what?

I was at The Blue Hill Book Store the other day and picked up a curious little book entitled What? written by Mark Kurlansky (whose 1968 and Cod I just loved). In previous blogs, I have extolled the importance of asking good questions, and how the role of the leader is to be one who consistently asks good questions of both themself and others. If that is the case, then this book might just be the bible on leadership, for it is a short book that is written in nothing but questions (even the table of contents and the index are written as questions).

The art of asking questions is critical to the learning process...and leadership is about learning. Whether it is learning about one's self...learning about the organization...learning about other people...or learning about leadership - learning begins with questions. In one of the textbooks used in our Introduction to Business course at Concordia University Texas, the statement is made that the more one learns, the more questions they ask, and the more questions they ask, the more they learn. I often challenge my students and others with whom I work to figure out their question to comment ratio in any given day. This book takes it to the extreme: 100% questions to zero comments. Here are a few of the questions asked by the author:

• In a world that seems devoid of absolute certainties, how can we make declarative statements?



• If it is amportant to ask questions, is it equally important to answer them? Doesn't questioning have its own value?



• What is at the heart of intellectual pursuit? Is it "what?" If so , shouldn't the previous sentence be read as a statement?



• Is a question always a search for an answer?



• Shouldn't we distrust an answer that comes without a question?

Of course, the book is much more than these few questions noted here, as the "chapters" flow from one idea (or series of question) into the other. Perhaps what struck me most about the book is it's ability to do nothing than ask questions, and still engage me in a learning process. Of course, that is how I am wired. Are you wired in a similar way? Have you considered your question to statement ratio lately? Why might questions be so important to thsi author? And should they be that important to you? How do others react when you do nothing other than ask questions? Will they be satisfied that they are not getting "answers" from you? Can one be considered a leader if they only ask questions? And what are the important questions that leaders should be asking?

Is this the end of this blog? Or will you continue it by raising even more questions about how leaders lead by asking questions?

who decides the common good?

This past week I read Rick Perlstein's 2008 book Nixonland, a look at how the 1960's shaped America's political landscape as we know it today. For some reason I have always been fascinated by the 1960's (I was born in 1959, so I missed the essence of the 60's in a personal way). Having read much about this era (and much about Richard Nixon), I found this book interesting and point-on in its thesis of how the years 1964-1972 created the political landscape we know and recognize today as liberal-conservative ideology.

The question I kept asking myself throughout the book was "who gets to determine what the common good should be?" In the 1960's there were the "radicals" who believed that the US should have pulled out of Vietnam and that civil rights, women's rights. and other "rights" needed to not only be law but needed to be accepted as "the American way of life." On the other side of the spectrum were the "conservatives" who wanted to keep things the way they were and believed that "rocking the boat" was not only anti-American but bordered on the cusp of sin. I remember (vaguely) my parents having discussion on these points and hearing about these debates in my school (though little did I know what was REALLY going on). So who was right - and who (if I had been of age) would I have been supporting during this time?

The "common good" has often been described as what is beneficial for the most people at a given time within a given community, with special regard given to those who have little or no voice in the matter. Each of the "sides" in the 1960's could easily have argued that their position was what was needed for the common good - and that any deviation from that position would hurt the common good. In my own little world, it becomes very easy for me to believe that what I believe is good, right, and salutary at any given time is what should be accepted as the common good. And yet, there are many people who will believe different from me. I then need to decide whether I am right in my thinking...or could someone else be "right" in this debate?

Leaders are those people who influence others towards a shared goal that benefits the common good (DC's personal definition of leadership). Understanding that the "common good" might mean different things to different people makes the leadership role difficult at times...mostly because it means that some people will disagree with the leader (and maybe not even like them). The conundrum for leaders is in wrestling with the paradox of defending what they believe to be the truth (their defintion of common good) and listening to, understanding, and considering the "rightness" of what the other side declares to be the common good. Perhaps it is in this paradoxical struggle that the understanding of the leader is sharpened and that a way toward a more communal understanding of "common good" can be achieved.

I have still to understand my fascination with the 1960's - perhaps it is because I 'just missed it" in my coming of age; perhaps it is because the times resonate with my personal world view; perhaps it is because I am still trying to reconcile some of my own beliefs at that time (coming from a conservative mid-western family and town) that I now know to have been wrong; or perhaps it is because I did come of age right after that time, and I want to know what it is that shaped my own coming of age. But this consideration is for another blog...stay tuned!

What period of history most fascinates you? And how does your understanding of it shape your personal leadership?

leadership style - elinor or marianne?

It's vacation time, and I am spending most of my time reading - and, of course, thinking about leadership. These next few blogs will be shorter in nature, reflecting on what I am reading or doing at the time, and attempting to connect that which I read, see or do to leadership.

I decided that after 50+ years of reading, it was time to pick up a Jane Austen novel, so I read (on my Kindle) Austen's Sense and Sensibility this past week. For 19th century chick-lit, it was not too bad - the interplay between the two sisters Elinor and Marianne kept me engaged and made for some good humor throughout.

As I finished the book, it struck me that the two sisters made for a good comparison in leadership styles - the eldest (Elinor) seemed more cool-headed and rational in her decision making process; whereas the middle sister (Marianne) was often less rational and made decisions from what her heart was feeling at the moment. I found myself often siding with Elinor in her decision making process, but came to realize that Marianne often would make the decision that most reflected what REALLY needed to be done. As I consider my personal leadership style, I think it is a combination of the two, with a slight leaning toward a Marianne-style of leadership. I often "feel it" in my gut and speak my mind quickly (maybe more quickly than I should at times). The need to ACT in a manner that reflects what I am thinking and feeling at the time seems to take precedence over my thinking the matter through and waiting to act (or not).

There are positives and negatives to both styles - leaders at times need to act from their gut-feelings, moving quickly and making decisions that may or my not seem rational at the time. In other ocassions, leaders need to take some time to think through the situation at hand and wait for the right time to act. Seldom are there set rules on which manner or style of leadership to use at any one time...nor are the consequences tied to acting in one way or the other. Part of the decision making process comes through time and experience - part of the decision making process comes through the type of decisons being made - part of the decision making process happens as a result of the seriousness of the consequences from the decision - and part of the decision making process is a result of one's demeanor and personality. Learning to live with that - and finding ways to balance out one's initial reactions when needed - are all part of learning how to lead.

I'm wondering what Austen novel to read next (that would probably be next year) - any suggestions would help...especially if you can relate your suggestion to something I can learn about leadership.

the problem with optimism

Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think I would entitle a blog post (or anything else for that matter) "the PROBLEM" with optimism. I have been described as "pollyanaish" more than once and am a self-proclaimed rose-colored lense type of guy. I thrive on optimism...and yet this past week I think I encountered its "dark side."

Now I may be wrong (and I will be the first to rejoice if I am wrong) but I think we as an organization made a decision this week based more on optimism than fact. The "we can do this" mantra I kept hearing made me a little nervous as I looked at what I knew to be true at this point and thought to myself "it can't be done." I wondered to myself what led to this type of optimisim (and alternately why I was not as optimistic as the others). Here are a few of the thoughts that came to my mind:

• this is the first time they are going through this experience - it is easier to be optimistic when you have not encountered the ups and downs of a particular project


• it's a brand new shiny toy...and they want to play with it - the thrill of something new brings about an optimism that may or may not be founded on fact


• they feel their reputation/job is on the line - if they are not optimistic, they would be admitting failure and that does not seem like an option


• they want it so badly - when the only thing left is optimism, you pour it on heavy. As I remarked to a colleague of mine, "How can you argue with so much positivity?"


• it's always worked before - type A personalities who have seldom failed in their lives cannot see failure as an option and see everything they touch as golden, so of course it will work!


• give me a little more time - optimistic people beleive that given enough time...enough people...enough resources...enough ???? they can make anything happen. Again, I applaud these efforts (heck, I invented these efforts) but what are the facts telling us?

So how does an organization and its leadership mitigate against blind optimism while encouraging an optimistic spirit in its people? Again, here are a few random thoughts off the cuff on this beautiful Friday morning in Dallas):

• demand facts


• put together timelines (and stick to them)


• listen to the opposing voices (and make them state their facts as well)


• ask lots of questions


• ask how past experiences (of the individual and the organization) support the efforts - or not


• celebrate and reward optimistic behavior (and from time to time celebrate and reward pessimistic behavior)


• begin to know what blind optimism looks and sounds like (as opposed to having an optimistic attitude and outlook)


• make sure that people know its okay to fail (both in the front end and back end of any project)


• be aggresive with the facts


• do a lot of "what if..." scenarios


• listen to the gut...and listen to the head

Given the alternative (pessimism) I still vote for optimism within individuals and oprganizations. Having a postive outlook will create so many more opportunities than having the alternative outlook. I would much rather hang out and work with optimistic people than pessimistic people. My goal as a leader is to help optimistic people live out their goals and dreams - but to do so with some good grounding. I know that is what my coaches, bosses, and mentors have done for me over the years...I hope I can keep doing it for others.

one thing I love...

Last week's rant on one thing I hate was good therapy for me. The incident that led to my blog produced several good results and I have to admit that I probably do my job a little better today than I was doing last week...mostly becasue I have had to think about what it means to manage in my area. So today, I think I will change course and write about one thing I love...

This past week I was able to spend time in Eagle Pass and San Antonio, making visits on friends of the University, renewing relationships and making new relationships. While I consider this an important part of my job (and something I need to be able to "manage"), I also consider it an opportunity and privilege to get to meet and hang out with "really cool people." Whenever I am asked about what I do, I always mention the "really cool people" I get to meet and hang out with. The "really cool people" I got to hang out with this week included a CFO of a Fortune 100 company, a State Farm insurance agent, a University of Texas Business School faculty member, and one of the top commercial real estate developers in Austin. The range of conversation was all over the place - yet they all had several things in common:

• they each had a great story to tell


• they each are passionate about what they do


• they each are some of the best in their fields


• they each are"people" people


• they each have a passion for developing leaders


• they each have a passion for leaders who see the world with a Christian worldview


• they each believe in the mission of Concordia University Texas


• they each see the world as a great place to engage (three cheers for rose-colored glasses!)


• they each love to give back to others


• they each can add value to me and to my institution


• they each are people of faith

I love meeting and connecting with people. For some reason, I think I do this pretty well and it is a blessing for me to know that this is a part of my role and job responsibilities - and that I really love to do it. At the end of the day, if I have connected with one or two different people, I feel it has been a good day and I am energized to continue on in my calling and vocation. As I think about what makes me good at connecting with others, several thoughts come to my mind:

• I'm genuinely interested in other people


• I like to ask questions


• I like to ask really rich questions


• I know that there is much to learn from others


• I like to hear other's stories, especially where they are inspirational


• I think I have an empathetic nature


• I know that I will take something from the conversation to apply to my work and organization


• I know that people like to talk about themselves, and it gives me joy to see others have fun telling theri own stories


• I adhere to the 70-30 rule: I listen 70% of the time and talk 30% of the time


• I work hard to be totally present when i am with someone else

Now here's the rub - how do I balance my love for meeting with "really cool people" and my dispassionate nature around doing "really dull things"? A few thoughts:

1. delegate, delegate, delegate the "really dull things" (because I know those same items are "really cool things" to others)


2. set aside hours (days?) on my calendar to do the "really dull things" that only I can do


3. take the "really dull things" and make them into projects that I consider to be awesome and fun and WOW!


4. let my boss know of this dilemma and allow him to help me manage these two competing interests


5. accept the fact that these two will be in competition for my time and learn to live with that tension


6. decide now that when push comes to shoe, I will ALWAYS choose to meet with "really cool people" over doing "really dull things."

So what is one thing you hate...and one thing you love...and how are you balancing the two in your life?

one thing I hate...

The other day someone referred to me as a manager and reminded me that I needed to do a better job of managing a paticular process within my College. When I heard myself referred to as a manager, I realized that is something I hate. Leader...boss...facilitator...co-worker...even king works better for me. Here are a few reasons why I think I hate being referred to in that manner:

• Managing is about planning, directing, controlling and organizing - do I REALLY want those words on my tombstone to describe the impact I had on the world?


• Managing is about getting the job done right and on time - all very important functions, but again, do I really want those words on my tombstone? Don Christian: 1959 - ????: He got all of his paperwork done on time.


• I have yet to find a book entitled "Managers who Changed the World" or "Great Managers of the Civil War."


• When people say that they are managing, they are referring to getting by - I want to do more with my vocation (and my life) than just get by.


• Managing the processs means getting the work done - while I always want to get the work done, what I want more is to get the next work started.


• Managers who get promoted to leadership positions often fail due to The Peter Principle - the world does not need more people who lead by managing.


• Managers get promoted because they do things right - I would rather be known for doing the right things.


• Managers get promoted because they don't make mistakes - I would rather be failing more often because I have gone out on a limb to try something new.


• Managers take great pride in a well designed process - I get more excited with a well-thought out project.

Perhaps in this discussion of my lack of "good management" my pride was more wounded than I thought it might be. As I reflected on this discussion, I realized that this ability to not manage well had little to do with my ability to manage - and more to do with outside factors that affected my ability to manage. So when managers (and leaders) begin to get frustrated at how others manage, consider the following factors:

• is the lack of proper management an issue with the person or an issue with the process?


• is the lack of proper management due to changes in other personnel or processes?


• is the lack of proper management a time issue or a capacity issue?


• have I fully explored with this person why they believe they are not managing the processs well?


• if the lack of proper management is an issue with multiple people (i.e. many people making the same mistakes), look to the process before anything else


• if the lack of proper management is a new issue in the organization, what has happened to cause this that might not have been happening in the past?


• is the lack of proper management a training issue?


• is the lack of proper management an attitude issue?

My advice is go and talk with the person who is not properly managing, explain the situation, explore ideas as to why this might be occuring, offer guidance to help solve the problem, and then give them time to fix it. And if this is a slight blip in their performance, realize that there are other ways to handle management issues. Burdening your best performers with management issues they do poorly and that take away their energy to lead (and manage other areas of their portfolio) wastes their time and yours. Sometimes the best way to manage those who fail to perform strongly in a certain area is to minimize their management of that issue. Not everyone does everything well - just becasue it is in the job description does not mean that a certain manager will be able to perform that particular task at a high level. What do you value - great management or great people? I know where I land on this topic...and I know what I hate about it also.

of two minds

Call them leaders and followers...call them teachers and administrators...call them employees and bosses...call them whatever you want, but within any given organization there are two disctinct groups of people - those who do the essential work of the organization and those who organize, direct, control, and plan (classic management functions) for the organization. While I am all for flat organizations - and for roles rather than titles - and for sharing the workload...I also know that these two groups of people are mostly in those roles because that is how they think. Today's blog comes from a conversation I had yesterday afternoon with one of Concordia's faculty - and the discussion came down to how faculty anbd administrators think - and ultimately how they see the world and act in that world. I have found that the hardest thing we have to do in organizations is to put ourselves in other people's shoes. In my organization, administrators want faculty to think like administrators...and faculty want administrators to think like faculty. Personally, I am glad that they don't think like each other, becasue then one of them would be unnecessary (I know of many faculty who beleive that administrators are unnecessary - and vice versa). Each group of people are charged with different roles within the institution, and they need to live out those roles with that unique set of eyes. One of the potential problems we see in institutions is that those who do their main calling well (i.e. teaching) get promoted to an administrative level (i.e. dean). While there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, one of the hard shifts that never takes place is that the person receiving the promotion needs to remove their former "hat" and put on a new one. A dean within the University setting is no longer a faculty member and needs to stop thinking like a faculty member in their dean role. A faculty member who wants to act like a dean will often find themself frustrated and make comments or accusations from a place they have never been or understood. That being said, I believe there are people who do think like an administrator and should be given the opportunity to use that thinking - and then be trained for an administrative role in the future. I recently put together an interim sucession plan for my college, and as I went around to the faculty asking whom they thought I should name as an interim sucessor, it was 100% unanimous. The person they all believed should take on the role was the same one I also had thought would be best at it. This person is a tremendous teacher and faculty member - but also shows administrative abilities...and when asked about future goals named an administrative position. Here's what's interesting...this particular faculty member never complains about administrative decisions (not the norm for most faculty). On the flip side, I have colleagues in adminsitrative positions who should be back in faculty positions. They think like faculty, they talk like faculty and they act like faculty. They are - by very nature faculty - and were moved into an administrative position by default most times. I often see them frustrated at the administration (even though they ARE the administration) and see their world through faculty eyes. One of the problems in most organizations is that it is almost impossible to "go back" to previous positions because the pay will be less. I do not know what the solution for this can be - but it sure would help to put people where they can best use their talents and gifts for the good of the organization. A book I read a long time ago, based on the Myers-Briggs personality types, was entitled Please Understand Me. My pleas is that leaders and followers...teachers and administrators...employees and bosses begin to better understand one another. Please understand that each group thinks differently from the other...please understand that much of this different type of thinking has to do with gifts and talents...please understand that when one complains about the other it is through their own unique view of the world and not about the actions of the other person...please understand that each group is doing their best work as they know how and sometimes needs to be told that how they see the world may be in conflict with how the other group sees the world...please understand that those who are REALLY good at what they do can often get myopic and need to reminded of the other group's mindset...please understand that TRUST of the other group can go a long way in building relationships...please understand that each group has a unique calling and vocation that needs to be honored...and please understand that each group needs the other. In my world, a college without faculty would cease to exist as there would be no one doing the work of the institution - and a college without administrators would cease to exist as there would be no buildings, no paychecks, and no plans from which to continue operating. As one who sees the world through an adminsitrative lens, I am thankful for my colleagues who see the world through a faculty lens - I hope and pray they feel the same way about me.