leadership as a stochastic art

This weekend I finished an awesome book entitled Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into the value of Work by Matthew Crawford. Crawford has his PhD in Political Philosophy from the University of Chicago - and presently owns and runs a motorcycle repair shop in Richmond, VA. Without going too deeply into his ideology of the work ethic, suffice it to say that I have a whole new respect for the plumber and carpenter who come to my home to repair that which I cannot - or chose not to. To "rank" certain vocations, or to give them names such as blue collar and white collar, does injustice to everyone and creates a society that is often less than fully functional.

That being said (and I do encourge you to read the book), Crawford speaks about the stochastic arts, referring to Aristotle who wrote, "it does not belong to medicine to produce health, but only to promote it as much as possible..." The doctor (or mechanic, in Crawford's world) deals with failure every day becasue they are only FIXING, never building or creating. They fix things not of their own making. Crawford writes, "Because the stochastic arts diagnose and fix thing that are variable, complex, and not of our own making, and therefore not fully knowable, they require a certain disposition toward the thing you are trying to fix. This disposition is at once cognitve and moral. Getting it right demands that you be attentive in the way of a conversation rather than assertive in the way of a demonstration" (p. 82).

Consider leadership as a stochastic art. Leaders lead people, none of whom they have created. Leaders lead organizations, few of which they have created. Leaders influence people, all of whom have their own worldview and understanding of how life should function. Leaders work to make change happen, all the while wondering how others will respond to that change. Leaders see a different future for their organization, a future which can only be achieved through changes in people, all of whom the leader has not created or made. People and organizations are, in Crawford's words, variable and complex...they are not fully knowable...they react on their own...they react differently in different situations...leaders cannot produce change, they can only promote it.

So consider what it means for a leader to be "attentive in the way of a conversation rather than assertive in the way of a demonstration." Skills needed to do this include listening, asking good questions, collaborating, inviting different voices to the table, observing, believing one might be wrong from time to time, letting others take the lead, being transparent, being optimistic, showing empathy, and working to develop others. As you watch other leaders (and yourself) over these next few days, see how many times these people engage in demonstration rather than conversation. When you observe one or the other, ask yourself why that happened that way - and what you can do to promote a change of behavior in that other person...or in the organization...or in yourself. If you catch yourself demonstrating rather than conversing, stop and apologize to the other person, and see if you can exhibit behavior which is more conversational than demonstrative.

Two books for you to consider and read this week:

1. Shop Class as Soulcraft by Matthew Crawford (Penguin Press, 2009)
2. Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boayatzis, and Annie McKee (Harvard Business Press, 2002)

BOSS

I just now finished reading a biography of Richard J. Daley, mayor of Chicago from 1954-1976. The book, entitled American Pharoah, is both demeaning and flattering of the person known simply as "BOSS," the title of an earlier biography written by Chicago columnist Mike Royko. Growing up just outside of Chicago, many of the events and names througout the book were familir to me, having shaped my earlier years in terms of what leadership should look like.

Richard J. Daley, while known by most people for the events surrounding the 1968 Democratic Convention held in Chicago, was known in Chicago for the way he controlled the "machine" that ran Chicago politics for many, many years. Looking back on those times, I am struck by the paradox that while personally I am against any such graft or politicking, I also can see how much progress was made for the city of Chicago during these times. There is no doubt that Mayor Daley loved Chicago and its people - and did everything he could to make it a great city. The fact that he did it using policital cronyism at the expense of many others, bothers me - yet I wonder if Chicago would be the city it is today without such political behavior.

I know that it is poeple like Richard J. Daley (among many others) who give the term "acting politically" a bad name. Leaders have to be able to "act politically" to get things accomplished...to make things happen...to drive change. The term itself - "to act politically" - is not inherently evil. Leaders have all kinds of power to do so - and that is where the problem often lies. Having the multiple types of power available to onself can easily lead to corruption. The famous phrase - "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" - often makes people leery of power. Leaders who become leery of power will often refuse to use it for the good of their organizations. Not only may the not know how to act politically...they refuse to act politically, keeping their followers and their organization from moving forward and enacting significant change.

Perhaops the answer lies in Jim Collins' theory of Level 5 Leadership, which he describes as those who have the indomintable will to act coupled with intense humility. There was not much humility in Richard J. Daley's life - thought there was incredible will to act. On the other hand, we as a country witnessed great humilty from President Gerald Ford, with little or no will to act. Is there a middle ground? I certianly hope so, and I believe it can be accomplished in some of the following ways:

• leaders need to know what the mission and vision is - and keep that as the main goal
• leaders need to surround themselves with people of differing views, not only by what is often referred to as "yes-men"
• leaders need to continually ask themselves whether their actions are for the greater good or for a select group of people
• leaders need to continually self-reflect and honestly look at their own motives
• leaders need to comfortable with the paradox of doing what is good for the institution AND taking care of people at the same time
• leaders need to confront their own prejudices and ways of behavior, dealing honestly with actions that conflict with the mission, vision and values of the institution
• leaders need time to be by themselves, not always surrounded by the pressure of the moment
• leaders need to be aware of their care for "the least of these," whomever that might be in their organziations and communities

It's good to be "boss" - it's good to be in charge - it's good to act politically - it's good to have power...but it's also good to remain humble - and it's also good to build a larger base of leadership - and it's also good to act justly - and it's also good to share power. These seemingly contradictory ways of thinking are some of the hallmarks of great leadership, which can be used to move an organization forward and to act for the common good.

That being said, I just wanted to say once again that these are the type of leaders we will be developing through The Concordia MBA, which will see its inagural class begin in the fall of 2010. The first information session is scheduled for Tuesday, April 6 at 5:30 PM at Concordia University Texas. This is an exciting time for us in the College of Business. Keep us in your thoughts and prayers as we move forward in this venture.

why do I care?

This past week I have had a long conversation with a colleague about leadership from the middle and gave a talk at the IACBE conference on developing leadership capacity in college students. In additon, I have been reading Daniel Pink's new boon entitled Drive, and had an interesting conversation with a friend at the IACBE conference on servant leadership. My life seems to be filled with thoughts and conversations on leadership - I wonder why that might be?

If you are reading this blog, you are also probably interested in leadership (or are just being a good friend to me and reading my blog because you want to tell me that you actually read my blog). So why are you thinking about leadership? What is it thast makes you look at leaders and wonder why they do what they do? Why are you anxiously waiting to read the next great book on leadership and try to learn something new? Why do you care about becoming a better leader yourself?

Let's consider this question for a few moments:

• you care about leadership because you feel a call to lead
• you care about leadership because you are in a position in which you should be leading
• you care about leadership because those who lead you are either 1) grossly incompetent or 2) very competent and you want to know what makes them the way they are
• you care about leadership because you believe you have been called to make changes in the world around you - and you know that leadership skills are needed to make change happen
• you care about leadership because you have been put into a position where you are expected to lead - and you actually want to do a good job with that
• you care about leadership because you have always been a natural leader - people look to you to lead and come to you with ideas about leadership
• you care about leadership because you have hope for the future - and you believe it will take a new type of leader to solve the problems we will all face in the future.

And so the list goes on. I think that if one can articulate WHY they care about leadership, it can shape what they read...what they talk about...what they think about...to whom they talk... and the actions they take to make a difference. So ask yourself why you care about leadership and why you are taking the time to read this blog. And if you like the answer - ot not quite sure about the answer - post a comment and let's see what kind of conversatin we can get going to learn from each other about why people (especially you and me) care about leadership.

the art of integrity

Last week I quoted a former boss of mine who defined integrity by "doing what one says they will do." I could not agree more. The idea of integrity is at the heart of good leadership, for integrity is what creates trust, which is what creates followers, which is what creates a culture of developing leaders. I suppose when I use the phrase "the art of integrity" it implies that acting in an integral manner is something one is born with and not a learned behavior. However, let me interpret that phrase a bit differently. In refering to the ART of integrity, I am using that term in a way that describes what happens when one lives out their leadership through integrity. Let me explain further...

Integrity is a matter of choice. Leaders are faced with this choice multiple times every day. They are asked by those around them (colleagues, other leaders, followers) to do things...because that's what leaders do - they get things done...and they are able to get things done either from their influential power or their positional power. When people rely on their influential power, they may or may not be able to accomplish the task which they set off to do. When people rely on their positional power, there should be a greater likelihood that they will be able to do what they say they will do. Of course, there are many exceptions to both of these concepts, but for the most part, leaders have the ability to do what they say they will do because...well, because they are leaders and they can find a way to get things done. And when they do those things which they say they will get done, they perform in a manner that exhibits integrity, whish builds trust, which creates more followers, which creates a culture of developing other leaders. All well and good!

But what happens when leaders choose not to act in a manner that exhibits integrity?

• Communication breaks down - it becomes difficult to talk about issues in a collaborative fashion because people don't know whether or not that person will follow through on what they said they would do.
• Trust erodes - the less one is trusted, the less they have the ability to influence the organization for good. People begin talking about them behind their back, and less and less people engage them to help get things done.
• Isolation occurs - the one who chooses not to exhibit integrity will begin to isolate himself or herself (because they will start avoiding people) and others will isolate themselves from the leader (because they have lost trust in that person).
• Silos are built and/or reinforced - others who act in a similar manner will align themselves with the person who does not exhibit integrity - and others align themselves against that person. Communication breaks down, trust erodes, isolation occurs, and silos become ironclad.
• Vision disappears - People who don't do what they say they will do must constantly find ways to protect themselves or cover their tracks. If time is spent in this manner, then time is being robbed from the mission and vision of the organization. Similarly, as others grow frustrated with the leader who lacks integrity, they too waste precious time and energy on the unimportant.

So what can be done? In an organziation where lack of integrity is isolated or the exception, these people need to be confronted, having their inconsistency and lack of integrity pointed out. In an open and trusting environment, this can happen from anyone in the organization, and changes can be made that have the possibility of bringing an organization not only to a functioning level but to a place where trust determines a culture of openness and greatness. If the organization is a place where lack of integrity is protected - and sometimes even rewarded - then it becomes more difficult to change the patterns and culture that creates silos and mistrust and poor communication. Perhaps the best one can do is to build a culture of integrity around themselves and those who work within their circle of influence - of demanding that everyone will do what they say they will do - and of rewarding those who truly live up to this commitment.

One final thought - when you are NOT able to do what you say you will do, then you openly acknowledge that in a timely manner and ask forgiveness. That too is acting in a manner that exhibits the art of integrity, which will allow you to create trust, which will create followers, which will create a culture of developing other leaders. And that can make all the difference in the world!

leading from the middle

I have run across several books entitled something like "leading from the bottom up," or "leading from the top down ," but little has been written about leading from the middle. Perhaps little has been written about this because either 1) no one leading from the middle has time to think about writing a book; of 2) leading from the middle can be so depressing that why would any one want to write about it, much less read about it.

My role as a Dean of the College of Business at Concordia University Texas defines "leading from the middle." On one side of me is the Provost, Vice-Presidents, and President. On the other side is faculty. Talk about being "stuck." If one of the hallmarks of leadership is initating change, consider the role of Dean...in order to initiate change, one must begin with influencing those who follow that the change is good and should be embraced. This may or may not be an easy task, but one that can be accomplished over time (NEWS FLASH - we announced this week the beginning of an MBA program for next fall - so I guess we were able to enact change). Once the followers are convinced it is a good idea, then my job is to influence my boss and his colleagues that this is a good idea so that they can officially approve the idea (did I mention that we launched The Concordia MBA this week?). All of this takes time, and can be stopped at any place along the way. Frustrating? YES...Impossible? NO!

The nature of leadership from the middle means that those in "middle leadership" are always influencing two groups of people - that's the nature of the beast. So what does this mean? And how can those in "middle leadership" actually move their organization forward? Here are few ideas:

1. Be a people person - in order to have influence with followers and supervisors, you need to have access to them. Be sure you know them and they know you - and trust you (more later on that). Spend time with both groups of people beyond the times when you need something. Take a genuine interest in them and know them as real people.
2. Help both groups get what they want - the old saying that one can get everything out of life that they want if they help others get what they want is absolutely true - especially if you lead from the middle. You may find yourself acting as a translator most of the time - for me, I define my job as helping faculty understand what the administration wants, and helping the administration understand what the faculty wants. Acting as a go-between provides you access to both groups and makes the change process more smooth.
3. Build trust - a boss of mine once defined integrity as "doing what one said they would do." That action will build trust, and will allow you as a "middle leader" to get things done more quickly. When I am asked for something by either group surrounding me, I do it to the best of my ability and deliver in time. When I can't do either one of those things, I let them know. If people trust you, they will listen to you and follow you and approve your requests more readily.
4. Produce Excellence - leading from the middle may demand a greater need for excellence than in any other position. Think about it - everyone is watching you and they want results from you. Consider the fact that those in "middle leadership" have to get permission fromn two groups of people to enact any change - they're watching and they want proof that their decision to grant you permission was worthwhile. "Middle leaders" who produce excellent results will get a second and third chance next time they ask.
5. Be a listener - yes, you know the change you want to enact...yes, you know how it should be done...yes, you could do it easier yourself...but the fact of the matter is, if you ask for help and for people's ideas and opinions, you have a beter chance of getting it done in the long run. Not only is this a courteous thing to do, you could actually learn something and produce a better product in the end. And in the process, you have built coalitions of people because they have had a say in the matter. Being collaborative and really learning to listen are critical skills for people in "middle leadership."

I think that is a long enough list for today - besides, I have to get some more work accomplished because in a few hours I am going to the Wizard Academy - not quite sure what I am getting myself into, but I am guaranteed to have a good time and learn something...I may even learn something about leading form the middle!

developing young leaders

This weekend I have four students attending the Student Leadership Conference sponsored by the Center for Ethical Leadership housed in the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. While they are there, they will hear from such people as Former President of Ireland Mary Robinson, engage in small group sessions on using one's strengths in leadership, and spend time with other young leaders from across the country making sense of what leadership really means for someone just entering the third decade of their life.

I have a passion for developing young leaders - it resonates with me to watch college age students step up and take leadership roles...it excites me to see college age students chosen to take on projects that move an organization forward...it makes me incredibly happy when college age students engage in projects in which they get to practice their leadership gifts. I supppose I am in pretty good vocation if these are the things that give my own life meaning.

However, there are also things about being at a college that just make my blood boil when it comes to developing young leaders. Here's my list of rants about those things on a college campus that frustrate the process of developing young leaders:

1. Classes in which the professor talks all the time and students do not get to ever converse and think out loud
2. Professors who ask questions to which they already know the answer, never giving students a chance to explore other options to the questions asked
3. Courses in which students never work in teams or talk together in groups - how else will they learn this important leadership skill?
4. Faculty and administrators who do everything themselves rather than involve students in the process of decision making and event planning
5. Students being "written off" because they do not perform at a high academic level - some of these young men and women just need someone to believe in them
6. Faculty who do not provide rich experiences in the classroom (or beyond) in which students must take on leadership roles
7. Faculty who are more interested in their own subject matter and research rather than developing their students as leaders
8. Leadership courses in which theory is taught - but never practiced
9. Activities which are promoted as a place to learn and practice leadership, but all students ever do is what they are told to do
10. Students who enter a classroom in a lethargic manner, expecting to sit through a lecture and not have to engage in any form
11. Grades and GPA - because they inhibit college age students from constant improvement and thinking outside the box

Enough ranting for now - as I look through the list I realize that I am sometimes guilty of perpetuating these bad practices in higher education toward developing young people as leaders. It's time for me to step up to the plate and do something about this. I now need to figure out how to take the four students attending the conference this weekend and work with them over the next year to develop thier leadership potential - and then sit back watch them lead - which will resonate with me, excite me and make me incredibly happy. What a great vocation!

say...way

I worked with a Pastor many years ago who used to say "Everyone can have their say, but not everyone can have their way." At the time it seemed to make sense, but as I lived with the phrase over a period of time, I realized that it might not be the best advice. "Everyone having their say" began to generate into "Everyone can say what they please," and it would become ugly at times as people believed they had the right to speak their minds in public (and private). I work within an institution where this idea continues - both at public meetings and in private conversations. What has struck me about this belief of everyone having their say is that it does not hold true for EVERYONE in the organization. Those who hold leadership positions do not always get to have their say. Leaders are supposed to remain quiet while others get to rant and rave in whatever form they desire. They can ridicule, they can chastise, they can condemn, they can denigrate, they can "speak their mind" because they believe it is a God-given (American?) right to do so. And as they "have their say" they also hurt people and block forward motion. So what should leaders do when these situations occur?

1. Call people out when they speak inapproriately - if something is said publicly that is hurtful, mean, or just plain wrong, then that person should publicly be told they are wrong and should be asked to apologize and/or re-phrase their comment in public. If this the offense is public, and the reprimand is not, then others will come to believe it is okay to speak in such a manner.
2. Challenge people's thoughts ideas - when people "have their say" there are many times that they are just plain wrong. Leaders need to go to them and point out their error - and then ask for that person to make ammends by admittng their error and letting others know that they were wrong in what they said.
3. Remind people of their calling and vocation - many times when people "have their say" they are putting their nose into areas in which they have no business. God has not called me to save the world - or the church - or the university - or the organization. He has called me to be a good steward of those places; but it is not always my right - or my business - to tell others what to do or how to do it. This can be a fine line when people serve on governing organizations - all the more reason to truly understand the role one plays within an organization.
4. Develop and enforce guidelines for publilc discourse - people need to know what is acceptable behavior within a given organization or public forum. With a demise in civility these days, people believe they have an inherent right to "act out" in public. This can translate into ugly ways of speaking just because people believe they can "have their say." Kindness, humility, and compassion should be prevalent at meetings where people have the right to speak publicly.
5. Teach people how to say, "I may be wrong" - this is a powerful phrase as people engage in discourse that has differing opinions. Since none of us hold the truth ourselves, it is important to know that what we believe and what we have to say might be wrong. Imagine how meetings would go (and organizations would function) if everyone believed and used this phrase.

The challenge leaders face is how to help people understand this concept and still keep dialogue flowing amongst members of any group - whether that dialogue be public or private. Holding these two concepts in balance is never an easy task, and must be dealt with in a careful manner, for fear of stifling thought and conversation. As leaders, we approach individuals who believe they can always "have their say" with the same kindness, humility and compassion we require of them - and we do so with the understanding that we too might be wrong.