Friday, 13 September 2013

Tolerance



I have been distressed this past week by the efforts of the governing party in Quebec to pass its Charter of Quebec Values, essentially banning all expressions of religious expression from public life.  For those of you who have not followed this story – if passed, employees of public institutions will be forbidden from wearing anything but the smallest of religious symbols to work.  In other words, hijabs, turbans, kippas – all will be banned.  From the government’s perspective, they are protecting Quebec’s cultural values of secularism.  From the perspective of those opposed, at best, the government is promoting intolerance; at worst such legislated action can lay the foundation for increased hatred, bullying and other acts of violence.
What does it mean to be a tolerant society?  Intolerance and conflict after all are so very closely linked.  It is true that some of the conflicts we encounter are over real and tangible issues.  One could even argue that the debate in Quebec is over a real and tangible issue:  What does it mean to be identified as Quebecois?  Under such a real and tangible issue, however, often lies a more hidden and potentially sinister root.  We just don’t like or tolerate those who differ from us.  Or even worse, we gain unity by mutually excluding another.  I am reminded that the holocaust was made possible in part because of years and years of sanctioned exclusion and intolerance. 
Lest we feel comforted that we are not Quebec, let us consider how this underlying intolerance might find expression in our own lives.  Perhaps we cannot accept this other person because their personality is too odd or too strange or too loud or too quiet.  Or we cannot accept this other person because they belong to a group of which we are suspicious.  Or we cannot accept this other because in some way, we are threatened by their very existence.  When we are intolerant of differences we run the very serious risk of not only dehumanizing the other, we ourselves are dehumanized. 
As I write this, I am hearing echoes in my mind of people I know who have struggled with abusive or unkind colleagues yet they have been told that they must tolerate these very colleagues because the issue is simply that their personalities differ from one another.  In other words, the people have been accused of intolerance.  Acceptance of differences does not mean acceptance of abuse.  In contexts of abuse or dysfunction, we may need to enhance our boundaries absolutely.  Acceptance of differences, however, does mean being open to crossing the divide that separates all of us, to seeing all people of all walks of life as being on this journey together.  Acceptance of differences asks us to curiously, respectfully and even lovingly grant one another unconditional positive regard.

Friday, 30 August 2013

Transforming Organizational Culture



Several years ago I was planning a workshop on transforming organizational cultures and wanted to give the workshop the title:  Transforming your Organization’s DNA.  One of my colleagues challenged this title suggesting that it was presumptuous.  “DNA is what it is,” she said.  “You cannot transform it.  At best, you can transform its impact.”  I accepted my colleague’s council and the name of the workshop was changed.  I’ll confess, however, that to this day I have felt unresolved with this conversation.  Is it true that an organization’s DNA cannot change?  If so, does this mean that in the absence of the ability to change our core organizational culture, if an assumption associated with this culture is false our organizations must become relics or die?  Or, was my colleague correct in suggesting that while organizational essence (DNA) is stable, we must work at transforming the experience or impact of this essence to stay relevant for the 21st Century?
These last days I have been reading the excellent book by Edgar H. Schein Organizational Culture and Leadership.  Schein states repeatedly that transforming an organization’s culture is really, really hard work.  Moreover, Schein is clear that what may appear to be a cultural assumption in need of transforming may in fact be a critical element of how an organization not only functions but how it achieves success.  Schein also offers that sometimes an organization’s DNA must in fact be transformed.  Perhaps the cultural assumptions that once made the organization successful do not work so well in a new social or economic environment.  Or perhaps the organization’s DNA had dangerous mutations in it right from the beginning that threaten the success or the very life of the organization.
I have had the privilege of being invited into many organizations over these past 20 plus years – many of whom have asked specifically for assistance in regards to transforming some part of their organization’s culture or DNA.  Not infrequently, I have heard about painful and damaging conflict that was at the very essence of how a group began.  Just as often, leaders observe conflict developing as organizations seek to modify key cultural assumptions regarding how or why they exist.  Or, organizations sense their relevance slipping but are at a loss to navigate effectively the organizational changes required to regain their erstwhile success.
In medicine we have learned these last years that certain experiences (diet, stress, etc) can turn genes on or off, essentially modifying an individual’s DNA or at the very least how that DNA is experienced by the individual carrying it.  The suggestion is that we can do quite a lot to modify how the very building blocks of who we are, are expressed in our bodies. The same holds true in organizational life. 
What are the experiences that turn the genes of our organizations on or off?  Stress, crisis, rapid growth or decline, changes in the culture of the people we are hiring or serving, competition… all of these are somewhat happenstance experiences (in other words, mostly beyond our control) that contribute heavily both to change in our organizational cultures or more likely, to the need for change in our organizational cultures.  Leadership in this context is about navigating these changes and managing the cultural shifts required to thrive in this context of change.  This is not for the faint of heart!  The answers are not easy; nor are the consequences of the changes we make always foreseen.  Transforming an organization’s culture is a little like driving a car – we make many corrections in our steering along the way with the hope that the road we are driving on will lead to the destination we are seeking.  We can follow road maps, seek the counsel of fellow travelers on the road, read signposts, ask for the advice of our passengers and we can keep our hands on the steering wheel, remembering that the decisions we are making have a tremendous impact not only on the success of our organization but as importantly, on the people we lead and serve.

Saturday, 17 August 2013

Leadership Lessons on the Water


One of my favourite summer activities is to set out on the water in a canoe with my family as far away from civilization as I can manage.  Having recently returned from another trip, I’ve got canoeing on the brain again and thought it might be fun to explore the leadership lessons I have learned on the water.

1.      What else is going on for me that is influencing my reaction?” 

Ok, actually this first lesson I learned while travelling in India with a few friends many, many years ago but it applies to canoeing with family as well.  When I was 23 I travelled in India with two friends.  Before we left, a shocking number of people told us that we would return enemies – these people assumed that it was impossible to travel well with another person.  I love a challenge and set out to prove the naysayers wrong.  I was determined the trip would go smoothly.  And so, each time I became frustrated I asked myself three questions:  Am I hungry?  Am I thirsty?  Am I overwhelmed?  Usually I could say yes to at least one of those three questions.  In fact, I discovered that a large percentage of the conflicts I could have experienced would have been self-generated.  Yes, there were challenges along the way (like the time an interior flight was cancelled and everything that could go wrong did) but I observed that more than anything else, it was my reactions that created my pain.  The more I could see the “environmental” reasons for my own reactions, the more I could avoid some conflicts altogether.  The same holds true on the water.  “Am I hungry?  Am I thirsty?  Am I overwhelmed?”  Or, said more simply:  “What else is going on for me that is influencing my reaction?” 

2.      It is hard to paddle alone. 

This year, I had a 12 year old and a 13 year old in my canoe with me.  On sunny days, they, um, enjoyed resting a fair bit.  In other words, at least some times a good deal of my paddling was solo.  But on the days where the wind blew hard, I depended on my two canoe-mates and they depended on me.  We cannot traverse hard times alone.  We need the support of those around us. 

3.      Sometimes those outside of your immediate situation can provide you with good advice! 

On our first day out, despite my best efforts the wind kept pulling our canoe around.  Then, someone from another canoe let me know that the weight in our canoe was imbalanced.  We repositioned our bags and away we went, happily into the wind.  

4.      Nothing really beats good preparation. 

Rains and storms may come, cuts and bruises may occur, and mosquitoes can buzz without end but when prepared, one can not only greet these obstructions with relative peace, one can accept them as an anticipated – even important – part of the journey.    

5.      Take time for joy, mystery, beauty and wonder.

 On our trip, we found the most amazing beaver dam – at least 3 meters high and even more meters long.  Above the dam, the backed up water had effectively killed the stand of birch trees that once had surrounded the erstwhile creek.  Still standing, the trees now looked like white sentinels against a dark wooded background.  We found this little bit of wonder by following a forgotten little creek and climbing alongside a waterfall out of which it tumbled.  Had we been rushing, we never would have seen this mysterious little place.  In work as in play, joy, mystery, beauty and wonder are there for the noticing. 

Who knows what new leadership insights will emerge in such a mysterious context?


Sunday, 7 July 2013

The Danger of Artificial Harmony






In his book The Advantage, Patrick Lencioni refers to the organizational problem of artificial harmony.  He argues that 80% of organizations live in the space of artificial harmony – the space where people cannot, may not (!), speak honestly or authentically about their perspective regarding all manner of things in organizational life.        


According to Lencioni, the impact of artificial harmony is that people end up not buying into organizational decisions.  This absolutely has been my experience.     
 
But there is another angle of artificial harmony that Lencioni refers to that is worth exploring further.  Organizations that live in artificial harmony typically do not live only there.  Instead, they ricochet between artificial harmony and mean-spirited personal attacks (see the diagram above).  When people cannot be honest with one another, they are left to their imaginations to determine the intentions of the other.  Here our imaginations do not help us. 
When we are not permitted to speak into a situation that impacts us, when we are constrained by artificial harmony, when the actions of another have shut us down, it is easy to see the other in a negative light to the degree that even if we maintain artificial harmony publicly, privately we slide into mean spirited personal attacks. 
  
Neither end of the continuum above leads to organizational health.
The ideal conflict point lies between artificial harmony and mean-spirited personal attacks.   From this place we can disagree honestly, passionately and yes, even kindly with one another.  This is not about inviting tepid engagement.  It is also not about being so direct we are hurtful.  This is about inviting active engagement and nurturing healthy disagreement, recognizing that the most useful wisdom typically emerges from dialogue about differences rather than agreement reached too easily. 


Friday, 21 June 2013

Leadership & the Capacity to Tolerate Pain



In today’s culture we hear a lot about leadership and in many ways live under the assumption that all people must aspire to some level of leadership in their lives.  Leadership does come with its benefits:  Permission is given to have influence; there is a measure of prestige and increased pay associated with leadership; leaders navigate change and shepherd visions; leadership can be a fun ride...  Often, it is also painful.  In fact, church consultant Peter Steinke states that leadership must include the capacity to tolerate pain.  This is true not only in the church world; it is also true in the business world.   We don’t hear much about this reality in leadership literature yet most leaders with whom I speak agree that pain and its partner, loneliness, are a part of the leader’s job description. 

One of the “greatest hit” articles in the Harvard Business Review is entitled Level 5 Leadership:  The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.  Jim Collins, the author of this article, states that excellent leaders give away credit and take on critique.  This is excellent advice but in the midst of a hard go when the people around the leader have not done their job well, this is hard advice.  And it leads to the pain and loneliness leaders are required to tolerate.

When leaders work at culture change, make mistakes, engage naysayers, mediate disputes, hear critique, manage organizational failures they come face to face with the challenges and pains associated with leadership.  How leaders tolerate pain defines their leadership.  Will leaders blame others for their pain?  Will they lash out against the people they are leading?  Will they become blind to their own contribution to their pain?  Will they become destroyed by the naysayers to the degree that their capacity to shepherd the organization’s vision is compromised?  OR, will they digest (and release) the pain in order to stay grounded and focused on both the organization’s overarching vision as well as what modifications are required of them (not the others) in order to more effectively live into this vision?  Excellent leadership must include the capacity to tolerate this pain.