Leadership With Gravitas

So they said, "If we make it amazing for him right where you are, will you be OK?"  And I said, "yeah."

From that moment forward, Sandra Bullock was anchored to Gravity and is bringing all the weight of her acting talent and marketing star power to bear.  They trusted and empowered her - she responded in kind.

Just imagine if more leaders treated their people with the same amount of respect and empathy they expect for themselves.  Think about what they could accomplish.

Four ways a leader can improve communication (HARVEY SCHACHTER)

Talk, Inc. (REVIEW)

By Boris Groysberg and Michael Slind

(Harvard Business Review Press, 242 pages, $30)

*****

It used to be so easy for a chief executive. He could develop strategic objectives and send them down to the ranks as directives, confident that employees would make his desires reality.

Perhaps that was a deceptive notion – the serene view from the commanding heights rather than the cynical trenches. But even in the rarefied atmosphere of the executive suite, no one today would believe that rosy organizational communications scenario. Command-and-control is gone, and with it the top-down, one-way communications approach.

Harvard Business School professor Boris Groysberg and communications consultant Michael Slind set out to investigate how people communicate these days, interviewing nearly 150 people in more than 100 organizations.

They found that communications revolves around conversation – dialogue between two people, rather than messages from one person to hundreds or thousands. Leaders often speak of their efforts to “have a conversation” with their people or “get a conversation going” about an idea.

And this conversation is personal. Even when the leader communicates in written form, through an online blog, perhaps, the experts interviewed said it should be in his or her own voice; the tone should be personable rather than formal or stale.

“They suggested that maintaining organizational conversation is a task that top executives must adopt as their own – that delegating it to professional communicators is no longer a viable option,” Professor Groysberg and Mr. Slind write in Talk, Inc.

Of course, a lone executive – or even a team of executives – can’t have a conversation with everyone in a large company. Even in a small business, it can be difficult. But the study found a greater intent on the part of leaders to reach out, to talk to people, one-on-one at times, as well as in groups where they would take direct questions. Employees are also invited to make their views known – in a manner that is less varnished than in corporate missives of the past – in blogs, internal newsletters, and in communications to customers.

Four elements combine to allow such conversations to flourish:

1. Intimacy

Conversation between two people requires that they be close to one another, figuratively and literally. Intimacy leads to a meeting of the minds. This means leaders must learn to listen as well as talk. They must be personal, honest, and authentic, building trust through talk. Even when conversing at a distance, that feeling of intimacy can be gained.

The book describes the TelePresence product that Cisco Systems uses and sells, in which an in-person meeting is simulated through life-size video feeds between two distant locations. Each person sees the other in human scale, and there is a specially designed meeting table in each room that mirrors the table on the other end of the video link, so it feels as if they are sharing the same piece of furniture.

2. InteractivityConversation involves an exchange of comments, questions and musings.

“The sound of one person talking, whatever else it may be, is not a conversation,” the authors note. So organizational conversation must be a dynamic process in which leaders speak with – not at – employees. Technology such as TelePresence can help. But it’s the cultural norm favouring dialogue over monologue that will be the determining factor.

3. Inclusion

Organizations must invite everyone to participate in this conversation, not just a chosen few. And the conversation can be outward-facing, as mid-level employees blog to the public or serve as brand ambassadors when connecting with their own friends and acquaintances.

“By empowering employees to communicate in that way, leaders relinquish much of the control that they formerly exerted over organizational messaging. But they gain a great deal in return,” the authors notes.

“Through conversational inclusion, leaders are able to boost employee engagement, to spur innovation and creativity, and to improve the branding and reputation of the organization.”

4. Intentionality

The talk is not willy-nilly, nor idle. The people leading the organizational conversation – and the various conversations within it – have a strategic idea of where they want the conversation to lead. This intentionality drives business value and can lead to greater strategic alignment.

It’s a tall order, particularly for those who prefer control. But the book cites organizations that are thriving through this approach, in lengthy case examples that accompany the chapters on each of the four elements. The authors also end their sections on each element with tips to help you blend these ideas into your own workplace.

Talk, Inc. is easy to read, and captures an important change in today’s workplace, offering a prescription for making it work.

Occupational Mental Health, Cognitive Labour, Mindfulness and Productivity

Ooh, I like this!





 Mindfulness: an antidote for workplace ADD

Daniel Goleman

Co-Director of Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations

 

February 06, 2013

 

Some consultants tell me that the number one problem in the workplace today is attention. People are distracted. They're in a state of what's called "continuous partial attention" where even at meetings, your body is there but your mind is somewhere else. You have countless gadgets constantly sending you information: texts, phone calls, emails, and reminders. All buzzing and dinging for your attention.

People not being fully present is a big problem because the most effective interactions occur when two people are mutually present to each other. That's when rapport happens. That's when chemistry happens. That's when you're going to have the most powerful communication and mutual understanding. If your attention is over there, it means you're not over here with the person you're with.

Lack of attention also impacts your performance. Your ability to do your job on your own is directly related to how well you can concentrate and focus. If you're continually distracted, you just can't get it done, or get it done well.

That’s why one of the most important things to learn in the workplace today is how to focus. Mindfulness meditation techniques can help you strengthen your attention.

I’ve found that if you do these exercises, for example, 10 minutes before you go to work, you are changing your brain. You're heightening your ability to concentrate hours later. If you can find a way to practice strengthening your attention every day, it's like going to the gym and building your muscles, but it's a mental muscle.

Here’s an exercise from the concentration family of meditation. It's a good introduction to mindfulness.

- Sit upright, close your eyes and bring your attention to your breath.

- Don't try to control your breath, just let it be natural and easy but be aware of your breath.

- Notice the full inhalation, the full exhalation.

- See if you can feel it coming and going through your nostrils, or feel the rise and fall of your belly.

- When you notice that you've been distracted, simply start with the next breath.

- Tune in to any sensation any way you can. Be fully aware of the breath. Just keep your attention anchored there.

- Keep breathing in, and breathing out.

- Whenever your mind wanders, just bring it back to your breath.

- Watch the full inhalation, the full exhalation. Stay with the breath. Use it as your anchor for attention.

- Try it on your own for a few minutes.

It's really so simple and in some ways so hard, because the mind wants to wander. In a way the basic movement of mindfulness is anchoring your attention, keeping it there, noticing when your mind wanders because it's going to, bringing it back and starting over. What we find is that if you can keep doing this, and the longer you stay with your breath, the more relaxed your body becomes. It's a side effect of that full attention and letting go all those worries that keep us on edge and distracted.

For more about mindfulness in the workplace, watch my recorded webinar with Google’s Search Inside Yourself adviser, Mirbai Bush. You can also learn more mindfulness-based techniques for work with Mirabai’s latest CD Working with Mindfulness.

Fighting Words

 

“I want to be leader of the Liberal party, not some sort hybrid semi-ideological formation. The NDP is an ideological party of the left and the Conservatives are an ideological party of the right. We’re a pragmatic centrist party that is ready to take from the left or the right, depending on what actually works.”

 

Hybrid semi-ideological formation.  Somewhat insulting.  Stating that it's the other guys that are ideological - ie, emotion-driven - but not the Liberals is a bit like saying you're the only unbiased journalist in the room.  Tough and nose-thumbing, sure, but reflective of Canadian values of honesty, respect and integrity?  "We'll take from the left or the right" makes one sound like a political pirate, tacking to where the spoils are best.

 

Now, I agree with the theory of what Trudeau said; I think it's best for there to be different Political Parties representing different points of view in Parliament, because it's through a debating a diversity of ideas that we land on the best solutions.  There's an unfortunate thread in our politics that suggests separate Parties can't work together for the good of the country, because that's not good for their partisan image.  The thing that's missing is people who want to find the best middle ground for everyone, even if it means compromise; perhaps our politics has become too polarized for that.  Being disrespectful to Parties that do have so much support across the country isn't going to help.

 

It's a wording thing, perhaps, but words are my thing; "we're ready to take" comes across as entitled and arrogant.  How about "we're open to?"  You can ignore the subtle impact wording choice has, but you do so at your peril.  That's the sort of thing that is causing the electorate to tune out in the first place and simply creates fodder for CRG attack ads.

 

I thought Trudeau was brilliant in employing the Ender's Game "empathy against" bid with his "This is not a personal indictment of Mr Harper or Mr Mulcair. On the contrary, I honour their commitment and their service. But I think they are both dead wrong about this country." Show yourself a Statesman by respecting their contributions and empathizing with their failings.  One of the most effective attacks I think Dalton McGuinty ever used was when he responded to silly kitten-eater insults by Ernie Eves by saying he knew Ernie, that wasn't the kind of thing he says.  It was political judo at its finest. 

 

We need to see more of that.  We need more inclusive language, more empathy, more embodiment of the values he hopes to bring back to Canadian politics.  That doesn't mean being weak-kneed or whatever - it's about demonstrating how you rise above the fray, as leaders do.  If you want to change the system, you cannot do so by employing the traditional politics.  You just can't. 

Not if your end goal isn't to be just Leader of a Party, but Prime Minister of the entire country.

 

CFN - Political Planks on a Burning Platform (Updated)

“That was when we really thought we were going to bring about the change required.  It didn’t happen so successfully and I think Justin and others are of the view that ‘renewal’ became a word that just started not to work anymore.”

 -          Katie Telford

Politics, like any good drama, is built on conflict.  At its best, from an audience perspective, politics delivers high-tension clashes at multiple levels simultaneously with nations facing threats upon their shores while provinces, Parties and partisan operatives battle each other for dominance.  It’s why shows like Game of Thrones are so popular; nothing makes for compelling viewing quite like actors fighting to the death on a burning platform. 

Canadian politics, alas, tends to be low on hyperbole and weak on dramatic content.  That’s why unless you’re a CanCon political junkie or a Conservative researcher, you probably missed the little piece of Liberal drama that played itself out last week.  Like the best dramas, this tale began on a hopeful note, spiraled into conflict and has now moved into intrigue.

It started off innocently enough, with Justin Trudeau giving an impassioned speech heralding his entry into the Liberal leadership race.  Rather boldly, he laid out a vision that reached beyond the scope of the Party and included our entire political system.  Canadians, he suggested, are hungry for a vision of Canada’s future “grounded not in the politics of envy or mistrust.”  Trudeau’s stated goal is to bring values like honesty, integrity, respect and cooperation back into Canadian politics.  “When,” he asks us, “was the last time you had a leader you actually trusted?”

Voters are cynical about politicians, and rightly so.  Our current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, ran on the promise of ushering in a new era of accountability and transparency.  On the heels of the Sponsorship Scandal, that message appealed to the average Canadian.  Since gaining power, however, Harper has been neither accountable nor transparent.  He has moved to limit public access to committee debates, has stifled information flow to the media – his government has even denied information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a position of their own design. 

If we’re wary of politicians, we’re downright suspicious of the people who work behind the scenes for them.  We know that Harper’s hired guns aren’t interested in strengthening democracy; they themselves tell us as much.  Nick Kouvalis happily states that he gets paid to end the careers of liberal politicians, while Tim Powers readily admits that the Conservatives are happy to misrepresent the facts if it allows them to keep the Opposition on the defensive.  At the end of the day, does it really matter what a Leader says, when it’s folk like this pulling the strings?

For this reason, engaged Canadians are increasingly paying attention to the people behind the curtain.  If we’re going to invest in a Party to drive our country forward, we want to know something about what’s under the hood.  Perhaps it was in recognition of this that Team Trudeau agreed to an interview with Michael den Tandt, skirting traditional political wisdom that suggests political staff be neither seen nor heard, and kicking off the next act in our little drama. 

If Trudeau’s speech was the teaser to the campaign, the den Tandt piece was like a making-of featurette.  It introduced us to a likeable production crew that clearly supports the vision laid out by their leader.  In addition to Katie Telford, a bright young mother with tons of both idealism and political experience (full disclosure, she’s a former colleague of mine), we have former Liberal MP for Mississauga-Erindale Omar Alghabra, Ben Chin (a former reporter of South Korean heritage) and the more mysterious of the Trudeau brothers, Sacha.  Named but not interviewed was Gerry Butts, a man who is not only gifted in his ability to craft political strategy but also someone who only dedicates his time to things he believes in.  Former political staff like me still look up to people like him.

Not a bad crew to have supporting you, really – and unlike a Kouvalis or a Powers, these folk have made it clear their goal isn’t to defeat the opposition at all cost.  “It’s about who’s willing to put in the work, no matter their background, no matter what party they’ve been in before, or (whether they’ve) been involved in past battles,” as Telford says.  But why, some might ask, is she the one saying this at all?  There’s a reason why conventional wisdom suggests staff should stay in the backroom; when they draw attention to themselves, support teams draw the focus away from the person who will actually have his name on the ballot.  It’s not smart, politically.

One of the people pointing this out is Warren Kinsella, Bad Boy Liberal Strategist and a man with more hard-won election scars than most political staff ever has skin in the game.  When it comes to all this campaign strategy stuff, Kinsella knows of what he speaks – he wrote the book on it, literally (and if you haven’t read The War Room, I highly recommend it).  Kinsella compares political strategy to the process of making sausages (a bit ironic, given the unfolding tainted meat scandal); the less revealed to the public and your opponents, the better.

It’s a point worth raising.  As Kinsella notes, the folk supporting Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff all dabbled with media exposure, while the campaign teams for Stephen Harper did not.  As a strategy, this worked out pretty well for Team Harper; despite being implicated in a scheme to bribe a dying man for his vote, being found in contempt of Parliament and the ongoing robocall scandal, among others, the Conservatives have clawed their way to a majority government and are now free to do as they please.  By never going off message, allowing few of his Caucus to speak to the media and holding his operators to an omerta-like code of silence, Harper presents a thin target for his opponents.  As for the other guys, well – go look for them now.

This Harperian method makes for great politics, but is terrible for the long-term health of our Canadian democracy.  “The political system has failed many Canadians in clear and tangible ways,” suggests Alison Loat, Co-Founder and Executive Director of democracy watchdog the Samara Institute.  As Trudeau stated so eloquently in his launch-speech, we no longer trust politics, neither the leaders nor the people who support them.  Harper doesn’t shoulder all the weight for this problem – he’s merely taken an emerging trend and pushed it further, faster than anyone expected.  It’s because of this sort of cynical governance that Canadians, particularly younger ones, are proactively opting not to vote. 

Only 61.4 per cent of eligible Canadian voters cast ballots in the last Federal election, and that was considered an improvement.  Youth turnout was even lower, with only 38.8 choosing to support a candidate or Party.  Feeling like their vote has no meaning and that all Parties are the same, these Canadians are choosing alternative methods of expressing themselves politically by participating in student protests or supporting movements like Occupy.

Kinsella himself has recognized this, time and again – the way politics works in Canada is changing.  As disenfranchised voters tune out, backroom operators are using increasingly aggressive tactics to win votes and eviscerate their opponents.  To avoid the consequences of scrutiny, these folk are extinguishing media and opposition access so that they can do what they have to do away from the spotlight.  What happens when people who don’t feel accountable to the public have growing amounts of influence on the political process?

According to the den Tandt article, Team Trudeau and Justin himself have collectively realized that it’s not just the Liberal Party, but the Canadian political process that is at risk of collapse.  That’s the burning platform; that’s the impetus for renewal.  Instead of engaging in old-school politics of Machiavellian manoeuvers planned and orchestrated by shadowy, unaccountable operators, Team Trudeau is trying to devise a new approach, one that is more transparent and accessible to the public while equally being more respectful to opponents.  In this, they’re following some wise words: “Never attack the individual.  We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.”

Which brings us to the last act of our little drama.  Warren Kinsella, a Liberal veteran who recognizes the need for some kind of renewal in politics offered some constructive criticism of the Team Trudeau approach.  Less discussion of process in the media, he suggests.  Staff should remain behind the curtain.  This is a valid position, one that has born political fruit for successive generations.  It doesn’t mean it’s the right one for today. 

According to Kinsella himself, his advice has been met with the kind of response that is typical of old-school politics; angry messages from Trudeau supporters, some of them delivered anonymously.  This is the sort of kindling from which new rivalries are made; it’s also the sort of personality conflict we’re sadly used to.  Sure, this kind of political theatre makes for great viewing, but it does nothing to address the burning platform and brings into question whether renewal is actually possible.  If politics is invariably a blood sport, you can hardly blame the Tories for being as ruthless as necessary to succeed – nor can you blame Canada’s youth for taking to the streets in protest.

For what it’s worth, I think that Trudeau is right.  I think it’s time for a political leader to embody the values they speak of and inspire the same from their team and the public at large.  I also think that Kinsella is right – political staff shouldn’t be using their position as a way to build their own brand.  Frankly, good leaders value their team personally and always make sure their contributions are properly recognized.  Having said that, we live in the days of Facebook and Twitter and IP addresses.  Whether we like it or not, everyone is in the spotlight.  Instead of trying to deny this, political people should always be thinking about how their comments, both verbal and posted, can reinforce and carry forward the vision they have chosen to support.  You never go wrong by standing up for what you believe in.

I would also suggest that political leaders need to spend less time attacking their opponents and micro-targeting voter blocks and instead start engaging all Canadians.  Democracy is a conversation and, like all conversations, it’s built on a foundation of shared values – including trust.  When we don’t trust others, we make them untrustworthy and become untrustworthy ourselves as a consequence.

Of course, all this suspicion and intrigue makes for great conflict.  Though Canadians do love their drama, I think there’s a growing recognition that if we don’t change something, we’re all going to get burned.  The Leader or Party that consciously sets the right example will find that while we enjoy the spectacle, what we truly respect is values-based leadership.

Will Trudeau be this leader?  Can his team renew Canadian democracy before the platform disintegrates?  I’ve got my feet by the fire and popcorn in hand, waiting to see how the next act unfolds.

UPDATE:  Case in point: My partner Lisa Kirbie goes on Sun News weekly to defend all things Liberal.  On the single occasion she voices concern - before and after Trudeau's "basic dictatorship" gaffe - she is derided by other Liberals.

Another Liberal warned Kirbie that she needed to get "on board" because "(Trudeau's) the leader." And so on.

Some people never learn, eh?

Todd Akin, Please Read This

It's very easy to pontificate on issues that will never impact you directly.  When your words carry weight, however, you don't get the privilege of speaking from willful ignorance or half-understood truths.

If you want to represent people, you must speak for all of them.

Dear Todd Akin,

I am writing to you tonight about rape. It is 2 AM and I am unable to sleep here in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am in Bukavu at the City of Joy to serve and support and work with hundreds, thousands of women who have been raped and violated and tortured from this ceaseless war for minerals fought on their bodies.

Stephen Harper - Indian Giver?

"The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian residential schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language," Harper said.

It was a proud moment for Canada when Stephen Harper stood in the House and apologized for the way First Nations youth were treated - paternalistically, abusively, with no respect for their culture or custom.  I've been up and down the Americas and have seen Aboriginal peoples mistreated and lost because systems of European origin have been imposed upon them.  I don't think you can really grasp how significant an impact such impositions have if you've never been on the receiving end, if you've never lived in a country where your customs aren't the norm.

I'm sure Team Harper has the best intentions with their own attempts to impose Western concepts of property on First Nations.  They're all about capitalism; take away social rules, make profit the singular end goal and everyone will do just fine.  If they need a bit of coaxing to take that system, well, it's just a matter of survival of the fittest.

The road to hell is littered with best intentions; the Residential Schools were created with best intentions in mind, too.  While change is desirable and necessary, it has to be agreed upon by the communities in question; the consequences need to be carefully explored and communicated, too.  Harper and co. think one or two elections - about seven years - ahead; here, they really must think of the impact for seven generations.

We're not in separate canoes on separate rivers; we need to find mutually agreeable ways to move forward together.