“This was the best experience of my professional career: the program you designed kept external interventions to the minimum and allowed us to share our own experiences, learn together and from each other. We now feel that our future does not depend from consultants but is entirely in our hands!” This was one of the most moving feedback we received in our career this week when my partners Tritia Neeb, Ben Clayton-Jolly, Michael Newman and I ran a “Leadership in action” development program with one of our most cherished client.

Inversely, one of our other partners still vividly remembers the Management Conference he recently witnessed; The purpose was to engage the top 300 leaders of the organization and the management team had heavily invested in it: 5 stars hotel, top external speakers (paid a fortune), the “big guys” flying on the compound by helicopter to provide a feeling of power and success to the rest, a rather generous take-away gift under the form of Ipads… If that wasn’t an obvious willingness to engage and celebrate, what else could it be?

It was a disaster… The whole style of the conference went a bit like on the short clip here below where a new leader (Rolo Lee/John Cleese), in charge of a new strategy has been parachuted to engage the whole organization… The  meeting switches people’s energy into passive consumption then silent and disengaged obedience.

Very different are some of the sessions we recently were invited to, in several parts of the world, by different clients. The executive teams had chosen much simpler (and cheaper) residential areas but with a strong informal style and intimacy conducive atmosphere and service.

Leaders were clear about what was non negotiable and presented it in a didactical style (explaining how and why they had come to such conclusions) and invited rapidly their people to join them in co-creating clarity, meaning and ownership about how the new strategy, organization or culture would be implemented. Leaders were not “broadcasting” but constructing, they were connectors rather than directors (as Gerd Leonhard would say).

They were no prestigious speakers: their time was allocated to engage people into talking to each other and get to know each other better.

When observing those conferences where openness and transparency were truly lived, I can’t prevent myself from thinking to the arrogance of a  Personal Assistant, a few years ago, intruding into our debate with her boss (who rapidly agreed with her): we were trying to encourage them to open up, build bridges with their people, show intimacy and approachability while engaging them into owning the strategy. In a shock, she replied: “Strategy is too important to be shared with employees…” There you are, this company is history today…

On my way to Zürich… Have a great week all and a good holiday for those of you taking some!
Didier

“Para descer, todo Santo ajuda” (to go down all the Saints are helpful) say the pragmatic people of the Brazilian state of Bahia (where my wonderful wife comes from).

A recent event brought this old saying back to the surface: the Fundação Dom Cabral (www.fdc.org.br) for whom I design and deliver tailored programs a week/month in Brazil, has just announced at the occasion of its yearly gathering of Brazilian C.E.O.’s that it had broken into the Financial Times 2010 ranking of the world’s top 10 best Executive Education institutions (ranking 6^th, 8^th and 9^th in diverse sub-rankings). One may imagine the sense of achievement and pride which animated the CEO’s and people of the Foundation as it reached this appreciable level in just 4 years of presence into the top 100.

My mail of highly deserved praise and congratulations to the three “founding fathers”, who led us there, was nevertheless accompanied by a word of caveat:

Some years ago, I was supporting the large meeting of 200 executives in a famous global firm. For years, it had been trailing the market leader, being a solid number two. By the end of the day, the rumor spread like a virus: “We are number one!!!” All of the sudden the large room felt like being in Rio de Janeiro in 2014, should Brazil win the World Cup there: people laughed, broke into tears, hugged each other and champaign started to flow…

But in the middle of this “alegria”, the relative quiet and forced smile of one of the very senior leaders were a stark contrast with the general mood. Concerned he might have received a personal bad news, I sat with him.

“Didier, now the hardest bit starts. It is relatively difficult to get to the top and so easy to fall. Maintaining ourselves here will be the toughest part. Have you ever heard about fear of failure? This is what will soon take over. We got here through a very strong, emotional and shared sense of Purpose. Passion, experimentation, “Fail Fast”, seek forgiveness rather than permission, exploration and risk taking are the rule now. Tomorrow, I fear that very well intentioned people will start to want to freeze the image on this success. Procedures, rules, roles, prohibitions and obligations will start to creep-in. We will drift, little by little, from a fantastically energetic and organic firm into a stratified, pyramidal, silo driven, political and fear-driven organization”.

In other terms, success, far from “growing wings”, would open an era of immobilism, loss of purpose and cultural change, all driven unconsciously by a hidden but very active fear of failing, fear of loosing what had been so painfully conquered.

To my question of “So how should we avoid this?”, he replied “We must understand that the reason for our success was into this passionately entrepreneurial culture and continue to nurture it. As senior leaders, we must resist the temptation of becoming defensive. We must continue to move fast and in unpredictable ways for our competitors. We must keep them on the defense and not hand them the battlefield over. Our style of leadership needs to stay humble and connected”.

I felt reassured by his words. Sadly, a few months later, I heard he had left the company and his sad prediction soon materialized, illustrated since by the innumerous reorganizations which characterize enterprises having lost their sense of Purpose.

Romans had this wise quote: “The Capitol (where the nation’s heroes were acclaimed) is not far from the Tarpean Cliff” (where from the traitors were thrown to their deaths).

Seeing the open minded, feedback welcoming reaction of our three wise men, I am reassured about the future of the Fundação Dom Cabral. It will not betray its roots, values and Purpose and intends to continue to nurture what got it there.

Paris, Madrid and Toulouse will be my dropping points this week. Thank you all for continuing to share and spread the word about this blog. The most encouraging feedback I can get from someone acting at your level of responsibility is when you take the personal risk of recommending it to other executives. Have a great week!

Didier

Duncan Sterling was the kind of student any Dean would dream of having on their M.B.A. as his sharp mind and remarks were keeping faculty on the edge and he would “take no bullshit”… I guess he hasn’t changed much! He commented on a recent post of this blog and added a clip which I am afraid many of us may have missed!

I find interesting the comments and ideas coming out of this clip: The person who provides legitimacy and credibility to the odd “weirdo” starting an improbably successful dance is the early follower… He signals to the many others that there is something worth watching and maybe following here. It seems time to pay justice to those true “heroes” who, through their courage and vision allow others to shine: Everybody will remember the first guy who danced and not the first who granted him legitimacy by joining.

This clip reminds us  of course of the popular Everett Rogers “Diffusion of Innovation” curve[1] describing how a given innovation picks up in the market place:

The true supporters to a new idea or change are not the innovators (often being suspected by the rest of being too forward looking and not sufficiently grounded) but the early adopters who have the required credibility to engage the essential early adopters who will then convince the late majority.

Too often, we invest unnecessary energy in seducing the innovators (who are highly needed, worth understanding and grooming ) or, worse on the 16% laggards who are a real black hole of negativity and cynicism. It is worth paying attention to these, as their capacity for destruction is important, but mainly to limit their potential of damage to the organization and never by hoping that they will transform into passionate advocate of the cause. Rebels, courageous challengers and innovators are sometimes wrongly labeled as laggards: nothing could be more wrong. “Challenging is a sign of engagement” as ex IMD professor (now running M.T.I.) Chris Parker likes to say. The laggards consist mainly of the legions of “victims of circumstances”, those obsessed about the past and unwilling to move, the passionarias of immobility.

Let us therefore recognize and support the wonderful “Followers-Leaders” without whom our brilliant geeks and thought provoking innovators would never find the respect and credibility for their ideas.

Thank you Duncan, thank you Derek Sivers for this updated moment of inspiration…

On my way to Singapore. Have a great week all!

Didier

Synchronicity may be seen as a pure coincidence, or an esoteric “was written in the stars” sort of blessed encounter or the fact that we create our own flourishing environment by continuously sharing, listening and being curious. Such a fortunate moment happened this Saturday when, on the one hand, I was proud to be invited in Macolin (Switzerland national elite sports’ center) to hold a three hours dialogue about leadership with some of the country’s sharpest sports coaches. On the other hand, on Tuesday, I was preparing in São-Paulo a session with Dalton Sardenberg (my partner in crime at Fundação Dom Cabral) and one of the institution’s three “living legend” directors, psychoanalyst Mozart Pereira. Reviewing the conclusions of the work done in common with 14 Brazilian CEOs, Mozart declared: “A frequent mistake about leadership is to see it as a sort of individual privilege attached to the job. This is wrong and corresponds to the old Maya/Aztec way of grasping leadership. In the “Open Economy”, leadership is a process!” The reflection went on and here are some of the key points which were made in both meetings about the process of leadership:

• Leadership must flow freely between the members of a team, like the ball in football, basketball, handball or rugby, like the puck in ice hockey. In such sports, which player “holds leadership” during a given game??? The one who happens to drive the ball! If other players remain passive spectators, the temporary leader will rapidly loose the ball. His partners should create opportunities, in a supportive way for him to use his leadership (the ball) at best and in the interest of the whole team. The ball is the leadership.

• Leadership can be measured as a process: for Mozart, the speed by which the dialogue (think of the ball or puck analogy) changes “owner” and the diversity and number of “players” taking a part in the game (the dialogue) are great indicators of the richness or dysfunctions of the leadership process.

It is way healthier for a leader to consider leadership as a shared process rather than a selfishly guarded attribute:

• Leadership as a process engages people far more; they are encouraged to talk, share, explore, challenge and support

• It is far less exhausting; the leader isn’t alone anymore to “carry the burden of leadership” which gets increasingly shared and co-owned by the whole team.

So why do so many leaders still relinquish to consider leadership as a process in which they should involve as many people as possible?

• An interesting H.B.R. article[1] may provide an answer, egocentrism, sometimes narcissism get in the way and the leader simply can’t let go of leadership which has become part of his identity.

• We also see wonderful leaders who have fulfilled their dream in building an outstanding business, incapable of letting go of their baby and hanging on the leadership as long as they can, sometimes even designating weak successors as a way to stay in charge behind the scene.

• Other leaders fear that they may loose the respect their seniority and experience are due, by letting go of the leadership symbolic attributes. In this case it more a matter of “territory” than anything else.

• Also too common is the fear to allow mistakes, forgetting very often the number of failures it took them to bring the business to the high level of success they placed it.

• The lack of trust is another classic: Yes, autonomy and co-leadership have to be earned (through results). But such leaders frequently forget that it is their duty to enable and develop their team members to be able to succeed in co-running leadership and taking successful initiatives: Leaders have the followers they deserve! (and followers when they lack courage to challenge and collude with the autocratic boss also have the leader they deserve!)

The summary of all this is that such “die hard” lonely leaders have an anxiety about “loosing it” coming from a misconception between the fantastically powerful and developmental “Leadership as a process” and their responsibility of manager. Using the human body analogy, all the parts of the body are working together in a harmonious leadership process. However each organ is still fully responsible for their part of the business and one of the brain’s task is to coordinate the various signals it receives and decide which one will have the priority. Leadership as a process is not anarchy (absence of leadership) but polyarchy (leadership in the hands of all, united behind a shared Purpose). Lt. General Van Riper’s “in command but out of control” says nothing different.

How do “die hard leaders” more or less subtly proceed to keep leadership in their sole hands?

• They cultivate distance and discourage intimacy. It is lonely at the top and they like it to stay like that: they can see come from a distance all the “would be leaders” seeking to steal their treasure…

• As a way to discourage initiative and development of other leaders, they will punish mistakes, preferably through “public executions” as a way to warn other rebels that the old man is still in control.

• They will not admit their own “temporary incompetence”, pretending to be always fine, excelling at finding great excuses why their own failures were in fact part of the plan, and through their punishing attitude, they will ensure that nobody else starts to admit their own doubts, questions or temporary incompetence.

• They will clearly show that feedback, challenge and support are unwelcome by denying, refusing or permanently self justify.

It is time to stop leadership of being “a privilege and honor, enthusiastically sought by the ambitious, and jealously guarded by the articulate, charismatic, informed and intelligent few to be inflicted on the inarticulate, uncharismatic, misinformed and unintelligent many” as an ex-colleague of mine crafted it elegantly. Leadership is a process of development which directs our teams and enterprises on the way to becoming (more of) an intelligent organization.

Paris, Brighton/Hove and Amsterdam are on the menu this week. Have an enjoyable week too!

[1] M. Maccoby “Narcisistic Leaders: the incredible pros, the inevitable cons” (January 2004) Harvard Business Review

One of the most powerful ways to engage people through difficult times is by helping them realize that their suffering, doubts and frustrations are legitimate while being authentic in pointing towards the light at the end of the tunnel.

A friend of ours, David Pearl (http://www.pearlgroup.net), introduced me to the work of Joseph Campbell (1904-1987), a respected mythologist, professor and extraordinary cultivated person. David developed a moving metaphor comparing Campbell’s heroic journey to the emotional rollercoaster on which we take place, when dramatic change happens in our private/professional lives.

Simplifying Campbell’s research on myths around the world, one can conclude that all humans, regardless of time, geography, nation or religion agree on what is heroic or non-heroïc behaviour on the change journey. This is universal (the Universal Myth) and has been called the hero’s journey by Campbell.

Leaders who engage their teams on a challenging journey would be well inspired to focus on the critical steps/components of the Myth:

The Call to Adventure: The call never comes when we expect it nor as we would like it to be. Heroes are not brainless adventurers; they will be reluctant to engage until the Call becomes intellectually and emotionally compelling. Remember Clint Eastwood in “Million Dollar baby”. Four times, he refuses the call (personified by Hilary Swank) until he gets “softened” by her determination and shocked to see her thrown on the ring by an unethical trainer. The lesson here is that our people who hesitate to engage into change are not necessarily negative, rebellious or change averse: We need to provide them with an intellectually compelling and emotionally engaging reason to do so!

The Crossing of the Threshold: Taking the call is “uninformed optimism”. However, rapidly comes the stage of “Informed pessimism”.  The Hero comes to the realization that yesterday’s “winning formula” is becoming tomorrow’s reason for failing. In other terms, the critical skill here is to “let go” of some of our beliefs, behaviours and strategic thinking and have the courage to challenge our current “orthodoxy” (without throwing away the baby with the bath water). In the monumental movie, “The Matrix”, this critical moment of choice comes to Neo when Morpheus offers him the choice between blue pill (going back to “business as usual”) or red pill (courageously throwing himself into the unknown). As soon as Neo (Thank God for the movie!) chooses the red, his certainties are challenged, a new world (scary to start with) opens up, with a few allies and enemies. Neo realizes that he will have to let go of many parts of himself. The lesson here is to accompany our people through the “mourning process”. Yes change will be painful, yes our comfort zone will be challenged, no I can’t guarantee you “the land of milk and honey” is on the other side but yes I can guarantee that status quo is not an option…

The Recovery and the Deep Intent: What strikes us all in heroic myths is the capacity of heroes to rebound, stand up, fall back again and get back on their feet. From Ulysses to “Batman begins” the lesson is the same: “Why do we fall Bruce? So that we can learn to pick ourselves up!”. Watching Mohamed Ali accept to go through a long and painful fight against George Foreman in the excellent “When we were Kings”, when both champions were granted the same prize, winner or looser, suggests that there is something very profound that runs into us and motivates us. We call it “The Deep Intent”. It is not “increasing shareholder value” that inspires Maximus (Russel Crowe) at the start of “Gladiator”. We see him daydreaming of his home, his wife and son. The camera shows him “lost in thoughts” still for a moment  and… suddenly “The boss is back”, he is determined. He has re-aligned his deep intent with the work he has got to deliver (ie. defeat the Barbarians who stand between him and his Deep Intent which is to be reunited with his family). I remember working with a football coach who said: “I need each one of my players to be connected with whatever their Deep Intent is. I don’t want to know what it is but I need them to. And when we are 2 goals down fifteen minutes before the end, I want them to access their full potential by connecting to it and win 3-2 by the end”. This is the lesson for us, leaders: During dramatic changes, we need to give time and space for our people to reconnect, or realign their Deep Intent, with the new direction we intend to lead them in.

The Hero’s journey is far more than the sum of humanity’s collective fictions. It is a moving way to engage our people through times of hardship. Look around your professional/private lifeline and you will quickly see the signposts of the Heroic Journey…

Mine will briefly go through Paris next week… I wish you all a good week!

I recently met a solid leader, deeply engaged in a post acquisition integration project. As usual, the project management part of the process was well thought of and under control. However, he was concerned with a more subtle part of the integration: How to ensure that the biggest asset targeted in the acquisition, people, their experience, passion and intelligence wouldn’t be lost?

The leader showed a profound knowledge of what drives human beings. His priority was to show respect to the people of the acquired organization. He knew this would be fundamental in retaining their loyalty.

Our long experience in accompanying changes in organizations (being caused by a new strategy, the need for a new culture, reorganization or the aftermaths of a merger/acquisition) proves him right. The works of US neurobiologist Paul McLean, French neurologist and philosopher Henri Laborit or a recent article of David Rock (“managing with the brain in mind” http://www.strategy-business.com/article/09306?gko=5df7f) all converge to describe the following simplification of what takes place in the human brain in case of change:

The Reptilian Brain constantly scrutinizes our environment for potential threats. The most powerful amongst them are for our:

• Survival: for our ancestors, being alive by the end of the day was far from granted. In today’s office world, threat to my survival is directly linked to my job. In the case of a merger, what will happen to my job, is the first threat our reptilian brain will scrutinize the environment for

• Territory: in the old days, territory was a guarantee of food and shelter. Today, this is linked to my ego, my status, my pride. Will I loose status, will I be “degraded” by the new structure, What will I tell my wife and children about my new stature in the new organization are the most powerful drive in our reptilian brain during a merger or change

• Habits: David Rock in another paper (“The Neuroscience of Leadership) explains why, physiologically our body hates change. When something new has to be evaluated, understood and “digested” it is the (prefrontal) Cortex of our brain which gets activated, whereas when we are into “business as usual mode” it is the “basal ganglia” part (where routine and familiar activities are stored) that works. The big difference is that the Cortex when working consumes far more energy than the “standby” basal ganglia. Our body therefore prefers the later to the first.

When the Reptilian Brain triggers a warning that our survival, territory and/or habits may be at risk, another part of our brain is activated:

The Limbic Brain is the emotional centre of our brain and it responds to perceived threats by defence mechanisms which can be summarized under

• Fight: Arguing, disagreeing, gossiping, badmouthing, sabotaging are some of the manifestation of the Fight mechanism

• Flight: is far more difficult to spot. People will pretend, play games and politics, will claim to be on board when they are already activating their network of friends and head hunters

• Freeze: doesn’t last as long and is a state of shock… People just can’t believe this is happening and are helpless and reactionless…

The worse hasn’t happened yet. When the defence mechanism kicks-in, our brain produces a hormone (cortisol) which literally switches-off…:

The New Cortex, which is rather annoying as this is where our capacities for being rational, creative, entrepreneurial or take measured risks are located. In other terms, if people feel threatened in relation to their survival, territory or habits, I can forget about demanding them to be rational, creative and reasonable! They will be exclusively driven by a reactive and defensive attitude.

The C.E.O. of a French bank knew this when he was asked, years ago to help merge two very different organizations. He therefore decided to work the merger through the three agendas (logos/intellectual, ethos/Behavioural and pathos/emotional):

• He rapidly gathered the top 150 leaders of the two entities in order to co-create clarity and ownership on the new organizational/strategic agenda

• He ensured his management team was going to display behaviours which would spectacularly demonstrate a “Walk the Talk” attitude

• He spent sizeable amount of time with the people to create the right emotional agenda, displaying respect and care to his people

Those of you who would like to deepen the topic will find more details on pages 76 to 120 of our book, “Engaging Leadership” (Didier Marlier & Chris Parker). Your comments are as always welcome.

Quiet week at home and looking forward to an inspiring and fascinating working day around the theme “Leading in the Open Source Economy” with Futurist Gerd Leonhard. Have a great week all!