That’s where the commercial ends.

Others I know have accounts on Facebook, MySpace, and others that they update on a regular basis.  Now…Twitter is all the rage.  I have to admit prior to it being mentioned in a recent staff meeting at work, I had no idea it even existed or what purpose it served.  I like to think I’m not a cyber-dinosaur who has no clue how to navigate the internet, but to me Twitter was a word we used growing up as a kid to describe light conversation with little or no purpose.  What’s interesting is that that definition isn’t too far from the truth as to the actual purpose of Twitter.  With Twitter an individual can update what they are doing or thinking about on a moments notice…so long as it is less than 140 words.  Here area few examples:

• Going to work
• Waiting for a bus
• Bored, nothing to do
• Eating dinner

Ok so we’re not talking the Magna Carta here.

Some other folks delve in the more philosophical:

• Small amounts of philosophy [Wisdom] lead to atheism, but larger amounts bring us back to God. Francis Bacon
• The most practical, beautiful, workable philosophy in the world won’t work – if you won’t. –Zig Ziglar
• We can never solve a problem at the same level at which it was created. Albert Einstein.

All of this Twittering begs to ask the question, “Are we using Twitter and other similar applications as a substitute for meaningful communication.” Consider the work environment as well…is email acting as a substitute for face to face direct communication?  Social networks and communication applications work as an enhancement to actual communication, not in lieu of it.  At the core of communication is an understanding of feelings, thoughts, and a thorough understanding of the context of a situation.  These are things that require an in depth conversation. In the work environment, this is even more critical.  For example, before beginning to map out milestones and developmental opportunities for an employee, it is first essential to understand what it is that they strive to be in their career.  What often catches managers off guard is what to do when the assumptions that they held about an individual employee turn out to be off base. 

So rather than Twittering, both literally and figuratively, stop and take the time to actually talk.  Ask the difficult questions and actually listen to the answer. In the end, the dialogue will be more meaningful and your appreciation and understanding of a situation will be far deeper.

Boston Globe Columnist

March 12, 2009

It was the kind of meeting that is taking place in restaurant kitchens, small offices, retail storerooms, and large auditoriums all over this city, all over this state, all over this country.

Paul Levy, the guy who runs Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, was standing in Sherman Auditorium the other day, before some of the very people to whom he might soon be sending pink slips.

In the days before the meeting, Levy had been walking around the hospital, noticing little things.

He stood at the nurses’ stations, watching the transporters, the people who push the patients around in wheelchairs. He saw them talk to the patients, put them at ease, make them laugh. He saw that the people who push the wheelchairs were practicing medicine.

He noticed the same when he poked his head into the rooms and watched as the people who deliver the food chatted up the patients and their families.

He watched the people who polish the corridors, who strip the sheets, who empty the trash cans, and he realized that a lot of them are immigrants, many of them had second jobs, most of them were just scraping by.

And so Paul Levy had all this bouncing around his brain the other day when he stood in Sherman Auditorium.

He looked out into a sea of people and recognized faces: technicians, secretaries, administrators, therapists, nurses, the people who are the heart and soul of any hospital. People who knew that Beth Israel had hired about a quarter of its 8,000 staff over the last six years and that the chances that they could all keep their jobs and benefits in an economy in freefall ranged between slim and none.

“I want to run an idea by you that I think is important, and I’d like to get your reaction to it,” Levy began. “I’d like to do what we can to protect the lower-wage earners – the transporters, the housekeepers, the food service people. A lot of these people work really hard, and I don’t want to put an additional burden on them.

“Now, if we protect these workers, it means the rest of us will have to make a bigger sacrifice,” he continued. “It means that others will have to give up more of their salary or benefits.”

He had barely gotten the words out of his mouth when Sherman Auditorium erupted in applause. Thunderous, heartfelt, sustained applause.

Paul Levy stood there and felt the sheer power of it all rush over him, like a wave. His eyes welled and his throat tightened so much that he didn’t think he could go on.

When the applause subsided, he did go on, telling the workers at Beth Israel, the people who make a hospital go, that he wanted their ideas.

The lump had barely left his throat when Paul Levy started getting e-mails.

The consensus was that the workers don’t want anyone to get laid off and are willing to give up pay and benefits to make sure no one does. A nurse said her floor voted unanimously to forgo a 3 percent raise. A guy in finance who got laid off from his last job at a hospital in Rhode Island suggested working one less day a week. Another nurse said she was willing to give up some vacation and sick time. A respiratory therapist suggested eliminating bonuses.

“I’m getting about a hundred messages per hour,” Levy said yesterday, shaking his head.

Paul Levy is onto something. People are worried about the next paycheck, because they’re only a few paychecks away from not being able to pay the mortgage or the rent.

But a lot of them realize that everybody’s in the same boat and that their boat doesn’t rise because someone else’s sinks.

Paul Levy is trying something revolutionary, radical, maybe even impossible: He is trying to convince the people who work for him that the E in CEO can sometimes stand for empathy.

Consider a situation in which one might feel insulted or offended in a conflict situation.  The transgression could involve hurt feelings, personal verbal attacks, or even something as extreme as physical violence.  The injured party has two distinct options in handling the aftermath of the situation.  He can forgive the individual for the transgression or he can live in a state of unforgiveness. The former involves benefits for both the individual themselves as well as for others around him. The latter decision, however, condemns the individual to a state of bitterness, resentment and anger (Cahn & Abigail, 2007). 

Forgiveness is defined as a process that allows an individual to let go of feelings and a desire to retaliate (Cahn & Abigail, 2007).  Forgiveness is characterized by a reduction in focus on the other person and the transgression that was perpetrated.  In addition, forgiveness affirms the other person as an individual and rejects the notion of victimization (Cahn & Abigail, 2007).  In this respect, forgiveness empowers the individual to take control of the situation rather than have the situation and the emotions associated with it consume the individual involved.

There are two critical aspects to note about forgiveness.  First, forgiveness does not minimize the action or the consequences that may have occurred because of the transgression (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).  It recognizes the event for what actually occurred and the feelings that were involved.  Second, forgiveness does not negate the need or even the desire for justice involving the situation (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007). The offended parties may still desire restitution for the event.

The reality of forgiveness is that it has a profound effect interpersonally as well as intrapersonally.  The benefit to the offending party is obvious.  It puts them in a position where they do not need to feel retaliation or retribution.  This may help them to to issue an apology to the offended parties as well as begin to atone for their actions (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).    This can help the healing and resolution process for all involved.  As for the intrapersonal aspect of forgiveness, the offended party can release the anger and hostility associated with the event.  No longer will they be filled with all consuming rage against the individual.  We periodically hear about such cases in the news where the victim of a crime forgives the perpetrator and actually communicates with the individual.  This may even occur within a correctional institution where the individual meets with the offender and expresses their forgiveness.  It does not eliminate the need for the individual to pay their debt to society though. 

Finally, forgiveness is not a position of weakness.  The opposite is true.  Forgiveness empowers the individual to rise above the situation and begin to look at the betterment of themselves and those associated with the event.  In this respect, it is a position of strength that helps all involved to leave the events of the past, in the past.

Reference

Cahn, D. & Abigail, R. (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Wilmot, W. and Hocker, J., (2007). Interpersonal conflict (4th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Data gathering and analysis lays the framework for building the plan.  A key component of this is the need for the mediator to understand the people and/or groups involved.  Not only is it important to understand who is involved, but also the attitudes of those individuals and what potentially would constitute a win for each (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).  For example, consider the case of a management and union negotiation.  The intent and desire of each group is to walk away from the table with a win to take back to their respective teams.  For the union negotiators, it may involve increased job security, better wages, or a comprehensive benefit package.  On the management side, it may result in the ability to stop a potential strike, reduce expenditures, or secure a wage structure that is in line with enhancing organizational growth, minimizing costs, and increasing shareholder value.  A resolution that skews to heavily to one side can adversely impact the current relationship between the parties involved or put future negotiations at risk as the group on the losing end may look to seek retribution for prior losses or perceived indignities.  With this in mind, the mediator may want to adopt a positional approach to data gathering (Moore, 2003).  Essentially, the positional approach allows the mediator to uncover individual and group’s positions on various issues associated with the conflict (Moore, 2003).  Take the aforementioned conflict between management and union negotiators.  A positional approach done through a face to face interview with both parties could yield that the major issue with the union is the need to provide their members with a comprehensive health benefit package.  The management team may be willing to concede this point in lieu of a larger salary increase or in return for a longer contract term that caps wages and salary.  In this manner, both parties would be able to go back to their respective constituencies with a win.

Once the data is gathered, it is essential that a structured mediation plan be employed.  A mediation plan essentially answers the question “how do I use the data?”  Conflicts are situational in nature and different approaches may be necessary based upon a number of factors and require the use of different strategies and approaches (Moore, 2003).  A mediation plan outlines the appropriate approach and what data may be relevant.  Two key ingredients, however, are the need for both parties to feel as though they have had the opportunity to express their views, opinions and needs and the need for the mediator to be both unbiased and respectful to all involved (Wilmot & Hocker, 2007).

References

Moore, C. (2003). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Wilmot, W. & Hocker, J. (2007).  Interpersonal conflict.  New York: McGraw-Hill

Within the business environment, power or the perception of an individual’s power surfaces frequently.  Some individuals within an organization have high power.  These individuals have titles and responsibilities that go along with their high power.  Other individuals in the organization may perceive themselves or be perceived by others as having low power and influence within an organization.  These individuals may feel a lack of ability to achieve their own goals or even feel a silent sense of despair regarding their status (Wilmot and Hocker, 2007). 

For the high power party, an unchecked ability to utilize power can lead to the temptation of the individual to use that power for illegal purposes (Wilmot and Hocker, 2007).  We saw this frequently in the late 90s and early 2000s as numerous organizations and individuals succumbed to the abuse of power.  One example is Enron, which collapsed amidst improper accounting procedures and the willful attempt of many of its leaders to defraud the public, while profiting from illegal activities.  Eventually, many of the perpetrators were arrested, tried, and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. One example includes CEO Jeffrey Skilling who was found guilty of 19 counts of insider trading, securities fraud, and conspiracy (Houston Chronicle.com, 2008). 

With low power parties, continual losses and setbacks can result in the individual or group becoming disenfranchised by the organization (Wilmot and Hocker, 2007).  This attitude could manifest itself in the employee becoming frustrated with the organization and the individuals who lead it.  Worse yet, this feeling of powerlessness could lead the parties to perpetrate crimes against the organization to include theft, sabotage, or in extreme cases, even violence. 

The important factor for individuals in high power positions to keep in mind is that restraint is a critical lever in the use of power (Wilmot and Hocker, 2007).  This necessitates high power groups (in the corporate environment, this is the manager or supervisor) affording others around them the opportunity to gain power.  This can be done, in part, by presenting others the opportunity to make key decisions regarding a project or encouraging others to take a more active role in groups or committees.  This will not only enhance their power within the organization but increase their self-esteem as well.  Creating a more power balanced organization where everyone has the opportunity to contribute is not only the right decision, it is the smart one financially as well.

References

Houston Chronicle.com (2008)  The fall of enron.  Retrieved October 21, 2009 from http://www.chron.com/news/specials/enron/

Wilmot, W. & Hocker, J. (2007).  Interpersonal conflict.  New York: McGraw-Hill

Is leadership a morally neutral characteristic or skill. That is, there have been “great” leaders of fascist states for example. Should we consider them great or not.

Here are my thoughts…I welcome yours.

This is a great question and one of critical importance.

Leadership cannot be morally neutral.

In the forward of Joanne Ciulla’s 1998 classic book on ethical leadership, Ethics: The Heart of Leadership, James MacGregor Burns actually does the best job of explaining it through the use of his three leadership values. Burns identifies these values as ethical values, modal values and end values. Each warrant additional explanation.

Ethical values is mom and apple pie. Burn describes this as sobriety, chastity, abstention, kindness; things that serve as a basic character test. Consider the implications of an individual in a leadership role who violates these basic principles. Former New York Governor Spitzer is a case study in a failure of ethical values.

Modal values involves what Burns refers to as honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, reliability, rec­iprocity, and accountability.

End values involve such traits as as security, liberty, equality, justice and community frequently seen in Transformational Leadership (think Lincoln).

The problem with with these values, however, is that they can conflict with cultural reality. For example, as Burn cites, modal values too tend to be culture-based and diverse. One society’s honesty is another society’s incivility; one society’s reciprocity is another society’s corruption.  However, in each one of these values there are characteristics that transcend culture and speak to basic human dignity, honor and respect.  Think about the words:

Integrity, trust, respect, accountability, equality: these are not morally neutral words.

Where there has been commonality, however, is society’s slow steady progress toward end values. When we think of great leaders we think in these terms. We think about how they improved the common good , help establish justice and build the community.  Being a great leader involves transformational leadership and when examined through this lens, the number of great leaders dwindle significantly.

History has its share of great leaders. Burns talks about Mandela, King, and Gandhi, but there are others: the Dalai Lama, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Theresa to name a few.  None of these individuals were morally neutral.

The world continues to grow and move at amazing speeds. We can instantly communicate with someone across the world, we can see steaming videos on the net as they happen, and we can travel to any major city in the world in less than 24 hours. The capability of the military of the world’s nations is staggering.  However, even with these changes undreamed of by our forefathers, the necessity for moral and ethical leadership that speaks to the end values identified by Burns remains clear.

Now, more than ever.

Simple Truths.

Many organizations, as well, speak about the importance of collaboration. 

The bottom line is that organizations that advocate and encourage cooperation and collaboration are more successful than ones that do not.   We see it in sports quite often, with teams, who have high payroll salaries failing to have even a winning record because of clashing egos and competing personal interests. 

The same holds true for corporate culture as well.

So what do cultures that have high institutional collectivism look like?

·         Members assume that they are interdependent with the organization.

·         Group loyalty is highly encouraged.

·         The society’s economic system tends to maximize the interests of collectives.

·         Groups make critical decisions.

Now compare this to low institutional collectivism cultures:

·         Members assume that they are largely independent of the organization.

·         Pursuit of individual goals is encouraged, even at the expense of group loyalty.

·         The society’s economic system tends to maximize the interests of individuals.

·         Critical decisions are made by individuals

Interestingly, the US is rated as somewhere in the middle.

Look at organizational culture through this lens.  Consider the implications of a business that has a low institutional collectivism culture.  The reality is that they would have little chance of survival.  We saw this occur on a regular basis back in the dot.com era of the late 90s.  Organizations would spend huge sums of money on salaries, lavish parties and publicity with very little to show for it.  To prove my point, go back and look the companies who paid for commercials during the 2000 Super Bowl, 17 of them did it.  Most do not exist anymore. 

Anyone remember Our Beginning.com?  Didn’t think so.

The point here is that organizations that are not in silos, cooperate toward the betterment of the overall organization and make decisions together, are far more effective than ones that don’t.  Much like Fulghum’s book, this is a simple truth.

Reference

Northhouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice.  Thousand Oaks California: Sage Publications

Jerome Bettis

“Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life, as by the obstacles which have been overcome while trying to succeed.”  –Booker T. Washington 

Let’s expand a bit on power and talk about formal and informal power.

Formal Leaders are the easiest to understand and recognize.  These are individuals who have been given title and authority to influence others to achieve established organizational goals and objectives.  They are generally measured and incentivized by their ability to motivate the team to accomplish these goals.  In this manner, success of the formal leader is linked directly to performance of the team.  If the team does well, the leader is considered a success.

Informal leaders are a bit more complex.  An informal leader is an individual, without formal title or authority, who is perceived by the group as an individual worthy of being followed.  This may be because of subject matter expertise, longevity with the company or in the industry, or prior successes recognized by the organization and/or team.  Informal leaders are critical to the success of the team and may wield more power and influence than the formal leader. 

Here are some of the key differences between the two:

1) Informal leaders are not accountable to the same group goals and metrics assigned to the formal leader. 

2) An informal leader’s influence can extend to areas outside of the organizational goals

3) Informal leaders demonstrate leadership traits that are recognized by the team.  They motivate, mentor and even inspire the team.  Formal leaders may or may not have these characteristics.

4) An informal leader has garnered the trust and respect of the team.  For the Formal Leader, this is something that often has to be earned.

Every organization and group has informal and formal leaders.  For example, sports teams have managers and Head Coaches, however, how often do you read about them being replaced because they simply could not relate to the players or motivate them?  A new coach comes in, recognizes who the informal leaders are and partners with them to point the team in the right direction.

Informal leaders can do things that the formal leader cannot.  Using the sporting analogy again, frequently you read in the media, especially during the playoffs, of informal leaders holding team meetings to inspire and motivate.

I’m a Steeler fan…so I’ll use them as an example.  Prior to the AFC Championship Game a few years back, Jerome Bettis stood up and gave an emotional speech to his team that culimated with the words “Just get me to Detroit” (where the Super Bowl was being held).  The Steelers later went on to beat the Broncos 34-17 and advance to Super Bowl (where they beat the Seahawks 21-10).  Bettis was the informal leader of the team.  His words motivated in a way that Head Coach Bill Cowher’s could never do.

This same dynamic holds true in the corporate world as well.  A team where the formal and informal leaders are working toward the same goal are incredibly effective.  Formal leaders who are able both through words and actions demonstrate that they are concerned about the organization, care about the welfare of the team members, and support developmental opportunities for the team, stand a far greater chance of achieving the goals for which they are being held accountable,

So…if you are a formal leader ask yourself, who is your Jerome Bettis and how can you partner with him/her to get your team to the Super Bowl?