Search This Blog

CCE in brief

My photo
Recovering backpacker, Cornwallite at heart, political enthusiast, catalyst, writer, husband, father, community volunteer, unabashedly proud Canadian. Every hyperlink connects to something related directly or thematically to that which is highlighted.
Showing posts with label Talent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Talent. Show all posts

Thursday, 5 June 2014

Real Leaders Are Talent Scouts






There's some great advice in this article for people trying to get noticed.  How you present yourself, how you communicate and the wherewithal to go ask the boss for advice matter in getting the nod for greater things.  What's missing, however, is the other side of the equation.  Shouldn't a leader be proactively looking and testing for capacity in their teams?

We live in this crazy, discombobulated paradigm where laissez-faire bosses (capital holders, landowners, owners of means of production) are waiting for people to come to them, to sell to them, to essentially do all the heavy lifting for them.

Fine - this is how laissez-faire capitalism works.  Bosses sit back and give out positions and gold starts to the most aggressively sales-oriented employees.  As the article above states, it's the capacity to have "executive presence" that matters - not the presence of executive function.

Certainly, there are a lot competent, capable folk out there who have great talent and manage to rise to the top of the economic spectrum.  At the same time, there are a lot of people really good at faking executive presence and, wouldn't you know it, downloading the work to those good at doing, not selling.

You know how we keep being told to "fake it until we make it?"  This is where that trend leads, folks - too many people at the top have made it, but they've never stopped faking it.

Meanwhile, there are incredibly talented people out there who might not be as comfortable with self-promotion as, say, promoting something they believe in (like their company) or have less confidence than ability.  

There are also a ton of people with incredible, untapped potential that will never get ahead because they don't speak the language or can't afford the dress of success.

We can say throw out Horatio Alger and say these people just need to work harder, but we're missing the point; when they don't, won't, or can't, they aren't the only ones losing out on opportunity - we are, too.

How successful would a talent scout that sat in their office waiting for people to come to them be?  Not as successful as the one who went out, watched potential hires in action and learned to identify rough skills that could be nurtured.

Real leaders learn how to identify talent and work to nurture it.  They see it as their primary objective to create new leaders.

This is why we have this paradigm shift where leadership is developing more among the front lines than it is at the top.

If they don't want to become completely obsolete, it's high time the world's bosses start making this link.

Saturday, 5 October 2013

3 Things



Three things that inspire me:

Creativity

Talent

Enthusiasm

Best part is, I don't have to limit myself to just going online to find them.  They're out there, every day, in places you'd least expect.

Monday, 26 August 2013

Re-Designing Healthcare: The Race is On




Today I had a fantastic, far-reaching chat with a couple of entrepreneurs about the emerging field of healthcare redesign.  We talked about designing user experiences the way we design products; the difficulty the healthcare sector has in following fresh approaches through into implementation and how design-thinkers who are focused on problem-solving over profit can make a living doing what they do best (and what society sorely needs).

I've had many such chats over the past several months; in fact, there's a whole emerging field of healthcare designers who are doing projects, bridging the gap between such fields as social media and health service delivery, essentially trying to adapt our healthcare model to the 21st Century reality.  At the same time, I've talked to many policy makers, searching for new solutions but wary of committing to anything in politically and financially volatile times.  I've sat down with health service providers who are anxious to see systematic change but concerned about what that change will do to their niche areas/"clients"/jobs.  You'll find a bunch of them meeting here.


There's a real appetite for new approaches to healthcare in Canada, with players in different spaces touching different parts of the elephant, but not connecting in the middle.  The question on everyone's lips is: "how do we close the gap?"

When I first wrote this piece on how social entrepreneurs will be tomorrow's innovation consultants, I had healthcare (in particular, mental health) in mind.  Health is at the root of everything - family life, productivity, even commuting is tied to how healthy we are and where our headspace is at.  It just so happens that healthcare costs take up the biggest chunk of government spending, too.

The same goes for this piece on the changing nature of Government Relations - the emerging spaces for PR/GR folk to play in ties to health management and increasingly, design.  As the landscape around health, healthcare consumption and society at large grows increasingly dense, we need a map to find our way towards the destination of a modern, sustainable healthcare system.

So, with all this in mind, here's what I see happening next:

- These healthcare designers/social entrepreneurs will increasingly find each other through networking events or online and begin to realize they have an entire community of health-problem finders looking for a home.

- Smart healthcare providers/stakeholders will start walking the walk on innovative health landscape mapping/service provision, applying new approaches and ideas from varying fields to healthcare delivery/user experience.

- As some of the healthcare design folk connect with these stakeholders (either as hires or on contracted out projects), it will become increasingly clear just how profitable this design field can be.

- Existing consultancies will start growing into this market space, competing for both healthcare design work and healthcare design talent.

- As competition grows/demand runs up against the ability of existing funding to match, health design stakeholders will increasingly push against policy makers to get with the times.  New healthcare management and design businesses will crop up (treading ground first covered by The Courtyard Group) and existing players will try to catch up.   

- Seeing the chance for good policy and political wins (and recognizing the risk of not doing anything), Political Parties will start paying closer attention.

- Some of the original batch of healthcare design-thinkers will start valuing profit more that problem-solving, as will newbies to the field seeing the opportunity to find success in a growing field.  At the same time, there will be a large percentage of players who continue to see accomplishment as the goal, rather than wealth.  "I solved that" will become the new "I built that", which in itself replaced the feudal "I inherited that."

- It'll take time and a few iterations, but healthcare as we see it now (a product/service to be consumed) will be transformed more into a partnership that involves individuals, their employers, doctors, holistic health providers and other proactive providers.


The big question now is: Who are the far-sighted players who are going to recognize and benefit from this trend first?  Which employers are going to snatch up the amazing, innovative talent that exists out there but is not presenting itself in a traditional way?

What will the resulting innovations look like?  I'd love to tell you more, but the future is a bit like a stereogram; unless you're invested in the idea, I can't guarantee you'll see that third dimension.

The race is on; whichever providers/designers win in the short term, we will all benefit in the big picture.


Tuesday, 5 March 2013

Here's a Crazy Idea: Mania, Innovation and Enterpreneurs

 
I came across this article, oddly enough, because it showed up as a search term that lead somebody out there to my blog.
 
Of course, I know that I'm hypomanic - pick any post on this blog for proof.  I've come to terms with this and instead of trying not to be something that I am, I've learned to harness my cognitive potential for application.  With time and a lot of discipline, I've done a pretty good job teaching myself to tell the difference between wild flights of fancy and legitimate connections that spark ideas for innovation and collaboration.  This allows me to manage-down the negatives and focus on productive links and creativity.
 
The connection between mental illness, mental health and innovation, for instance.  Or the notion that workplaces can be designed to foster, not impede, cognitive labour.  How about using video game presentation as a format for government service delivery?  You get the idea.
 
To ensure all my creativity, networking and product/service/policy design are pointed in the same direction, I made sure I knew where I wanted to go - why I'm passionately motivated to do the things I do.
 
It takes some effort and frequently, bursts of caffeine, but I can direct my powers of generation down a given path, too.  This allows me to maximize my potential contribution and maybe even having a bit of influence along the way.
 
The rest falls into place with relative ease:
 
 
 
 
Not quite a service, not quite a product, the purpose is to create a culture.  Useful products and services are developed almost by default.  By design or alignment, there just happens to be an emerging public conversation that reflects that kind of thinking.
 
Call me crazy, but I see value in that.   


'The Hypomanic Edge'

By JOHN D. GARTNER
Published: April 10, 2005
 
The Hypomanic American

The Hypomanic Entrepreneur
The 1990s will be remembered as the age of Internet mania, a time when entrepreneurs making grandiose claims for their high-tech companies swept up millions of Americans with their irrational exuberance, inflating the biggest speculative bubble in history. The idea that some entrepreneurs may be a little manic is hardly new. A Google search for "manic" and "businessman" yields more than a million hits. Entrepreneurs, as well as the markets they energized, were commonly described in the media as "manic." Yet, until now, there has never been a serious suggestion that the talent for being an entrepreneur and mania, the genetically based psychiatric disorder, are actually linked. Perhaps because I am a clinical psychologist, it was clear to me that "manic" was more than a figure of speech in this case.
I called several reporters who had written profiles of these "manic" entrepreneurs and asked them, "Do you think he really was manic?" None said yes. "Not really manic; not clinically," was a typical response. They resisted applying the psychiatric diagnosis because the entrepreneurs they had interviewed were boastful, hyperenergized, and zany, but they "weren't crazy." And the journalists were right. Their subjects were not manic. They were hypomanic. Hypomania is a mild form of mania, often found in the relatives of manic depressives. Hypomanics are brimming with infectious energy, irrational confidence, and really big ideas. They think, talk, move, and make decisions quickly. Anyone who slows them down with questions "just doesn't get it." Hypomanics are not crazy, but "normal" is not the first word that comes to mind when describing them. Hypomanics live on the edge, betweeen normal and abnormal.
For example, Jim Clark, cofounder of Netscape, was described in Business Week by Netscape's other cofounder, Jim Barksdale, as "a maniac who has his mania only partly under control." In The New New Thing, Michael Lewis profiled Clark as a perpetual motion machine with a short attention span, forever hurtling at unsafe speeds in helicopters, planes, boats, and cars. When his forward motion is impeded, Clark becomes irritable and bored. In his search for the stimulation of the "new new thing," he quickly loses interest in the companies he founds and tosses them into the laps of his bewildered employees. His Netscape IPO is credited with starting the Internet gold rush. After that it seemed he could do no wrong. When he pitched a new company, Healtheon, a medical Web site, his only business plan was a diagram with five words. His "magic diamond" put Healtheon at the center of four vertices labeled "doctors, consumers, providers, and payers." That was it. His magic diamond, he claimed, was going to "fix the U.S. health care system." It was going to be "bigger than Microsoft, AOL, Netscape and Yahoo!" As Lewis wrote, "Any other human being would have been thrown into an asylum for thinking such grandiose thoughts." Those who followed Clark had faith in his messianic mission. "There was a feeling that we were about to change the world," said one of Healtheon's chief engineers.
Successful entrepreneurs are not just braggarts. They are highly creative people who quickly generate a tremendous number of ideas - some clever, others ridiculous. Their "flight of ideas," jumping from topic to topic in a rapid energized way, is a sign of hypomania. Consider Bill Gross, CEO of Idealab. Bill Gross's job was not to build or run companies, but just to think of ideas for them. Idealab was an "Internet incubator." On Fortune's cover, next to a picture of a cheerful Bill Gross, was the caption "I Lost $800 Million in Eight Months. Why Am I Still Smiling?" The author, Joseph Nocera, Fortune's managing editor, begins his article with an unusual mea culpa. He apologizes to his readers for his previous Fortune article that hyped Gross and Idealab just before the Nasdaq crash. He confesses that Gross converted him into a believer:
I believed him because I was dazzled by him. A small, wiry man, Gross had an infectious boyish enthusiasm that was charming and irresistible. He spoke so rapidly - jumping from topic to topic as if he were hyperlinking - that it was hard to keep up with him, and had so much energy he seemed constantly on the verge of jumping out of his skin. He bubbled over with irrepressible optimism.
 
And his brain! That's what really set him apart. You could practically see the ideas bursting out of it, one after another, each more offbeat, more original, more promising than the last. The sheer profusion of ideas - and the way he got excited as he described them - was a large part of his charisma.
The reason Bill Gross was still smiling was that his newest new idea was "going to be unbelievably huge" and "revolutionize the Internet." Eight hundred million. Eight hundred shmillion. Nothing could dim Gross's enthusiastic confidence.
During the 1990s, I was paying attention to such behavior because I was planning to write a book about religious movements started by manic prophets. But I began to be distracted by messianic movements happening around me in real time, particularly because, as an avid technology investor, I was a member of one - the believers in the new economy. I was even a millionaire on paper for one exhilarating day in March 2000 at the peak of the market, before my portfolio lost 90 percent of its value. I began to suspect I was writing the wrong book.
My new hypothesis became that American entrepreneurs are largely hypomanic. I decided to undertake what social scientists call a pilot study: a small-scale, inexpensive, informal investigation meant to test the waters. I placed announcements on several Web sites devoted to the technology business, expressing my interest in studying entrepreneurs and requesting volunteers. I interviewed a small sample of ten Internet CEOs. After I read them each a list of hypomanic traits that I had synthesized from the psychiatric literature, I asked them if they agreed that these traits are typical of an entrepreneur:
He is filled with energy.

He is flooded with ideas.
He is driven, restless, and unable to keep still.
He channels his energy into the achievement of wildly grand ambitions.
He often works on little sleep.
He feels brilliant, special, chosen, perhaps even destined to change the world.
He can be euphoric.
He becomes easily irritated by minor obstacles.
He is a risk taker.
He overspends in both his business and personal life.
He acts out sexually.
He sometimes acts impulsively, with poor judgment, in ways that can have painful consequences.
He is fast-talking.
He is witty and gregarious.
His confidence can make him charismatic and persuasive.
He is also prone to making enemies and feels he is persecuted by those who do not accept his vision and mission. 
 
I feared they might find the questions insulting. I needn't have worried. All of the entrepreneurs agreed that the overall description was accurate, and they endorsed all the hypomanic traits, with the exceptions of "paranoia" and "sexual acting out" (these traits in particular are viewed as very negative and thus may be more difficult to admit to). Most expressed their agreement with excitement: "Wow, that's right on target!" When I asked them to rate their level of agreement for each trait on a standard 5-point scale, many gave ratings that were literally off the chart: 5+s, 6s. One subject repeatedly begged me to let him give a 7. I was startled by the respondents' enthusiasm, though perhaps I shouldn't have been. As a psychotherapist, I am familiar with the way people become energized when they feel understood, especially when it helps them understand themselves better.
Having learned in our conversation that they were hypomanic, the CEOs wanted to talk about it. One now understood better why he regularly rented palatial office space he could not afford and why his wife hid the checkbook. Another could finally explain what drove him to impulsively send broadcast e-mails at 3 A.M. to all his employees, radically revising the company's mission. It was as if merely by asking these questions I had held up a mirror in which these men could see themselves. After talking to them for just fifteen minutes, it seemed as if I was the first person to truly understand them.
One respondent seemed to be in an intense hypomanic state when I interviewed him. He responded to my Web site solicitation by e-mailing me in huge blue block letters: "CALL ME IMMEDIATELY." When I did, he talked rapidly and loudly and laughed quite often. At the same time he was charming, witty, and engaging. The interview was a bit chaotic because he was driving and carrying on another phone call at the same time. He was a serial entrepreneur. After founding one successful company, he had felt he needed to quit his own corporation because he couldn't "make things happen fast enough," leaving him frustrated and bored. Now he was on to a new venture. He was very enthusiastic about my research and volunteered to send me the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of half a dozen well-known high-tech entrepreneurs (which I never received), who he claimed were his "very close friends."
This was a small pilot study, but nonetheless, I was overwhelmed. I had never seen data like this. Because humans are so complex, most effects in psychology are modest and nearly drowned out by the great variability that exists naturally between people. Not in this case. One hundred percent of the entrepreneurs I interviewed were hypomanic! This couldn't be chance. The odds of flipping a coin ten times and getting ten heads in a row is less than one in a thousand. It felt as if I had tested the waters with my little pilot study and been hit with a tidal wave. It was then that I knew I had stumbled onto something big that had been hiding in plain sight.

Mania and Hypomania
A colleague of mine once told me about a manic inpatient he had treated for many years at an Ivy League-affiliated psychiatric teaching hospital. The patient's father was the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. Each time he visited his son on the unit, he would behave in a dramatically hypomanic fashion. For example, he would make numerous business phone calls around the world on the patients' pay phone, while frantically yelling "Back off!" at patients or staff who tried to interrupt him. Clearly, Dad was not normal, but he had made his hypomania work for him. He was a very rich man.
 
This family's story illustrates the concrete relationship between mania and hypomania. Manics and hypomanics are often blood relatives. Both conditions run together in families at much higher rates than we would predict by chance. We know that their genes overlap, though we don't know how.
This family's story also illustrates the most radical difference between mania and hypomania. Mania is a severe illness. The son was disabled - a long-term inpatient at a psychiatric hospital. Manic episodes almost always end in hospitalization. People who are highly energized, and also in most cases psychotic, do bizarre things that are dangerous, frightening, and disruptive. They urgently require external control for everyone's safety, especially their own. Most people who have experienced a manic episode remember it as a nightmare.
By contrast, hypomania is not, in and of itself, an illness. It is a temperament characterized by an elevated mood state that feels "highly intoxicating, powerful, productive and desirable" to the hypomanic, according to Frederick K. Goodwin and Kay Redfield Jamison, authors of the definitive nine-hundred-page Manic-Depressive Illness. Most hypomanics describe it as their happiest and healthiest state; they feel creative, energetic, and alive. A hypomanic only has a bipolar disorder if hypomania alternates, at some point in life, with major depression. This pattern, first identified only in 1976, is called bipolar disorder type II to distinguish it from bipolar disorder type I, the classic manic-depressive illness, which has been well known since the time of the ancient Greeks. If a hypomanic seeks outpatient treatment it is usually for depression, and he will define recovery as a return to his old energetic self. Not all hypomanics cycle down into depression. What goes up can stay up. Thus, we cannot conclude that someone has a psychiatric disorder just because he may be hypomanic. The most we can say is that hypomanics are at much greater risk for depression than the average population. The things most likely to make them depressed are failure, loss, or anything that prevents them from continuing at their preferred breakneck pace.
Given how radically different mania and hypomania are, it is perhaps surprising that the diagnostic criteria for these two conditions are identical according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (usually referred to simply as DSM-IV):
A. A distinct period of abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood, lasting at least one week.

B. And at least three of the following:
1. Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity
2. Decreased need for sleep (e.g., feels rested after only three hours of sleep)
3. More talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking
4. Flight of ideas or subjective experience that thoughts are racing
5. Distractibility (i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or irrelevant external stimuli)
6. Increase in goal-directed activity (either socially, at work or school, or sexually) or psychomotor agitation
7. Excessive involvement in pleasurable activities that have a high potential for painful consequences (e.g., engaging in unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments)

The only guideline offered to mental health professionals in distinguishing between mania and hypomania is "degree of severity." Hypomania is "not sufficiently severe to cause marked impairment in social or occupational functioning or to require hospitalization." But DSM-IV tells us little else, when there is so much more that could be said.
This relative neglect of hypomania by psychiatry is striking when we consider that it affects many more people than does mania. We know from numerous large-scale studies, replicated both nationally and internationally, that classic manic depression exists in slightly less than 1 percent of the general population. . . .



Excerpted from The Hypomanic Edge by John D. Gartner Copyright © 2005 by John D. Gartner. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.  
 

Wednesday, 6 February 2013

Greta Hoaken: Volunteerism, Talent and Maximizing Personal Contribution


IMG-20130126-00788.jpg

Because I know I can contribute, I therefore believe I can volunteer my contribution.

                     -Preston Tulay, former Peace Corps and UN Volunteer


One of the great joys of working on political campaigns is the people you meet along the way.  Depending on your role, you might interact with media or stakeholders looking to flag an idea or a concern; perhaps you'll have the chance to debate with representatives of other camps over competing visions.  Ideally, everyone gets the chance to interact with the candidate they support and some of the voters they're there to court.  The most inspirational folk you'll encounter, however, are invariably the volunteers.
 
This certainly was the case for me over the recently-concluded leadership campaign.  Team GK attracted a wealth of talent and dedication; volunteers committed their free time (or all their time) to the vision and cause we supported.  Gerard and his senior team wove together individual skills and lineages into a tapestry that was more than the sum of its parts - it was something I was humbled to be part of. 
 
What was even more humbling, inspiring and daunting was the chance to work alongside the wickedly sharp minds that were attracted to Gerard's liberal vision, best exemplified by Greta Hoaken.  Greta is a 17 year-old high school student; she first came in to the campaign office with wide eyes and a bright smile, dressed in a school uniform.  It would have been easy to dismiss her as "student," but that's not how we operated - everyone got a chance to explore their potential and maximize their contribution to the campaign.  Even if a child knows her science project won’t win the science fair, she still gets that moment to perform.
 
Not that it would have mattered.  Greta's not a light that can be hidden under a basket; behind those wide eyes and bright smile burns an organizational and communications genius. 
 
One memory of many that sticks out clearly - Greta offering to help build delegate kits for the convention and within minutes, restructuring our system into one twice as efficient and better presented while confidently directing some seasoned pros to get the job done - and still working at it herself.  When people who make their living giving orders comfortably follow the lead of a 17 year-old, you know something special is happening. 


IMG-20130127-00821.jpg
Beyond this, Greta offered solid communication ideas, helped manage traffic on the convention floor and did a televised debate on the Team's behalf, holding her own with some experienced communicators like Zach Paikin.  All very impressive from a fairly young woman - then you learn that she's also a journalist and CJPAC blogger who was already a news-making entrepreneur by the time she was 13.  I don't think I even had a paper route by that age. 

Best part - Greta, like so many of the volunteers on the GK Team, is unwaveringly dedicated to the vision we all took on: that government must be accountable, open and accessible to the people and that we must proactively provide people with the tools they need to succeed.  Despite her maximum potential being light years beyond what relative dotards like me can ever hope to reach, Greta remains humble - which is why she's only going to keep getting better as she grows into her place in society.  Just imagine what she will accomplish down the road.
 
So, yeah, I'm a big fan of Greta's and hope that she'll still remember me when she's running global campaigns in a couple of years.  The thing is, Team GK would have lost the value Greta brought if we had dismissed her based on first appearances - which would have been easier to do than we might comfortably like to think.  It was Gerard's commitment to inclusion and respect that helped hold us to a standard that ultimately benefited the Team's work.  With a little more time, who knows what we could have accomplished.  Of course, we all have the future ahead of us and the maximum potential of that liberal vision has yet to be realized.
 
There were other volunteers that offered value in unconventional packages; one fellow had a propensity to talk long and in circles, but when he hit his points, they were incredibly insightful.  Again, it would have been easy to dismiss him entirely, but we would have missed some important opportunities had we done so.  Two of the people on the team (one of them being me) deals with ADHD, which provided both a communications challenge to the rest of the team, but also an opportunity to kick the tires on any given plan before implementing it.

Guided by Gerard's vision we took the challenges, the frustrations the easy dismissals and looked at them all through the lens of opportunity.  Our constant question was "how do we bridge the gap efficiently and respectfully, gaining and sharing in equal measure through the process?"  How do we (to use the well-worn phrase) move forward together?
 
Kathleen Wynne is another leader like Gerard who doesn't waver from what she believes in, including respect, communication and collaboration.  The reason liberals who supported all leadership candidates are so comfortable with Wynne as our leader is that she represents the best of what we all believe in.
 
This, then, is the challenge that faces Premier Wynne and her team; to take the time to respect and foster the contributions of everyone who wants to be part of the vision, wherever they come from or whatever they bring to the table.  I'm confident that this will happen, because I believe in Kathleen Wynne as a leader.  When people see that their contributions will be welcomed, respected, solicited and honestly considered, you'll see more Gretas popping up in all kinds of unexpected places.
 
Everyone has value to offer - they just need the chance.  When they get it, everyone wins.