Monthly Archives: March 2016

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

Practicing consistent, repeatable and sustainable behaviors

Leave a comment

Leaders behavior drives achievement.  What you do and say either directly or indirectly influences results.

Behavioral Maturity

Fully developed, full grown (i.e. mature) behaviors are generally founded on experience and exhibit the following traits:

  • Consistency – stakeholders know what to expect and are never surprised.  Whether they feel positive or negative about your actions,  you are much easier to collaberate with when your reactions have commonalty to them.
  • Repeatable – your actions are not special or superhuman.  An effective behavior works every time (in the appropriate circumstances).  If it is something you would not repeat, thats usually a good sign it is best not done in the first place.
  • Sustainable – you should be planning on leading for the long term and both what you do and say at any given point in time needs to stand the test of time.

Whats in it for you?

By very definition leadership is not a point in time activity.  Actions that get it done now, or stop gap an issue for the near term signal leadership is not at play.

When reviewing your own behaviors or seeking input from others always consider six month to one year durations at a minimum.  Inconsistencies you identify should not be ignored or cast aside as one time anomalies.

In fact the occassions you might not have behaved consistently define your behavior most.  These stand out in others view, it is what they remember the most about you.

On the whole your leadership behaviors might be supportive, collaberative, open and well communicated.  Unfortunately it is the times they were not that stand out.

 

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

Is Meritocracy the Answer?

Leave a comment

I came across a term the other day I was not fully familiar with.  Meritocracy refers to the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability.

The concept fully resonates with me, however I was unfamiliar with the word itself.  This can apply to government, business or social/public organizations.

Is it possible?

Driven by emotion and fundamental behaviors embedded into our genetic codes I believe there are a multitude of factors involved in the selection of those in power.

Political factors, rewards, race, gender and a whole host of other things (even luck)  drive how  power is granted (and in this I include forms of self selection).

Often those in power are considered to be leaders.  I refer to those holding power (they could be managers, supervisors, head of household, and so on). In these case we are usually referring to a person in power whose leadership abilities earned them the power, or so we hope.  (Unfortunately, these could include both positive or negative leadership behaviors).

While having a meritocratic organization might be an ideal to seek, given the complex myriad of considerations which can be applied to selecting of those in power,  coupled with lack of consistent definition as to what constitutes ability, I would argue a true meritocracy does not and cannot exist anywhere.

Although the ideal is something we should strive for.

Leadership Behaviors

A great metric for selecting and granting power to someone is an analysis of their behavior.

Leadership behavior is well documented, although the list and priority of behaviors is not fully consistent as to which are the most important or applicable in any circumstance. Regardless, there is consensus as to the top ten behaviors.

The methods of measuring how well someone demonstrates leadership includes a subjective component but even so there is even objectivity that on the whole both the frequency, consistency and effectiveness of a persons behavior is measurable with some confidence as to the accuracy.

So here’s an idea, let’s use the measure of leadership behavior as a bar for our determination of ability, when granting power.

Sadly, in my experience this approach is not practiced often enough.

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

Gathering input from others

Leave a comment

A key to continuous improvement is an open sharing of information.  There are a number of contexts for providing input, spanning from the very formal to the informal (and all stops inbetween).

Within an organizational framework, whether personal (e.g. a family heirarchy) or business with defined roles (e.g. boss, subordinate, colleague) the way input is provided often depends on how it is recieved.

In situations where a boss is observed to regularly shoot the messenger (even if they don’t see it themselves) the information flow dries up.

I am surprised how often I have sat through group meetings and the leader asked for feedback, just to be met with silence.

Facilitators

Years ago it became very popular in Corporate and other public organizations to call the leader of a meeting or training session a facilitator.

This derives from a recognition that a key sucess factor in working sessions is open exchange of information.  Consider sessions focused on increasing knowledge (training), arriving at solutions to issues or working out ways to improve processes or practices ,  The facilitator is a key catlyst to achievement of the desired outcomes.

Facilitators are charged not with judging or forcing decisions but rather guiding participants to a result.  They are accountable to ensure it’s clear that all participation, all input is important and valued.

The underlying key to good facilitation is receptivity without judgement.

All input is valued

Whether in a formally facilitated session, a routine team meeting or even just a family huddle, successfully gathering input from others requires 100% application of open reception.  Value everything, even if your initial reaction is “oh god” what are they thinking?

This is the only way to ensure others ideas keep flowing.

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

I have personal conceits and I am proud of it

Leave a comment

I often wonder why people view conceit as a negative trait.  For me it is hard to understand why having an excessively favorable opinion of ones own ability, importance and wit could be considered a personality flaw.

Circular Argument

Using constraint about expressing your ability and importance (humility) is considered a positive trait.   If you are able to practice humility, that is you have the ability and skill to do so you should be proud of yourself (a conceit).

And so, the argument circles, if you are conceited it means a lack of humility, however a lack of humility leads to low levels of conceit.

Be Proud, Stand Tall

I am proud of my capabilities, not in comparison to others but as they relate to me  (Sometimes it really is just about me).  To operate and integrate with other people I need to balance conceit and humility but inwardly I do not view strong self confidence as a bad thing (an internal conceit if you will).

Only you control what you are, not what others think

There is an argument that is “I believe I am, then I am”.  This philosophy has been expressed by many groups in many different forms through out human kinds history.

It is conceptual.  Consider for example that I believe I am selfless.  I might not be viewed by others that way.  My road to being selfless though starts with my own conscious belief.  Without that personal internal foundation it really is unlikely I will become selfless.

Of course on the other hand, believing I am selfless does not make it so.

In the End

Balance in all of these traits – self confidence, conceit, humility and dozens of others – is the real key.  Although it is a bit of a trite saying “too much of anything is not a good thing”.

The key point I am trying to make though, is don’t let others drive you to false humility.  When you need a personal conceit, go for it (although never at the expense of others).

Random thoughts – keeping you on your toes

Collecting Garbage

1 Comment

A number of years ago my wife and I moved from Toronto, Canada to Edmonton.  We  recently become empty nesters before the move and decided to houseclean.

We engaged a company called 1 800 Got Junk to take away our garbage.   The cost was $600 per truckload, basically a load was the size of one of those industrial waste containers you see on building sites.

We filled five truckloads ($3000) and still moved enough stuff across the country to fill a 1700 square foot house. I am almost embarrassed to tell this story.

Why do we need all this stuff?

Each week we collect the garbage at our house.  Things like discarded packaging, food leftovers and broken or old junk items.   This is almost two bags a week.

I suppose it is a rhetorical question, but I ask myself ” Where does all this garbage come from?”

Over the last several years my wife and I have been actively practicing waste mangement.  While donation for reuse and recycling are key one of our key tenants is reduced accumulation.  The theory is, If you don’t aquire stuff, you won’t have stuff to throw away.

I would love to say all these things work well.  I am sure there is some benefit, somehow though the garbage keeps appearing.