those of Gens X and Y (though it’s important to note that Gen X is steadily taking over the management reins). The multi-tasking learning style of Gen Y, based heavily on digital technology, contrasts sharply with Boomers who still depend on traditional methods, such as hardcopy books, print media and bums-in-chairs classroom learning – where the learner is spoken to and not engaged reciprocally.
Gen X’s learning style is more or less a hybrid of Boomers and Gen Y; call them conflicted, though they orient themselves more to people interaction than Boomers.
As much as it’s laudatory that Gen Y just wants the bottom line, to get things done through their methods, of specific concern is how they’ll cope in a complex, rapidly changing world. I’m not talking about the use of technology or Gen Y’s superior ability to network and collaborate, compared to Boomers and Gen X. I’m referring to depth.
The ability to understand history and context is crucial for tomorrow’s leaders, whether in business or government. An excellent example is the 2008-09 financial melt-down in the United States.
Very, very few of those involved, in business and government, had any grasp on what led to the 1929 stock market crash and the ensuing Great Depression. America and the global financial system escaped disaster by the skin of its teeth. Older Baby Boomers like Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke understood well financial history. The Gen Xers on Wall Street didn’t have a clue.
History matters.
Context matters.
Depth matters.
Instant pudding learning and multitasking don’t cut it in a volatile economy and geo-political world.
The shallowness that accompanies the frivolities of Gen Y’s (and in part Gen X) approach to learning and knowledge creation will undermine their efforts to effectively lead organizations in the 21st Century.
The big challenge of sharing learning and knowledge across a four generational workforce is for people to learn how to understand and respect one another’s approaches to learning. Note the key word – RESPECT, as R&B singer Aretha Franklin sang.
Ranstad USA conducted a survey in 2006 to examine the perceptions held by different generations. Three quarters of those 55-plus said they related well to younger co-workers; however, that sentiment was not reciprocated: only 56% stated they related well to older people. And of particular surprise was the finding that 77% of young people did not ask older co-workers for help or advice.
Gen Y, Gen X, Baby Boomers and the Silent Generation (66 to 83) need to appreciate how their different learning preferences actually possess significant benefits for organizations because of diversity and the different lens through which they see the world.
Younger people have much to gain, however painful as it may appear, from “older” folks. Corporate history matters, especially when learning from past mistakes and blunders. And past successes are equally important.
For older people there’s certainly much we can gain by engaging Gen Y, and not just in the use of digital technology but also in more collaborative approaches to work where trust is key. Baby Boomers have never been big on trust.
Take a moment to share your views or experiences on learning.
I’m not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did. – Yogi Berra
Click here to download my complimentary e-book A Blueprint for Learning & Knowledge Creation: Staying Ahead of Your Competitors in a Turbulent World”.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
Updated January 23, 2012
While I was writing this post, rumors were swirling in technology land about a successor to RIM’s two co-CEOs. Well, that decision was finally made this morning with the announcement of former chief operating officer Thorsten Heins as president and CEO of Research in Motion. The company’s board of directors unanimously chose Heins. RIM’s stock price edged up in response, and as co-CEO Mike Lazaridis gushed: “‘I am so confident in RIM’s future that I intend to purchase an additional $50 million of the company’s shares.”Indeed. Time will tell whether Lazaridis maintains that enthusiasm.
I recall when I worked for the federal government the mushroom-like growth of Blackberries. The last department I worked at before retiring at the end of 2010 was Industry Canada, which earned the reputation of being the most addicted to Blackberries, aka Crackberries. Whether in meetings, hallways, bathrooms or elevators, the ubiquitous Blackberry could be seen stuck to the sides of employees’ faces. Typically these were managers and directors. Lowlife staffers only occasionally received one of these devices.
It was interesting to watch the ritual at meetings, where Blackberryholics delicately placed their worshipped sidekicks on the table in front of them, awaiting the buzz (or clamoring ring) from one of their bosses. If you were a presenter you may just as well have talked to a lamp shade for the limited attention you were receiving from these B-berry worshippers.
But the Blackberry was king for a number of years, and still is the mobile tool of choice for public servants and political hacks in North America.
And then something happened. His name was Steve Jobs, and he accelerated his efforts to create a world-class wireless device, the iPhone. This was quickly followed by the iPad, a concept he conceived in the nineties.
And something even bigger occurred along the same time continuum. Its name is Google, which developed the Android operating system.
So much has taken place during the past five years in the areas of tablets and smart phones that I believe that people haven’t stopped to take a breath and say, “Holy crap! How did we ever function without them?”
Research in Motion (RIM) emerged as Canada’s premier high-tech company. Led by Greek-Canadian businessman Mike Lazaridis, who founded RIM and is the co-CEO, the company is the only Canadian technology firm that gets itself on international rankings. In short, RIM replaced Nortel has Canada’s pride and joy, in terms of R&D, its global brand and its rapid growth.
However as the saying goes, the bigger they are the harder they fall. Nortel collapsed in a massive dust cloud, though its death was prolonged far too long, and became a public spectacle of gross management greed, corruption and incompetence.
RIM’s case is very different, except for the common theme of management hubris when it came to believing that it had the world by the tail. In a remarkably short space of time, RIM went from being a leading edge innovator to a company scrambling to catch up to smart phone competitors, all the while its stock continued to nose-dive.
The rocket-fueled growth of tablets, led by the outstanding Apple iPad, once again caused RIM to react, hastily producing a poorly reviewed Playbook.
Lazaridis and co-CEO Jim Balsillie are hanging in, exploring new opportunities for RIM. One recent development is providing security for iPhones and Android devices through its Mobile Fusion program.
The pace of change in mobile computing is accelerating so quickly that unless RIM quickly finds new technology niches and markets it risks a further descent. The company is experiencing what happened to Nokia, once the wireless phone of choice. Nokia’s now infamous burning platform memo from CEO Stephen Elop articulates the challenges facing corporate leaders in a volatile and fast-changing world. There are no prisoners, just the entrails of once glorious companies.
Lazaridis and Balsillie would do well to pay heed to Nokia’s plummet to near obscurity.
We too, are standing on a “burning platform,” and we must decide how we are going to change our behaviour.
Over the past few months, I’ve shared with you what I’ve heard from our shareholders, operators, developers, suppliers and from you. Today, I’m going to share what I’ve learned and what I have come to believe.
I have learned that we are standing on a burning platform.
And, we have more than one explosion – we have multiple points of scorching heat that are fuelling a blazing fire around us.
(Portion of Stephen Elop’s memo to Nokia employees)
Click here to download my complimentary e-book A Blueprint for Learning & Knowledge Creation: Staying Ahead of Your Competitors in a Turbulent World”.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
A Blueprint for Learning & Knowledge Creation
We’ve heard for a number of years about the importance of learning in organizations. Our world is changing faster because of technology. The population is ageing steadily, distorting the traditional age pyramid. And new emerging economies (read previously developing countries) are changing the competitive game for Canada and the United States, not to mention other industrialized nations.
Corporations that aim to succeed in the long-term, and governments that wish to maintain their countries’ standards of living, need to embrace learning and the generation of new knowledge.
However, any initiative that attempts to address employee learning and knowledge creation needs to ensure a strong link between the organization’s goals and priorities and its people– those responsible for achieving results.
To do this properly means it’s done within the corporate culture (the values and beliefs that drive behavior and performance), in which business processes, client service and employee learning are integral parts.
My blueprint outlines an integrated approach to continuous learning, knowledge creation and transfer. I want to stress at the outset that knowledge creation and transfer are not one in the same. It’s one thing to foster knowledge creation through learning and experimentation; it becomes even more of a challenge to create the workplace environment, processes and systems to capture, document and transfer knowledge.
In that context, my blueprint has been developed for a rapidly changing and unpredictable global environment. It provides a framework for enhancing personal and team learning, transition and change, and understanding the context in which people work and collaborate as they carry out their organization’s mission.
The blueprint includes methods on how to put into practice knowledge creation and transfer. One vital point needs to be reinforced: Learning is not an end in itself; it must be connected to something meaningful, whether it’s client service, research and development, manufacturing or public policy.
The intention of a learning and knowledge blueprint, therefore, is not to impose a structure but rather to enable an organization to adapt strategies and activities to its business needs and priorities.
The blueprint encompasses four cornerstones: people, processes, roles and leadership. These cornerstones are inter-related, and together focus on achieving the organization’s goals and priorities.
The essential elements of a learning and knowledge blueprint (the four cornerstones) need to be grounded. This is where a set of 10 principles is essential, serving in effect as a compass to the organization, and which is especially vital during periods of significant change and disruption.
To learn more, click here to download your complimentary copy of A Blueprint for Learning & Knowledge Creation: Staying Ahead of Your Competitors in a Turbulent World”.
What leaders are called upon to do in a chaotic world is to shape their organizations through concepts, not through elaborate rules or structures. – Margaret Wheatley
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
CEOs of 2012 – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: What We Can Learn from Senge’s 7 Learning Disabilities
Call it a culture of myopia and greed, but there remains a huge tension between organizations led by CEOs who demonstrate little concern for employees, shareholders or the environment through bad leadership and management practices, and those led by CEOs who practice corporate social responsibility. The former cause extraordinary harm but to society, especially when they keep repeating the same mistakes. The latter, unfortunately, get smeared by the same media brush.
Why do so many CEOS operate in such a harmful way?
One would think that people would learn over time. After all, we’re supposedly the most intelligent life forms on Planet Earth, though I think that my Labrador Retriever, Max, might dispute that.
Unfortunately, human history is littered with the carnage and entrails of past blunders. Pick a century or a decade. You’ll find lots of examples. The recent decade that launched us into the 21st Century had a long list of horrendous errors, which can be traced back to decisions made by those in positions of authority, whether in the public sphere or in business.
Let’s look first at the Bad and the Ugly in leadership examples, saving the Good for an uplifting finale, followed by a quick note on what CEOs can learn from Peter Senge’s Seven Learning Disabilities. I’m only using two examples per category to help illustrate Senge’s work. The list of naughty and incompetent CEOs is indeed very long. And yes, there are a number of excellent CEOs.
THE BAD:
A Once-Great Canadian Company: RIM
Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry (of Crackberry fame), became Canada’s pride and joy, especially after the spectacular collapse of Nortel Networks. RIM has been the only Canadian technology company to make it on international technology lists. RIM’s growth was exponential during the late nineties and well into the 2000s.
Spearheaded by the technology vision of co-founder Mike Lazaridis and aided by business savvy co-CEO Jim Balsillie, RIM’s growth seemed unstoppable.
But change is never-ending, and the market is constantly evolving. Steve Job’s relentless pursuit for innovation and perfection and Google’s drive to build Android’s market share caught RIM off-guard. That’s the polite way of saying that hubris on the part of Lazaridis and Balsillie placed RIM in a very reactionary position. Other events have contributed to RIM’s recent continued slide, such as the three-day BlackBerry outage in late 2011, successful hacking attempts into its operating system and disastrous sales of the Playbook tablet.
Yes, the Blackberry has proven very popular in such developing countries as Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and India, for reasons of its excellent secure text messaging. But it’s getting the crap beat out of it in North America and Europe. And recent data show that RIM’s sales in emerging economies has slowed, due to wireless carriers in these countries opting not to carry older Blackberry models (hand-me-downs, if you like) in place of moving to smart phones.
As a Canadian I want RIM to succeed, particularly since it has been the country’s sole major global technology player. However, that may end in 2012. Are there any buyers out there?
The Tech World’s Golden Boy Takes a Fall: Netflix
Chairman, President and CEO Reed Hastings was viewed as a golden boy of the tech world. Hastings (50) has led Netflix since 1998 since he and Marc Randolph co-founded it. The company’s meteorite rise during the 2000s seemed unstoppable, until Hastings did something really stupid. In July 2011, he decided to charge a two-tier structure to customers as part of its move to movie downloads.
Netflix’s loyal customers erupted, promising Armageddon. Hastings beat a hasty retreat, but only to a drop in share prices and horrible media attention. Within a month, the new brand name Qwikster was put out of its misery. Whether through hubris or naivete, Hastings made a “hasty” decision, one that caused significant damage to the company’s brand.
THE UGLY
Carol Bartz of Yahoo: “These people fucked me over.”
Carol Bartz, became CEO of Yahoo in January 2009, and was fired on September 6, 2011, by Board chairman Roy Bostock. (Note: firing someone on the phone, as Bostock did, is an act of cowardice in my view).
During her tenure, Bartz became a lightning rod for business analysts who believed she was responsible for Yahoo’s large drop in advertising revenues. Never one to spare an “F” shot or other expletive-deletives, she admittedly gave herself a B- in her job performance after her first year with Yahoo. Strikingly, she was named most overpaid CEO in 2010 when she received a whopping $47 million in compensation.
Her now infamous May 2010 interview with tech blogger Michael Arrington, where she began the conversation with “So how the fuck are you,” went downhill when she became perturbed with his questions and told him to “fuck off.” Definitely not a class-act, or the behavior expected of a CEO in charge of a huge company.
Bartz’s most unglamorous exit made her 32 month stint at Yahoo all the more pathetic.
The Dualing Twins: Freddie Mac’s Charles Haldeman and Fannie Mae’s Michael J. Williams
Freddie Mac’s CEO, Charles E. “Ed” Haldeman Jr. became CEO in July 2009, stepping down at the end of 2011. Haldeman (62) became a lightning rod, along with sister mortgage giant Fannie Mae, led by Michael Williams (53, and CEO since April 2009), for questionable lending practices. Both publicly funded quasi government institutions have been bailed out by U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $170 billion, which may reach $240 billion by 2014.
What put members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into apoplexy was the obscene compensation of the two CEOs: Total compensation for the top six executives at Fannie and Freddie for 2009 and 2010 was $35.4 million, with Williams and Haldeman receiving half of that. Each could take home as much as $6 million apiece in salary and bonuses in 2011.
THE GOOD:
Courage and Perseverance: Michael Woodford
Michael Woodford was raised in poverty by a single mom in Liverpool, a high school drop-out, a camera salesman, and then at age 30 took over KeyMed’s European camera division. However, his biggest coup was becoming CEO of Japanese Camera manufacturer Olympus. Having a white British dude heading a Japanese conglomerate was unheard of.
Still new in the job, Woodford (51) caused a firestorm of media attention when he was sacked in early 2011 by Olympus’ board of directors.
His crime?
Exposing $1.7 billion in accounting irregularities. The Board was so pissed off with Woodford that it put him on a bus to the airport.
But Woodford is not just smart and competent, he’s also tough as nails. One of the outcomes of the ensuing investigations into the accounting debacle was the firing of the chairman of the board (who had hired Woodford), along with two senior executives. Watch this short media interview with Woodford from last November.
Woodford described Olympus’ corporate culture as an “emperor system” and a “regime.” But he wants his old job back, and his perseverance is admirable considering he’s living and working in an ancient culture that has ingrained practices and beliefs. As he stated, “I know what Olympus needs to be radically more profitable and successful.”
This Dude Loves Cars: Chrysler’s Tenacious Sergio Marchionne
If there were ever a basket case of an automotive company it was Chrysler. It was one thing for the U.S. and Canadian governments to bail out General Motors; however, Chrysler was in such desperate shape (financially, collapsing market share and horrible product quality) that government CPR seemed to be grossly irresponsible.
Then an Italian-Canadian rode in on his steed, a chain-smoking, no bullshit, exceptionally bright business man. Sergio Marchionne, boss of Chrysler, Fiat and Fiat Industrial, does not fit your stereotypical CEO. This guy loves fast cars, gadgets and big challenges. He knows how to align and lead people, fires managers who aren’t performing and fully dedicates himself to a cause – in this case, saving Chrysler from the joining the dust heap of past automotive failures.
While Chrysler still has a long road ahead of it, especially with mounting global competition from hungry new players, Marchionne’s extraordinary hard work and focused leadership has produced unexpected results: 23% increase (3rd quarter 2011) in Chrysler, Dodge, Ram and Jeep sales. Total sales for 2011 are forecasted to hit $55 billion. Contrast this rosy scene with 2009, when Chrysler was hemorrhaging $1 billion a month.
In Memory of the Greenest CEO on the Planet
I decided to include one more Good CEO of 2011as a way to express my respect. His recent passing was a huge loss for the corporate world.
This extraordinary CEO was Ray Anderson of Interface Inc. Unfortunately, Anderson died from cancer in August 2011. Ray Anderson died from cancer in August, 2011, at age 77. Click here to read one of my posts on Anderson.
Anderson worked relentlessly over two decades to transform Atlanta-based Interface Inc. (a global flooring manufacturer) to become a zero carbon footprint company. In other words, he wanted Interface to exert zero negative impact on Planet Earth. A key part of his journey was to constantly articulate his vision to employees and to ensure that they shared and embraced it. His leadership was exceptional and visionary.
THE GOOD for 2012?
I want to take a moment to peer into the unknowns of 2012 and suggest a potential “Good” CEO.
Newly appointed Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Bob Paulson is a possible 2012 candidate for the “Good.” Paulson has an enormous challenge ahead of him, noting in a late December 20 interview with the Globe & Mail’s editorial board, when asked about whether the public trust has been violated: “I tell you, one day, there is going to be the removal of the Stetson if we don’t get this straight. We’ve got to get onto this. This is urgent.”
Canada’s iconic national police force, the RCMP, has been rocked from scandal to scandal, an unbelievable array of incompetence, corruption and abuse. The latest was the revelations of systemic sexual harassment which hit the media big time in the fall. Paulson’s top priority is to correct this sordid problem, among many other issues.
Time will tell, but perhaps the RCMP has finally “got their man” in the name of Bob Paulson. Stay tuned.
Let’s now take a look at what corporate CEOs can learn from Peter Senge. I’d like to suggest that those leading public sector institutions would do well to listen to what Senge has to say. And more broadly all of us, regardless of our position in an organization, have much to learn from Senge.
I’m drawing Peter Senge’s Seven Learning Disabilities from his seminal management book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Released in 1990, The Fifth Discipline has not only retained its relevance to the challenges facing organizations in a globalized, volatile world, but I believe its content and key messages are even more important today.
The 7 Learning Disabilities
Most organizations, as the collective entities of human beings with all their baggage and foibles, have difficulty learning. When the word “organization” is used, it’s vital to remember that it’s people who actually make them up, not the buildings, office furniture or other physical assets.
Senge provides a set of what he calls learning disabilities, which underlie many of the problems and mistakes inherent in how organizations (public, private, non-profit) typically function. If you want to get at the root of a problem, it’s necessary to first identify these disabilities.
1. I am my position. Because we’re expected to be loyal to our jobs, we tend to confuse them with our own identities. As Senge explains: ‘When people in organizations focus only on their position, they have little sense of responsibility for the results produced when all positions interact.’
2. The Enemy is Out There. We have a tendency to blame others when something goes wrong, whether it is another unit in the organization, a competitor or government agency responsible for regulatory policies.
3. The Illusion of Taking Charge. We hear all too often that we must be ‘pro-active,’ taking action to make something happen. However, pro-activeness can really be reactiveness in disguise. Senge sees ‘true pro-activeness’ as coming from our ability to see how we contribute to our own problems. In essence it’s the outcome of how we think, not how we react emotionally.
4. The Fixation on Events. The ongoing discussions and conversations in organizations focus typically on events, those ‘urgent’ day-to-day issues that grab our attention. But the real threats to our survival are not events but rather the slow, gradual processes that creep up on us. We need to move away from short-term thinking to long-term thinking.
5. The Boiled Frog. This parable states that if you place a frog in boiling water it will hop out immediately. If you place it in cool water and gradually turn up the heat, the frog will remain in the pot, growing groggier until it cooks to death. What we learn from this parable is that if we wish to see the slow, gradual processes, we must slow down and pay attention to the subtle as well as the dramatic.
6. The Delusion of Learning from Experience. We learn best from direct experience. In organizations, however, we usually don’t experience directly the consequences of our decisions. A major underlying reason for this is the functional silos that exist. These silos impede the flow of communication among people. The organization’s ability to analyze complex problems is subsequently greatly weakened.
7. The Myth of the Management Team. This reflects the desire for management to appear as a cohesive group that is pulling in the same direction. The reality is that in most management “teams” the need to uphold their image means that dissent is frowned upon and that joint decisions are “watered-down compromises.” As Harvard’s Chris Argyris Chris Argyris has discovered through his research (and referred to frequently by Senge), most organizations reward those who promote senior management’s views. Those who pose probing questions or who ‘rock the boat’ are penalized.
Reflect on each of these learning disabilities in the context of your own leadership and work environment. If you have time, think about how they relate to the monumental errors perpetrated by a large cast of CEOs. For example, what could Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie have done differently in how they managed and led RIM?
What could CEOs learn from former Olympus CEO Michael Woodford?
Take a moment to watch this short interview with Ray Anderson from three years ago, where he talks about his leadership journey in sustainability practices.
Yes, there’s a distinction between committing stupid mistakes and ethical lapses and crimes. However, there’s indeed a strong learning element embedded within all of these types of leadership miscalculations and mistakes. They can generally be traced back to the 7 learning disabilities, perhaps with the exception of truly sociopathic CEOs.
Suggestion: Hold a lunch and learn in your organization, at which you’d talk about Senge’s 7 Learning Disabilities and your group’s experiences in the workplace and community.
Senge’s seven learning disabilities may be seen as a framework, from which people – not organizations – can start to learn from their mistakes and to cease their perpetual repetition. And the first ones in line to reap the benefits should be those leading organizations.
Are YOU ready to lead in 2012?
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
-Hal 9000 computer, 2001, A Space Odyssey
Photos by J. Taggart (Chicago)
Click here to download my complimentary e-book Creating Order and Meaning during Organizational Chaos: The Fall & Rise of the Learning Organization.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
Changing Winds: 2011 in Review
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2011 annual report for Changing Winds.
Here’s an excerpt:
The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 38,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 14 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.
Get Rid of that Stress or Christmas Blues: Chill Out With Max!
Got the Christmas blues or feeling a little stressed out?
Okay, we’re all feeling a variety of emotions at this time of year. Me? I hold my breath until January 2. I’ve been raising kids for 32 years, and Sue and I have been through a ton of Christmases.
We’re exceedingly lucky to have our four adult “kids” living near us, now that our oldest and her two daughters recently moved to a town near Ottawa. However, planning Christmas supper can be a challenge when our third oldest and her partner try to schedule their paramedic shifts. Someone has to save those people who choke on turkey bones!
This year, Sue and I thought that instead of driving for 45 minutes early Christmas morning to the grand gift opening event at the paramedic household, we’d crash at a B&B nearby Christmas Eve. I love dogs, but draw a line with cats.
Yep, Christmas is a crazy time, when routines go out the window, stress rises, the buffet pants (read sweat pants) get pulled out of the drawer for Christmas supper and going to the mall is more dangerous than driving through Kabul.
The only one in our home with any degree of balance is our five and a half year old Yellow Labrador Retriever, Max.
I envy him.
Max is cool. The females among his running buddies go gaga over him.
He looks at us sometimes as if to say: “You humans are such losers. I sleep when I feel like it. Get fed well, plus some treats. Run with my canine buddies a couple of times a week. And when I have a dump, I don’t have to pick it up. What a life!”
When I leave Planet Earth, whenever the Big Guy decides that, I want to return as a Yellow Labrador Retriever.
So folks, when you’re standing in the long line this Christmas at Walmart, Macey’s, Canadian Tire, Target, Best Buy or Home Depot – chill out!
Or when you’re stuck in a long line of cars in a mammoth parking lot, your right foot twitching as you try to restrain your impulse to run over the person sauntering along in front of you pushing an overloaded shopping cart, take a deep breath.
It’s not the end of the world.
Think of what’s important in your life.
Is it getting the extra savings on that phenomenal plasma TV? The new iPhone or iPad? The nifty watch? Whatever?
Will it be important one year from now what you got for Christmas this year?
Take a cue from Max.
Put it all in perspective.
Nothing makes Max happier than to see our four kids and granddaughters arrive at the door, his tail wagging with enough energy to power a city block.
It’s family that’s what matters.
Finally, I would like to thank you for your loyal readership over the past year. Given the huge selection in the blogsphere, it’s a privilege to build one’s followership. While WordPress is the home base for Changing Winds, my posts appear on a number of other sites. I very much appreciate the comments and direct emails from readers.
I already have a number of posts ready for 2012. I’ll be kicking off the year with CEOs of 2012 – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Stay tuned for that one.
Over the next couple of weeks take time for family and personal reflection. Reflect on, and take pride in, your accomplishments in 2011. And think about what you wish to achieve next year. But in the meantime… Merry Christmas everyone!
Click here to download my complimentary e-book Creating Order and Meaning during Organizational Chaos: The Fall & Rise of the Learning Organization.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
Why Occupy Wall Street Failed: Leadership MIA
There’s something happening here.
What it is ain’t exactly clear.
– Buffalo Springfield
“For What it’s Worth”
The efforts to create an ostensibly utopian society by those who camped out in parks across North America, Europe and even to far points such as Australia was doomed for failure from the start. Leadership was MIA – Missing in Action.
As I explained in my earlier post (as have many others) Will the Wall Street Protests Flame Out? A Call for Focused Leadership “I’m all for a good protest – when there’s a focused purpose and leadership that unites.”
Contrast Occupy Wall Street (aka OWS) with the Arab Spring, which spread like wildfire across some 16 Middle Eastern and North African countries. Yes, this was grassroots leadership, enabled by technology and social media. However, it was focused on one issue and led by key leaders, many of whom are young people. The silliness of the OWS carnival has been absent with the evolving Arab Spring, of which thousands of protestors have been slaughtered by the police and military.
Human nature is what it is: tribal yet hierarchical. Bring any group of people together with disparate needs and the immediate result is their forming into cliques. The Occupy Wall Street movement didn’t take long to produce a hierarchy of cliques within the so-called tribe. Although some media sources picked up on this, it was Jon Stewart’s satirical program The Daily Show that beautifully captured the hypocrisy underlying OWS. For example, when comedian (and Daily Show correspondent) John Oliver interviewed two young people (male and female) about Occupy Wall Street in New York City, they were emphatic that there were no leaders and that everyone had an equal say and vote.
Better yet, Canadian comedian Samantha Bee, also a correspondent on The Daily Show, visited Zuccotti Park to discover that the village (for want of a better word) had morphed into a stratified society. Click on this link to watch Bee’s tour of stratified Occupy Wall Street.
The high-brow professionals (typically those middle-aged and up) had separated themselves into an encampment replete with library and exercise facility. Those lower down on the socio-economic scale were discouraged from joining what I’ll call the Senate where the power and decision-making were based.
To add to the hypocrisy, “Senators” had been given permission to use one the lobby of a large financial institution for their meetings.
Excuse me?
I thought that Occupy Wall Street was about slamming corporate America, especially the evil financial sector.
Maybe I missed that chapter on OWS. Take a moment to read this excellent article Occupy Wall Street plagued by the hierarchy it seeks to destroy.
For a quick laugh to deal with all the stupidity, check out this short video clip that captures the eclectic nature of the OWS crowd.
The pseudo communist philosophy underlying OWS killed it in the end. NO uprising, revolution or huge change effort succeeds without effective leadership. I’m all for shared leadership; indeed my Master’s leadership thesis in 2000 was on shared leadership. (Great reading for insomniacs).
However, with any coming together of people for whatever reason, whether to celebrate or to protest, leaders always emerge. The challenge is for those who possess a vision or an idea to not just build a followership but to sustain it. And that’s achieved through the dynamic tension of give and take, contribution from followers, mutual respect and humbleness.
Occupy Wall Street was lost from the start. By pretending there were no leaders and by allowing human nature’s more power-seeking propensity to create hierarchy, OWS lost credibility very quickly.
Some have postulated that a virtual Occupy Wall Street may emerge and sustain itself in the long-term.
Perhaps.
But until this fumbling movement establishes a clear purpose and vision, facilitated through focused leadership, nothing will change in the corporate world and politics.
As a leader, I have always endeavored to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion. Oftentimes, my own opinion will simply represent a con-sensus of what I heard in the discussion. I always remember the axiom: a leader is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind. – Nelson Mandela
Click here to download my complimentary e-book Creating Order and Meaning during Organizational Chaos: The Fall & Rise of the Learning Organization.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
Aboriginal Leadership: Getting Out From Under Big Brother’s Thumb
Updated December 10, 2011
Before I get into this post I’d like you to watch this short video.
No, you’re not looking at a video of Calcutta or Haiti.
This is Canada.
At the time of writing this post at the end of November, the disgraceful living standards of First Nations reserves hit the national news – again. NDP Member of Parliament Charlie Angus had just returned from the Attawapiskat reserve, located in northern Ontario near James Bay.
The video you just watched was shot during Angus’ trip. He was outraged by what he witnessed: an acute shortage of housing that has produced people living in tents at the onset of winter, using buckets for toilets, children with skin and respiratory infections, serious mold problems in their houses, and the list of problems goes on.
When we speak of Aboriginal peoples in Canada we’re referring to First Nations, Inuit and Metis. Using the most recent census (2006), Aboriginal peoples made up just over 1.1 million, out of a national population of 34.6 million. Despite their relatively low absolute numbers, it’s important to note that they have the highest birthrate in Canada. Between 1996 and 2006, the Aboriginal population grew six times faster than Canada’s total population.
This is important.
Why?
Because Canada, like other Western countries, is facing a growing lopsided population that is steadily ageing. Aboriginal young people will provide an increasingly important source of labor force entrants in the years ahead.
But Canadians and their elected government representatives continue to treat Aboriginals with distain and at times contempt.
Consider these statistics:
• First Nations peoples living on a reserve were not allowed to vote in federal elections until 1960. Only 31 of Canada’s 4,201 Members of Parliament, in total over time, have been Aboriginal.
• First Nations, Metis and Inuit live in housing that is substandard to the rest of the Canadian population: 23% of their housing is in need of repair. Mold contaminates half of their homes.
• 150 First Nations reserves are under boil water advisories.
• Healthcare is dismal, with tuberculosis being 28 times higher and infant mortality three times greater. Diabetes is three times higher.
• Aboriginals’ rate of incarceration is seven times the national rate.
• One in four Aboriginal children lives in poverty (40% of off-reserve children reside in poverty); one in eight is disabled.
Is this how a supposedly civilized country should treat its founding peoples? No human being in any civilized society should incur such indignities and contempt. Yet Canadians and their elected representatives pretend there’s no problem. Our collective head remains stuck in the sand.
Charlie Angus’ video lays out the evidence in exceedingly stark terms. However, it’s not the first time the plight of Aboriginal peoples has been raised in the media. Many of Canada’s Inuit live in squalid conditions, with their youth suffering from serious drug problems. It’s a longstanding problem in Canada.
Within days of the video going viral, Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated he would address the problem. On November 30, the federal government did its crisis-control by initiating what’s called third party control of the Attawapiskat Reserve. As Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan stated: “The Government of Canada has informed the chief that we are placing the community in third-party management to ensure community needs are addressed. Part of the manager’s role will be to administer my department’s funding which is normally managed by the First Nation directly.” As well, a forensic audit will be done of the band’s financial management.
Note: On December 8, the federal government stated that the reserve will have to pay the $1,200/day third party management fee. The following day, it was reported that the government is sending 15 modular homes to the reserve. However, it was not clear who will pay for them. As Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan said to the media: “The homes and the costs associated is not our immediate concern. This is an emergency-management response. We will worry about who’s paying for this afterwards.”
Prime Minister Harper appeared to be complaining to the media that the federal government had spent $90 million on the Attawapiskat reserve over the past five years. However, as reserve chief Theresa Spence claimed, 80% of the funds go to education, with the remainder going to the community’s needs. Not much is left for housing, which is the core of the problem. The elementary school, which had to be torn down because it was located on pools of toxic gas, has yet to be replaced and is only in the design phase. Children attend classes in cold portables, wearing coats to stay warm.
As a sidebar, Chief Spence’s credibility is on the line with the revelation that her boyfriend was hired last year by the Attawapiskat Council to be the financial co-manager. And on the federal side, despite Minister Duncan’s assertion that the government was unaware of the reserve’s situation, former Aboriginal Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl (now out of politics, but a Conservative just as Stephen Harper) contradicted Duncan, stating that the Government of Canada was well aware of what was going on several years ago. In Strahl’s words, Attawapiskat “…is a slow moving trainwreck.”
Former Liberal Aboriginal Affairs Minister from a decade ago, Robert Nault, waded into the debate, noting that Conservative PM Harper seems to be as much as he can, perhaps more than other Prime Minsters. Past Liberal governments, Nault states, “did everything with money,” in contrast to Harper who is oriented towards structural and legislative changes. Nault was also direct when he stated that the Indian Act needs to be abolished and that this needs to be done within five years.
Where’s the truth in all of this?
Economists and political analysts have been commenting on this media spectacle in. What I’ve found intriguing is how little most of these pseudo experts actually know about the issues facing First Nations peoples. Each of these “experts” has an angle and a solution. Indeed, one CBC TV panel consisting of three people, usually bright commentators on socio-economic and political issues, was embarrassingly clueless on the challenges facing First Nations reserves.
Regardless of political party over many decades, Canada’s federal government has proven to be abjectly impotent when it comes to demonstrating a sustained commitment to the country’s Aboriginal peoples. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (aka Big Brother) controls Canada’s First Nations reserve system, keeping people in a disempowered state. However, some 30 federal departments are involved in various ways with First Nations.
Of interest, the Attawapiskat Reserve sits almost on top of a diamond mine owned by De Beers, which apparently donated two large construction trailers to the reserve when it learned of the housing shortage (about 100 people live in them).
But don’t let that modest act of generosity by an international mining giant make you feel too warm and fuzzy. The mine, 90 kilometers west of Attawapiskat, does employ some reserve members. However, little of the earnings from employment flow back to the reserve due to miners moving away and also because of the restrictive conditions imposed by the reserve system when it comes to investing savings.
The situation facing this small First Nation’s reserve is a horrific mess, but it’s emblematic of what many reserves across Canada face. Bureaucrats certainly won’t solve the problem.
Enter Romeo Saganash, a member of the Cree First Nation in northern Quebec. Saganash, the first Cree to become a lawyer in Quebec, ran for office as a member of the New Democratic Party in Canada’s May 2011 election. Despite strong odds against his getting elected, Saganash won in his riding. Now he has his work cut out for him, and not just with the many interconnected issues facing Aboriginal peoples in Quebec, but with a massive riding that spans the northern half of the province.
And a new challenge is that he’s the first Aboriginal candidate in Canadian history who is running for leader of a political party (former NDP leader Jack Layton died a few months ago of prostate cancer).
Saganash, 49, began his political involvement almost 30 years ago. For example, in 1985 he founded the Cree Nation Youth Council. Later on, his interest in regional economic development prompted him to get involved in Aboriginal businesses. As he gained experience and built his networks, Saganash took on key positions with the Grand Council of Crees. He was first the Deputy Grand Chief, and then Director of Quebec relations and international affairs. He also was vice-chairman of the Cree Regional Authority, and chaired the James Bay Advisory Committee on the Environment between 1997 and 2000.
Romeo Saganash is but one Aboriginal leader who has stepped up to the plate over the years to confront the horrendous problems facing Canada’s First Nations, Metis and Inuit. Unfortunately, most Canadians would no doubt think about some of the controversial events between First Nations and government. Some of these have been ended violently with both sides sharing responsibility.
(Please note that I am apolitical. With some 40 years of voting experience I’ve cast ballots across the mainstream political spectrum.)
However, what gets overlooked or ignored is the perseverance and enormous dedication by Aboriginal leaders who want to improve not just the living conditions of their people but their economic wellbeing by creating their own wealth through employment and business start-ups.
There’s an opposing tension between taking an assertive stance to addressing the plight of Aboriginal peoples, and aggression, which the media loves and which plays into the hands of those Canadians who believe that these people are complainers.
Perhaps one analogy is the Gandhian approach used by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who won the 1964 Noble Peace Prize, as opposed to the more aggression-prone Malcolm X. Both men fought for the civil rights of black Americans, but used different approaches. Both were assassinated within a few years of one another.
One outstanding First Nations leader is Taiaiake Alfred, who I had the privilege of meeting at Royal Roads University (Victoria, British Columbia) in 1999. Alfred spoke to my Masters leadership class on Aboriginal leadership. Although he comes across as easy going and is very articulate, he is tough as nails when it comes to addressing the issues of First Nations people.
Listen to this fascinating conversation with Alfred by interviewer Allen Gregg.
Canadians can no longer continue to ignore the needs of its Aboriginal peoples, leaving Inuit communities and First Nations reserves to fend for themselves. This is not the developing world. This is Canada, one of the richest countries in the world, which likes to pretend that it has a social conscious.
Our Caucasian (mostly male) politicians have failed to live up to their promises. More Aboriginal leaders need to emerge to keep the issue front and center in the minds of Canadians. It’s not about pumping in endless amount of money, but rather creating the conditions where self-empowerment prevails. Aboriginal leadership needs to be listened to and respected. The “us versus them mindset” needs to be abandoned and new ways of finding solutions for the issues of Aboriginal peoples need to be found.
Aboriginal leaders such as Romeo Saganash and Taiaiake Alfred, among many, offer great talent in finding the solutions.
How would you solve the plight of Aboriginal peoples, whether in Canada, the United States, Australia, or wherever around the world?
Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.
– Cree Proverb
Click here to download my complimentary e-book Creating Order and Meaning during Organizational Chaos: The Fall & Rise of the Learning Organization.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
Public Enemy #1: Baby Boomers
Enough is enough.
If you’re a regular reader of my blog (in addition to my e-books and white papers) you’re well aware that I’ve been pretty critical of Baby Boomers and included myself in that criticism (I’m 56). If you haven’t already, read my recent post Are You a BSer! Words of Wisdom from a Crotchety Boomer.
But there’s a limit to stating just how evil, self-centered and foolhardy we Boomers have been. The last time I looked I didn’t have a pointy tail.
Sure, blame us in part (okay, large part) for the explosion in consumer credit, the housing bubble, the financial meltdown, the Great Recession, greedy CEOs, selfish politicians, bad government policy, etc. Holy crap, it doesn’t look terribly bright for Boomers!
The recent Occupy Wall Street movement, which mushroomed for a short time to over 900 cities worldwide, has brought out, once again, the damage that Boomers have wrought upon the world.
Screeeeech!!!
Stop the bus!!
Enough of that crap. Let’s get a realistic grip.
If we’re going to play that game, other generations are fair game. It’s time to get out the whacking stick.
The Vietnam War, with its 50,000 dead young Americans and an estimated 300,000 injured, was brought to America by the Silent Generation (those 65 to 83) and the Greatest Generation (83 plus), an expression coined by retired NBC anchor Tom Brokaw. To add further insult to those who served and survived (most were drafted for the most part) their country turned its back on them when they returned home. Soldiers were spat upon and insulted by their civilian peers. Virtually no treatment existed for those suffering from PTSD.
Contrast that to the much greater recognition and support systems present for America’s now volunteer Armed Services. It’s not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than in the 1960s and 1970s.
How many Gens X and Y have a clue about the horrors of the Vietnam War on young people, notably males?
How many Gens X and Y know that many of their parents as young adults protested vehemently against this war? (Therein lies the contradiction of being against an immoral war while spitting on those returning soldiers who were forced to serve because of the Draft).
If you’re a young person and haven’t heard about the Kent State shootings, please enlighten yourself.
And even in the current context of more supportive populaces in Canada and the United States when it comes to Afghanistan (Canada took a pass on Iraq), with the thousands of soldiers killed and wounded, the horrors of PTSD, amputees, etc., our two countries blindly went on with their consumer-driven rage? How many Gens X and Y were reflecting on the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan while casually sipping a latte at Starbucks?
“You want me to wear a red shirt on Friday?” Sure. “Anyone see my iPhone?
“Hey, want to see my new BMW?”
Gens X and Y (especially the latter) are absolutely clueless when it comes to sacrifice, not just for country but for family.
In his new book That Used to be Us, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman recounts a visit he made to Afghanistan in 2009 with Admiral Mike Mullen, (former) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen and Friedman stopped at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand Province to visit the troops. Here’s Friedman’s account in the 115 F heat:
“Let me see a show of hands,” Mullen began, “how many of you are on your first deployment?” A couple of dozen hands shot up. “Second deployment?” More hands went up. “Third deployment?” Still lots of hands were raised. “Fourth deployment?” A good dozen hands went up. “Fifth deployment?” Still a few hands went up. “Sixth deployment?” One hand went up.
Admiral Mullen asked the soldier to step forward to shake his hand and to have a picture taken with him.”
Friedman recalls his disbelief at that event, wondering how the United States could deserve such young people. As he cogently states: “Never have so many asked so much of so few – and never have those few delivered so much for so many and asked for so little in return.”
Take a moment to reflect on this story. While we civilians fret about our daily worries, whether we’re young or old, we’ve done so since 911 almost in a vacuum, all the while American and Canadian soldiers were getting killed and injured half a world away.
The November 21, 2011, issue of TIME has the cover story “An Army Apart.” Journalist Mark Thompson presents a compelling story about the growing gap between the U.S. military and the civilian U.S. population. As he eloquently states: “Think of the U.S. military as the Other 1% – some 2.4 million troupes have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq since 911, exactly 1% of the 240 million Americans over 18.”
One former soldier he profiles is 32 year-old Marine Sergeant Alex Lemons who returned home in July 2008 following three tours in Iraq. Suffering from PTSD and having had 14 operations on his feet, which were badly damaged because of a fall, Lemons bluntly explains the gap between his civilian friends and the military: “It’s hard to think of my war as a bizarre camping trip that no one else went on.”
One compelling statistic is that when you remove those Americans who are physically unfit to serve their country, have criminal records or are in college, you’re left with only 15% of Americans between 17 and 24 who are eligible to sign up! As retired Army major general Dennis Laich puts it: “The all-volunteer force is a mercenary military made up of poor kids and patriots from the third and fourth socioeconomic quintiles of our country.”
To my fellow smug Canadians, we’re no better north of the border – maybe worse, when it comes to really paying attention to the needs of our troops when they return home. Indeed, horror stories abound which the media has picked up to a limited extent.
When you have professional Armed Forces, such as our two countries, it’s easy for the population to get pumped up for the troops with contrived patriotism. As the saying goes, “Old men crave war; young men fight it.” (Memo to file: add “women” to this saying).
And what about Gens Y and X? Sure, they “support” their peers fighting and dying half a world away, while sipping a Cappuccino with one hand and texting on their iPhone with the other.
Back to the main story…
Sue and I successfully raised four kids to adulthood (22 to 32 years of age). Despite a decent government salary and Sue being out of the labor market for 12 years while she stayed home with the kids, we never went consumer crazy. No trips. No fancy crap. Just worked, raised kids, did community volunteer work, and (in my case) earned two Masters degrees.
And now we’re sandwiched, with aging parents (my mom’s 92) and “kids” who still call us with their issues. And there are several grandkids to boot.
Male friends who have much younger children ask me if it gets better as kids get older. My response is: “Are you kidding? It gets way worse. Wait till they start driving.” Or in our case with three daughters, check out some of the asshole boyfriends who are brought home.
Gen Y and its older cohort Gen X are the instant gratification generations. They see something they like? “I want it now!”
Gen X has gone consumer crazy, buying into monster-sized houses for one or two kids. When I grew up in Montreal there was just my brother and me. We were fortunate to have a two-story house and our own bedrooms. However, many of my friends were from homes with four-plus kids. Some lived in little bungalows with two or three kids packed into a tiny bedroom.
Granted the U.S. housing market took a shit-taking of late. Gen X, however, was busy taking advantage of the feeble lending rules. Here in Canada, Gen X is rocking strong when it comes to buying McMansions. They’re on the climb up the corporate ladder, both in government and the private sector.
Yet little is written about Gen X. It’s only of late that “angry” Gen X has resurfaced in the media. It isn’t called the excluded generation for no reason.
It’s about the bad Baby Boomers and the poor, exploited Gen Y and the excluded Gen X.
Rather than looking for scapegoats, a more constructive approach would be to collaborate across generations to find solutions. There are plenty of problems to go around. Stop the finger-pointing. After a while it’s no longer cool.
Blame is destructive.
What’s your solution to this mess?
Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status.
– Laurence J. Peter (“The Peter Principle”)
Click here to download my complimentary e-book Creating Order and Meaning during Organizational Chaos: The Fall & Rise of the Learning Organization.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
Steve Jobs’ Reality Distortion Field: Leadership or Bullying?
I was born in 1955, the same year as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.
As a fellow cohort a few things distinguish me from them: I’m a lot shorter, far less wealthy, not nearly as smart, nowhere near the visionary, and the list goes on. Plus, I’m a boring Canadian.
Having already read a lot on Jobs in recent weeks, and despite all the media hoopla following his death, I still bought his new biography as soon as it was on the shelves. Author Walter Isaacson’s 600-plus page tomb, with the minimalist title “Steve Jobs”, is an excellent account of Jobs’ complex life. (Isaacson also wrote an excellent biography on Albert Einstein).
It’s worthwhile to note that Jobs hounded Isaacson for over five years to write his biography (which ended up being produced from some 40 interviews with Jobs). It was Jobs’ wife, Laurene, who in 2009 finally laid it out for Isaacson why he needed to start on the biography as soon as possible.
Rather than tear through the book I’ve decided to read it slowly, savoring the countless stories and anecdotes, some which are humorous, some sad and others that piss you off when you realize how big an asshole Steve Jobs could be.
But the main reason I bought the book is because I’m reading it through a leadership lens. Steve Jobs’ treatment of not just employees but friends and business partners was often appalling. Yet his achievements over 35-plus years (with some intermittent problems) were incredible. This conflicts in a major way with the leadership literature, where treating people with respect and as human beings, not inanimate objects, is a key cornerstone. Jobs, somehow, was able to motivate people (employees and business partners) to produce far beyond what was initially thought possible. And he did this by often berating and belittling them.
Jobs was a visionary and a perfectionist. You learn a lot about why he became who he was through Isaacson’s recounting of Jobs’ upbringing as an adopted child. However, his detached, often brutal, immature behavior is still a mystery. Jobs’ Reality Distortion Field, coined for his ability to bend reality in order that his underlings accomplish what he demanded, was demonstrated on numerous occasions when he was told that something was not possible, or could not be done within a short timeframe.
Bud Tribble, a software designer under Jobs, adapted the Reality Distortion Field expression from Star Trek. As Tribble explained to Andy Hertfeld, who had just joined the Macintosh team and who expressed his disbelief with Jobs’ unrealistic product release deadline of January 1982, “Steve has a reality distortion field. In his presence, reality is malleable. He can convince anyone of practically anything. It wears off when he’s not around, but it makes it hard to have realistic schedules.”
What’s intriguing is how Jobs broke the so-called leadership rulebook by not inspiring or coaching employees to achieve something, and instead flatly insisting that it could and would be done. Negotiation was out. Failure was not an option. Naysayers were turfed.
Steve Wozniak (aka “Woz”), who co-founded Apple, explains it this way: “[Jobs’] reality distortion is when he has an illogical vision of the future, such as telling me that I could design the Breakout game in just a few days. You realize that it can’t be true, but he somehow makes it true.”
When you’re a carpenter making a beautiful chest of drawers, you’re not going to use a piece of plywood on the back, even though it faces the wall and nobody will ever see it. You’ll know it’s there, so you’re going to use a beautiful piece of wood on the back. For you to sleep well at night, the aesthetic, the quality, has to be carried all the way through. (Paul Jobs)
Jobs’ use of foul language and insults were well known. His typical remark to an engineer was “This is shit!” This is clearly not the most desirable way to provide feedback. However, Apple employees (at least some) learned that what Jobs was really trying to say was “Tell me why this is the best way to do it.” What Jobs was attempting was to challenge employees to be creative and to find the optimal way to achieve something – to make something perfect.
Some employees learned to push back, sometimes really hard. Jobs would buckle if presented with a compelling case. Of course this took a lot of courage and self-confidence. As Apple manufacturing manager Debi Coleman, who stood up to Jobs, enthused: “[Jobs] would shout at a meeting, ‘You asshole, you never do anything right.’ It was like an hourly occurrence. Yet I consider myself the absolute luckiest person in the world to have worked for him.”
Steve Jobs’ approach to inspiring his employees was indeed bizarre. Yet as Isaacson states: “It infused Apple employees with an abiding passion to create groundbreaking products and a belief that they could accomplish what seemed impossible. They had T-shirts made that read ’90 hours a week and loving it.’”
Jobs learned from his original Macintosh team that A-plus players prefer to work together and won’t tolerate B-quality work. And to design and create consummate consumer products – his never-ending quest for perfection (ingrained in him by his father, Paul Jobs) – you need the best people.
It’s easy for us to question Jobs’ motivational tactics, which were jaw-dropping at times. But then look at how he resuscitated Apple which was on the brink of death in the nineties, and then led it to be the most valuable company in the world. Whether CEO Tim Cook and his executive team can propel Apple forward with the same velocity is doubtful, especially given mounting global competition for consumer products.
Rather than smirk at his Reality Distortion Field, perhaps there’s something to learn from how Steve Jobs approached leadership. There are long entrails of vision-less CEOs who beat up employees, decimating their organizations, while living for quarter-to-quarter results. And then exiting with golden parachutes.
Steve Jobs was far from perfect. Later in life, towards the end, he shared some of his misgivings with Isaacson, acknowledging his mistakes. He was one of the greatest enigmas as a corporate leader. What he lacked in people skills and empathy, he made up for with a compelling vision for the future and the pursuit of excellence. He clearly has left an indelible mark on society.
Reflect on the following words from Steve Jobs, shared with Walter Isaacson. Keep in perspective that at age 25 Jobs was worth $256 million. In the fall of 2011 his net worth was an estimated $7 billion.
I never worried about money. I grew up in a middle-class family, so I never thought I would starve. And I learned at Atari that I could be an okay engineer, so I knew I could always get by. I was voluntarily poor when I was in college and India, and I lived a pretty simple life even when I was working. So I went from fairly poor, which was wonderful, because I didn’t have to worry about money, to being incredibly rich, when I also didn’t have to worry about money.
I watched people at Apple who made a lot of money and felt they had to live differently. Some of them bought a Rolls-Royce and various houses, each with a house manager and then someone to manage the house managers. Their wives got plastic surgery and turned into these bizarre people. This was not how I wanted to live. It’s crazy. I made a promise to myself that I’m not going to let this money ruin my life.
Steve Jobs was about simplicity in life – something from which we could all learn.
Click here to download my complimentary e-book Creating Order and Meaning during Organizational Chaos: The Fall & Rise of the Learning Organization.
Visit my e-Books, Resources and Services pages.
